ſ ººj× i ſ º••••••••••••************ſſ ≡ ≈ ≠ øſ， º ! 4, ’ ſae^** ºrº ！...”，a ſ º; ： ）, . . . º „º¡ ¿∞ reiſez.ſ', ,'',', ,''. , s-a » d'«'·'· → • • • • ** * * * * * ''y » g p \ t • • • • 3，4，5）،ſae' ' , '.*?）. （ （ （pºſeſ -r-， №ºººººa ſ os - w ſwº ， º، ، ، ، ، ،§ {}<∞ºº ;º º №. .œ Œ2. . . . . , , , , , , , • • • •.º.º.º.º.º;*& - y ſuſ· ∞№ -• • • • • … * – º { -º-º-º-º-o-º-ºrggae.' º ºſ ºs sºº º.º.º.º.º.ººº..ººººººoº..ººººººoº |- . . . . . . . . . . | ， ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ،Az „ºſº）, º.º…’ （‘w’， s’n ss'： 'v' - s.s. • • • • •--~~~~، ، ، • ••• • • • • •« , » » » » » : · * * · * * * *ſ*• „ ！ …….…'） . . .- ， ， ， <~<> º„ * * · * * * • • • • •º • • • • ∞ - º № . . . . . .'; sº sº. § '; : William H. Wºnd . Jerusalem PRESENTED I}Y THE HARTFORD THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY "I" () | Z. y # * 2" : - Z. //~ cºv. !/. 6 2^; % / / / A'ev. …A.' … /(7......A.A.4 * ..… - - - ~~ FIROM THE PROCIEEIDS OF THE BALDWIN AND FOOTE MINISTER’S LIBRARY FUND, º-2 º C- Cº- [- * º cl *— - º- c C- Cº- cº- E-3 ſº- Cº- C- C- E- C- cº- *IIIllllllllllllllſ' ...!!!" * Nº|||||||||||||||||||||||| : |E||||||||||||||||| E- - T ſ |||||||||||||I|E - * = tº s = ºr º ºr ſº e º sº s = |||||||||||||| THE GIFT OF Prof. Wm. H. Warrell A Dictionary of the Bible THE EDITOR OF THIS D I CT I O N A R Y OF T H E E I B L E DESIRES TO DEDICATE IT TO THE MEMORY OF SIR THOMAS CLARK, BARONET Sometime Publisher in Edinburgh AND THE REV. ANDREW BRUCE DAVIDSON, D.D., LL.D., LITT.D. Sometime Professor of Hebrew in the New College, Edinburgh A Dictionary of the Bible LANGUAGE, LITERATURE AND CONTENTS INO/, UDING THE BIB / ICA L THEOLOG Y ED ITEI) BY JAMES HASTINGS, M.A., D.D. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF JOHN A. SELBIE, M.A., D.D. AND, CIII ERLY IN THE RIEVISION OF THE PROOFS, OF A. B. DAVIDSON, D.D., LL.D., Litt.D. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., LITT.D. PROFESSOR OF HEBREW, NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGII REGIUS PROFESSOR OF HEBREW, OXFORD H. B. SWETE, D.D., LITT.D. REGIUS PROFEssor of DiviniTY, CAMBRIDGE VOLUME, I V PLEROMA-ZUZIM EX W. , YQR t ||||WH; Yºls R nungſk' H.R.S. CLARK ^*===tº S O N S CopyRIGHT, 1902 BY CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS ZThe A'ights of Zºranslation and of Æeproductione are reserved TROW DIRECTORY (>RINTING AND BOOKBINDING COMPANY NEW YORK % & A /* ſº tºo cº- % . > # 27 FA 2 gº ºf J “. . . . . . $2. ,” * ~, ** F. #7. tº "...&t f Alsº £ºyz & . / > # * * - .# #2 t * , is 2 *) * •-y - e- * f 3 * # *" PR E FA C E IN issuing the last volume of the DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE, the Editor desires to record his sense of the goodness of God in enabling him to carry it through to the end, and to beseech His blessing on the use of it, that His Name may be glorified. He desires also very heartily to thank all those who have been associated with him in its production. He thanks the Publishers for their con- fidence at the beginning, for the liberty they have left him, and for the perfect courtesy of all their intercourse with him. He thanks the Printers also, Messrs. MORRISON & GIBB, and their employees, for their skilful workmanship and their patient personal interest. And he thanks all the Authors. Chosen because they were believed to be able to give the best account of the subjects entrusted to them, they have done their work in such a way as to vindicate their choice; while the relations between them and the Editor have been most agreeable through- out. He thanks them all, but especially those with whom he has been most closely associated in the oversight of the work—Dr. JoHN A. SELBIE, Dr. S. R. DRIVER, Dr. H. B. SWETE, and Dr. W. SANDAY. There is another, Dr. A. B DAVIDSON, but he has passed beyond the voice of earthly gratitude. LIST OF A B B R EV IATIONS — — — I. GENERAL Alex. = Alexandrian. Apoc. = Apocalypse. Apocr. = Apocrypha. Aq. = Aquila. Arab. = Arabic. Aram. = Aramaic. Assyr. = Assyrian. Bab. = Babylonian. c. = circa, about. Can. = Canaanite. cf. = compare. ct. = contrast. D = Deuteronomist. E=Elohist. ; º or editors. £gyp. = Egyptian. #. Eng º. Eth. = Ethiopic. f = and following verse or page; as Ac 10*. if = and following verses or pages; as Mt 11* Gr. = Greek. H = Law of Holiness. Heb. = Hebrew. Hel. = Hellenistic. Hex. = Hexateuch. Isr. = Israelite. J = Jahwist. J" = Jehovah. Jerus, = Jerusalem. Jos. = Josephus. LXX=Septuagint. MSS=Manuscripts. MT= Massoretic Text. n. = note. NT= New Testament. Onk. = Onkelos. OT = Old Testament. P= Priestly Narrative. Pal. = Palestine, l’alestinian. Pent. = Pentateuch. Pers. = Persian. Phil. = Philistine. Phoen. = Phoenician. Pr. Bk. = Prayer Book. R = Redactor. lłom. = Roman. Sam. = Samaritan. Sem. = Semitic. Sept. = Septuagint. Sin. = Sinaitic. Symm, = Symmachus. yr. =Syriac. Talm. =Talmud. Targ. =Targum. Theod. =Theodotion. TR=Textus Receptus. tr. = translate or translation, WSS = Versions. Vulg. =Vulgate. WH = Westcott and Hort's text. II. Books of THE BIBLE Old Testament. Gn=r Genesis. Ca = Canticles. Ex=Exodus. Is = Isaiah. Jer-Jeremiah. La = Lamentations. Ezk= Ezekiel. Lv = Leviticus. Nu = Numbers. Dt = Deuteronomy. Jos = Joshua. Dn=I)aniel. Jg=Judges. Hos= Hosea. Ru = Ruth. Jl =Joel. 1 S, 2 S = 1 and 2 Samuel. Am = Amos. Ob = Obadiah. Jon = Jonah. Mic=Micah. Nah = Nahum. Habs= Habakkuk. Zeph =Zephaniah. Hag- Haggai, Zec = Zechariah. Mal = Malachi. 1 K, 2 K = 1 and 2 Kings. 1 Ch, 2 Ch = 1 and 2 Chronicles. Ezra- Ezra. Nell = Nehemiah. Est–Esther. Job. Ps = Psalms. Pr= Proverbs. Eo = Ecclesiastes. Apocrypha. 1 Es, 2 Es = 1 and 2 To =Tobit. Esdras. Jth=Judith. Ad. Est = Additions to Sus=Susanna. Bar= Baruch. Three = Song of the Three Children. Mt = Matthew. Mk = Mark. Lk = Luke. Jn = John. Ac= Acts. Ro-Romans. 1 Co, 2 Co = 1 and 2 Corinthians. Gal-Galatians. Eph = Ephesians. Ph-Philippians. Col = Colossians. vii Esther. Bel = Bel and the Wis = Wisdom. Dragon. Sir = Sirach or Ecclesi- Pr. an = Prayer of asticus. Manasses. 1 Mac, 2 Mac = 1 and 2 Maccabees. New Testament. 1 Th, 2 Th = 1 and 2 Thessalonians. 1 Ti, 2 Ti = 1 and 2 Timothy. Tit. = Titus. Philem = Philemon. He = Hebrews. Ja=James. 1 P, 2 P= 1 and 2 Peter. 1 Jn, 2 Jn, 3 Jn = 1, 2, and 3 John. Jude. Rev =Revelation. viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS III. ENGLISH VERSIONs Wye. = Wyclif's Bible (NT c. 1380, OT c. 1382, Purvey's Revision c. 1388). Tind. = Tindale's NT 1526 and 1534, Pent. 1530. Cov. = Coverdale's Bible 1535. Matt, or Rog. = Matthew's (i.e. prob. Rogers') Bible 1537. Cran. or Great=Cranmer’s ‘Great” Bible 1539. Tav. =Taverner's Bible 1539. Gen. = Geneva NT 1557, Bible 1560. Bish. = Bishops' Bible 1568. Tom. =Tomson’s NT 1576. Rhem. = Rhemish NT 1582. Dou. = Douay OT 1609, AV = Authorized Version 1611. AV m = Authorized Version margin. RV = Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885, RVm = Revised Version margin. EW = Auth. and Rev. Versions. IV. For THE LITERATURE A HT= Ancient Hebrew Tradition. AJSL=American Journal of Sem. Lang. and Literature. .. AJTh=American Journal of Theology. AT= Altes Testament. BL= Bampton Lecture. BM = British Museum. BRP=Biblical Researches in Palestine. CIG=Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarun. CIL = Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. CIS=Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. COT'- Cuneiform Inscriptions and the OT. DB = Dictionary of the Bible. EHH = Early History of the Hebrews. GAP= Geographie des alten Palästina. GGA = Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen. GGN = Nachrichten der königl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. GJ W = Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes. G VI = Geschichte des Volkes Israel. HCM = Higher Criticism and the Monuments. HE=Historia Ecclesiastica. HGHL= Historical Geog. of Holy Land. HI= History of Israel. HJP=History of the Jewish People. HPM = History, Prophecy, and the Monuments. HPN = Hebrew Proper Names. IJG = Israelitische und Jüdische Geschichte. JBL = Journal of Biblical Literature. JDTh=Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie. JQR=Jewish Quarterly Review. JRAS=Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. JRL = Jewish Religious Life after the Exile. JThSt-Journal of Theological Studies. KAT= Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Test. KGF=Keilinschriften u. Geschichtsforschung. KIB = Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek. LCBl=Literarisches Centralblatt. LOT = Introd. to the Literature of the Old Test, NH WB = Neuhebräisches Wörterbuch. NTZG = Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, ON = Otium Norviceuse. 2}=9rigin of the Psalter. OTJC-The Old Test. in the Jewish Church. PB= Polychrome Bible. PEF= Palestine Exploration Fund. PEFSt = Quarterly Statement of the same. PSBA = Proceedings of Soc. of Bibl. Archaeology, PRE=Real Encyclopädie für protest. Theologie und Kirche. QPB = Queen's Printers' Bible. I&B = Revue Biblique. JREJ = Revue ãºdes Juives. I?P= Records of the Past. JºS=Religion of the Semites. SBOT-Sacred Books of Old Test. SK=Studien und Kritiken. SP=Sinai and Palestine. SWP= Memoirs of the Survey of W. Palestine. Th.L. or Th.LZ=Theol. Literaturzeitung. ThT=Theol. Tijdschrift. TS=Texts and Studies. TSBA =Transactions of Soc. of Bibl. Archaeology. TU =Texte und Untersuchungen. WAI = Western Asiatic Inscriptions. WZKM = Wiener Zeitschrift für Kunde des Morgenlandes. ZA =Zeitschrift für Assyriologie. ZA W or ZATW = Zeitschrift für die Alttest. Wissenschäft. ZDMG = Zeitschrift, der Deutschen Morgen- ländischen Gesellschaft, ZDPV= Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina- Vereins. ZKSF=Zeitschrift für Keilschriftforschung. ZK W = Zeitschrift für kirchliche Wissenschaft. ZNT º Zeitschrift für die Neutest. Wissen. Schaft. A small superior number designates the particular edition of the work referred to, as KATZ, LOT”. MAP IN WOLUME IV CANAAN As DIVIDED AMONG THE TWELVE TRIBES º º ſº facing page 1 AUTHORS OF ARTICLES IN WOL. IV ISRAEL ABRAHAMS, M.A., Editor of the Jewish Quarterly Review, and Senior Tutor of the Jews' College, London. Rev. ALEXANDER ADAMSON, M.A., B.D., Dundee. Rev. WALTER F. ADENEY, M.A., D.D., Professor of New Testament Exegesis in New College, London. Ven. A. S. AGLEN, M.A., D.D., Archdeacon of St. Andrews. W. BACHER, Ph.D., Professor in the Landes- Rabbinerschule, Budapest. Rev. JoHN S. BANKS, Professor of Systematic Theology in the Headingley College, Leeds. Rev. W. EMERY BARNES, M.A., D.D., Fellow of Peterhouse, and Hulsean Professor of Divinity, Cambridge. JAMES WERNON BARTI,ET, M.A., Professor of Church History, Mansfield College, Oxford. GRAF WILHELM VON BAUDISSIN, Professor of Theology in the University of Berlin. Rev. LLEWELLYN J. M. BEBB, M.A., Principal of St. David's College, Lampeter; formerly Fellow and Tutor of Brasenose College, Oxford. Rev. WILLIs JUDSON BEECIIER, D.D., Professor of Hebrew Language and Literature in Auburn Theological Seminary, New York. P. V. M. BENECKE, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Magdalen College, Oxford. Rev. WILLIAM HENRY BENNETT, M.A., Litt.D., D.D., Professor of Old Testamment Exegesis in Hackney and New Colleges, London ; some- time Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. Rev. EDWARD RUSSELL BERNARD, M.A., Chan- cellor and Canon of Salisbury Cathedral; formerly Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. Rev. JoHN HENRY BERNARD, D.D., Fellow of Trinity College, and Archbishop King's Lecturer in Divinity in the University of IDublin. FREDERICK J. BLISS, B.A., Ph.D., Director of the Palestine Exploration Fund in Jerusalem. Rev. W. ADAMS BROWN, M.A., Ph.D., Professor of Systematic Theology in Union Theological Seminary, New York. K. BUDDE, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Theology in the University of Marburg. Rev. WILLIAM CARSLAW, M.A., M.D., of the Ilebanon Schools, 13eyrout, Syria. ix Rev. ARTHUR THOMAS CHAPMAN, M.A., Fellow, Tutor, and Hebrew Lecturer, Emmanuel College, Cambridge. Rev. ROBERT HENRY CHARLEs, D.D., Professor of Biblical Greek in the University of Dublin. Col. CLAUDE REIGNIER CONDER, R.E., D.C.L., LL.D., M.R.A.S. Rev. G. A. CookE, M.A., formerly Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. Rev. HENRY COWAN, M.A., D.D., Professor of Church History in the University of Aberdeen. The late Rev. A. B. DAVIDSON, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew and Oriental Languages in New College, Edinburgh. Rev. T. WITTON DAVIES, B.A., Ph.D., M.R.A.S., Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Lit- erature in the Baptist College, Bangor, and Lecturer in Semitic Languages in University College, Bangor. Rev. W. T. DAVISON, M.A., D.D., Professor of Systematic Theology in the Handsworth Theological College, Birmingham. Rev. JAMES DENNEY, M.A., D.D., Professor of Systematic Theology in the United Free Church College, Glasgow. The late Rev. W. P. DICKSON, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Divinity in the University of Glasgow. Rev. SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, D.D., Litt.D., Canon of Christ Church, and Regius Professor of Hebrew in the University of Oxford. Rev. DAVID EATON, M.A., D.D., Glasgow. Rev. WILLIAM EWING, M.A., Glasgow, for. merly of Tiberias, Palestine. Rev. GEORGE FERRIES, M.A., D.D., Cluny, Aber- deenshire. Rev. RoRERT FLINT, D.D., LL.D.,. Professor of Divinity in the University of Edinburgh. Rev. ALFRED ERNIST GARVIE, M.A., B.D., Mon- trose. Rev. Joli N GIBB, M.A., D.D., Professor of New Testament Exegesis in Westminster College, Caumbridge. G. BUCHANAN GRAY, M.A., Professor of Hebrew in Mansfield College, Oxford. Rev. ALEXANDER GRIEVE, M.A., Ph.D., Porfar. FRANCIS LLEWELLYN GRIFFITII, M.A., l'.S.A., Superintendent of the Archæological Survey of the Egypt Exploration l'und. X - AUTHORS OF ARTICLES IN WOL, IW Rev. HENRY MELVILL GWATKIN, M.A., D.D., Fellow of Emmanuel College, and Dixie Pro- fessor of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Cambridge. Rev. G. HARFORD - BATTERSBY, M.A., Balliol College, Oxford; Vicar of Mossley Hill, Liverpool. J. RENDEL HARRIS, M.A., Litt.D., Fellow and Librarian of Clare College, Cambridge. Rev. ARTHUR CAYLEY HEADLAM, M.A., B.D., Rector of Welwyn, Herts; formerly Fellow of All Souls’ College, Oxford. EDWARD HULL, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S., F.R.G.S., late Director of the Geological Survey of Ireland, and Professor of Geology in the Royal College of Science, Dublin. MONTAGUE RHODES JAMES, M.A., Litt.D., Fellow and Dean of King's College, and Director of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cam- bridge. Rev. ARCHIBALD R. S. KENNEDY, M.A., D.D., Professor of Hebrew and Semitic Languages in the University of Edinburgh. Rev. H. A. A. KENNEDY, M.A., D.Sc., Callander. FREDERIC G. KENYON, M.A., D.Litt., Ph.D., of the Department of Manuscripts in the British Museum, late Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. EDUARD ICôNIG, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Old Testament Exegesis in the University of Bonn. Rev. JOHN LAIDLAW, M.A., D.D., Professor of Systematic Theology in the New College, Edinburgh. Rev. WALTER LOCK, M.A., D.D., Warden of Keble College, and Dean Ireland’s Professor of New Testament Exegesis in the University of Oxford. ALEXANDER MACALISTER, LL.D., M.D., F.R.S., F.S.A., Fellow of St. John's College, and Professor of Anatomy in the University of Cambridge. Rev. GEORGE M. MACKIE, M.A., D.D., Chaplain to the Church of Scotland at Beyrout, Syria. Rev. J. A. M'CLYMONT, M.A., D.D., Aberdeen. Rev. HUGH MACMILLAN, M.A., D.D., LL.D., Greenock. The late Rev. JoHN MACPHERSON, M.A., Edin- burgh. Rev. D. S. MARGOLIOUTH, M.A., Fellow of New College, and Laudian Professor of Arabic in the University of Oxford. Rev. John TURNER MARSHALL, M.A., Principal of the Baptist College, Manchester. Rev. ARTHUR JAMES MASON, M.A., D.D., Lady Margaret's Reader in Divinity in the Uni- versity of Cambridge, and Canon of Canter- bury. JOHN MASSIE, M.A., Yates Professor of New Testament Exegesis, in Mansfield , College, Oxford; formerly Scholar of St. John’s Col- lege, Cambridge. Rev. SELAH MERRILL, D.D., LL.D., U.S. Consul at Jerusalem. Rev. GEORGE MILLIGAN, M.A., B.D., Caputh, Perthshire. Rev. W II.LIAM MORG AN, M.A.. Tarbolton. Rev. R. WADDY Moss, Professor of Classics in the Didsbury College, Manchester. Rev. JAMES H. MOULTON, M.A., D.Litt., Senior Classical Master in the Leys School, Cam- bridge. W. MAX MüLLER, Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of Old Testament Literature in the Reformed Episcopal Church Seminary, Philadelphia. EBERHARD NESTLE, Ph.D., D.D., Professor at Maulbronn. Rev. THOMAS NICOL, M.A., D.D., Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism in the Uni- versity of Aberdeen. W. Now Ack, Ph.D., Professor of Theology in the University of Strassburg. Rev. WILLIAM P. PATERSON, M.A., D.D., Pro- fessor of Systematic Theology in the Uni- versity of Aberdeen. Rev. JAMES PATRICK, M.A., B.D., B.Sc., Examiner for Degrees in Divinity in the University of St. Andrews. Rev. JOHN PATRICK, M.A., D.D., Professor of I3iblical Criticism and Biblical Antiquities in the University of Edinburgh. ARTIIUR S. PEAKE, M.A., Professor in the Primi- tive Methodist College, Manchester, and Lecturer in Lancashire Independent College; sometime Fellow of Merton and Lecturer in Mansfield College, Oxford. WILLIAM FLINDERS PETRIE, M.A., D.C.L., Pro- fessor of Egyptology in University College, London. THEoPHILUs GoLDRIDGE PINCHES, M.I.A.S., London. t Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D., Master of University College, Durham. Rev. FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER, M.A., Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Biblical Theology in the Divinity School of Yale University, New Haven. Rev. HARVEY PORTER, B.A., Ph.D., Professor in the American College, Beyrout, Syria. Rev. GEORGE POST, M.D., F.L.S., Professor in the American College, Beyrout, Syria. IRA MAURICE PRICE, M.A., B.D., Ph.D., Professor of Semitic Languages and Literatures in the University of Chicago. Rev. CYRIL HIENRY PRICHARD, M.A., late Classical Scholar of Magdalene College, Cambridge, and Lecturer at St. Olave's, Southwark. The late Rev. GEORGE T. PURVES, D.D., LL.D., Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis in Princeton Theological Seminary, New Jersey. WILLIAM M. RAMSAY, D.C.L., LL.D., Litt.D., Professor of Humanity in the University of Aberdeen, Honorary Fellow of Exeter and Lincoln Colleges, Oxford. Rev. HENRY A. REDPATII, M.A., Rector of St. Dunstan’s in the East, London. Rev. FREDERICK RELTON, A.I.C.C., Vicar of St. Andrew’s, Stoke Newington, London. Rev. ARCHIBALD ROBERTSON, M.A., D.D., LL.D., Principal of King's College, London, late Tellow of Trinity College, Oxford. J. W. RothsTEIN, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Theology in the University of lialle. LL.D., AUTHORS OF ARTICLES IN WOL, IW xi Rev. STEwART DINGWALL FORDYCE SALMOND, M.A., D.D., F.E.I.S., Principal and Professor of Systematic Theology in the United Free Church College, Aberdeen. Rev. WILLIAM SANDAY, M.A., D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. Rev. ARCHIBALD HENRY Sayce, M.A., LL.D., Fellow of Queen's College, and Professor of Assyriology in the University of Oxford. Rev. JoHN A. SELBIE, M.A., D.D., Maryculter, Kincardineshire. C. SIEGFRIED, Ph.D., Geh. Kirchenrath and Pro- fessor of Theology in the University of Jena. Rev. JoHN SKINNER, M.A., D.D., Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Exegesis in Westminster College, Cambridge. Rev. GEORGE ADAM SMITH, M.A., D.D., LL.D., Profeſsor of Hebrew in the United Free Church College, Glasgow. Rev. VINCENT HENRY STANTON, M.A., D.D., Fellow of Trinity College, and Ely Professor of Divinity in the University of Cam- bridge. JOHN F. STENNING, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in Hebrew and Theology, Wadham College, Oxford. Rev. GEORGE BARKER STEVENS, Ph.D., D.D., Dwight Professor of Systematic Theology in Yale University. Rev. W. B. STEVENSON, M.A., B.D., Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Introduction in the Theological College, Bala. ST. GEORGE STOCK, M.A., Pembroke College, • Oxford. Rev. JAMES STRACHAN, M.A., St. Fergus. HERMANN L. STRACIC, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Theology in the University of Berlin. Rev. JoHN TAYLOR, M.A., Litt.D., Vicar of Winchcombe. HENRY ST. JoHN THACKERAY, M.A., Examiner in the Board of Education, formerly Divinity Lecturer in Selwyn College, Cambridge. Rev. THOMAS WALKER, M.A., Professor of Hebrew in the Assembly's College, Belfast. Rev. B. B. WARFIELD, M.A., D.D., Professor of Theology in Princeton University. Lieut.-General Sir CHARLES WARREN, G.C.M.G., K.C.B., F.R.S., Royal Engineers. Rev. ADAM C. WELCH, M.A., B.D., Glasgow. The late Rev. HENRY ALCOCK WHITE, M.A., Tutor in the University of Durham, and formerly Fellow of New College, Oxford. Rev. H. J. WHITE, M.A., Fellow and Chaplain of Merton College, Oxford. Rev. NEWPORT J. D.WHITE, M.A., B.D., Librarian of Archbishop Marsh's Library, and Assistant Lecturer in Divinity and Hebrew in the University of Dublin. Rev. Owl;N C. WHITEHOUSE, M.A., D.D., Prin- #. and Professor of Biblical Exegesis and Theology in Cheshunt College. Rev. A. LUKYN WILLIAMS, M.A., Vicar of Guilden Morden and Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of Durham. Lieut.-General Sir CHARLES WILLIAM WILson, R.E., K.C.B., K.C.M.G., D.C.L., LL.D., F.R.S. Rev. FRANCIS HENRY WOODS, M.A., B.D., Vicar of Chalfont St. Peter, and late Fellow and Theological Lecturer of St. John's College, Oxford. Rev. JoHN WORTABET, M.A., M.D., Beyrout, Syria. CANAAN as divided among THE TWELVE TRIBES *not*h, * - Dorſ n - - º und ºf . * DYA N., I - ºradº Archo A º" " . - * -in- sºlº **mal . - º º º º º *cabul. - - º Buko NZ - ** ſº- ºulºn ºntº. º| ". * ...”. “ whºmº" º º º Mººn -- -º- -- - º º º ol; M. An - ſº, hºw ºak wºotºu … - - - ºn * . - SS E. Hº º,” ºnae; - ºn . º - * -l. º - º, º º - sº *** - " " - ºn- | Mºunt Ephrº * **** ºwn. * . º ºwn, alan - wºmah-shaalººn *-d-: * * . - - - ºw "ºnº, --- "ºlº - - - *-ºn - ºmnath. º ºathºn, - Z * ". - - --ºrian - a º unil. º - * o * º-o-º-º-º-º-º-º: "...º.º. B. tº: E. N.J. - ºperbºlº, º low . nº º º l/ - º - - º Nº. Y / Bºrº - s M = 6 he/ſolo º - ºl ſº. - º/* º, *** "...ſ.l., " : " : * - |N º |M º Tº ſº in . slumn ºc | º yº º º - A.M. Nº *_ - - - 4. M/ain a ss E H | º harmann ºdd Q- H A y o T. H. tº a 4’ u R A N J a R -- º "nºn-pº - º n -- ºth ammon º - - º, º nº- **** ºwth. Bºal |Mºdel. | ºnal Mºon. / - - RE W B FM º - - | * - Aarºhºm | Q) | º |- - - - - - -j-" " afteron. | `-- . - - - . º D o - ſhºw - - - - - - - - - - - º - - --- wn --- wn - - - - - - Jºhn Wanlalomew wºn l. º º º DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE —4– PLEROMA (TAffpaua ; Lat., plenitudo, swpple- mentum, pleroma; AV and RV ‘fulness').-A word of common Greek usage, which is raised to a semi- technical meaning in relation to God in certain books of the NT connected with Asia Minor (Ephe- sians, Colossians, John (prol.)). This meaning may have been given to it first by St. Paul ; but his absolute use of it in Col. 1", without any explanation added, suggests that it was already in use annong the false teachers against whom he is writing. iightfoot conjectures that it had a Palestinian origin, representing the Hebrew Rºp. The word itself is a relative term, capable of many shades of meaning, according to the subject with which it is joined and the antithesis to which it is contrasted. It denotes the result of the action of the verb tr}\mpoſiv ; but trampoſiv is either (a) to fill .# an empty thing (e.g. Mt 13°), or (b) to com- plete an incomplete thing (e.g. Mt 5”); and the verbal substantive in -ua may express either (1) the objective accusative after the verb, “the thing filled or completed,” or (2) the cognate accusative, ‘the state of fulness or completion, the fulfilment, the full amount,’ resulting from the action of the verb (Ro 111° 131° 15°, 1 Co 10”). It may em- phasize totality in contrast to its constituent parts; or fulness in contrast to emptiness (kévap.a.); or completeness in contrast to incompleteness or deficiency (Vorépmua Col 1*, 2 Coll", #Trnua Roll”). A further ambiguity arises when it is i. with a genitive, which may be either subjective or objective, the fulness which one thing gives to another, or that which it receives from another. In its semi-technical application it is applied #". to the perfection of God, the fulness of His Being, ‘the aggregate of the Divine attributes, virtues, energies’; this is used quite absolutely in Col 1* (év attºº gååkmorev Träv Tó TXàpapa Katouxſia’at), but further defined (1) as Tāv rô Tr}\ºpwua rās 66.67770s, ‘the whole completeness of the Divine nature,” in Col 2", (2) as träv to TXàptopa Toſ, 0600, ‘the whole (moral) perfection which is characteristic of God,” in Eph 3”. Secondarily, this same TXàpapa is transferred to Christ ; it was embodied perma- nently in Him at the Incarnation (Col 1"); it still dwells permanently in His glorified Body, Év attº Karovket awpattkós (Col 2"); it is to trxipapa toû Xploroú (Eph 4”), the complete, moral, and intel- lectual perfection to §. Christians aspire and with which they are filled (Eph 4”, Col 2" earé du aúrû reträmpouévot. Cf. Jn 1" ex roſ, TXmptºparos attoſ, ºuets révres éAdBouev, where TXipwua is the state of Him who is TXipms xáptros Kal &\m0elas, 1", cf. Lk 2" tr}\mpo"Mevov goºlas). This indwelling emplmasizes VOL. IV. —I the completeness with which the Son represents the Father; it is the fulness of life which makes Him the representative, without other intermediary agencies, and ruler of the whole universe; and it is the fulness of moral and intellectual perfection which is communicable through Him to man; it is consistent with a gradual growth of human faculties (Lk 2"), therefore with the phrase éavròv ékévalorev of Ph 27, which is perhaps intended as a deliberate contrast to it [KENOSIs). One further application of the phrase is made in Eph 1”, where it is used of the Church, Tô trxipapua toû rā travra év trāortv tr}\mpovuévov. Here the genitive is perhaps subjective—the fulness of Christ, His full embodi- ment, that fulness which He supplies to , the Church—emphasizing the thoroughness with which the Church is the receptacle of His powers and represents Him, on earth....The analogy of the other uses of the word with the genitive of the erson (Eph 31°49), and the stress throughout these ooks on Christians being filled by Čirist (Eph 319 418 518, Col 10 210 412, jn 11° 33’), favours this view. But the genitive may be objective, ‘the complement of Christ,’ that which completes Him, which fills up by its activities the work which His withdrawal to heaven would have left undone, as the body completes the head. The analogy of the body, the stress laid on the action of the Church (Eph 319. "), St. Paul's language about himself in § 1* (āvravat)\mpá rà Sarepſiuata rāv 0\typewu too xploroſ), support this, and it is impossible to decide between the two. The former view has been most common since the thorough examination of the word by Fritzsche (Rom. ii. pp. 469 ft.) and Light- foot (Col. ad loc, and Additional Note), and is still taken by von Soden (Hand-Comm. ad loc.) and Macpherson (Eaſºositor, 1890, pp. 462-472). But the latter view, which was that of Origen and Chrysoston, has been strongly advocated of late by Pfleiderer (Paulinism, ii. p. 172), T. K. Abbott (International Critical Comm. ad loc.), and most fully J. A. Robinson (Eajpositor, 1898, }. 241–259). Outside the NT the word occurs in Ignatius in a sense which is clearly influenced by the NT, and apparently in the meaning of the Divine fulness, as going forth and blessing and residing in the Church (Eph. Inscr. Tm et Noympiévin év pe-yéðel 6soú tratpos TNmptºpart, and Trall. Inscr; flu Kai da Tráčopiat év tº TXmptôpart, almost = €v Xptorº [but see Light- foot, ad loc.]). In Gnosticism the use becomes yet more stereo- typed and technical, though its applications are still very variable. The Gnostic writers appeal to the use in the NT (c.g. Iren. I. iii. 4), and the word 2 PLOUGH, PLOUGHSHARE POETRY (HEBREW) retains from it the sense of totality in contrast to the constituent parts; but the chief associations of trºpoua in their systems are with Greek philo- sophy, and the main thought is that of a state of completeness in contrast to deficiency (Üatépmua, Iren. I. xvi. 3; Hippol. vi. 31), or of the fulness of real existence in contrast to the empty void and unreality of mere plenomena (kévapua, Iren. I. iv. 1). Thus, in Cerinthus it expressed the fulness of the Divine Life out of j the Divine Christ descended upon the man Jesus at his baptism, and into W., He returned (Iren. I. xxvi. 1, III. xi. 1. xvi. 1). In the Valentinian system it stands in antithesis to the essential incomprelien- sible Godhead, as ‘the circle of the Divine attri- butes,’ the various means by which God reveals Himself: it is the totality of the thirty acons or emanations which proceed from God, but are separated alike from Him and from the material universe. It is at times almost localized, so that a thing is spoken of as ‘within,” “without,’ ‘above,’ “below' the Pleroma : more often it is the spirit- world, the archetypal ideal existing in the invisible heavens in contrast to the imperfect plenomenal manifestations of that ideal in the universe. Thus ‘the whole l’leroma of the aeons contributes each its own excellence to the historic Jesus, and He appears on earth as the perfect beauty and star of the Pleroma,” (rexelöratov KáA\os kal datpov toº tr}\mpõparos, Iren. I. xi. 6). Again, each separate aeon is called a TViipayua in contrast to its earthly imperfect counterpart, so that in this sense the plural can be used, TAmpëpara (Iren. I. xiv. 2); and even each individual has his or her Pleroma. or spiritual counterpart (rö TAffpwua aúrûs of the Samaritan woman,—Heracleon, ap. Origen, xiii. . 205; ap. Stieren's Irenaºus, p. 950). Similarly it was used by Ophite writers as equivalent to the full completeness of perfect knowledge (l’istis Sophia, p. 15). It thus expressed , the various thoughts which we should express by the God- head, the ideal, heaven ; and it is probably owing to this ambiguity, as well as to its heretical associa- tions, that the word dropped out of Christian theo- logy. It is still used in its ordinary untechnical meaning, e.g. Theophylact (p. 530) speaks of the Trinity as TAffpapa toû 6eoû ; but no use so technical as that in Ignatius reappears. I’or fuller details cf. Suicer's Thesaurus, s.v. ; Lightfoot, Col. (“Colossian Heresy” and Additional Note); Smith's Dict. Christ. Biogr. s. v.v. ‘Gnosti- cism,’ ‘Valentinus’; Cambridge Teacts and Studies, i. 4, p. 105. W. LOCK. PLOUGH, PLOUGHSHARE.—See AGRICULTURE in vol. i. p. 49. PLUMBLINE, PLUMMET.—A line or cord with a heavy weight attached, used by masons, when erecting a building, to ascertain if the walls are perpendicular. The plumbline used by the Syrian masons is a cord passing freely through a hole in the centre of a cylindrical piece of wood about 3 in. long ; at one end of the cord is a hollow cone of copper filled with lead. The cord is fastened to a ring inserted into the centre of the base of the cone- shaped plummet, the diameter of the base being the same as the length of the cylinder of wood. One end of the piece of wood is applied to the face of the wall, and the plummet is allowed to descend slowly. If the rim of the base just touches the surface of the stones the wall is perpendicular. Several Heb. words are rendered plummet or plumbline. 1. jas, literally, a stone, probably showing that the original plummet was a sus- )ended stone, Is 34”. In Zec 4" the expression lºs º (see Nowack, ad loc.), a stone of tin, a plummet, is used. 2. His Am 77 °. The etymology _* —s of this word is doubtful. There are similar words in cognate languages for “lead,” “tin’ (cf. Oa'ſ IIeb. Lea. s.v.). 3. nºn in 2 K 21”, nºn Is 287, a weight. In all the Scripture references to ‘plum- met' or ‘plumb-line,’ the term is used metaphori- cally, e.g. in Am 7°, where J" is to set a plummet in the very midst of His people (i.e. apply to it a crucial moral test), and whatever does not conform to its standard will be destroyed (Driver, ad loc.). W. CARSLAW. P0CHERETH - HAZZEBAIM. — Amongst the ‘children of Solomon's servants’ who returned with Zerubbabel are mentioned the bºyſ, nº;5 Ja. Ezr 27=Nell 7" (bºyſ, '5 ºn). The LXX, mis- understanding the passage, divides into two proper names (in Ezr B viol pagp40, viol'Aoegweiv, A Pakepd.6, ‘Agegwelu ; in Neh B viol Pakapá0, viol Xaffaelu, A . . . paxapá0 . . . ). In l Es 5” the LXX has viol Pakapé0 Xag(e)(m. See PHACARETH. The Heb. pochereth-hazzebaim means ‘hunter of gazelles.’ J. A. SELIBIE. POET.-Only Ac 17* “As certain even of your own poets have said, Por we are also his offspring.’ By ‘your own poets' (ol ka9' (puffs [WH marg; juás after B, 33 etc., Copt.] troumtal) Lightfoot thinks St. Paul meant poets belonging to the same school as his Stoic audience (Dissertations on Apost. Age, p. 288 f.). The words have been traced to Cleanthes' Hymn to Zeus, 5, where we read, ‘I’or Thine offspring are we (ék a oſ yöp yévos éopév), therefore will I hymn Thy praises and sing Thy might forever. Thee all this universe which rolls about the earth obeys, wheresoever Thou dost guide it, and gladly owns Thy sway.’ Than in this ‘sublime hymn,’ says Lightfoot (Dissert. p. 306), “heathen devotion seldom or never soars higher.’ Cleanthes belongs to the 4th cent. B.C. The exact words of St. Paul’s quotation (toº yūp Kal yévos éopºv) have been found in another Stoic's writings, the Phaenomena of Aratus of Soli (of the 3rd cent. B.C.), and the form of the apostle's expression, “some of your own poets,’ may mean that he knew the words to be found in more than one poet. In 1 Co 15% and Tit 11° quotations have been discovered from other Greek poets, but they par- ake rather more of the character of common proverbs than the quotation from Cleanthes or Aratus. The first (q)0elpövoruv #0m xpijo O' 6pu)\lat Kakat) has been traced to the Thais of Menander, a comic poet of the 3rd cent. B.C. The line is iambic trimeter, and the form Xpija'0' of the TR is necessary for the scansion ; Xpmotá is, however, the form in almost all MSS, and adopted by almost all editors, so that the feeling for the metre of the line was not present when the apostle wrote. The second (Kpfires del peſo rat, Kaká 0npia, 'yaa répés àpyat) is a complete hexameter verse, and comes from the IIepl xpmap.ów of Epimenides, who lived about B.C. 600. It is also found in the Hymn to Zents of Callimachus. These fragments of Greek verse exhaust the poetry (if the word is to be used in its usual con- notation) of the NT. It is extremely probable, however, that many of our Lord's sayings were cast in the forms of Hebrew poetry. See the articles by Briggs on ‘The Wisdom of Jesus the Messiah’ in the JExpos. Times, vol. viii. (1897) jp. 393 ff., 452 ſ., 492 ſl., vol. ix. (1898) 69 fl., and lº, fully in his Study of Holy Scripturº (1899), p. 373 ff. J. IIASTINGS. POETRY (HEBREW).— Introduction. i. The Form of Heb, poetry. A. Poems written in 1°ross. B. Poems written in Worse. 1. The External evidence. POETRY (HEBREW) POETRY (HEBREW) 3 2. The rules for the form of Heb. poetry: (a) the line ; (b) the verse; (c) parallelism ; (d) metre : the kinah and other kinds of verse ; (e) the scale for the lines; (f) strophes ; (g) subordi- nate matters of form. ii. The Material of Heb. poetry. A. The different species of poetry. P. The employment of poetry. 1. Folk-poetry: (a) in family life; (b) in the life of the community; (c) in the religious life; (d) in the national life. 2. The poetry of the Prophets. 8. Artistic poetry. Poems are works of art, whose substratum is supplied by human speech. Since they make their impression only through oral utterance, which from its very nature dies away, they require for their perpetuation--differing in this from the works of plastic art—the medium of writing. . By the signs of the Alatter they can afterwards be reproduced with ºore or less fidelity, in proportion to the sufficiency of the system of writing and the state of preservation of the script in which it has reached us. Like every work of art, the poem has for its chief source the creative imagination of its author; in every instance a strong element of invention enters into its construction. Its aim is acsthetic enjoyment, it seeks to work upon the senses, the emotions, the imagination, of the hearer. An ulterior purpose, namely, to influence directly the will and conduct of those who happen to make acquaintance with the poem, is, strictly speaking, butside the scope of poetry, as of art in general. But although a discourse whose interest is judicial, political, or social, has certainly, in spite of all the rhetorical art expended upon it, no claim to be called a poem, yet the border-line is a shifting one. There are edifying, didactic, political com- positions, which in spite of their underlying “tendency” do not cease to be poems in the fullest sense, while the claim of others to this title may be disputed. The aim of pº may be reached without the º of special, external, palpable means such as distinguish the language of poetry from that of daily use. There are poems free from the trammels of verse, composed in simple prose, nay, in recent times the employment of the prose form in poetry is more common than that of verse. This is the case above all with the drama, and in the next place with the epos in the form of the novel; it is only for lyric poetry that the use of the prose form constitutes a great exception.” In ancient times the enmployment of verse was the rule for every species of poetry; where the lº form prevails, it will generally be found to be in compositions which lie upon the dubious border- line referred to above. The question whether poetry has a place in the Holy Scriptures could be raised as long as men held fast to the strict verbal inspiration doctrine. From that standpoint the admixture of so strongly human and subjective an element might appear to contradict the purely Divine and objective origin of the words of the Bible. Detter knowledge now teaches us that no device of human language is to be declared incapable of employment in Scripture. Yet poetry will not be the rule there, for neither of th. two collections of books that make up the Bible is arranged from the point of view of art, but from that of religious value; they are collections not of national belles lettres but of Sacred Writings. At the same time, however, the Old Testannent embraces all that has come down to us of the literature of the people of Israel in its Carly days, so that for our knowledge of the poetry and the poetical art of the ancient Hebrews we have to turn solely to this collection of their Sacred Writings. * Cf. e.g. Hardenberg (Novalis), IIymmen am die Nacht, i. THE FORM OF HEBREW POETRY. —A. POEMS WIFITTEN IN PROSE.-Prose-poems are not absent from the OT, yet the border-lines for their re- cognition are hard to draw. If all fiction could be called poetry, then the tale of the woman of Tekoa (2 S 14*7) would have to be included in this category, and still more the story told by the prophet Nathan (2 S 12*). But in both these narratives we have simply rhetorical artifices, both give themselves out in the first instance as bare statements of actual occurrences. It is otherwise with Jotham's fable (Jg 98*), which presents itself within the framework of his address as a didactic composition, and is to be placed on the same plane as the parables of Jesus in the New Testament. The IBooks of Jonah, Ruth, Esther, and the Daniel narratives in Dn 1–6, are regarded by modern OT science, as products of Jewish novel-writing, of which further instances, outside the Canon, have come down to us in the Books of Judith, Tobit, 2 Maccabees, etc."...But their quality as poetry stands and falls with the verdict ºci by criti- cism, for, the moment their contents are declared to be historical, they lose all claim to this title. In any case, it is to be observed that these prose- poems one and all belong to a late period; but, on the other hand, the prologue and the epilogue of the Book of Job, which in contradistinction from the speeches in chs. 3–41 are composed in prose, show that the date alone does not decide the pro- codure in this matter. The reason for this differ- ence of form will have to be examined below (see pp. 9” and 10"). B. POEMS WRITTEN IN VERSE.—1. The Easternal Evidence.—Far more prominent are the poems composed in verse, and of these alone we mean to speak in what follows. That the ancient Hebrews possessed and consciously employed in poetry pre- scribed poetical forms constructed for d. special purpose, may be proved with certainty from the OT itself. The evidence is found first of all in the peculiar expressions used to designate poetry, the poet and his activity (cf. especially the roots ºwn and nºw), in the application of these peculiar terms to certain compositions (cf. the numerous intro- ductions and superscriptions, such as Ex 15*, Jg 5*, Nu 2117, 27), in . statement that certain passages were recited to the accompaniment of music, and sometimes of dancing, e.g. Ex 15”, l S 18"; cf. also many of the titles of the Psalms. We are carried a point beyond this y the alphabetical poems, in which equal poetical units are clearly separated from one another through their initial letters being arranged so as to form the Heb. alphabet. Most important are Pss lll and l 12, in which each several line bears a new letter, and next to these are to be reckoned those poems in which, like Pss 25. 34. 145, Pr 31*, a letter is given to each verse. The Symagogue tradition (Shabbath 103b, Sopherim, ch. 12; cf. Strack, Prolegom, crit. in Vet. Test. Heb. p. 80) at least testifies to and enjoins the writing in distinct lines of the songs Iºx 15, Dt 32, Jg 5, 2 S 22, no doubt because these are called ‘songs' in the titles they bear. But this is to recognize expressly the poetical form of these passages. 2. The rules for the form of Heb. poetry.—a. The line.—l'ar more uncertain than the fact that the Hebrews possessed a form of composition specially devised for use in poetry is the question as to the rules of this form, or, in other words, as to the metrical system of the ancient, Hebrews. On this subject there is no tradition worthy of the name, rather must the laws of Heb. metre be deduced from the poems themselves. Portunately, * Cf. C. A. Briggs(General Introd, to Study of Holy Scripture, New York, 1890, p. 341 ff.), who calls these books “prose works of the imagination.’ 4 POETRY (HEBREW) POETRY (HEBREW) there are two factors that from the first stand | but as indubitably established. The first of these is the line (orlxos), externally authenticated, as has º: been said, by Pss lll and 112, as well as by the circumstance that in the MSS some poems are written stichigally, and latterly also by the newly discovered fragments of the Heb. Sirach, whicli are likewise written in stichoi. It is the fundamental rule of all metrical composition, the one indispensable condition, that the continuous flow of the discourse should be divided into short .#". which, as far as the sensé is con- cerned, have a certain independence. It is only in highly developed forms of poetry that the inde- pendence of the lines, in this matter of the sense, is more or less superfluous. The limit for the length of these lines is one imposed by nature, namely, that each line should be capable of being pronounced in a single easy breath. Such lines detach themselves from one another with perfect clearness in all the poetical parts of the OT, and there cannot be a moment's doubt that it is not the logic of the discourse but an artificial design that has divided the flow of the language in this way. In Hebrew, especially, the end of the line uniformly coincides with a break in the sense, and even the accentuation of our texts is seldom wrong as to the correct division. . It is possible to have poems which employ no other method as to their form than such a separation into the briefest units tliat give a complete sense, although these do not stand in an exact rhythmical relation to one another or mutually unite themselves into uniform groups. This is exemplified, for instance, in a number of Goethe's finest poems, such as Der Gesang der Geister itber den Wassern, Grenzen der Menschheit, Ganymed, Prometheus, etc. b. The Yerse.--As well established as the line is the second higher poetical unit, the verse. In Heb. poetry a plurality of lines, in by far the majority of instances two of these, regularly com- bine to form a verse. This unit is likewise wit- nessed to by tradition. The sign for the close of the verse (the double point pop me) is undoubtedly the earliest addition made to the consonantal text, and is handed down along with the latter, where accents, vowels, and diacritical points are wanting. The division by B'prº is already witnessed to in the Mishna (Megillah iv. 4). The verse-division, to be sure, is not confined to the poetical sections of the OT, but is carried through everywhere. But it is a circumstance of extreme importance that in the poetical sections the verse - divider does not stand at the close of each stichos, but regularly (with extremely rare exceptions) includes several of these. And though it happens frequently that several metrical verses are combined in a single Massoretic verse, on the other hand it is one of the rarest occurrences to find the verse - divider Wrongly separating stichot of the same verse from one another. c. Parallelism.—The connecting agency, how- ever, which unites the verse-members so as to form the verse, was not clearly recognized and defined till last century., . The merit of this belongs to Bishop Lowth in his epoch-making book, De sacra poesi Hebræorum, which appeared in the same year § as Astruc's Conjectures. There in his Prae- ectio xix., p. 237,” he says:– “Poetica sententiarum compositio maximam partem constat in togualitate, ac similitudine quadan, sive parallelismo, mem- brorum cujusque periodi, ita ut in duobus plerumque membris res rebus, verbis verba, quasi demensa et paria respondeant.” From this passage came the term parallelismats wnembrorum, which has since then been generally * Compare with this the more detailed discussion in the Pre- liminary Dissertation to Lowth's works on Isaiah, 1778 [German by Koppe, 1779 f.l. employed. We have to do here not with a formal contrivance like rhyme, assonance, alliteration, regularly changing length of the lines (cf. the dactylic distich), but with a connexion by means of the sense, which finds its full expression only in parallelism, and, at the same time, in parallelism separates itself from what precedes and what follows. Lowth continues quite correctly— ''. res multos quidem gradus habet, multam varietatem, ut alias accuratior et apertior, alias solutior et obscurior sit'; but by distinguishing three kinds of parallelism, synonymous, antithetic, and synthetic, as well as by the very name ºnj which was capable of being misunderstood, he contributed at the same time to encourage too narrow a con- ception of the phenomenon.” Nor is it any ad- Vantage to complete the scheme, as H. Ewald in particular has sought to do; all this has only a casual value as compared with the general principle established, that the individual stichoi, which themselves each form a unit of sense, com- bine, in the verse to form a larger unit. The possible variety of relation between the stichoi is endless. A wider background for this phenomenon has lately been gained by observing that the same rule holds good in the poetry of the ancient Baby- ionians and Assyrians, and, º: in a less de- veloped form, also in that of the ancient Egyptians. SČhrader f assumes that Israel took over this prin- ciple, along with much else, from Mesopotamia, and Briggs (op. cit. 368) also considers this extremely probable. Still the possibility remains that this poetical rule is the common heritage of a large group of the nations of antiquity.f It is radically wrong to see in the parallelism merely a rhetorical phenomenon, and to disregard it accordingly, as need may be, in conducting metri- cal investigations. In this way one overlooks the fact that the parallelism is founded on the previous separation of the stichoi. It is possible, of course, to take the sense-parallelism and apply it to a prose composition, at the same time dispensing with a uniform separation into lines, and in this way to weaken it down to a purely rhetorical form, but, when coupled with that separation, the parallelism assumes the character of a fixed device of art. The best proof of this is found in the circumstance that for nearly 2000 years men felt and recognized the Psalms and other poetical portions of the OT to be poems, without having any clear conscious- ness of the device employed to constitute them so. It is a specially happy providence that this device is so connecte wº the contents that it had practi- cally to be handed down along with these. * Still the distinguishing of three possibilities has a certain logical value. . In the unpublished second part of the present writer's Akademische Antrittsvorleswig, 1873 (cf. SK, 1874, p. 764, Anm.), an attempt is made to explain the parallelismnw8 by going back to the word 9% as a term for poetical discourse. If this Heb. word means originally “comparison, likeness,’ bipartition and parallelism find their grº in the nature of the case. The result of a comparison may be one or other of three kinds. It may disclose (1) equality or resemblance, e.g. Pr 1020 1116, 22. 30, (2) inequality, unlikeness, or opposition, e.g. Pr 101-29, (3) a more or less, a better or worse, etc., by which a movement, a progress is given, e.g. Prl20 1510, 17 108 171 191, as also 119) 1511. There can be hardly any doubt that the parallel verse exhibits its greatest independence and purest development in the various apophthegms of Pr 10 fſ., which all fall under this threefold scheme. The circumstance that, at least in their written form, these belong to the later products of Hebrew literature, is certainly no adequate objection to the view put forward in the above-cited lecture, that the fundamental rule for the form of Heb. poetry is borrowed from the apophthegm. Yet it is so hopeless a task to reach any probable pronouncement regarding these first beginnings that the present writer is no longer disposed to maintain that former view. f. His article in the Jahrb. f. prot. Theol. i. (1875) p. 121 ff., is still well worthy of study. f Cf. W. Max Müller, Die Liebeºpoesie der alten AC0 ypter, 1899, p. 10, Amm. 1. POETRY (HEBREW) POETRY (HEBREW) § d. Metres the Kinah and other kinds of verse. --From what has just been said, it is self-evident that the length of the limes is not a matter of in- difference. These must be fashioned in a certain uniform relation to one another, in order to pro- duce the impression of rhythmic units. The sure roof, that the Heb, poet consciously fixed the Iength of the lines is found in the circumstance that for a special occasion that presented itself in the life of the people he uniformly chose a special length of line. This is established in the case of the Hyp, the Hebrew lament for the dead, i.e. the songs which wolmen as mourners (n)}|\pm Jer 9") sang at funerals in ancient Israel. These were uniformly composed in verses of two members, the length of the first of which stands to that of the second in the proportion of 3:2, giving rise to a peculiar limping rhythm, in which the second member as it were dies away and expires. These verses are very sharply distinguished from the others, in which equal length of verse-members in the same verse is the rule. For proof of the cor- rectness of these observations the present writer's art, “Das hebräische Klagelied' in ZATW, 1882, op. 1–52, may still suffice, if it be read with care. t will not do either to unite the two unequal sticho; into a single “long line,” or to pronounce it a matter of indifference whether the longer line comes first or last.” Equally established beyond all doubt is the original connexion of this kind of yerse with the popular lament for the dead. When Briggs (op. cit., p. 381) says, “there is no propriety in the name,’ and, further, supposes that the name was given to it by the present writer ‘because apparently he first noticed it in the Book of Lamentations,’ the one remark, is as mistaken as the other. The second of the two merely proves that Briggs has not followed our argument, which is founded rather upon the fact that the prophets, whenever they introduce the mourning women speaking in person (Jer 98.2° 38%), or when they themselves in their symbolical actions assume the rôle of the mourning women (Am 5%, Ezk 19, atc.), uniformly choose this measure.: The objec- tion that I)avid does not º it in his lament for Saul and Jonathan (2 S 117") can be urged only by one who holds that David meant to take the place of the mourning women at the obsequies, or to attach himself to their lamenta- tions. And when Grimme (loc. cit. p. 549) suggests that the earliest ...}} "ment of this measure should rather be sought for in the oracles of the priests, not only must we first wait for proof that the ancient oracles were composed in it, S but must ask, further, which was the earlier in Israel, the funeral or the oracle, and whether it is likely that this form of verse was originally learned by the mourning women from the lips of the priests as they pronounced their oracles, to be afterwards * Both these things have been done recently by Grimme (ZDMG, 1896, p. 545 f.). The examples he adduces in justi- fication of his procedure appear to us to be altogether in- adequate. Some of them are due to faulty scansion, in others a false length is given to the lines by a wrong division of the context, some are cited from a corrupt unemended text, others are to be explained in accordance with ZAT'W ii. p. 7, No. 3. No agreement seems possible between the present writer and Grimme, for not only would this necessitate the acceptance of the metrical system of the latter, but Grimme's ‘fünf hebiger Vers’ is something quite different from the kinah verse. # Cf. ZATW, 1$3, p. 299ff. f Grimme (ZDMG, 1897, p. 693) declares that one might as well assert that the Greek hexameter is }.}} a mourning Strain because it is in it that the women lament for the dea Hector. Yes, no doubt, were it not that the rest of the Iliad also is written in hexameters. In the same place he seeks to rove that Jer 01-18 is wholly composed in the kinah measure, Jut his argument breaks down, completely. Only 829–90 was originally an independent poem in this measure. § The examples which Grimme % DMG, 1897, p. 707 f.) brings forward and scans exactly (Gn 2523 2728ſ. 90ſ) may be, according to his system, pentameters, but they have mothing whatever to do with the “mourning verse' noted by the present writer. copied from the women by the prophets. Woman is the most conservative of all social forces, and if even at the present day in an Arab nursery the hinah verse is still to be heard from the lips of the mother (as reported by Snouck-Hurgronje), there is nothing more probable than that in this a re- collection has been preserved of a time when it was par eaccellence the verse of women.” s But now that it has been thus shown that in one particular case Hebrew poets consciously fixed the length of their verses and shaped it accord- ingly, we must conclude that in the case of other verses (or lines) as well they had a clear conscious- ness of one or more different lengths. And, as a matter of fact, examination shows that throughout wide tracts the individual lines have the usual length of the first member of the kinah verse; amongst others this is by far the predominating length all through the Book of Job. Elsewhere we may observe a longer line than the prevailing one, something like double the length of the shorter kinah line. . e. The scale for the lines,—But although one cannot avoid recognizing the facts just mentioned, it yet remains a very difficult task to determine the scale by which the Heb. poet measured the length of his lines. Here comes in the attempt to establish a metrical system for Heb. poetry, which during the last centuries has again and again attracted amateurs and scholars. The theories put forward as the basis of this system exhaust all the possibilities that are to hand, and at the present day almost all of them still stand unrecon- ciled side by side. Some have counted, marked quantity, accented, or combined the first or the second of these processes with the last. Others have taken now the syllable and now the word as the fundamental unit. Others have sometimes been content to take the traditional pronunciation with the vocalization and accentuation, and to interpret metrically, and reduce to rule what lies before us in the Massoretic text. At other times, upon the ground of a fixed theory, all liberties with the text have been considered allowable, the accent has been shifted, the vocalization altered in whole or in part, and changes of the consonantal text pro- Josed to a greater or less extent. Systems have een constructed, which leave much licence open, licence partly of a purely arbitrary kind and partly in strict subordination to the system ; there have been other systems, again, which permit no deviation to the right hand or to the left, but yield metres carried through , with the utmost rigour. Space forbids our going into all these manifold attempts, nor does the case require it." We must confine ourselves to a brief description of the most . of the systems put forward at present, indicating at the same time the diſli- culties involved, and we shall finally draw a number of conclusions whose probability we believe it necessary to maintain. J. Ley: operates with the word-accent. Every word that conveys an idea has a tone-syllable, certain words may have more than one. Every tone-syllable forms, along with the preceding un- accented syllables and the following syllable of the falling tone, one metre. The number of un- * For the later history of the kinah measure in the OT cf. the present writer's art. ‘The Follº-Song of Israel in the mouth of the Prophets' in The New World, 1803, p. 28ff. # Cf., for the earlier attempts, Saalschütz, Von der Form der heb, Poesie, 1825; Budde, “Ueber vermeintliche metrische Formen in der heb. Poesie,' in SK, 1874; Briggs, General Intro- duction, p. 301 ff. All the modern systems are fully explained and criticised in Ed. König's Stilistik, Rhetorik, Poetik, etc., 0. - f Grundzüge des Rhythmus, des Vers-ºwnd Strophenbgues in der lieb. Poesie, 1875, Leitfaden der Metrik der heb. Poesie, 1887, and a great number of articles in various periodicals. Ley has constantly sought to perfect his system. . 6 POETRY (HEBREW) POETRY (HEBREW) accented syllables makes no difference, so that a significant word of a single syllable may have the same metrical value as a whole series of syllables. The kind of verse is determined by the number of such metres, as pentameter, hexameter, octa- meter, decameter, and, further, assumes a much greater variety of forms through the possibility of ivers casuras. The unit (‘ verse’) for Ley (1887) is the verse formed by parallel lines; the caesuras serve to divide the individual lines from one another. In this way it becomes possible to unite lines of very different lengths in the same verse. Ley accepts the traditional vocalization and accen- tuation, but has lately proposed a moderate number of changes of the text. G. Bickell " applies the Syriac metre to the OT, holding the next to the last syllable, as in Syriac, to be as a rule the tonic one, and frequently altering the vowel-pronunciation. He contnts the syllables of each line, and then makes rises and falls interchange with perfect regularity, in such a way that all lines with an even number of syllables are trochaic, and all with an odd number iambic. He everywhere ends by carrying through with the utmost exactness the metre assumed, and in order to reach this result proposes numerous alterations on the consonantal text, when the liberties taken with the vowel-pronunciation prove insufficient. H. Grimmet bases his system upon a new theory of the accent and the vowels, which above all attributes to the vowel-signs a very different value from that assigned to them on the doctrine held in other quarters. He thus abides by the tra- ditional written signs, but understands them quite diflerently. His metrical system is at once quan- titative and accentual. It is quantitative, because, in accordance with an ingeniously carried out system of ‘mora,’ he attributes to each syllable and to each syllabic beat a definite quantity, a definite number of “mora” (Lat. mora, “lapse of time,’ ‘stop '). Every final principal-tone syllable of a “Sprechtakt' counts as a rise ; whether other syllables are to be reckoned rises or not is deter- mined by counting, according to fixed rules, the value of the “mora, ’ of the syllables which fall within the same sphere. The number of rises determines the species of verse. Grimme recog- nizes verses (i.e. lines) with 2, 3, 4, 5 rises, but the verse with 2 rises occurs only as an accompanying metre to that with 4 and 5 rises. Grimme, like Ley, is relatively sparing in the matter of changes of the text. All the above systems are worked out with extreme care, and in the opinion of their authors leave no unexplained residuum. The earliest two (those of Ley and Bickell) have each found many adherents, the third is yet too recent to have done so. Still, in the majority of instances, perhaps even without exception, the declarations of ad- herence given in by other writers have regard merely to the acceptance of a metrical system and to principles, but not to the complete systems elaborated by their respective authors. Thus C. A. Briggs, the principal English - speaking champion of Hebrew metre, declares that his views ‘correspond in the main with those of Iley.’ j A similar attitude towards IDuhm (i.e. Bickell) is assumed by Cheyne. Ś As a matter of * Metrices biblicte regulae eacemnplis illustratae, 1870, Carmina, veteris testamenti metrice, 1882, and a great number of later publications in which he introduces many changes and im- provements on his earlier attempts at scansion. f ‘Abriss der biblisch-hebräischen Metrik,' in ZDMG, 1806, p. 529–584; 1897, pp. 683–712, etc.; cf. his book Grundzüge der web. Accent- und %. Collectanca Friburgensia, fasc. v., Freiburg i. d. Schweiz, 1896. : General Introduction, p. 370, where at the same time an account is given of J3riggs' earlier metrical contributions. § In Hallpt's SBOT', ‘ Isaiah," p. 78. fact, in these systems the leading possibilities are represented in such a way that everyone will feel himself more or less in sympathy with one view or another. The circumstance that theories so diametrically opposed are able time after time to maintain them- selves side by side, and that each of them can be held up as the infallibly correct one, is due to the peculiarly unfavourable conditions under which we have to work in this matter. (a) We have to do with a text originally written without vowels, and whose living sound was first marked at a very late period by additional points and lines. One is i. to question the correctness of this vowel- pronunciation and accentuation, and there will be a disposition to draw the boundaries of this in- correctness narrower or wider according to the needs of a metrical system, without its being possible for an opponent to adduce conclusive evidence in favour of the contrary position. (b) It is equally certain that the consonantal text of the OT has suffered seriously, not only through mis- takes but frequently also through conscious well- intentioned editing. Since the latter was always undertaken from religious points of view and would have little regard to the artistic form of the poems included in the collection of Sacred Writings, its employment must have been fraught with specially serious issues in the sphere with which we are dealing. Here again it is impossible to set objective limits to the changes which, upon the ground of an assumed metre, may be proposed with a view to the restoration of the original text. But, on the other hand, a metrical system which finds an easy application to the traditional text, including ail the disfigurations it has under- gone in the course of time, only shows by this that it is itself untenable. (c) Finally, all in- formation about the music of the ancient Hebrews has been lost to us. But music was originally always combined with poetry, and protected the metrical form, just as, on the other hand, it helped what was defective.” This aid, too, we must entirely dispense with. Under such conditions subjectivity finds here an open field without any sure boundaries. But this awakens the imagination and fires the courage. Besides, we have here to do with a subject akin to mathematics, a subject giving scope for playing with numbers. It is a fact perhaps too little observed, that all departments of study akin to this offer a special incentive to the ingenuity. We need only recall the subject of Chronology. One must have at some time gone deeply for himself into the question of Hebrew metre and triumphed over the temptation to lose oneself there, before he can understand the attraction wielded by such specu- lations. Since the present writer has had this experience he has no finished metrical system to ofler, nor can he attach himself unreservedly to any of the others that have been proposed, al- though he cheerfully concedes that to each of the above-named champions of metre we are indebted for much stimulus and help. He can therefore merely indicate what he considers probable, and emphasize some points which appear to him worthy of attention. - (1) As regards the scale for the length of the lines, the vastly preponderating probability appears to belong to the theory of Ley, who counts the “rises’ without taking account of the ‘falls.” In favour of this there is first of all the practice of vowelless writing, with irregular, in olden times doubtless very sparing, introduction of the vowel- letters, as contrasted with the regular employment * Cf. W. Max Müller, Liebespoesie der alten Ægypter, p, 11: “We, 8cunning Epigoni, forget only too often that the lost melody was the main thing.’ , a. POETRY (HEBREW) POETRY (HEBREW) 7 of these for the long vowels in Arabic. An exact measurement of a verse by syllables could hardly have been carried out with such a method of writ- ing, and, conversely, if it came into use, it must in course of time have brought about a correspond- ing transformation of the writing. Further, great weight must be laid upon the circumstance that the lines (stichoi) in Hebrew are without exception separated from one another by the sense. Where a perfectly exact, rigorously self-asserting system of metre is used, in course of time the separating of units of sense into single lines comes to be regarded as superfluous, and the sense flows over from one line into another. We may compare, for instance, classical hexameters or ode-measure, and modern rhyming verse. The same view is favoured if we compare the Bab.-Assyrian and Egyptian poetical methods which, so far as one can yet see, are likewise to be brought under the above rule." In general it may be added that a comparison ought to be made neither with extremely refined systems like the classical, nor decaying ones like the Syrian, but with primitive systems, even if these stand Hºlly far apart. The two-membered alliterative verse of the ancient Germans, which likewise takes account only of rises, appears to us to present the closest analogy, when, that is to say, it is looked at from the purely formal point of view, and without regard to the peculiar device by which the lines are connected. (2) As regards the non-accenting or the accenting of words, much latitude must be conceded to the living language and to music, so that it would be very difficult to lay down strict and inviolable rules according to which this or that word is under certain circumstances to be mon-accented or accented. In this way verse-members which appear to the eye very unequal may yet from the rhythmical point of view be counted of equal value." (3) We have, moreover, no certain guarantee for the intention to carry through with perfect uni- formity the measure which in general rules in a poem. It is possible that it was considered legiti- mate to admit at times a line with four rises be- side one with three, and conversely to introduce a whole verse with a different length of line, or finally to put a verse of three lines alongside of others with only two. On this whole subject, cf. what W. Max Müller (op. cit. p. 11) has established for Egyptian, and Zimmern (44 xii. 382) for Baby- lonian poetry. (4) In general, one receives the impression that in the older poems greater freedom rules than in the later ones... An unerringly regular parallelism, exact counting of the rises in verses of uniformly identical construction, all this is, nearly without * For the former cf. H. Zimmern, ZA. viii. 121 ſp., x. 1 ff.: for the latter W. Max Müller, Die Liebespoesie der alten. Alºgypter, 1800, p. 10 fſ. Whether, in this state of things, the actual relation of the falls to the rises can be reduced to summary formula is another question. This will depend mainly upon the structure of the particular language. Thus Zimmern now (ZA xii. 382 ft.) thinks he can build the Bab. poetic rhythm practically upon the foundation of the Ionicus a minori. But when the result is to obtain in all six different feet admissible in the same verse, when from one to three falls are possible between two rises, when occasionally (cf. Schöpfwng, iv. 4, p. 389), two more falls are elided in accordance with an assumed licence, there is certainly enough of ſield-room. Zinn- mcrin (p. 383) tells us that Sievers has succeeded in ‘proving’ the existence in IIcb. poetry of a pronounced ‘uniform rhythm.” Since his observations for Babylonian are based upon work carried on in common with Sievers, and he several times emphasizes the agreement between it and IIebrew, the above remark as to Zimmern's scheme will probably hold good also of Sievers' observations on IIebrew, with which the present writer has not yet made acquaintance. # Cf. for instanco in the Old Germ. poem Heliand v.22 with v.5 or v.0, or the two halves of v.30 or v.200 with one another. f W. Max Müller (op. cit. p. 10) says rightly : “To me it is a very suspicious circumstance that the Song of 1)eborah and the latest l’Halms still continue to be measured in one (und the same fashion.” exception, the mark of later poems. The gap was, no doubt, filled up by music, which always accom. panied poetry in early times, whereas in later times learned scansion with the pen in the hand and without regard to musical sound appears to have been the rule. But, on the other hand, one is entitled to make stricter demands on lyrical poetry in the narrowest sense, especially on dance- Songs such as perhaps meet us in Canticles, than on longer didactic poems like the Book of Job, which can hardly at any time have been sung. (5) The more decided and sharply cut any par- ticular measure is, the more confidently may this be used as a mediumn for restoring the teact. Thus, for instance, one may undertake the work of textual criticism on the kinah-measure with surer results than in the case of an evenly-ſlowing measure, because the peculiar limping form of the kinah must have demanded closer, attention on the part of the poet. In any case, we should do well, in all textual criticism which deals with anything beyond superfluous expletives, to assure ourselves of strong support on other grounds be- sides metrical, and not repose too much conſidence in emendations based on metrical grounds alone. (6) Finally, it must always be kept steadily in view that the quality and the effect of poetry are still in by far the majority of instances secured for the texts by the parallelism, even where regularity in the measure is not carried out. Hence one must guard against assigning too great inportance to metrical regularity. f. Strophes.—We must deal more briefly with the use of strophes, i.e. larger formal units em- bracing several verses. The first to put forward a special strophe-theory was Fr. Köster in his article, “Die Strophen oder der Parallelismus der Verse der heb. Poesie,’ in SK, 1831, pp. 40–114. His example was widely followed, and, lºg before the stricter verse-theories were put forward, the division of the OT pº into strophes of lengths more or less equal or artistically interchanging was prosecuted as nothing short of a pastime. The results correspond exactly to those described above (pp. 6 and 7") in the case of verse-theories. The variety of conclusions and the contradictions between them are perhaps even greater in this instance than in tº. Here too in varying degrees may be seen mere strophic arrangement of the material received from tradition, alternat- ing with a re-shaping of the text based upon a settled theory; great irregularity alternating with the strictest attention to rule ; simplicity in the form obtained alternating with the extreme of artiſiciality; recognition of the parallel verse as the basis of the strophe alternating with accept- ance of the line as the fundamental unit, reach- ing even to the denying and destruction of the Yarallel verse, etc. At present, in addition to the |. leading upholders of different verse- theories, who also all put forward a special strophe- theory, the most prominent place is ...] b D. H. Müller, with a most ingeniously worked- out strophic system based upon three fundamental principles—the responsio, the concatchatio, and the inclusio.” In opposition to the line followed by him, a disposition at present prevails, following the lead of Bickell, Duhm, and others, to rest content, wherever possible, with the simplest strophic framework, consisting of four lines, equal to two verses each of two parallel members. That IIebrew poetry has a strophic arrangement is generally taken for granted as self-evident. The * Die Propheten in ihrer ursprünglichen I'orm, 2 vols., Wien, 1806, Strophombat und Responsion, Wien, 1898. Müller's system has been adopted and contributions made in support of it by F. Perles, Zur }. Strophēk, Wien, 1806, and J. K. Zenner, I)ic Chorgestinge in Buche der Psalmen, 2 parts, I'reiburg i. 13., 1890. '8 POETRY (HEBREW) POETRY (HEBREW) right to make this assumption is open, however, to serious question. It scarcely needs to be proved that there is such a thing as poetry that makes up verses but not strophes. But in this case the ſºlº of strophes is already satisfied before- hand. For the parallel verse is really a strophe, a higher unit produced by the union of smaller units, the lines. No metrical forms are shown by experience to resist more the reduction to a strophic formation than such double structures which have an inward completeness of their own. It may suffice to remind the reader of the two- membered alliterative verse of the Old German Joetry and the dactylic distich of the Greeks and Romans. Upon this ground one may not, indeed, be able to dispute the possibility of strophes of a higher order, but in all probability these will form the exception, and parallel verses without any further union will be the rule. Further, the strophe-theory finds, at all events, no support from tradition. In particular, the term nºb (appended 71 times in the Psalms and in Hab 3) cannot be urged in its favour. No significance attaches to the so-called alphabetical poems, a species of acrostics in which the letters N-n are made to succeed one another at the opening of sections of equal length. These prove, as was enphasized above (p. 4*), the presence of stichoi (in Pss 111, 112), but nothing more. If we can dis- tinguish the single stichos, we can also count, according to the length designed for the poem, two (Pss 25. 34. 145, Pr 3119-81) or four (Ps 9 f. 37) stichoi, and, if the kinah-measure is an established fact (cf. La 3, where each verse bears a letter, but each letter is repeated three times), we may include two (La 4} or three (La 1, 2) of these verses under a single letter. . At most it may be said that the verse as a unit is witnessed to when in Ps 119 the same letter commences eight successive verses of two lines each. But this is yet a long way from the same thing as a strophe of eight verses or sixteen lines.” It is generally left entirely out of sight that any new metrical unit must have a new formative medium. No one thinks of proving the existence of the latter. True, indeed, one framework of this kind is occasionally to be encountered in the OT, namely, the recurring verse or refrain. It must be admitted that this is in a high degree adapted to mark off strophes, especially when, as in Ps 42 f. (42° 1' 43°), at regular intervals it interrupts a sharply defined measure in the other verses by a different structure of verse. With always diminish- ing strength and innportance the refrain occurs, further, in Pss 80.46. 39. 57. 59.49. 99.56. 62, 67. But even if one were disposed to assume and carry through a fixed strophic structure in all these poems, upon the ground of the refrain, after all only about a dozen of the hundreds of Heb. poems would have been proved to be strophic, while the conclusion regarding the others must at best be to the effect that they are not constructed strophically. As a special basis for the division into strophes, it is the custom simply to fall back everywhere upon the contents. A metric strophe is supposed to coincide with a section constituted by the sense, the º being that the poet divided his material into sections whose length, in virtue of certain rules, showed a rhythmical correspondence with one another. This assumption, however, is * A device of a precisely similar kind has lately been shown to exist in the Bab.-Assyr. literature (ZA, x. 1 ff.). Every 11th time the same syllable stands at the commencement of a two- membered verse, and the initial syllables of 25 sections each of 11 verses forin a connected sentence. Yet Zimmern does not think of taking each of these long sections as a strophe, but concludes that every two verses make a strophe (of 4 lines), and that the 11th verse always stands by itself. It may be modestly asked whether each verse should not rather be taken by its M and the strophic structure given up. all the harder, since the contents have already done their part in the formation of the parallél verse. Not only so, but this very parallelism gives to Heb, poetry in general the in pression of aphor- isms linked together, and renders it extremely difficult for the poet to exhibit a finely-articulated strictly progressive development of thought. Still the º of the nearest and easiest approach to this may be conceded, namely, that a single repetition of the parallelism, ºinſ. two yel'SeS of two lines, might fall rhythmically upon the ear, and that at the same time an idea, seemed to exhaust itself in two parallel verses.” Deeper- reaching divisions of the sense could scarcely succeed in striking the ear as rhythmic units. On the other hand, it is equally true that the theory of strophes is not to be refuted by postu- lates; the evidence of facts must decide. But any one who has convinced himself from the literature of the subject what finely artificial structures, with ever new forms, have been successively roved to underlie the same poems, and after being ong forgotten have had their place taken by as artificial successors, will not waive his right to a radical scepticism on this subject. The charm of playing with numbers makes itself felt here al- most more strongly than in the instance of verse; and the results, the more artistically these work themselves out, as in recent times those of Müller and Zenner, make their impression much more, being carefully printed, upon the eye, than upon the ear. The following sentences may serve for guidance and caution in this spliere of inquiry. T (a) Under no conditions must the search for strophes lead to the abandonment of the certainly ascertained unit, the parallel verse, as has been frequently done (e.g. by Delitzsch, Merx, Diestel). Never must the end of a strophe break up a verse, and the verse, not the stichos, must remain the measure of the strophe. (3) A great risk incurred by the search for strophes is this, that in their favour the sense of a poem might be divided wrongly and thus the poem receive a wrong interpretation. The endeavour should be to get first at the sense and its pauses, and then to ask whether strophe-like forms are the result. (y) We must not obstinately persist in carry- ing through rigorously a division which upon the whole is uniform, such as that into four lines. The possibility is not absolutely excluded that it was considered legitimate to interrupt this uniformity occasionally by verses of two or of six lines. This practice is assumed by Zimmern for 13ab. poetry (cf. p. 7" footnote *), and, as another instance, it may be frequently noted in the Old Germ. poetry. Hence we must be cautious in the way of excis- ing or of adding lines and verses, upon the ground of the strophic measure. (6) Conversely, a succession of sections of the most varied extent are not to be called strophes, by a misapplication of a term which denotes a rhythmic whole. This practice has been frequently followed, and is so still.i. (e) We must not demand strophes everywhere, but must, in the first place, make a distinction according to the different species of poetry. That dance-songs such as are found in Canticles should be strophic is not indeed necessary, but is ex- tremely probable; that the Book of Job should ex- * Cf. the Otfried strophe of the Old High Germ. poetry, which consists of two rhyming couplets. # Cf. earlier statements of the present writer's views in ZATW, 1882, p. 49 ſſ., and Actes du sivième Congrès interma- tional des Orientalistes, Leyden, 1884, p. 93 f. f Thus C. A. Briggs (op. cit. p. 390) cites, as “a fine speci- men of Old Egypt, strophe-formation, a poem whose twent strophes exhibit the following number of lines: 12, 14, 8, 7, 13, 8, 9, 11, 9, 15, 14, 9, 10, 5, 11, 13, 10, 5, 10, 18. So we find strophes of from 5 to 18 lines ranged side by side l POETRY (HEBREW) POETRY (HEBREW) 9 *=- hibit strophes throughout is the unlikeliest thing in the world. Likewise the age of the poem must be taken into account ; strophes and a more regular structure of these will be looked for rather in later than in earlier times. (*) Above all, we may recognize in a regular interchange of the length of lines an indication pointing to strophe-formation, because we have here a new formative method. Hence it is no fortuitous circumstance that the kinah verse which is composed of unequal members lends itself with special readi- ness to strophe-like forms such as meet us in La 1. 2, 4 and Ps. 42 f. I’or here the equiponderance is restored by repetition of the unequal pairs. Upon the whole, in this matter too little will do less º than too much, and doubt will be more prudent than blind confidence, . Subordinate matters of form. – Rhyme, as well as the other things we have spoken of, has frequently been claimed as a medium enmployed in Heb, poetry.” The Heb. language has at its disposal a great number of Sonorous endings and flexional additions used to denote a particular grammatical or logical relation. These would supply quite extraordinary facilities for the em- jloyment of terminal rhyme for poetical purposes. § as is generally admitted, rhyme never became the prevailing medium of poetry. But it is self- evident that, where the same logical relations govern a series of lines, rhyme mºst come in with more or less regularity. As illustrations, Job 10°-18 (cited by Sommer) and Ps 6 (cited by Briggs) may serve, although in neither instance is the rhyme satisfactory throughout. Here and there the poet himself may have been conscious of it and thus indulged in a species of by-play; but in reality the occurrence of rhyme has scarcel any more significance than attaches to J. Chotzner's (PSBA, Jan. 8, 1884) collection from the OT of a whole series of the finest dactylic hexameters. In spite of these, one will hardly agree with Chotz- ner's conclusion that the Greeks borrowed the hexameter of the Homeric poems in Asia Minor from their Heb. slaves (JI 3°). Thus, then, textual alterations ought not to be º: in certain passages in order to make the rhyme frequently occurring in these perfectly uniform. Assomance and Paronomasia play a large and unquestionably a conscious rôle in the OT. But they belong to rhetorical, not to strictly poetical devices. All these phenomena receive exhaustive treatment in the Dissertation of I. M. Casanowicz, Paromomasia in the Old Test., Boston, 1894. That, finally, Hebrew, like other languages, has in a certain measure its peculiar poetical vocabu- lary and grammar is a matter of course, but can be simply mentioned here. ii. TIIE MATICRIAL OF HEBREW POETRY. —A. THE DII'INDIRENT SPECIES OF POETIRY. – In the literature of Israel the drama is wholly wanting. This peculiarity it shares with the whole Semitic literature, whereas in that of the Indo-Germanic peoples the drama three times over sprang up quite fresh and independent from the germ, namely on Indian, Greek, and German soil. This may perhaps be set down to a certain one-sidedness of disposition, a want of objectivity on the part of the Semites. The belief, to be sure, has often been cherished that precisely the OT itself forms an ex- ception to this rule, and that it contains two dramas, Canticles and Job. In the case of the former of these, this opinion is based upon a false conception of the i. which is rather a collec- tion of lyric (in fact, marriage) songs; + in the case * Cf., for early times, G. Sommer, Biblische Abhandlwingen, 1840, p. 85 ſº., and for modern, C. A. Briggs, op. cit. p. 373 ff. # Cf. the present writer's Commentary on Canticles in the Kurzer IIdconvin. z. A.T., xvii. (1808) p. xiiff. of the latter it is based upon a false definition of the drama.” It is only in chs. 3–41 that the Book of Job is disposed as a dialogue, and this disposi- tion it shares with the majority of Plato's philo- Sophical works, which no one thinks it necessary on that account to call dramas. Nay, the latter from beginning to end follow the method of dialogue, whereas in Job the whole action, from which the drama takes its name, is given in narrative form in chs. l. 2.42.f Further, L. Diestel (art. ‘Dichtkunst’ in Schen- kel's Bibel-Leagicom, i. [1869] p. 609) denies that anywhere in Semitic literature can the epos be found any more than the drama. This has since been shown to be incorrect, as on Bab.-Assyrian soil quite an extensive epic literature, whose con- tents are mythological, has been found composed in poetic form. . But for Heb. poetry, so far as this is represented in the OT, Diestel’s contention re- mains true. The OT enshrines a small number of historical poems or fragments of such — it may suffice to name the Song of Deborah in Jg 5– but this is lyric, not epic, poetry. Pss 105–107 are quite secondary productions, versification of the ancient popular history for liturgical purposes; they are litanies, not epics. The Jewish works of fiction of later times, the Books of Ruth, Jonah, Esther, Dn 1–6+ are wholly in prose. The strongest evidence is furnished by the narrative proper in the Book of Job, the so-called prologue and epilogue in chs. 1, 2, 42. Although it is practically certain that these were borrowed from the mouth of the people, § and are thus no secondary work, but an original one composed in the form current among the people for such subjects, these passages are Written in prose, although this is unusually lofty or, if one will, has the breath of poetry. They share also with other narrative passages the char- acteristic that the direct speech of the parties acting occasionally reaches at the most critical points poetic expression (Job lº', cf. elsewhere, Gn 9” 216b. 7,258 2747-40, 80ſ, Jg 1516). It is difficult to regard these intermingled lines of verse as the last remnants of an originally poetic composition. We may rather find here an indication that poetry had with the Hebrews a wholly subjective, i.e. lyric, tinge, but that it was not in use for objective epic description. We must reckon with this fact, without being able to offer any sufficient explana- tion of it. Perhaps, however, in this matter the common Semitic tendency is upon the side of the Hebrews, the exceptional dº. upon that of the Babylonians and Assyrians,] Such we consider to be the state of the case, and C. A. Briggs alone appears to come to a different conclusion. But even when he represents Jotham's fable (Jg 9**)—to take the most extensive illustra- tion—as written in metre (see his metrical division of it, op. cit. p. 416 f.), this does not go essentially beyond what was said above. For here we have direct address and at least gnomic !. even if it is written in prose. But when the two Creation * Cf. the present writer's Commontary on Job in Nowarlº's IIandkomºn. ii. 1 (1896), p. vif, J. Ley's rejoinder (Newe Jahrb, f, das klass. Altertwm, etc., Leipzig, Teubner, Jahrg. 1809, ii. Abth. p. 295 ft.) only shows that he has not # apprehended the point on which we are at issue. f The above remarks are not of course meant to exclude the recognition of a dramatic element in many passages in the OT, including even the Blc. of Job. The present writer could assent to the remark of C. A. Briggs (op. cit, p. 419), ‘the dramatic element is quite strong in liebrew poetry,' but not to the head- ing “Dramatic Poetry,’ nor to the statement (p. 420) that the dramatic element reaches its climax in the Song of Songs. ; Cf. above, p. 3b. § Cf. Budde, Comm. p. vii f. | So also Grinnme, ZDMG, 1897, p. 684. * Parallelism proper is wanting, it is simply the rhetorical construction, with fourfold repetition of the same scene (cf. such a passage as Job 118-19) that gives the appearance of rhythm. The alterations made by Briggs on v.15 are warranted, however, even without a metrical Scheme, only we must read Nyn) and 1() POETRY (HEBREW) POETRY (HEBREW) * *-* nariatives (P’s in Gn 1 and J’s in 24–4), as well as the two forms of the story of the Flood (Gn 6–8), are declared to be poetical passages, metrically composed (Briggs, op. cit. p. 559 f.), this gives rise to a new, otherwise unheard of, state of things. . Before any examination of these passages, the objection lies to hand that one cannot See why then Gn 9 and 11” are not to be regarded as poetical, and, most pertinently of all, ch. 5, the Sethite table which forms the transition to the story of the Flood. But when one looks more closely at the passages in question, it becomes plain that the whole doctrine of the form of Heb. poetry, as explained above, must be radically transformed before these narratives can be forced into metrical forms. We find then dominated neither by stichical division nor by parallelism. Nothing is proved by the circumstance that here and there the tone of the language rises and takes a certain poetical flight, or that There and there a few lines are capable of scansion, or that the re- lation between certain clauses mav claim the name of parallelism. In reality the primitive history of both sources (P and J) is, so far as the form is con- cerned, not otherwise constructed than the follow- ing history of the patriarchs, etc., and is trans- mitted to us as history, not poetry, }. as strictly as that is.” The conclusion, then, holds that the poetically º epos as well as the drama is wanting in Hebrew literature. Accordingly, only one of the leading varieties of poetry, the earliest and the simplest of them, was cultivated in Israel, namely the lyric. At the same time it must not be forgotten that a secondary variety of this, namely gnomic poetry, which we might call ‘thought-lyric,’ likewise attained to a rich development. B. THE EMPLOYMENT OF POETRY. —For the sake of brevity, we shall seek here to combine as far as possible a sketch of the history of OT Yoetry º a schematic survey of the poems that º come down to us. Only the folk-poetry of early times needs to be handled in any detail ; the other survivals of Heb. poetry will be found treated of in this Dictionary in separate articles. 1. Folk-Poetry.—This is everywhere the oldest form of poetry. Poetry as an art never makes its appearance till later epochs. The saying of J. G. Hamann (1730–1788), “Poetry is the mother-tongue of the human race,’ which was more fully explained and established by his pupil J. G. Herder (1744– 1803), and has in recent times been emphatically asserted especially by Ed. Reuss (cf. Herzog's RJ!” v. [1879]. p. 671 f.), finds everywhere its complete justification. Poetry is in point of fact older than prose; all the most ancient utterances of different nations are couched in poetry, One may lay down the rule : in the case of a primitive people all dis- course that is intended for publicity or for memorial urposes will be found clothed in a poetical form. {{. these two categories belongs everything of a re- ligious character, and it must be borne in mind that in the life of ancient peoples much that appears to us secular bears the stamp of religion. In this way poetry has its liome in Israel as else- where :— (a) In family life.—What specially come into view here are the wedding-song and the lament for the dead. Of the former of these we possess a whole collection of fine specimens, which, thanks to *:Nm and there came out fire and devoured.’ By the way, a mistaken exegesis, found their way into the Canon of the Sacred Writings, in the book which is called in Hebrew Dºn'N'I. Tº and, in English, Canticles or the Song of Solomon. Though these songs are of late origin, yet they will have preserved, as genuine folk-songs, the quality of early times with essential fidelity.” A contrafactum + of the wedding-song of older days is exhibited by the prophet lsaiah at the beginning of his Parable of the Vineyard (5*). —Of the lament for the dead we possess only contrafacta, applied to historical persons and per- sonifications, filst in the mouth of the prophets and then in the Book of Lamentations (chs. 1–4). See fuller details on this point above, i. B 2 d, p. 5. In the case of lamentations for the dead, women alone were the composers and the performers (nºpm, npaſ, Jer 9"), who sought to increase their collection of dirges and handed down their art by instruction (v.”). At weddings, on the other hand, young men and young women seem to have contended for the pre-eminence. From the official lament we ought certainly to distinguish exceptional cases when an accomplished friend might dedicate a eulogy to the dead, such as has come down to us in David’s fine lament for Saul and Jonathan (2 S l”), and in a lanent for Abner of which at least a few lines have survived (2 S 39*). Whether it was the custom to use songs to celebrate other important events and festivals in the family life, such, for instance, as weaning (cf. Gn 21°) and circumcision, we have no means of determining. (b) In the life of the community.—That even the industrial life of the Israelitish farmer and nomad was interpenetrated with song we may assume without further question. Examples are thinly scattered. From the earliest times we have the Song of the Well (Nu 21.7%).S From the life of the agriculturist Is 65° has preserved some words of a vintage blessing. Harvest songs, too, may be taken for granted, in view of the harvest feasts and the proverbial joy of harvest (Is 9°), and per- haps the feast of sheep-shearing (1 S 25", 2 S 13-ºlſ) had also its s . songs. If our interpreta- tion of the difficult text. Jg 5* is correct, the rehearsal of songs is presuposed even there as Yart of the shepherd’s life. People did not like to e made ‘the subject of verse' (ºp, cf. Is 14", Mic 2", Hab 2") or ‘of music' (nyl, cf. Là, 34, Job 30°, Ps 69*). Hence the “taunt-song’ must have been much in vogue. Even for early times its use is not to be denied, while for a later period a short specimen of quite a unique kind has been preserved in the song upon the forgotten courtezan, Is 231°, which sounds as if it belonged to the category of drinking-songs mentioned in Ps 69*, but presupposed also in Am 6” and 2 S 19”. At least no banquet proper (Tºp, avutróatov) can well have been with- out music, including songs. It is not necessary to suppose, indeed, that on such occasions only pro- nounced drinking-songs were sung ; rather will the want have frequently been met in early times by national songs. A special class of composers and singers, whose services were called into requisi- tion on such occasions, is named in Nu 21” (Dºn). By this Hebrew name we are to understand a guild of ‘travelling singers,’ rhapsodists such as flourished in ancient Greece and on German soil, who not only had a rich repository of national saga and heroic poems, but also treated their * Cf. Budde, ‘Das Hohelied' in Kurzer IIdcomm. # This is the name applied to the church songs of the close of the Middle Ages, which were composed in imitation of the measure, melody, and words of familiar secular songs. t Cf. the description, for modern Syria, by Wetzstein (Zt Schr. f. Jºthnol., 1873, p. 287 ff.). § For evidence that this is not a properly historical poem, but a song such as it was customary to sing at the discovery of new springs in the desert, as well as for an attempt to Grimme (ZI)MG, 1897, p. 512), too, represents Jotham's fable as written in verse, although he gives a somewhat different arrangement of it. * It appears to us that Briggs is in general inclined to draw too lightly the boundaries of poetical form, confusing, as he does, rhetorical and metrical forms. This remark applies also very specially to many NT passages to which he gives a metrical arrangenient. restore its original form, see Budde in The New World, 1895 p. 130 f. POETRY (HEBREW) POETRY (HEBREW) 11 sº--— audience to songs of a more or less wanton or frivolous character. At the royal court “singin men and singing women’ are taken for grantec as part of the regular personnel (2 S, 19°). To the category under consideration belongs also the single certain ancient trace of gnomic poetry which has come down to us, namely Samson's riddle (Jg 14"), along with its solution, and Samson's reply in v.”. Such displays of wit may have been much in vogue as ‘social games’ at merrymakings. That, along with these, proverbs and wise saws also had wide currency among the people we may take for granted. o doubt the tollection of these in the Book of Proverus dates from later times, but all the same this may em- body very ancient material, altered or not, as the case may be. The oracle, which under the title of ‘ Phe las', words of David’ interrupts the context in ŽS 23'-º', must have a late date assigned to it; the saying of Jahweh about Moses in Nu 12" appears to have been before the mind's eye of the writer. Another example of the same species is found in the words of Samuel in 1 S. 15” It must be added that all three of the last cited passages tend to pass over into the following divisions—the religious, the national, and the prophetical. (c) In the religious life.—In the first place it is extremely probable that the ancient priestly oracle, where it did not simply, by the casting of the lot, give the answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the question put, was couched in verse. A classical example is furnished by Gn 25*, an oracle, indeed, which belongs at the same time to our next division. Likewise for the cultus, proper we have examples that are both ancient and certain. These are, in the first place, the Aaronic blºssing (Nu 6*), then the formulae promownced at the taking up and the setting down of the ark of J" (Nu 10*),” and finally Solomon's words in dedicating the temple (1 K8%), which must be supplemented and restored after the LXX (8”). How far the religious service, *.e. in particular the sacrificial actions, was even in ancient times embellished by special songs, cannot now be determined. All that have come down to us emanate exclusively from the temple at Jerusalem in post-exilic times, as far at least as the form in which they now lie before us is con- cerned. But as surely as the religious gatherings were joyous feasts (l)t 127. " "), with equal cer- tainty may we conclude that even in early times music and poetry must have assumed their rôle at these, whenever any sanctuary obtained a name and a brilliant equipment, and considerable bodies of worshippers came together. • . (d) In }. mational life.—Here we may distin- guish the state of rest on the one side, and of activity, i.e. war, on the other. To the first category belong the extremely numerous eulogistic and demºtnciatory sayings in which a people cele- brates its own qualities and its superiority to other peoples; or sepal ate divisions or groups of a people may express their own distinctive character- istics. This species of poetry is extraordinaril widespread and everywhere highly developed, but most of all amongst Israel’s relations, the ancient Arabs. It may exhibit all degrees, from empty unmeaning braggadocio up to the finest and loftiest poetical utterance. In the OT it begins with the boastful song of Jamech (Gn 4*), which occurs in the primitive genealogical table inherited from the ICenites ("p), and is a genuine type of the original form of this species as found in the mouth of a small tribe. Then come the sayings of Noah (Gn 9”), in which Israel (DE) maintains its prestige over against the wealthy l’hoenician (n5) and the slave Canaan (lyin). Here for the first * Cf. further, Actes du divième Congrès de Orientalistes, iii. (Leyden, 1890), p. 18 ft. § • * *=ºs time this species, clothes itself in the form of the ‘blessing,’ in which, suitably to the quality of our sources, which look at everything from the re ligious view-point, it meets us in by far the majority of instances. The characteristic of his half-brother Ishmael is defined by Israel in the words put into the mouth of Jahweh in Gn 1611", which can hardly have retained their original form. So Israel states his relation to his twin brother Edom in the oracle of Gn 25*, and separ- ately for each in the double blessing of 27°7* and v.*, very much, of course, to the prejudice of the brother. The more extensive oracles of Balaam (Nu 237-19. 18-4 24”-0. 13-4), which show indications that they have undergone several expansions, make glorious promises to Israel, in Contrast to Moab, and even, further, to other nations. Dut this species shows its finest development in the two poems in which each of the tribes of Israel has its dignity and its special quality assigned to it in relation to the other tribes, namely the Blessing of Jacob (Gn 49) and the Blessing of Moses (Dt 33). It is by no accident that these two oracles have been put into the mouth of these two particular men, for Jacob is the fleshly and Moses the spiritual father of Israel, and they alone can pass judgment upon all their sons. The 131essing of \!. presupposes the 131essing of Jacob, and on the basis of the altered relations brought about by time (perhaps in the first half of the 8th cent.) gives it a new form. Thus, then, from the two sources, J and E, the older and the younger compositions are taken over. The older, the Blessing of Jacob, may have been compiled from separate sayings that were current about the different tribes. The self-consciousness of the tribe in which the finished poem took its rise, namely Judall, at last gave the general tone to the whole. Numerous sayings of the same kind, characterizing towns and hamlets, meadows, and clans, must have been current. A relic of these has survived in the now sorely muti- lated saying about the city of Abel-beth-maa.call, 2 S 2018ſ. The principal specimen of the real historical folk-song is the fine Song of Deborah, Jg 5. This attaches itself closely, at the same time, to the preceding species, being as it is a poem in which praise and blame are distributed, from v.” on- wards. First of all, praise is given to Deborah, who by her recruiting-song has called to the battle, and then to Barak as the commander (v.”). This is followed by an enumeration of the tribes who put in an appearance (vy.”), with censure and ridicule of those who kept at a distance (vy.”7). Next a tribute is paid to the valour of the tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali (v.”), the city of Meroz is cursed (v.”), while to the Renite woman Jael is awarded the palm for the greatest deed of personal heroism (v.”). We have here, at least from v." onwards, the primitive mode of a song that grew up in the life of the nation as a whole. We are directly reminded of the distribu- tion of the rewards of victory after the battles of Plataea and Mykale. Of other war-songs we possess only fragments (Nu 21****, Jos 101*) or very brief extracts º into a single verse, such as the Song at the I’assage of the Red Sea (Ex 15*), and that which was sung in honour of Saul and David when they defeated the I’hilis- times (1 S 18"). Similarly, the substance of a song of triumph over Samson is put into the mouth of the l’hilistines in Jg 16*. On the other hand, it is clear that the Song contained in E., 15'-8" is a late composition in Psalm style, expanded from the short v.” and really meant to take the place of this ; and in like manner David's 㺠song in 2 S 22 = l’s 18 is a late insertion. t As a feature of the real life of ancient times it is 12 POETRY (HEDREW) POETRY (HEBREW) to be noted that in Ex 15* as well as in 1 S 1801, it is the women, or rather the maidens, who meet the 1eturning warriors with sºs, and the same custom is presupposed in Jg ll”, in the story of Jephthall. Among the Arabs at the present day a victory is still followed by a sword - dance, per- formed by a maiden to the accompaniment of a Song. It is an extremely important circumstance that Nu 21", according to the note wherewith it is introduced, is derived from nin' monºp hºp, the Book of the Wars of Jahweh, i.e. of the wars of Israel, which, as such, are the wars of Israel's God (cf. 1 S 25*). We have thus to do here with a collection of ancient war-songs which already lay before the ancient historian as a source, and thus to a cer- tainty mark the beginning of writing amongst the Hebrews. Side by side with this source we read in Jos 101* of a nºn TBD or Book of the Upright, from which v.”* is said to be cited. From it, according to 2 S 11°, is cited also David’s lament for Sauf and Jonathºn, no less than Solomon's words in dedicating the Temple, according to the LXX of 1 K 8*, where év 348Nig rijs Göfs =ºn ºppi, and the last Heb. word is doubtless corrupted from *Wºn. Here, then, we have to do with an ancient song-book, which contained more than war-songs, and whose composition, or at least completion, must be brought down as far as the time of Solo- mon. We have no room to complain that more of the contents of these two books have not come down to us, when we consider that Charlemagne's collection of Old German songs has been com- pletely lost. 2. The Poetry of the Prophets.--That the pro- phets availed themselves of poetical composition is self-evident from the first. I'or their utterances were intended for publicity, and, as time went on, more and more for being treasured in the memory, while at the same time the prophetic movement grew out of the popular soil, which was com- º saturated with poetry.” The prophets lave accordingly not suffered to escape their notice any of the manifold forms of poetry that unfolded themselves in the midst of the people. At the same time, thanks to the great variety of entrances upon the scene made by the writing prophets of whose literary activity more extensive remains have come down to us, we must, even in the matter of poetical form, distinguish a number of possibilities which show a marked divergence from one another. (a) The prophet may adopt the poetical forms current in other social circles, and come forward himself as a poet, thus playing a strange part, as in the extremely frequent prophetical laments (cf. above, i. B., d), or the isolated marriage-song, Is 5* (cf. above, ii. B, a). But, even apart from these special cases, later prophecy has a special fondness for interrupting a prophetical address by songs, whether these are sung by the prophet himself, as happens with special frequency in Deutero-Isaiah, or are put into the mouth of other persons, as happens repeatedly in Is 24–27, and as has been done by a redactor in Is 12. In all these instances the language necessarily follows the laws of strictly poeticaſ composition, because it attaches itself to fixed forms taken as a model. (b) The prophet may communicate Divine oracles, which he }. himself received. Here again strict, measured form is natural. (c) The prophet may speak in his own name, taking for §. and expanding, Divine oracles. Betwixt these last two possibilities the great mass of prophetical passages continually oscillates; and * Cf., for the origin of earlier and later prophecy, the present writer's American Lectures, The Iteligion of Israel to the Easile, New York wild London, Putnam, 1890, Lect. iii, and iv. -- - A- -us transition cases occur, in which it is impossible to draw the boundaries sharply. (d) The prophet may himself tell of his entrance upon office and what happened in connexion with it, such as the conversations he held. To this category belong, for instance, the accounts of visions such as we have in Am 7 ff., the appear- ances beheld by an Ezekiel or a Zechariah, etc., but no less the experiences of Hosea (chs, 1–3), not to speak of the little Book of Isaiah, whose kernel is the story of the prophet's meeting with king Ahaz (.9) and some things related of Jeremiah (e.g. 18"). (e) Another author may tell about the prophet in such a way that the latter becomes the hero of the story. In such instances it is relatively indifferent if occasionally it is the prophet who speaks of him- self in the third person, but this is scarcely a likely contingency. To this last category belong Am 7”, Is 20, and in a much less degree chs. 36–39, but, above all, large sections of the Book of Jeremiah, particularly from ch. 26 onwards, if these inst. named sections at last expand into a life of Jere- miah, nay, into a history of his times, if Is 36–39 was mainly taken from a popular work of history and appended to the older Book of Isaiah, it is evident that we have now reached the sphere of prose pure and simple. But even in these sections there are prophetical discourses which by a stretch mº be said to lead us back to the realm of poetry. Besides, personal endowments must be taken into account. One might have the full conscious- ness of a call to the prophetic office and yet be no born lº. Then it might happen that at one time the prophet would put on the unwonted poetic harness and go earnestly to work for a while, only to relapse presently into heedlessness, while at another time he would disdain to use it at all and would employ prose. Something of this kind may be observed, for instance, in Ezekiel. Under such conditions the literary form in the prophetic writings continually vacillates to and fro, and we meet also with transition forms betwixt prose and poetry, which it is difficult to class with certainty. The possibility of a careless treatment of poetical rules, giving rise to an imperfect type or mixed speçies of discourse, is open to Hebrew as well as to any other language, nay, it lies nearer to hand in it than in many other languages. The stichic structure only needs to be neglected for the discourse to flow on with tolerable freedom from restraint, while the parallelism is retained as far as possible and by its peculiar undulating progress always makes itself felt. Grimme (ZDMG, 1897, p. 683 f.) is wrong, then, when he rejects in toto the idea of a “rhythmic prose’; the dilemma by which he attempts a reductio ad absurdum of it is not cogent for those who do not accept his system. His argument fails in particular to do justice to the parallelism of the thought. For an analogy to the above-named mixed species, we may compare our own doggerel verse or rhymed TOSC. p For the prophetical books, then, a sliding scale must be adopted, with many indefinable transi- tions. The poeticăl form will be most strictly observed in the cases described above under (a) and, a little less, (b); the prophet himself will move with more freedom in those included under (c); the instance cited under (d) will give ample scope for the intermixture of prose ; finally, in the last case prose will be the form started with, which will only occasionally make way for poetry. Details would be out of º here. 3. Artistic Poetry.—To this category belong in a certain sense the whole of the poetical books, for these were all either composed or collected in full view and with clear consciousness of their artistic POETRY (HEBREW) POISON 13 form. This took place, without exception, in later post-exilic times. But at the same time there is scarcely one of them which had not its roots in the ancient º Along with lyric poetry, the nome and the Wisdom literature occupy the orefront in this arena. (a) Lyric Poetry.—(1) The Song of Songs.--This belongs, as was pointed out above (p.10), wholly to the realm of folk - poetry. It is a collection of pºpulº wedding - songs, belonging to a late period. But it owed its retention in the Canon simply to the circumstance that it was taken to be an extremely ingenious allegorical poem with a religious meaning, and that its author was assumed to be Solomon. It is not an impos- sible suggestion that, because of this conception, the book underwent here and there editorial re. vision.” See, further, art. SONG OF SONGS. (2) The Book of Lamentations.—Here, truly, poetry as an art rules, till artificiality is reached in the alphabetic arrangement. But this art is based on the employment by the prophets of the popular lament for the dead, and is an imitation of the latter. A higher degree of art than that found in chs. 1. 2. 4 is present in ch. 3, which is meant to be, as it were, a central peak between the other chapters; ch. 5, again, is popular, and alien in subject and form from the rest. See, further, art. LAMENTATIONS. (3) The Psalms.-In this collection we have to recognize the Temple hymn-book of the post-exilic community, the religious lyric with artistic de- velopment. Only in a single instance has a secular song strayed into this company, namely Ps 45, also a wedding-song, but one of quite an artificial character. More frequent is gnomic poetry, although with a decidedly religious application; cf. e.g. Ps 1. But even here the º basis is not wanting. In its purest form this meets us in the collection, known as the Pilgrim Songs, Pss 120–137. Psalms outside the collection proper are found in Hab 3, which exhibits the same 'id of titles and technical terms as meet us in the Psalms; in 2 S 22=Ps 18; in 1 S 21-19 wrongly put in the mouth of Hannah ; further, suitable to the situa- tion are Ex 15” (cf. above); the Song of Moses, Dt 32; Is 12. Perhaps also Nah l was originally an alphabetical psalm (see art. NAHUM for a de- fence of this view). In the so-called Psalms of Solomon (which see) there has come down to us, although only in the Greek language, another small collection of psalms from the 1st cent, B.C. The title ‘ Psalms of Solomon’ expresses nothing more than that they are secondary, as compared with the canonical Psalms, which as a whole are attributed by tradition to David. On the titles found in the Book of Psalms see art. PSALMS, p. 153 fl. (b) The Wisdo.º. Literature.—(1) The Book of Proverbs unites in itself gnomic poetry of the most diverse kinds and with the most varying degrees of development. The basis and the kernel (chs. 10– 227, also chs. 25–29) are supplied by the two-line máshál, which in form and contents is certainly the oldest structure of this species, and in its origin is distinctly popular. To this were appended, towards the end, more elaborate species, apoph- thegns expressed at greater length, enigmatical and numerical sayings, and finally (31*) an alphabetical eulogy of the virtuous woman. At the beginning of the book (chs, 1–9), we have a connected series of pasdagogical - philosophical didactic discourses, in which Wisdom and Rolly |. are introduced. For details see art. *ROVERBS. (2) The Book of Job is based upon a popular * Cf. the present writer's Comm., p. xx f. # Cf. I(wrzer IIdconnan. dramatic performance (cf. above, any doubt, the Book of Job is the highest product story, and gives to the problem raised in this a new turn which it carries artistically through the conversations of chs. 3–42%. The form adopted is essentially the same as is found in Prl–9, but the poet has succeeded in giving to this a lyric move. ment throughout, and has even cast the different speakers in so plastic a mould and kept them so well apart as to give rise to the appearance of a . 9). Beyond of the poet's art to be found in the OT. It brings to a focus, as it were, all that Heb. poetry could contribute, and stands out as one of the noblest poetical compositions of any age, or any people. See, further, art. JOB. (3), Qoheleth.--This book takes its place as a counterpart to Prl–9, as a philosophical didactic |poem, but has an essentially different point of view. Belonging to a very late period, it does not stand high poetically ; both language and verse- structure leave much to be desired, See, further, ECCLESIASTES. (4) To the same species belongs the Book of Sirach. This is probably older than Qoheleth, it stands higher as regards language and form ; from the religious standpoint it is more valuable, if less original in its views. It concerns us here because recently a considerable part of its contents has been recovered in the original Hebrew (see SIRACH). With this book we may bring our survey to a close. R. BUDDE. POISON (non håmåh, 5 times, Dt 3224.39, Job 6", Ps 58° 140°; JN-1 rā'sh, in Job 2010 ; LXX 9pp.6s except in Ps 140°, where it is lºs as in NT; Vulg. indignatio Job 6", caput Job 201", furor Dt 32%, Ps 58%, venenum Dt 32°, Ps 140°, Ro 31°, Ja 38). — The commonest signification of Jºãmâh is fury ol the heat of anger, in which sense it occurs over 100 times in the OT. In some of these passages the ideas of anger and of poison are united, as in Is 51****, where the cup of God’s wrath is spoken of ; see also Job 21”, Jer 25”, etc. Luther trans- lates “fervent lips’ of Pr26* by giftiger Mund. The Greek Woºl 6v1,6s likewise primarily means that part of human nature which is affected with passion or anger. The Hebrew idea is therefore that poison is a substance which causes fatal heat and irritation, and in nearly every instance in the OT the material referred to is the venom of ser- pents or scorpions; see Dt 32**, Job 6' 20", Ps 58° 140°, and in the NT Ito 3!”. l Six species of poisonous snakes occur in Pales. tine, Vipera Euphratica, V. Ammot/ytes, Daboia, acanthima, Echis arenicola, Naja IIaje, the hooded colora common in the southern border countries, but not often found in the cultivated tracts; and Cerasies Hasselpuistii, the horned viper, very common, and often found lurking in hollows of the ground. Tristram has seen it in the imprints made on soft ground by camels. The Israelites were therefore well acquainted with the effects of poisonous wounds inflicted by these, as well as by the scarcely less dreaded centipedes and scorpions. In Egypt poison was likewise chiefly associated with serpent bites. In the Book of the Dead (c. 149, l. 27 ff.) the lº of the serpent Rtwk is called shinnt, which comes from a root which also means to be hot, or to produce fever. The natives of the neighbouring countries had, like most races of savage or semi-civilized man, learned to utilize this poison to render their darts and arrows more destructive. This was an ancient practice (cf. , Odyssey, , i. 20 l ; Soph. Trºtchinia, 574), and it is referred to in Job 6". This usage has shown itself in the change of meaning in the word roštrós, possibly also in that of iós, although it is now generally held that in its Homeric sense 14 POLE POMEGRANATE as an arrow it is connected with the Sanskrit ishus, while in its Sophoclean sense as a poison, ‘etra pouvlas €x0pås éxlövms lós,’ it is related to the Sanskrit vishas. - . The poison of insect bites is mentioned directly in Wis 16” and implicitly in other passages. The word rô’sh occurs ll times, but is usually trans- lated “gall’ (‘ venom' in Dt 32*, ‘poison’ in Job 20”, “hemlock’ in Hos 10'). It was most probably a poisonous plant, and one which communicates its bitterness and poisonous properties to water (Jer 8* 9"); but in the absence of more definite information it is not easily identified. Perhaps the poppy is the plant indicated (see GALL in vol. ii. 104), but the º of gall of Dt 32” are most probably the fruit of Calotropis procera. Metaphorically, the influence of evil speech is said to be the deadly poison of that unruly evil, the tongue, Ja 3°. The forked tongue of the snake was believed to be the darter of its venom before the structure of the poison fangs was known ; cf. Job 20" ‘he shall suck the poison of asps, the viper's tongue shall slay him.’ The administration of poison internally for suicidal or homicidal purposes is not mentioned in NT or OT. In 2 Mac 10” there is, however, one instance given—that of the suicide of Ptolem Macron. Poisoning and sorcery were, as they º are in savage and semi-Savage countries, closely connected in ancient times and in the NT. Sor- cerers are called pappakot, as in LXX Ex 7” 9” 228 and eight other passages, as well as in IRev 21° 22"; and sorcery is papuakla in Gal 5”. Sorcery in the OT is, however, more directly connected with incantation, as implied by its root Tº. See MAGIC, vol. iii. p. 210. Josephus (Amt. XVII. iv. 1), in describing the death of Pheroras, says that the Arabian women were skilful in compounding poisons; but the art of poisoning was in ancient times much more commonly employed among Indo- European than among Semitic peoples. In the appendix to St. Mark’s Gospel (1618) one of the promises made to ‘those that believe,” is that if they drink any deadly thing (0avágudu ri), it.shall not hurt them—a promise which, accord- ing to Papias (ap. Eus. HE iii. 39), was fulfilled in the case of Joseph Barsabbas. The word ‘poison’ in English is borrowed from the French poison, which originally meant a potion or remedy. In the Itoman de la Rose, l. 2043, it is thus used— "Carge Sais par quel poison Tu Seras tret à garison’; but from the 13th cent. it has been used in English in the sense of a deadly drug. See the passage in Langtoft's Chronicle, where he 㺠the administration of ‘puson’ to Ambrosius. This, though written in a sort of French, is the work of an Englishman ; see also Britton, ed. Nichols, i. 34, where the word is spelled “poysoun.’ For notes on the history of poisons in ancient times see Schulze, Diss. Sistens toacicologiam veterum #: vemenatas describentem veteribus cognitas, alae, 1788. A. MACALISTER. POLE.-The brazen serpent was displayed upon a pole (Nu 218. " AV, the only occurrence of the word “pole' in the Bible). The Heb. is DJ (IXX a muetov), which appears to mean primarily “a flag- staff,” and is used in a transferred sense for the banner itself. RW tr. ‘standard.’ See, further, art. BANNER. POLL.—The poll (of Teut. origin, Scotch pow) is the head, especially its rounded back part. Thus Shaks. Hamlet, IV. v. 196—“All flaxen was his poll '; and Bacon, Essays, p. 122, ‘Not the hundred poll will be fit for an helmet.” The word is thence used in very early English for the person, as Piers Plowman, %. xi. 57, ‘Pol bi pol’= individually. A ºº:: is a tax on each person, and a poll or polling is a census or record of persons. The subst, is used in AV only in the phrase ‘by the poll” (Nu 3") or by their polls’ (Nu 1* +**, 1 Ch 23* *). Cf. Shaks. Coriol. III. iii. 9– “Have you a catalogue Of all the voices that we have procured Set down by the poll ?” The Heb. word is always nº gulgoleth, which in the places where it is rendered ‘poll' as well as in Ex 16” (AV ‘for every man,’ AVm ‘by the poll or head,” RV ‘a lead ') and 38” (AW ‘A belcah for every man,’ AVm ‘a poll,’ RV ‘a head') means the head or the person in counting, taxing, etc., but elsewhere means the head as severed from the body (2 K 9°, 1 Ch 1019), or the skull as broken with a stone (Jg 0°). The idea in the Heb. word as in the Eng. is rowndness.” To ‘poll the head’ is to make it look more rounded by cutting off the hair. The expression occurs in 2 S 14* (Heb. [nº)] in Piel, usually tr. ‘to shave ') and Ezk 44" (Heb. Dp?, its only occur- rence); and ‘to poll' by itself in Mic 118 Make thee bald and dº thee for thy delicate children’ (Heb. II, usually to ‘shear’). Cf. Wyclif's (1388) tr. of Job 14" “Thanne Joob roos, and to-rente his clothis, and with pollid heed he felde doun on the erthe'; and 1 Co 11” (1380), ‘Forsoth ech womman § OT F.'"; the heed not hilid, lefoulith hir heed ; forsoth it is oon, as yif sche be maad ballid, pollid, or clippid.” In Jer 999 25° 49* RV changes ‘that are in the utmost corners’ into ‘that have the corners of their hair polled, in accordance with AVn. See HAIR, vol. ii. p. 284". J. HASTINGS. POLLUTION.—See PURIFICATION. POLLUX.—See DIOSCURI. POLYGAMY.—See MARIRIAGE. POLYTHEISM.—See GOD, and IDOLATRY. POMEGRANATE (ºn rimmón, póa, granatum). —There can be no doubt of the identity of this tree. Its Arab. name, rumºmán, is plainly of the same origin. Its botanical name is Punica Gramatum, L., of the order Gramatea. It is 10–15 feet high, with oblong lanceolate deciduous leaves, a woody- leathery top-shaped calyx, five to seven Scarlet petals, very numerous stamens in several rows, and an ovary with two tiers of cells, three in the lower and five in the upper tier. The fruit is apple- shaped, crowned by the lobes of the woody calyx, yellowish or brownish, with a blush of red, and contains very numerous angular seeds, surrounded by a juicy pulp. It grows wild in N. Syria and possibly in Gilead. The fruit is of two varieties, the sweet and the acid. The pomegranate is repeatedly mentioned in the lºoran as one of the trees of Paradise. It is constantly alluded to in Arab storics. The Scripture allusions to the pomegranate are also frequent. The spies brought pomegramates (Nu 13”). The Israelites in the wilderness of Zin (Nu 20°) lamented the ponegranates of Egypt, along with its ſigs and vines. Moses, in recounting the good things of Canaan, did not forget them (Dt 8°). Saul abode under a pomegranate tree (1 S 14*). Solomon compares the temples of his bride to a piece of the fruit (Ca, 4”), ...} her whole person to an orchard of them (v.”). The beautiful * This perhaps explains the name GoLGoTIIA, ‘the place of a skull,' Mt. 2738, Mk 1522, Llº 2393 (RV), Jn 1917. POMMEL PONTUS 15. flower is alluded to (6* 7”), and the juice or wine as a beverage (8%). The withering or barrenness of this tree was a sign of desolation (Jl 1*, Hag 21"). The fruit was embroidered (Ex 28°), and sculptured (1 K 7”, etc.). It was also sculptured on the Egyptian monuments. It is mentioned in Sir 45°. Numerous places were named from this tree, as Rimmon (Jos 15*), Gath-rimmon (21*), En-rimmon (Neh 11”). The pomegranate is as extensively cultivated and as ; prized now as in ancient times. The beautifully striped pink and crystal grains are shelled out, and brought to table on plates. The acid sort is served with sugar. Rose-water is sometimes sprinkled over the grains. The juice of the acid sort is sweetened as a beverage, and also used in salads. The rind is used in tanning. It is also a powerful anthel- mintic, principally against the tape-worm. . A l; nife used in cutting the rind turns black, as does tulso the section of the rind, from the formation of tannate of iron. G. E. POST. POMMEL (from Old Fr. pomel, dim. of pomme ; Lat. pomum, an apple) is the tr. in 2 Ch 4° 0's. 19 of nº gullah, which in the parallel passage, 1 IC 7"ſ bis. 4°, is tr. ‘bowl.’ It V gives ‘bowl' in 2 Ch also. The reference is to the “bowl- or globe-shaped portion of capitals of the two pillars in the temple’ (Oaf, Heb. }: so that pommel (which like the Heb. word contains the idea of roundness) is not unsuitable. Wyclif uses the word, not only of the round end of the handle of a sword, but of the whole handle, Jg 3* “the pomel (1388 ether hilte) folwide the yren in the wound.” In Pr25" (1388) lie uses it in the orig. sense of an apple, “A goldun pomel (Vulg. mala aurea) in beddis of silver is he that spel;ith a word in his time.” POND.—See POOL. PONTIUS PILATE.—Soo PILATE. J. HASTINGS. PONTUS (IIóvros) was a name used in a vague and loose way to designate certain large tracts of country in the north-eastern part of Asia Minor adjoining the Black Sea (which was often called by the Greeks ‘the Sea, ’). Originally, the name was applied to all or any part of the Black Sea. coasts; and the Attic orators regularly use it of the Tauric Chersonese (Crimea) and the Cimmerian Bosporus; * and comparatively late writers also, such as Trogus, Diodorus, etc., sometimes apply the name to those remote parts. Herodotus, vii. 95, on the other hand, speaks of the Greeks of Pontus contributing 100 ships to the fleet of Xerxes in 480 B.C., obviously meaning the south Euxine coasts in general ; and Xenophon in the Anabasis uses it of the castern parts of the south coast. . The term, as thus applied, was rather a mere description than a real name. It was only at a late period, and through political circum- stances, that “ l’ontus’ began to have a definite sense as a geographical name. i. TIII, FIRST KINGI)OM OF PONTUS.–In the confusion that followed on the death of Alexander the Great, an adventurer named Mithridates managed to found a new state beyond the Halys in north-eastern Asia Minor, about B.C. 302. He assumed the title of king probably towards the end of B.C. 281, and was afterwards known as Ktistes, ‘the l’ounder.” In later times the vanity of the dynasty descended from him invented the story of a legendary kingdom in older times, ruled by a Persian noble family; but that older kingdom rests on no historical basis. The kingdom ruled by the Mithridatic dynasty was, to a great extent, * Bosporus was the term which afterwards was employed to designate those regions when formed into a kingdom. part of the country previously called Cappadocia: it also included some of the mountain tribes near the Black Sea coasts, and part of Paphlagonia. But, as a political unity, it required a name. Polybius in the 2nd cent. B.C. called it “Cappadocia towards the Euxine,’ and Strabo mentions that some called it ‘Pontus,’ and some “Cappadocia towards the Pontus.’” Such elaborate names could never estab. lish themselves in common use : Cappadocia was fixed as the name of the kingdom which included the centre and South of the country hitherto embraced under that title, and Pontus as the name of the northern kingdom which was ruled by the Mithridatic dynasty for 218 years, B.C. 281–63. The extent of the name varied according to the varying bounds of the kingdom, which was some- times larger (including Armenia Minor, etc.), some- times smaller. The meaning of the name Pontus changed in B.C. 64. It had previously designated a kingdom, and that kingdom in that year ceased to exist. The Romans then incorporated part of the former kingdom in the empire, constituting it along with BITHYNIA as the double province Bithymia et Pontus, which continued to exist with hardl altered linits for more than three centuries until the reorganization of the provinces by Diocletian. The rest of the old kingdom of Pontus was broken up by Pompey, into a number of parts, which were treated in diverse ways; sº self- governing cities were constituted ; Comana was governed by a priest ; Gazelonitis and Pontic Armenia were bestowed on Deiotarus, the Galatian chief and king. The rapid vicissitudes of that 2art of Pontus in the following years cannot here F. followed up in detail. Pharnaces, son of Mithridates the Great, had been made by Pompey king of Bosporus, ruling over the countries on the north-eastern coasts of the Euxine ; but he took advantage of the civil wars to reinstate himself in his father’s realm of Pontus, till he was defeated by Caesar in B.C. 47. The kingdom of Pontus was reconstituted by Antony in 13.C. 39, and given first to 1)arius, son of Pharnaces, and afterwards, in B.C. 36, to Polemon. Polemon founded a dynasty of kings who ruled over Pontus until A.D. 63. ii. HISTORY OF PONTUS IN NEW TESTAMENT TIMES.—The new Pontic dynasty touched Chris- tian history in several noteworthy ways; and it also was distinguished by coming into relationship with the reigning emperors, Caligula and .# more nearly Claudius. The second wife of Pole- mon I. was Pythodoris, daughter of Antonia and granddaughter of Antony the Triumvir. Pytho- doris reigned as queen of Pontus in her own right after her husband's death in B.C. 8 until some time after A.D. 21 ; but the history of the kingdom is quite unknown in her reign, and an interval seems to have occurred at her death. Her daughter Tryphaena reigned in association with her own son, Polemon II., during part of the reigns of Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. The one date which is certain is that Caligula 3 made Polemon II. king of I’ontus and I3osporus in A.D. 38. Previously, Tryphaena seems to have lived for some time in Cyzicus, and she had married Cotys, king of Thrace (who died in A.D. 19). She perhaps retired to the neighbour- hood of Iconium at some time during the reign of Claudius. Her father, Polemon I., had at one time governed a kingdom or state in the south, º * * Kozºrºrozºozío. # ºrsp; rôy lev:sivoy, Polyb. v. 43. 1; # ºrpoº rº, IIóvra, Koºrºro. Sozio, Strab. p. 534. # Son of Zenon, the rhetor of Laodicea in the Lºyous valley, see vol. ii. p. 86. ! Caligula's grandmother, Antonia, was half-sister of Try- phana's grandmother. The first year of Tryphºona and Polemon ended (according to the current l’ontic year) in autumn 38; and their coins are known as late as their cighteenth year Ş." 13lumer in Żft. f. Numism, xx. p. 20S ; Wroth, Catalogue of Brit. Mus., 1°omtw8, p. 47), A.D. 54-55. I6 PONTUS PONTUS containing Iconium and great part of Cilicia Tracheia ; and presumably some estates near the city may have remained in possession of the family.” The remarkable story contained in the Acta Pauli et Thecla, mentions this queen Tryphaena as present at a great imperial festival in Pisidian Antioch under the reign of Claudius, and calls her a relative of the emperor. She could hardly be present at that festival of the provincial cult of the emperor, unless she were resident in the southern part of the province Galatia (of which art Antioch was capital), or, perhaps, on the rontier in the Cilician kingdom, which was given to Polemon by Claudius in 41 (see below); and she was a near connexion of the emperor Claudius, whose mother was Antonia, half-sister of Try- phaena's grandmother. The residence of Tryphaena near Iconium under Claudius can only have been temporary, as she appears with the title of queen on Pontic coins in the year A.D. 54–55, when Nero was emperor. According to the story (which is probably founded on fact) in the Acta above mentioned, she protected Thecla, St. Paul's Iconian convert, and was con- verted to Christianity by her protégée. The name Tryphaena evidently lasted in Christian tradition ; and we find a martyr Tryplacna at Cyzicus, which was at one time very closely associated with the queen (Acta Sanct. 31 Jan. p. 696). The dynasty of Polemon is also connected with the legends about the Apostle Bartholomew. . According to one legend he preached in Bosporus, the kingdom of Polemon I., and from A.D. 38 to 41 of Polemon II.; and afterwards in Armenia Magna, where he suffered martyrdom in the city Ourbanopolis. Now Polemon II. received a Cilician kingdom in exchange for Bos- porus in A.D. 41 ; and the capital of that kingdom was Olba, a Hellenized form of a native name Ourwa or Oura, called also Ourbanopolis.f . His brother Zenon was made king of Armenia. Magna in A.D. 18 under the name of Artaxias. Another legend makes Bartholomew preach in Lycaonia, or in Upper Phrygia and Pisidia, Part of Lycaonia with Iconium was ruled by Polemon I., and the inhabitants of Iconium con- sidered it a Phrygian city. The most probable foundation for this legend is that Bartholomew preached to the Phrygian tribe called the Inner Lycaones; see Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, pt. ii. p. 700. A third legend transports the scene of Bartholomew's preaching to India, but still assigns the name Polemios or Polymios to the king of the country, and Astreges or Astyages to his brother; and these are evidently mere dis- tortions of the names l’olemon and Artaxias. It seems impossible that so many links should have been forged by tradition connecting the dynasty of Polemon with the early history of Christianity, unless there had been some historical reality out of which legend could draw its material. It would be out of place to investigate the subject further here. The discovery of the first traces of connexion was made by von Gutschmid in the Ikheim. Museum, 1864, p. 170 (where he wrongly made Tryphaena the wife of Polemon). See also Lipsius, Apocryphen Apostelgeschichtem, ii. 2, p. 55 f.; Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire before 170, ch. xvi.; and on the Polemon dynasty, Mommsen, Ephem. Epigraph. ii. p. 250ff.; Hill in Numnism. Chron. 1890, p. 181 ff.; also many other recent papers quoted in these works. In A.D. 63 the government of Nero came to the conclusion that the kingdom of Pontus had been raised to such a level of peace and order that it might safely be taken into the empire. The western part was incorporated as a region of Galatia, and the eastern part was incorporated in Cappadocia (see below). Polemon II. still retained the title of king, with a kingdom in Cilicia Tracheia, where he presumably went to reside after A.D. 64. Polemon II. became connected with NT history in another way. In 41 the kingdom of Olba, (including a large part of Cilicia Tracheia) was given him by Claudius in exchange for Bosporus; † and he retained this Cilician kingdom at least as late as 68, for a coin of Olba bearing his name was struck under Galba (though he had lost the king- dom of Pontus in 63). Iłerenice, daughter of Herod Agrippa I. (Ac 12), sister of Herod Agrippa II. * See GALATIA, vol. ii. p. 86. + On these names for Olba see Ramsay, IIistorical ('cography cf Asia Minor, p. 364. { Dion Cass. 60.8. See GALATIA, vol. ii. p. 86 f. (Ac 26), and widow of her uncle Herod of Chalcis, married Polemon, king of Cilicia, after inducing him through desire of her wealth to submit to circumcision; but she soon tired of him and abandoned him, whereupon he ceased to conform to the Jewish law.” This is evidently the same Polemon II, who was king of Pontus. Josephus does not mention the date ; and above, in vol. ii. p. 360 f.; the view is stated (following Smith's DB ii. s.v. “Pontus,’ and other authorities), that the marriage with Polemon was earlier than the inter- view of St. Paul with Berenice and her brother Agrippa. But that early date for the marriage is not certain, for Josephus speaks of Polemon as being king of Cilicia, and presumably living there, when the marriage occurred; and this implies a date after A.D. 63, for up till that year Polemon doubtless lived in Pontus, and would have been called king of Pontus rather than king of Cilicia. Berenice had been long a widow, as Josephus says,t when she married Polemon : now her husband, Herod of Chalcis, died in A.D. 48–49. Thus in the 1st cent. A.D. the name Pontus liad two distinct meanings: it night denote either the kingdom of Polemon, or the Roman province united with Bithynia. . Further, there were other two uses of the name in the 1st cent. after Christ which are revealed to us by inscriptions. The kingdom of Polemon, though called Pontus, did not embrace nearly all the old Mithridatic king- dom of Pontus. Apart from the Roman province Pontus, a great part of western Pontus had been attached to the province Galatia, one part in B.C. 2 (with the cities Amasia and Sebastopolis), another in A.D. 35 (with the city Comana Pontica). This district, then, had to be distinguished from Pontus the province and Polemon's l’ontus, and the method of distinction is clearly shown in many authorities: the province was called Pontus simply, Polemon's Pontus was called Pontus Polemoniacus (a name which remained in use for centuries after the death of the last king l’olemon), and the part included in the province Galatia was called Pontus Galati- cus. Those names are used in Ptolemy's geography and in many inscriptions of the 1st and 2nd cents.: they may be compared with the division of Lycaonia during the same period into two parts, one ruled by king Antiochus and called Lycaonia Antiochiana. or simply Antiochiana (a name that continued in use late in the 2nd cent. and occurs in Ptolemy), and one attached to the province Galatia and called Lycaonia, Galatica or simply Taxarukh xºpo. (see LYCAONIA, and on another similar pair of parts see PHRYGIA). Still a fourth Pontus is mentioned by Ptolemy and in inscriptions, as Pontus Cappadocicus. This included the regions that lay east of Polemoniacus, between the Euxine Sea and Armenia ; and it had been comprised in the dominions of Polemon I., whose realm extended so far as to embrace even Bosporus. , Some modern authorities consider on account of the name Cappadocicus that it was not in the dominions granted to l’olemon II. in A.D. 38. Queen Pythodoris had married Archelaus king of Cappadocia, after the death of Tolemon I., and there is much obscurity as to the fate of the Pontic realm in the later years of the queen and immediately after her death until A. D. 38; and the opinion has been held by some that the eastern regions were attached to Cappadocia and assigned specially to Archelaus, so that at his death in A.D. 17 Pythodoris continued to reign over only the western part of Polemon's former kingdom. But this is very improbable ; for Bos- porus was included along with l’ontus in the * Josephus, Ant. xx. vii. 8. t IIoavy x2, vow irizzpºrozoro, XX. vii. 3. f Gazelomitis must also be added, as stated above, PONTUS PONTUS 17 kingdom of Polemon II, from 37 to 41, and if so, eastern Pontus also would naturally be comprised in his dominions. Moreover, Archelaus' kingdom was made into a Roman province in A.D. 17, but Trapezus and Cerasus, two cities of Pontus Cap- padºcicus (Trapezus being made capital of it by Trajan), dated from A.D. 63 as era, and this era must according to analogy be interpreted as the ear when they were taken into the l{oman Empire 3. being incorporated in a province. Now A.D. 63 was the year when Polemon's Pontic kingdom was taken into the empire, and the cities of Pole- moniacus date from that year as era (So Zela and Neocaesareia); hence Cerasus and Trapezus would seem to have been included in the i. Of Polemon II.; and if so, then presumably all Cap- padocicus was similarly included. The difference of name, Polemoniacus and Cappadocicus, in that case, probably began only in A.D. 63, and was due to the fact that the eastern half of the kingdom was attached to the province Cappadocia and named accordingly, while the western half was attached to the province Galatia, and retained its former name Polemoniacus in distinction from the older Pontus Galaticus. An inscription, dating probably between 63 and 78, mentions Pontus Polemoniacus and Pontus Galaticus as parts of the province Galatia, ; * but does not mention Pontus Cap- padocicus, thus proving that the latter was not in Galatia ; and, as we know that Trapezus by that time was Roman, Cappadocia is the only pro- vince to which it could have been attached. Such is the probable sequence of events. Subsequently, Pontus Galaticus and Polemoni- acus, after being included in the united provinces of Galatia, and Cappadocia from about A.D. 78 to 106, were attached permanently to Cappadocia, when the two provinces were again separated by Trajan. Such is the arrangement described by Ptolemy. Yet the three names, Pontus Galaticus, Polemoniacus, Cappadocicus, persisted, with their separate capitals, Amasia, Neocaesareia, Trapezus, implying that they were considered for adminis- trative purposes as distinct regions of the vast 3rovince of Cappadocia, to which all three were ſº attached. iii. THE NAME PONTUS IN THE NEW TESTA- MENT. —When the name Pontus occurs in the NT, what are we to understand by it amid this puzzling complicacy of three or even four distinct regions, all bearing the name 2 As we have seen, the simple name Pontus, without any qualifying epithet, was regularly employed to designate the Roman pro- vince united with Bithynia, ; † and the writers of the NT seem to have observed this rule of ordinary usage. In 1 P 1" Pontus is clearly the province. l'ew could doubt this ; and Hort has proved it beyond all question in his posthumous edition of part of the Epistle. Similarly, when the Jew Aquila, who bore a Roman name, is called a nam of Pontus, Ac 18*, it is practically certain that the ºrovince Pontus is meant. The Roman name lemands a Roman connexion. The suggestion that he was originally a slave from Pontus Pole- mioniacus, who had been set free in Rome, seems impossible, as the freedman would not retain his slave mationality: the statement that Aquila was a man of Pontus, implies a lasting and present characteristic. Equally improbable is it that Pontus Galaticus is meant ; for in the imperial system that district was merely a part of the pro- vince Galatia. In fact, there is practically no * CIL iii. Suppl. 0818, with the remarks in Ramsay, IIis- topical Geography of Asia Minor, p. 263. f 19xcept, of course, where the context imposed another Sense without any need for a distinctive epithet. Kouvoy IIc, row on coins of Neocaesareia the capital of Polemoniacus means only that region : similarly, on coins of Zela toû 11&vtov. IIpairn lſo wrov on coins of Amasia, means Pontus Galaticus. VOL. IV. —2 doubt that the intention in Ac 18° is to state that Aquila, though in recent time resident in Rome, W’8,S 8, º from Pontus, and not one who originally belonged to the city. The question then arises whether Aquila was a civis Romanus of the province Pontus (as St. Paul was a civis £omanºds of the province Cilicia). That, how- ever, is impossible, for he ranked to the Romans as a Jew, not as a Roman : the edict of Claudius, Ac 18*, would not have applied to him if he had been a Roman either by birth or as the freedman of a Roman master; * but, being a Jew by nation, a provincial residing in Rome, he was expelled by the terms of the edict. The remaining case is not so clear. In Ac 29 among the Jews and proselytes in Jerusalem at the Feast of Pentecost are mentioned “dwellers in Judaea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia.” That list presents many difficulties, and is probably not composed by the author of Acts, but quoted by him from an older authority to whom he was indebted for the account of an incident which he himself had not seen (see PHRYGIA, vol. iii. p. 867). Hence it is not possible to say whether Pontus there means the Roman province united with Bithynia, or the whole country with its three distinct }. But the former is much more probable, or Jews tended to prefer the peaceful and civilized countries, finding them º more suitable for trade and residence; and therefore it is exceed- ingly unlikely that there were many, if any, Jews in Polemoniacus in the year A.D. 29 or 30. Pontus Galaticus with the great city of Amasia would be more likely to contain Jews. But there is no possibility of reaching certainty about that unique and peculiar passage; and, being unique, it is less important. iv. SPRIEAD OF CHRISTIANITY IN PONTU.S.—The Churches of Pontus addressed by St. Peter (1 P 1") were evidently mainly composed of converted pagans. When that Epistle was composed, it must be concluded that Christianity . already taken strong root in Pontus, as contrasted with its feeble hold on LYCIA and PAM PHYLIA, which are not addressed in the Epistle. Pontus lay so far from the earliest lines of the Christian propa- ganda, that the strength of the new religion in it is, certainly, to be regarded as an argument in favour of a date later than A. D. 64.3. It is highly probable that Christianity spread thither by sea from the Asian coasts, and even from Rome (as Hort in the remarkable essay appended to his posthumous edition of 1 Peter is inclined to believe), for it is inn- probable that any missionary movement occurred at so early a date on the lines leading north from Syria, or Cilicia through the barbarous lands of Cappadocia and Pontus Polemoniacus. Thus it was the cities of the Ora Pontica or Pontic coast lands which earliest received the new religion ; and probably Amastris was its chief centre at first. By A.D. 111–113 it had spread so strongly in the province Pontus that I’liny, governor of 13ithymia ct Pomtus, when making a progress through l’ontus, wrote to Trajan Ep. 96 (probably from Amastris, where he wrote the following letter, 98), giving a remarkable account of the spread of Christianity. He says that many persons, men and women, of all ages and every rank in the state, not merely in the great cities, but also in the villages and on farm lands, were aflected by the new superstition, the temples were to a great extent deserted, the sacri- i. ritual had been for a long time interrupted, * Many excellent authorities, in deſiance of this obvious and inevitable fact, regard him as a freedman. See Sanday- IIeadlam), ſtom (thus, p. 41S ſt. # The failure of Cilicia is due to its being part of the pro- vince Syria-('ilicia, and not included in the special group of provinces contemplated, viz. Asia Minor. ! See The Church in the IRoman Empire before 170, p. 2S4. * 18 PONTUS POOL and few persons were found to buy animals for sacrifice. This state of the province was of long standing (diu), and some who were accused de- clared that they had abandoned Christianity, 20 or 25 years ago." Hence we cannot believe that less than 40 to 50 years had elapsed since the evangelization of the province began. While it is evident that Pliny is speaking of the province in general, it is º that it was in Pontus that he finally became so strongly impressed with the evil, and wrote to Trajan for advice about it. Towards the middle of the 2nd cent. Lucian con- firms the testimony of Pliny (not that any confir- mation is needed to establish the truth of that official report), alluding incidentally to Pontus, the native country of Alexander the impostor of Abo- nouteichos, as “filled full with Epicureans and atheists and Christians’ (Aleax. 25). Like Phrygia, Pontus appears in the 2nd cent, as a region where Christianity was so strong that its history was no longer that of a militant religion against paganism, but rather of a contest of sect against sect. The heretic Marcion was born at Sinope in Pontus about 120. Aquila, the translator of the OT into Greek, was also a native of Pontus. I’rom the coast lands of the province, however, Christianity spread inland only slowly. Incident- ally we obserye here that it is necessary to distin: guish carefully between the different meanings of the name Pontus, for neglect to do so has led some good scholars into needless difficulties. Thus, when Gregory Thaumaturgus was made bishop of Neo- capsareia in Pontus about A.D. 240, he is said to have found only seventeen Christians in the country ; † and, though no reliance can be placed on the exact number, still a clear tradition, doubt- less trustworthy, is implied that Gregory had gone to a practically pagan country. This has been often set in opposition to the facts implied in l P 1" and in Pliny. But Gregory preached in Pontus Polemoniacus, whose capital was Neocaesareia, while the older authorities speak of the province ; and the contrast between the rapid spread in the one and the failure in the other is due to the tendency of the new religion to be restricted to the imperial bounds, to prefer civilized regions to uncivilized (Polemoniacus being remote and back- ward compared to the province), and to flourish best in districts where there had long been a strong Jewish element to prepare the soil. Still the inner |. of Pontus appear to have been Christianized to a considerable extent during the 3rd cent. by the work of Gregory Thaumaturgus and other less famous missionaries. Such martyrs as Theodorus Tiro at Amasia, Theodorus the Soldier at Heracleopolis; and Eukhaita, with many others, $ are mentioned in the latest persecutions under Dio- cletian, Maximian, and Licinius. Before the time of Constantine the ecclesiastical system in all the districts of Pontus had been organized to a very considerable degree of completeness, not indeed so perfectly as in Pisidia and Lycaonia, but more thoroughly than in Galatia (see GALATIA, vol. ii. p. 85). For example, Hierocles gives a list of five cities in Pontus Polemoniacus, and three of these were represented at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. But, as a whole, the evidence points to the 3rd and even the 4th cents, as the period when Christianity spread through inner Pontus, while * Viginti quoque, editio prince s; vigimti quinqwe, conjecture. Mºjº" Nyss. Wit. Greg. Thaum. xlvi. pp. 899, 954 (ed. fwrongly called Heracleia in the extant Acta (the best being the Armenian, translated by Conybeare, Monuments of J2arly Christianity, p. 224): it bore the double name Sebasto- polis-Heracleopolis, and was not far from Eulchaita; see Acta Sanctorum, 7 Feb. vol. ii. pp. 23, 891. § In the Martyrolog. II teromy.m. the martyrs' names are often very corrupt (see Duchesne's Index, 8.v.v. Amasia, Neocaesarea, Bebastia); see also the Syriac Martyrology, 18th Aug. the 1st and 2nd cents, were the time when the sea. coast, i.e. the lºº Pontus, was evangelized. Hence it is on the coast, at Sinope, that we find an early martyr, like Phocas the bishop of Trajan's persecution.” About A.D. 295 Diocletian reorganized the pro- vincial system and broke up the large provinces. The Pontic districts were then jº I'O- arranged. The province Pontus was partitioned between Paphlagonia and Diospontus. "The latter, which was afterwards named Helenopontus, after the mother of Constantine, contained also parts of Paphlagonia, Pontus Galaticus, and Polemoniacus. Pontus Polemoniacus retained its name, but was reduced in size, losing Zela, to Diospontus, and Sebasteia to Arnienia Minor. Pontus Galaticus disappeared entirely, losing Amasia, etc., to Dios- OntuS, sº to Armenia inor, Comana, Ibora, and Zela to Polemoniacus, and probably some parts to Galatia the Byzantime province. The ecclesiastical organization followed this new arrangement. W. M. ſtamsay. POOL is the tra in OT of three Heb. words. – 1. Das 'digam, “pond’ of stagnant or muddy water, from [Dis] to be troubled or muddy. The ‘ponds,’ RV ‘pools,' of Egypt (Ex 7” 8° 5uðpuyes, paludes), were probably the sheets of stagnant water left by the inundation of the Nile. In l’s 107.9° 1148 the word is rendered ‘standing water,’ TV ‘t pool of water’ (Atuvm, stagnum); in Is 14* 357411942" ‘pool’ or ‘pools’ (#A0s, palus, stagnum); and in Jer 51” it is put for ‘reeds,” or reedy places (avoréuata, paludes). In Is 19", whilst the Vulg. renders by lacuna, the LXX has 8000s, ‘beer’ (see art. I’ISH- POOL). 2. Hypº mikveh, or mpp mikvah; a place where waters flow together, from Tip (Niph. ‘assemble'). The word is trº differently upon each occasion of its use. In Gn 1" it is rendered the ‘gathering together’ (of the waters) when the earth and the seas were created (tà quarépara, compregationes [aqatarum]). In Ex 7” the ‘pools,”. RV ‘ponds’ (Tà éAm, lacus), of Egypt were probably reservoirs for the storage of water, as opposed to the stagnant water ('digam) left by the inundation. In Lv 11” it is translated “plenty,’ RV ‘gathering’ (of water) (avvayoºyſ, congregatio [aguarum.]). In Is 22" the ‘ditch,’ RW ‘reservoir’ (Vöwp, lacus), made between the two walls at Jerusalem appears to have been formed by damming up the valley. 3. nºna bérékhah, a “pool,' or an ‘artificial tank’ hence the Arabic birket, and the Spanish al-berca. The LXX generally tr. the word by ko)\vuffº,0pa, but in four instances (2S21° 41°, 1 IS 22*, 2 K20°) by kpóv) and in one (Ca, 7”) by Alpſum. The Vulg, has piscima and once (Neh 2"), aquacductus. In the NT (Jn 5* + 797) koxvu}#0pa is used. In Ps 84%, where the plural occurs, AV reads ‘ſilleth the pools,” whilst RV has “covereth it with blessings’ (i.e. bārā/ch0th instead of béré/ch0th); with this may be compared the ‘valley of Berachah,’ kot)\cºs et)\oylas, vallis bene- dictionis, 2 Ch 20°". The pools were formed by building a dam across a valley, or by excavation; and they were supplied by surface drainage, by º or by water brought from a distance by conduits. They allowed the water to deposit any sediment it con- tained ; and they were often connected with aqueducts and baths. They also frequently sup- plied water for irrigation, and were open to the air. The pools near towns were usually rectangular in form, and had their sides lined with water-tight cement. They were sometimes surrounded by porticoes (a roal), in which bathers undressed them- selves and lounged before or after bathing. The * The best Acta are the Armenian in Conybeare's Monuments of Early Christianity, p. 103; see also Acta Sancton-unn, July 14, vol. iii. p. 000 ft. POOR. POOR. 19 pool of Siloam had four such porticoes, and remains of them have been found by excavation ; I3ethesda, which was a double pool, had five porticoes (Jil 5°), one on each of the four sides, and the fifth in the middle between the two pools. Pools are mentioned in the Bible at Hebron (2 S 41*), Gibeon (2S 2"), Samaria (1 K 22*), and Hesh- bon (EC 2"); and in general terms in Is 14* 1919 and Nah 2°. At or near Jerus. there were several Jools : the Upper P. (2 K 1817, Is 7° 36°); the Lower }. (Is 22"); the Old P. (Is 22"); the King's P. (Neh 2"); the P. of Siloah, RV Shelah (Nell 31°), appar- ently the same as the P. of Siloam (Jn 97); the ‘P. that was made (Neh 300); ‘a’ P., RV ‘the P. made by Hezekiah (2 K 20°); and the P. of Bethesda (Jn 5**"). Josephus also mentions the Serpents’ P. (B.J. V. iii. 2); Solomon’s P. (BJ v. iv. 2); the P. Amygdalon, and the P. Struthius (BJ V. xi. 4). Many of the ancient pools may still be seen in Palestine. The best known are those at Hebron and Jerusalem, and the ‘pools of Solomon,” near Bethlehem, which are possibly the ‘pools of water’ (EC 2") that Solomon constructed to irri- gate his gardens and orchards. These pools are three in number, and they have been formed by building solid dams of masonry across the valley of Urtas. They have a total capacity of 44,147,000 gallons, and are so arranged that the water from each of the higher pools can be run off into the one inamediately below it. The water was conveyed to Jerusalem by a conduit. C. W. WILSON. P00R.—1. This word, especially when it repre- sents the Heb. "Jy, is used sometimes with a semi- religious connotation, the nature of which it is the object of the present article, to explain. In order to understand the term satisfactorily, it is neces- sary to bear in mind the meaning of the cognate verb, Heb. ny, Arab. 'and (amā"). The Arab. 'amá means to be lowly, submissive, obedient, especially by becoming a captive, and so the ptcp. is often used simply in the sense of a captive " : the Heb. n:y means analogously to be humbled, Is 31" (RV ‘abase himself’), in the causative conj. to humble, mushandle, esp. by depriving of independence, or liberty, or recognized rights (EV . ‘aſilict”): cf. Gn 16" (RV ‘dealt hardly”), Jg 199 (‘humble'), —in both, parallel with ‘do to her (then) that which is good in thy (your) eyes,” Gn 31" (of the maltreatment of wives by a husband), Ex 22* * (of the ill-treatment of a widow or orphan), Jg 16°. " " (of ill-using Samson); and often of the ill- treatment of a nation in bondage, as Gn 15" ( ‘to serve’), Ex 11" " (cf. v.” “make to serve'); see also 2 S 710 (Ps 89%), Ps 94". 2. The subst. ‘āmī (EV mostly ‘afflicted,” or ‘poor') thus means properly one humbled or bowed down, especially by oppression, deprivation of rights, etc., but also, more generally, by mis- fortune : as the persons thus ‘humbled ' would counmonly be the ‘poor,’ the term came to denote largely the class whom we should call the ‘poor,’ and ‘poor' is thus one of the conventional render- ings of the word : it must, however, be remem- bered that 'timi does not really mean ‘poor,’ and that while in the English word “poor’ the pro- minent idea is the poverty of the person or persons so described, in the Heb. 'dim', the prominent idea. is that of the ill-treated, or the miserable : in other words, the '&mi, while often, no doubt, a person in need, was primarily a person suffering some kind of social disability or distress. 3. tº rāsh, is the Heb. word which expresses distinctively the idea of poverty ; but this occurs only 1 S 1823, 2 S 121, 3, 4, Ps 82% (IRV " destitute'), Ec 414 58, and 15 times in Proverbs. * See Rahlfs, y und lºy in den Psalmen, 1802, pp. 67-69. ł Comp, the cognate subst. '6mi, state of being humilled or \owed down, 12W ‘aſiliction, Gn 1911 3149. Ex 37, 17, is 4S10 al. It is worth noticing (Rahlfs, p. 75) that ‘āshir, ‘rich,” never appears as the opposite of 'ani, while it is the true antithesis of vásh (2 S 121, 2, 4, Pr 1420 1823 222. 7280). “Poor’ is also sometimes the tr. of 'ebyön, “needy’; and ºften, that, of,dal (prop, thin, reduced, feeble): cf. Driver, ſº fºllº, pp. 450, 452. 'Elyjn. is once ºpºd to § º ind dal is opposed to it 5 times, Ex 3016 Prioid It is to be regretted that there is no English word which Would both Suit all the passages in which "àmi occurs, and also indicate its connexion with "ünāh, 'innäh, and ‘on. 4. In the laws of Ex 22*, Lv 1910 (=2322), Dt 15" 24* **, now, 'dini is used as a purely colour. less designation of the persons whom we should describe as the ‘poor.” Ibut in the prophets and poetical books, esp. the Psalms, we see gradually other ideas attaching themselves to the term. Thus allusions are made, especially by the pro- ; to the oppression of the 'dimiyyim, at the lands, of a high - handed and cruel aristocracy (Am 8*[Heb. marg.], Is 3** 10° 32' [Heb. marg.j, Ezk 16" [in Sodom], 1812 2229; Job 24, 9, 14, Pr 30ſ) ; so that they become the objects of pejº) regard on the part of a righteous king (Jer 22", Ps 72%. 3, 12), or individual (Ezk 1817, Is 587, Zec 719, Ps 82%, Pr 2222 31* *; cf. Prlá* [Heb. text], Dn 47), and especi- ally of Jehovah (Is 14*, cf. v.” ; implicitly, also, in the other passages quoted). 5. Comp. the allusions to the oppressions of the ‘needy (bººs) in Am 20 4, 512S4.0, Is 327, Jer 234 28 and elsewhere, and of the ‘reduced ' (pººl, IEW ‘poor') in Ann 27 41 511 83, Is 10% etc. (both words often in parallelism with ‘āmiyyim); and the manner in which it is promised that they will be in a yº degree under the protection of the ideal king (Ps 724. 12, 18, Is 114), and that—like the '&miyyim in Is 1430—they will be the first to benefit, when society is regenerated, and J” establishes II is ideal kingdom (Is 1430 254 2919). 6. So in Ps 18* God is spoken of as saving the “afflicted (or , humbled) people’ (‘JJ Dy), but as abasing the ‘haughty eyes’; and in Is 26", when the tyrannical city has been destroyed, it is men- tioned, as a special ground for satisfaction, that the 'dim', and the dalliºn may then tread unmolested over its ruins. ‘Amū is used also of Israel, suſlering in the wilderness or in exile or war, and regarded as implicitly or ideally righteous, and eliciting in consequence Jellovah's compassion, Ps 68%, Is 417 499 S14 54", cf. Hab 34. In Zeph 31* the ideal Israel of the future, who survive after the coming judgment has removed from Jerusalem the “proudly exulting” ones, so that none will any more be ‘haughty' in God's holy mountain, are character- ized as a ‘humbled and poor people’ (57) ºg Dy), who will ‘take refuge ' in the name of J", and (v.”) be free from all iniquity. Perhaps, indeed, the expression means also Israel generally in Is 26". 7. These passages show that 'ami (‘aſilicted,’ ‘poor’), as also its frequent parallel’ebyön (‘needy’), and, though somewhat less distinctly, dal (EV also mostly ‘poor’), came gradually to imply more than persons who were merely in some kind of social subjection, or material need : they came to denote the godly poor, the suffering righteous, the persons who, whether ‘bowed down,” or ‘needy,” or * reduced,’ were the godly servants of Jehovah. It is evident that in ancient Israel, especially in later times, piety prevailed more among the humbler classes than among the wealthier and ruling classes: indeed the latter are habitually taken to task by the prophets for their cruel and unjust treatment of the former. In particular, as IRahlfs (p. 89) observes, 'anº acquired thus, not indeed a religious meaning, but a religious colour- ing. This colouring . most frequently in the l’salms: note the following passages, in which, if they are compared carefully with the context, it will become evident that the '&miyyim (fre- quently || with the ‘needy') are substantially identical with those who are elsewhere in the same Psalms called “the godly,’ ‘the righteous,' 20 POOR. POPLAR ‘the faithful,” etc. : Ps 9” (Heb. text *; RV) 10°, 9° 0.1° (Heb. text “; RW) [comp. 919 “those that know thy name’ and ‘that seek after thee,’ 10” ‘the humble' (see below)]; 12"[see v. the godly,’ ‘the faithful”]; 14" [y.” “for J" is his refuge’]; 1897 22%. 25" (“I am solitary and ‘ānā’; cf. 69* 8Slº), 34° 3519, 19 (delivered by J"), 3714 (cf. v.19), 4017 =705 (“I am 'ani and needy’; so 861 109°), 7419. * 102 title 10910 14014; see also is 66%, Job 3438 36%. 15 (cf. the cognate subst. ‘ānī, AV ‘trouble,” or ‘afflic- tion,’ in Ps 918 25.8 317 88° 11900. 93. 108, of the Psalmists' own sufferings: also 44* 10719. *). Most of these passages—indeed, except Ps. 18”, probably all--are post - exilic ; and reflect the social and religious conditions of the post-exilic community : the religious ‘colouring of dini, which had been Hºly in process of acquisition, was then con- irmed. The troubles of which the 'dim7 complains are, however, not poverty, but chiefly social and religious wrongs. - 8. From ‘ānī is to be carefully distinguished a word with which it has been sometimes very need- lessly confused, 'dinéïw. While ’ānī means one who is ‘humbled' or “bowed down' by adverse external circumstances, 'dimów means one who is ‘humble’ in disposition and character, ‘humble - minded” (Cheyne, OP, 98), or, to speak more specifically, one who bows voluntarily under the hand of God, and is ‘submissive to the Divine will (Cheyne, Introd. to Is. 64 f., 266). It thus, unlike ‘āni, has from the beginning an essentially moral and re- ligious connotation. In AV and RV it is mostly rendered ‘meek’; but meekness is predicated of a person’s attitude towards other men, whereas 'ānāw denotes rather a man's attitude towards God; so that ‘Mumble’ would be the better render- ing. ‘Anâw is less common than &mi : it occurs in Nu 12% (of Moses); in the prophets, Am 278" (Heb. text +), Is 11429* 327 (Heb. text:) 61%, Zeph 24; in the poet. books, Ps 918 (Heb. text +), 101722° 25' 9 34° 37* (“the humble shall inherit the earth'), 69% 76° 147° 1494, and the Heb. margin of Pr3*(opposed to D's", “scorners’), 16" (opposed to ‘the proud"; cf. Sir 10” [Heb.]),—in all, of the ‘humble,” either as victimized by wicked oppressors, or as the objects of Jehovah's regard, and recipients of His sal- vation.S The cognate subst. 'timāwāh occurs Ps 18” (of J"), 45°, Zeph 2° (‘seek righteousness, seek /ntmility’), Pr lò”= 18” (“before lionour is humility’), 22*. 9. The Heb. marg. (Keré) substitutes thrice (Am S4, Is 327, Ps 918) humbled (‘poor') for humble of the text (Kethibh); and five times (Ps 912 1012, Pr 334 1421 1619) humble for humbled (‘poor') of the text (Ketlvilla),—in each case, it seems (cf. Rahlfs, p. 54 f.), deeming the correction to express an idea better suited to the context (in Am 84, Is 327, Ps 918 the parallel clause has needy; in Pr384 1619 hunnble forms evidently a juster antithesis to “scorner’ and “proud' than afflicted or “poor'). The correction is certainly right in Pr384 1619, probably also in Am 84; in the other passages it docs not seem to be necessary. 10. The two terms which have been here dis- cussed seem, in fact, to have becn two of the more prominent and distinctive designations ºf a party in ancient Israel, which appears to have first begun to form itself during the period of the later pre- exilic prophets, but which, during the Exile and subsequently, acquired a more marked and dis- tinctive character—the party, viz., of the faithful and God-fearing Israelites, who held together, and formed an ecclesiola in coclesia, as opposed to the * The Heb. marg. (I(eré) has in these passages the humble (IRVm ‘meek'): see § 9. # The Iſeb. marg. ('ſiniyyá), followed by RV, yields, however, a more suitable sense here; it would also be better to read "ániyyti in 27 (cf. Is 102). f Heb. marg. (!Veré) the poor; see § 9. § With Is (11 (LXX, wrongly, arrozów, and so in the quotation, Lk 418) cf. Mt. 119 = Lk 722. | Where “ride on on behalf of . . . meekness (º) 'nicans that the king addressed is to take the field on behalf of the hunible against their proud oppressors (see Cheyne or l'irk- path 'ck, ad loc.). worldly and indifferent, often also paganizing and persecuting, majority. The Psalms, especially the Psalms of ‘complaint,’ abound with allusions to these two opposed parties, the opposition between which seems to have been intensified in the post- exilic period, till it culminated, in the age of Antiochus Epiphanes, in the struggle between the nationalists and the Hellenizers. The God-fearing party are described by many more or less synony- mous designations, such as ‘those that fear (or love) J",’ ‘those that seek (or wait for) J",’ ‘the ser. vants of J",’ the ‘godly' (hēsidim), the ‘righteous,’ etc.; from the point of view of their social con- dition they are specially the timiyyún or (to adopt the conventional rendering) the ‘poor,’ from the point of view of their character they are the &mdwim or the ‘humble.” The party opposed to them are the ‘wicked,’ the “evil-doers,’ the ‘proud,’ the “haters,’ ‘enemies,” or ‘persecutors’ of the Psalmists and their co-religionists, who are de- scribed as ‘seeking their life’ and ‘delighting in their hurt,” etc., and as setting themselves in various ways to dishonour Jellovah, and bring reproach upon His servants (cf. Cheyne, JIt pp. 114-125).” The former party was that out of which a considerable number of the Psalms appear to have sprung, especially those which possess a representative character, and in which the Psalmist seems to give expression not simply to his own experiences and spiritual emotions, but also to those of a circle of similarly circumstanced godly compatriots. See, further, Grätz, Die Psalmen (1882), 20–37 (whose view, however, that, the 'inſivin were Levites, is not probable); Isidore Loeb, ‘La Littérature des Pauvres’ in 1810J, 1890–92 Nos. 40–42, 45, 40, 48), also published separately, Paris, 1892 clever : exemplifies very fully the characteristics of the ‘poor,” especially in the Psalms, but exaggerates the idealism of the Heb. poets, and also generalizes too freely); Rahlfs, op. cit. Hupfeld (on Ps 918) contended that "Jy and lºy were used with- out any distinction of meaning, both signifying afflicted, with the collateral idea of httmble ; but this view is antecedently improb- able, and not required by the facts.f Ges. (Thes,) treated both words as meaning properly afflicted, but regarded ‘āmāw as having always the collateral idea of hºwmble, meek. Recent scholars, as Delitzsch and Cheyne (both on l’s 913), Lagarde, Mitth. i. 81, Rahlfs, pp. 62-66, 73–80 (cf. König, Lyb. ii. 134, 76), more correctly distinguish ‘ānī, ‘bowed down,' from 'ſimów, ‘one who bows himself,'—Del. and Cheyne, however, thinking also that, as aſſliction is the school of humility, and a man may be ‘bowed down' with consent of his own will, ‘āmi acquired secondarily the sºnse of ‘humble.” It seems best, with lèahlfs, to keep the words entirely distinct : the "dimiyyim were, no doubt, known to be also humble,” and so could be opposed to the “proud,” Ps 1827, or classed with the ‘stricken in spirit,' Is 662 ; but the fact is not expressed by the term used. It would be easier, if necessary, to read one word for the other, than to give one word the meaning of the other. The LXX preserves, on the whole, a consciousness of the distinction between the two words: the translators render 'đmi (1(t.) by ºrivº: 13 times, by rºtoxés 38 times, by rºasivá; 9–10 times, by ºrpoº; only Zeph 312, Zec 09, Is 205; and "ānāw (Kt.) by ºrpoiſ; 8 times, by riva; 3 times, by arrozós 4 times, by roºrstvös 4 times: in view, how- ever, of the frequency with which " and ) are confused in LXX (Driver, Samatel, lxv-lxvii), we cannot be sure that they always read the Hel). text exactly as we do. In the Targ., also (especi- ally in the Psalms, lèahlfs, p. 56 f.), the greatly lº rendering of "(int is ‘poor,’ ‘distressed,' etc., while that of 'tūnāw is ‘humble' (Jºy), And the Vulg. nearly always renders ämi by pawper, egenus, inops, but "amāw by mitis or mansuetus. S. R. DRIVER, POPLAR occurs twice in EV (Gn 30%, IRVm ‘styrax,’ Hos 4”). The Heb. RJ7%, diſmeh, signifies “a white tree.’ The LXX in Genesis gives orrupd- Kuvos = Storata, and in Hosea Nečkm = | poplar.” The authority of the Arab. ſubma, which signifies the storata, nity be considered decisive as to the meaning of the Hebrew. Styrata: officinalis, L., of the order * Rahlfs, following Ewald, calls attention (pp. 5-20) to the numerous similarities of expression and situation characterizing in particular the group of Psalms, 22, 25, 31. 34. 35. 38, 40. (£). 71. 102. 109; he assigns the group (p. 30 ft.) to the close of the Exile, or shortly alter. f The note is much abbreviated (the sentence on the original difference of "3V and Jy bcing added) in Nowack's revised ed. of Hupfeld's Commu.. (1888). PORATHA PORT 21 Styracaceae, is a shrub or tree 6 to 20 feet high, with ovate to round-ovate leaves, glabrescent at upper, and white-woolly, at lower, surface. ... It bears numerous Snowy-white flowers, resembling orange blossoms, 1 to 2 inches broad, and a green drupe-like berry. . The officinal storax is the in- spissated juice of the inner layer of the bark. It has an agreeable vanilla-like odour. It was formerly employed in medicine as a stimulant expectorant, but is little used now. The name libneh, “white,’ is well justified by the snowy- white under surfaces of the leaves, and the wealth of beautiful white blossoms. No wild tree of the country is more ornamental than this. It is common in thickets from the coast to the sub- alpine regions. In Syria, it is called hawz. __It has been objected to the rendering ‘styrax” (Hos 4”) that it is not large enough to give the “shadow' required, and that therefore ‘poplar' should be retained. We have, however, indicated that Styraa, officinalis attains a height of 20 feet, and such trees would give a better shade than the tall, cylindrical poplar. Moreover, the poplar is a tree of valleys and plains, growing only by water- courses, while Styrata: grows on dry hillsides, in localities sinnilar to those of the oak and tere- binth. G. E. POST. PORATHA (NITB ; B papačá6a, N. papaé0a, A Bap- 6á0a).-The fourth of the sons of Haman, who were put to death by the Jews (Est 9°). The name is prob- ably Persian, and the LXX reading suggests that the true form is Poradatha (NITTTB = ‘given by fate’?). * * * PORCH.-A covered entrance to a building. It is generally outside the main building, and so differs from vestibule which is inside, and from which doors open into the several apartments of the house. Two words in OT, denote porch, viz. Heb. Bº's ('élām), found in Ezk 40 only, and pºss (’īlām), which occurs in 1 K, 1 and 2 Ch, Ezk, and Joel. As to the identical meaning of these Heb. words see under ARCII. There is another Heb, word inºpp (misdérôm), which EV tr. by porch (Jg 3* “Then Ehud went into the porch”). This word is not used else- where; and while we do know that some part of a house is denoted, we have no means of saying what part. The versions render little if any aid, nor do the cognates throw any light on the mean- ing. The root is nip (seder), a row, series, order. So jinº (misdérôm) might be expected, according to its etymology, to denote something built in line with or according to the form of something else, such as a wing, built along the outside walls of a porch, with sides at right angles to the main building. The word 'tilām or 'élàm is variously applied in OT. 1. It is used of the porch erected to the east of Solomon's temple, 1 K 6” and 71", and 2 Ch 158 29' ". It was 20 cubits long by 10 broad; its height is not given in 1 K, but in 2 Ch 34 it is said to be 120 cubits high. Now, a porch 20 cubits long, 10 broad, and 120 high would be a mon- strosity; indeed the whole verse as it stands is Senseless. Rautzsch, Bertheau, Oettli, and Kittel Attempt a reconstruction, and all agree that 120 for the height is an evident mistake; A of the LXX, the Syr., and Arab. versions have 20, which is likely enough to be correct, though Bertheau prefers reading 30. Aug. Hirt (Der Tempel Sºlomo's, p. 4), together with the above authori- ties, excepting Bertheau, decide for 20. If the tºxt is to be upheld, it is to be explained, as by Ewald (Gesch. iii. |. 42), according to the well- known leaning of the Chronicler to exaggeration; but in this case the exaggeration is one which makes the writer ridiculous, and it is far better to emend the text. The similarly situated porch of Ezekiel's temple has the same name, i. 40.48 41*(read with Cornill, sing. ‘porch'). 2. The same word is employed for each of the two porches belonging to Solomon's palace, the ‘porch of illars’ l K 7", and the ‘throne porch” (or place of judgment), 1 K 77. 3. In Ezk the word stands for the two large apartments, one lying at the inner end of the outer gate, the other at the outer end of the inner gate. It is in this connexion that the form 'élàm is mostly, though not exclusively, em- ployed. Of these minor porches there were in all six : one at each of the three outer (N. E. S.), and one at each of the three corresponding inner gates. In NT three separate Gr. words are translated in EV ‘porch.” - 1. Mk 14” “And he (Peter) went into the porch.” The Gr., word (Tpoai)\tov) denotes a covered way leading from the street into the court of a house; a sort of passage. ‘Forecourt’ is the word given in RVm. 2. Mt. 267, “And when he (Peter) was gone out into the porch.’ This passage is paral- lel with the former, and, though rv\&v usually means door, doorway, there can be no doubt that it has here the same signification as Tpoaºtov in Mk. 3. Jn 5” “Now there is in Jerus. by the sheep gate a pool, which is called in Heb. Bºthesda, having five porches.’ These porches (groat) are simply five covered ways joining the street with a pool. In three other places, in each case in the phrase “Solomon's porch,” is the word a rod found (Jn 10”, Ac 3* 5”). This was a portico on the eastern side of the temple building, hence called by Jos. (Ant. XX. ix. 7) arod, divaro'Xukň, and supposed by him to have survived the destruction of the temple in B.C. 586, and to go back to Solomon's own day (ib. XIV. xi. 5, XX. ix. 2; Wars, V. v. 1). It is generally agreed that this eastern porch, as well as the other porches existing in our Lord's time, were due to H. restoration ; yet, if this porch was built so near the time of jº. it is singular that he should have thought it to be the work of Solomon. T. W. DAVIES. PORCIUS FESTUS.–Soe FESTUS. PORGUPINE.—See BITTERN. PORPOISE.—See BADGER. PORT.-This word has in its time played many parts. It has meant (1) carriage of the body, demeanour (from Lat. portare, to carry); (2) a harbour (from Lat. portus); (3) an entrance, a gate (from Lat. porta, through Fr. porte); and (4) a wine (from Oporto, in Portugal). Of these meanings (1) and (3) are now almost obsolete. In AV the only occurrence of the word is Neh 2*, where it means ‘gate,’ the same Heb, word (nWº) being translated ‘gate’ in the same verse. In Ps 914 Pr. Blº. there is an instance of the same meaning, ‘That I maye shewe all thy, prayses wyth in the portes of the daughter of Syon.’ Knox often uses the word, sometimes adding ‘gate’ as if the classical ‘port' might not be familiar. Thus, Hist. p. 408, “They caused to keep the Ports or Gates and make good Watch about the Towne’; Works, iii. 311, ‘Let every man put his sworde upon his thygh, and go in and out from porte to polte in the tentes; and let every man kil his ºie. his neyghbour, and every man his nigh kynsman'; p. 323, ‘They be: gynne to syncke to the gates of hell and portes of desperation.’ Davies quotes Scott's line in Bommić Dundee— “ Unheuk the West Port, and let us gao free.” J. HASTINGS. 22 IPORTER POSSESSION PORTER (nºw), in Ezr 7*Aram, yº; LXX Trv\wp5s and 6 upwpds, NT 6vpwpós) occurs frequently in our English versions, especially in the Blºs. of Chron- icles and Ezra-Nehemiah. It has always the sense of gatekeeper (French portier), being a derivative from porta, “a gate.” "Owing to the ambiguity of the Eng. word, which also means the carrier of a burden (French porteur, from porter, ‘to carry’), it would have been well if ‘gatekeeper” had been uniformly adopted as the rendering of the Heb. and Gr. terms. RW has at least “doorkeepers’ in 1 Ch 1518 16s 23° 26', 12, 19, 2 Ch 814. l'or the employment of ‘porters’ in public or private buildings, as well as at sheepfolds (Jn 10°), see art. GATE in vol. ii. p. 113"; and for the duties and the organization of the Levitical ‘porters,’ See art. I’lti ESTS AND LEVITES. J. A. SELBIE. POSIDONIUS (IIoatóðvuos).-An envoy sent b Nicanor to Judas Maccabaeus (2 Mac 14", cf. l Mac 727-81). POSSESS.—The verbs possidere and possidêre are said to be distinguished in Latin, the former meaning to ‘have in possession,’ ‘own,” the latter to “take possession of,” “win.” The Eng. verb ‘to possess” adopted both meanings. In AV it nearly always means ‘to take possession of,’ ‘win.” This is some- times evident, as Nu 13” “Let us go up at once and possess it’; Jos 13. “There remaineth yet very much land to be possessed.’ But sometimes it is not so, as Gn 22” “Thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies’; Lk 18” “I give tithes of all that I possess’; 21”. “In your patience possess ye your souls’; * 1 Th 4* “That every one of you should l:now how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour.’ Cf. Fuller, Holy Warre, 14, ‘The Saracens had lately wasted Italy, pillaged and burned many churches near Rome it self, conquered Spain, invaded Aquitain, and possessed some islands in the mid-land-sea '; and Ac 1" Rhem. “And he in deede hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquitie.” Sometimes the meaning is to ‘enter into posses- sion,’ ‘inherit,’ as Job 7” So am I made to possess months of vanity” (" "Fºr in 15); Zec 8” ‘ I will cause the remnant of this people to possess all these things’ ("Rynji), IRV ‘I will cause . . . to in- herit”). So ‘to be possessed of' a thing is to inherit it, to have it in possession, Jos 22° ‘the land of their possession, , whereof they were possessed.’ Cf. Tuller, Holy Warre, 213, ‘Charles subdued Man- fred and Comadine his nephew . . . and was possessed of Sicilie, and lived there.” The active form is found in Knox, Hist. 265, ‘Them hee possessed in the Land of Canaan.’ - To be possessed with a spirit (of good + or evil) is in Ac 817 16" siniply to be ‘ held by the spirit, but elsewhere means to be under the influence of a demon (Öatpović (pevos). See next article. J. HASTINGS. POSSESSION means the control or mastery of the * The Greek of this familiar passage is iv rā ºrogov% ºy 27%arsalls r&; J/v2&s ºv. There is a various reſiding 24%arzot's for z rào eats well supported and adopted by Tischendorf. Hut with either form the meaning is ‘gain possession of,” “win” (RV), not hold in possession,’ which would demand the perf. tense. The Vulg. gives possidebitis, after which Wyc. ‘ye Schulen welde’; Tind. has “With youre pacience possesse youre Soules,' and he is followed pretty closely by subsequent versions, the meaning probably always being “win.' But that the modern misunderstanding is not very modern may be shown from Clement Cotton's tr. of Calvin's Isaiah 402 (p. 400), ‘IIe is earnest in giving of hope to the godly, wishing them to possesse their soules in patience, until the Prophets were sent unto them with this joyfull and comfortable message.” The Latin is qua, patienter devorent anorae toedium. f Cf. Tindale's Works, i. 97, “The Faith only maketh a man Safe, good, righteous, tund the friend of God . . . and poºviesseth us with the Spirit of God.” will of an individual by another and superhuman personality. . This is a familiar feature in early Jewish psychological beliefs, bound up with the prevalent demonology and angelology of pre-exilian and post-exilian Israel. See art. DEMON in vol. i., and for NT especially, p. 593. That psychological relations were in primitive times construed in material and spatial forms need not be argued here. It is obvious even from a superficial examination of the language em- ployed. Thus in 1 S 16", the “evil spirit from God’ is said to be upon (ºx) Saul, and the same preposition is employed in Is 61% of the spirit with which God inspires the prophet. Cf. the use of the phrase “the hand of the LORD was upon . . .” The spirit of God passed into (a nºw) Sauſ when he prophesied (1 S 10° 18'"). On the other hand, in 1 S 16" the evil spirit is said to terrify (nya) Saul. In the vision of Michiah the deceiving spirit pro- ceeds from the presence of Jehovah, and is “in the mouth’ of His prophets (1 K 22*). The same language, therefore, is employed of Divine inspiration as of possession by an evil spirit. The supernatural agency was considered to pass into the individual and take possession of him, and he became visibly affected thereby. The lips of the prophet were for the time under the control of the Divine supernatural will, which spake by the mouth of the holy prophets (Lk 17"; but the same power might also cause dumbness, cf. v.v.” ”). While admitting that in some cases we have no more than the inevitable language of metaphor, the cumulative evidence of analogy leads us to refrain from pressing this view unduly. Thus the necromancer was considered to be occupied for the time by the spirit of the dead, and was said to be as 992, though language in this case appears to invert the relation (see Necromancy under SOR- CERY). , Similarly, the demon or evil spirit was believed to enter or pass out of the human subject or to be driven out. While subject to his influence, the individual was said to be 6alpovišćuevos (in Arab. evºst." méjavčn, or possessed by a Jimm). Demon - possession was manifested by anything abnormal in personal appearance, especially in the strange look of the eyes. Among the many stories about Jân related by Doughty in his Arabia Deserta (vol. ii. p. 188 fl.) the following statement by Amm Mohammed is a good illustration :- “Last year a jinn entered into this woman, my wife, one evening: and we were sitting here, as we sit now ; I, and the woman, and Haseyn. I saw it come in her eyes, that were fixed, all in a moment ; and she lamented with a labouring in her throat. . . . This poor woman had great white rolling eyes, and little joy in them ’ (p. 191). Anything of an unhealthy nature, such as an uncanny expression ; any disease, and especially epilepsy or insanity, was ascribed to demon- possession. I'pilepsy, in fact, derives its name (étriXmpts, étrixmibia) from having been regarded as due to an assault by demons (cf. Mk 9”). In New Hebrew the epileptic patient is called 137, ‘over- O powered’ (cf. Syr. 12,2). In the NT the demon was said to ‘bind’ (Öeiv), seize and rend (KaraXa- Beiv and pija gewu in the graphic passage Mk 9°), enter and pass out of (elorépxeo 0at and Čšépxeo 0at) the human subject. The terms predicated of the human subject may be found in art. DEMON, vol. i. p. 593. Animals were likewise affected, Mk 5”. Among the Jews and other nations of antiquity magical formulae were employed in which the potent names of Supernatural powers were recited. Among the Jews this was chiefly the name of Jehovah varied in all possible forms, while among the Christians the name of Christ was so en- ployed. See article MAGIC and also EXORCISM, POST POTIPHAR 23 Other remedies of a material character were also used. It is doubtful whether in Ja, 5* there is anything of a magical or semi-magical character, implying a belief in demon-possession. ... It should be noticed, however, that in this case the “mame’ was invoked, just as in exorcisms. - OWEN C. W.IIITEHOUSE. POST.-i. Door or gate-post.—1. ‘lintel’ in 1 K 6*(RVin ‘posts'), where, probably, the stone case of the door is intended; as also in Ezk 40 and 41, where RV prefers “jambs’ to AV ‘posts.” It is derived from ºn as indicating what projects in front of or around the door. 2. Tºs (possibly from BS in a metaphorical sense), once rendered by AV “posts’ (Is 6%); IłV substitutes “foundations.” 3. Tº ſº, from an unused root ºn ‘to move oneself about,’ applied to the post on which the hinges turn. In later times the name was transferred to the small cylinder attached to the doorpost, containing a strip of parchment on which are written these two passages, viz. Dt 6** and 11**. Every pious person on passing out or in touches this reverently, and then kisses his finger. 4. nº, from root Pº “to spread out,’ rendered “post” three times in AV (2 Ch 37, Ezk 41*, Am 9'). In each case RV rightly substitutes “threshold.’ On the doorposts the blood of the lamb was sprinkled (Ex 127 etc.); and here the words of the law were to be written (Dt 6" etc., see No. 3, above). Moslems copy the Jews in writing verses from the Koran on their doorposts. The German Temple Christians in Palestine have engraved a text of Scripture over every doorway in their colonies. A servant who wished not to avail himself of the law of freedom was brought by his master ‘unto God,” ‘unto the doorpost,’ and had his ear pierced with an awl (Ex 21"). A special sanctity seems in the East always to gather round the doorway (See art. THRESHold). To this it may be due that while the woodwork of the temple was of Lebanon cedar, the doorposts were made of native-grown olive (1 K 6%). ii. Carrier of letters or despatches.—?, pl. D's", (‘runners’), once (2 K 11”) py", from Pin ‘to run.” The ‘runners’ formed the royal guard (1 S 22”, See art. GUARD), kept the king's house, and were available for other service (1 K 1497", 2 K 10” ll"). From them were chosen the couriers, who conveyed royal mandates throughout the kingdom (2 Ch 30%, Est 319. 19). Those of the Persian monarch were mounted on ‘swift steeds’ (Est 819. 14 RV"). The swiftness characteristic of this service gives point to the saying of Job 9” “My days are swifter than a post.’ W. EWING. P0T.-See Food in vol. ii. p. 40, s. ‘Wessels.” POTIPHAR (nºp; LXX in Gn 37% A IIerpeºffs, E Luc. IIeteq\pſis, in 39% ADE Luc. IIereqpſis ; † Vulg. Putiphar). The name is generally regarded (e.g. by Ebers, in Smith, DB2 1. ii. 1704") as a Heb. abbreviation of Potiphera yºlº ple, in which case it would be Egyp. P'-dy-p'-R', and mean ‘He whom the Ra (or the Sun-god) gave '; see Sethe, De aleph. prosthetico in lingwa oºg. verbi form is praeposito, 1892, p. 31 (a reference, for which the writer is indebted to Mr. F. Ll, Griffith), who quotes as parallel formations P'-dy-'Imm. “He whom Ammon gave,” P-dy-'st “He whom Isis gave.” Sethe also observes that in Greek transcriptions the first two syllables are commonly represented by IIs re-, as in Ilstºp; itself, IIsrs- &ois, 118tso.org.prn, Ilêtexóvous, IIsréalpus, cto., and refers, for a long list of such names, from papyri and other sources, to .* The rendering ‘swift steeds' is probable, but not certain V3" (a rare synonym of ChD) denotes a species of horse possessed of some valuable quality, which may likely enough have been Swiftºness. f. The form IIsvrºp; is also found, as in ed. Ald., and a 15th cent. MS ap. Lagarde, Gen. Graece (cf. p. 20); Philo, i. 134, 604 (Mang.); Cramer, Anecd, Par. ii. 174. 25 (Paruhey, p. 78). But it is certainly false (Griffith). ºs, rendered Parthey, Æg. Personemnamen, 1864, p. 70ff. Lieblein's pro- osal (PSIA, 1898, p. 208 f.) to identify ‘Potiphar’ with the isolated and uncertain Pt-ber (p. 24 n.”), does not make the etymology any clearer. The name of the “officer’ (Dºn), lit. eunuch) of Pharaoh, and ‘captain of the body-guard’ (hy B'nyºn; see vol. ii. p. 768" n. :), to whom Joseph was sold by the Midianites (Gn 37*), and who appointed Joseph to wait upon the prisoners con- fined in the state-prison (ib. p. 768 m. ||), which was in his louse (40"); in the existing text of Gn, also, the Egyptian who made Joseph super- intendent of his household, and whose wife made the advances to Joseph which the latter rejected (391ſt.). . It is doubtful whether these two personages are not in reality distinct, Gn 3786 401ſt belong to E, and 391ſt, to J.; and there are strong reasons (cf. ib. pp. 767b, 768 m. §) for supposing, as is done by nearly all modern critics, that the words “Potiphar, an officer (eunuch) of Pharaoh's, the captain of the guard” in 391, are an addition made by the redactor, who identified Joseph's “master,' mentioned in ch. 39, with Potiphar, the ‘captain of the body-guard,” of 3786 403ft. ; if this view be correct, the original, narrative of ch. 39 (J) knew nothing of “Potiphar,’ but simply mentioned “an' (unnamed) * Egyptian,' to whom, the Ishmaelites sold Joseph. . It may be noticed that, in the existing narrative, the description, “an Egyptian,” attached in 391 to “Potiphar, an eunuch of Pharaoh's,” etc., seems a rather pointless addition, whereas, standing alone. it would have an adequate raison d'être. The ‘captain of the guard’ was not a specially Egyptian office; the same title (with only 57 for ‘ig') being used also of a chief officer of Nebuchad- nezzar (2 K 25° al.; see above, ii. 768" n. :). The number of court- and state-officials mentioned in Egyp. inscriptions is very great (Ebers, Æg. it. die Bb. Mose's, p. 300; and esp. Brugsch, Die A273/ptologie, 1889, pp. 213 f., 222–227, 243 f., 299- 301); but the office attributed to Potiphar does not appear to have been definitely identified : per- haps it was that of ‘the general and eldest of the court’ of the Hood-papyrus, an important official, whom Brugsch (p. 213) and Maspero (Journ. As, 1888 (xi.), p. 273) identify with the dpxtorwaaro- q}\}\aš, often mentioned in the Ptolemaic period; see Grenfell, Greek Pap. 1896, 38. 1, 42. l ; M. L. Strack, Die dyn. der Ptol. 1897, p. 219 ft., Inscr. Nos. 77 (= CIG 4677), 95, 97 (CIG 26.17), 108 (CIG 4893), 109, 111, 171; Jos. Amt. XII. ii. 4 (cf. 2).” Eunuchs were apparently not as common in ancient Egypt as in other countries, though they seem to be represented on the monuments (Ebers, l.c. p. 298); it is, however, possible that såris is used in the more general sense of officer, neither the ‘captain of the body-guard,’ nor the chief butler or 'baker (to both of whom the same term is applied in 40° 7), holding a kind of office which would be very naturally deputed to a eunuch (though cf. Jos. Amt. XVI. viii. 17,---cup- bearers at Herod's court): Ges., however (Thcs. p. 973), doubts this general application of the term ; and LXX, at any rate, have atráðwu in 37” and ečvo0xos in 39'. If the name Potiphar did not occur in the original text of cli. 39, the question of his marriage does not arise ; it may be men- tioned, however, that (assuming the word Sāris to have its proper force) cases are on record, in both ancient and modern times, of eunuchs being married (Burckhardt, Arabict, i. 290; Ebers, p. 290). ū. the narrative of ch. 39 enough has been said above, vol. ii. pp. 768", 772. It is remarkable that * Of course Dºnatyn my means properly ‘chief (or superin- tendent) of the slaughterers (or cooks l1 S 9°])'; and, in spite of 2 R 258 etc., it night in Genesis have this meaning (eſ, LXX &pzigzáyºpor): in this case, the expression might (as Mr. Griffith suggests) denote the “royal cook,” an official who acquired at Thebes in the New Empire many important administrative functions—leading expeditions to the quarries, investigating tomb-robberies, etc. (see Ernian, Lºgypten, Index, S.W. “Truch- sess'; and comp, above, vol. ii. p. 774, the note on 4b). 24 POTIPHERA POTTER, POTTERY names of the form ‘Potiphera,’ ‘Potiphar’ (if this be rightly regarded as º the same name), appear first in the 22nd dyn. (the dyn, of Shishak)," and are frequent only in the 26th dyn. (B.C. 664– 525); it is thus at least doubtful how far either one or the other really springs from the age of Joseph (see, further, vol. i. 665°, ii. 775°). S. R. DRIVER, POTIPHERA (yng ºp; LXX A IIerpeºffs, E Luc. IIereºpſis; + Vulg. Putiphare ; on the etym, see under POTIPHAR).-The priest—i.e., no doubt, the chief priest—of ON (which see), -i.e. of the famous and ancient temple of the Sun, at On, whose daughter Asenath was given by Pharaoh to Joseph for a wife (Gn 41* * 46”). S. R. DRIVER, POTSHERD.—This is the translation in Job 28, Ps 22", Pr 26*, and Is 45° bis of wºn heres, which is rendered ‘sherd’ in Is 30°, Ezk 23*, but elsewhere (usually with *) ‘earthen vessel.” Potsherd occurs also in Sir 227 as tr. of Šarpakov, which is the LXX word for heres in Job 28, Ps 2210, Pr 26-9, Is 3014. The Eng, word, which is a sherd (shred) or frag- ment of pottery, is illustrated by Skelton's (Skeat's Specimens, 143)— “But this madde Amalecke, Lyke to a Mamelek, He regardeth lordes No more than potshordes'— and Spenser, FQ VI. i. 37– “They hew'd their helmes, and plates asunder brake, As they had potshares bene.” In translating, the distinction has to be made be- tween ‘earthen vessel’ and ‘fragment of earthen vessel.” The latter is the meaning, according to Oaf, Heb. Lea., in Job 28 41*, Is 301", Ezk 23*. RV makes two changes. Job 41*AW ‘sharp stones are under him ' is changed into “his underparts are like sharp potsherds’;, Pr 26* ‘a potsherd' becomes ‘an earthen vessel.” J. HASTINGS. POTTAGE (Tº názid, LXX gympia, Vulg. pul. mventum). —A kind of thick broth made by boi ing lentils or other vegetables with meat or suet, usually in water, but sometimes in milk. Robin- son says that lentil P. made in this manner is very palatable, and that he ‘could very well con- ceive, to a weary hunter, faint with hunger, they (lentils) might be quite a dainty” (i. 167). Thomson speaks of its appetizing fragrance, which it diffuses far and wide ; and he gives an account of a meal in which this pottage was eaten out of a saucepan placed on the ground in the middle of the com- Jany, a cake of bread, doubled º - fashion, eing dipped in the pot to carry the pottage to the mouth. ‘European children born in Palestine are extravagantly fond of it” (L. &md B. i. 252). The pottage prepared by Jacob was of the red lentil (see FOOD, vol. ii. 27), hence Esau’s emphatic ‘the red, this red ' (Gn 25”). For a mess of this, called in He 12" Bpóa is pºla (‘a mess of meat’), Esau sold his birthright. Labat in his account of the visit of the Chevalier d'Arvieux to Hebron in 1660 says that at the entrance to St. Helena's Church, now a mosque, there is a great kitchen where pottage is daily prepared of ſentiis and * For the name ‘Petu-baal’ cited above, vol. ii. 774, n. *ſ, is very doubtful, Mr. Griffith informs the writer, in both meaning and date. It is º Pt-ber (Lieblein, Dict. des Nons Hićrogl. No. 553); and ‘though ber is the correct spelling for Baal, there is no determinative to show that it was intended for that. Pt, also, is not the same as P'-diſ (in P'-dy-'Innºn, etc., above); and it is difficult to find a meaning for it. The name is at present known only to occur once ; and it may be wrongly copied, or may not be a compound at all. The period to which it belongs is also quite uncertain : it may be that of the Hyksos ; but it may also be earlier, or much later.” f Also, [Jºvºrsºgºr, ed. Ald., and the MS cited p. 23 m. ; Euseb. Prºp. Ep. ix. 21.9; Cramer, Amecd. Par. ii. 175. 14; Fubric. Cod. Pseudepigr. ii. 80 (Parthey, p. 78). other vegetables in commemoration of this event, which is supposed to have taken place here (?), and is freely distributed to all comers; “We have partaken of it’ (ii. p. 237). This practice does not seen to be kept up at the present day. Pottage was known in Egypt at an earl §: and was called āshā (Copt. JO Y (9). Wilkinson has copied a tomb-painting representing a man cooking this food (ii. 34, fig. 301, 9). In Palestine a variety of vegetables entered into its composi- tion, as in Scotch broth. Apparently the globe cucumber (Cucumis prophétarum), a common plant about Samaria, was sometimes used to thicken it ; and we are told in 2 K 4” that one of the ‘sons of the prophets’ mistook Tºy ny?5, probably the violently purgative Citrullus colocynthis, for this plant. The colocynth is common in the Shephélah and about the shores of the lower Jordan W. but not in the middle higher lands (see FOOD, vol. ii. p. 28). The prophet Haggai names pottage with bread, wine, and oil as the common articles of diet which a priest, bearing holy flesh, would be likely to touch inadvertently with the skirt of his garment (2%). Näzid, being chiefly made of vegetables, differs from pārāk (only in const. pèrak, Is 65’ I, ethibh), which seems to have been a kind of minced collops made of meat disjointed, or finely cut up and . in water (cf. “mortrewes and potages’ below). Keré has mêrak, as in Jg 6* **, a name which is also applied to the same dish. i. suppose these to be soup poured over broken l"Gººl,Cl, The word “pottage’ was originally the same as the lºrench potage and spelled like it, as in Chaucer's Prologue to the Pardomers Tale, 82, and Piers Plowman, who writes ‘potage and payn (bread) ynough ' (Text B. xv. 310), ‘mortrewes (pounded meat) and potages’ (ib. xiii. 41). In the Boke of Cwrtasye, wº date is uncertain, prob- ably about 1460, potage is the first course at dinner (iii. 765), and is to be eaten without ‘grete sowndynge' (i. 69). In the 1557 ed., of Seager's Schoole of Vertue (iv. 444), it appears with two t's, and it is spelled as we now have it in all editions of the English Bible from 1560 to the present. In Russell’s Boke of Nurture, dating from about 1460, there is a section on different kinds of botages. A. MACALISTIR. POTTER, POTTERY.-The art of the potter (Heb. "Sā or hy', ptcp. of ns: ‘to form or fashion'; Gr. Kepancús) can be traced back to a very early date in Egypt, and within recent years there have been considerable ‘finds’ in Palestine of specimens of pottery, some of which are much older than the date of the Israelite conquest. Upon the ground especially of the discoveries at Tell el-IIesy (? Lach- ish), I'linders Petrie has sought to construct a complete history of the pottery of Palestine, which he divides into three periods (see the following article, and compare Petrie and Conder in PER'St, 1891, p. 68 ſº.; .. Nowack, Lehrb, der ſle!). Arch. i, 265 ſt: ; Benzinger, Iſeb. Arch. 261 ff.). The pro- ducts of the potter's industry would naturally be little used by the Israelites during the nomadic period of their existence, when vessels of skin or of wood must have been found more serviceable than those of earth (Nowack, l.c. p. 242; Ben- zinger, l.c. p. 214). I’ven after they entered Canaan, the º appeal to have been slow to adopt the vessels of the potter; a skin is still used for holding milk (Jg 4"), wine (1 S 16”), or water (Gn 21”); the Heb. in the first two of these pas- sages is TN), in the third nºſ, the Gr, in all three is Gorkós. The earliest mention of pottery in the OT is in 2 S 17*, where, amongst the articles brought to David during his flight from Absalom, l'OTTER, POTTERY POTTER, POTTERY 25 were ‘earthen vessels’ (hºw *; B oken 60 rpákwa, A on.). Both in the OT and in the Apocrypha, there are allusions to the various processes carried on by the potter. He treads the clay (nºh) with his feet (Is 41*, Wis 157), kneads it like dough and places it upon the wheel, or rather wheels (nºis Jer 18°; LXX &rl Tóv Al6av, implying a reading D'ºs). The 'obnayim (a dual form used elsewhere only in Ex 1" of the ‘birth-stool’) consisted, as the name implies, of two discs of wood, connected by a wooden pivot, and arranged the one above the other, the under wheel being the larger of the two. The wheels, which were capable of being revolved in opposite directions, were set in motion by the foot of the potter, who sat at his work. All these points, as well as the processes of firing and glazing, fire referred to in Sir 38” (cf. the illustrations in Wilkinson, Anc. Egyp. 1837, iii. 164). The first of these processes, the firing, perhaps explains Ps 22” ‘My palate [reading ºn for "Tº “my strength 'J, is dried up like a potsherd’ (wº), darpakov). The glazing process, in which the oxide of lead obtained in the course of refining silver was chiefly employed, gives point to the saying of Pr 26* “Fervent [or perhaps ‘smooth,’ see Toy, ad loc.] º and a wicked heart are like an earthen vessel overlaid with silver dross’ (wnnºy ngsp pºp py; LXX dpyúptov Štóðuevov però 65Nov (bairep tarpakov in mtéov). Under the later kings the industry of the potter was so familiar as to furnish the prophets with figures in addressing their hearers. The classic instance of this is Jer 18, where the prophet describes how he paid a visit to the house of the potter,” and found him fashioning a work on the wheels. “And when the vessel that he made of the clay was marred in the hand of the potter, he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it’ (v."). The lesson drawn is, ‘Cammot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. . Behold, as the clay in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel’ (cf. Is 29* 45° 64°, Wis 157", and the famous argument of St. l’aul in Ro 9”, a passage which will be fully dis- cussed in art. PREDESTINATION, along with which it will be well to refer to Sanday-Headlam's ‘Romans’ in Intermat. Crit. Comm. ad loc.). Again, in Jer 19" a potter's earthen bottle (papy wnſ, hyº, LXX Bukös retriNaguévos 60 rpákuvos) is pur- chased by the prophet, and afterwards broken in typical allusion to the approaching irretrievable ruin of the nation (cf. Ps 2" = Itev 247, Is 30"). A guild of potters is mentioned by the Chronicler (1 Ch 4*). In P the ‘earthen vessel’ (º, º is repeatedly mentioned : Lv 6* [Heb. *] as used for boiling the flesh of the sin-offering ; 11” as defiled by contact with unclean animals; 14% "one of the two birds offered on behalf of the cleansed leper or leprous house is to be killed ‘in an earthen vessel over running water” [i.e. so as to let the blood drop into the vessel and mingle with the water contained in it]; 15” as defiled by an issue; Nu 517 as used to contain the water in the jealousy ordeal. In all these instances the LXX has a kejos 60 rpá- kuvov except in lºv 14" and Nu 517, in both of which it has dyywov 60 rpákwov. In Jer 32" we read of a legal document (the deed of purchase of Hamamel's field) being kept in an earthen vessel. The figure of the potter at work is more or less consciously present in a number of instances where the verb, is is employed to describe the Divine activity in creating or fashioning men or other objects: Jahweh forms man of dust from the ground, Gn 27; beasts and birds from the ground, v.”; Israel as a people, Is 271. 43. * 442 45° bis, 11.49% * Situated probably near the gate Harsith (Jer 102 RV), or gate of the potsherds' (?), a name perhaps derived from the quantity of potsherds thrown out there. See HARSITii. tº ſºme (even from the womb) 647; the individual Israelite, Is 437; Jeremiah in the womb, Jer 1"; the eye of man, PS 94"; the locust, Ann 7"; Leviathan, Ps 104*; the dry land, Ps 95°; the earth, Is 45,80ts; the mountains, Am 4”; the universe (955), Jer 10*=51”. The figure appears to be lost sight of, and nx" simply = ‘form,” in such instances as Is 457 the forming of light, Ps 747 summer and winter, Zec 12" the spirit of man, Ps 33° the hearts of men. Ts’ is also used figuratively of fashioning, i.e. foreordaining, an event or situation, Is 221, 37% (=2 K 19°) 461), Jer 33°, cf. Ps 1399. The potter's clay and the vessels fashioned from it are emblems in Seipture of what is feeble or of little value. In Dn 2* the feet of the image seen in vision by Nebuchadnezzar are described as part of iron and part of potter's clay (Aram. "Dº-" pri; Theod. B simply 60 tpdºwov, A** ſing 60 rpákivov kep- apºtov ; LXX 60 rpákov kepapukoú), which leads to the interpretation, the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly broken' (RV m “brittle,’ Aram. Thºr, Theod. avvrptgöpevov, LXX ovvrerpupévov). In La 4” we have the forcible contrast : “The precious sons of Zion, comparable to ſine gold, how are they esteemed as earthen pitchers, the work of the hands of the potter’ (nº.' T nº.ſp vºn-ºff, LXX els äyywa Öotpákuva, Épya Xelpóv kepapéws). Again, in 2 Co 47 St. Paul declares, ‘We have this treasure [sc. the ministry entrusted to him] in earthen vessels’ (év čarpakivots aſketeorov), perhaps in allusion especially to the weak bodily frame of the apostle. “In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth,’ 2 Ti 2" (a.keiſm 60 rpákuva); cf. also Is 29% 459. Zec. 11” is a difficult passage, especially when considered in connexion with Mt 279*. The Mas- soretic text is thus rendered in RV: ‘The LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter, the goodly price that I was prised (sic) at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver and cast them unto the potter in the house of the LORD.’ Instead of *S*H*s ‘unto the potter,” Gesenius (Thes.) follows the Syr. in reading nºisſº’s ‘into the treasury.’ This is adopted also by G. A. Smith, Wellhausen, Nowack, and others. The LXX has els to Xavev- Tiptov, ‘into the smelting furnace.’ The words "six and ns) might all the more readily be confused owing to the tendency of s to pass into between two vowels. It is not improbable, however, that the Massoretes purposely obscured the reading nsin from a feeling that the paltry wage which was unworthy of the prophet's acceptance could not ſittingly be cast into the treasury of God. In like manner the chief priests in Mt. 27" say of the thirty pieces of silver returned by Judas, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is the price of blood.’ Accordingly, they took counsel and bought with them the potter's field to bury strangers in. In this MIt characteristi- cally discovers a fulfilment of prophecy, and it is manifestly the prophecy of Zec 11” that is in view, although it is attributed to Jeremiah, and quoted in a form that agrees neither with the MT, of which we have just quoted the translation, nor with the LXX. The substitution of Jeremiah for Zechariah is no doubt simply due to a lapsits memoria, which might occur all the more readily in view of the allusions to the potter in Jer 18 and 19, and the narrative of the purchase of a field from Hanamel in 32". The following are the readings of the LXX (13) of Zee 11” and of the pro- fessed quotation in Mt. 27" (according to WH's text)— ZoC 1118. Kal sitev Kºptos Tpós gé, IX60es at Toys eis rô X wwev- Tiptov, Kai o Ké!opal (A Mt. 270ſ. Kal &\apov Tó. Tpadikovra dpyúpua, thu Tuhy too retu- p.muévov čv étupija auto ſittö 26 POTTERY POTTERY Zec 1119. orképat abró) el 66kupºv éotiv, 8v rpótrov čāokup do 67 (B"ſort ANQ 360kuda'679) Utrép abrºv. kal éAašov toys rpudikovta dpyūpovs Kal évé8a)\ov atroës els Tov (A om. Tów) otrov Kuptov els Tô Xovevriptov. RV in Mt. ‘And they (marg. ‘I’) took the thirt pieces of silver, the price of him that was priced, whom (certain) of the children of Israel did price (marg. , whom they priced on the part of the sons of Israel’), and they (marg. “I’) gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.’ The reading ‘potter’ is thus retained (although there appears to be in the context a consciousness also of the reading ‘treasury’), the language is accommodated to cover the purchase by the priests of the potter's field, and the passage has mani- festly a Messianic character imposed upon it (see, further, Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten, ad loc., and arts. AKELDAMA, and QUOTATIONS Ed and J &). J. A. SELBIE. POTTERY. — Materials for the study of the pottery of Southern Palestine from 1700 to 300 D.C. were furnished by the systematic excavation of the mound Tell el-Hesy by Petrie and 13]iss, 1800– 93 (see art. LACHISII). At this site was found a series of superimposed mud-brick towns, eight in number, each distinguished by its own types of pottery. The already-dated foreign types (Greek and Phoenician) furnished a scale for approxi- mately dating the local ware with which they were associated, or which they overlaid. The results obtained at Tell el-Hesy have since been confirmed and amplified by extensive excavations at three other mounds, Tell Zakariya, Tell es- Safi, and Tell ej-Judeideh, as well as at Jerusalem. Briefly, these results are as follows. The pre- Seleucidan pottery may be divided into three groups — (1) earlier pre - Israelite ; (2) later pre- sraelite ; (3) Jewish. (l) The earlier pre-Israelite ware has been found, unmixed with other styles, on the rock or virgin soil at three sites. The types include—(a) large bowls with very thick brims, the interior being faced with red or yellow and burnished with lines sometimes crossing ; (b) large jars with flat disc bottom, invecked necks, and ornamented with a cable - moulding ; (c) jars with surfaces scraped Mt, 270ſ. vlåv 'Iapaiº, kal éðwkav (A** {6(okev, N. §60ka) attà els rôv dypôv rod Repapiéws kaffa ovvérašév plot Kºptos. EARLY PRE-18T.A.I.LITE JAR, over with a comb and having ledge-handles of a wavy shape. These landles are º of certain Egyptian pottery, regarded by 1’etrie as pre- historic ; he suggests a Lybian origin. All these characteristics come down to later times, especially LEDGE-IIANDLE, (Early Pre-Israelite.) the pattermed burnishing, which is found in a debased form in Jewish jars. (2) The later pre-Israelite ware comes down to Jewish times, and is found in connexion with known “Phoenician' types, ranging from about 1400 to 1000 B.C., and with Mycenaean ware of the same period. The most characteristic native forms are—(a) the open lamps and bowls, both with rounded bottom, often found purposely buried in groups ; (b) ware with painted ornament, consist- sº º LATER, PRE-ISRAELITE PAINTIED WARE. ing chiefly of birds, zigzags, and spirals; (c) small ſlasks with pointed bottoms; (d) stands for hold- ing these ; (e) female figurines (teraphim). Bowls (LURIED) WITII LAMP. (3) The ware we call Jewish appears to be char. acteristic of the later Jewish monarchy, when the IPOTTERY IPOWERTY 27 local pre-Israelite and the Phoenician types had blended and had become debased. §. CO]]] - monest types are—(a) cooking pots (blackened with smoke), with large wide mouths and small handles; (b) open lamps, with thick disc bases; JEWISII COOKING POT. (c) tiny rudo black jugs; (d) flasks with long neck and stand, out of all proportion to the small bº ; (c) large jars with #. handles, stamped. The stamps are of three classes: stars of various forms; ellipse containing name of the owner or maker in old Hebrew letters; royal stamps. The ROYAL STAMP ON JAR. IIANDLE. latter show a creature in two varieties, one with two expanded wings, the other with four. The second type is clearly a scarabayas, Above the symbol is invariably the legend Tºp"; below, the name of a town, as ninty. As this ware appears to date from the time of the Jewish monarchy, the reading ‘Delonging to the king of Shocoln’ is un- tenable. Accordingly we should rather read : “To the king : (dedicated by) Shocolm.” Thus far three names of known towns have been recovered, Shocol, Hebron, and Ziph, as well as the name nwon, which is not mentioned in the l8ible. As to the exact meaning of the stamp, several hy- Yotheses have been brought forward. From the discovery of these stamped handles at Jerusalem it has been argued that they belonged to jars containing oil, wine, or other tribute sent to the capital by the towns mentioned. The wide geographical distribution (such as the finding of the stamp with Shocoln at five different sites) suggests that the place-names were those of ºyal potteries, situated at Hebron, Ziph, Shocoln, CUC. Associated with the above-mentioned Jewish types we find Greek pottery, chiefly ribbed bowls, and large amphorae with loop handles. The red and black figured ware was also imported. The post-Seleucidan pottery of Palestine has not been as carefully studied as the earlier types. The Seleucidan forms are similar to those found at Alexandria. Rhodian jar-handles stamped with Greek names are common. Itoman sites contain the well-known ribbed amphorae, and tiles with the stamp of the tenth legion : LEG(IO) x. FRE- (TENSIS), are common about Jerusalem. In Chris- STAMP OF TIIE 10TII LEGION. tian graves are found many closed lamps, stamped with elaborate patterns, sometimes showing crosses or a Greek inscription, as ATXNAPIA l'AAA. CIIRISTIAN LAMP. The same general type extended to Arab times. I'inally, we have the Arab glazed ware, found in Crusading sites, such as Blanche Garde at Tell es-Safi. LITERATURE. —IPetrie, Tell cl-Hesy; Bliss, Montºnd of Many Cities; Reports on the Excavations at Tell Zakariya, Tell CŞ- Safi, and Tell ej-Judeidell, PIE1'St, 1899–1900; also the forth- coming volume on these Excavations. T. J. BLISS. Note—The above illustrations are reproduced with the kind permission of the Palestine Exploration lºund Committee. POTTER'S FIELD. — See POTTER. AKELDAMA and POUND.— See Monry, vol. iii. p. 428", and WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. POWERTY. — A. IN OLD TESTAMENT. — The paucity of abstract terms in Hebrew is illus: trated by the fact that the words translated ‘poverty” in EV occur chiefly in the Book of Proverbs, and other post-exilic works. These are (a) from nbri, “to lack ’:—ngſ, nicſ) (cf., nºn, in II), évôeta, Üotépmua, etc., egostas, etc.; (b) from thm :- Usin, wºn, ºn, Trevla, eggstas, etc. The poor are frequently mentioned, the following terms being so translated ; (c) nicºp [cf. (a)]; (d) tººl, pten. of ºn [cf. (b)], Trévºs, Trøxös, etc., pauper, etc.; (c) from ñy be bowed down ':—ny, (Aram.), ºy afflicted,’ ‘poor,’ ly ‘humble,” “lowly” (see art. I’00R), Téums, Traxós, trpats, tatretvös, etc., pawper, etc.; (f) from mas ‘crave':-i\ºns needy,’ Trévºs, Trøxós, etc., pºtºper, etc.; (g) from y 99.1 hang down :-ºn ‘weak, de- pressed,’ in Gn 41* of lean cows, Téums, Trºxés, rairetuás, etc., pauper, etc.; (k) ºp (Aram.) only in 28 POWERTY POWERTY t Ecclesiastes, ‘poor,’ tréums, paupor; (i) the obscure and doubtful fiºn, nºn, in Ps 10% in ", perhaps ‘hapless,’ révºs, trazós, pawper. The causes of poverty, apart from sloth, thought- lessness, and extravagance, were specially—(i.) Failure of crops and loss of cattle #. bad seasons; thus the Shunammite left her home- stead, by Elisha's advice, to avoid a famine (2 K 81-7, cf. Neh 5°). At such times the townsfolk would suffer from the high price of food, and the falling off of trade through the destitution of the farmers. (ii.) Raids and invasions. (iii.) Loss of property through the violence of the nobles, sup- ported by corrupted law courts, e.g. Naboth's vineyard (1 K 21) and the appropriation of the Shumammite's land during her absence. (iv.) Ruinous taxation and forced labour (corvée) (Neh 5* *). (v.) Extortionate usury, which took ad- vantage of the distress caused by bad seasons and heavy taxes to lend at high interest on the security of land. In many instances the debtors could not pay, and forfeited land and liberty to their creditors (Neh 5*"). In considering the character and eactent of poverty, stress must be laid on the influence of Jolygamy and slavery. The , almost universal § of early marriage which seems to have existed amongst freemen, together with concu- binage and polygamy, checked the growth of that destitution amongst unmarried women which is the most painful feature of modern poverty. Indeed, if the principles of family and clan life had been loyally carried out, a free Israelite could want only when the whole family or clan were destitute. But actual practice mostly fell far short of this ideal. Again, with us, the last resort of the poor is either the workhouse, or crime, or slow starva- tion ; in ancient Israel, the destitute became slaves. Indeed, the class corresponding to the great bulk of our poorer workers for wages, both domestic and industrial, was the slave - class. Hence the article SLAVE deals with the con- dition of the greater portion of the poor. There were, however, slaves whose position was much more honourable and comfortable than that of English labourers, and there were poor who were not slaves. The existence of slavery added to the resources of the poor man by enlarging his credit : he and his family could offer their persons as security for loans. Again, the mere lack of means, if it did not amount to absolute destitution, was far less dis- tressing than with us, because so little was needed in the way of house, furniture, clothes, firing, or even food. The classes of the poor most often mentioned are widows and orphans, and the gērim, or resident aliens. The former suffered because the family ties were not as real as they were supposed to be, the latter because they had no actual family ties, and the bond of hospitality was soon strained to breaking point (Ly 19", Dt 14*, Ps 94%, Jer 22°, Zec 719, Mal 3%). See art. GER. As regards poverty, however, the conditions were very different in the four great periods of OT history. (1) The Nomadic period. In a nomad tribe there were richer and | ". and slaves; but the bond of brotherhood in the tribe was kept alive by the constant necessity of mutual help and de- fence ; and distressful poverty was possible for the individual only when the fortunes of the whole tribe were at a very low ebb. (2) The Judges and the Early Monarchy.— During this period the clan and family system maintained a great, though perhaps diminishing, vitality ; and its influence, as we have said, was against the growth of poverty. The great majority * * of free Israelite families held land; they might suffer from bad seasons, and from invasion, or the oppression of powerful fellow-countrymen : * whole families might be swept away by plague or famine, carried away captive by the enemy, or reduced to slavery by native oppressors; but with certain exceptions (see below) there was little permanent poverty. , Gideon says (Jg 6") ‘My clan (lit. ‘thousand ’) is the poorest (ºn) in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father's house'; but the context shows that Gideon was fairly well off. It is probably not a mere accident that the first mention in history of a class of poor freemen comes soon after the establishment of the Monarchy. , 1 S 22° tells us that there resorted unto David “every one that was in distress (º's pºsip), or in debt, or discontented.’ In this period, however, certain classes of land- less poor seem to have arisen. When the frontier receded through the successful attack of a neigh- bouring tribe, the Israelite refugees would seek shelter amongst their brethren. They could not always be provided with land, and probably formed a large portion of the gēriºn, the gör in this case being an Israelite settled in a strange tribe. In this period, too, the Levites are apparently both landless and poor, e.g. Micah’s Levite, Jg 17. 18, and the Levite of Jg 19, both of whom were gérim ; cf. LEVI. The scant references to the poor in the older (JE) legislation, the Ten Commandments, the Book of the Covenant, etc., e.g. Ex 22° 23", indicate that poverty was not very widespread in this period. (3) The Later Monarchy.—We learn from the §. of the 8th cent. that as the Israelite Kingdons advanced in wealth and civilization, bauperism developed. . The rich added ‘house to }. and field to field” (Is 5°), and the landless poor multiplied. The growth in luxury led to an increase of the artisan class and the town population generally. When the tide of prosperity ebbed, these classes bore the brunt of bad times. The prophets tried to keep the land for the peasant farmers, but their efforts were futile. Deuteronomy shows that poverty was a serious and Nº. evil (1017-19 1428, ºn 15. 23* * 241-426°-10), and frequently refers to the Levites, as an in poverished class (12” ” 18). The Deuteronomic legislation attempted to remedy the evil, but it came too late. (4) After the Easile.—The community in Pales- tine was poor as a whole, and Neh 5 shows that the nobles and priests profited by the misfortunes of the peasants to absorb their land. The general tone of the Psalms, and the use of the term ‘ānāw, “lowly,’ for the pious Jews, suggest that the bulk of the people were permanently poor. See art. POOR. The Priestly Code shows great considera- tion for the poor (Lv 57 11 etc. 199: 23° 25). As the Jews passed from the rule of the Persians to that of the Greek kings of Egypt and Syria, tho bulk of the people, whether in the Dispersion or in Syria, became subject, in a measure, to the general conditions of social life ; and the information as to the poor in the ancient classical world will apply to that extent to the scattered Jews. Iłut in most cities, as in Alexandria, and in many country districts, the Jews formed communities bound b racial and religious ties. Such ties are very real, especially in small societies, when those who own them are in the midst of aliens of another faith. Poverty might be prevalent, but would be much alleviated by mutual helpfulness. In Jewish Galilee and Judah there were the agricultural settlements, where social conditions were com- jaratively simple; and the intensely Jewish city of erusalem, whose size implies a large poor popula- * Cf. Nathan's parable, in which the rich man robbed his pocr neighbour (2 S 121-0). POWERTY POWER 29 sm- tion. The Blc. of Sirach, the work of a Jerusalem Jew, implies a measure of poverty and emphasizes the §º of the º before the oppression of the rich (789 10%. 3, 133, 1821°29* 35° 41*); but con- veys the impression that the wrongs and sufferings of the poor about B.C. 200 were far less grievous than in the time of Amos and Isaiah. As regards provision for the poor, there was first of all, perhaps most eſtigacious of all, the possibility of #: sustenance in slavery, a fate probably regarded with less horror, and carrying with it less disgrace, than the modern workhouse. Before this, the poor might have recourse to their family or clan. In early times, when each clan inhabited its own district, the claims of poorer members com- manded recognition; but as time went on, and the clan system broke up, this resource became less and less to be relied on. The successive codes sought to remedy the evil by various enactments. In Ex 22” loans are to be without interest, so also Dt 157.82410. 19, Lv 25*. 97; cf. Ps 15° etc.; and in Ex2311 the poor are to have the produce of the land in Sabbatical years, so also LV 25". In Deuteronomy tithes are to be given to the poor (14*26**); who are to be entertained at the great Feasts (16***; cf. Neh 819); to be allowed to glean, and to have something left to glean, to have the right to take what grew in the corners of fields, and º sheaves that might be forgotten (24" "); cf. Lv 19%.”, IRu 2°. The most serious º to deal with overty was the Law of the Jubilee Year in the Priestly Code (Lv. 25**; cf. Dt 151*), which, if carried out, would have secured the periodical restoration of the landless poor to freedom and their return to the land, but this law remained an ideal. These various provisions were supplemented by ALMSGIVING (which see). B. IN NEW TESTAMENT.-The term “poverty, Troxela, paupertas, inopia, is used only in 2 Co 8*, *, Rev. 2", where it has a general or figurative sense ; but the ‘poor,’ trévns (2 Co 9"), Trevixpós (Llº 21*), Trøxós (frequently, especially in the Gospels and Ja, 2), pauper, etc., are often mentioned. As regards poverty, the NT period did not differ in any essential features from the Greek period. On the one hand, the exactions of the Herodian and Roman officials were probably more severe than those of the Greek rulers; on the other, the duty of almsgiving was more diligently inculcated as a religious duty which would be richly rewarded. In this respect the Christian Church followed in the steps of the synagogue. The Church at Jeru- salem made an abortive experiment in communism (Aç 2*4*), which probably aggravated its poverty; and gave opportunity for the collection for ‘the poor saints at Jerusalem' which St. Paul organ- ized amongst his Gentile converts (Ro 15*, Gal 2"). The early Christian Churches followed the example of the synagogues in holding it a duty to provide for their poor (Ro 12°, 1 Ti G's, 1 Jn 37 etc.; cf. art. “Alms’ in Smith and Cheetham's Dict. of Christian Antiquities). But Ja 2** shows that this duty was often neglected. In later times the Jews have usually set an example to Christendom by their care for their poor co-religionists. While we read that “the common people (3 troAVs ºx\os, Mk 12", cf. Jn 12") heard 'Jesus ‘gladly,’ we are not told that His actual disciples were poor; they rather seem to have belonged to the }. middle class—fishermen owning boats, tax-collec- tors, etc. . The early Church included many poor, tund few rich, powerful, or distinguished members (I Co 1*); but Prof. Orr, in his Neglected Factors in the Study of the Early Progress of Christianity, maintains that the strength of the Church lay in the middle classes. Cf. ALMSGIVING, FAMILY, GLEANING, SABBATICAL YEAR, TITHEs. W. H. B]. NNETT. POWER (chiefly ºn, 15, 19; 3WVauis, étouata)."— 1. All the power in the universe is traced in Scrip. ture to a spiritual source. God created all things by His word; and the word being the expression of the will, it is the spiritual God Himself who is the ground and origin of all that is (Gn 1. 2, Ps, 33° 148%, Pr 8.7m, Is 401sm, Jer 327, Jn 18, 19). While God is the Creator of the world, and continually rules all the agents in it for His own ends, there is real power made over to nature. There is no pantheistic identification of nature's power, with God's. According to Gn 1, the earth has the function assigned to it of bringing forth grass and herbs, and the trees and all the living creatures bring forth fruit “after their kind’: nature follows its own laws (cf. He 67). Or, again, the sea has a place and power which are definitely fixed, indeed, {. are thereby proved to be real (Job 38”, Pr 8”). In like manner there is true power, though it is derivative, committed to man. He was made “in the image of God’ (Gn 1*), and so his original endowment includes the gift of power like God's. It is proved by his ex- ercising dominion over the other living creatures (1*), and by his possessing freedom of choice (2*). The power of man is lost by sin (Gn 217, 1 S 28*, Iło 719", etc.). Nevertheless, %. is treated in every condition as a rational and moral being; the wicked are commanded on almost every page of Scripture to bestir themselves, to repent and turn to God. 2. God continually upholds the world by His power in Providence, i.e. (a) in the preservation, (b) in the government of the creation. (a) The fact of the world’s persistence amid change, and while everything in it is characterized by transi- ency, is referred to the direct action of the Divine Will (Gn 8*, Ps 104*. 139, Jer 14*, Ac 17*, He 18 etc.). Then (b) God’s government of the world consists in His guiding all its processes for certain predetermined ends. Thus He causes grass to grow ‘for the cattle,’ and herb ‘for the service of man’ (Ps 104*). Human success is due to the favouring presence and power of God, and serves for the fulfilment of the Divine purposes, both as respects the earthly life (Jos 1*) and the higher life of the soul (Ro 8*, Ph 2*). All the ways of men are justly recompensed by the Almighty (Jer 32"). Wickedness is overruled and brought to naught on the earth, a feature of God’s provi- dential action which is naturally emphasized in OT. God fulfils His purpose of love in spite of all opposing agents, whether visible or invisible, angelic or Satanic (Ro 8*). 3. Special displays of power made by , the Almighty. Iº was often saved by God from its enemies, the signal deliverance from Egyptian bondage which He eſſected for His people ‘ by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm’ being the type of these supernatural interventions (Dt 51%). The chosen people were guided in their career, and kept together as a nation, a remnant at least being preserved. God revealed His laws and ordinances; and these, duly honoured, were cal- culated to realize the highest good to the nation, to impart the blessing of ‘life’ and all that that implies (Dt 28'ſ. 30.5m., Ps 197", Pr 3). These influential manifestations of the Divine Will lead up to the completed revelation in Christ, who is superior to every world-power, and whose gospel is ‘the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth” (Roll"). The full manifestation of His power occurs wilen ‘the kingdoms of this world are tº: the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ ; and he shall reign for ever and ever' (Rev 1.11%). The personality of Jesus in the * Broadly speaking, bºwo, was in NT is power, and #ovoſº, authority to wield it. See Mason, Conditions of Our Lord's Liſt on Earth, p. 98 f.; lightfoot on Col 11%; Swete on Mk 2'". 30 POWER POWER OF THE IXEYS Gospels presents throughout the characteristics of spiritual power. He exhibits the unequalled ower of perfect righteousness and love, e.g. in rawing disciples to Himself with a few words (Mt 4*, Mk 2"), refuting learned and influential adversaries, so that they could not answer Him a word or venture to question Him (Mt. 22", Mk 12*, Lk 14° 20'"), driving out of the temple a crowd of those who dishonoured the building (Mt 211°), working miracles in kindness to men and for the furtherance of faith (Mt 11° etc.), extending pity and forgiveness to penitent sinners, and thereby raising them to a new and better life (Lk 7*). These qualities of holiness and love in Jesus appear at their best when He is under trial ; His endurance of the cross proves them to be stronger than death. Hence it is when He is ‘lifted up' that He ‘will draw all men' unto Him (Jn 12*). Then the resurrection of Christ proves His power over death and His glory as the triumphant Son of God (Ac 2, etc.). 4. Power restored in man. God works in man for the restoration of the soul's own power, and hence the believer should ‘work out his own salvation with fear and trembling’ (Ph 2*). At length the full power of the soul is recovered through the aid of the Holy Spirit (Ro 81*, Gal 51*). See Holy SPIRIT. l'or the attainment of this end in man we have thus (a) the activity on God’s side, and (b) the activity of man. (a) There is a providential leading or drawing by the Father before men can come to Christ (Jn 6*). Then through the death of Christ believers become dead to the power of sin : there is a breach with it in principle (Ro 6), or sanctification is begun. “ Not that anything in human nature was actually changed as by magic in the moment when Christ died, but in the completion of this holy life there was established a universal and º principle of victory (a 6%uapus owrmplas), which is able wher- ever it is received to break sin in the orápš and kill the natural selfishness, so that the man may walk no longer karū adºpka, but karū trueſpa (Beyschlag). Furthermore, through the resurrection of Christ men obtain power to accept salvation (1 Co 1517): faith not actuated by the risen, living Christ, but only by man's own natural endeavours, is “vain or powerless. The life of faith throughout its progress derives its power from the believer's com- munion with the risen and glorified Christ (Ro 51°, 2 Co 37", Gal 2*). Again, our Lord’s resurrection imparts the power of a groat hope ; Christians have a sure hope beyond the present world. And they are empowered in consequence to be righteous in the world and worthy of their high calling, so that their hope may be fulfilled. (b) On man's side there has to be fervent prayer accompanied with righteousness (Ja 5"), faith which overcomes the world (1 Jn 5"), and to which nothing is impossible (Mt. 17”); and love, which leads to the keeping of Christ's words (Jn 14*), and which casts out fear (1 Jn 4*). Or man has to walk in the Spirit (a process which presupposes the peace of forgiveness), and then he obtains the amplest power, shown by his not fulfilling the lust of the flesh (Gal 5'9), and by his bringing forth the varied fruits of the Spirit, or growing without cessation into the likeness of Christ (Gal 5*). By the interaction of these Divine and human means power is obtained by the Christian for the performance of any manifest duty, and the possession of sufficient power should be assumed. Christ is to him the Bread of Life, strengthening for the accomplishment of all right- eousness (Jn 6*, Ph 4*), as food supplies the body with power for all its physical acts; though in neither case ean we comprehend the steps of the process (so Dods in ‘Expositor's Bible,’ John, i. 220 m.). .* —w A passage that has created much discussion is 1 Co 1110 “ Fol this cause ought the woman to have power (ičovoriazy, lèV ‘a sign of authority') on her head because of the angels.” The apostle's argument seems to be, Because the woman was derived from (v. 8) and was created for (v.0) the man, therefore She should have on her head a covering in tolden that she is under the authority of the man. The abstract ‘authority' is put for the concrete ‘sign of authority.’ Then a new en- couragement is added. If women will not do this out of natural Seemliness, let them remember that the angels are present (cf. art. HEAD, vol. ii. p. 317") in their assemblies, and for their sakes, the messengers of order, cover their heads. This is the inter- pretation of almost all modern expositors. For the presence of angels at Divine worship, see especially Meyer, in low. For Powers see under DOMINION. G. FERRIES. POWER OF THE KEYS. — The ecclesiastical connotation of these words must not be altogether identified with the meaning of them in the NT passage (Mt 16") from which they are taken, although the first is included in the second. And the language about the keys in that passage must be distinguished again from the language about ‘binding and loosing’ which follows. The image of the keys is not infrequent in Scrip- ture (cf. Is 22*, Rev 118). “The key (nnep, also Tºp) to the prophets, as well as to the Rabbis, was the s º of physical and moral authority and power' (Wünsche, Neue Beiträge, p. 195). The kingdom of heaven, here to be understood of the Messianic theocracy about to be established, is likened to a house or palace, of which our Lord promises that St. Peter shall be the chief steward or major-domo, who is entrusted with full authority over every- thing which the house contains. The keys are not merely those of the outer doors of the house, which give the holder power to admit or to eject ; the porter's office is only a part of the authority com- mitted to St. Peter. They are the keys of inner chambers also, giving command, for example, of the ‘treasures’ from which it will be his duty (Lk 12°) to feed the household. As the house is at the same time ‘the kingdom,’ it is evident that the autho- rity is of very wide range. In the passage of Isaiah, which offers the nearest parallel (though it is to be observed that the sing. is there used, not the plur.), the thought of the key suggests an indis- utable power of ingress and egress, both for the i. and for others at his discretion—a power (as interpreted in Rev. 3°) of granting or withholding opºiº. and facilities of various kinds. n this last view the ‘power of the keys’ leads on naturally to the power of ‘binding and loosing,” which, though not the same as the power of the keys, may be regarded as one of the chief exer- cises of that power. The ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ is not the binding and loosing of persons but of things—not ‘whomsoever thou shalt loose,’ but ‘whatsoever.’ To ‘bind’ (mpsº), in rabbinic language, is to forbid ; to ‘loose' (n-nnº) is to permit. Lightfoot says that ‘ thousands of ex- annples’ of this usage might be produced. One instance may suffice. “Concerning the moving of empty vessels [on the Sabbath day], of the ſilling of which there is no intention ; the school of Shammai binds it, the school of Hillel looseth it ’ (Hieros. Shabb, fol. 16, 2, quoted by Lightfoot, Jºacércit, upon St. Matt. p. 238). It is the power of laying down the law for his fellow-disciples, like a true Rabbi, which is thus bestowed upon St. Peter. Or perhaps it is more exact to say that it is the power of interpreting in detailed application the law which God has laid down in general terms. Authority is given him to say what the law of God allows, and what it forbids; and the º is added that his ruling shall be upheld in leaven, and is consequently to be regarded as binding upon the consciences of Christians. The power of binding and loosing is in fact the power of legislation for the Church. POWER OF THE KEYS POWER OF THE KEYS 3] The gift of the keys’ is not expressly bestowed on any one else besides St. Peter, but the legis- lative power is afterwards extended to others (Mt 18%). It is not certain who are the persons there addressed. ‘The disciples’ mentioned in V.” are doubtless the apostles, or at any rate include some of the apostles; but it is not easy to prove that the power of binding and loosing is there bestowed upon them exclusive i. That opinion, however ancient and however widely held, involves the further conclusion that the promises which follow, and upon which the binding, and loosing power is made to depend, are to be similarly restricted. It is, according to this interpretation, to the apostles alone that Christ promises that the prayer of two of them shall be heard, and that where two or three are gathered in His name, He will be there. This is difficult to suppose. We must accordingly conclude that the binding and loosing power first bestowed upon St. Peter is not represented in NT as an exclusive privilege of the apostles. It is the common privilege of the Christian society—even of a small branch of it—when acting in agreement (v.”) and solemnly assembled in (or ‘to ') Christ's name as its ground of union (v.”). In this case, however, the power appears to be connected with judicial discipline over individual members of the society. The ‘binding and loosing’ are not, in this case any more than elsewhere, to be inter- preted as the absolving and retaining of sins; they seem to mean the prescribing what the offender is to do and not to do. But, in case of his refusal to comply with these requirements of ‘the Church,” he is to be treated as ‘a heathen man and a publican,’ i.e. as excommunicate ; and the resist- ance to the authority of the Church is to be considered as resistance to the will of Heaven. The prayer of the slighted Church will be heard, for Christ Himself is present at the gathering, and IIeaven will give its sanction to the sen- tence (see interesting parallels in Wünsche, p. 218). There is, accordingly, a close connexion between the authority to bind and loose and the authority to absolve and retain sins (Jn 20°). The discipline which prescribes what the sinner must do, on pain of encountering a sentence at once earthly and heavenly, cannot but involve a ‘power of the keys’ in the (inaccurate) sense which that term has borne in the Church since patristic times. Christians of all ages have rightly seen a signal instance of St. Peter's use of the keys in the admission of Cornelius to the Church. He thus ‘opened ’ the door indeed to the Gentiles, ‘and no man’ has ever since “shut 'it to them. But there is no reason to think that this one act was all that was in our Lord’s mind when He made the promise ; nor is, it likely that He referred only to the authority to baptize at discretion exercised by the apostle. The whole of his chief-stewardship was included in the promise ; and both in his appoint- ments of other Christians to sacred offices, in the administration of the Christian sacraments at large, and in his expositions of Christian truth, he was exercising the power of the keys. An equally signal instance of ‘binding and loosing’ on a large scale is the regulation laid down by St. Peter, along with ‘the apostles and the elders,’ for the discipline of the Gentile Christians in regard to meats and manner of life (Ae 15*). They ‘loosed for them all other kinds 9f food ; they ‘bound' for them ‘things offered to idols, and blood and things strangled, and fornica- tion.’ Similarly, at a later time, St. Paul at Corinth ‘loosed’ even the eating of things offered to idols, though he ‘bound it in certain circum- stances (1 Co 10*),—and laid down various rules concerning marriage (1 Co 7), and concerning public worship (1 Co 11–14). “So ordain I in all Churches’ is his formula (1 Co 717). Of ‘binding and loosing’ in relation to the in- dividual, the case which we are able to follow with the greatest degree of clearness is that of the incestuous man at Corinth ; which recalls with remarkable exactness the language of Mt 1818t. St. Paul was evidently surprised that the Church of Corinth had not dealt with the case on its own º It ought to have “mourned,’ with a view to the removal of the offender (1 Co 52) The “mourning’ he would have expected was clearly a public and united humiliation of the Church before God, to the intent that God might ‘take away’ the man who had done the deed (see Godet, ad loc.). In answer to the solemn and concerted prayer, a stroke from heaven would have fallen upon him, as upon Ananias and Sapphira, or, without such prayer, upon the profaners of the Eucharist at Corinth itself (1 Co 1199). Probably this appeal to God would have been preceded or accompanied by an act of formal separation from the Sacramental fellowship of the Church ; cer. tainly by an exclusion of the sinner from social intercourse with the brethren (1 Co 511). As the Corinthian Church had not thus acted, the apostle informs them of his own intended procedure, with Which he demands that they should co-operate. Though absent from them in body, he calls upon them to assemble; he himself § spiritually be present in the assembly, armed with ‘the power (not merely with the authority) of our Lord Jesus.” The sentence which he has already passed upon the man ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus’ will then be formally pronounced. He will be “de- livered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.” Delivery to Satan was not a rab- binical formula for excommunication in any form (Lightf. Eacercitations, ad loc.). The phrase is prob- ably derived from Job 1' 2". St. Paul seems to have intended that either by a judicial death, or by some wasting disease, the man should be so punished as to bring him to repentance (cf. 1 Ti 1*). The discipline seems to have had the desired effect. The majority of the Corinthian Church (2 Co 2") administered a ‘rebuke’ to the man,— which was probably excommunication in its less severe form (“reproof with the Babylonian writers was the same with excommunication,’ Lightf. p. 183). The man was overwhelmed with sorrow, so much so that the apostle feared lest the excess of it should be fatal to his soul (2 Co 27). He bids the Corinthians therefore ‘forgive and comfort him.’ He himself, acting as Christ's representative (év Tpoo &Tº Xplotoſ) has already forgiven him, though lie will not consider his forgiveness as absolute (ei Tt Kexóptapat) until the Corinthian Church has joined in it. The solemn gathering “in the name of the Lord,” the confidence that His ‘power’ would be present to ratify what was done by His representa- tives upon earth, the punishment and the release, all appear to be directly based upon the language of our Lord recorded by Mt. Of the exercise of discipline in less unusual cases we naturally have scantier evidence in NT. Per- haps the most interesting reference to it is that in Ja, 5*. The sick man is there advised to call for the presbyters of the Church, who are to pray over him, ‘anointing him with oil in the name.’ In answer to this action of the Church repre- sented by its local heads, the writer says that the sick man will recover (for to interpret adjoet and €yepeſ otherwise seems impossible in the context), and adds that “if he have committed sins,’ i.e. obviously, grave and marked sins, ‘he shall be forgiven (Köv âuaprias m retrotºjkós, dºpedija et at atrº). That the dºpetºjo'état atrº is a promise of what God will do in © 32 POWER OF THE KEYS PRAETORIUM answer to the prayer of the presbyters, and not an instruction to the presbyters themselves, seems to be required by the structure of the sentences. It is i. in sense to a dºorst and éyepeſ. If St. James had intended the word to mean that the presbyters were to absolve the man, he would probably have put it in the imperative, like trpoaka)\egågøw and ºrpoo’evčáo 600 av. But the forgiveness of God is a blessing granted to the faithful prayers of the pres- byters ; and, in order to encourage such prayers, the apostle proceeds to insist upon the value of them. ‘Confess therefore your sins one to another, and pray one for another,’ he says, “that ye may be healed.” By ‘one to another’, he means ‘to your fellow-men,’ i.e. not to God only. It is clear that he cannot mean mutual confession in the ordinary sense of the term, for (1) he assumes that the prayers to which he ascribes such efficacy are those of ‘righteous men,’ not those of men who ‘ have committed sins”; (2) the special object with which the prayers are to be offered (not indeed the contents of the prayers, which are directly connected with forgiveness) is “that ye may be healed (8tra's lá0m re); if, therefore, the prayers are to be in the strict sense mutual prayers, it is implied that both parties, praying and prayed for, are alike sick, and the mutual confession would be only between sick man and sick man, which is absurd. Evidently, the sick man is exhorted to make his confession to the presbyters whom he has called in, and they in turn are exhorted to pray for his forgiveness, upon which his recovery is made to depend, and are re- minded what power their prayers i. if only they are what they ought to be. The apostle selects from the OT history the example of one who oxer- cised the ‘power of the keys’ upon a national scale, both “shutting' and ‘opening’ the stores of heaven for his people. Though but “a man of like passions with us,’ Elijah by his (unrecorded) prayers shut up the rain from his guilty countrymen for three years and a half; and on their showing signs of repentance, he opened it again for them. We need not therefore wonder (such is St. James’ argu- ment) if, when we confess our sins to beings of the same make as ourselves, their intercession is able to obtain for us the remission of them. (On the rabbinic view of Elijah and the ‘Reys,’ see Wünsche, p. 195). Our accounts of life within the Christian com- munities of the first age are so fragmentary that we cannot be surprised at not finding many refer- ences to the penitential discipline, which existed among them. That there should have been some power on earth answering to what was occasionally exhibited even in OT times—as in the absolution of David by Nathan (2 S 12”)—is only what was ſo be expected in the covenant of grace. When Christ claimed to forgive sins as ‘the Son of Man,” the multitudes “glorified God which had given such authority wºnto men’ (Mt 9°). The last word may mean either that the authority to absolve was committed by God to men, to use on His behalf; or that by delegation of such an authority God had bestowed a blessing upon men : in other words, the “men’spoken of may be either the holders of the authority, or those on whose bellalf it was given. 13ut in either case it was recognized that the assur- ance of forgiveness had been made accessible in a new way; and Christ, in His first appearance to the assembled Church after His resurrection, gave His disciples to understand that the authority which He had exercised in relation to absolving and re- taining of sins was henceforth vested in them, as the continuators of His own mission (Jn 20°"). It is not an exhaustive interpretation of these words which would see in them only a commission to impose or to remove ecclesiastical censures. All acts of the Christian society, according to the … NT conception of it, are fraught with spiritual efficacy. It may be added that some eminent interpreters consider the ‘laying on of hands’ in 1 Ti 5” to be the sign of absolution (see art. LAYING ON OF HANDS); but the interpretation is far from certain. A. J. MASON. PRAETORIAN GUARD,-See PRAISTORIUM. PRAETORIUM (Gr. To trpattéptov). — This Lat. word, adopted in the later Gr., signified originally the general’s (prator’s) tent (e.g. Livy, Hist, vii. 12, x. 33). Then it was applied to the council, com- posed of the chief officers of the army, which assembled in the general’s tent (e.g. Livy, Hist. xxvi. 15, xxx. 5, xxxvii. 5); then to the official residence of the governor of a province (e.g. Cic. in Verr. II. iv. 28, II. v. 35 ; Tert. &d Scºp. 3) then, in the post-Augustan age, to any princely house (e.g. Juv. Sat. x. 161), and even to a large villa or country-seat (e.g. Suet. Octav. 72, Calig. 37, Tib. 39; Juv. Sat. i. 75; Statius, Sylv. I. iii. 25); and finally to the imperial bodyguard, whose commander was praftectus prattorio or practorii (e.g. Tac. Hist. i. 20, ii. 11, 24, iv. 46; Suet. Nero, 9; Pliny, NH xxv.2). No certain example occurs of its application either to the praetorian camp or barracks or to the emperor's residence in lłome, though it was often used of the emperor's residence away from Rome. In AV the word appears only once (Mk 15.1%); but in the Gr. of N'T' it is used in Mt. 27° (AV “ the common hall’; marg. ‘governor's house’, RV the palace"), Mik"isiº (AV the hall, called Praetorium ”; RV “within the court which is Praetorium ”; marg. ‘palace’), Jn 18” (AW ‘the hall of judgment. ; marg. ‘ Pilate's house'; RV ‘palace”), 18” and 19" (AW ‘judgment hall’; RV ‘palace’), Ac 23* (AV “Herod’s judgment hall’; RV ‘Herod's palace’), Ph 1” (A V ‘in all the palace’; marg. “Caesar's court’; RV ‘throughout the whole praetorian guard’). - In the Gospels the term denotes the official residence in Jerus, of the Roman governor, and the various tr" of it in our versions arose from a desire either to indicate the special purpose for which that residence was used on the occasion in question, or to explain what particular building was intended. But whatever building the governor occupied was the Praetorium. It is most probable that in Jerus. he resided in the well-known palace of Herod, since Philo (ad Gaium, 31) states that Pilate hung there the shields which offended the Jews (see PILATE), and Josephus (13.J II. xiv. 8, II. xv. 5) speaks of Gessius Florus as living in ‘the king’s palace,’ and since in Caesarea (see Ac xxiii. 35). Herod's palace is known to have been used for the same purpose. Herod's palace in Jerus. was a magnificent structure in the upper or western part of the city, and was connected by a causeway over the valley of Tyropocon with the western wall of the temple. It is described by Josephus (B.J. V. iv. 4, Amt. XV. ix. 3) in admiring terms. It was surrounded by a wall, rising to the height of 30 cubits, and adorned with towers at equal distances. The enclosure was large enough to contain a small army. The building had two marble wings, called by Il erod the Caesareum and the Agrippeum. It contained large rooms within and spacious porticoes without. It was sumptuously furnished, and was surrounded by a beautiful park. Here the governor with his guards lived when in Jerus., while the regular garrison occupied the castle of Antonia ; and it was doubtless before this building that the Jews presented themselves with the demand for Jesus' execution. Tradition, indeed, has placed the residence of Pilate in the lower city, a short PRAETORIUM PRAISE IN OT 33 distance north of the temple. Not a few also have identified it with the castle of Antonia (Rosen- müller, Alterthwmskunde, II. ii. 228; Caspari, Introd. p. 225; Wieseler, Chron. Syn., Eng. tr. p. 372; Weiss, Life of Christ, iii. 346 n.5, Westcott, St. John)—partly because tradition has located the house of Pilate near the site of the castle; partly because, since the castle was the regular barracks for the garrison, and was sufficiently large for the purpose, it is thought probable that the governor also used it ; and also because many identify “the place called the Pavement, but, in the Hebrew, Gabbatha,’ with the elevated, paved area between the castle and the temple (see GABBATHA). But, for the reasons given above, the identification with Herod's palace is probably to be preferred (so Meyer, Winer, Alford, Schürer, Edersheim, and others). In like manner, as already observed, Herod’s palace in Caesarea was used as the Praetorium there. The expression in Ac 23” (“Herod's Prae- torium ?) is abbreviated from ‘the praetorium of Herod's palace,’ and thus describes both the par- ticular building and the purpose for which it was UlSC(1. In Ph 119 “in the whole Praetorium’ has been very variously explained. . Many commentators, ancient and modern, have trºit ‘palace' (so AW), coupling it with 4”, where allusion is made to believers who belonged to “Caesar's household.” But no other instance appears of the application of the term to the emperor's residence in Rome. Such an appli- cation would have been intolerable to the Romans, since it would have shocked the republican tradi- tions under whicl the empire was organized. Hence many, as Perizonius (De orig. Signif. et w8tt vocc. praetoris et praetorii, 1687, Disquisitio de oractorio, 1690), cíº... Michaelis, Hoeleman, Wiesinger, Milman, Weiss, Ellicott, Meyer, under- stand it of the barracks of the praetorian guard (Castra practorianorum). But Lightfoot (Com. on Phil. p. 99) has shown that neither can this use of the word be established. Wieseler (Chrom. d. Apost. Zeit. p. 403), followed by Conybeare and Howson, refers it, not to the praetorian camp, but to the barracks of the palace guard, which Augustus established (Dio Cass, liii. 16) in the imperial enclosure on the Palatine hill; but, after the establishment of the castra praetorianorum by Tiberius, the word would naturally refer to it, if to any barracks. The following phrase (roſs \otiro’s trāavy also more naturally describes persons than places, Nottrós being never in NT applied to places (Ellicott, in loc.). Presumably, therefore, ‘prae- torium,’ too, is descriptive of persons. Hence Lightfoot has ably defended the meaning ‘prae- torian guard.’ St. Paul is supposed to have been chained to soldiers of the guard, and thus, through the change of guards, his message spread through- out the whole body of soldiers. This meaning of Praetorium is frequent, and has been adopted in Ph l” in RV. Recently, however, Mommsen (Sitz- 7tmgsb. der König. prewss. Acad, d. PVisscºnsch. 1895, p. 495, etc.), followed by Ramsay (St. Paul the Trav. 9. 357), has Fº another view. He considers it in probable that St. Paul was put in charge of the praetorian guard. He believes that Julius, the venturion who brought Paul to Rome, belonged to the corps of milites frtmentarii or peregrini, a Corps drafted from legions in the provinces, whose duty it was to supervise the corn supply, and also wrobably to perform police service; and that julius probably ...}. his prisoners to the commander of his corps, princeps peregrinorum, whose camp herhaps was already, as it was afterwards, on the Cºelian hill. But while St. Paul was not in charge of the praetorian guard, his case came before the prietorian council, consisting of the praiſecti prºtorio and their assistants. This council then, VOL. IV.-3 According, to Mommsen and Ramsay, is the prae. torium alluded to by the apostle, and rols Aoimoſ, träow refers to the audience at the trial.” G. T. PURVES. PRAISE IN OT.-‘Praise,” whether as a verb or a noun, has various applications in the OT, but its commonest use is to denote an act of homage or ...} offered to God by His creatures, par. ticularly by man. The object of this article will be mainly to examine the meaning and usage of the terms which our English versions render by ‘praise,’ and to sketch, as far as the data enable us to do so, the occasions, the modes, and the history of praise in Israel. i. THE TERMS.–4. 99r. The original sense of this root is perhaps “break out (in a cry), especially of joy (cf. the name Hallel applied to Ps [13–118, the Aram. sººn marriage-song,' and the Assyr. alúlu “shout for joy . ; see also Cheyne, OP 460), although it is possible that, as W. R. Smith (RSi 411), suggests, among the Semites “the shouting (hallel) that accompanied sacrifice may, in its oldest shape, have been a wail over the death of the victim, though it ultimately took the form of a chant of praise (Hallelujah).’ The idea of making a moise is what appears to be prominent. The same writer points, out that the roots ºn ‘to chant praises’ and º' ‘to howl' are closely connected, and he thinks it possible that shouting in mourning and shouting in joy may have both been prinarily directed to the driving away of evil influences. The sense of praise’ is conveyed by the above root in the Piel ºn. This may have for its object (1) man or woman : Gn 12” (J) “they praised (LXX étrfivea'av, AV ‘commended') her (Sarah) to Pharaoh’; Pr 27° ‘let another man praise thee (LXX &ykouia- §rw ge), and not thine own mouth’; 284 “they that forsake the law praise (LXX #ykwuté; ovaty) the wicked *; 31* * the virtuous woman is praised by her husband and by her works (LXX in both alveſy, but in v.* a different reading from that of MT is followed: kal alvéa.00 év trºXavs 6 &viip abrås, ‘and let her husband be praised in the gates’); Ca 6" (here and in the following passages, unless otherwise noted, LXX alveºv) of the Shulammite ; 2 S 14” of Absalom's beauty (alverós); 2 Ch 23° of king Joash. (2) The object is once a false god : Jg 16* of the Philistines praising ('pºweiv) Dagon ; (3) very frequently God (D'ºbs or mn'): Ps 69* (where “heaven and earth, the seas, and everything that moveth therein’ are called on to praise Him; cf. I’s 148); often of public worship in the sanctuary : Is 62", cf. 64” (eVMoyeſv), Ps 22” (juvetv, cf. v.” ô &m'awós pov) 35's 84* 1079° 109° 146° 1498. Some- times the object is ‘the name of Jahweh or of God’ (mº Dº or bºnº Dº, to tvoua toû 0soſ): Ps 69° 74° 145° 1489, Jl 2* ; or His word (n3), Xóyos, pâua): Ps 56" (grave?v) 19 bis [v.” may be an editorial addition, so Hupfeld, Cheyne et al..]; or the object may be unexpressed : Jer 31 [Gr. 38]", l’s 63% (état- veðv). The expression ‘praise ye Jah' (Hallelujah, in Ps 135° F ºn [alveire roy Kiptov], elsewhere always as one word mººn, 'AAA'm Nović [once Ps 104° Fiºr, LXX onits here]) has generally a liturgical application and is mostly confined to late psalms. It occurs at the beginning of Ps. 106. 111, 112. 113. 135. 146. 147. 148. 149, and at the end of 104. 105. * Mommsen denies that orºpororº&pzzº (AV captain of the guard), found Ac2810 in some authorities (cf. Blass, ad loc.), but onnitted by W II, Tisch., and RV, could have been applied to a prºfectus praetorio. This reading is evidently ‘Western,' and Mommsen finds in the text of the Stockholm Latin MS ("Gigas'), princeps peregrinorum, at least a 2nd cent, interpretation of it, one which confirms his inference that the castra peregrinorum had been established in lèome in St. Paul's time. Positive evidence, however, for the existence of this corps and camp, under this name, appears only in the time of Severus, and the Latin MS may interpret the Gr, text before it by the light of later custom ; while or roctors).c. prz; itself was evidently a popular title, and really supplies no information as to who took charge of the apostlc. 34 PRAISE IN OT PRAISE IN OT —— 106. 113, 115. 116. 117. 135. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. See, further, art. HALLELUJAH. Instead of the direct object, ºn is generally followed, in the writings of the Chronicler, by mºry, in the account of the technical Levitical (or priestly) function of º; Jahweh : 1 Ch 16, 235, 8v 25%, 2 Ch 51° 20'" 29" (Üuvetv.) 30” (ka.0vuveiv), Ezr 311 ; but the simple mn" occurs in Ezr 319, as it does also in Nell 5* (Nehemiah's own Memoirs). The object is un- expressed in Neh 12” (Chronicler), cf. 1 Ch 23°, 2 Ch 7" (“when David praised by their ministry,’ IXX (v Úuvois Aaveið Stā Yelpös abrów) 8* 23” (“the singers also played on instruments of, music and led the singing of praise” cºyºp, nº ºn Bºnnivºn) ºn?, LXX oi đãovres év roſs 6pyávols, jöol kal Upwoºvres aivov) 31°, in all of which ºn has its technical sense.—Similarly, the passive sense ‘be praised’ is conveyed by the Pual, and once (Prº 3!") by the Hithpael: (1) of human subjects and things: l’r 12. “a man shall be praised (AV ; RV ‘commended,’ LXX &ykwald ſea 6al) according to his wisdom '; Ps 78” “their maidens were not praised' (in marriage- song; see Cheyne ad loc.), so Aquila ovy (puj9mgau, Symm. and Theod. oºk Čirmvé0mgav, but LXX offic &mévômorav, “did not raise the dirge'; Ezk 26” of Tyre the ‘praised (AV; RV “renowned') city’ (LXX # rôXts à ématverij); (2) of God, only in ptcp. (º) with gerundive force = ‘to be praised,’ ‘worthy of praise’: 2S 22' (alveróv čtruka Négouat Kiptov) = Ps 18” (alvöv ćruka)\éarouat Kiptov), Ps 48% 96° (= 1 Ch 16”) 145° [in these last four the LXX has alverós]; in Ps 113* the subject is His name (alveira, rö 'vopa Kuplov). The noun for ‘praise' from the root ºn is nºnn (once ºrp, Pr 27” “the fining pot is for silver and the furnace for gold, and a man [is to be estimated] according to his praise,’ where lººp 'B' probably means ‘according to his reputation' [so Toy et al., cf. LXX &viip 6é Öokup.d.; etal duć, a rºuatos éºykwpuałóztwv aúróv ; see Oaf, Heb. Lea, for other possible ex- planations]). The word Tºnn is used (1) of praise offered to J", sometimes individual, but more fre- quently general and public : Ps 34' 48" (both aſvegis) 65' ('unto. Thee stillness is praise [mpº a nºn], O God, in Zion,’ but text and tr. are both doubtful ; LXX Xol Tpéret (ſuvos, ‘praise is a ſitting tribute to thee'; see Comm. ad loc., and Driver, Par. Psalter), 71" (Üpºvnats), * (aſvegus), 100° (tſuvov); particularly of praise as sung : Ps 22” (“O Thou that sittest [throned] upon the praises of Israel,’ an imitation of D'Hºn?: agº", the idea perhaps being that the praises, ascending like clouds of incense, form, as it were, the throne upon which J" sits [so ICirkpatrick et al., but see Duhm ad loc., and cf. the LXX at 6é éu &yious karoukeis, 6 &matvos 'IopañA]), 33 (aſvegus), 40° (tºpºvos), 106° Neh 12" (both aiveats), Is 42° (àoštíšere rô (voua attoſ). (2) The word Rºnn is used for a song of praise in the title of Ps. 145 (alveolus); cf. the New Heb. name for the Book of Psalms, nºn Tºp or Dºnn 'p, or ſºn. (3) It is used of qualitics, deeds, etc., of J" which demand praise : Ex 15" mººn Nº) “terrible in praises’ (i.e. in attri- butes that call for praise; LXX 0avuaorès év 6%ats), cf. Ps 9” (“that I may show forth all Thy praise'), 78” (“telling the praises of the LORD’), 79” (“we will show forth Thy praise’), 102” (“that men may de- clare II is praise in Jerusalem ’), 106” (“who can show forth all His praise?'), v.” = 1 Ch 16” (“to triumph in Thy praise ’) [in the last six passages LXX aiveats], Is 43* (*this people shall show forth My praise,’ LXX &pgraí), 60% (‘they shall proclaim the praises of the LORD,' LXX to a wriptov Kuptov etjayye) wouvrat), 637 (“I will make mention of the praises of the LORD,' LXX &perat). (4) TFTR may = renown, frºme, glory, or the object of these : (a) of J" : llab. 39 ‘the earth was full of His praise” (nºwn pºsſ Tsºp, LXX alvéorea's atroW TXſipms h yń) || “His glory covered the heavens’ (TYi Dºy H.;2, LXX &Ká\vyev otpavows h épéri atroſ), cf. Dt 10* ‘He is thy praise,’ Jer 1714 ‘Thou art my praise” (both kaºxmud); (b) of other objects: Israel or Jerusalem, Dt 26° (katºmua), Is 62" (BA dyavptapa, Theod. Katzmua), cf. 6019 (‘thou shalt call thy walls Salvation and thy gates Praise,’ i.e. probably ‘thy fame or renown shall take the place of protecting walls’; LXX k\m0%rera, Xarâptov T& Telxm o'ou, kal at trøNat gov TNúppa), and 61" (&ya.N- \lap.a.); Moab, Jer 48(Gr. 31]*(&ºyauptapa); Damascus, 49* [Gr. 30”], LXX follows a different reading ; Babylon, 51 [Gr. 28]" (Katynua). Is 61° ‘the gar- ment of praise” (1}ºn Typ) is doubtful. It may = ‘praise (renown) as a garment ' (Delitzsch) or ‘a º garment' (Dillmann), but perhaps the clauses should, with Bickell, Cheyne, Oort, Duhm, be arranged thus: nº mºnt ºs. Typ nºn wy lºw Tº ºn ‘oil of joy for the garment of mourning, a Song of praise for a failing spirit.’ The LXX has ööšav duti atroëoo, d\ppa et ppoo ºvms toſs trev000ort, KataotoMhu 605ms duri Trvetºparos &kmölas. In Lv 19% the fruit of trees offered in the fourth year of their bearing is mn", Dºn Jip (lit. ‘holiness of praise to J",’ LXX &ytos alverós rºg Kvpig), cf. Jg 9” [the only other occurrence of the Heb. word], where the Shechemites hold a vintage rejoicing or merry - making (D'ºù vy, LXX B &rotmaav ćA\ovXeip, A €r. xopoća) in the house of Baal-berith. 2. The root MT whose primary sense is ‘throw or cast.’ The only occurrence of the Qal, is in Jer 50 [Gr. 27] ** shoot at her ” (Babylon; Pºs T, LXX Toševa are ét' auriiv), but perhaps we should read here in. This sense is borne also by the Piel in the only two passages where this stem occurs, namely, La 3° (à lastiºn ‘and they cast stone(s) at me,’ LXX kal étré0mkav \{000 €T' épot) and Zec 2" [Eng. 1") (Dian näynºns nº, IXX, by confusion with the Heb. word for ‘hands,’ reads Gls xeipas avròu rà réorgapa képara). All the other occurrences of the root show the Hiphil and Hith pael (the latter only in P, the Chronicler, and Daniel) stems, which have the sense of “praise ’ or ‘con- fess,’ a sense which it is somewhat difficult to connect with the primary signification, although it has been suggested that the connecting link may be found in gestures accompanying the act of ..) l'il,l SC. I The Hiph. Tún (cf. Palmyrene NTo “render thanks,’ frequent in votive inscriptions) is used occasionally of praising men : Gn 49° of Judah [with play upon name, “Judah, thee shall thy brethren praise' (jödit/cha), LXX alveſvl; l’s 45" of the king (AW ‘praise,’ RV ‘give thanks’); 49* “men praise thee when thou doest well to thyself' (both éopoxoyctoſław); Job 40" of Job, spoken ironically by the Almighty (LXX 600Noye'v, AV and RV ‘confess'). This sense of ‘confess’ is borne by the Heb. word also in 1 K 8**=2 Ch 6* (all éopoxo'yeſv), * (alvety), Ps 32° (€ayopetºeuv), Pr 28° (émyeloffat); cf. [in Ilith.p.] Ezr 10" (Tpoorayopetºeuv), Neh 1” 92.9 (all éayopewelv), Dm 9" (LXX and Theod. éouo)\oyeſoróat)” (LXX &oudNoyeſo 0at, Theod. Čša'yop- eūety), Lv 5' 109, 26", Nu 57 (all éayopetºeuv).-Much more frequently the object of praise is God : (ºn 29” where J explains the name Judah (which he takes as = ‘praised,’ as if from Iłoph. of TT) by the saying he puts in the mouth of Leah, “this time will I praise (Heb. '6deh) the LORD’ (Čšogo).oyńaoſtav Kyptº); very frequently, especially in Ps, and Ch, of praise offered in the ritual worship, the object being Jahweh explicitly or implicitly: e.g. Is 12" (et)\oyeſv), " (Üplveſv), 38% (alveſv, Gºoyeiv), Jer 33 [Gr. 40] 11, Ps 717 91 30%. 12 32%. 11 (all éopoxoyeta 0at). Ps 76" ‘surely the wrath of man shall praise Thee, the residue of wrath shalt Thou gird upon Thee ' (AV and IRV m “restrain ') is doubtful. The MT reads nämn n>n nºns y Tún DTs nºr. 2, LXX &rt év0'ſuou duðpútrov Čšowo)\oyńo'etal o ot, Kai évkaráNippa €v0 vºtov PRAISE IN OT PRAISE IN OT 35 §opráoret orot. Duhm emends not to nbs, and 3 to 95, and in the next clause follows the LXX in reading ºff inº, thus obtaining the sense, ‘all the tribes of men shall praise Thee, the residue of the tribes shall keep (pilgrimage) festival to Thee.’ Wellhausen makes the same change, F7 lith, , in the last clause ; on non he remarks that by this word the pious are meant, but that the pronun- ciation and the meaning of the word are quite uncertain. Ps 13914 reads “I will praise (RV ‘give thanks unto’) Thee, for I am fearfully and wonder- fully made’ (lit. “fearfully wondrous,” there being no “made in the Hebrew [Driver, Par. Psalter]). The LXX (BA &op10)\oyhoopal orot &rt poéepôs é0auga- artóðms, but N* 30avpaard,0mv), the Syr. and the Vulg. (quia terribiliter º es) have ‘Thou are fearfully wondrous,’ and this is adopted by Wellh. in SBOT, i.e. tº for nºi. The more radical emendations proposed by Duhm appear to be uncalled for. —In other instances the object is the name of God : Is 25' (ºpºve?v), PS 44° 54% 99° 138” 1427; or His wonders (sº, tº 6avpdata) Ps 89° (all éopoxo-yeſoróat). Instead of a simple accusative, HTT may be followed by h, always referring to the ritual worship, e.g. tº Ps. 106" ‘to give thanks unto Thy holy name,” cf. 122° 140° (all ééogo- Xoygia:0at); whº ºpiº (rù whºm rās &ywoºums atroſ) Ps 30, 97° (AV at the remembrance of His holi. mess,” RV ‘to His holy name,’ both &oudNoyeſa,0at); mn', 1 Ch 16%. 7. "I (all alveºv), 23% (6;ouoxoyeſotat), 25° (where mm and ºn occur together, LXX &vakpov6. pevos éopox&ymow kal alveolv), 2 Ch 5* (similarly €ouoxoyeſoróat kal alveºv) 7" 20° 30” (Hithp.), Ps 33% 921 (all égouoxo'yeſoróat) 105 – 1 Ch 168- Is 12” ('pºwe'v); cf. the familiar ‘Give thanks to J" for He is good’ (nº-2 mri", Tin, Čšouoxoyeſo 0e tº Kuplg, Ört xpmarðs or &ya.06s) Ps 106 1071 1181. * 136', 1 Ch 16” (here, lººps by a scribal error, dyaſ)0w), cf. Jer 33 [Gr. 40 * It will be observed that very frequently both AV and RV render TTT by “give thanks to in- stead of ‘praise,’ and in many instances (2 Ch 7°." 2021, Ps 717 91 332 448 4517 529'540 B79 1088 10990 llll 11810, 2, 1197 1381. 2 13014 1427 14519, Is 121. 4, Jer 33”), although not uniformly, RV substitutes ‘give thanks to for AV ‘praise.” It might be well to adopt this rendering in all instances where HTM describes a religious exercise, except those in which ‘confess’ is, the appropriate sense, and to retain “praise’ for ºn. The noun from this root is nºn ‘praise,’ ‘ thanks- giving.” It is used of giving praise to J" by con- fession of sin : Jos 7" JE ; Túñ \975, 60s thv Šouo- X&Y.)atv, cf. Ezr 10' ; but especially of the songs of thanksgiving, in liturgical worship : Ps 267 (alveats), 42" (ćowo).0) morts), 60” (alveolus), 95° 1477 (both Šokwo- X&Ymats), Jon 2" (alveous kal éopoxöymous), Neh 12” (N ÉouoMöymous, BA om.) In all these instances both AW and RV have ‘ thanksgiving’; in Ps 100 title and v.” (both Šowox') mous) AV has “praise,’ RV ‘thanksgiving.” — The word Tin is used in Neh 1291. * * of the “two companies that gave thanks’ (niin "ny, 600 repl aivéaews), and possibly a similar sense (“choirs') is intended in Jer 30 [Gr. 37] 19 (AV and RV ‘out of them shall proceed thanksgiving,’ LXX B &öovres). In several in- stances Tºn means a thank-offering : Am 4" (ćuo- \oyia), Lv 719, 19. 15 (0uala [rijs] alvéaeos) 22” (nºn-na), 0uatu sºxº), 2 Ch 20° 3310 (both alveats), Ps 501". " (the latter verse reads in AV ‘whoso offereth praise glorifieth Me,” RV ‘whoso offereth the sacrifice of thanksgiving,” Triver [Par. Psalter] “lie that sacrificeth thanksgiving,’ LXX 0uota alvéorea's Öošáret we) 569 107* 1167, Jer 17* (all alveolus) 33" (80pa). A doubtful form occurs in Neh 12” “Mattaniah who was over, the thanks: giving,’ AV and RV ; AV m ‘i.e. the psalms of thanksgiving'; IRV m ‘or the choirs.’ The Hebrew in 1089, and the word is used directly of p —u is nº "y, for which LXX, evidently by a confusion with the Heb, word for ‘hands,” gives ér rôv Xelpöv ; the Vulg. has super hymnos. Fwald, Bertheau, Keil, and Oettli read the abstract noun miºſ, Olshausen reads the infin. minin. It is not improbable that JIDUTHUN (which see) also be. longs to this root, and that it was originally a musical term and not a proper name. As ‘give thanks to? was suggested above as the most suitable rendering for Tjin in its liturgical sense, ‘thanksgiving’ might be adopted for ºrjīn, and ‘praise ’ retained for mºnſ. 3. In two instances, Jg 5° and Ps 72", where AV has ‘praise,’ I&V substitutes ‘bless,” which is the more exact rendering of Tin, the verb employed (LXX in both et)\oyetv). 4. no, only in Piel. , According to Hupfeld (Psalmen, 1862, iv. 421 f.), the original reference of this root * (which in the Heb, literature known to us is used either of playing or singing [cf. Lat. camere]) is to the hum of a stringed instrument, and nipp, used in 57 titles as a designation of psalms, would be, properly, a song sung to a musical accompaniment. It is this word nipp which the LXX reproduces by Waxpós (whence psalm) from pāNAw, the usual LXX equivalent for ne, and in Cod. Alex. (A) the Book of Psalms is entitled pa)\riptov (whence Psalter). The word nei, with two exceptions (Jg 5°, in the Song of Deborah, “I will sing praise [paxój to the LORD,' | hºw; ; and Is 12” “sing [juvjaare] unto the LORD, for He hath done excellent things’) is confined to the Book of Psalms, where it occurs in the following collocations: (a) with 7 and D'nºs or mn', usually rendered in EV by ‘sing praise(s) unto’; LXX in this and in all the following constructions, unless otherwise noted, pd)\\ety: Ps 27° 101* 104° 1052 = 1 Ch 16" (Üuvéiv) [in all these || Yeſ) 9° 30° [both || Imr1476 ( to our king’) 66" 71*. ( to Thee,’ ims)"75" ( Tan) 146” (1995); once ºs instead of º, Ps 598 unto Thee, O my strength, will I sing raises”; or with Dº? ‘to the name of God’: 1's 1890 – 2 S 22” ( Tūs), 92? (I nininº) 135° ( Hwºn); —(b) with an object, either a pronominal suffix, “sing Thee,” “praise Thee in song’: Ps 30” 57" 1084 1381 (all || ims); or an accusative, God or the Lord : Ps 477 68% (Il ºv) 1471; His name: 718 (I| Timn) 09 610 664 685 (I ºw); the glory of His name: 66%; His power (mas): 21” (1 ve); once the accusative of the song : 47° (ºr:yp in?’, ‘make ye melody with a skilful strain,’ LXX páNate ovverós);—(c) abso- lutely : 578 (I| mv) 98" ( yin, mss, ph) 108° (ITU). Instrumental accompaniment to the song º aying upon an instrument in 33°71* 98° 144° 147" 149". Two nouns (besides hippº) from the root not are found in the OT.—(1) Tºpi, which is used of instru: mental music in Am 5*, where ‘the melody of thy harps’ (ºn, nº), paxuðv Öpyávou gov) is || “the noise of thy songs” (Tºy libi, #xov $60" gov); but of singing in Is 51% (Tºp ºp. Tin, ČšowoMºymotº Kal bovňy alvéaews), and prob, in Ps 81* (Tºlºs? “ take up the melody,’ \áffere paNºu) and 98" ("ºl ºp ‘the voice of melody,” bøvå payſoſ). In both the last instances, however, there is, in any ºse, (ºn instrumental accompaniment lº nº and nºn (see above), Tºp! is used also for the subject of song : Ex 15°, Is 12°, Ps 118.4 F (-)nnºn ºy ‘Jahweh is my strength and my [theme of] melody.” It may be noted that while, MIT is ex- actly the same in all three passages, LXX, rends in Exodus [ó Kóptos] 80000s Kai o Keſagt is, in Isaiah # 365, wow kal aiveris wov Kūptos, in Psalms tax's wov * Its relation, if any, to no Qal-‘trim or prune' is obscurg (see Hupfeld, Psalmen, loc, cit. supra, footnote). It is uncer tain whether in Ua 212 nº ny means ‘the tinie of the singug (of birds) or ‘the time of the pruning (ºf vines).' . The LXX (zoºps; ris rowās) and other versions take the latter view. 36 PRAISE IN OT PRAISE IN OT ral Úuvma is uov & Kºptos. –(2) A by-form of the same word is nº. Its occurrences are : 2S 23' [in the epithet applied to David ºxy: nºnplby, AV and RV, the sweet psalmist of Israel, RVm “pleasant in the psalms of Israel’; on the construction see I) river on 2 S 819. H. P. Smith, who renders ‘the Joy of the songs of Israel’ (cf. Cheyne, O.P 22, ‘the dalling of Israel’s songs’), thinks the trans- lation ‘the sweet singer of Israel’ can hardly be ºbtained from the Heb. expression. The LXX has etirpetreſs Waxwot 'IgpañA]; Job 35” [“none saith, Where is God my Maker, who giveth songs in the night’?, i.e. perhaps (Dillm., Dav. ; differently Duhm), who by sudden acts of deliverance gives occasion for songs of triumph in the midst of the night of trial; LXX, reading or interpreting differently, 6 kararágowv pu),akās vukrepudis]; Is 24" [“from the uttermost parts of the earth have we heard songs (LXX répata), Glory to the righteous’]; Is 25° [“the melody of the terrible ones’ (Dºng ºp) | ‘the noise of strangers’ (Dºn) is; ; both wanting in LXX), i.e. their hostile song of triumph, “ shaji be brought low'); Ps 95° [“let us shout unto Him with melodies’ (\º nyºn, n\nºli; LXX v Waxwois &XaXášwaev at rig) || “let us come to meet His face with thanksgiving’ (nºni, Yºº Tºp; ; LXX irpo- q,040 wºuev Tó trpºo wrov attoſ év čouo)\oyńa'el)]; 119° [." Thy statutes have been (the subject of) melodies to nie” (TBN ºr ninpl; LXX paşrā āqāv uot rā 5ukattºpatá orov)]. AV and RV usually render the verb nºt by “sing praises.’ I’or the nouns nº and nº they give ‘song,’ except in Is 51°, Ann 5” where both have ‘ melody,” Ps 81°95” where both have ‘psalm,’ and Ps 98" where RV has “melody’ and AV ‘psalm’ (for 2 S 231 see above). I) river (Par. Psalter) con- sistently renders the verb throughout the Psalms by ‘make melody,’ and the nouns by “melody,’ and probably no closer equivalents in English could be found for the Hebrew terms. 5. navy in Piel and Hith p. only ; a late word, con- fined to Psalms (4 t.) and Ecclesiastes (once). Its Aram. form is found in Daniel (see below). It is doubtful whether it should be connected with navy (Piel and Hiphil) = ‘to still or calm (in Pr29” of anger, in Ps 65° 89% of the sea). Gesenius would find the connecting link in the notion of stroking or smoothing, hence ‘to soothe with praises’ (cf. the expression used of prayer, 's 'jāºns ºn ‘to make the face of any one sweet or pleasant’). Its occurrences are : 1's 634 [“my lips shall praise Thee” (LXX &raweiv) || “I will bless Thee” (Tºrºs) and ‘I will lift up my hands’ (‘pp sys)] 1171 (s aivetv, A €traveſv) 147” (alveºv; both || $5m) 1454 (B étrauweiv, A.” alvetv; || T'an), Ec 4” (€travely; “I praised the dead which are already dead'), Dn 2-8 (alveºv; |HTT, of Daniel praising God when the secret of Nebuchadnezzar's dream had been revealed to him) 4* * (alveºv; in v.94 || Tha “bless’ and nin “honour’; in v.” || Don “extol’ and nºn; of Nobu- chadnezzar praising God after the restoration of his reason) 5* * (Theod. in both alveºv, so LXX in v.”, but in v.4 eVXoyeſu ; of Belshazzar and his guests praising the gods of gold and silver, etc.). - The Hithp. = “make the subject of praise or boast.” occurs in Ps. 106" = 1 Ch 16° (ànºnna Hanjn', ‘ that we may make our boast of Thy praise”; LXX in Psalms toū &vkauxāordat éu Tà aivéo et arov, in 1 Chronicles kal kavyāorðat év rats alvédeatu gov). The verb nic in Piel is everywhere rendered in AV ‘praise,’ and so in RV except in Ps 1171 [but not, inconsistently enough, 147°]. 145, where we have ‘laud.’ This last term, which is that em- ployed in Driver's Par. Psalter, might, with advantage, be adopted uniformly, at least in the Psalms, where there are so many words that re- ceive in the English versions the one rendering ‘praise.’ See art. LAUD. ii. HISTORY OF PRAISE IN ISRAEL.—Like sacri. fice and other branches of the cultus, the praise offered to Jahweh had in early times a more unconventional and spontaneous character than it afterwards assumed, especially in the second Temple. From the first, both vocal and instru- mental music were employed in this exercise, of which heartiness and loud noise (cf. the meaning of t&hilláh above) were leading characteristics. A typical example is the song of the children of Israel after the passage of the Red Sea (Ex 15), which, although in its present form it con- tains much that belongs to a later age, yet is undoubtedly to some extent archaic, while the description of the part played by Miriam and the women, with their timbrels and dances (v.”), may be regarded as a true picture of the manners in ancient Israel (cf. also the Song of Deborah in Jg 5, one of the most ancient of the undoubtedly genuine relics of early Heb. poetry). So in 2 S 6" (= 1 Ch 138) ‘David and if the house of Israel played before the LORD with all their might, even with songs [reading, with 1 Ch 13°, nº ſy”; for Dºnn 'spººn of 2 S 6", cf. the same phrase iyº used in v.” of David's dancing] ind with º and with psalteries, and with timbrels, and with castanets, and with cymbals.” In short, praise to God, whether upon the occasion of any great act of deliverance, or when the people as- sembled at the sanctuaries either of the Northern or the Southern kingdom, partook largely of the noisy character of vintage and bridaſ rejoicings (Jg 927, Lv 1924, Ps 78%). When the prophet Amos denounces the crass unspiritual worship of his day, he delivers this message from J º, ‘Take thou away from Me the noise of thy songs, for I will not hear the melody of thy harps’ (Am 5*, cf. 8"). Isaiah promises to the people, “Ye shall have a song as in the night when a holy feast is kept, and gladness of heart as when one goeth with a pipe to come unto the mountain of the LORD, to the Rock of Israel’ (Is 30”). The author of La 27 can say of the rude plundering Chaldaean soldiery in the temple, “They have made a noise in the ſº of the LORD as in the day of a solemn assembly.’ The same impression is conveyed by some of the phrases which occur in the musical titles of the earlier psalms. For instance, Ps 57. 58. 59. 75 are set to the tune of Al-tashheth, ‘ destroy not,’ probably the opening words of a vintage song (Is 65°). Cf., further, on this point W. R. Smith, OTJO” 209, 223 f. We should have individual songs of praise i the Song of Hannah (1 S 2") and the Song of Hezekiah (Is 3819-29), were it not that neither of these can be supposed to have belonged originally to their present context (see on the former, Driver, Teact of Sam. 21 f., and on the latter, Cheyne, OP 117 f., and cf. the analogous cases of the Prayer of Jonah and the Psalm of Habakkuk). As to the arrangements for praise in the pre- exilic Temple, we have no precise information. In particular, we are left very much in the dark as to how far any special class performed , or directed this service. The statements on this subject contained in the Books of Chronicles are unfortunately of little use, owing to the tendency of the Chronicler to antedate the institutions of his own day. Iłut while it will be generally admitted that the part he attributes to David is greatly º it is probable enough that this king, whose skill as a musician is witnessed to in Am 6", as well as in 2 S 6" ", used his talents in organizing the Temple music, whether he fur- nished to any apprecialile extent the hymns used or not. It is undoubtedly the case that, down tw the Exile, praise was the privilege of the coli. gregation at large (Cheyne, 0.1° 194), but this is PRAISE IN OT PRAISE IN OT 37 not inconsistent with at least the rudiments of the elaborate system which we meet with in Chronicles having been in existence in pre-exilic times. It is hardly likely that the singers, who are first expressly named in Neh 7” (= Ezr. 2”), and of whom 148 (128) returned, or were believed to have returned, with Zerubbabel, represent a class that had been instituted during i. Exile, when no elaborate cultus was possible, or during the early years of the Return, when the circum- stances were by no means favourable to such a new departure. It seems more reasonable to con- clude that they were the representatives or de- scendants of singers who had performed this office in the pre-exilic Temple (see art. PRIESTS AND LEVITES, p. 74°). But it is equally beyond ques- tion that after the Return the whole system of praise was re-organized by Ezra and Nelhemiah. At the Return the singers appear to have formed a single guild, ‘the sons of Asaph’” (Neh 7*= Ezr 2"), and are distinguished from the Levites (Ezr 1029t, Nell 71-78. In Nell 12*7t: the musical service at the dedication of the wall is divided between the Levites and ‘the sons of the singers’). Such pas- sages as Neh 111-1% º 12°, 9°. ", where the singers are included among the Levites, do not belong to the Memoirs of Nellemiah, at least in a pure form, and their account approximates to the condition of things represented in l Ch 15” 23**, 2 Ch 29* etc. (cf. Ezr 3", where ‘the Levites the sons of Asaph ' is the phrase of the Chronicler). The guild of Asaph at a later period shared the musical service with the *... (cf. 2 Ch 2019 and the titles of Ps 42–49 and 84.85. 87. 88), who, by the time of the Chronicler, have become porters and doorkeepers (1 Ch 91° 26' 1" etc.). The Chronicler himself is acquainted with three guilds,--HIMAN, ASAPH, and JEDUTHUN or ETHAN (1 Cll 6* * * 1517 16** 25*), to whom a Levitical origin is at- tributed, Heman being descended from Kohath, Asaph from Gershom, and Ethan from Merari (1 Ch 6*7). These three the Chronicler charac- teristically represents as choirmasters appointed by David, to whom the whole organization of the service of praise is attributed, and who is said to have divided the singers into 24 courses (1 Ch 631ſt. 1510-10 16, 251ſt, 2 Ch 512 29%, cf. Sir 479). When we pass to the question of the use of a hymnal or similar forms in the Temple service, we encounter fresh uncertainties. Whatever view be taken of the contents of the Psalter (and there is a growing tendency to increase the proportion not only of post-exilic but of Maccabaean psalms), it will be generally admitted that, in its present form, the whole collection bears marks of having been intended for use in the second Temple. To what extent it may contain older (possibly even Davidic) psalms, which have been adapted for later con- gregational use, to what extent Nelhemiah found the work of collecting already done for him, and how far a later hand, say that of Simon the Maccabee (Cheyne, 0.1° 12 and passim), is respon- sible for the book as we now have it, are questions that cannot be said to be yet ſinally decided. Even so cautious a scholar as W. R. Smith was inclined to think that certain ‘facts seem to indicate that even I}ook I. of the Psalter did not exist during the Exile, when the editing of the historical books was completed, and that in psalmody as in other matters the ritual of the second Temple was com- pletely reconstructed' (OTJ (ſº 219). ‘It would be absurd to maintain that there were no psalms before the Exile. But it is not absurd to question whether Temple-hymns can have greatly resembled those in the Psalter’ (Cheyne, OP 213 f.). It is a fair question whether praise was not * This guild gives its name to one of the collections in the Psalter, consisting of Ps 50 and 73-83. offered in the SYNAGOGUE as well as in the Temple. This is usually denied (see Gibson, Jºapositor, July 1890, pp. 25–27, and cf. Schürer, HJP II. ii. 76, where the parts of the Synagogue service are enumerated), but Cheyne (OP 12, 14, 363) urges forcible considerations in favour of a different con- clusion. There is all the less difficulty in conceiv- ing of the Psalter as a manual of praise in the Synagogue when we observe that, even in post- exilic times, praise might be offered at other times and places than public worship. Thus, not only was PS 118 sung in the #. on high festival days (as on the eight successive days of the Feast of Booths and that of the Dedication), but the Hallel (Ps 113–118), of which it forms a part, was sung in two sections (113. 114. and 115–118) in every dwelling-place where the Passover was cele- brated. ... It is to the singing of the second part of the Hallel over the fourth and last cup that the Upºvijaavres of Mt. 26", Mk 14” refers. Again, the ‘Songs of the Ascents’ (Ps 120–134) are perhaps most plausibly explained as ‘Songs of the É. i.e. songs with which the caravans of pilgrims enlivened their journey to the stated festivals. See, further, Duhm, “Psalmen’ (Hdcom.), p. xxiv. How far in post-exilic times the general body of the people took part in the public service of praise is not clear, but the analogy of other parts of the ritual suggests that they participated in it to a very limited extent. In Sir 50" (referring to the time of Simon the high priest) the people “fell down upon the earth on their faces to worship the Lord’ and “besought the Lord Most High in prayer’ (cf. Lk 1", Ac 3"). It is of the sons of Actrom that it is said that they ‘shouted and sounded the trumpets of beaten work,” while ‘the singers also praised him with their voices.’ This corresponds closely with 2 Ch 7° “all the people . . . bowed themselves with their faces to the ground upon the pavement and, worshipped and gave thanks unto the LORD (mn', nātīn) inſºn, kal trpoo’ekövmaav Kal ivovu tº Kuptº), saying, For he is good, for his mercy endureth for ever.' Even this last formula appears to be in this instance not so much the language of praise as of prayer. A similar remark applies to 1 Mac 4” “all the people fell upon their faces and yº and gave praise (mūAöymoev) unto heaven, which had given them good success.’ So in 2 Ch 29** all the congregation worshipped, and the singers sang, and the trumpets sounded' (on all these passages see Büchler, as cited in the Literature below). On the other hand, that some part in the service of praise was taken by the people is clear from such a liturgical direction as ‘let all the people say Amen, Hallelujah' (Ps 106*, cf. 1 Ch 16", where the citation of this Psalm is followed by the aſſir- mation, “and all the people said Amen, and praised the Lord’). Moreover, it is extremely probable that, in antiphonal psalms like I’s 118, the congre- gation as well as the Levitical choirs took part. 13üchler (ZAT"W xix. [1899) p. 103 m.) will have it that the call in Ps 150° ‘praise him with the sound of the trumpet” (shºphºr, ‘horn, mainly a secular instrument, whereas the ollicial sacred trumpet is higégèráh, cf. I) river, Joel and Amos, p. 144 f.) is addressed not to the Levites but to the congre- gation. He compares I’s 81*, and Jth 16" where Judith leads off and all the people take up the song. Many psalms, e.g. 95.96. 98.99; 100, not to speak of the lºſſ. psalms (which are all post- exilic), were evidently composed from the first for liturgical use, and others may have been trans- formed from a more private and individual use to be the expression of the church-nation's praise. It is of course only to a limited extent that the Talmudic accounts of the service of praise in the Temple can be accepted as correct even for the 38 PRAISE IN NT IPRAYER closing period of OT history, but there is good reason to believe that the list given in Tamid (vii. 4) of the psalms that were sung on each day of the Week, at the morning sacrifice, is an ancient one. These psalms were as follows: Sunday 24 (B Tâs pitãs gaggåTwv), Monday 48 (B Öevrépg gaggårov), Tuesday 82, Wednesday 94 (B Terpáðt gaggårwv), Thursday 81, Friday 93 (B els Thy huépav roſ, ºrpo- oaššárov Úre katūkuotal h yń), Sabbath 92 (Heb. ny, I Dº? TV, B eis Thy huépav rob a'aggårov). See, further, Neubauer, Stud. Bibl. ii. 1 ff. The sing- ing and playing of the Levites on these occasions was accompanied by the blowing of silver trumpets (házózérôth) by two priests (cf. Nu 10+", Ezr 3", Neh 1290, 1 Ch 15* 16, 2 Ch 51° 7' 29-4-28, Sir 501"). See, further, on the whole subject, the articles MUSIC, PRIESTS AND LEVITES, PSALMS, TEMPLE, WORSHIP. LITERATURE.—On the Heb. terms see the Oxf. Heb. Lea, to which the first part of the present article has yery special obligations. On the history, etc., of praise: , Büchler, “Zur Gesch. d. Tempelmusik u, d. Tempelpsalmen, in Z4 TW. xix. [1890) i. 96ff., ii. 329 ft., xx. i. 97 ft. ; IW6berle, Die T'ennpelstinger im. AT, 1899; Cheyne, OP, 1889, passin; W. R. Smith, OT'JC2, 1892, esp. pp. 190-225; Van Hoonacker, Le sacerdoce lèvitique, 1809, passim ; Nowack, Lehrb. d. Heb. Arch., 1894, i. 271 f.; Schürer, GJ V8, 1898, ii. 240 ſt., 293 ſt. [LIJP il. i. 225 ft., 200 ft.); and the Commentaries on the Psalms. J. A. SELBIE. PRAISE IN NT.—Praise (alvos, gravos (1 P 214– nº), alveats, 66$a, ćpet), alvetv, Čtraveſv, Öošáčeuv) plays a large part in the NT, both the praise of God by angels and by men, and the praise of man by God and his fellow-man. i. The praise of God is the work of the angels (Lk 219. 14.” 1998), and also of man. The chief object of the existence of the redeemed is to show forth the praises of Him who called them out of darkness into light (1 P 2"): Gentiles join now in the work of praise (Ro 15”); and all, Jew and Gentile alike, exist to the praise of the glory of His grace (Eph 13-14, Ph 11, 2 Th 119, 1 P 212): Christians offer their sacrifice of praise to God (He 13"): universal praise will be the characteristic of the last day (IRev 19°): whereas failure to give God praise for His mercies is the note of heathenism (Ro 1*, Rev 1197 147 16", cf. Ac ll”). The subjects of praise are God’s intrinsic excellences (épétás, 1 P 2", where see Hort); His universal gifts of creation, of providence, of redemption (Rev 15**, Ac 2* and assim); His promises to individuals (IRo 4”); His olessings to individuals, especially for the miracles of our Lord's lifetime (Lk 18° 10'7, cf. 2 Co 1"). One idiomatic phrase in the mouth of the “Jews’ ôös 60%av rig 0eg (Jn 9” “Give God the praise’ AV, ‘Give glory to God’ RW) is remarkable, meaning, ‘Confess thy sins’ (cf. Joshua’s words to Achan in Jos 7”), and implying that truthful confession of the real facts of }. brings glory to God. The tone of praise to God is specially marked in the Gospel of St. Luke, the Acts, the Ep. to the Ephesians, and the Apocalypse. It finds its ex- º in semi-rhythmical language and formal ymns (see HYMN), and also in doxologies. The latter were primarily liturgical (cf. 2 Co 1* 6t' attoo Tô 'Auhu rô 0eg irpès 66%av 6t' huſov), and are adapta- tions from existing Jewish liturgies. The fountain- head of them may perhaps be traced to 1 Ch 29°, from which originated two types—(£) beginning with the word ‘Blessed ' (eVMo'ymtós, i.e. bless- worthy, worthy of receiving, blessing), implying “an intelligent recognition of His abiding good- ness, as made known in His past or present acts,’ Lk 103, 2 Co lº l 13, Ito 1* 9", Eph 18 (where see Lightfoot), 1 P 1" (where see Hort); (b) ascribing to God glory (power, might, dominion) for eyer. This is the commoner type in the NT and in subsequent Christian liturgies: the simplest form q, 66;a els rows aidºvas' duffv (Ro l 1") is varied by the several writers to suit the exact context (Gal 19, Ro 1627, Ph 4”, Eph 31, 1 Ti 117 G10, 2 Ti 4”, He 13* [see Westcott, Additional Note), 1 P 41 5", 2 P 38, Jude *, Rev 10 518 71*), and it left its ultimate mark on the Lord's Prayer in the addition of the doxology, perhaps originally made when that prayer was *...'. Eucharistic worship (Chase, The Lord's Prayer in the Early Church, “Texts and Studies,’ I. iii. pp. 168–174). On praise as a part of public worship, see art. CHURCH ir vol. i. p. 428", art. HYMN in vol. ii., and cf. the preceding article. ii, ‘The idea of man as praised by God is not distinctly recognized in the OT” (Hort on 1 P 17). There God is spoken of as well pleased with men; but the NT goes beyond this in the word “praise,’ which inplies not only moral approbation, but the public expression of it. The diſſerence may have arisen from our Lord’s life; He had moved about among men, accepting praise and homage where it was simple and genuine (Mt 21*); giving His own praise without stint to John the 13aptist (Mt 11*), to all acts of faith (Mt 8" 9* 15° 16', Ik 7"), to good and loyal service (Mt 25*.*, Lk 1917), to all gener- osity of gift (Mk 12° 14%), to self-devotion (Llº 10”), to prudence (Llº 16°). Hence the ascended Lord is represented as sending His messages of praise as well as of blame to the Seven Clurches of Asia (IRev l”); and the praise of God is the ultimate verdict to which Christians appeal (1 P 17), which will correct hasty judgments of men, and be the true praise exactly appropriate to each man's actions (1 Co 4** 6 &trauvos): the true Jew, who bears rightly the name of Judah (= ‘praised '), is he whose praise comes from God not from men (Ro 2”, where see Gifford in “Speaker's ' Com.). The praise of man by his fellow-men is naturally of more doubtful value. On the one hand it is liable to be unreal, shallow, flattering, and to lead to a false self-satisfaction ; our Lord avoided the shallow praise of the crowds, and of individuals who did not weigh the meaning of their words (Lk 1819); He warned His followers against the desire for such praise (Mt. 6", Lk G*); He traced the rejection of the truth by the Pharisees to the fact that they sought honour from each other, and did not seek the honour that comes from the only God (Jn 5-4, cf. 12%); St. Paul refused to seek glory from men (1 Th 2"), and was ever on his guard against pleasing men (Gal 1"). On the other hand, St. Paul appeals to the con- sideration of any praise of men as a proper incentive to Christians (ei ris étrawos, Pll 4*): the proper func- tion of human government is the praise of well-doers (Ro 139, 1 P 214): St. Paul praises whole Churches for their virtues (1 Co 11° and passim); he lavishes the highest praises on each of his fellow-workers (1 Co 417 and passim): their praise runs through all the Churclies (2 Co 8*): his aim is, and that of all Christians should be, to provide things honest in the sight of men as well as of God (2 Co 8*, Ro 12"). Praise of men is treated as a danger when it stands in antithesis to the praise of God; but when it re- flects the plaise of God in the mirror of the Chris- tian's conscience, it is a welcome incentive to good. W. LOCK. PRAYER.—An attempt will be made to treat the subject historically, keeping separate the evidence supplied by different portions of , the Bible as to human practice and Divine teaching on the subject of 1°rayer. With regard to the OT, it will be assumed, for the purpose of the article, that the books which it contains, whatever their respective dates may be, are on the whole trust: worthy guides as to the religious beliefs and practices of the periods which they describe.” * It can scarcely be denied, however, that a writer like the Chronicler is apt to antcdate the beliefs and practices of his OWI) age. PRAYER PRAYER 39 I. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.—i. Prefatory. —It will first be necessary to limit the subject of inquiry. Prayer (nºn) may be understood widely, So as to include every form of address from man to God, whatever its character. Hannah's song (1 S 2) is a thanksgiving, yet it is introduced by the words ‘Hannah prayed and said,” and the prayer of Hab 3 is a psalm. But address by way of petition must form the main subject of this article, though it is impossible to isolate this division of prayer, see, e.g., Is 637–64*, where praise, thanks- giving, pleading, confession, and supplication are blended. Certain axioms with regard to prayer are taken for granted, viz. (1) God hears prayer ; (2) God is moved by prayer ; (3) prayer may be not merely a request, but a pleading, or even an expostulation. It may here be added that OT prayer is little occupied with what becomes the main subject of Rºyer in NT, viz. spiritual and moral needs. This remark, however, applies only partially to the Psalms. The terms for ‘prayer’ must next be considered. The verbs are : 1. Dyfi Nº (Gn 4*, where see T)ill- Imann’s note), or simply Rºº ; this is the oldest and simplest phrase. It is perpetuated in NT (étruſca- \eta:0at to Čvoua, Ac 2* 9” al.). The correlative word is my “answer” (sometimes wrongly, e.g. Hos 2*, *, tr. ‘ hear’), Gn 35” and Psalms, passim. It signifies an answer either by external or spiritual help, or by inward assurance. 2. Sººn primarily of intercessory prayer, Gn 207, Job 42", but also of prayer generally, 1 S 1* and elsewhere. From this verb comes the common name for prayer in its widest sense, Hºpf, noticed above. 3. yup, lit. ‘to fall upon,’ so “to approach in order to sup- plicate. See Is 53%, where the “approaching' is on behalf of others, and cf. eutvyxávevu in NT. 4. 98% ‘to ask' (a) for some grace or deliverance, (3) for information or guidance. The correlative is again my 1 S 28%. 6." Jº-ns nºn Ex 32", an anthro- pomorphic phrase (“make the face sweet or pleas- ant'), never literally tr. in AV, but rendered “beseech,” etc. 6. py) ‘cry,' used of those who pray for the redressing of a wrong. Another detached point may be taken before entering on the historical treatment, viz. Postures in Prayer.—(1) Standing. This was the commonest attitude, e.g. Albraham, Gn 18*; Hannah, 1 S 1%. It continues in NT times (but cf. below on Acts); and in Jewish usage the Shemomeh Esreh had the name of Amidah (stand- ing), because the congregation stood during their recital. (2) Kneeling, Ps 95"; Solomon, 1 K 8*; Daniel, I)n 6"; see, further, art. I&NEEL. (3) Prostration, i.e. kneeling with face bent to the ground in case of urgency, Nu 16”, l K 1849 (and in NT Mt, 26%). (4) Sitting, 2 S 7”, a doubtful instance (but see H. P. Smith, ad loc.). In addition to these postures of the body the attitude of the hands should be noticed. These were : (1) liſted, Ps 634 (cf. 1 Ti 2°), and (2) spread out, i.e. with open up- turned palms symbolical of the act of receiving from God, Ex 9-0, Is 11°. ii. Patriarchal Religion.—Leaving these pre- fatory matters, we come to prayer as it appears in patriarchal religion. ‘Then began men to call upon the name of the LORD? (Gn 4*). This first notice is of real importance. There had been abundant consciousness of God before, but tradi- tion fixed the commencement of habitual prayer at the beginning of the third generation. Thence we pass over a long interval to Abraham, and enter with him into the fullest and freest exercise of prayer. (l) His prayer is dialogue. It consists not merely in man drawing near to God, but God to man, inviting it and disclosing His purposes. The same thing occurs in the case of Moses, and Something of the kind is supposed in certain psalms, where God Himself speaks, e.g. Ps 91. (2) Intercession is prominent in patriarchal prayer, Gn 17* 18** 207; cf. below on prophets as inter. cessors. (3) There are also personal prayers : Gn 15°, a prayer for a son ; Gn 24”, Eliezer's on his journey; more prominent still in Jacob's life. Jacob's first prayer was a vow, Gn 28*; his prayer in Gn 32* is in fear of Esau; his wrestling with the angel (32*) is described in Hos 12 (‘made suppli- cation') as involving prayer. (4) Patriarchal . ings are prayers. hen man blesses man, it is (a) primarily a vision of the Divine purpose for the person blessed and a declaration of it ; it is pro- phetic (e.g. Gn 49"), but it is (b) also a prayer. This is especially clear in a blessing attributed to the next period, Dt 33, e.g. v.”. As blessing is partly prayer, so also is cursing, as will be seen in considering the imprecatory psalms; cf. also Neh 13”; Sir 4", where the curse is called a supplica- tion. . (5) The oath in Gn 14” (“I have lift up mine hand ') is a kind of prayer, being an imprecation, not on another, but on the speaker in case of his failing in his intention. The plurase becomes so fixed in common use that without regard to its original meaning it is even used of God Himself, Ezk 367. (6) The vow. See art. Vow. iii. The Law.—The evidence of the Law as to prayer is negative. With one exception (Dt 26*), there is nothing about prayer in the Law. There is no ordinance as to the employment of the formulae (or charms) common in the ritual of other nations. This did not tend to the undervaluing of prayer, but rather kept it in its proper place. It is not recognized as a means of doing service, but it is left to be a spontaneous expression of human needs. The lasting effect of this negative teaching may be seen in Berakhoth iv. 4. If prayers are said only to fulfil a duty (as a charge), they will not be heard by God. But to return to the exception, the formulae of worship in Dt 26. Even these are not strictly prayers, vv.” are a thanksgiving, vv.” ” a profession of past obedi- ence, and v.” alone contains supplication. Wv.” " are strangely like the so-called prayer of the Pharisee in Lk 18*, *. There also is the claim of past obedience, and in respect to the same point, viz. the payment of tithe (the hallowed things). But we cannot doubt that private prayer was habitually connected with sacrifice from early times. Instances are spread over the OT, e.g Abraham (Gn 128), Solomon (1 K 3" "), Job (42"). There remains for consideration the typical char- acter of incense. Incense (see INCENSE) was taken up into Hebrew usage from the stock of primitive religious customs among the nations around, and was originally an anthropomorphic form of pro- pitiation by sweet odours (cf. Dn 2"). 13ut as time went on it was regarded as typical of prayer and associated with it. See Ps 141*, and in NT Lk 110, Rev 58 88. But if the Law teaches nothing about prayer, the lawgiver teaches much. No biblical life is fuller of prayer than that of Moses. The history of his call (Ex 3, 4) gives prayer in the form of ‘colloquy” with God as noticed above. There are his private prayers in times of difficulty (Ex 528, Nu 1 ill-º), and, above all, his frequent intercessory prayers (1), for Pharaoh, to obtain relief from plagues; (2) for Israel in all the times of the murmuring and rebellion, e.g. Ex 32*. What Moses did not lay on Israel as a º he taught them by example, though it may be doubted whether access to God in prayer was not looked upon as the prerogative of a prophet. iv. The Period of the Kingdom.—This may be taken next, though in the intermediate time Jos 40 RRAYER PRAYER 7** 10* and Jg 6 are to be noted, and the raising º of judges is almost always introduced by the §. ‘the children of Israel cried unto the lord.” anuel next appears to carry on the great inter- cessory tradition. In Jer 15 Moses and Samuel stand together as chief representatives of this form of prayer. And the narrative lº. the Divine words. Twice over Samuel makes great efforts of intercession for the nation (1 S 7”); and again in regard to their desire for a king throughout chs. 8 and 12. He testifies himself to his continuous pleading for them, and expresses his sense that it is part of the obligation of his º: office, “God forbid that I should sin against the Lord in ceasing to pray for you’ (1 S iš). Besides his nationai, there is also his personal intercession. The rejec- tion of Saul grieved Samuel, and he cried unto the Lord all night, 15”. And something of prayer is implied in the mourning for Saul, recorded in 15” and 16". David, being himself regarded as a pro- phet, is represented as praying without an inter- cessor. This appears in 2 S 71*. It is hardly necessary to prove that both the lesser and the greater prophets of the kingly period are regarded as intercessors. It is mainly in this character, as intercessor for a nation perishing by famine, that Elijah stands before us in the great drama of 1 K 18. And the test which is there applied to decide between Jehovah and Baal is, which of the two hears prayer. Intercession, as part of the pro- pletic function, will come out more clearly still when we deal with the prophets who have left writings; but there is a special interest in finding it in men of action, such as Samuel, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and another leader who was not a pro- plmet, namely, Nehemiah. Their prayer is not merely to put the matter in the Lord’s hand, but to strengthen themselves for action. The Books of Samuel and Kings contain prayers which suggest the subject of the place of prayer. The ark denoted the local presence of God, and therefore the place of prayer. So Hannah (1 S 1) and David (2 S 7) resort thither. Iłut as sacrifice is offered at ‘ high places,’ prayer may be offered there also. So Samuel at Mizpah (1 S 7°), and Solomon at Gibeon (1 K 3). When the temple is dedicated, it is as a house of prayer, if, notwith- standing its affinities to Deut., we may take 1 K 8 as in some degree representing the mind of the founder. If, however, the prayer belongs in form and spirit to another period, it is no less worthy of attention in two important respects. (1) At the dedication of the centre of a great sacrificial cultus, not a word is said in the prayer about the sacrifices, but only about prayer to be offered there, or ‘toward’ that ‘place.” For prayer ‘toward ' a place, cf. Ps 28°, #. 6”; and, even for Islam, Jerusalem was at first the Kibla. The temple is the house of prayer in Is 567; and it will be seen to have been so regarded in NT. (2) The other point to notice in Solomon's prayer is the apparent conflict of two conceptions—that of some local habitation of God therein, and that of the impossibility of limiting His presence.—We have also two prayers attributed to Hezekiah — the first in Is 37**, offered in the temple, a prayer for God's glory in the spirit of Ps. 115; the second (Is 38%) a prayer for himself, recalling his right- eousness in the spirit of Ps 26, yet none the less accepted. v. The Easile and Return. —Ewald (Hist. Isr. (Eng. tr.) v. 23) has justly emphasized the import- ance assumed by prayer in this period. There were two main causes for this. (1) The necessary cessation of sacrifice after the destruction of the temple. This threw the burden of worship wholly on prayer. (2) A sense of abandonment by God, which produced earnestness in seeking for an ex- planation of His dealings, and a return of His favour. The evidence in support of Ewald’s asser- tion is twofold—(a) the great prayers extant from this period; (b) the personal habits of individuals recorded in the narrative. (a) Great prayers ea:- tant. First and greatest is Is 637-641°. The pro- phet comes forward and “ leads the devotions of the Church of the Exile.’ The prayer is remark- able as appealing to the Ratherhood of God, 63% 64°. The other four are, Ezr 9°-10 chiefly con- fession ; Neh 1 ; Levites’ prayer in Neh 9, in the form of historical retrospect (cf. Ps 106); Daniel's confession, Dn 9. On these last four some general remarks may be made. Confession is prominent, acknowledgment of the sin of Israel and the righteousness of God. They are cast in the same model, and contain the same phrases. Rasting has become connected with prayer (cf. Zec 7"). The confession in these prayers is representative confession, e.g. Nehemiah (Neh 1") takes the sins of Israel upon himself and confesses them as a whole. He is an intercessor, but he does not stand apart ; he regards himself as involved in the guilt. (b) Personal habits of individuals. Ezra at the river Ahava (Ezr 8*-*) relies on prayer for the safety of his expedition. As to Nehemiah, it is unnecessary to show in detail that constant #. is the characteristic of his journal. It is his resource in difficulty and discouragement, and takes a distinctly personal character, “remember me, O my God.” Again, Dn 6 is an illustration of how prayer to God had become a distinctive mark of the Jews in exile. In it the enemies of Daniel decide to find their opportunity, and on it base their attack. In this narrative (Dn 6”) we first find unmistakable mention of the hours of prayer as afterwards practised by the Jews, though perhaps Ps 557 may be taken to denote them. As is usually the case in ritual, an endeavour was made to find sanction for the three hours of prayer in the earliest times, and Gn 1997 24° 28% were referred to by the Jews for this purpose. vi. The Prophets.-‘The Latter Prophets,’ i.e. the prophetic writings, may now be considered as a whole, and without reference to date, in order to see what special characteristics are to be attri- buted to the prayers of prophets. It has already been seen that the latter were intercessors in virtue of their calling. The ground of this was twofold. The prophet was an acceptable person ; but, fur- ther, he had the Spirit (e.g. Ezk 2°), and the pos- session of it enabled him not only to interpret the mind of God to man, but also the mind of man to God (cf. Ito 8”). The prophet thus knew what the needs of the nation were, much better than the nation itself. Intercession in the OT is not generally the duty of the priest. I'or an excep- tion see J1 27, Mal 1"; and in Apocr. 1 Mac 7”, when, of course, prophets had ceased to exist. 13eyond this º intercessory function we may trace three special aspects of prayer in the pro- phetical writings, which may be illustrated almost exclusively from Jeremiah. , (a) I’ersonal prayer. In Jeremiah intermixed with and in reference to the difficulties and trials of his own mission (e.g. Jer 20). (b) Seeking to know. It is by prayer (in part, at least) that the prophet obtains the Divine revelations, Jer 33° 42" (where ten days pass before the answer is reported). (c) Interceding to avert present or predicted evil. See Am 7 and Jer 14. 15. The latter passage is an important example. In cli. 14 we have—(1) intercession, vv.”; (2) answer forbidding intercession, "“”; (3) renewed olcading in spite of prohibition ; (4) renewed }. threatenings, **; (5) a wail from the prophet ending in fresh intercession, "*. To this again comes an answer (15'") of final con. demnation ; but even this does not close the diº, PRAYER PRAYER 4] logue of prayer, which continues to 15*. This record of intercession throws a light upon the inner life of the prophets, and their intimate re- lations with God, which we hardly find elsewhere in OT. The limits here set to intercession are an anticipation of 1 Jn 5*. And the persistence of the º although rejected, is nevertheless an inspired persistence. vii. Psalms, Proverbs, Job. — Although the prayers in the Psalter exceed in amount and variety all other prayers in OT, yet they do not contribute to our study of the subject so much as they would do if the circumstances and persons from which they proceeded were known to us. Although the title ‘Prayers of David’ is implied in the subscription closing the second book (Ps 72”), yet only one psalm in these two books (Ps. 17) is entitled ‘a prayer.’ And in the whole Psalter only five (including PS 17) are so described. Tehillim (praises), not tephilloth (prayers), is the recognized name of the book; but the latter would be almost as accurate a title as the former. Prayer in the Psalms will be considered under six heads, (1) Prayer is regarded in the Psalms as the powring out of the heart, 42* 62° 102 (title) 142*. Outside the Psalter, see 1 S 1" and 7" com- ared with La 2". That which is poured out may e either the heart or its musing (nº, AV ‘com- plaint’). In prayer the psalmist does not so much go before God with fixed orderly petition, as simply to pour out his feelings and desires, what- ever they are, sweet or bitter, troubled or peaceful. (2) As a consequence of this aspect, various moods are blended in prayer. It passes from praise and commemoration to complaint, supplication, con- fession, despondency. Few psalms are entirely prayers in a strict sense. There is, however, another reason for the rapid transitions which occur. In some cases the moment of a felt answer to prayer is marked in the Psalm itself by transi- tion to praise. Here we have an approach to the colloquy in prayer noticed in the cases of Abraham, Moses, and Jeremiah. In 1437 an answer is dis- tinctly expected ; again in 6** it is received, as also in 31*. For strongly marked transitions see 57%r!! 69*-*. There is a sense that God has heard, and that is equivalent to His granting the petition, cf. 1 Jn 5*. Yet this answer sometimes fails, and psalms from which it is absent strike us as abnormal, e.g. Ps 88. Here we come near what is frequent in Job, prayer struggling in the dark- ness, without a º It is that ‘shutting out ’ of prayer which is described in La 3°. (3) National and personal prayer, how far can they be distin- guished 2 Some prayers in the Psalter are evi- i. national, e.g. 60. 79. 80. But while 44 is no less evidently national, ‘I’ and ‘me’ occur in vv." and *. Hence it is evident that the 1st pers. sing, is no Fº that a psalm, e.g. 102, is personal. It may well be an expression of the 㺠and needs of the nation. It may almost be said that the psalmist never felt himself alone, but always connected his personal joys or griefs with those of the nation. Cheyne (OP 276) quotes a Rab- binic saying, “In prayer a man should always unite himself with the community.’ The question then will generally be which of the two elements pre- dominates, not which is exclusively present. (4) Material cºnd casternal blessings are the principal subjects of prayer in the Psalms. Account must be taken, in considering this matter, of changes which have taken place in the meaning of words by the legitimate spiritualizing eflect of Christian use, “Say unto my soul, I am thy salvation (35°) is a good instance of how a prayer for temporal deliverance has come to acquire the appearance of being a prayer for spiritual bless- ing. Iłut although the Psalms are far more largely occupied with temporal and material than with spiritual needs, yet there are distinctly spiritual topics of i. which fill a considerable place in them. These are : (a) Communion with God, prayer for the intercourse of prayer, as in 63. (b) Forgiveness of sins, besought with the greatest earnestness in 51 for its own sake, but more frequently taking the form of prayer for that deliverance from suffering and chastisement which was held to mark the forgiveness of sin (See art. SIN IN OT). (c) Ps 119 stands on a different footing... It contains much prayer for a knowledge of God’s will. The prayer for quicken- ing (“quicken’ occurs 11 times) seems distinctly to have a spiritual sense. The ‘He’ division, with its initial verbs in Hiphil, is almost entirely prayer. The development of prayer in a spiritual direction has been carried some way in the Psalms, and prayer for external blessings has been cast in a form which will lend itself afterwards to spiritual interpretation, . We must not, however, suppose that prayer of this kind differentiates the Psalms from the prayers of all other religions. Prayer for spiritual and moral gifts is found elsewhere (Tylor, Prim. Culture, vol. ii. pp. 373, 374). (5) Urgency of Prayer. There is a feeling that God must be induced to hear. This comes out in the anthro- pomorphic phrases which speak to Him as though He needed to be awakened, urged, or persuaded. We can scarcely suppose that this is, all of it, no more than a º irony. While NT put aside the thought of awakening Him, it retained that of pleading. On this subject see Ps 28° 44*, and in correction of these PS 121 throughout. (6) Prayer of imprecation, for vengeance. This is both frequent and urgent. It occurs in the highest strains of devotion, e.g. Ps 69*.*, as well as in psalms of a lower level, e.g. 59. It reaches its extreme point in 109. In this Psalm attempts have been made to explain it away, but here no separate dealing is possible with a conception which enters into the tissue of so many psalms. It is certainly remarkable that the phrase which above any expresses the absorption of the psalmist in prayer (“I am prayer,’ 109°) should occur where it does. Various considerations may help us to bear with this feature, but one is sufficient here. The devout Israelite of that day believed deeply in God, was perhaps more closely conscious of Him than we are, and yet looked out on a world of treachery, cruelty, and lust. The vision which we have before us of a future retribution in another life was entirely shut out from him. If his sense of justice was not dead, how could he help crying out for some manifestation of Divine righteousness by way of retribution, even apart from human instinct for revenge 2 An inspiration which ran counter to such desires would have disturbed the very foundations of his faith. See, further, art. PSALMS, p. 160. Pºłºnly two points need be noticed : (1) Three passages in which the character of the person praying determines the acceptance of the prayer, 15" "28. . This feeling, legitimate as it is, and admitted in the formularies of to-day, would tend to grow into that mistaken view of the matter which is corrected in the parable of the Pharisee and the l’ublican. (2) The prayer of Agur (307-9), with its modest request for the middle state on account of the effoct of riches and poverty on his relation with God. . Cf. the prayer of Socrates (Plato, Phadrus, sub fin., and also Thom. Alluinas, Summa, ii. 2, lxxxiii. 5). Job.-The earlier part of the book is in the form of a dialogue between Job and his friends; but in fact, when his friends pause, it is often the case that Job, instead of answering them, turns away to God, and lets his address to God stand as 42 PRAYER PRAYER an answer to them. Thus, much of the book is prayer. See chs. 6. 7... 9. 10. , 13. 14. The boldest of these is 10. Though full of doubt, webelliousness, and half-way to renouncing God, it is nevertheless prayer. These chapters are, in fact, prayer for what at times is the most urgent of all needs, some explanation of pain and suffer- Ing. It is prayer for wisdom. So, long afterwards, St. James, writing to those who have fallen into manifold trials, bids them ask wisdom from God, that they may understand the purpose of His discipline (Ja 1*). To sum up, the axioms stated at the outset have been abundantly justiſied. It has plainly appearçd that God hears and is moved by prayer, especially by persistent pleading prayer. This was the convic- tion not only of the mass of the nation, but also of a large number of highly gifted persons. Their experience of prayer, as attested by their writings, must always constitute an important element in that portion of the evidences for the being of God which is drawn from human consciousness. In the spiritual sphere it corresponds to the testimony which St. John gives to God manifest in the flesh, 1 Jn 11-4. II. IN THE ApocrypHA.—The Apocr. as a whole conſirms strongly what has been said as to the in- creased prominence of prayer after the Exile. The Apocr. books incorporate, or even consist of prayers. The Additions to Esther are mainly two long prayers of Esther and Mordecai. See also lbar i”–38; the Prayer of Azarias (Abednego) prefixed to the Song of the Three Children; and the Prayer of Manasses: the two narratives Tobit and Judith both attest the power of prayer. In Tobit the miraculous interpositions and the º issue of the story are entirely the result of the simultaneous prayers of Tobit and Sarah recorded in To 3, see esp. 3". And the place given to prayer in an ideal Jewish family is shown by the paternal injunctions of To 4". The Book of Tobit, although a fiction, engages respect and interest by its high moral tone ; but the same cannot be said of the Book of Judith, in which the prayer of the heroine is tainted with the treachery which is glorified throughout the book. Her prayer in Jth 91" is prayer for the success of deceit, and it would be hard to find anything baser in conception than lier pretended scheme of inquiring by prayer as to the sins of her countrymen, that she may tell Holofernes when to attack them, Jth ll” ". The necessity of washing, before prayer, for those living among the heathen appears in J th 127 °. In 1 Mac we pass from fiction to history. As £zr-Nell slowed prayer in men of action, so also 1 Mac, e.g. 4** 5” and 117-7°, prayer was the secret of the Maccabaean victories. That it was so, is nowhere better expressed than in 2 Mac 15”, “con- tending with their hands and praying unto God with their hearts.” The notice of Mizpeh in 1 Mac 3* as an ancient place of prayer, links the prayer and victory of Judas with those of Samuel in former time, and is proof of the surviving holiness of the ancient sanctuaries. 2 Mac does but renew in legendary guise the evidence of 1 Mac as to the frequency of prayer in the great patriotic struggle. But it contains two passages which favoured, if they did not suggest, later developments in Chris- tian times. With 2 Mac 1249-4” before them as canonical Scripture, it is no wonder that men thought they had ample justification for offering sacriſice (in the Mass) on behalf of the dead. And the vision of Onias and Jeremiah (2 Mac 15**) was a clear testimony to the intercession of saints on behalf of the living. Cf. also Bar 3 if the text be correct. The sapiential books of the Apocr. should next be considered. The Book of Wisdom from 9 onward is a continuous address to God, and may be regarded as a prayer, though the character of supplication is not clearly discernible beyond the end of ch. 9. But 16”. * contains a beautiful illustration with regard to prayer. As manna had to be gathered at ãº, fest it should melt in the heat of the sun, so we must rise at daybreak to gather spiritual food by prayer. If the Book of Wisdom contributes little, Sirach compensates, as might be expected from the re- spective origin of the two books. . It contains prayers, e.g. 22%-23% (personal); 36” (national); 50* partly thanksgiving, the source of Rinkart's famous hymn, ‘Nun danket alle Gott.” Sir 7”. * 2S** prepare the way for our Lord's teaching on prayer, and may have been present to His mind : 38°4 was certainly in St. James' mind when he wrote Ja 514-1". Sir 38” may perhaps be the source of the proverb, ‘Laborare est orare.’ Taking the book generally, it is remarkable that the principal subject of prayer in Sirach is the forgiveness of sins, thus advancing the movement begun in OT to spiritualize the aims of prayer. One more book of Apocr. requires notice, an apocalypse, the ºn: 2 Esdras. Though chs. 3–14 inclusive are certainly post-Christian, and therefore do not, like the books hitherto Con- sidered, illustrate inter - Testamental Jewish thought, there is much that is of great interest in them, and not least in regard to prayer. The question is raised in 7” (RW text) whether the intercession of prophets and leaders which had played so great a part in the history of Israel will not also be availing in the day of judgment, and the answer is a twice-repeated negative. III. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. —It will be con- venient to state at once the main points in which the doctrine of prayer makes advance in NT. (1) Further development of prayer for spiritual blessings. It is the light here thrown on the possibilities of a higher life by the example and teaching of Christ which enlarges and raises the scope of prayer. (2) Extension of the guidance of the Holy Spirit to all believers, enables them for prayer. Power in prayer was a characteristic of the prophets in the OT, because they had the Spirit. "Now all can pray, because all have the Spirit. (3) Prayer in the name of Jesus. This is absolutely new (Jn 16”). The verse just cited gives the turning-point in the history of prayer. ... It does not divert prayer from the Father to the Son, but gives new access to the l’ather. Thus the normal idea of prayer is to pray in the Spirit, through the Son, to the Father. NT words for ‘prayer’ must be briefly noticed. 1. Prayer to God with implication of worship is Tpoo’etzeq 0al. 2. etxea.0at barely exceeds an earnest wish, and needs Tpos rov 0eóv to give it the sense of prayer as in 2 Co 137. Its subst, etxà means a vow except in Ja 5". 3. 6éopat, 6émats, though used of supplication to God even by our Lord Himself (Lk 22*), may also be used of prayer to man (e.g. Llº 9"), which is not the case with Trpoo’etzeo ()au. 4. alreiv, a simple word belonging to our childlike relation (Lk 11"), contains no thought of worship ; in RV always ‘ask,” but disguised in AV by five diſſerent renderings, namely ‘ask,’ ‘desire,’ ‘beg,' ‘crave,’ ‘require.’ The mid. voice (alteig 0at) gives intensity to the request (see Mayor on Ja 4*). 5. époráw, usually explained as involving a certain freedom in the manner and form of request. 6. évrvyxávezv, Ütrépévrvyxávely, tr. ‘intercede,’ though the sense is primarily to draw near the person addressed, ind only secondarily on behalf of an- other. See below under ‘Epistles.’ i. Gospels.-The example and teaching of oua Lord : (1) His personal example. His prayer was real prayer, not merely offered by Way of example PRAYER PRAYER 43 as lºw to disciples, but as real and intense as any ever uttered. Nothing brings out His true humanity more than His dependence on the Father in prayer. Iłis prayers may be considered under three heads: (a) At or before the groat events of His life on earth : at IBaptism (Ll 3*); before choice of apostles (Lk 6”. 19); before transfiguration, which is almost represented as the effect of prayer (Lk 9”); before Gethsemane (Jn 17, the earlier verses of which refer to the consummation of His own work); during the agony (Lk 22*, He 57). It is to be observed that, for these notices, we are mainly indebted to St. Luke, and his special interest in our Lord’s teaching as to prayer will appear under other heads also. (3) Prayer before performance of miracles: implied in the case of Lazarus, Jn 11**; probably implied Mk 7”. Cf. Mt. 17” (TR); but much more frequent in miracles wrought by disciples. (y) Intercessory prayer: for disciples and future believers, Jn 17*.*, and continued after ascension, Ro 8*, He 7” (this continued intercession is not denied by Jn 16*, which merely guards against the thought that our prayer is of itself unacceptable : His heavenly intercession is but another aspect of our asking in Jesus' name); prayer for individuals : St. Peter, Lk 22”; soldiers at the cross, Lk 23”. See Monrad, World of Prayer, p. 72, Eng. tr. (2) The Lord’s direct teaching in various ways. This may be considered under the following heads: (a) the lord’s Prayer; (3) parables; (y) incidental sayings; (6) last discourses. (a) The Lord's Prayer. — There are grounds which appear to the present writer to be sufficient, but which cannot be stated here, for believing that the prayer was given on two occasions, and in two distinct forms. The latter circumstance would seem to show that stress was not laid on the repetition of the exact words, but on the teaching which the prayer conveyed as to the topics, pro- portion, and order of all prayer. There is but one clause in the Lord’s Prayer relating to temporal wants, and even that not merely to the wants of the individual (“give ws’). Moreover, it is capable of including spiritual needs, and is constantly so interpreted. On the other hand, it does legitimate prayer for temporal wants. In this connexion notice the direction given Mt. 24”. This tendency of the Lord’s I’rayer to fix desires on spiritual things is summed up in one of the agrapha quoted by Origen, Sel. in l’s 4" LXX (Lomm. xi. 432) and elsewhere, and probably authentic, “Ask the great things, and the little things shall be added to you; ask the heavenly things, and the carthly things shall be added to you' (Resch, Agraphſ, Logion 41). Another characteristic of the Lord's Prayer is its catholicity. There is nothing of particularism in it. It is already conscious of its world-wide destiny. A merely Jewish prayer of this date would certainly have been addressed to the Lord God of Israel (of our fathers), and would have con- tained a petition for the nation. See Latham, Pastor Pastorum, p. 416. See, further, art. LORD's PRAYISR. (6) Parables.—(1) Two parables on importunity in prayer. This characteristic of prayer has already been taught by OT, and is here approved by our Lord. The ‘I'riend at Midnight” (LR 11"..") follows immediately the delivery of the Lord’s Prayer. While it should be interpreted in the broadest way of all prayer, it may have special application to teachers, as being a lº. for bread for others. The second parable, the Importunate Widow (Lk 18-8), has throughout a special refer- ence to the prayer of suffering believers in expecta- tion of the Second Advent. The need of im- portunity in prayer expressed in both parables should be interpreted with Trench’s words before us, ‘We must not conceive of prayer as an over- coming of God’s reluctance, but as a laying hold of His highest willingness’ (Parables, xviii., the sub- stance of which comes from the passage of Dante which he quotes, Parad. xx. 94-99). (2) A parable on right disposition in prayer follows immediately in Lk 189-14. Compare above on Dt 2619-10 under OT. In this parable we see a great step in ad- vance. Under the new covenant a profession of ritual righteousness has no longer any place in prayer. On the contrary, we have Lk 17”, which may, like the precept of forgiveness which it follows, have been spoken with reference to prayer and its conditions. It should be observed that these parables are preserved by St. Luke alone, and to them may be added the prayer of the prodigal son, “Father, I have sinned,” etc. (Lk 1518. 19). (y) Incidental sayings.--(1) As to conditions of prayer. One of these is humility, as in the parable referred to above, Lk 18*. Another is forgiveness of our brother men. This condition of prayer had already been strikingly stated in Sir 28*. Mt 6** and Mk 11* * do but repeat it, and the parable of the Unmerciful Servant grows out of the same root. A third condition of prayer is to avoid outward show &md to avoid repetition. Our Lord's practice throws light on both these require- ments. We read of His retirement to the mountain for prayer. Privacy in a house is difficult to obtain in th. East. The other direction does not forbid all repetition. Words may be repeated to express urgent entreaty, as in Mt. 26*. A fourth condition is more important and more difficult of explana- tion—that of faith. It is obvious that faith must be a condition ; a prayer which is, so to speak, an experiment, will not be answered. Ibut Mk 11° “All things whatsoever ye pray and ask for, believe that ye have received them and ye shall have them,' seems to represent faith not merely as ‘sine qua non,’ but as ‘cum qua semper.’ Literally interpreted, the words would assign to every believer a kind of vicarious omnipotence. In interpreting any saying of our Lord, it must be remembered that the words as spoken by Him were not isolated, and were addressed to those who had heard other words which limited and explained them. It is reasonable to receive this saying with the explanation which St. John puts upon it, 1 Jn 5* * (‘if we ask anything º: to his will, he heareth us”). The illustrations used to emphasize the power of prayer in faith, viz. the uprooting of mountains and trees, are taken from the language of the Jewish schools; and the same source supplies a parallel expression, “If a person applies his whole attention during prayer, he may be sure that his prayer has been granted ' (IR. Samuel in Berakhoth, tr. | l l l ). It is probable that our Lord, foreseeing that the power of prayer would be undervalued, preferred to state its force in this almost paradoxical way. It will follow that assurance of receiving the precise thing asked for is not what is required. There is a great instance in Ac 12 which may be taken here by anticipation. The Church is gathered together praying continuously and earnestly for the release of St. Peter. But when he is released and sent back to them, they keep him outside the gate because they cannot believe that their prayer has been granted. Yet who will say that that prayer was not a prayer of faith ? The last con: dition of prayer to be mentioned is not a universal one, but carries special promise, namely, the con dition of union in prayer, Mt 18". ". It does not necessarily imply public prayer, for two persons are enough. The effect of this saying appears in the frequent mention of united prayer in Acts. (6) Jºst discourses.—As in all other respects these discourses give new and distinctive teaching, 44 PRAYER PRAYER so in respect of prayer. It is henceforth to be in Jesus' name. “Thus is given not a mere devotional form, but a new ground on which the worshipper stands, a new plea for the success of his petitions; and, in fact, a wholly new character to prayer, since it must be brought into unison with the mind of Him in whose name it is presented’ (T. D. Bernard, Central Teaching of Jesus Christ, p. 156; and see preceding page). As this teaching was not possible in the early days when the Lord's Prayer was given, ‘in Jesus' name' was not added to it. But that prayer being His, and in accord- ance with His will, is a prayer in His name, with- out the addition of ‘through Jesus Christ,’ which the Church has never presumed to make. This instance shows that the direction is not to be taken in a narrow, verbal way. (3) Finally, the Gospels afford us teaching on prayer given in an entirely different way. Under (1) the Lord’s example was considered on its human side, teaching about prayer by His own prayer. But even during His ministry the Divine nature, though in a certain sense hidden, began to show itself, and He is the recipient of prayer from those who need His help. Their requests are not de- scribed by the highest term trpoo’etºxopat, but by 6éopat, 6émats. But since these requests were made to the Son of God, His way of dealing with them instructs all who pray. (a) Requests are granted where there is faith. “Believe ye that I am able to do this ' (b) Granting requests is delayed to produce importunity and test character (Mk 7”). A saying of Seneca's well illustrates the difference between what the Stoic thought of the attitude of importunate º and the way in which Chris- tianity regards it : ‘Nihil carius emitur quam quae precibus emta, est.” Christianity would substitute ‘nihil dulcius.’ (c) Man's ignorance in prayer is insisted on in the case of the sons of Zebedee, Mt. 20%; and it is shown by experience in the case of St. Peter, whose request is granted that he may learn that it was presumptuous, Mt 14**, cf. Ro 8-". Here it may be . that the disciples who had asked Jesus daily and hourly for help and guidance while He was with them in the flesh, evidently continued to do so after God had ‘exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour.’ St. Stephen says, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit”; and §. tians are described by St. Paul as those who ‘call upon (or invoke in prayer) the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,’ 1 Co 1*, cf. Ac 9” 22%. It is there- fore going too far to say with Origen (de Orat. 15) that all prayer must be offered to the Father. Yet it is the case that Jesus teaches His disciples to pray, not to Himself, but to the Father in His name. Liddon (13ampton Jectures, note F) appears to press his argument further than a consideration of the whole evidence will justify. ii. Acts.--The teaching and guidance given by our Lord manifests its results in the Acts and Epistles. Acts will show its external results in the Church as a whole, not, however, without some evidence of private practice. The Epp. will give its inward effect on the devotional his of individuals, especially of St. Paul, but here also something may be gathered as to external and corporate usages. (1) Acts supplies notices of times and places of prayer. St. Peter observes the sixth hour (Ac 10"), and he and St. John go up to the temple at the ninth hour, which is ačº as the hour of prayer (Ac 3’). It is probable that the gathering described in A c 2' was for worship, and this is ſixed by 2” as having taken place at the third hour, so we have recognition of all the three Jewish hours of prayer. -- In the matter of prayer, as in most other exter- nai matters, the Christian body remained at first within the pale of Judaism. To ordinary obseryers they were only a new sect (aſpects) of Judaism. They had their private worship (Ac 2*), but they did not on that account forsake the temple; and it is possible that they still attended the syna- §. though there is no evidence on this point eyond the practice of St. Paul on his missionary journeys (in which case he had a special object in view), and Ja 2° (where ‘synagogue' may mean a distinctively Christian assembly, cf. He 10”). But with regard to the private worship of Christians, there is ample evidence in Acts, e.g. 4** where the actual prayer used is recorded, and 12” the assembly for prayer in the house of Mary the mother of Mark. Two farewell prayers from St. Paul’s life may be added—the one at Miletus with tears and embraces (Ac 20°), the other on the beach at Tyre (Ac 21"). In both these cases they knelt in prayer. Kneeling is also the attitude of St. Stephen (Ac 7"), St. Peter (Ac 9”), and St. Paul (Eph 3"). On the other hand, our Lord's words had authorized standing to pray (Mk 11*). (2) Fulfilment of prayer.—Acts is remarkably strong in its testimony on this point. There are : the release of St. Peter (Ac 12), the sending of St. Peter to Cornelius (10%), the preservation of the crew and passengers who sailed with St. Paul (27*). And there are the cases in which prayer is recorded as the means of working miracles (9°28°). Passing to the Epp, we may take here the great instance of ºffinº of believing prayer, the thrice-repeated prayer of St. Paul to be delivered from the thorn in the flesh (2 Co 128 °). Yet the prayer was not frustrate; what was granted was the power to rejoice in the infirmity. (3) Prayer in conneacion with laying on of hands. —In Acts there are mentioned three more or less distinct uses of the laying on of hands: (a) in heal- ing as by Ananias (917), St. Paul (28°); (8) as a complement to baptism by St. Peter and St. John at Samaria (8”) and St. Paul at Ephesus (19%); (y) on appointment to ministries (6° 13°). Now in each of these three classes of instances, though not in every instance, there is a distinct mention of prayer, as though to show that those who use the form are not in possession of the gift so as to transfer it at their will, but rather have authority to ask for it to be given. See, further, art. LAYING ON OF HANDS. (4) The passages in which prayer accompanies the appointment to ministries naturally raise another question. In Ac 13° 14* fasting accompanies prayer, cf. Lk 2". The connexion between fasting and prayer has already been observed in OT, but was it continued in the Apostolic Church 2 These two passages go in that direction, and it would be natural that the Christians should not abandon a practice in which as Jews they had been trained, and which appeared to have a possible sanction from Mt 91%. Iłut, in considering fasting as sub- sidiary to prayer, it should be observed that in four passages where it appears in that light in AV, viz. Mt 1741, Mk 99", Ac 10", 1 Co 7", RV, following textual evidence, omits all mention of the subject. Sce, further, art. FASTING. (5) One other point of interest from Acts is that prayer here bears out what was said under OT of prayer as colloquy with God. Such is the prayer in the visions of Ananias (Ac 9”) and St. Paul (Ac 2217-21). iii. The Epistles and Apocalypse.--(1) St. James. —This Ep. takes up and applies to daily life the teaching of the gospel, and is especially elated to Mt. Hence there is much as to prayer. The need of faith in prayer, and the fatal eſſect of doubting (Ja 1", observe same word [6takpivouail for ‘doubt as in Mt. 21*); the neglect of prayer, and character of Wrong prayer (Ja 4**), are put in a practical way, PRAYER PREACHING 45 But the most important passage is Ja 5*. . There in an emphatic position almost at the close of the º we have the recommendation of a particular act of prayer on the part of the elders of the congregation, accompanied with the use of oil (in accordange with the early apostolic practice described Mk 6”). This prayer is not only to effect bodily but also spiritual healing. The sufferer's sins will be forgiven. And then the power of prayer is still further urged, and the example of Elijah given. Intercession for one another is to be the rule of the Church (cf. 1 Jn 5"). (2) Epp. of St. Paul.—Only a few points can be noticed. (a) The co-operation of the Holy Spirit in prayer comes out clearly. In Ro 8” the Spirit enables us to cry ‘Abba, Father,’ and in v.” inter- cedes for us (virepevrvyxável) along with our de- fective prayers. There is a special fitness in the use of évrvyx&va (and its compound) with regard to the Spirit (as here) and the Som (v.* and He 7”), as it signifies close approach. For the help of the Spirit in prayer see also Eph 6” and Jude *. Further, the gift of tongues was used in prayer as well as in praise (1 Co 14* *). The distinction which St. Paul here draws between the office of his (own), spirit and his mind in prayer is well illustrated § Thom. Aquin. ii. 2. lxxxiii., who says that prayer is “rationis actus.” There must be some arrangement of petitions (ordinatio), and for this the mind must take part. (3) The re- ciprocal prayer of St. Paul and his converts. He constantly prays for them, he tells them so, and they pray for him. His prayer for them is some. times in anxiety and sometimes with joy (Ph 1"). It included mention of persons by name, e.g. Timothy and Philemon, and no doubt countless others. He looks on this reciprocal prayer as a bond. He begins and often closes his Epp, with mention of it. He regards the circumstances of his own life and his movements as in part de- termined by the prayers of the saints (2 Co 1", Philem *). (y) Prayer is striving, an &ydºv (like Jacob's wrestling), see Ro 1599, Col 2" and 49*. (6) Some light is given as to the prayers of the congre- gation. There is the injunction in 1 Ti 2", where we find the rudiments of a fixed order of prayer. Clem. Rom. 61 shows how this command was obeyed. . The chapter above quoted, 1 Ti 2, gives negatively in v.” . same conditions of acceptable prayer ‘Without Wrath and doubting’ as are given positively in Mk 11”, where forgiveness and faith are required for prayer. “Wrath’ here means refusal to forgive ; such a condition condemns a literal use of the Imprecatory l’salms. (e) In the Pastoral Epp. prayer has already become the special duty of a certain class (1 Ti 5"). (3) Ep. to Hebrews.--The great lesson here is freedom of access to God in prayer. This Christ has obtained for us (He 4° 10”). The latter verse reminds us that the baptized no longer need the ritual washing of their bodies before prayer (see above on prayer in }º (4) Epp. of St. John. —Here again is the same thought as in He 4”, expressed by the same word (tſ appmata). ISut in 1 Jn there is no question of entrance and approach (eigodos, Tpoa €pxea.0at); we are already near. Thus trappmata has more dis- tinctly its primary sense of “freedom of utterance’ in prayer. See 1 Jn 3” ”, where the promises of the certain fulfilment of prayer given in Jn 14* * 157° 16** are concentrated and dwelt upon. The still stronger repetition of this assurance in 1 Jn 5** explains any diſliculty that might attach to it, by substituting ‘according to His will for ‘in His name.’ These two conditions are really equivalent. We cannot truly associate ourselves with Christ in prayer (in His name) without His spirit of entire submission to the I’ather's will. (5) The Apocalypse.—Here the prayer for ven- geance (Rev. 6") is an echo of Llº 181-8, but it is the prayer of the dead (cf. Par 3°). In Rev. 58 and 8% the prayers of the saints are offered to God, but this is the prayer of the living which ascends from the earth. This prayer is mediated, being offered in one case by the elders, and in the other having incense added to it by angels. For this idea. (common among the Jews) cf. To 121° 18. The pas- sages in Revelation are clearly symbolical, and do not warrant man in addressing angels for such a pur. pose. The mistranslation of Vulg. (Job 5) prob- ably encouraged the error. For the connexion of prayers and incense see above, p. 39°. Lastly, the Apocalypse ends with a prayer from the highest level of Christian faith and hope befitting the place assigned to it at the end of the Canon. It is a threefold, prayer. ... It is the prayer of the Spirit, which animates all faithful prayer under the NT (22"). It is the prayer of the Bride, i.e., the Church (ib.). It is also the prayer of the indi. vidual, the writer of the book (2290). All other prayer resolves itself at last into prayer for the coming of the Lord Jesus, which will accomplish all desires. LiterATURE.-Jerus. Talmud, Berakhoth, tr. Schwab; Origen, de Oratione Libellws ; the artt. in Herzog on “Gebet,” “Göbet bei den Hebräern '; Bp. Monrad, World of Prayer, tr. Banks. The standard works on Biblical Theology, e.g. Oehler, Schultz, Beysclulag, have very scanty references to Prayer. Modern works on the efficacy of Prayer are not mentioned, being out- side the scope of the present article. E. R. BERNARD. PRAYER OF MANASSES. – See (PRAYER OF). PREACHER.—See ECCLESIASTES. PREACHING (Heb. Hsºp, Jon 3%, from rip ‘cry out,’ ‘proclaim '; Gr. Kiipuyua, ‘the message pro- claimed,’ from Kmpúa'aw, ‘declare as a herald,’ “preach '; in NT used in marked distinction from Övöaxi, “teaching,’ and Ötödaka’, ‘teach,” and always preserving in some degree the idea of the root-word Kiipuš, “herald’). — Strictly speaking, Christian preaching is the proclamation of the gospel, which is to be followed by the more elaborate but less startling process of teaching. This limita- tion is observable in the NT accounts of our Lord's ministry, where He first appears preaching, i.e. proclaiming the advent of the kingdom of God (e.g. t 497), following on the preaching of John the Baptist (e.g. Mt 3**), and then proceeds to teach the nature and laws of the kingdom (e.g. Mt 5°). The word ečayyekta, is frequently used for Chris- tian preaching, as the declaration of glad tidings (e.g. Lk 3*). But although the NT words rendered “preaching' have this limitation of meaning, it would be undesirable to confine the consideration of the subject of preaching to the cases in which they are strictly applicable, that subject, as we now understand it, łº. all instruction in religion which takes the form of popular discourse, and especially that which is associated with public worship. i. JEWISH PREACIIING.—Of the two streams of religious life and practice that are seen in the history of Israel—the priestly and the prophetic– preaching attaches itself to the latter. The sumptuous pageantry of the sacrifices spoke to the eye and taught by dramatic representation. The prophet was emphatically the preacher. In the earlier periods, indeed, his teaching is usually º means of the brief oracle. But the great Sth cent. prophets composed and delivered elaborate discourses. They were preachers before they were writers, falling łº, on the pen only when the living voice was silenced : in the case of Jeremiah, for the preservation of the warnings which his MANASSES 46 PREACHING PREACHING contemporaries refused to hear (Jer 30°); in the case of Ezekiel, because the circumstances of the Exile compelled the prophet to resort to literar channels for making his message known. Still even Ezekiel’s prophecies may have been originally spoken (see Smend, Der Prophet Ezechiel, xxii.). On the other hand, Ewald held that Ezekiel wrote his oracles instead of speaking them because he felt a decay of the prophetic spirit (Prophets of the OT, iv. 2, 9). For the most part, at all events, the prophecies contained in OT are written discourses which had been preached or which were intended for preaching. Still there are two important differences between this preaching of the prophets and what we understand by the term to-day. (1) The preaching of the prophets was not a normal function of public worship taking its place in the ritual of tº. sanctuary. It was an utterance demanded by special crises, or prompted by a special revelation, and spoken in the court or the market-place, wherever the prophet could find the audience he was urged to address. (2) For the most part it dealt with public questions, national sins, judgments, and deliverances, rather than with individual conduct and need (see W. R. Smith, Prophets of Israel, Lect. II.). In Ezekiel, on the other hand, more personal preaching appears (see Cornill, Der Prophet Ezechiel, pp. 51, 52). For a closer approach to what is commonly understood as preaching, we must come to the Yeriod of the return from the Captivity. The law is now the centre of the religion of Israel, and the law is now popularized in public teaching. The very meaning of the word rendered law (nºn in- struction) points in this direction. Accordingly, the Divine instruction given through priests or prophets at an earlier period is called by the same name (Hos 4%, Am 2' [see Driver’s note]). With the rise of the synagogue, preaching becomes a recognized function of public worship. The need of translating the Heb. text into the vernacular introduced the interpreter, who followed the reader sentence by sentence in the case of the law, but with a division into longer passages with the prophets (Schürer, HJP II. ii. 81; Megilla, iv. 4, 6, 10). The Targum thus originated prepared for the more lengthy exposition. While the Halacha. is didactic and it. to the schools, the Haggada. contains the legends and allegories which would be more acceptable to the popular audience in the synagogue service. In the time of Philo the popular discourse was the chief part of the service (see Schürer, II. ii. 76). There was no one appointed preacher. According to Philo, “some (ris) priest who is present (6 trapdºv), or some one of the elders, reads the sacred laws to them, and expounds (émyeºrat) each of them separately till eventide’ (Fragm. in Euseb. Prap. }; viii. 7). Indeed we learn from the same authority that any com- petent person (āvagrès ris Tóv ćpºtreupord røv) could take this part of the service (de Septentario, c. 6, Mang. ii. 282). From the latter passage it would seem that the preacher stood up to speak, the word ávaords being used. But possibly Philo is thinking only of his act of rising to present him- self before the people and offer his discourse. In delivering his sermon the preacher was seated in an elevated place (Llº 4”; Zunz, Die gottesdienst- lichen Vorträge, p. 337; Delitzsch, L'in Tag in Capernaum, p. 127 f.). ii. CHRISTIAN PREACHING.—John the Daptist was acknowledged as a propllet, and he revived the prophet's mission of preaching to the people apart from the normal religious services. His work consisted chiefly in preaching and baptizing, though with the necessary addition of private ()() j] - Versation with inquirers (Lk 3"-"). The burden of his message was the call to repentance, and the announcement of the approach of the kingdom of God, with a promise of the forgiveness of sins (Mt 31, Mk 1*). This was the burden of the earlier preaching of Jesus (Mk 114 º. This earlier preaching of our Lord was carried on in the syna- gogues of Galilee (Mk 1"). The incident in the Nazareth synagogue of which we have a full account, indicates that our Lord’s method was to found His discourse on the portion of Scripture He had previously read (Llº 4”). This would be in accordance with the custom at the Sabbath meeting. When He preached in the open air it was under freer circumstances. Then, though He would frequently appeal to the OT in confirmation of His words, and especially in arguing with the scribes in the form of an argumentum ad homines, He did not adopt the method of the exposition of Scripture; He would start immediately from His great topic “the kingdom of God,” and expound that. #. evangelists are careful to point out the transition from this public teaching to the private training of the inner circle of disciples. His method was not the same in the two cases. It cannot be said that He had any esoteric doctrine which He deliberately withheld from the uniniti- ated, although His language on one occasion seemed to indicate this (Mk 4**), because He always invited all capable hearers (e.g. Mk 4”, “ ”). The public discourse more often took the form of parable; the private instruction was more direct and conversational. But even when delivering a public discourse Jesus was always liable to interruption, and this would frequently develop into discussion. Moreover, the reports of our lord’s discourses preserved in the Gospels appear to be abbreviated in some cases, or perhaps we have salient points, memorable epigrams, etc., selected from . His discourses rather than full reports of them. Sometimes, as in the case of the Sermon on the Mount, it may be that we have a number of the sayings of Jesus uttered on various occasions, col- lected and strung together by the reporter (perhaps Matthew in his Logir, ; see MATTHEW). In Lk we more often meet with utterances springing out of incidents, the event and the saying being both given by the third, evangelist. For these reasons we cannot look to the Gospel accounts of the teach- ings of Jesus to furnish us with typical sermons. Still those accounts not only contain the teachings themselves, they illustrate our Lord's method of preaching—(1) His freshness and originality (616axi, katvá, Mk 197); (2) His tone of authority (dºs éovatav 8xov, Mk 1*); (3) His winning grace — a point characteristically noted by the third evangelist (é0aºuaſov ćirl roſs A&yous rijs xàpiros, Lk 4*); (4) His grºhic picturesqueness in illustration (Mk 4”). The Book of Acts supplies several specimens of apostolic preaching. In the earliest instances the text and starting-point are found in Some event, e.g. the ‘tongues’ at Pentecost (Ac 2"), the heal- ing of the lane man at the gate of the temple (Ac 31°t.). The OT is appealed to for the confirma- tion of what is said (e.g. Ac 2". * * 7* 8”). With his marvellous versatility St. Paul employed the same method when speaking to pagans at Athens, illustrating his words by a citation from classic literature (Ac 17*), though personally he attached unique importance to the inspiration of the OT, and cited this to Jews in the manner of the other apostles (e.g. Ac 13". " 15"). In substance the preaching of the apostles to Jews was a declaration of the Messiahship of Jesus with the confirmation of two arguments—(1) The resurrection ; (2) the OT predictions. On this followed promises of the forgiveness of sins (e.g. Ac 2* 3"), and salvation through Christ (e.g. 4”). The essential genuine- ness of the early speeches in Acts is proved by the PREDESTINATION PREDESTINATION 47 g---— fact that they do not contain the Pauline doctrine of the Atonement, which was not developed at the time in which they are dated (Lechler, Apost. and post-Apost. Times, i. 266 f.). They refer to , the death of Christ, charging the Jews with the crime, pointing out that it was predicted by the prophets, and therefore was foreknown by God and in His counsels, and showing that in spite of it the resurrection proved Jesus to be Christ. The apostolic preaching to the heathen, represented especially by St. Paul, exposes the absurdity of anthropomorphic polytheism (e.g. Ac 14”), idolatry (17”), and sorcery (1919); declares the spirituality and fatherhood of God (17*); denounces sin, and warns of judgment to come through one whom God has appointed (17°); offers deliver- ance through faith in Jesus Christ (16”). The allusions to the definite preaching of Jesus Christ are very brief. have been some account of His life, death, and resurrection in St. Paul's preaching. Gal 3' plainly points to this. Similarly, if the second Gospel is St. Mark's record of ‘the preaching of Peter,’ it is #. that that apostle preached the facts of the ife of Jesus. In the churches of NT times great freedom of utterance was allowed. The right to preach depended on gifts, not on offices. At Corinth, in particular, the gift of prophecy, to which St. Paul assigns the first place (I Co 14*), was found among the private members, and was freely exercised in the assembly (v."). Nevertheless, the duty of ad- monishing the assembly rests especially with the leading authorities (e.g. 1 Th 5*). The chief functions of the elders or bishops was, not preach- ing, but the administration of practical affairs. But ability to teach is recognized, at all events, by the time of the Pastoral Epistles as the one neces- sary qualification of a bishop (1 Ti 3°) which is not also shared by the deacon. In course of time it was considered improper for a presbyter to preach in the presence of the bishop, universally so in the West (Possid. Wit. S. Aug. v.; Comc. Hisp. ii. (A. D. 619) can. 7), but not universally in the East, only in quibusdam ecclesiis (Jerome, ad Nepot, Epist. 2). W. F. ADENEY. PREDESTINATION.— i. The Terms. ii. I’redestination in OT. 1. Fundamental ()'I' ideas. 2. Cosmical l’redestination in OT. 3. Soteriological Predestination in OT. iii. Predestination among the Jews. iv. Predestination in NT. 1. The Teaching of Jesus. 2. The Teaching of the Disciples. 3. The Teaching of St. Paul. v. The l8ible Doctrine of l’redestination. Literature. i. THE TERMS.—The words ‘predestine,’ destinate,’ ‘predestination seem not to have been domiciled in English literary use until the later period of Middle English (they are all three found in Chaucer : Troylus and Cryseyde, 966; Orisowne to the Holy Virgin, 69 ; tr. ... of Boºthints, b. 1, pr. 6, l. 3844; the Old English equivalent seems to have been ‘forestihtian,’ as in Alºlfric's Homilies, ii. 364, 366, in renderings of Ro 1" S"). ‘Predestine,” “predestination' were doubtless taken over from the lºrench, while ‘pre- destinate’ probably owes its form directly to the Latin original of them all. The noun has never had a place in the English Bible, but the verb in the form ‘predestinate’ occurs in every one of its issues from Tindale to AV. Its history in the lºnglish versions is a somewhat curious one. It goes back, of course, ultimately to the Latin ‘prºtºdestino’ (a good classical but not pre-Augustan Word ; while the noun “praedestimatio’ seems to be of Patristic origin), which was adopted by the ‘pre- I3ut it is evident that there must Vulgate as its regular rendering of the Gr. Tpooplºw, and occurs, with the sole exception of Ac 48 (Vujg. decerno), wherever the Latin translators found that verb in their text (Ro 1* 8* *, 1 Co 27, Eph 1. *). 13ut the Wycliſite versions did not carry predestinate’ over into English in a single instance, but rendered in every case by ‘before ordain’ (Ac 4* “deemed '). It was thus left to Tindale to give the word a place in the English Bible....This he did, however, in only one passage, Eph 1”, doubtless under the influence of the Vulgate. His ordinary, rendering of Tpooptº is ‘ordain before ' (IRo 8*, Eph 1"; cf. 1 Co. 27, where the ‘before ' is onlitted apparently only on account of the succeeding preposition into which it may be thought, therefore, to coalesce), varied in Ro 80 to ‘ appoint before '; while, reverting to the Greek, he has “determined before at Ac 4* and, follow- ing the better reading, has “declared at Ito 14. The succeeding Eng. versions follow Tindale very closely, though the Genevan omits ‘before ' in Ac 4* and, doubtless in order to assimilate it to the neighbouring Eph 1”, reads ‘did predestinate’ in Eph 1". The larger use of the word was due to the Rhemish version, which naturally reverts to the Vulg, and reproduces its provdestino regularly in ‘predestinate’ (Ro 1* 8*.*, 1 Co 27, Eph 15. 1ſ; but Ac 4* ‘decreed '). Under this influence the AV adopted “predestinate' as its ordinary render- ing of Trpooptº (Ro 8* *, Eph 1%. 11), while con- tinuing to follow Tindale at Ac 4* “determined before,’ 1 Co 27 “ordained,’ as well as at Ro 14 ‘ declared,’ in. ‘Gr. determined.” Thus the word, tentatively introduced into a single passage by Tindale, seemed to have intrenched itself as the stated English representative of an important Greek term. The RV has, however, dismissed it altogether from the English Bible and adopted in its stead the hybrid compound ‘foreordained ’ (cf. art. I'ORERNOW, FOREORDAIN) as its invariable representative of Tpooptºw (Ac 4*, Ro 8*, *, 1 Co 27, Iöph 1”: "), in this recurring substantially to the language of Wyclif and the preferred rendering of Tindale. None other than a literary interest, however, can attach to the change thus intro- duced : ‘foreordain’ and “predestinate ’ are exact synonyms, the choice between which can be deter- mined only by taste. The somewhat widespread notion that º 17th gent. theology distinguished between then, rests on a misapprehension of the evidently carefully-adjusted usage of them in the Westminster Comfession, iii. 3 ff. This is not, however, the result of the attribution to the one word of a “stronger’ or to the other of a ‘harsher’ sense than that borne by its fellow, but a simple sequence of a current employment of ‘pre- destination as the precise synonym of ‘election,” and a resultant hesitation to apply a term of such precious associations to the foreordination to death. Since then the tables have been quite turned, and it is questionable whether in popular speech the word “predestinate ’ does not now bear an unpleasant suggestion. That neither word occurs in the English OT is due to the genius of the Hebrew language, which does not admit of such compound terms. Their place is taken in the OT, therefore, by simple words expressive of |. determining, ordaining, with more or less contextual indication of previousness of action. These represent a variety of Hebrew words, the most explicit of which is perhaps ns: (1’s 139", Is 22° 37°46"), by the side of which must be placed, however, ſy. (Is 1424, 26.27 1912 1917 23", Jer 49° 50"), whose sub- stantival derivative my (Job 38° 42°, Jer 23", l’r 1921, 1’s 331, 10711, Is 14*. " 46". ", I's 1068, Is 5* 1917, Jer 4920 BO", Mic 4”) is doubtless the most precise Heb. term for the Divine plan or purpose, 48 PREDESTINATION PREDESTINATION although there occurs along with it in much the same sense the term mºrp (1s 18h 29' 49° 50" 65°, Jer 51*, Mic 4”, Ps 929), a derivative of ºwn (Gn 50”, Mic 28, Jer 18, 263 29m 36° 49' 50", La 28). In the Aramaic portion of Daniel (417. *) the conn- mon later Hebrew designation of the Divine decree (used especially in an evil sense) Tº occurs : and ph is occasionally used with much the same mean- ing (Ps 27, Zeph 22, Ps 10519 – 1 Ch 1617, Job 23*). Other words of similar import are opy (Jer 4* 51”, La. 71%, Zec 198" lº) with its substantive nºn (Job 42%, Jer 23° 30° 511); Pen (Ps 115, 135°, Pr 21, Is 55", Jon 1*, Jg 13*, La 2*, Is 531) with its substantive PFn (Is 46” 44° 48* 5319); Flº (Job 14°, Is 1022, 28 28°, Dn 926. 27 1136); Inn (Dn 934); %'s n (1 S 12”, 1 Ch 17”, 2 S 7”). To express that special act of predestination which we know as “election,” the Hebrews commonly utilized the word nº (of Israel, Dt 49776. 7 1010 i32, Is 418, 9 4310. 20 441. 2 45°, Jer 33”; and of the future, Is 141 657. 16.2%; of Jehovah's servant, 42, 497; of Jerusalem, Dt 1214, 18. 20 14* 1520 167. 15. 16 17s. 10 186 3111, Jos 927, 1 K 814. 48 1118, 84. Bº 1421, 2 K 21725-7) with its sub- stantive nºn; (exclusively used of Jehovah’s ‘ elect,’ 2 S 218, 1 Ch 1618, Ps 894 1050, 43 106%. 28, Is 42, 43° 45′ 65". " "), and occasionally the word vºl. in a pregnant sense (Gn 18”, Am 3*, Hos 13°, cf. Ps 1" 317 3718, Is 58%, Nell 17); while it is rather the oxecution of this previous, choice in an act of separation that is expressed by *"Inn (Lv 20° 202', 1 K 888). In the Greek of the NT the precise term irpooplſo (Ac 4”, l Co 27, Ro 8*, *, Eph 1” it) is supple- mented by a number of similar compounds, such as trporáaga (Ac 17*); Trportómut (Eph 1”) with its more frequently occurring substantive, trpä0eats (Ro 8° 0", Eph 1” 31, 2Ti 19); trposroºpidºw (Ro 9°, Eph 2)") and perhaps irpoğAétro in a similar sense of providential pre-arrangement (He ll"), with which may be º: also trpoetóov (Ac 2*, Gal 3°); Tpoyvyvdaka (Ro 8° 11”, l P 1") and its substantive Tpóyvayats (1 P 1", Ac 2”); trpoxetpl{w (Ac 22* 3*) and trpoxetporovéo (Ac 4*). Something of the same idea is, moreover, also occasionally expressed by the simple ºptºw (Lk 22*, Ac 17* *, 2*, He 47, Ac 10*), or through the medium of terms designating the will, wish, or good-pleasure of God, such as govX% (Lk 799, Ac 24' 48 13%. 2047, Eph lil, He 617, cf. 800Xmua Ro 9” and 800Xopal He 617, Ja, 118, 2 P 3"), 0é\mua (e.g. Eph 1% 9, 11, He 107, cf. 04Xmats He 2*, 0éAw, e.g. Ro 9°. *), eúðokia (Lk 2", Eph 19. ", Ph 21°, cf. e86okéw Lk 12%, Col 119, Gal 115, I Co 1*). The standing terms in the NT for God’s sovereign choice of His people are ék\éºyed 6at, in which both the compos. and voice are significant (Eph 13, Mk 1399, Jn 1510, 10. 1, 1 Co 127. 27, Ja 29; of Israel, Ac 1317; of Christ, Lk 99% ; of the disciples, Lk 6”, Jn 67° 131°, Ac 1*; of others, Ac 14 157), 6KXekrós (Mt [201] 2214 2624. 24, 31, Mk 1320.* 27, Lk 187, Ro 8%, Col 312, 2 Ti 210, Tit 1", 1 P 1" [29], Rev 171*; of individuals, Ro 1618, 2 Jn 1, 19; of Christ, Lk 239", Jn 1318; of angels, 1 Ti 5”), ex\oyń (Ac 91%, Ro 911 110. 7. 28, 1 Th 14, 2 P 1"), words which had been prepared for this NT use by their employment in the LXX —the two former to translate nºſ; and nºn;. In 2Th 20% alpéopat is used similarly. ii. PREDESTINATION IN OT.-No survey of the terms used to express it, however, can convey an adequate sense of the place occupied by the idea of predestination in the religious system of the I3ible. It is not too much to say that it is funda- mental to the whole religious consciousness of the Biblical writers, and is so involved in all their religious conceptions that to eradicate it would transform the entire scriptural representation. This is as true of the O'I' as of the NT, as will become sufficiently manifest by attending briefly to the nature and implications of such formative elements in the OT system as its doctrines of God, Providence, Faith, and the l’ingdom of God. 1. Fundamental OT ideas implying Predesti- nation.—Whencesoever Israel obtained it, it is quite certain that Israel entered upon its national existence with the most vivid consciousness of an almighty personal Creator and Governor of heaven and earth. Israel’s own account of the clearness and the firmness of its apprehension of this mighty Author and Ruler of º that is, refers it to His own initiative : God chose to make Himself known to the fathers. At all events, throughout the whole of OT literature, and for every period of history recorded in it, the fundamental conception of God, remains the same, and the two most per- sistently emphasized elements in it are just those of might and personality: before everything else, the God of Israel is the Omnipotent Person. Possibly the keen sense of the exaltation and illimitable power of God which forms the very core of the OT idea of God belongs rather to the general Semitic than to the speciſically Israelitish element in its religion; certainly it was already prominent in the patriarchal God-consciousness, as is sufficiently evinced by the names of God current from the beginning of the OT revelation,-- El, Eloath, Elohim, El Shaddai,-and as is illus- trated endlessly in the Biblical narrative. But it is equally clear that God was never conceived by the OT saints as abstract power, but was ever thought of concretely as the all-powerful Person, and that, moreover, as clothed with all the attributes of moral personality,+pre-eminently with holiness, as the very summit of His exaltation, but along with holiness, also with all the characteristics that belong to spiritual personality as it exhibits itself familiarly in man. }. a word, God is pictured in the OT, and that from the beginning, purely after the attern of human personality,+ as an intelligent, feeling, willing Being, like the man who is created in His image in all in which the life of a free spirit consists. The anthropomorphisms to which § mode of conceiving God led were sometimes startling enough, and might have become grossly misleading had not the corrective lain ever at hand in the accompanying sense of the immeasurable exaltation of God,” by which He was removed above all the weaknesses of humanity. The result accordingly was nothing other than a peculiarly pure form of Theism. The grosser anthropomorphisms were fully understood to be figurative, and the residuary conception was that of an infinite Spirit, not indeed expressed in abstract terms nor from the first fully brought out in all its implications, but certainly in all ages of the OT development grasped in all its essential elements. (Cf. §. art. GOD). Such a God could not be thought of otherwise than as the free determiner of all that comes to pass in the world which is the product of His creative act; and the doctrine of Providence (TTP) which is spread over the pages of the OT fully bears out this expectation. The almighty Maker of all that is is represented equally as the irresistible Ruler of all that He has made : Jehovah sits as King for ever (Ps 29"). Even the common language of life was affected by this pervasive point of view, so that, for example, it is rare to meet with such a phrase as ‘it rains’ (Am 4"), and men by prefer- ence spoke of God sending rain (Ps 65", Job 36” 38”). The vivid sense of dependence on God thus witnessed extended throughout every relation of life. Accident or chance was excluded If we read here and there of a Typ it is not thought of as happening apart from God’s direction (Itu 2°, 1 S 6, 2010, Ec 21", cf. 1 K 22*, 2 Ch 18°), and accordingly the lot was an accepted means of ob- PREDESTINATION PREDESTINATION 49 tºining the decision of God (Jos 71° 14° 18'', 1 S 101", Joa 17), and is didactically recognized as under His control (Pr 16”). All things without excep: tion, indeed, are disposed by Him, and His will is the ultimate account of all that occurs. Heaven and earth and all that is in them are the in- struments through which He works His ends. Nature, nations, and the fortunes of the indi- vidual alike present in all their changes the tran- script of His purpose. The winds are His messen- gers, the flaming fire His servant : every natural occurrence is His act : prosperity is His gift, and if calamity falls upon man it is the Lord that has done it (Am 3". ", La. 3%-8%, Is 477, Ec 714, Is 54"). It is He that leads the feet of men, wit they whither or not ; He that raises up and casts down; º. and hardens the heart ; and creates the very thoughts and intents of the soul. So poignant is the sense of His activity in all that occurs, that an appearance is sometimes created as if everything that comes to pass were so ascribed to His imme- diate production as to exclude the real activity of second causes. It is a grave mistake, nevertheless, to suppose that He is conceived as an unseen power, throwing up, in a quasi-Pantheistic sense, all changes on the face of the world and history. The virile sense of the free personality of God which dominates all the thought of the OT would alone have precluded such a conception. Nor is there really any lack of recognition of ‘second causes,’ as we call them. They are certainly not conceived as independent of God : they are rather the mere expression of His stated will. 13ut they are from the beginning fully recognized, both in mature—-with respect to which Jellovah has made covenant (Gn 891. *, Jer 31*, * 33”. “º, Ps 148", cf. Jg 5*, Ps 1049, Job 38%. 38 14%), establishing its laws (nipſ. Job 28% is, Is 401”, Job 38°-il, Pr 8*, Jer 5*, Ps 104° 337, Jer 40”)—and equally in the higher º of free spirits, who are ever conceived as the true authors of all their acts (hence God’s proving of man, Gn 22), Ex 16" 20%", Dt 8° 1' 13°, Jg 3* *, 2 Ch 32*). There is no question here of the substitution of Jehovah's operation for that of the proximate causes of events. There is only the liveliest perception of the governing hand of God behind the proximate causes, acting through them for the working out of His will in every detail. Such a conception obviously looks upon the uni- verse teleologically : an almighty moral Person cannot be supposed to govern Ilis universe, thus in every detail, either unconsciously or capri- ciously. In His government there is necessarily implied a plan ; in the all-pervasiveness and }. fection of His government is inevitably implied an all-inclusive and perfect plan : and this concep- tion is not seldom explicitly developed (cf. art. PROVIDENCE). It is abundantly clear on the face of it, of course, that this whole mode of thought is the natural expression of the deep religious consciousness of the OT writers, though surely it is not therefore to be set aside as “merely the religious view of things, or as having no other rooting save in the imagination of religiously-minded mem. In any event, however, it is alto- gether natural that in the more distinctive sphere of the religious life its informing principle of absolute dependence on God should be found to repeat itself. This appears particularly in the OT doctrine of faith, in which there sounds the lºcynote of Ol' piety,+for the religion of the OT, so far from being, as Hegel, for example, would attirum, the religion of fear, is rather by way of Gminence the religion of trust. Standing over against God, not merely as creatures, but as sinners, the OT saints found no ground of hope save in the free initiative of the Divine love. At no period of the development of OT religion was it per- mitted to be imagined that blessings might be wrung from the hands of an unwilling God, or gained in the strength of man's own arm. Iłather it was ever inculcated that in this .. too, it is God alone that lifts up and makes rich, He alone that keeps the feet of His holy ones ; while by strength, it is aſllrmed, no man shall prevail (1 S 29). “I am not worthy of the least of all thy mercies' is the constant refrain of the OT saints (Gn 3210); and from the very beginning, in narrative, precept and prophetic declaration alike, it is in trust in the VOL. IV.--4 unmerited love of Jehovah alone that the hearts of men are represented as finding peace. Self-sufficiency is the character. istic mark of the wicked, whose doom treads on his heels; while the mark of the righteous is that he lives by his faith (Hab 24). In the entire self-commitment to God, humble dependence on Him for all blessings, which is the very core of OT religion, no element is more central than the profound conviction embodied in it of the free sovereignty of God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, in the distribution of His mercies. The whole training of Israel was directed to impressing upon it the great lesson enunciated to Zerubbabel, “Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, Saith the Lord of hosts’ (Zec 40)—that all that comes to man in the Spiritual sphere, too, is the free gift of Jehovah (cf. art. I’AITH). Nowhere is this lesson more persistently emphasized than in the history of the establishment and development of the kingdom of God, which may well be called the cardinal theme of the OT. For the kingdom of God is consistently repre- sented, not as the product of man's efforts in seeking after God, but as the gracious creation of God Himself. Its inception and development are the crowning manifestation of the free grace of the Living God working in history in pursuance of His loving purpose to recover fallen man to Iſimself. To this end He preserves the race in existence after its sin, saves a secci from the destruction of the lºlood, separates to Him- Self a family in Abraham, sifts it in Isaac and Jacob, nurses and trains it through the weakness of its infancy, and gradually moulds it to be the vehicle of His revelation of redemption, and the channel of Messianic blessings to the world. At every step it is God, and God alone, to whom is ascribed the initiative; and the most extreme care is taken to preserve the recipients of the blessings consequent on IIis choice from fancying that these blessings come as their due, or as reward for aught done by themselves, or to be found in themselves. They were rather in every respect emplmatically not a people of their own making, but a people that God had formed that they might set forth His praise (Is 4323). The strongest language, the most astonishing figures, were employed to emphasize the pure sovereignty of the Divine action at every stage. It was not because Israel was numerous, or strong, or righteous, that He chose it, but only because it pleased Him to make of it a people for IIimself. He was as the potter, it as the clay which the potter moulds as he will ; it was but as the helpless babe in its blood cast out to die, abhorred of man, which Jehovah strangely gathers to His bosom in unmerited love (Gn 121.3, Dt 70.8 9+G 1015, 16, 1 S 1222, Is 418, 9 4320 489-11, Jer 181t, 313, Hos 220, Mal 12, 8). There was no element in the religious consciousness of Israel more poignantly realized, as there was no element in the in- struction they had received more insisted on, than that they owed their separation from the º of the earth to be the Lord's inheritance, and all the blessings they had as such received from Jehovah, not to any claim upon Him which they could urge, but to His own gracious love faithfully persisted § in spite of every conceivable obstacle (cf. art. IXINGDOM OF Ol)). }} one word, the sovereignty of the Divine will as the prin- ciple of all that comes to pass, is a primary postulate of the whole religious life, as well as of the entire world-view of the OT. It is implicated in its very idea of God, its whole concep- tion of the relation of God to the world and to the changes which take place, whether in nature or history, among the nations or in the life-fortunes of the individual; and also in its entire scheme of religion, whether national or personal. It lies at the basis of all the religious emotions, and lays the foundation of the specific type of religious character built up in Israel. 2. Cosmical Predestimation in OT.-The specific teaching of OT as to predestination naturally re- volves around the two foci of that idea which may be designated general and special, or, more properly, cosmical and soteriological predestina: tion; or, in other words, around the doctrines of the Divine Decree and the Divine Election. The former, as was to be expected, is comparatively seldom adverted to—for the OT is fundamentally a soteriological book, a revelation of the grace of God to sinners; and it is only at a somewhat late period that it is made the subject of speculative discussion. But as it is implied in the prim- ordial idea of God as an Almighty Person, it is postulated from the beginning and continually finds more or less clear expression. Throughout the OT, behind the processes of nature, the march of history and the fortunes of each individual life alike, there is steadily kept in view the governing hand of God working out. His preconceived plan— a plan broad enough to embrace the whole universe of things, minute enough to concern itself with the smallest details, and actualizing itself with in- evitable certainty in every event that comes to pass. - º t Naturally, there is in the narrative l'ortions but 50 PREDESTINATION PREDESTINATION little formal enunciation of this pervasive and all- controlling Divine teleology. But despite occasional anthropomorphisms of rather º character (as, e.g., that which ascribes “repentance’ to God, Gn 6%, Jl 28, Jon 42, Jer 188: 19268. 18), or rather, let us say, just because of the strictly anthropomorphic mould in which the OT conception of God is run, according to which He is ever thought of as a personal spirit, acting with purpose like other personal spirits, but with a wisdom and in a sovereignty unlike that of others because infinitely berfect, these narrative portions of the OT also ear continual witness to the universal OT tele- ology. There is no explicit statement in the narrative of the creation, for example, that the mighty Maker of the world was in this |. operating on a preconceived plan; but the teleology ...} creation lies latent in the orderly sequence of its parts, culminating in man for whose advent all that precedes is obviously a preparation, and is all but expressed in the Divine satisfaction at each of its stages, as a manifestation of His perfections (cf. Ps 104*). Similarly, the whole narrative of the Bk. of Genesis is so ordered—in the succession of creation, fall, promise, and the several steps in the inauguration of the kingdom of God—as to throw into a very clear light the teleology of the whole world-history, here written from the Divine stand- }. and made to centre around the developing Yingdom. In the detailed accounts of the lives of the patriarchs, in like manner, behind the external occurrences recorded there always lies a Divine ordering which provides the real plot of the story in its advance to the predetermined issue. It was not accident, for example, that brought Rebecca to the well to welcome º, servant (Gn 24), or that sent Joseph into Egypt (Gn 45° 50”; “God meant [intºn] it for good '), or guided Pharaoh’s daughter to the ark among the flags (Ex 2), or that, later, directed the millstone that crushed Abimelech's head (Jg 9”), or winged the arrow shot at a venture to smite the king in the joints of the harness (1 K 22”). Every historical event is rather treated as an item in the orderly carrying out of an underlying Divine purpose; and the historian is continually aware of the presence in history of Him who gives even to the lightning a charge to strike the mark (Job 36”). In the Psalmists and Prophets there emerges into view a more abstract statement of the government of all things according to the good pleasure of God (Ps 331", Jer 101° 51%). All that He wills He does (l’s 115° 135"), and all that comes to pass has pre- existed in His purpose from the indefinite past of etermity (‘long ago? Is 22”, “ of ancient times’ Is 37*= 1 K 19°), and it is only because it so pre- existed in purpºse that it, now comes to pass (Is 1424. 27 461, Zec 10, Job 422, Jer 2329, Jon 114, Is 4010). Every day has its ordained events (Job 14", Ps 139"). The plan of God is universal in its reach, and orders |al that takes place in the interests of Israel—the OT counterpart to the NT declaration that all things work together for good to those that love God. Nor is it merely for the national good of Israel that God’s plan has made provision ; He exercises a special care over every one of His people (Job 5ºl, Ps 91. 121. 65° 37. 27". In 1391", Jon 3%, Is 4%, I)n 12). Isaial, especially is never weary of emphasizing the universal teleology of the Divine operations and the surety of the realization of His eternal purpose, despite the opposition of every foe (1424-27 31° 40° 58%-")—whence he has justly earned the name of the prophet of the Divine sovereignty, and has been spoken of as the Paul, the Augustine, the Calvin of the ()'1'. It is, however, especially in connexion with the OT doctrine of the Wisdom (nºrſ) of God, the clief depository of which is the so-called Iſokhºvah litera- ture, that the idea of the all-inclusive Divine pur. pose ("sy and mayº) in which lies predetermined the whole course of events—including every par- ticular in the life of the world (Am 37) and in the life of every individual as well (Ps 139**, Jg 1°)— is speculatively wrought out. . According to this developed conception, God, acting under the guid- ange of all His ethical perfections, has, by virtue of His eternal wisdom, which He ‘possessed in the beginning of his way’ (Pr 8*), framed ‘from ever- lasting, from the beginning,’ an all-inclusive plan embracing all that is to come to pass; in accordance with which plan He now governs His universe, down to the least particular, so as to subserve His perfect and unchanging purpose. Everything that God has brought into being, therefore, He has made for its specific end (Pr 16", cf. 3". ", Job 28% 38, 41, Is 40*, Jer 101*, *); and He so governs it that it shall attain its end,-no chance can escape (PrlG”), no might or subtlety defeat His direction (Pr 2120. 9, 1941 16", cf. Is 1424. 27, Jer 10*), which leads straight to the goal appointed by God from the beginning and kept steadily in view by Him, but often hidden from the actors themselves (Pr 20-4, cf. 39 161-9 1991, Job 38° 42%, Jer 10*), who naturally in their weakness cannot comprehend the sweep of the Divine plan or understand the place within it of the details brought to their observation —a fact in which the OT sages constantly find their theodicy. No different doctrine is enunciated here from that which meets us in the Prophets and Psalmists, only it is approached from a philo- sophical - religious rather than from a national- religious view-point. To prophet and sage alike the entire world—inanimate, animate, moral—is embraced in a unitary teleological world-order (Ps 19° 33° 104* 1488, Job 9" 121° 37); and to both alike the central place in this comprehensive world-order is taken by God’s redemptive purpose, of which Israel is at once the object and the instrument, while the savour of its saltness is the piety of the individual saint. The classical term for this all- inclusive Divine purpose (Flyy) is accordingly found in the usage alike of prophet, psalmist, and Sage, – now used absolutely of the universal plan on which the whole world is ordered (Job 38° 42", cf. Delitzsch and Budde, in loc.), now, with the addition of ‘of Jehovah,’ of the all-Gomprehending purpose, em- bracing all human actions (Prl.9% and parallels; cf. Toy, in loc.), now with explicit mention of Israel as the centre around which its provisions revolve (Ps 3311 107", cf. Delitzsch, in loc. ; Is 14* 25. 46" "), and anon with more immediate concern with some of the details (Ps 100”, Is 5” 1997, Jer 49” 50", Mic 41*). There seems no reason why a Platonizing colouring should be given to this simple attributing to the eternal God of an eternal plan in which is predetermined every event that comes to pass. This used to be done, e.g., by Delitzsch (see, e.g., on Job 2825-28, Is 2211 ; IBiblical I’sychology, i. ii.), who was wont to attribute to the IBiblical writers, especially of the Ilokhmah and the latter portion of Isaiah, a doctrine of the pre-existence of all things in an ideal world, conceived as standing eternally before God at least as a pattern if not even as a quasi-objective mould imposing their forms on all His creatures, which smacked more of the Greek Academics than of the Ilebrew Sages. As a matter of course, the Divine mind was conceived by the IIebrew sages as eternally contemplating all lº and we should not do them injustice in supposing them to think of its ‘ideas' as the causa evenplaris of all that occurs, and of the Divine intellect as the principiumn dirigens of every Divine operation. But it is more to the point to note that the conceptions of the OT writers in regard to the Divine decree run rather into the moulds of ‘purpose’ than of ‘ideas,' and that the roots of their teaching are planted not in an abstract idea of the Godhead, but in the purity of their concrete theism. It is because they think of God as a person, like other persons purposeful in Iſis acts, but unlike other persons all-wise in His planning and all-powerful in His performing, that, they think of IIim as predetermining all that shall come to pass in the universe, which is in all its elements the product of it is free activity, and which must in its form and all its history, down to the least detail, correspond with His purpose in making it. It is easy, on the other hand, to attribute too little ‘plilosophy’ to the 13iblical writers. The conceptic n PREDESTINATION PREDESTINATION 51 of God in His relation to the world which they develop is beyond question anthropomorphic ; but it is no unreflecting anthropomorphism that they give us. Apart from all question of revelation, they were not children prattling on subjects on which they had expended no thought ; and the world-view they commend to us certainly does not lack in profundity. The subtleties of language of a developed scholasticism were foreign to their purposes and modes of composition, but they tell us as clearly as, say, Spanheim himself (Decad. Theol. vi. § 5), that they are dealing with a purposing mind exalted so far above ours that we can follow its movements only with halting steps, —whose thoughts are not as our thoughts, and whose ways are not as our ways (Is 558; cf. 4018.28 2829, Job 117ſ., Ps 920 13914f. 1479, Ec 311). Least of all in such a theme as this were they liable to forget that in ſinite exaltation of Godl which constituted the basis on which their whole conception of God rested. Nor may they be thought to have been indifferent to the relations of the high doctrine of the Divine purpose they were teaching. There is no scholastic determination here either ; but certainly they write without embarrassment as men who have attained a firm grasp upon their fundamental thought and have pursued it with clearness of thinking, no less in its relations than in itself; nor need we go astray in apprehending the outlines of their construction. It is quite plain, for example, that they felt no confusion with respect to the relation of the Divine purpose to the Divine foreknowledge. The notion that the almighty and all-wise God, by whom all things were created, and through whose irresistible control all that occurs fulfils the appointment of His primal plan, could govern IIimself according to a foreknowledge of things ...P.; }; from II is original purpose or present guidance—might haply conne to pass, would have been quite contradictory to their most fundamental conception of God as the almighty and all-sovereign Ruler of the universe, and, indeed, also of the whole OT idea of the 1)ivine foreknowledge itself, which is ever thought of in its due relation of dependence on the Divine purpose. According to the OT conception, God foreknows only because He has pre- determined, and it is therefore also that He brings it to pass; His foreknowledge, in other words, is at bottom a knowledge of His own will, and His works of providence are merely the execution of His all-embracing plan. This is the truth that underlies the somewhat incongruous form of statement of late becoming rather frequent, to the effect that God's foreknow- ledge is conceived in the OT as ‘productive.’ Dillmann, for example, says (AT' Theologie, p. 251) : “His foreknowledge of the future is a productive one ; of an otiose foreknowledge or of a prit'scientia media . . . there is no suggestion.” In the thought of the OT writers, however, it is not God's foreknowledge that produces the events of the future; it is His irresistible provi- dential government of the world He has created for Himself: and His foreknowledge of what is yet to be rests on His pre- arranged plan of government. His ‘productive foreknowledge’ is but a transcript of His will, which has already determined not only the general plan of the world, but every particular that enters into the whole course of its development (Am 37, Job 28%. 27), and every detail in the life of every individual that comes into being (Jer 15, Ps 13914-10, Job 2319. 14). That the acts of free agents are included in this ‘productive forelinowledge,” or rather in this all-inclusive plan of the life of the universe, created for the OT writers apparently not the least embarrassment. This is not because they did not believe man to be free, throughout the whole OT there is never the least doubt expressed of the freedom or moral responsibility of man,—but because they did believe God to be free, whether in His works of creation or of providence, and could not believe He was hampered or limited in the attainment of IIis ends by the creatures of IIis own hands. How God governs the acts of free agents in the pursuance of His plan there is little in the OT to inform us ; but that IIc governs them in even their most intimate thoughts and feelings and impulses is its unvarying assumption : He is not only the creator of the hearts of men in the first instance, and knows them altogether, but He fashions the hearts of all in all the changing circum- stances of life (Ps 3315); forms the spirit of man within him in all its motions (Zec 12"); keeps the hearts of men in His hands, turning them whithersoever He will (Pr 211); so that it is even Said that man knows what is in his own mind only as the Lord reveals it to him (Am 419). The discussion of any antinomy that may be thought to arise from such a joint assertion of the absolute rule of God in the sphere of the spirit and the freedom of the creaturely will, falls obviously under the topic of Providential Government rather than under that of the Decree (see PROVIDENCE) : it requires to be adverted to here only that we may clearly note the fact that the OT teachers, as they did not hesitate to aſſirm the absolute sway of God over the thoughts and intents of the human heart, could feel no embarrassment in the inclusion of the acts of free agents within the all-embracing plan of God, the outworking of which IIis providential government supplies. Nor does the moral quality of these acts present any apparent diſliculty to the OT construction. We are never permitted to imagine, to be sure, that God is the author of sin, either in the world at large or in any individual soul—that He is in any way implicated in the sinfulness of the acts performed by the }. misuse of creaturely freedom. In all (;od's working He shows II imself pre-eminently the Holy One, and prosecutes II is holy will, llis righteous way, His all wise plan : the blame for all sinful deeds rests exclusively on the creaturely actors (Ex 927, 1010), who recognize their own guilt (2 S 2410, 17) and receive its punishment (l.c. 110 compared with 11b). But neither is God's relation to the sinful acts of His creatures ever repre- sented as purely passive: the details of the doctrine of concurgus were left, no doubt, to later ages speculatively to work out, but its assumption underlies the entire OT representation of the Divine modes of , working. That anything—good or evil -- occurs in God's universe finds its account, according to the OT conception, in His positive ordering and active concurrence; while the moral quality of the deed, considered in itself, is rooted in the moral character of the subordinate agent, acting in the circumstances, and under the motives operative in each instance. It is certainly going beyond the OT warrant to speak of the ‘all-productivity of ğ. as if He were the only efficient cause in nature and the sphere of the free spirit, alike ; it is the very delirium of misconception to say that in the OT God and Satan are insufficiently discriminated, and deeds appropriate to the latter are assigned to the former. Nevertheless, it remains true that even the evil acts of the creature are so far carried back to God that they too are athrmed to be included in His all-embracing decree, and to be brought about, bounded and utilized in His providential government. It is He that hardens the heart of the sinner that Pºiº in his sin (lex 421 79 101. 27 144148, Dt 230, Jos 1120, Is G910 6317); it is from Him that the evil spirits proceed that trouble sinners (1 S 1614, Jg 923, 1 IS 22, Job 1); it is of Him that the evil impulses that rise in sinners' hearts take this or that specific form (2 S 169 241, 1 K 1210). The philosophy that lies behind such representations, however, is not the pantheism which looks upon God as the immediate cause of all that comes to pass ; much less the pandaimonism which admits no distinction between good and evil; there is not even involved a conception of God entangled in an un- developed ethical discrimination. It is the philosophy that is expressed in Is 470 “I am the LORD, and there is none else; beside me there is no God. . . . I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I am the LORD that doeth all these things'; it is the philosophy that is expressed in Prºlò4 “The Lond hath made everything for its own end, yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." Because, over against all dualistic con- ceptions, there is but one God, and He is indeed GoD ; and because, over against all cosmotheistic conceptions, this God is a l’EſtSox who acts purposefully ; there is nothing that is, and nothing that comes to pass, that He has not first decreed and then brought to pass by II is creation or providence. Thus all things find their unity in IIis eternal plan; and not their unity merely, but their justification as well; even the evil, though retaining its quality as evil and hateful to the holy God, and certain to be dealt with as hateful, yet does not occur apart from His provision or against His will, but appears in the world which He has made only as the instrument by means of which IIe works the higher good. This sublime plailosophy of the decree is immancnt in every page of the OT. Its metaphysics never come to explicit dis- cussion, to be sure ; but its elements are in a practical way postulated consistently throughout. The ultimate end in view in the Divine plan is ever represented as found in God alone : all that He has made IIe has made for IIimself, to set forth His praise; the heavens themselves with all their splendid furniture exist, but to illustrate His glory ; the earth and all that is in it, and all that happens in it, to declare His majesty ; the whole course of history is but the theatre of IIis self-mani- festation, and the events of every individual life indicate His nature and perfections. Men may be unable to understand the place which the incidents, as they unroll themselves before their eyes, take in the developing plot of the great drama : they may, nay, must, therefore stand astonished and con- founded before this or that which befalls then, or befalls the world, Hence arise to them problems—the problem of the petty, the problem of the inexplicable, the problem of suffering, the problem of sin (e.g. Ec 115). But, in the infinite wisdom of the Lord of all the earth, each event falls with exact precision into its proper place in the unfolding of His eternal plan ; nothing, however small, however strange, occurs without His ordering, or without its peculiar fitness for its place in the working out of His purpose; and the end of all shall be the manifestation of Iſis glory, and the accumulation of I lis praise. This is the OT philosophy of the universe—-a world-view which attains concrete unity in an absolute 1)ivine teleology, in the compactness of an eternal decree, or purpose, or plan, of which all that comes to pass is the development in time. 3. Soteriological Predestination in OT.--Special or Soteriological Predestimation finds a natural place in the OT system as but a particular in- stance of the more general fact, and may be looked upon as only the general QT doctrine of predestination applied to the specific gase of the salvation of sinners. But as the OT is a dis- tinctively religious book, or, more precisely, a dis- tinctively soteriological book, that is to say, a record of the gracious dealings and purposes of God with sinners, Soteriological º naturally takes a more prominent place in it than the general doctrine itself, of which it is a par. ticular application. Indeed, God's saying work is thrown out into such prominence, the OT is so specially a record of the establishment ºf the kingdom of God in the world, that we easily get 52 PREDESTINATION PREDESTINATION the impression in reading it that the core of God’s yeneral decree is His decree of salvation, and that His whole plan for the government of the universe is subordinated to His purpose to recover sinful man to Himself. Of course there is some slight illusion of perspective hero, the materials for cor- recting which the OT, itself provides, not only in more or less specific declarations of the relative unimportance of what befalls man, whether the individual, or Israel, or the race at large, in com- parison with the attainment of the Divine end ; and of the wonder of the Divine grace concerning itself with the fortunes of man at all (Job 22* 35%. 38, Ps 8"): but also in the general disposition of the entire record, which places the complete history of sinful man, including alike his fall into sin and all the provisions for his recovery, within the larger history of the creative work of God, as but one incident in the greater whole, governed, of course, like all its other parts, by its general teleology. Relatively to the OT record, never- theless, as indeed to the Biblical record as a whole, which is concerned directly only with God’s deal- ings with humanity, and that, especially, a sinful humanity (Gn 3° 6° 84, Lv 1824, Dt 9', l K 8*, Ps 14, 51° 130° 143*, Pr 209, Ec 729, Is 1", Hos 41, Job 154* 25° 14*), soteriological predestination is the prime matter of importance; and the doctrine of election is accordingly thrown into relief, and the general doctrine of the decree more incident- ally adverted to. It would be impossible, however, that the doctrine of election taught in the OT should follow other lines than those laid down in the general doctrine of the decree, or, in other words, that God should be conceived as working in the sphere of grace in a manner that would be out of accord with the fundamental conception entertained by these writers of the nature of God and His relations to the universe. Accordingly, there is nothing concerning the Divine election more sharply or more steadily emphasized than its graciousness, in the highest sense of that word, or, in other terms, its absolute Fovereignty. This is plainly enough exhibited even in the course of the patriarchal history, and that from the beginning. In the very hour of lman’s first sin, God intervenes swa sponte with a gratuitous promise of deliverance ; and at every stage afterwards the sovereign initiation of the grace of God—the Lord of the whole earth (Ex 19°)—is strongly marked, as God’s universal counsel of salvation is more and more unfolded through the separation and training of a people for Him- self, in whom the whole world should be blessed (Gn 12° 18's 22° 26' 281*): for from the beginning it is plainly indicated that the whole history of the world is ordered with reference to the estab- lishment of the kingdom of God (Dt 32°, where the reference seems to be to Gn ll). Already in the opposing lines of Seth and Cain (Gn 4**) a discrimination is made ; Noah is selected as the head of a new race, and among his sons the preference is given to Shem (Gn 9”), from whose }. Abraham is taken. Every fancy that Abra- hani owed his calling to his own desert is carefully excluded,—he was “known of God only that in him God might establish His kingdom (Gn 1819); and the very acme of sovereignty is exhibited (as St. Paul points out) in the subsequent choice of Isaac and Jacob, and exclusion of Ishmael and Esau ; while the whole IDivine dealing with the patriarclis—their separation from their kindred, removal into a strange land, and the like -— is evidently understood as intended to cast then back on the grace of God alone. Similarly, the covenant made with Israel (Ex 19–24) is constantly assigned to the sole initiative of Divine grace, and the fact of election is therefore appropriately set at the head of the IDecalogue (Ex 204; cf. 349, 7); and Israel is repeatedly warned that there was nothing in it which moved or could move God to favourit (e.g. Dt 4” 77 817 9' 10", Ezk 161, Am 97) It has already been pointed out by what energetic figures this fundamental lesson was impressed on the Israelitish consciousness, and it is only true to say that no means are left unused to drive home the fact that God’s gracious election of Israel is an absolutely sovereign one, founded solely in His unmerited love, and looking to nothing ultimately but the gratification of His own lioly and loving impulses, and the manifestation of His grace through the formation of a heritage for Himself out of the mass of sinful men, by means of whom His saving mercy should advance to the whole world (Ps 87, Is 40. 42, 60, Mic 44, Am 41° 5*, Jer 31°7, Ezk 17° 36”, Jl 2*). The simple terms that are employed to express this Divine selection —“know' (y1), ‘choose' (nº)—are either used in a pregnant sense, or acquire a pregnant sense by their use in this connexion. The deeper meaning of the former term is apparently not specifically Hebrew, but more widely Semitic (it occurs also in Assyrian ; see the Dictionaries of Delitzsch and Muss-Arnolt sub voc., and especially Haupt in Beiträge zur Assyriologie, i. 14, 15), and it can create no surprise, therefore, when it meets us in such passages as Gn 181" (cf. Ps 37* and also 1" 318; cf. Baethgen and Delitzsch in loc.), Hos 13° (cf. Wünsche in loc.) in something of the sense expressed by the scholastic phrase, mosse cum affectu et effectu ; while in the great declaration of Am 3° (cf. Baur and Gunning in loc.), “You only have I known away from all the peoples of the earth,’ what is thrown prominently forward is clearly the elective love which has singled Israel out for special care. More commonly, however, it is nna that is employed to express God’s sovereign election of .." the classical passage is, of course, Dt 7": 7 (see Driver in loc., as also, of the love underlying the ‘choice,’ at 4” 7°), where it is carefully explained that it is in contrast with the treatment accorded to all the other peoples of the earth that Israel has been honoured with the Divine choice, and that the choice rests solely on the unmerited love of God, and finds no foundation in Israel itself. These declarations are elsewhere constantly enforced (e.g. 47 10” 14*), with the effect of throwing the strongest possible emphasis on the complete sovereignty of God’s choice of His people, who owe their “separation' unto Jehovah (Lv. 20%. 29, 1 K 899) wholly to the wonderful love of God, in which He has from the beginning taken knowledge of and chosen them. It is useless to seek to escape the profound meaning of this fundamental OT teaching by recalling the undeveloped state of the doctrine of a future life in Israel, and the national scope of its election,--as if the sovereign choice which is so insisted on could thus be conſined to the choice of a people as a whole to certain purely earthly blessings, without any reference whatever to the eternal destiny of the individuals concerned. We are here treading very close to the abyss of confusing progress in the delivery of doctrine with the reality of God's saving activities. The cardinal question, after all, does not concern the extent of the knowledge possessed by the OT saints of the nature of the blessedness that belongs to the people of God ; nor yet the relation borne by the clection within the election, by the real Israel forming the heart of the Israel after the flesh, to the external Israel : it concerns the existence of a real kingdom of God in the OT dispensation, and the methods by which God introduced man into it. It is true enough that the theocracy was an earthly kingdom, and that a prominent place was given to the promises of the life that now is in the blessings assured to Israel; and it is in this engrossment with earthly happiness and the close connexion of the friendship of God with the enjoyment of worldly goods that thc tºo. state of the O'I' doctrino of salvation is especially apparent. But it should not be for- gotten that the promise of carthly gain to the people of God is not entirely alien to the NT idea of salvation (Mt. 697, 1 Ti 48), and that it is in no sense true that in the OT teaching, in any of its stages, the blessings of the lºingdom were summed up in worldly happiness. The covenant blessing is rather PREDESTINATION PREDESTINATION 53 declared ſº be life, incluºye.g. all that that comprehensive also Job 34* 28° 22”, cf. 21.1%; also Zec 91); while word is fitted to convey (Dt 8010; cf. 41 Sl, Pr 1228 880); and it found its best expression in the high conception of ‘the favour of God’ (Lv 2011, Ps 48 102.5 §. while it concerned itself with earthly prosperity only as and so far as that is a pledge of the Divine favour. It is no false testimony to the OT Saints when they are described as looking for the city that has the foundations and as enduring as seeing the Invisible One: if their hearts were not absorbed in the con- templation of the eternal future, they were absorbed in the contemplation of the Eternal Lord, which certainly is some- thing even better; and the representation that they found their supreme blessedness in outward things runs so grossly athwart, their own testimony that it fairly deserves Calvin's terrible invective, that thus the Israelitish people are thought of not otherwise than as a ‘sort of herd of swine which (so, forsooth, it is pretended) the Lord was fattening in the pen of this world” (Inst. ii. x. 1). And, on the other hand, though Israel as a nation constituted the chosen people of God (1 Ch 1619, Ps 804 1050. 19 1000), yet we must not lose from sight the fact that the nation as such was rather the symbolical than the real people of God, and was His people at all, indeed, only so far as it was, ideally or actually, identified with the inner body of the really “chosen’—that people whom Jehovah formed for Himself that they might set forth His praise (Is 4320 659. 15, 22), and who constituted the real people of His choice, the “remnant of Jacob’ (Is 618, Am 98-10, Mal 810; cf. 1 K 1918, Is 810. 18). Nor are we left in doubt as to how this inner core of actual people of God was constituted ; we see the process in the call of Abraham, and the discrimination between Isaac and Ishmael, between Jacob and Esau, and it is no false testimony that it was ever a “remnant according to the election of grace’ that God preserved to Himself as the salt of His people Israel. In every aspect of it alike, it is the sovereignty of the Divine choice that is emphasized,—whether the reference be to the segregation of Israel as a nation to enjoy the earthly favour of God as a symbol of the true entrance into rest, or the choice of a remnant out of Israel to enter into that real communion with Him which was the joy of His saints, of Enoch who walked with God (Gn 522), of Abraham who found in Him his exceeding great reward (Gn 151), or of David who saw no good beyond Him, and sought in IIim alone his inheritance and his cup. Ilater times may have enjoyed fuller knowledge of what the grace of God had in store for His saints—whether in this world or that which is to come ; later times may have possessed a clearer apprehension of the distinction between the children of the flesh and the children of the promise: but no later teaching has a stronger emphasis for the central fact that it is of the free grace of God alone that any enter in any degree into the participation of His favour. The kingdom of God, according to the QT, in every circle of its meaning, is above and before all else a stone cut out of the mountain ‘without hands' (Dn 234.44. 10). iii. PREDESTINATION AMONG THE JEWS.—The rofound religious conception of the relation of łod to the works of His hands that pervades the whole OT was too deeply engraved on the Jewish consciousness to be easily erased, even after growing legalism had measurably corroded the religion of the people. As, however, the idea of law more and more absorbed the whole sphere of religious thought, and piety came to be con- ceived more and more as right conduct before God instead of living communion with God, men grew naturally to think of God more and more as abstract unapproachableness, and to think of themselves more and more as their own saviours. The post-canonical Jewish writings, while retain- ing fervent expressions of dependence on God as the Lord of i. by whose wise counsel all things exist and work out their ends, and over against whom the whole world, with every creature in it, is but the instrument of His will of good to Israel, nevertheless threw an entirely new emphasis on the autocracy of the human will. This em- phasis increases until in the later Judaism the extremity of heathen self-sufficiency is reproduced, and the whole sphere of the moral life is expressly reserved from 1)ivine determination. Meanwhile also heathen terminology was intruding into Jewish speech. The l’latonic trp ºvova, trpovociv, for example, coming in doubtless through the medium of the Stoa, is found not only in l’hilo (Tepl trpovolas), but also in the Apocryphal books (Wis 6' 14° 17”, 3 Mac 4* 52", 4 Mac 92. 1318 1793; cf. also Dn 618, in LXX); the perhaps even more precise as well as earlier épopäu occurs in Josephus (13.J II, viii. 14), and indeed also in the I, XX, though here doubtless in a weakened sense (2 Mac 12* 15°, cf. 3 Mac 2*, as even the fatalistic term eiuapuévn is employed by Josephus (BJ II. viii. 14; Amt. xIII. v. 9, xviii. i. 3) to describe Jewish views of predestination. With the terms there came in, doubtless, more or less of the conceptions connoted by them. Whatever may have been the influences under which it was wrought, however, the tendency of post-canonical Judaism was towards setting aside the Biblical doctrine of predestination to a greater or less extent, or in a larger or smaller sphere, in order, to make room for the autocracy of the human will, the mºn, as it was significantly called by the Rabbis (Bereshith Rabba, c. 22). This disintegrating process is little apparent perhaps in the Book of Wisdom, in which the sense of the almightiness of God comes to very strong expres- sion, (11* 12*). Or even in Philo, whose pre- destinarianism (de Legg. Allegor. i. 15, iii. 24, 27, 28) closely follows, while his assertion of human freedom (Quod Deus sit immut. 10) does not pass beyond that of the Bible : man is separated from the animals and assinilated to God by the gift of ‘the power of voluntary motion’, and suitable emancipation from necessity, and is accordingly properly praised or blamed for his intentional acts; but it is of the grace of God only that any- thing exists, and the creature is not giver but receiver in all things; especially does it belong to God alone to plant and build up virtues, and it is impious for the mind, therefore, to say “I plant’; the call of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob was of pure grace without any merit, and God exer- cises the right to ‘dispose excellently,’ prior to all actual deeds. But the process is already apparent in so early a book as Siracl). The book at large is indeed distinctly predestinarian, and such passages as 16** 23° 33'1-1930% ºf echo the teachings of the canonical books on this subject. Ibut, while this is its general character, another element is also present : an assertion of human autocracy, for ex- ample, which is without parallel in the canonical books, is introduced at 15**, which culminates in the precise declaration that “man has been com- mitted to the hand of his own counsel’ to choose for himself life or death. The same phenomena meet us in the Pharisaic Psalms of Solomon (B.C. 70–40). Here there is a general recognition of God as the great and mighty King (2**) who has appointed the course of nature (18”) and directs the development of history (2* 9' 17"), ruling over the whole and determining the lot of each (5**), on whom alone, therefore, can the hope of Israel be stayed (7° 17°), and to whom alone can the individual look for good. But, alongside of this expression of general dependence on God, there occurs the strongest assertion of the moral autocracy of the human will : ‘O God, our works are in our own souls' election and control, to do righteousness or iniquity in the works of our hand ’ (97). It is quite credible, therefore, when Josephus tells us that the Jewish parties of his day were divided, as on other matters, so on the question of the Divine predestination—the Essenes aflirm- ing that fate (elpapuévy, Josephus’ affected Grie- cizing expression for predestination) is the mistress of all, and nothing occurs to men which is not in accordance with its destination ; the Sadducees taking away ‘fate’ altogether, and consideling that there is no such thing, and that human aflairs are not directed according to it, but all actions are in our own power, so that we are ourselves the causes of what is good, and receive what is evil from our own folly ; while the l’harisees, seeking a middle ground, said that some actions, but not all, are tue work of ‘fate,’ and some are in our own power as to whether they are done or 54 PREDESTINATION PREDESTINATION not (Ant. XIII. v. 9). The distribution of the several views among the parties follows the general lines of what might have been anticipated—the Essenic system being pre-eminently supranatural- istic, and the Sadducean rationalistic, while there was retained among the Pharisees a deep leaven of religious earnestness tempered, but not alto- gether destroyed (except in . extremest circles), by their ingrained legalism. The middle ground, moreover, which Josephus ascribes to the Phari- sees in their attempt to distribute the control of human action between ‘fate ’ and ‘free will,’ re- flects not badly the state of opinion presupposed in the documents we have already quoted. In his remarks elsewhere (BJ II. viii. 14; Amt. XVIII. i. 3) he appears to ascribe to the Pharisees some kind of a doctrine of concursus also – a kpāorts between ‘fate ’ and the human will by which both co-operate in the effect; but his language is ob- scure, and is coloured doubtless by reminiscences of Stoic teaching, with which philosophical sect he compares the Pharisees as he compares the Essenes with the Epicureans. But whatever may have been the traditional be- lief of the Pharisees, in proportion as the legalistic spirit which *ºf the nerve of the move- ment became prominent, the sense of dependence on God, which is the vital breath of the doctrine of predestination, gave way. The Jews possessed the OT Scriptures in which the Divine lordship is a cardinal doctrine, and the trials of persecution cast them continually back upon God ; they could not, therefore, wholly forget the Biblical doctrine of the Divine decree, and throughout their whole history we meet with its echoes on their lips. The laws of nature, the course of history, the varying fortunes of individuals, are ever attributed to the Divine predestination. Nevertheless, it was ever more and more sharply disallowed that man’s moral actions fell under the same predeter- mination. Sometimes it was said that while the decrees of God were sure, they applied only so long as man remained in the condition in which he was contemplated when they were formed ; he could escape all predetermined evil by a change in Jis moral character. Hence such sayings as, ‘The righteous destroy what God decrecs’ (Trºnchwºma on Dºnan); ‘Repentance, prayer, and charity ward off every evil decree” (Rosh - hashama). In any event, the entire domain of the moral life was more and more withdrawn from the intrusion of the decree ; and Cicero's famous declaration, which Harnack says might be inscribed as a motto over Pelagianism, might with equal right be accepted as the working hypothesis of the later Judaism : “For gold, land, and all the blessings of life we have to return thanks to God ; but no one ever returned thanks to God for virtue’ (de Nat. Deorum, iii. 36). We read that the Holy One determines prior to birth all that every one is to be—whether male or female, weak or strong, poor or rich, wise or silly; but one thing. He does not determine—whether he is to be righteous or unrighteous; according to Dt 30” this is com- mitted to one’s own hands. Accordingly, it is said that “neither evil nor good comes from God; both are the results of our deeds” (Midrash Tab. on TNm, and Jrtl/ºut there); and again, ‘All is in the hands of God except the fear of God’ (Megilla 25%); so that it is even somewhat cynically said, ‘Man is led in the way in which he wishes to go' (Maccoth 10); ‘If you teach him right, his God will make him know ' (Is 28*; Jerus. Challah i. 1). Thus the deep sense of dependence on God for all goods, and especially the goods of the soul, which forms the very core of the religious conscious!, ess of the writers of the Old Testament, gradually vanished from the later Judaism, and was super- seded by a self-assertiveness which hung all good on the self-determination of the human spirit, on which the purposes of God waited, or to which they were subservient. - iv. PREDESTINATION IN NT.-The NT teaching starts from the plane of the OT revelation, an in its doctrines of God, Providence, l'aith, and the Ringdom of God repeats or develops in a right line the fundamental deliverances of the OT, while in its doctrines of the Decree and of Election only such advance in statement is made as the progres- sive execution of the plan of Salvation required. 1. The Teaching of Jesus.—In the teaching of our Lord, as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels, for example, though there is certainly a new emphasis thrown on the Fatherhood of God, this is by no means at the expense of His infinite majesty and might, but provides only a more profound revela- tion of the character of ‘the great Išing’ (Mt 5”), the ‘Lord of heaven and earth” (Mt 11”, Lk 10”), according to whose good pleasure all that is comes to pass. He is spoken of, therefore, specifically as the ‘heavenly Father” (Mt 58 614.2% º 1518, 18%. 23", Cf. 516. •lſ; 61. $) 711. 21 1032. 33 1250 1617 1814. 19, Mk | 125. 20, Lk 11.1%) whose throne is in the heavens (Mt 5” 23*), while the earth is but the footstool under His feet. There is no limitation admitted to the reach of His power, whether on the score of difficulty in the task, or insignificance in the object : the category of the impossible has no ex- istence to Him “with whom all things are possible” (Mt 920, Mk 1027, Lk 1847, Mt 222), Mk 122, 1490), and the minutest occurrences are as directly con- trolled by Him as the greatest (Mt 10*.*, Lk 127). It is from Him that the sunshine and rain come (Mt 54°); it is He that clothes with beauty the flowers of the field (MIt 0°), and who feeds the birds of the air (Mt. 6"); not a sparrow falls to the ground without Him, and the very hairs of our heads are numbered, and not one of them is forgotten by God (Mt 10*, Lk 12°). There is, of course, no denial, nor neglect, of the mechanism of nature implied here ; there is only clear per- ception of the providence of God guiding nature in all its operations, and not nature only, but the life of the free spirit as well (Mt. 6% 8” 24* 77, Mk 11*). Much less, however, is the care of God thought of as mechanical and purposeless. It was not simply of sparrows that our Lord was thinking when He adverted to the care of the heavenly Father for them, as it was not simply for oxen that God was caring when He forbade them to be muzzled as they trod out the corn (1 Co 9"); it was that they who are of more value than sparrows might learn with what conſidence they might de- pend on the Father's hand. Thus a hierarchy of providence is uncovered for us, circle rising above circle, first the wide order of nature, next the moral order of the world, lastly the order of Salva- tion or of the kingdom of God, a preformation of the dogmatic schema of providentia generalis, specialis, and specialissima. All these work to- gether for the one end of advancing the whole world-fabric to its goal; for the care of the heavenly Father over the works of His hand is not merely to prevent the world that He has made from falling into pieces, and not merely to pre- serve His servants from oppression by the & of this world, but to lead the whole world and all that is in it onwards to the end which He has appointed for it, to that traXiyyevéata of heaven and earth to which, under His guiding hand, the whole creation tends (Mt 1948, Lk 20%). In this divinely-led movement of ‘this world' towards ‘the world that is to come,” in which every element of the world’s life has part, the central place is naturally taken by the spiritual preparation, or, in other words, by the ... PREDESTINATION PREDESTINATION 55 ment of the Kingdom of God which reaches its consummation in the ‘regeneration.” This King- dom, our Lord º is the heritage of those blessed ones for whom it has been prepared from the foundations of the world (Mt. 259", cf. 20%). It is built up on earth through a ‘call’ (Mt 91°, Mk 247, Lk 5”), which, however, as mere invitation is inoperative (Mt, 22**, Lk 1419-98), and is made effective only by the exertion of a certain ‘ con- straint' on God’s part (Lk 14*), so that a dis- tinction emerges between the merely ‘called’ and the really “chosen’ (Mt 22*). The author of this ‘choice ’ is God (Mk 13”), who has chosen His elect (Lk 187, Mt 24” 44; 31, Mk 1320-42) before the World, in accordance with His own pleasure, dis- tributing as He will of what is His own (Mt 10**); so that the effect of the call is already predetermined (Mt 13), all providence is ordered for the benefit of the elect (Mt 24*), and they are guarded from falling away (Mt 24%), and, at the last day, are separated to their inheritance repared for them from all eternity (Mt 25%). That, in all this process, the initiative is at every point taken by God, and no question can be enter- tained of precedent merit on the part of the recipients of the blessings, results not less from the whole underlying conception of God in His relation to the course of providence than from the details of the teaching itself. Every means is utilized, however, to enhance the sense of the free Sovereignty of God in the bestowment of His Kingdom ; it is ‘the lost whom Jesus comes to seek (Lk 19°), and “sinners’ whom He came to call (Mk 27); His truth is revealed only to ‘babes' (Mt 11”, Lk 10%), and He gives His teaching a special form just that it may be veiled from them to whom it is not directed (Mk 4"), distributing His benefits, independently of merit (Mt. 20"-"), to those who had been chosen by God therefor (Mk 13*). In the discourses recorded by St. John the same essential spirit rules. Although, in accordance with the deeper theological º of their reporter, the more metaphysical elements of Jesus’ doctrine of God come here to fuller expression, it is nevertheless fundamentally the same doctrine of God that is displayed. Despite the even stronger emphasis thrown here on His Fatherhood, there is not the slightest obscuration of His infinite ex- altation : Jesus lifts His eyes up when He would seek Him (11”. 17”); it is in heaven that His house is to be found (14%); and thence proceeds all that comes from Him (1° 319 691, 82. 33.38. 41.49, 50 6”); so that God and heaven come to be almost equivalent terms. Nor is there any obscuration of His ceaseless activity in governing the world (517), although the stress is naturally thrown, in accordance with the whole character of this Gospel, on the moral and spiritual side of this government. But the very essence of the message of the Johan- nine Jesus is that the will (0é\mua) of the Father (49. 530 698, 30.40 717 991, cf. 38 52] 1721 2124. 28) is the principle of all things; and more especially, of course, of the introduction of eternal life into this world of darkness and death. The conception of the world as lying in the evil one and therefore judged already (3*), so that upon those who are not removed from the evil of the world the wrath of God is not so much to be poured out as simply abides (3", cf. 1 Jn 3*), is fundamental to this whole presentation. It is therefore, on the one hand, that Jesus represents Himself as having come not to condemn the world, but to save the world (317 81° 9" 12", cf. 4.1%), and all that He does as having for its end the introduction of life into the world (6* *); the already condemned world needed no further condemnation, it needed saving. And it is for the same reason, on the other hand, itself (319 6" 12" 17”, cf. 1", 1 Jn 414 22). that He represents the wicked world as incapable of coming to Him that it might have life (8* * 14” 10*), and as requiring first of all a “drawing’ from the Father to enable it to come (6*, *); so that ºy those hear or believe on Him who are ‘of God’ (8", cf. 15” 17”), who are ‘of his sheep’ (16%). There is undoubtedly a strong emphasis thrown on the universality of Christ's mission of salvation; He has been sent into the world not merely to save some out of the world, but to save the world But this universality of destination and effect by which it is ‘the world’ that is saved, does not imply the Salvation of each and every individual in the world, even in the earlier stages of the developing salva- tion. On the contrary, the saving work is a pro- cess (17*); and, meanwhile, the coming of the Son into the world introduces a crisis, a sifting by which those who, because they are ‘of God,’ ‘of his sheep,” are in the world, but not of it (1519 17*), are separated from those who are of the world, that is, of their father the devil (844), who is the Prince of this world (12° 14′ 1611). Obvi- ously, the difference between men that is thus manifested is not thought of as inhering, after a dualistic or semi-Gnostic fashion, in their very natures as such, or as instituted by their own self-framed or accidentally received dispositions, much less by their own conduct in the world, which is rather the result of it, —but, as already pointed out, as the effect of an act of God. All goes back to the will of God, to accomplish which, the Son, as the Sent One, has come ; and therefore also to the consentient will of the Son, who gives life, accordingly, to whom He will (5%). As no one can come to Him out of the evil world, except it be given him of the Father (6%, cf. 644), so all that the Father gives Him (6'7: 99) and only such (6*), come to Him, being drawn thereunto by the Father (6*). Thus the Son has “his own in the world’ (13), His “chosen ones’ (1318 1516. 19), whom by His choice. He has taken out of the world (1519 17***); and for these only is His high-priestly intercession offered (17"), as to them only is eternal life communicated (10° 17°, also 315, 88 534 640. 54812). Thus, what the dogmatists call gratia praeveniens is very strikingly taught ; and especial point is given to this teaching in the great declarations as to the new birth recorded in Jn 3, from which we learn that the recreating Spirit comes, like the wind, without observation, and as He lists (38), the mode of action by which the l’ather ‘draws’ men being thus uncovered for us. Of course this drawing is not to be thought of as proceeding in a manner out of accord with man’s nature as a }sychic being ; it naturally comes to its mani- festation in an act of voluntary choice on man’s own part, and in this sense it is “psychological” and not “physical’; accordingly, though it be God that ‘draws,’ it is man that “comes’ (3* 6*, * 14%). There is no occasion for stumbling therefore in the ascription of ‘will” and “responsibility’ to man, or for puzzling over the designation of ‘faith,’ in which the ‘coming' takes effect, as a ‘work’ of man's (6”). , Man is, of course, conceived as acting humanly, after the fashion of an intelligent and voluntary agent ; but behind all his action there is ever postulated the all-determining hand of God, to whose sovereign operation even the blindness of the unbelieving is attributed by the evangelist (12*), while the receptivity to the light of those who believe is repeatedly in the most emplmatic way ascribed by Jesus Himself to God alone. Although with little use of the terminology in which we have been accustomed to expect to see the doctrines of the decree and of election ex pressed, the substance of these doctrines is here set out in the most impressive way. 06 PREDESTINATION PREDESTINATION -— From the two sets of data provided by the Synoptists and St. John, it is possible to attain quite a clear insight into the conception of predestination as it lay im our Lord's teach- ing. It is quitt, certain, for example, that there is no place in this teaching for a ‘predestination that is carefully adjusted to the foreseen lº. of the creature ; and as little for a ‘decree' which may be frustrated by creaturely action, or an “election' which is § effect only by the creaturely choice: to our Lord the Father is the omnipotent Lord of heaven aud earth, according to whose pleasure all things are ordered, and who gives the Kingdom to whom He will (Lk 1282, Mk 1126, Llr 1021). Certainly it is the very heart of our Lord's teaching that the Father's good pleasure is a good pleasure, ethically' right, and the issue of infinite love; the very name of Father as the name of God by preference on His lips is full of this conception ; but the very nerve of this teaching is, that the Father's will is all-embracing and omnip- otent. It is only therefore that His children need be careful for nothing, that the little flock need not fear, that His elect may be assured that none of them shall be lost, but all that the Father has given Him shall be raised up at the last day, And if, thus the elective purpose of the Father cannot fail of its end, neither is it possible to find this end in anything less than 'salvation’ in the highest sense, than entrance into that etermal life to communicate which to dying men our Lord came into the world. There are elections to other ends, to be sure, spoken of : notably there is the election of the apostles to their office (Lk 618, Jn 670); and Christ Himself is conceived as especially God's elect one, because no one has the service to render which He has (Llº 985 2380). But the elect, by way of eminence ; ‘the elect whom God elected,' for whose sake He governs all history (Mk 1320); the elect of whom it was the will of Him who sent the Son, that of all that He gave Him He should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day (Jn 630); the elect whom the Son of Man shall at the last day gather from the four winds, from the uttermost parts of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven (Mk 1327) : it would be in- adequate to suppose that these are elected merely to opportuni- ties or the means of grace, on their free cultivation of which shall depend their undecided destiny; or merely to the service of their fellow-men, as agents in God's beneficent plan for the salvation of the race. Of course this election is to privileges and means of grace; and without these the great end of the election would not be attained : for the ‘election’ is given effect only by tho ‘call,' and manifests itself only in faith and the holy life. Equally of course the elect are ‘the salt of the earth’ and ‘the light of the world,’ the few through whom the many are blessed ; the eternal life to which they are elected does not consist in or with the silence and coldness of death, but only in and with the intensest activities of the conquering pº of God. But the prime end of their election does not ie in these things, and to place exclusive stress upon them is certainly to gather in the mint and unise and cunmin of the doctrine. That to which God's elect are elected is, according to the teaching of Jesus, all that is included in the idea of the Kingdom of God, in the idea of eternal life, in the idea of fellowship with Christ, in the idea of participation in the glory which the Father has given IIis Son. Their choice, and the whole development of their history, according to our Lord's teaching, is the loving work of the Father: and in His keeping also is the consummation of their bliss. Their segrega- tion, of course, leaves others not elected, to whom none of their privileges are granted ; from whom none of their services are expected ; with whom their glorious destiny is not shared. This, too, is of God. Iłut this side of the matter, in accordance with Jesus' mission in the world as Saviour rather than as Judge, is less dwelt upon. In the case of neither class, that of the elect as little as that of those that are without, are the purposes of God wrought out without the co-operation of the activities of the subjects; but in neither case is the decisive factor supplied by these, but is discoverable solely in the will of God and the consonant will of the Son. The “even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight” (Mt 1120, Lk 1021), is to our lord, at least, an all-sufficient theodicy in the face of all God's diverse dealings with men. 2. The Teaching of the Disciples.—The disciples of Jesus continue His teaching in all its elements. We are conscious, for example, of entering no new atmosphere when we pass to the Epistle of James. St. James, too, finds his starting-point in a profound apprehension of the exaltation and perfection of God, -defining God's nature, indeed, with a phrase that merely repeats in other words the penetrating declaration that “God is light” (1 Jn 1"), which, reflecting our Lord’s teaching, sounds the keynote of the beloved disciple’s thought of God (Ja 1"), - and particularly in a keen sense of dependence on God (4” 57), to which it was an axiom that every good thing is a gift from Him (l”). Accordingly, salvation, the pre-eminent good, comes purely as His gift, and can be ascribed only to His will (1*); and its exclusively Divine origin is indicated by the choice that is made of those who receive it— not the rich and prosperous, who have somewhat perhaps which might, command consideration, but the poor and miserable (2%). , So little does this Divine choice rest on even faith, that it is rather in order to faith (2%), and introduces its recipients into the Kingdom as firstfruits of a great harvest to be reaped by God in the world (1*). Similarly, in the Book of Acts, the whole stress in the matter of salvation is laid on the grace of God (11+, 13° 14'. ' 15" 1837); and to it, in the most pointed way, the inception of faith itself is assigned (1827). It is only slightly varied language when the increase in the Church is ascribed to the hand of the Lord (11*), or the direct act of God (14° 1810). The explicit declaration of 2" presents, therefore, nothing peculiar, and we are fully pre- pared for the philosophy of the redemptive history expressed in 13°, that only, those ordained to eternal life’ believed—the believing that comes by the grace of God (1897), to whom it belongs to open the heart to give heed to the gospel (16”), being thus referred to the counsel of eternity, of which the events of time are only the outworking. The general philosophy of history thus suggested is implicit in the very idea of a P.". system, and in the recognition of a predictive element in rophecy, and is written large on the pages of the }.} books of the NT. It is given expression in every declaration that this or that event came to pass ‘that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets,’—a form of statement in which our Lord had Himself betrayed His teleological view of history, not only as respects details (Jn 15” 17*), but with the widest reference (Ll 21*), and which was taken up cordially by His followers, particu- larly by Matthew (1*21% º 44 81 12" 13° 21'26", Jn 1238 189 1944, 28.8%). Alongside of this plurase occurs the equally significant ‘āet of the 1)ivine decree,’ as it has been appropriately called, by which is suggested the necessity which rules over historical sequences. It is used with a view now to Jesus' own plan of redemption (by Jesus Himself, Mt 851, Lk 240 48 9-2 13% 1725 247, Jn 34 10" 12"; by the evangelist, Mt 16”), now to the underlying blan of God (by Jesus, Mt 24", Mk 137: ", Lk 21"; § the writer, Mt 1719, Mk 9", Ac 3” 9"), anon to the prophetic declaration as an indication of the underlying plan (by Jesus, Mt. 26*, Lk 22” 24**; by the writer, Jn 20", Ae 11° 17'). This appeal, in either form, served an important apologetic pur- pose in the first proclamation of the gospel ; but its fundamental significance is rooted, of course, in the conception of a Divine ordering of the whole course of history to the veriest detail. Such a teleological conception of the history of the Kingdom is manifested strikingly in the speech of St. Stephen (Ac 7), in which the developing plan of God is rapidly sketched. But it is in such declarations as those of St. Peter recorded in Ac 2* 4” that the wider philosophy of history comes to its clearest expression. In them everything that had befallen Jesus is represented as merely the emerging into fact of what had stood before- hand prepared for in the determinate counsel and jº. of God,” so that nothing had been accomplished, by whatever agents, except what ‘ his hand and his counsel had foreordained to come to pass.’ It would not be easy to frame language which should more explicitly proclaim the conception of an all - determining decree of God governing the entire sequence of events in time. Elsewhere in the Petrime discourses of Acts the speech is coloured by the same ideas: wo note in the immediate context of these culmin- ating passages the high terms in which the exalta- tion of God is expressed (4*), the sharpness with which II is sovereignty in the ‘call' (TrporktvNéopal) is declared (2”), and elsewhere the repeated emerg, ence of the idea of the necessary correspondence PREDESTINATION PREDESTINATION 5' grºss of the events, of time with the predictions of Scripture (11° 22′ 321). destination meets us in the pages of St. Peter's Epistles. He does, indeed, speak of the members of the Christian community as God’s elect (I 1' 29 5*, II 119), in accordance with the apostolic habit of assuming, the reality implied in the manifesta- tion ; but this is so far from importing that election hangs on the act of man that St. Peter refers it directly to the elective foreknowledge of God (I 1°), and seeks its confirmation in sanctification (II 1"), —even as the stumbling of the disobedient, on the other hand, is presented as a confirmation of their appointment to disbelief (I.2%). The pregnant use of the terms ‘foreknow ' (Tpoylvdºorka) and ‘fore- knowledge’ (trpó)wayats) by St. Peter brought to our attention in these passages (Ac 2*, 1 P 12: "), where they certainly convey the sense of a loving, dis- tinguishing regard which assimilates them to the idea of election, is worthy of note as another of the traits common to him and St. Paul (Ro 8” 11”, only in NT). The usage might be explained, in- deed, as the development of a purely Greek sense of the words, but it is much more probably rooted in a Semitic usage, which, as we have seen, is not without example in OT. A simple comparison of the passages will exhibit the impossibility of read- ing the terms of mere prevision (cf. Cremer sub woc., and especially the full discussion in K. Müller's Die Göttliche Zuvorersehung und Erwāh- lung, etc. }. 38 f. , 81 f.; also Gennrich, SIY, 1898, 382–395; Pfleiderer, Urchristenthum, 289, Paulin- àsmºts, 268; and Lorenz, Lehrsystem, etc. 94). The teaching of St. John in Gospel all, Epistle is not distinguishable from that which he reports from his Master’s lips, and need not here be re- verted to afresh. The same fundamental view- points meet us also in the Apocalypse. The emphasis there placed on the omnipotence of God rises indeed to a climax. There only in NT (except 2 Co 6*), for example, is the epithet travrokpdrop ascribed to Him (1848 llì7 158 167. 14 19%. 15 21*, cf. 15° 6"); and the whole purport of the book is the portrayal of the Divine guidance of history, and Ulle very essence of its message that, despite all surface appearances, it is the hand of God that really directs all occurrences, and all things are hastening to the end of His determining. Salva- tion is ascribed unvaryingly to the grace of God, and declared to be His work (12" 19%). The elect people of God are His by the Divine choice alone: their names are from the foundation of the world written in the Lamb's Book of Life (138 178 2013-15 21*), which is certainly a symbol of Divine appointment to eternal life revealed in and realized through Christ ; nor shall they ever be blotted out of it (3°). It is diſlicult to doubt that the destination here asserted is to a complete salvation (19%), that it is individual, and that it is but a single instance of the completeness of the 1)ivine government to which the world is subject by the Lord of lords and King of kings, the Ruler of the earth and Ring of the nations, whose control of all the occurrences of time in accordance with His holy purposes it is the Supreme object of this book to portray. Perhaps less is directly said about the purpose of God in the Epistle to the Hebrews than in any other portion of NT of equal length. The technical phraseology of the subject is conspicuously absent. Nevertheless, the conception of the l)ivine counsel and will underlying i that comes to pass (2"), and especially the entire course of the purchase (6.7, cf. 107-10 2") and application (1139, in 910) of salvation, is fundamental to the whole thought of the Epistle; and echoes of the modes in which this conception is elsewhere expressed meet us on every hand, Thus we read of God’s eternal counsel The same doctrine of pre- (8ovXī, 6") and of His precedent will (0éXmua, 101") as underlying His redemptive acts; of the enrolment of the names of His children in heaven (12°); of the origin in the energy of God of all that is good in us (13°); and, above all, of a ‘heavenly call’ as the source of the whole renewed life of the Christian (3", cf. 91%). When our Lord spoke of ‘calling' (zacaña, Mt 913, Mk 217, Lk 532, and, parabolically, Mt, 222, 4, 5. 9, Lk 148, 9, 10. 12, 13, 16, 17. 24; xxaráz, Mt 2214 [2010]) the term was used in the ordinary sense of ‘invitation,' and refers therefore to a much broader circle than, the ‘elect” (Mt 2214);, and this fundamental sense of “bidding' may continue to cling to the term in the hands of the evangelists (Mt 421, Mk 12", cf. Lk 147, Jn º while the depth of meaning which might be attached to it, even in such a Connotation, may be revealed by such a passage as Rev 199 Blessed are they, which are bidden to the º: supper of the Lamb,” On the lips of the apostolic writers, however, the term in its application to the call of God to salvation took on deeper meanings, doubtless out of consideration of the author of the call, who has but to speak and it is done (cf. Ro 417). It occurs in these writers, when it occurs at all, as the synonym no longer of ‘invitation,’ but rather of ‘election. itself ; or, more precisely, as expressive of the temporal act of the Divine efficiency by which effect is given to the electing decree;. In this profounder sense it is practically confined to the writings of St. Paul and St. Peter and the Epistle to the Hebrews, occurring elsewhere only in Jude 1, Rev 1714, where the children of God are designated the ‘called, just as they are (in various collocations of the term with the idea of election) in Ro 10, 7, 1 Co 12, Ro 828, 1 Co 124 (cf. Ro 11, 1 Co 11). Kxará;, as used in these passages, does not occur in the lºpistle to the Hebrews, but in 3" 2xWork occurs in a sense indistinguishable from that which it bears in St. Paul (Ro 1129, 1 Co 12, Eph 118 41.4, Ph.314, 2Th 111, 2 Ti 19) and St. Peter (2 P 110); and in 915 (cf. special applications of the same general idea, 54 118), zoºxia, bears the same deep sense expressed by it in St. Paul (Ro 830, 30 011-24, 1 Co 19 715.17, 18. 18, 20, 21. 22.22, 24, Gal 10, 15 5S. 13, Eph 41. 4, Col 315, 1 Th 212 47 524, 2 Th 214, 2 Ti 19) and in St. Peter (I 115 29, 21 39 510, II 13, cf. trooax2xio, Ac 239, and in the language of St. Luke, Ac 132 1610). The contrast into which the called (31) are brought in this Epistle with the evangelized' (42, 6), repeating in other terms the contrast which our Saviour institutes between the ‘elect’ and ‘called' (Mt 2214), exhibits the height of the meaning to which the idea of the ‘call’ has climbed. It no longer denotes the mere invitation,--that motion is now given in ‘ evangelize,'—but the actual ushering into salvation of the heirs of the promise, who are made partakers of the heavenly calling, and are called to the everlasting in- heritance just because they have been destined thereunto by Rod (114), and are enrolled in heaven as the children given to the Son of God (218). 3. The Teaching of St. Paul.—It was reserved, however, to the Apostle Paul to give to the fact of predestination its fullest, NT presentation. This was not because St. Paul exceeded his fellows in the strength or clearness of his convictions, but because, in the prosecution of the special task which was committed to him in the general work of establishing Christianity in the world, the com- plete expression of the common doctrine of pre- destination fell in his way, and became a necessity of his argument. With him, too, the roots of his doctrine of predestination were set in his general doctrine of God, and it was fundamentally because St. Paul was a theist of a clear and consistent type, living and thinking under the influence of the profound consciousness of a personal God who is the author of all that is and, as well, the upholder and powerful governor of all that He has made, according to whose will, therefore, all that comes to pass must be ordered, that he was a predesti- marian ; and more particularly he too was a pre- destinarian because of his general doctrine of salvation, in every step of which the initiative must be taken by God’s unmerited grace, just because man is a sinner, and, as a sinner, rests under the Divine condemnation, with no right of so much as access to God, and without means to seek, much less to secure, His favour. lºut although possessing no other sense of the infinite majesty of the almighty, Person in whose hands all things lie, or of the issue of all saving acts from llis free grace, than his companion apostles, the course of the special work in which St. Paul was engaged, and the exigencies of the special controversics in whiclí lie was involved, forced him f;8 PREDESTINATION PREDESTINATION to a fuller expression of all that is implied in these convictions. As he cleared the whole field of Christian faith from the presence of any re- maining confidence in human works; as he laid beneath the hope of Christians a righteousness not self-wrought but provided by God alone; as he consistently offered this God-provided righteous- ness to sinners of all classes without regard to anything in them by which they might fancy God could be moved to accept their persons,—he was inevitably driven to an especially pervasive refer- ence of salvation in each of its elements to the free grace of God, and to an especially full exposition on the one hand of the course of Divine grace in the several acts which enter into the saving work, and on the other to the firm rooting of the whole process in the pure will of the God of grace. lºrom the beginning to the end of his ministry, accordingly, St. Paul conceived himself, above everything else, as the bearer of a message of undeserved grace to lost sinners, not even directing his own footsteps to carry the glad tidings to whom he would (Ro 119, 1 Co 419, 2 Co 2*), but rather led by God in triumphal procession through the world, that through him might be made mani- fest the savour of the Ynowledge of Christ in every place—a savour from life unto life in them that are saved, and from death unto death in them that are lost (2 Co 21%. 1"). By the ‘word of the cross’ proclaimed by him the essential character of his learers was thus brought into manifestation, —to the lost it was foolishness, to the saved the power of God (1 Co 1*): not as if this essential character belonged to them by nature or was the product of their own activities, least of all of their choice at the moment of the proclamation, by which rather it was only revealed ; but as finding an explanation only in an act of God, in accord- ance with the working of Him to whom all differ- ences among men are to be ascribed (1 Co 47)— for God alone is the Lord of the harvest, and all the increase, however diligently man may plant and water, is to be accredited to Him alone (1 Co 3%). It is naturally the soteriological interest that determines in the main St. Paul's allusions to the all-determining hand of God, the letters that we have from him come from Paul the evangelist,--but it is not merely a soteriological conception that he is expressing in them, but the most fundamental postulate of his religious consciousness; and he is accordingly constantly correlating his doctrine of election with his general doctrine of the decree or counsel of God. No man ever liad an intenser or more vital sense of God, the eternal (Ro 16”) and incorruptible (1*) One, the only wise One (1627), who does all things according to His good-pleasure (1 Co 15* 12”, Col 11" "), and whose ways are past tracing out (Ro 11”); , before whom men should therefore bow in the humility of absolute dependence, recognizing in Him the one moulding power as well in history as in the life of the individual (Ro 9). Of Him and through Him and unto Him, he fervently exclaims, are all things (Ro 11", cf. 1 Co 8"); He is over all and through all and in all (Eph 4", cf. Col 1"); He worketh all things according to the counsel of His will (Eph l"): all that is, in a word, owes its existence and persistence and its action and issue to Him. The whole course of history is, therefore, of His order- ing (Ac 141° 17-9, IRo 1* 3” 9–11, Gal 3. 4), and every event that befalls is under His control, and must be estimated from the view-point of His pur- poses of good to His people (Ro 8”, l Th 5" "), for whose benefit the whole world is governed (Eph 1”, 1 Co 27, Col 1*). The figure that is employed in Ro 9” with a somewhat narrower reference, would fairly express St. Paul's world-view in its relation a- to the Divine activity : God is the potter, and the whole world with all its contents but as the plastic clay which He moulds to His own ends; so that whatsoever comes into being, and whatsoever uses are served by the things that exist, are all alike of Him. In accordance with this world - view St. Paul's doctrine of salvation, must necessarily be interpreted ; and, in very fact, he gives it its accordant expression in every instance in which he speaks of it. There are especially three chief passages in which the apostle so fully expounds his fundamental teaching as to the relation of Salvation to the purpose of God, that they may fairly claim our primary attention. (a) The first of these—Ro 8*.*—emerges as part of the encouragement which the apostle offers to his readers in the sad state in which they find themselves in this world, afflicted with fears within and ſightings without. He reminds them that they are not left to their weakness, but the Spirit comes to their aid : ‘and we know,” adds the apostle, it is no matter of conjecture, but of assured knowledge, ‘that with them that love God, God co-operates with respect to all things for good, since they are indeed the called according to [His] purpose.” The appeal is obviously pri- marily to , the universal government of God : nothing takes place save by His direction, and even what seems to be grievous comes from the Rather's hand. Secondarily, the appeal is to the assured position of his readers within the fatherly care of God : they have not come into this blessed relation with God accidentally or by the force of their own choice ; they have been ‘ called ' into it by Himself, and that by no thoughtless, inad- vertent, meaningless, or changeable call ; it was a call “according to purpose,’ — where the anar- throusness of the noun throws stress on the pur- posiveness of the call. What has been denominated ‘the golden chain of salvation that is attached to this declaration by the particle ‘because ’ can therefore have no other end than more fully to develop and more firmly to ground the assurance thus quickened in the hearts of the readers: it accordingly enumerates the steps of the saving process in the purpose of God, and carries it thus successively through the stages of appropriating foreknowledge, –for ‘foreknow ' is undoubtedly used here in that pregnant sense we have already seen it to bear in similar connexions in NT, -pre- destination to conformity with the image of God’s Son, calling, justifying, glorifying ; all of which are cast in the past tense of a purpose in principle executed when formed, and are bound together as mutually implicative, so that, where one is present, all are in principle present with it. It accordingly follows that, in St. Paul's conception, glorifica- tion rests on justification, which in turn rests on vocation, while vocation comes only to those who had previously been predestinated to conformity with God’s Son, and this predestination to character and destiny only to those afore chosen by God’s loving regard. It is obviously a strict doctrine of redestination that is taught. This conclusion can |. avoided only by assigning a sense to the ‘fore- knowing’ that lies at the root of the whole process, which is certainly out of accord not merely with its ordinary import in similar connexions in the NT, nor merely with the context, but with the very ſºlº for which the declaration is made, namely, to enlıcarten the struggling saint by assuring him that he is not committed to his own power, or rather weakness, but is in the sure hands of the Almighty Father. It would seem little short of albsurd to hang on the merely con. templative foresight of God a declaration adduced to support the assertion that the lovers of God PREDESTINATION PREDESTINATION 59 are something deeper and ſiner than even lovers of God, namely, “the called according to purpose,” and itself educing the joyful cry, “If God is for us, who is against us?’ and grounding a conſident claim upon the gift of all things from His hands. (b) The even more famous section, Ro 9. 10. 11, following closely upon this strong affirmation of the suspension of the whole saving process on the predetermination of God, offers, on the face of it, a yet sharper assertion of predestination, raising it, moreover, out of the circle of the merely in- dividual salvation into the broader region of the historical development of the kingdom of God. The problem which St. Paul here faces grew so directly out of his fundamental doctrine of justi- fication by faith alone, with complete disregard of all question of merit or vested privilege, that it must have often forced itself upon his atten- tion, — himself a Jew with a i. estimate of a Jew’s privileges and a passionate love for his people. He could not but have pondered it fre- quently and deeply, and least of all could he have failed to give it treatment in an Epistle like this, which undertakes to provide a somewhat formal exposition of his wºol. doctrine of justification. Having shown the necessity of such a method of salvation as he proclaimed, if sinful men were to be saved at all (1*–3*), and then expounded its nature and evidence (3*–54), and afterwards discussed its intensive effects (6–8”), he could not fail further to explain its extensive effects—especially when they appeared to be of so portentous a character as to imply a reversal of what was widely believed to have been God’s mode of working heretofore, the rejection of His people whom He foreknew, and the substitution of the alien in their place. St. Paul’s solution of the problem is, briefly, that the situa- tion has been gravely misconceived by those who so represent it ; that nothing of the sort thus described has happened or will happen ; that what has happened is merely that in the consti- tution of that people whom He has chosen to Himself and is ñº. to His will, God has again exercised that sovereignty which He had previously often exercised, and which He had always expressly reserved to Himself and fre- quently proclaimed as the principle of His dealings with the people º of His choice. In his exposition of this solution St. Paul first defends the propriety of God’s action (9%), then turns to stop the mouth of the objecting Jew by exposing the manifested unfitness of the Jewish people for the kingdom (9°–10”), and finally expounds with great richness the ameliorating circumstances in the whole transaction (11”). In the course of his defence of God’s rejection of the mass of contemporary Israel, he sets forth the sovereignty of God in the whole matter of salvation—‘that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth’—with a sharpness of assertion and a clearness of illustration which leave nothing to be added in order to throw it out in the full strength of its conception. We are pointed illustratively to the sovereign acceptance of Isaac and rejection of Ishmael, and to the choice of Jacob and not of Esau before their birth and therefore before either had done good or bad ; we are explicitly told that in the matter of salva- tion it is not of him that wills, or of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy, and that has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens; we are pointedly directed to belold in God the botter who makes the vessels which proceed from His hand each for an end of His appointment, that He may work out His will upon them. It is safe to say that language cannot be chosen better adapted to teach predestination at its height. We are exhorted, indeed, not to read this language in isolation, “For manner and in the order that He will. but to remember that the ninth chapter must be interpreted in the light of the eleventh. Not to dwell on the equally im- E. consideration that the eleventh chapter must likewise be interpreted only in the light of the ninth, there seems here to exhibit itself some forgetfulness of the inherent continuity of St. Paul's thought, and, indeed, some misconception of the progress of the argument through the section, which is a compact whole and must express a much pondered line of thought, constantly present to the apostle's mind. We must not permit to fall out of sight the fact that the whole extremity of assertion of the ninth chapter is repeated in the eleventh (114-10); so that there is no change of conception or lapse of consecution observable as the argument develops, and we do not escape from the doctrine of predestination of the ninth chapter in fleeing to the eleventh. This is true even if we go at once to the great closing declaration of 1132, to which we are often directed as to the key of the whole section—which, indeed, it very much is: od hath shut up all unto disobedience, that he might. have mercy upon all.” On the face of it there could not readily be framed a more explicit assertion of the Divine control and the Divine initiative than this ; it is only another declaration that He has mercy on whom. He will have mercy, and after the - And it certainly is not possible to read it as a declaration of universal salvation, and thus reduce the whole preceding exposition to a mere tracing of the varying pathways along which the common I'ather leads each individual of the race severally to the common goal. Needless to point out that thus the whole argument would be stultifled, and the apostle convicted of gross exaggeration in tone and language where otherwise we find only impressive solemnity, rising at times into natural anguish. . It is enough to observe that the verse cannot bear this sense in its context, Nothing is clearer than that its purpose is not to minimise but to magnify the sense of absolute dependence on the Divine mercy, and to quicken apprehension of the mystery of God's righteously loving ways; and nothing is clearer than that the reference of the double “all” is exhausted by the two classes discussed in the immediate context, so that they are not to be taken individualistically but, so to speak, racially. The intrusion of the individualistic-universalistic sentiment, so dominant in the modern consciousness, into the interpretation of this section, indeed, is to throw the whole into inextricable confusion. Nothing could be further from the nationalistic- universalistic point of view from which it was written, and from which alone St. Paul can be understood when he represents that in rejecting the mass of º Jews God has not cast off His people, but, acting only as He had frequently done in former ages, is fulfilling His promise to the kernel while shelling off the husk. Throughout the whole process of pruning and in- grafting which he traces in the dealings of God with the olive- tree which He has once for all planted, St. Paul sees God, in accordance with His promise, saving His people. The continuity of its stream of life he perceives preserved throughout all its present experience of rejection (111-10); the gracious purpose of the present confinement of its channel, he traces with eager hand (1111-13); he predicts with conſidence the attainment in the end of the full breadth of the promise (1115.82), —all to the praise of the glory of God's grace (1198-30). There is un- doubtedly a universalism of salyation proclaimed here; but it is an eschatological, not an individualistic universalism. The day is certainly to come when the whole world—inclusive of all the Jews and Gentiles alike, then dwelling on the globe—shall know and serve the Lord ; and God in all His strange work of distributing salvation is leading the course of events to that great goal; but meanwhile the principle of His action, is free, sovereign grace, to which alone it is to be attributed that any who are saved in the meantime enter into their inheritance, and through which alone shall the final goal of the race itself be attained. The central thought of the whole discussion, in a word, is that Israel does not owe the promise to the fact that it is Israel, but conversely owes the fact that it is Israel to the promise, that “it is not the children of the flesh that are the children of God, but the children of the promise that are reckoned for a seed' (98). In these words we hold the real key to the whole section; and if we approach it with this key in hand we shall have little difficulty in apprehending that, from its beginning to its end, St. Paul has no higher object than to make clear that the inclusion of any individual within the kingdom of God finds its sole cause in the sovereign grace of the choosing God, and cannot in any way or degree depend upon his own merit, privilege, or act. Neither, with this lºey in our hand, will it be possible to raise a question whether the election here expounded is to eternal life or not rather merely to prior privilege or higher service. These too, no doubt, are included. 13ut by what right is this long section intruded here as a substantive part of this Epistle, busied as a whole with the exposition of ‘the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first and also to the Greek,” if it has no direct concern with this salvation? By what chance has it attached itself to that noble grounding of a Christian's hope and assurance with which the eighth chapter closes? By what course of thought does it reach its own culmination in that burst of praise to God, on whom all things depend, with which it concludes : By what accident is it itself filled with the most unequivocal references to the saving grace of God, ‘which hath been poured out on the vessels of his mercy which he afore prepared for glory, oven on us whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles’ ” If such language has no reference tc salvation, there is no language in the NT that need be inter preted of ſmal destiny. Beyond question this section does 60 PREDESTINATION PREDESTINATION explain to us some of the grounds of the mode of God's action in gathering a people to Himself out of the world ; and in doing this, it does reveal to us some of the ways in which the distribution of His electing grace serves the purposes of His kingdom on earth; reading it, we certainly do learn that God has many ends to serve in His gracious dealings with the children of men, and that we, in our #. of His multi- farious purposes, are not fitted to be His counsellors. But by all this, the fact is in no wise obscured that it is primarily to salvation that He calls His elect, and that whatever other ends their election may subserve, this fundamental end will never fail ; that in this, too, the #. and calling of God are not repented of, and will surely lead on to their goal. The dith- culty which is felt by some in following the apostle's argument here, we may suspect, has its roots in part in a shrinking from what appears to them an arbitrary assignment of men to diverse destinies without consideration of their desert. Cer- tainly St. Paul as explicitly affirms the sovereignty of repro- bation as of election,--if these twin ideas are, indeed, separable even in thought : if he represents God as sovereignly loving Jacob, he represents Him equally as sovereignly hating Esau; if he declares that IIe has mercy on whom He will, he equally declares that He hardens whom He will. IDoubtless the diffi- culty often felt here is, in part, an outgrowth of an insufficient realization of St. Paul's basal conception of the state of men at large as condemned sinners before an angry God. It is with a world of lost sinners that he is representing God as dealing ; and out of that world building up a Kingdom of Grace. Were not all men sinners, there might still be an election, as sove- reign as now ; and there being an election, there would still be as sovereign a rejection : but the rejection would not be a rejection to punishment, to destruction, to eternal death, but to some other destiny consonant to the state in which those passed by should be left. It is not indeed, then, because men are sinners that men are left unelected ; election is free, and its obverse of rejection must be equally free : but it is solely because men are sinners that what they are left to is destruc- tion. And it is in this universalism of ruin rather than in a universalism of salvation that St. Paul really roots his theodicy. When all deserve death it is a marvel of pure grace that any receive life; and who shall gainsay the right of Him who shows this miraculous mercy, to have mercy on whom He will, and whom He will to harden? (See REPROBATE). (c) In Eph 11-12 there is, if possible, an even higher note struck. Here, too, St. Paul is dealing primarily with the blessings bestowed on his readers, in Christ, all of which he ascribes to the free grace of God; but he so speaks of these blessings as to correlate the gracious purpose of God in Salvation, not merely with the plan of operation which He prosecutes in establishing and perfecting His kingdom on earth, but also with the all-embracing decree that underlies His total cosmical activity. In opening this circular letter, addressed to no particular community whose special circumstances might suggest the theme of the thanksgiving with which he customarily begins his letters, St. Paul is thrown back on what is common to Christians; and it is probably to this circumstance that we owe the magnificent descrip- tion of the salvation in Christ with which the Epistle opens, and in which this salvation is traced consecutively in its preparation (vy." "), its exe- cution (" "), its publication (*19), and its applica- tion (*), both to Jews (11.1%) and to Gentiles (19. 14). Thus, at all events, we have brought before us the whole ideal history of salvation in Christ from eternity to eternity—from the eternal pur- pose as it lay in the loving heart of the Father, to the eternal consummation, when all things in heaven and earth shall be summed up in Christ. Even the incredible profusion of the blessings which we receive in Christ, described with an accumulation of plurases that almost deſies exposi- tion, is less noticeable here than the emphasis and reiteration with which the apostle carries back their bestowment on us to that primal purpose of God in which all things are ãº. prepared ere they are set in the way of accomplishment. All this accumulation of blessings, he tells his readers, has come to them and him only in fulfilment of an eternal purpose—only because they had been chosen by God out of the mass of sinful men, in Christ, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before Him, and had been lovingly predestinated unto adoption through Jesus Christ to II im, in accordance with the good- bleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace. It is therefore, he further explains, that to them in the abundance of God’s grace there has been brought the knowledge of the salvation in Christ, described here as the know. ledge of the mystery of the Divine will, according to His good-pleasure, which He purposed in Him- self with reference to the dispensation of the ful- ness of the times, to sum up all things in the universe in Christ,-by º phrases the plan of salvation is clearly exhibited as but one element in the cosmical purpose of God. And thus it is, the apostle proceeds to explain, only in pursuance of this all-embracing cosmical purpose that Chris- tians, whether Jews or Gentiles, have been called into participation of these blessings, to the praise of the glory of God’s grace,—and of the former class, he pauses to assert anew that their call rests on a predestination according to the purpose of Him tº: works all things according to the counsel of His will. Throughout this elevated passage, the resources of language are strained to the utmost to give utterance to the depth and fervour of St. Paul’s conviction of the absoluteness of the dominion which the God, whom he describes as Him that works all things according to the counsel of His will, exercises over the entire universe, and of his sense of the all-inclusive perfection of the plan on which He is exercising His world-wide government—into which world-wide government His administration of His grace, in the Salvation of Christ, works as one element. Thus there is kept steadily before our eyes the wheel within wheel of the all-comprehending decree of God : first of all, the inclusive cosmical purpose in ac- cordance with which the universe is governed as it is led to its destined end ; within this, the purpose relative to the kingdom of God, a substantive part, and, in some sort, the hinge of the would- purpose itself; and still within this, the purpose of grace relative to the individual, by virtue of which he is called into the IYingdom and made sharer in its blessings: the common element with them all being that they are and come to pass only in accordance with the good-pleasure of His will, according to His purposed good - pleasure, according to the purpose of Him who works all things in accordance with the counsel of Ilis will ; and therefore all alike redound solely to His praise. In these outstanding passages, llowever, there are only expounded, though with º richness, ideas which govern the Pauline literature, and which come now and again to clear expression in each group of St. Paul's letters. . The whole doc- trine of election, for instance, lies as truly in the declaration of 2 Th 219 or that of 2 Ti 1" (cf., 2 Ti 2", T'it 3°) as in the passages we have considered from Romans (cf. 1 Co 1**) and I`phesians (cf. Eph 29, Col 173* **, I’ll 4°). It may be possible to trace minor distinctions through the several groups of letters in forms of statement or modes of re- lating the doctrine to other conceptions; but from the beginning to the end of St. Paul's activity as a Christian teacher his fundamental teaching as to the Christian calling and life is fairly summed up in the declaration that those that are saved are God’s ‘workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God afore prepared that they should walk in them ’ (Eph 2"). The most striking impression made upon us by a survey of the whole material is probably the intensity of St. Paul's practical interest in the doctrine—a matter fairly illustrated by the passage just quoted (lºph 210). Nothing is more rioticeable than his zeal in enforcing its two chief practical Contents—-the assurance it should bring to believers of their eternal safety in the faithful hands of God, and the ethical energy it should arouse within them to live worthily of their vocation. It is one of St. Paul's most persistent exhortations, that believers should remenber that their Salvation is not committed to their own weak hands, but rests Securely on the PREDESTINATION PREDESTINATION 61 faithfulness of the God who has called them according to His purpose (e.g. 1 Th 524, 1 Co 18ſ. 1013, Ph 10). Though the ºl. tion of their salvation begins in an act of faith on their own part, which is consequent on the hearing of the gospel, their appointment to salvation itself does not depend on this act of faith, nor on any ſltness discoverable in them on the fore- sight of which God's choice of them might be supposed to be based, but (as 1 Th 213 already indicates) both the Bººk of the gospel and the exercise of faith consistently appear as steps in the carrying out of an election not conditioned on their occurrence, but embracing them as means to the end set by the free purpose of God. The case is precisely the same with all subsequent acts of the Christian }. So far is St. Paul from supposing that election to life should operate to enervate moral endeavour, that it is precisely from the fact that the willing and doing of man rest on an energizing willing and doing of God, which in turn rest on His eternal purpose, that the apostle derives his most powerful and most frequently urged motive for ethical action. That tre- mendous ‘therefore,” with which at the opening of the twelfth chapter of Romans he passes from the doctrinal to the ethical part of the lºpistle, -from a doctrinal exposition the very heart of which is salvation by pure grace apart from all works, and which had just closed with the fullest discussion of the effects of election to be found in all his writings, to the rich exhorta- tions to high moral effort with which the closing chapters of this Epistle are filled,—may justly be taken as the normal illation of his whole ethical teaching. His Epistles, in fact, are Sown (as indeed is the whole NT) with particular instances of the same appeal (e.g. 1 Th 212, 2 Th 218-10, Ro 6, 2 Co 514, Col 110, Ph 121 212, 13, 2 Ti 210). In Ph 212, 13 it attains, per- haps, its sharpest expression : here the saint is exhorted to work out his own salvation with fear and trembling, just because it is God who is working in him both the willing and the doing because of His ‘good-pleasure'—obviously but another way of saying, “If God is for us, who can be against us?' There is certainly presented in this a problem for those who wish to º: in this matter with an irreconcilable ‘ either, or,’ and who can conceive of no freedom of man v-hich is under the Control of God. St. Paul's theism was, however, of too E. a quality to tolerate in the realm of creotion any force eyond the sway of Hin) who, as he says, S Cver all, and through all, and in all º 40), working all ºil ºr according to the counsel of His will (IEph 111). And it must be confessed that it is more facile than satisfactory to set his theistic world- view summarily aside as a ‘merely religious view,’ which stands in conflict with a truly ethical conception of the world—per- haps even with a repetition of Fritzsche's jibe that St. Paul would have reasoned better on the high themes of ‘fate, free- will, and providence had he sat at the feet of Aristotle rather than at those of Gamaliel. Antiquity produced, however, no ethical genius equal to St. Paul, and even as a teacher of the foundations of ethics Aristotle himself might well be content to sit rather at his feet ; and it does not at once appear why a so- called ‘religious’ conception may not have as valid a ground in human nature, and as valid a right to determine human con- viction, as a so-called “ethical' one. It can serve no good pur- pose even to proclaim an insoluble antinomy here ; such an antinomy St. Paul assuredly did not feel, as he urged the predestination of God not more as a ground of assurance of salvation than as the highest motive of moral effort ; and it does not seem impossible for even us weaker thinkers to follow him some little way at least in looking upon those twin bases of religion and morality—the ineradicalle feelings of dependence and responsibility—not as antagonistic sentiments of a hopelessly divided heart, but as fundamentally the same profound con- viction operating in a double sphere. . At all events, St. Paul's pure theistic view-point, which conceived God as in His provi- dential concursus working all things according to the counsel of His will (Eph 111) in entire consistency with the action of second causes, necessary and free, the proximate producers of events, supplied him with a very real point of departure for his conception of the same God, in the operations of His grace, working the willing and the doing of Christian men, without the least infringement of the integrity of the free determination by which each grace is proximately attained. It does not belong to our present task to expound the nature of that Divine act by which St. Paul represents God as ‘calling' sinners ‘into communion with his Son,' itself the ſlrst step in the realization in their lives of that conformity to II is image to which they are predestimated in the counsels of etermity, and of which the first manifestation is that faith in the lèedcenner of }od's olect, out of which the whole (Xhristian life unfolds. Let it only be observed in passing that he obviously conceives it as an act of God's almighty, power, removing old inabilities, and creating new abilitics of living, loving action. It is enough for our present purpose to perceive that even in this act St. Paul did not conceive God as dehumanizing man, but rather as energizing man in a new direction of his powers ; while in all his subsequent activities the analogy of the comcwºrsts of Provi- dence is express. In his own view, his strenuous assertion of the predetermination in God's purpose of all the acts of saint and sinner alike in the matter of salvation, by which the dis- crimination of men into saved and lost is carried back to the frce counsel of God's will, as little involves violence to the ethical spontaneity of their activities on the one side, as on the other it involves unrighteousness in God's dealings with II is creatures, lie does not speculatively discuss the methods of the Divine providence ; but the fact of its universality — over all beings and actions alike—-forms one of his most primary presuppositions ; and naturally he finds no difilculty in postu- lating the inclusion in the prior intention of God of what is subsequently evolved in the course of His providential govern- Iment. g v. THE BIBLE DOCTRINE OF PREDESTINATION. —A survey of the whole material thus cursorily brought before us exhibits the existence of a con- sistent Bible doctrine of predestination, which, because rooted in, and indeed only a logical out- come of, the fundamental Biblical theism, is taught in all its essential elements from the beginning of the Biblical revelation, and is only more fully un- folded in detail as the more developed religious consciousness and the course of the history of redemption required. The subject of the DECREE is uniformly conceived as God in the fulness of His moral personality. It is not to chance, nor to necessity, nor yet to an abstract or arbitrary will,—to God acting inad- vertently, inconsiderately, or by any necessity of nature, but specifically to the almighty, all-wise, all-holy, all-righteous, faithful, loving God, to the Pather of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, that is ascribed the predetermination of the course of events. Naturally, the contemplation of the plan in accordance with which all events come to pass calls out primarily a sense of the unsearchable wisdom of Him who framed it, and of the illimit- able power of Him who executes it ; and these attributes are accordingly much dwelt upon when the Divine predestination is adverted to. Ibut the moral attributes are no less emphasized, and the Biblical writers find their comfort continually in the assurance that it is the righteous, holy, faith- ful, loving God in whose hands rests the determina- tion of the sequence of events and all their issues. Just because it is the determination of God, and represents Him in all His fulness, the decree is ever set forth further as in its mature eternal, absolute, and immutable. And it is only an ex- plication of these qualities when it is further insisted upon, as it is throughout the Bible, that it is essentially one single composite purpose, into which are worked all the details included in it, each in its appropriate place; that it is the pure deter- mination of the Divine will—that is, not to be confounded on the one hand with an act of the I)ivine intellect on which it rests, nor on the other with its execution by His power in the works of creation and providence ; that it is free and un- ..". is, not the product of compulsion from without nor of necessity of nature from within, nor based or conditioned on any occur. rence outside itself, foreseen or unforeseen ; and that it is certainly efficacious, or rather constitutes the unchanging norm according to which He who is the King over all administers His government over the universe. Nor is it to pass beyond the necessary implications of the fundamental idea when it is further taught, as it is always taught throughout the Scriptures, that the object of the decree is the whole universe of things and all their activities, so that nothing comes to pass, whether in the sphere of necessary or free causation, whether good or bad, save in accordance with the provisions of the primal plan, or more precisely save as the outworking in fact of what |. lain in the Divine mind as purpose from all eternity, and is now only ºil. into actuality as the fulfilment of His all-determining will. Finally, it is equally unvaryingly represented that the end which the decreeing (iod had in view in framing His purpose is to be sought not without but within Himself, and may be shortly declared as His own praise, or, as we now commonly say, the glory of God. Since it antedates the existence of all things outside of God and provides for their coming into being, they all without excep, tion nºist be ranked as means to its end, which 62 PREDESTINATION PREDESTINATION can be discovered only in the glory of the Divine purposer Himself. The whole Bible doctrine of the decree revolves, in a word, around the simple idea of purpose. . Since God is a Person, the very mark of His being is purpose. Since He is an infinite Person, His purpose is eternal and inde- pendent, all-inclusive and effective. Since He is a moral Person, His purpose is the perfect exposition of all His infinite moral perfections. Since He is the personal creator of all that exists, His purpose can find its final cause only in Himself. Against this general doctrine of the decree, the I}ible doctrine of ELECTION is thrown out into special prominence, being, as it is, only a particular application of the general doctrine of the decree to the matter of the dealings of God with a sinful race. In its fundamental characteristics it there- fore partakes of all the elements of the general doctrine of the decree. It, too, is necessarily an act of God in His completeness as an infinite moral Person, and is therefore eternal, absolute, immutable—the independent, free, unconditional, effective determination by the Divine will of the objects of His saving operations. In the develop- ment of the idea, however, there are certain elements which receive a special stress. There is nothing that is more constantly emphasized than the absolute sovereignty of the elective choice. The very essence of the doctrine is made, indeed, to consist in the fact that, in the whole administra- tion of His grace, God is moved by no considera- tion derived from the special recipients of His saving mercy, but the entire account of its distri- bution is to be found hidden in the free counsels of His own will. That it is not of him that runs, nor of him that wills, but of God that shows mercy, that the sinner obtains salvation, is the stead- fast witness of the whole body of Scripture, urged with such reiteration and in such varied con- nexions as to exclude the possibility that there may lurk behind the act of election considerations of foreseen characters or acts or circumstances— all of which appear rather as results of election as wrought out in fact by the providentia special- issima of the electing God. It is with no less constancy of emphasis that the roots of the Divine election are planted in His unsearchable love, by which it appears as the supreme act of grace. Con- templation of the general plan of God, including in its provisions every event which comes to pass in the whole universe of being during all the ages, must redound in the first instance to the praise of the inſinite wisdom which has devised it al ; Or aS our appreciation of its provisions is deepened, of the glorious righteousness by which it is informed. Contemplation of the particular element in His pur- pose which provides for the rescue of lost sinners from the destruction due to their guilt, and their restoration to right and to God, on the other hand draws our thoughts at once to His inconceivable love, and must redound, as the Scriptures delight to phrase it, to the praise of His glorious grace. It is ever, therefore, specifically to the love of God that the Scriptures ascribe His elective decree, and they are never weary of raising our eyes from the act itself to its source in the Divine com- passion. A similar emphasis is also everywhere east on the particularity of the Divine election. So little is it the designation of a mere class to be ſilled up by undetermined individuals in the exercise of their own determination ; or of mere conditions, or characters, or qualities, to be fulfilled or attained by the undetermined activities of in- dividuals, foreseen or unforeseen ; that the I3iblical writers take special pains to carry home to the heart of each individual believer the assurance that he himself has been from all eternity the particular object of the Divine choice, and that he owes it to this I)ivine choice alone that he is a member of the class of the chosen ones, that he is able to fulfil the conditions of salvation, that he can hope to attain the character on which alone God can look with complacency, that he can look forward to an eternity of bliss as his own posses- sion. It is the very nerve of the Biblical doctrine that each individual of that enormous multitude that constitutes the great host of the people of God, and that is illustrating the character of Christ in the new life now lived in the strength of the Son of God, has from all eternity been the particular object of the Divine regard, and is only now fulfilling the ligh destiny uesigned for him from the foundation of the world. The Biblical writers are as far as possible from obscuring the doctrine of election because of any seemingly unpleasant corollaries that flow from it. On the contrary, they expressly draw the corollaries which lave often been so designated, and make them a part of their explicit teaching. Their doctrine of election, they are free to tºli us, for example, does certainly involve a corre- sponding doctrine of preterition. The very term adopted in NT to express it—ék\éyouaw, which, as Meyer justly says (Eph 1”), “always has, and must of logical necessity have, a reference to others to whom the chosen would, without the €k\oyń, still belong’—embodies a declaration of the fact that in their election others are ſº by and left without the gift of salvation ; the whole pre- sentation of the doctrine is such as either to imply or openly to assert, on its every emergence, the removal of the elect by the pure grace of God, not merely from a state of condemnation, but out of the company of the condem:1ed—a company on whom the grace of God has no saving effect, and who are therefore left without hope in their sins; and the positive just reprobation of the impenitent for their sins is repeatedly explicitly taught in sharp con- trast with the gratuitous salvation of the elect despite their sins. But, on the other hand, it is ever taught that, as the body out of which believers are chosen by God’s unsearchable grace is the mass of justly condemned sinners, so the destruction to which those that are passed by are left is the righteous recompense of their guilt. Thus the discrimination between men in the matter of eternal destiny is distinctly set forth as taking place in the interests of mercy and for the sake of salvation : from tile fate which justly luangs over all, God is represented as in His infinite compassion rescuing those chosen to this eud in His inscrutable counsels of mercy to the praise of the glory of His grace ; while those that are left in their sins perish most deservedly, as the justice of God demands. And as the broader lines of God's gracious dealings with the world lying in its iniquity are more and more fully drawn for us, we are enabled ultimately to per- ceive that the Father of spirits has not distributed His elective grace with niggard hand, but from the beginning has had in view the restoration to Him- self of the whole world ; and through whatever slow approaches (as men count slowness) He has made ..". in the segregation of the Jews for the keeping of the service of God alive in the midst of an evil world, and then in their rejection in order that the fulness of the Gentiles might be gathered in, and finally through them Israel in turn may all be saved—has ever been conducting the world in His loving wisdom and II is wise love to its destined goal of salvation, -- now and again, indeed, shutting up this or that element of it unto disobedience, but never merely in order that it might fall, but that in the end He might have nuercy upon all. Thus the 13iblical writers bid us raise our eyes, not only from the justly condemned PREDICTION PREPARATION DAY 63 lost, that we may with deeper feeling contemplate the marvels of the Divine love in the saving of sinners no better than they and with no greater claims on the Divine mercy : but from the rela- tively insignificant body of the lost, as but the prunings gathered beneath the branches of the olive-tree planted by the Lord's own hand, to ſix them on the thrifty stock itself and the crown of luxuriant leafage and ever more richly ripening fruit, as under the loving pruning and grafting of the great Husbandman it grows and flourishes and §§ forth its boughs until it shall shade the whole earth. the end of election ; and this is nothing other than the Salvation of the world. Though in the process of the ages the goal is not attained without prun- ings and ſires of burning, though all the wild-olive twigs are not throughout the centuries grafted in, —yet the goal of a saved world shall at the end be gloriously realized. Meanwhile, the hope of the world, the hope of the Church, and the liope of the individual .. is cast solely on the mercy of a freely electing God, in whose hands are all things, and not least the care of the advance of His saving grace in the world. And it is undeniable that whenever, as the years have passed by, the currents of religious feeling have run deep, and the higher ascents of religious thinking have been scaled, it has ever been on the free might of Divine grace that Christians have been found to cast their hopes for the salvation alike of the world, the Church, and the individual ; and whenever they have thus turned in trust to the pure grace of God, they have spontaneously given expression to their faith in terms of the Divine election. See also ELECTION, REPROBATE, WILL. LITERATURE.-The Biblical material can best be surveyed with the help of the Lexicons on the terms employed (esp. Crenner), the commentaries on the passages, and the sections in the several treatises on Biblical Theology dealing with this and cognate themes; among these last, the works of Dillmann on the OT, and Holtzmann on the NT, may be especially profitably consulted. The Pauline doctrine has, in particular, been made the subject of almost endless discussion, chiefly, it must be confessed, wizh the object of softening its outlines or of explaining it more or loss away. Perhaps the following are the more important recent treatises:—Poelman, de Jesu, Apostolorwºnque, Pauli ordesertiºn, doctrinſt de praedestimatione divina et morali vominis libertate, Gron. IS51 ; Weiss, ‘Predestinationslehre des Ap. Paul,’ in Jahrbb. f. D. Theol. 1857, p. 54 f.; Lamping, Pauli de provdestinatione decretorwºn emºtºratio, Leov. 1858; Goens, Le rôle de la liberté humniſtine dams la pì'édestimation Pawlimienne, Lausanne, 1884; Ménégoz, Lºt prédestimation dams la théologie Paulinienne, Paris, 1885; Dalmer, “Zur Paulinischen Erwählungslehre,” in Greifswälder Studien, Gütersloh, 1895, The publication of Karl Müller's valuable treatise on Die Göttliche Zuvoren'sehwng wnd Iºrwählatºnſ, etc. (IIalle, 1892), has called out a new literature on the section Ro 0–11, the most important items in which are probably the reprint of Beyschlag's Die Paulinische Théodicee (1S)6, first published in 1868), and Dalmer, Die Erwählung Israels mach der Heilsver- kündigwng des Ap. Paul. (Gütersloh, 1894), and I(uhl, “Zur Paulinischen Theodicee,” in the Theologische Studiem, presented to B. Weiss (Göttingen, 1897). But of these only Goens recog- nizes the double predestination ; even Müller, whose treatise is otherwise of the first value, argues against it, and so does Dalmer in his very interesting discussions; the others are still less in accordance with their text º the valuable critical note on the recent literature in Holtzmann's NT" Theologie, ii. 171-174). 1)iscussions of the doctrine of post-Canonical Judaism may be found in Hamburger, Real-Encyc. ii. 102 f., art. ‘Bestimumung'; Weber, Jºid. Theol. 148 ft., 205 ft, ; Schürer, IIJP 11, ii. 14 f. (cf. b. 2 f., where the passages from Josephus are collected); Kačić. Life ind Times of Jesus, i. 310 ft., art. “Philo' in Sumith and Wace, 383a, and Speak. Com. on Ecclesiasticus, pp. 14, 16 ; löyle and James, Psalms of Solomon on 97 and Introd. ; Montet, Origines des partis sadvºcêem et pharisien, 258 f.; Holtzmann, NT" Theologie, i. 32, 55 ; P. J. Muller, De Godsleer der middeleeuwische Jodem, Gromingen, 1808; further literature is given in Schürer.—lºor post-Canonical Christian discussion, see the literature at the end of art. JºllºCTION in the present work, vol. i. p. 681. B. B. WARFIELD. PREDICTION.—See PROPHECY, p. 120 f. PRE-EXISTENCE OF SOULS.—The only hint in N'T of a belief in the existence of human souls prior This, according to the 13iblical writers, is to birth is in Jn 9”, where the disciples of Jesus put the question, ‘Rabbi, who did sin, this mºn, or his parents, that he should be born blind 2’ The primáfagić interpretation of this passage certainly is that the disciples believed it possible that the Soul of this man had sinned before the man was born. Many commentators, as, e.g., Dr. David Brown, hold this to be untenable, because “the Jews did not believe in the pre-existence of souls.” If by this is meant that this belief did not form part of the older Jewish religion, that would be correct, for the tenor of OT teaching is distinctly traducian. In Gn 27 we are taught that the soul of the first man was due to the Divine in-breathing; and Gn 5° tells that ‘Adam begat a son, after his image.’ But to affirm that Jews in Christ's time did not believe in pre-existence, is simply inaccu- rate. The disciples of Jesus had at all events Some points of aflinity with, the Essenes; and Josephus expressly states that the Essenes believe that the Souls of men are immortal, and dwell in the subtlest ether, but, being drawn down by physical passion, they are united with bodies, as it were in prisons (BJ II. viii. 11). In Wis 811 the doctrine is clearly taught : “A good soul fell to my lot : may rather, being good I came into a body that was undefiled.’ Philo also believed in a realm of incorporeal souls, which may be arranged in two ranks: some have descended into mortal bodies and been released after a time ; others have main- tained their purity, and kept aloft close to the ether itself (Drummond, Philo Judaeus, i. 336). In the Talmud and Midrash, pre-existence is con- stantly taught. The abode of souls is called Guph, or the Treasury (nºis), where they have dwelt since they were created in the beginning. The angel Lilith receives instruction from God as to which soul shall inhabit each body. The soul is taken to heaven and then to hell, and afterwards enters the womb and vivifies the foetus. (Weber, Lehrem des Talmud, 204, 217 ff. [Jüd. Theologie auf Grºtºnd des Talmud”, etc. 212, 225 ft.]). Whence did Judaism derive a creed so much at variance with its earlier faith ? Most probably from Plato. There are some scholars, however, who find support for the doctrine even in the OT: e.g. Job 1" ‘Naked came I from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither.” To find pre-existence here, one must suppose the mother's womb to be the abode of souls, and “ I” to be the naked soul, , Sir 40' seems to be explaining the word ‘thither’ in Job 19, when it says, “Great travail is created for every man, from the day they go forth from their mother’s womb to the day of their return to the mother of all living.’ Again, in PS 139** some scholars find an account of the origin, first, of the body, then of the soul : ‘Thou hast woven me in the womb of my mother. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was formed in the secret place, when I was wrought in the deeps of the earth.” Since the doctrine of pre-oxistence is not in the line of Revelation, most divines are reluctant to admit that it is taught in these passages. Dr. Davidson on Job 1" says, ‘The words “my mother's womb' must be taken literally; and “return thither ” somewhat in- exactly, to describe a condition sinuilar to that which preceded entrance upon life and light.” And as for Ps 139”, Oehler, j. and Schultz pre- fer to interpret it of the formation of the body in a place as dark and mysterious as the depths of the earth. The passage in Jn 9” simply represents the earlier creed of the disciples. There is no evidence that it formed part of their mature Christian faith. J. T. MARSHALL. PREPARATION DAY (h trapaakevº). — In the Gospels the day on w!"ich Christ died is called ‘the 64 PRESBYTER PRESENTH. Y Preparation” (Mt 27°, Mk 15*, Jn 1991), ‘the day of (the) Preparation’ (Lk 23*), ‘the Jews' Prepara- tion (day).” (Jn 19°), ‘the Preparation of the pass- over’ (Jn 1924). In Mk and Lk it is further defined by the clauses, ‘that is, the day before the Sabbath' (tpoord&Barov), and ‘the Sabbath drew on.’ ‘The Preparation’ therefore appears to have been the regular name for the sixth day of the week as ‘Sabbath” was for the seventh. This is confirmed by Jos. (Ant., XVI. vi. 2), where it is said that Augustus relieved the Jews from certain legal duties on the Sabbath and on ‘the Preparation which preceded , it from the ninth hour.' ... In Jth 8° mention is made of trpoad S3ara as well as orá68ara, and also of trpovovumviat (day preceding the festival of new moon); cf. also the LXX in Ps 92 (93) title: els thv huépav roſ, trpora&Bátov. In the Talm. also the sixth day is called Nººng, (evening), and the same word is used in the Syriac Gospels ('dirtbhtá); while, in ecclesiastical writers beginning with the Teaching of the Apostles (viii.), Tapaokevi) is the regular name for Friday, as it still is in modern Greek. The title naturally arose from the need of preparing food, etc., for the Sabbath (see SABBATH). It was apparently applied first to the afternoon of the sixth day and after- wards to the whole day. The phraseology in Jn 19” (“it was the Prepara- tion of the Passover’) is, however, held by many expositors to indicate that by this term St. John meant the preparation for the paschal feast, i.e. Nisan 14. Some conclude that he used the term differently from the Synoptists, and as equivalent to the rabbinic rippſ Hºy (passover-eve); this being part of the alleged difference between him and them as to the date of Christ's death. Westcott (Introd. to Gosp. 1875, p. 339), on the other hand, argues that the Synoptists also meant ‘preparation for the passover.” But the latter view forces their language, and St. John's phrase may properly mean ‘the Preparation (day) of the paschal feast,’ i.e. the Friday of passover-week. This is made the more probable by the Synoptists’ use of it, and by its appearance, as the name for Friday, in so early a work as The Teaching of the Apostles. Its use in Jn 19” ” also best accords with this interpretation. G. T. PURVES. PRESBYTER.—See BISHOP, CHURCH GOVERN- MENT, and following article. PRESBYTERY (irpeggvréptov).—The Gr. word is used in NT for the Jewish Sanhedrin (Llº 22", Ac 225). See SANHEDRIN. It also occurs once where the connexion shows that it refers to the body of elders in a church, Timothy receiving a spiritual gift through the imposition of the hands of the presbytery (1 Ti 4”). This implies a certain cor- porate unity in the collective action of the elders. Wherever the eldership appears in NT there is a plurality of elders. e have no means of dis- covering how many there were in each presbytery. The only numerical reference to the subject in NT is descriptive of the heavenly presbytery (Rev 4” etc.), where the number “twenty - four’ is evidently mystical, referring perhaps to the double of the “twelve,” which is drawn from the twelve tribes of Israel, or the twelve patriarchs together with the twelve apostles, or to the twenty-four courses of the priests (Simcox, Rev. p. 31). Probably the number would vary according to the size of the church, as the number of elders in a synagogue varied accord- ing to the population of Jews in its locality. We have no evidence that in the earliest times there was a presbytery in every church. The references to discipline in IRomans, Galatians, and esp. in 1 and 2 Corinthians, show that if presby- teries existed in the churches addressed they were not very prominent or powerful. The silence of =º ºmºmºmº St. Paul on the subject suggests the inference that at Corinth, at all events, and possibly also else- where, no presbytery had yet E. formed. On the South-Galatian theory, however, Ac 14” would indicate that there must have been elders in the churches to which the Ep. to Gal. was sent. At first the presbytery was almost, if not entirely, con. fined to Jewish churches (Hatch in Dict. Chº. Amt. art. ‘Priest,’ p. 1699 f.). Still the title trpeggūrepos and the organization of local government in Gr. cities, still more the use of this title in religious guilds, must have prepared for the acceptance of a bresbytery in Gentile circles of Christians (Löning, ie Gemeindeverfassung, p. 9). Even among the Jews, however, it does not appear that there were elders in connexion with every synagogue (Schürer, II.JP II. ii. 27). It is reasonable, therefore, to con- clude that at first the organization of a presbytery proceeded more rapidly in some churches than in others. In teaching, of course, the presbyters would have acted separately according to their individual gifts and opportunities. It would be in government and ... that the corporate presbytery discharged its principal functions. These appear to have been the chief functions of the presbyters, as they are the most frequently º to. It was not every elder who undertook the work of teaching (1 Ti 517); but there is no indication that any of the elders were excepted from the duty of ruling. The function of exercising a general oversight of their church is implied in the use of the words étruokotretv (1 P 5in.) . étrio Koirſ (Clem. Rom. 1st Ep. xliv. 1) for the duties of elders. At Jerusalem the pres- bytery served as a board of church finance, the contributions for the poor being delivered into the hands ‘of the elders’ (Ac ll”). These elders acted jointly at the ‘Jerusalem council,’ where they appear associated with the apostles—“the apostles and the elders, with the whole church’ (Ac 1522). The reference to the ordination of Timothy shows that in performing that function the elders acted in concert (1 Ti 4*). The analogy of the synagogue would suggest that in the dis- charge of their administrative and judicial functions the presbyters were united into a council, corre- sponding to the local Jewish avvéóptov. We have no account of the way in which they came to a decision. The precedent of the Sanhedrin would suggest that d; would discuss questions and decide by vote. There is no indication that there was ever a serious discord in a presbytery during NT times. The question of the presidentship in the primitive presbytery is most obscure. St. James is president of the church at Jerusalem; but his case is altogether exceptional. As the brother of Jesus, he seems to have had a persºnal pre-eminence given to him. It does not appear that he was a presbyter. No similar pre-eminence is seen in any other church. The apostles, when they visit a church, naturally take the lead. But that is only temporary. The emergence of one elder over the lead of his brethren with the ex- clusive use of the name ‘bishop,” which was previously given to a plurality, if not to the Whole, of the elders, is not found in NT, nor does it appear before the 2nd cent. In the NT the pres: bytery seems to consist of a body of elders of equal rank. See ISISHOP, CHURCH, CHURCH GOVERNMENT, ELDER. W. F. ADENEY. PRESENT.-See GIFT. PRESENTLY in AV always means ‘at once’ instead of, as now, soon, but not at once.’ It occurs in 1 S 2)" (nº, AV m ‘as on the day,’ RVm ‘first '); Prl2)" (py?, AV m ‘in that day,’ 18W in ‘openly’); Sir 91° (no Greek, l{V omits) : Mt. 21” PRESIDENT PREVENT (trapaxpāua, RW ‘immediately ’); 26*. (Trapaa’rīget pot, AV ‘will presently give me,’ RV ‘will even now send me’); Ph 2* (éâavrºs, RV ‘forthwith '). In the same sense it is used also in the Preface to AV, as “Neither were we barred or hindered from oing over it again, having once done it, like Saint Hierome, if that be true which himself reporteth, that he could no sooner write anything, but presently it was caught from him and published, and he could not have leave to mend it.” Cf. Fuller, Holy Warre, 178, “The Dominicanes and Franciscanes . . . were no sooner hatched in the world, but presently chirped in the pulpits’; and Holy State, 14, “Base is . nature who . . . will let go none of their goods, as if it presaged their ..". death ; whereas it doth not follow that he that puts off his cloke must presently go to bed.’ J. HASTINGS. PRESIDENT occurs in EV only in Dn 6%. 3, 4, 6, 7, as trº of ThD (only in plur. Jºnº, emphat. Rºnº), which is probably a loanword from some Persian derivative of sar ‘head,” and thus=' chief’ (Prince, Dan. p. 234). Daniel is said to have been one of the three ‘presidents’ who were set by Darius over the 120 satraps of his empire. Theod. renders in the above passage by Taktukol except in v.7, where he has a Tpatmºyol; LXX by hyotſuevot in v.”, where alone the term is directly translated. PRESS (Öx\os) is used for a crowd in Mk 24 527.89, Lk 81° 198; RV always ‘crowd.” Cf. Jn 513, Tind., ‘Iesus had gotten him selfe awaye, because that ther was preace of people in the place”; Elyot, Govermour, ii. 292, “Such noble courage was in great kynge Alexander, that in hys warres agayne 1)arius, he was sene of all hys people fightynge in the prease of his enemyes bare heded '; and Spenser, I'Q I. iii. 3— ‘Yet she most faithfull ladie all this while Forsaken, wofull, solitarie mayd, Far from all peoples preace, as in exile, In wildernesse and wastfull deserts strayd, To seeke her knight.” The verb to press is used in the same sense: Gn 19° “They pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door’ (cºs; insp; ; but in v.” AV ‘press upon,’ RV “urge,’ and in 33" AV and RV “urge,’ the same word is used figuratively); 2 Mac 14” “Be careful for . . . our nation which is pressed on every side' (rod treptio rapiévov yewovs huôv, RV “our race, which is surrounded by foes,’ RVm “is hardly bestead”); Mk 3" “Insomuch that they pressed upon him for to touch him (Öate étit! Trew at rig, AVnn “rushed upon him,” RWm “fell upon him ); Lk 5", “As the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God’ (év tº Tóv 8XXov étruketo 6al attº); 8” “The multitude throng thee and press thee' (ol 8x\ot avvéxovoi are kai étrot)\lbovoſt, I&V ‘the multitudes press thee and crush thee'). From this it is easy to pass to the sense of urgent endeavour, as Lk 16" “Since that time the king- dom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it’ (Trás els at Tiju Buděerat, IRV “every man entereth violently into it’); and Ph 3* “I press toward the mark’ (katū a kotov Štúkw, RW ‘I press on toward the goal'). In Ac 18” we have an application of the same meaning, but more figura- tive : “Paul was pressed in the spirit and testified’ (a vuely ero Tºp Trvetuatl, edd. T6 X&Y9, RV “was con- strained by the word'). Cf. Lv 2117 Tind. “No man of thi seed in their generacions that hath any deformyte apon him, shall prese for to offer the bred of his God’; Lk 147 Tind. ‘He put forthe a similitude to the gestes, when he marked how they preased to the hyest rounes’; Holland, Mar- cellinus, p. 70 (ed. 1609), “Whiles the barbarous anemies preassed on all in plumpes and heapes.’ J. HASTINGS. VOL. IV.-5 PRESS, PRESSFAT-see FAT and WINE. PREVENT.—This word is more frequently used in AV than in any previous version. It does not occur in Wyclif, and in Tindale but rarely. The AV was translated at the time of its greatest popularity. Its meaning is, after the Lat. prae- venire and the Fr. prévenir, “to be before,” “to anticipate.” Very often the word has practically the opposite of its modern meaning. In a note to Jn 31* the Rhemish translators say, ‘The obstinate Heretike is condemned by his owne judgement, preventing in him self, of his owne free wil, the sentence both of Christ and of the Church.” The Heb. verb so translated in AV is always [pºp], chiefly in the Piel, twice (Job 41*, Am 9") in the Hiphil. The Greek verbs are ptávio (Wis 476*16*, 1 Th 41°), or irpop0ávo (1 Mac 10°, Mt. 17”), and once trpokaraXappava (1 Mac 6”). 1. To be before, anticipate: Ps 88” “In the morning shall my prayer prevent thee’ (LXX Tpop0áost ae, Vulg. praeveniet te, Cov. “cometh my prayer before thee,” Perowne ‘cometh to meet thee,” RV as Cov. ‘shall come before thee'); 11917. 14* “I prevented the dawning of the morning and cried'. . . ‘mine eyes prevent the night watches’ (LXX irpoépôaorév ue . . . trpoéq,0ao'av ot Öq6a)\plot pov, Vulg. prayveni in maturitate . . . praevemerunt oculi mei, Purvey ‘ I befor cam in ripenesse . . . . myn eyen befor camen to thee ful eerli,’ Cov. “Early in the mornynge do I crie unto the . . . myne eyes prevente the night watches,’ Cheyne ‘I forestalled the daylight and cried for help . . . mine eyes outgo the night watches,’ de Witt ‘ I am up before dawn . . . mine eyes forestall every watch in the night’); Wis 47 ‘Though the righteous be prevented with death, yet shall he be in rest’ (éâv p640 m TeXévrija'at, Vulg. si morte praoccupatus fuerit, Cov. “be overtaken with death,’ Gen. “be prevented with death,’ RV ‘though he die before his time ’); 6”“She [Wisdom] preventeth them that desire her, in making herself first known unto them ’ (‘p0ável toys étribuprojvtas Tpoyva,00%uat, Vulg. Pra-occupat gºti se concupiscºnt, wt illis se prior ostendat, Cov. “She preventeth them that desyre her,’ It V “She forestalleth them that desire to know her’); 16” “We must prevent the sun to give thee thanks’ (Öet p0ávely rôv #\tov, Vulg. oportet pravenire solem, Gen. “We oght to prevente the sunne rising to give thankes. unto thee,” RV ‘We must rise before the sun to give thee thanks’); Mt. 17” “When he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon 2' (Trpoéq,0ao'ev at Töv Ó "Imoroús, Vulg. praeremit cwm. Iesus, Wyc. ‘Jhesus came bifore hym,” Tind. ‘Iesus spake fyrst to him,” Cov. “Iesus prevented him,”. RV as Tind. “Jesus spake first to him '); 1 Th 4” “We which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep’ (§rt . . . ot, pi) q,040 (opew toys Kotº)0évras, Vulg. mom praveniemºts eos qui dormicrunt, Wyc. ‘schulen nct come bifore hem that slepten,” Tind. ‘shall not come yerre they which º Gen. ‘shal not prevent them which slepe’; I'V ‘shall in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep ’). The following quotations illustrate this first meaning :- Udall, Erasmus' Paraphrase, fol. vii., “the Gentyles that wer far of do prevente the Jewes which wer thought to be next unto God'; II all, Contemplattions, ii. 122, “When he was upon the sea of Tiberius . . . they followed him so fast on foot that they prevented his landing'; North's Plutarch, 879, ‘The con- spirators, having prevented this danger, saved themselves’; Mk 148 khem. “She luth prevented to anoint my body to the burial'; Milton, IIymn on the Nativity— - ‘Sce how from far upon the eastern rode The star-led Wizards haste with Odours sweet () run, prevent, them with thy humble ode, And lay it lowly at his blessed feet ; IIave thou the honour first thy Lord to greet.” 66 PREVENT PREY 2. To anticipate for one's good: Job 4lli “Who hath prevented me that I should repay him 2’ (nºws, "Jºhn "n," Vulg. Qwis ante dedit mihi wº weddam ei ?, Cov. “Who hath geven me eny thynge afore hande, that I am bounde to rewarde him agayne 3’ RV ‘Who hath first given unto me, that I should repay him ''); Ps 21”. “Thou preventest him with the blessings of goodness’ (LXX Tpoép- 6ao as atröv čv et Noylats xpmotörmros, Vulg. praevenisti entºm in benedictionibus dulcedºnis; Wyo. ‘ thou wentist beform him in blessingus of sweetnesse,' Cov. ‘ thou hast prevented him with liberall bless- inges’); 59" ‘The God of my mercy shall prevent me’ (LXX 6 6.e5s pov, to éNeos attoſ, trpop64 get ple, Vulg. Dews ments, misericordia ejus prayveniet me, Gen. “My merciful God will prevent me’; Perowne, “My God with his loving kindness shall come to meet me’); 79° ‘Let thy tender mercies speedily prevent us’ (LXX taxi trpokaraXagérwo-av huās ot oix reupºol orov, Vulg. cito anticipient mos misericordia: swap, Gen. ‘Make haste and let thy tender mercies prevent us,’ de Witt ‘Let thy mercies with speed come to meet us’); Is 21”. “They prevented with their bread him that fled? (IXX diprots ovvavräte Tots ºpečyovo.uv, Vulg. cum panibus occurrite fugienti, Wyc. “With loeves agencometh to the fleende,’ Purvey ‘Renne ye with looves to hym that fleeth'; Cov. “Meet those with bread that are fled,’ Gen. ‘Prevent him that fleeth with his bread,” Cheyne “With his bread meet the fugitive,’ Skinner “Meet the fugitive with bread [suitable] for him '; BV ‘The inhabitants of Tema, did meet the fugitives with their bread’ſso Dt 23*AWitself for same Heb.]). Illustrations of this meaning are : Pr. Bk. (1540) End of Communion, “Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings with thy most gracious favour'; Art. Y. “We have no power to do good workes pleasaunt and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christe preventyng us'; Archbishop Hamilton's Catechism, fol. xvii, ‘We prevenit nocht God with our lufe, luffand him ſirst, bot he prevenit us first with his lufe’; Udall, Erasmus' Paraphrase, fol. xcvii, ‘Whereas the gospell of my death shall bee preached throughout all the worlde, this woman also shall be mencioned, whiche, with a godly and an holy ducty hath prevented my sepulture and buriall’; Hall, Works, 406, ‘He whose goodnesse is wont to revent our desires will not give denialls to our in portunities’; o 1210 Rhem. “With honour preventing one another.’ 3. To get before or forestall so as to hinder: 2 S 229 || Ps 18% ‘The snares of death prevented me’ (LXX irpoép0aorév peak)\mpórmres [Ps 18° Traylöes] 0avárov, Vulg. prayvenerunt [Ps 18% praeoccupawer- wnt] one laquei mortis, Wyc. “There wenten before me the gnaris of deth,” Dou. ‘The snares of death have prevented me,’ RV ‘The snares of death came upon me'); 22" | Ps 1818 “They prevented me in the day of my calamity’ (LXX irpoéq,0aadv pe huépat 0\{\eds pov [Ps 18” &v huépg kakdºore&s pov), Vulg. Praevenit [Ps 18% prayvenerumt] me in die affliction is meas, Cov. in Ps 18” “They prevented me in the tyme of my trouble,” Cheyne [“Parch- ment’ ed.]. “They surprised me in the day of my calamity,” RV “They came upon me in the day of my calamity’); Job 3% ‘Why did the knees prevent me?’ (LXX &va rí óē avvávrmadu got rà ‘Yºvara ; Vulg. Quare eaceptus genibus 3 Gen. “Why did the knees prevent me?’ It V “Why did the knees receive me?”) ; 30” “The days of affliction prevented me’ (LXX trpoép0aorév pe juépat Traxias, Vulg. prayveneratint me dies afflictionis, Cov. “The dayes of my trouble are come upon me,” Dou. ‘'The dayes of aſiliction llave prevented me,’ RV ‘Days of affliction are come upon me'); Am 9" “The evil shall not overtake nor prevent us' (LXX ot, ph Čyytom owäé Mi, Yéumrat ép’ huàs Tā Kaká, Vulg. non veniet super mos malwm., Driver ‘come in front about us”); 1 Mac 6-7 “If thou dost not prevent them quickly, they will do greater things * The LXX is diſferent, rſs & wºrld-Tzors roºf wo, 22) ºrozavšī; St. Paul therefore is nearer to the Heb. than to the LXX in Ro 1133 A. t - *& 7/3 apotºozév 2014, 22, & 972 rooot!” orazoº, cºró; ; than these' (éâu gº ºrpokaraXá8m abrows, Vulg, Nisi praveneris eos, Cov. “If thou dost not prevent them, RV “If ye are not beforehand with them ’); 10” “What have we done that Alexander hath prevented us, in making amity with the Jews to strengthen himself?’ (Tpoép0akev huās, Vulg. prae- occupavić mos, Cov. “ hath prevented us,” l{V ‘hath been beforehand with us”); 2 Mac 1491 ‘Knowing that he was notably prevented by Judas’ policy” (Śri Yevvalos VT6 roß &vôpos éarpathymrat, Vulg. fortiter se a viro prayventum, Cov. “When he knewe that Machabeus had man fully prevented him,” RV “When he became aware that he had been bravely defeated by the stratagem of Judas’). Take the following as illustrations: Fuller, LIoly Warre, 214, “Was he old 2 let him make the more speed, lest envious death should prevent him of this occasion of honour'; Holy State, 154, ‘Expect, not, but prevent their craving of thee'; Adams, Ea:position wyom 2nd Peter, 65, “Satan's employment is prevented, when he finds thee well employed before he comes'; Knox, Works, iii. 319, ‘IPeter was Synclvinge downe, and loked for no other thyng but present death, and yet the hande of Christe prevented hym’; Milton, Sommets— “Doth God exact day-labour, light denied? I fondly ask. But Patience, to prevent That murmur, soon replies, God doth not need Either man's work or his own gifts.” J. HASTINGS. PREY.-Prey, from Lat, prada, booty (perhaps from prae-hendo, to seize beforehand), through Old Fr. praie, preſſe, is now narrower in meaning than formerly. In AV it includes booty or spoil. Heb. words properly denoting a wild beast's prey are (1) Tº tereph, from Tºp to tear, to rend (the verb itself is tr. ‘ prey’ in Ps. 17”, “Like as a lion that is greedy of his prey,” Tº ºppº, AVm ‘that desireth to ravin,’ Cheyne “longing to tear in pieces’). Tereph is tr. ‘ prey’ in Gn 49", Nu 23”, Job 411 24% (IRV ‘meat'), Ps 76' 1042, 124", Is 529 314, Ezk 193. 6 22%-7, Am 34, Nall 212, 1831. This is also the proper meaning of (2) Ann hetheyh (from [Tºm] to seize), and it is so tr. in its only occurrence, Pr 23* “She also lieth in wait as for a prey,’ AVm ‘as a robber,’ which is the IRV text, l{Vm ‘as for a prey.” Also (3) Ty 'ad (from Ty to attack 2), means ‘prey,’ and is so tr. in Gn 49”, Is 33°, Zeph 3°, its only occurrences (against the view of Hitzig and others that it is my in this sense that appears in Tyºns of Is 9" ("), see Dill- mann, ad loc.). And (4) 9:s 'ökhel, which means ‘ food,' is legitimately tr. ‘ prey’ in Job 9° 39”. But all the remaining words mean booty or spoil taken in War or snatched as one's share. The chief word is 13 baz (from 117 to plunder, take as spoil; the verb itself is rendered ‘take for a prey” in Dt 2%. 37, Jos 82.27 111", Est 33 811; ‘ make a prey.” in Ezk 26”; and ‘prey upon' in Jer 30"). A late form of baz, nja, is tr. ‘prey” in Neh 4" (“give them for a prey,’ RV ‘give them up to spoiling,’ Amer. RV ‘for a spoil'), Est 9%. 1" (RW “spoil’), Dn II* (so IRV). The common word Sº shalāl (from Sº to plunder, the Hithpolel is trº ‘make oneself a prey’ in Is 59"), which over sixty times is rendered “spoil,’ is tr" ‘prey’ in Jg 5" ºr 8*, * (RV “spoil’), Is 10° (RV “spoil’), Jer 21, 2sº 39°45° (so RV). The only remaining word is ºpp malſ:00th, which simply means something captured (from mp} to take), which is given as ‘prey’ in AV and RV in Nu 3.11). 19. * *7, Is 4924, 25 : in Nu 3.192 AV gives ‘booty,’ It V ‘prey.’ I'or prey meaning booty cf. Merlin (in Farly Eng. Text. Soc.), ii. 152, ‘So thei entred in to the londe, and toke many prayes, and brent town's and vilages, and distroyed all the contrees’; Chapman, Iliads, ii. 205– ‘Come, fly Home with our ships ; leave this man here to perish with his preys'; —— PRICE PRIESTS AND LEWITES 67 and Shaks. II Iſenry VI. IV. iv. 51– “The rascal people, thirsting after prey, Join with the traitor, and they jointly swear To spoil the city and your royal court.” 4 J. HASTINGS. PRICE (from Lat. pretium, worth, value, through Old Fr. pris, preis) means in AV the worth of a person or thing in the widest sense, and not in money only. See especially Mt 13” “When he had found one pearl of great price’ (Éva troXtripov papyapirºmu), and 1 P 3” “the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price’ (troAvrexés). Cf. Chaucer, Sir Thopas, 185, en speke of romances of prys’; He 134 Tind. ‘Let wedlocke be had in pryce in all poyntes.’ The verb to price (spelt prise’) occurs in Zec 11”. “A goodly price that I was prised at of them.’ Cf. Mt. 27° Rhem. “They tooke the thirtie pieces of silver, the price of the priced, whom they did price of the children of Israel.” J. HASTINGS. PRICK.—See GOAD in vol. ii. 1949. PRIESTS AND LEWITES.— The names köhēn and löw?. . The priesthood in the earliest times. . The priesthood from David to Josiah. . The priesthood according to Deuteronomy. . The priesthood from Josiah's reform to the Exile. . The priesthood in Ezekiel's State of the future. . The priesthood from Ezekiel to Ezra. The priesthood according to the law contained in the ‘Priestly Writing.’ a. The priests in the Law of Holiness and in par- ticular toróth. b. The Aaronite priests. c. The high priest. d. The Levites. e. The serving women. f. The revenues of the priests and Levites. g. The date of the priestly systern in the ‘Priestly Writing.’ 9, The priesthood from Ezra to the Chronicler. 10, The priesthood after OT times. a. Priests and Levites. b. The revenues of the priests and Levites. G. The duties and offices of the priests. Literature. [Throughout this article the abbreviation Gesch., when not preceded by an author's name, stands for 13audissin's Geschichte des alttest. Priesterthums, Leipzig, 1880. Whenever a citation consists simply of an author's name and the number of a page, the reference is to that work of his whose title will be found in the Literature at the end of the article.] 1. THE NAMES KöHEN AND LEJVſ.—The name for “priest in the OT is köhön, (iii). The same word (iTP) is met with in Phoenician inscriptions as the official name of the priest, as well as the feminine form niño. The corresponding word in Arabic, káhim, is employed to designate the sooth- Sayer. It is per se quite conceivable that the priests of the Hebrews were originally soothsayers (Stade, G VI, Bd. i., Berlin, 1887, p. 47 l ; cf. Kuenen, De Godsdienst vam. Israël, I8d. i., Haarlem, 1869, p. 101). There are, certainly, no traces in the OT of ecstatic conditions on the part of the riests, but one of their most important functions in the earlier history of Israel was the giving of oracles by means of the lot. A reference to this is to be discovered in the Urim and Thummim which are described as still present in the dress of the high priest. But the Arabic usage is not decisive for the original meaning of the word köhön ; the sense borne by AE('hin may be secondary, for the Arabs borrowed largely, in matters connected with the cultus, from the Israelites (so also Van Hoomacker, Sacerdoce, etc. p. 235 f.). The ecstatic form of prophecy appears in the OT coupled with priestly functions |. in the story of the youth of Samuel, to whom God speaks in a revelation, while he is officiating as priest at the sanctuary (1 S 3*). This unusual coupling of the priestly and "PII “make ready '; the prophetic office may be due in this instance to the combination of two conceptions of the person of Samuel : one of which thought of him, as is the case for the most part in the story of his youth, as priest ; whereas the other, which alone has sur. vived in the narratives relating to his later activity, thought of him as prophet. The root meaning of the word köhön, does not appear to speak in favour of its being a designa- tion of the ‘seer.” Derived from a verb kāham, probably equivalent in meaning to kūm ‘stand,” /cóhön will be explained most simply as “he that stands.” In other instances, too, the expression ‘stand (Tpy) before Jahweh’ is used of the priestly office, especially of the service at the altar which the priest performs standing. This last, then, is erhaps what is referred to also in the name }}}} which will then designate the priest as oflerer, or, since ‘stand before one' is said of service in general, as servant of the deity. This general conception deserves the preference, because in ancient times it is not the offering of sacrifice but other functions that appear as the special duty of the priests. The sense of ‘servant ' is obtained for }. also by Hitzig (on Is 6119), who connects the word with the Pi'el kihën (Is 6119– elsewhere, indeed, kihën is a derivative from köhön [see Ewald, Heb. Sprache, § 1206]), to which he assigns the sense ‘paratre, aptatre, and then ministratre.’ The word kémóirim (Dº) is used in the OT only of heathen priests. It answers to the word non found in Aramaic inscriptions, Syr. kūmró ‘priest,’ and hence in the OT is manifestly a word bor- rowed along with their idolatry from the Ara- Ill:C^{UIlS. In Deuteronomy the priests are called ‘Levite priests’ (bºr Dºnàn), and already in a very ancient narrative in the Bk. of Judges (chs. 17 f.) we find a ‘Levite' (hº) regarded as having a i. call to Jriestly functions. In like manner the Jehovistic §. of the Pentateuch (JIS) contains a tradition, according to which Moses assigned priestly rights to the ‘sons of Levi’ (Ex 32*. [whether 32%ff. belonged to the original Jellovistic book has, indeed, been doubted by Kuenen, De bockem des ontalem verbomds”, Leiden, 1887 ff., § 13, note 21]; cf. Jos 1314 tº 187, see Gesch. p. 100 f.). In the prophetical writings the name ‘Levites’ occurs for the first time in the 13k. of Jeremiah (33.7". ‘Levite priests’ Dºn Dy:57), in a section which is wanting in the LXX, and is pretty certainly not the work of Jeremiah, but, judging from v.”, was probably composed by an exile in Babylon. During the Exile the term ‘Levites’ is wit- messed to by Ezekiel. Iłut, in view of Jg 17 f., there can be no doubt of the higher antiquity of the term, even apart from the passages cited above, regarding which doubts have been expressed whether they belong to the pre - Deuteronomic - -- - - - - • - : ...4. - * f : \ } || - - - elements of the Jehovistic lºok The 13k. Of I)t presupposes the name as generally current, and Dt 33, in which (ww.8-11) Levi is represented as holder of the priesthood, dates to all appearance from a period prior to the Fall of Samaria. The view of the author of the Deuteronomic law (18'), as well as that expressed in the Blessing of Moses (Dt 338-11), and in the tradition embodied in the ‘l’riestly Writing of the Pentateuch (also in Jos 1314. & [JE 3), is that the term ‘Levites' indi- cates that the priests belong to a tribe of Levi. The origin of this priestly designation and this tribal name is obscure. The Blessing of Jacob, which as a whole is not earlier than the mon- archical period, presupposes a tribe of levi without any allusion to its call to priestly functions (Gn 40"-7). On the other hand, the OT contains certain indications which appear to presuppose that the 68 PRIESTS AND LEVITES PRIESTS AND LEWITES word lèvá was once regarded as the official name of the priest. In the Jehovistic book Aaron as dis- tinguished from Moses is called ‘the Levite’ (Ex 4*), although the two are conceived of as brothers. In this passage there is certainly no reason to pronounce (with Nowack, p. 99) the designation an interpolation introduced under the influence of the Priests’ Code, for such an influence would have led to Aaron’s being called, not ‘the Levite,’ but ‘the priest.’ The Levite who figures in Jg 17 f. is of the tribe of Judah, and hence, apparently, does not belong to a special tribe of Levi, unless per- haps he belonged to Judah merely as a settler, as appears to be the interpretation adopted in what should probably be pronounced a gloss, namely, 177 (cf., however, Gesch. p. 184 f.). in any case, it is conceivable that the word lèvī was originally an official name, and only came afterwards to be treated as the patronymic for the particular family or guild which was considered to have been called to priestly service. At all events the coincidence of a tribal name with the priestly designation cannot be accidental, and ºrdiºgy one may not assume on the ground of Gn 49* that there was a tribe of Levi which afterwards disappeared, and that the Levitical priests have no connexion with it. If the word lèvá was once an official name, then it might be possible that a reminiscence of this original sense has survived in an explanation of the word found in the Priests’ Code (Nu 18*, *), although in itself this explanation is nothing more than a word - play. According to this passage, those who belong to the tribe of Levi are to attach themselves (yillāwīt, nilwº) to Aaron, for the service of the tabernacle. The word lèvi is, as a matter of fact, probably to be derived from ldwāh, “to twine, to attach oneself,’ and might perhaps be used to designate an escort “attaching itself,’ such as the troop that escorted the wander- ing sanctuary of the nomad period of Israel's history (so Gesch. p. 73 f., following others, especially de Lagarde). The word would thus be not strictly a designation of the priest, but of a body from which by preference the priests were chosen. Since a special body with a genealogical connexion had presumably to be conceived of as set apart for the above-named duty of escorting the ... it might * in the end that lewi was taken as the tribal name of this body. This explanation of the word löw? as an official name, finds, however, no certain support in the history that has come down to us, and it must always remain a difficulty to conceive of an alleged tribal name having, originated from an official name, especially as in Gn 49 we have a view of the tribe of Levi presented in which there is no allusion to its being a priestly tribe. I'or this reason also it is not likely that lüwi is the name for foreigners, say Egyptians, who had ‘attached ' themselves to the Hebrews (so, follow- ing others, Renan, Hist. du peuple d’Israël, vol. i., Paris, 1887, p. 149 f., who makes Levi = finquilinus; see, further, on this point, Gesch. p. 70 f.). Besides, the view that the Levites were originally non-1sraelites is extremely improbable, for the reason that Moses, the deliverer of Israel, who is reckoned to the tribe of Levi, was certainly a Hebrew. Moreover, Levi, the father of the tribe, is represented as son of one of those two wives of Jacob whose birth was equal to his own, and who were his relations. Levi's descent then was regarded as a pure Hebrew one. Hence, taking everything into account, the more probable conclusion is that lºw; was at first actually a tribal name, and only afterwards in a secondary way came to be treated as the official name of the priests because these were chosen from this tribe. It is not impossible that the tribal name Levi is connected with the name Leah (risº) which is given as that of the mother of Levi (Wellhausen, Geschichte Israels [Prolegomena lj, 1878, p. 149; Stade, ZATW, 1881, p. 115 f.), in which case it may remain an open question whether in Leah we are to find, with Stade (l.c., following Wetzstein), an animal name, “wild cow.” The difficulty in- volved in the circumstance that Gn 49* is acquainted with a tribe of Levi but does not represent it as a priestly one, is not to be obviated by the assumption that this passage relates to pre- Koi. conditions (so Van Hoomacker, Sacerdoce, etc. pp. 309, 311); for all the other sayings in the SO-Cöl, ºd Blessing of Jacob have to do with the time when Israel was settled in Canaan, and even the scattering of Levi among Israel, spoken of in Gn 497, presupposes the settlement. There remains hardly any resource but to suppose that to the author of Gn 49* the want of a Levitical tribal territory presented itself so strongly as a punish- ment occasioned by the conduct of the father of the tribe, that he did not look beyond this penal condition of things to the honourable priestly vocation of the members of this tribe. What the conduct of the tribe had really been which occa- sioned the unfavourable judgment passed upon it, is a question we cannot answer. It is held by H. Guthe (Geschichte des Volkes Israel, Freiburg i. B., 1899, p. 169 f.) that certain descendants of 8, º dowerless tribe of Levi had pro- cured maintenance for themselves by undertaking riestly functions, and that in this way Levi §. a priestly appellation. But this view, which night otherwise be a possible one, can hardly be regarded with favour, because such a condition of things would not account for the relatively ancient tradition as to the relations of the tribe of Levi to the person of Moses (see below, § 2). The above is the result of a consideration of the OT data. But if it should be established that in the Minaean inscriptions the word lawi'it is a term for “priest,’ and that this is connected with the OT lawi (Fr. Hommel, A HT, London, 1897, p. 278 f.), it will be necessary after all to think of the latter as an official name, and that an ancient Semitic one (otherwise Van Hoomacker, Sacerdoce, etc. p. 312 ft.). On béné ha-lèw; and béné ha-lèwiyyám (rare and late for the usual băné lew?), forms in which léw? is treated as a gentilic name, see Ed. König, “Syn- taktische Excurse zum AT,’ in SK, 1898, p. 537 ff. 2. THE PRIESTHOOD IN THE EARLIEST TIMES.— As everywhere in the history of religion, there may be recognized also in the beginning of Hebrew history a period when no special priestly class existed. Of course it is upon an artificially con- structed basis that the view presented , in the ‘Priestly Writing” (P) of the Pentateuch rests, according to which neither sanctuary nor sacrificial acts nor a priestly class had any existence before the Divine revelation given through Moses. Even in the narratives of the Jehovistic book, relating to the pre-Mosaic period, there are scarcely to be discovered any reminiscences of the then condition of the cultus ; but these narratives will hardly be wrong in representing relations which still per- sisted at a later period, as the only ones present in the patriarchal period, as when they describe the head of the family in the patriarchal house as exercising the priestly function of offering sacrifice. Besides this, we have in the Jehovistic book a single mention, during the patriarchal period, of inquiring at an oracle (Gn 25*), and also one reference to the giving of tithes (Gn 28*). Iłoth these allusions imply the existence of a sanctuary With a priest in 'º. of it. Here the narrators PRIESTS AND TEVITES PRIESTS AND LEV1 TES 69 have momentarily forgotten the ancient situation which is assumed elsewhere, yet without expressly naming the priest on either occasion. The author of the prologue of the Blc. of Job, again, intro- duces his hero, whom he conceives of as a shepherd-prince living in remote antiquity in the 1and of Uz, as offering sacrifices for his family (Job 1"; cf. 429", and contrast 1219 köhānīm). The story of Gn 141**, where Abraham is represented as giving tithes to Melchizedek the priest-king of Salem, is, in its present form, a glorification of the later priesthood of Salem, i.e., Jerusalem. According to a narrative contained in the Jeho- vistic book, Moses instituted a special priestly body when he set apart the ‘sons of Levi’ for this pur- pose (Ex 32*). In the first instance, Moses him- self, according to this book, performs the sacrificial act (Ex 24"). In that descriptive narrative, which makes him receive the Divine revelations in the holy tent outside the camp to which the people went ‘to seek Jahweh’ (Ex 337*), the function of communicating oracles appears as a distinction conferred only upon Moses personally. Dut in this way he is clearly thought of as the presiding authority over the holy tent—in other words, as a priest. The Priestly Writing, on the other hand, makes Moses officiate as priest only upon the occasion of the instalment of the priests in their office (Ex 29); and from this point onwards, accord- ing to this source, priestly functions are discharged only by Aaron and his sons, who are selected from the body of the tribe of Levi for this purpose. According to a prophetical discourse ºi into the older text of the history of the youth of Samuel (1 S 2%), God, during the bondage in Egypt, revealed Himself to the fathers’ house of Eli, the priest of Shiloh, and chose this house out of all the tribes of Israel, to be priests. Here too, then, without any mention indeed of Aaron or Levi, appears the conception of an institution of the priesthood in the time of Moses. This con- ception, in the form in which it here makes its appearance, cannot be of quite recent origin, since in opposition to the later claims of the Zadokite priesthood, which existed from the time of Solo- mon, it represents the Elidae, who were different from these, as the original legitimate priests. It is in itself quite credible that Moses, in his arrangements for the Israelitish nation and its cultus, made provision for the performance of religious service by a special body, and it is a very plausible supposition that he who is represented as belonging like Aaron to the tribe of Levi, selected his own family for this office. Among the ancient Arabs as well, the priesthood was largely in possession of special families, which did not belong to the tribe amongst whom they exer- cised their office (Wellhausen, Iteste”, p. 130 f.). Guthe (Geschichte, p. 21 f.) opposes the view that Moses belonged to the tribe of Levi, and holds that the priestly tribe first originated in Canaan. This later origin, however, is difficult to prove, and along with it the objections fall, which are brought against a genealogical connexion between Moses and the priestly tribe. If løw actually stood originally for the retinue of the sacred ark, only individuals from this body would have been priests proper. Apart from this, it is in any case not incredible that Moses should have destined his own family in the narrower sense to be priests, but that he should have chosen Orecisely the family of his brother Aaron is less #. Aaron, it is true, is not only represented in l’ as the father of the priests, but even in JE as ‘the Levite Kat' éoxºv (lºx 4*). Yet he does not appear to be known to all the strata of this last book ; and in all the passages where mention is made of him he is a less individualized figure, to which features from the later history are trans- ferred in a prefigurative way (Gesch. p. 199). It is not impossible that in his case we have to do with a personification, although no satisfactory explana- tion of his name 'Ahdi rom has yet been discovered. With 'dirón the designation of the sacred ark (a combination proposed, following the lead of others, by Reman, l.c. p. 179), this name can hardly, in view of the different way in which it is written, have anything to do. In an ancient gloss to the narrative in the Blc. of Judges about the Levite who first on Mt. Ephraim and afterwards at Dan officiated as priest, this Levite, to whom the priesthood at Dan traced its descent down to ‘the carrying captive of the land’ (i.e. down to the overthrow of Ephrain in the Assyrian period), is described as a ‘son of Gershom the son of Moses’ (in Jg 18” Ménashsheh is an alteration of the original Mösheh). Here, then, Moses himself may be viewed as father of the priests in general. But all the same it is difficult to understand the person of Aaron as a purely fictitious one, because there is no apparent reason why the priesthood should have exchanged the more glorious descent from the lawgiver for descent from a brother of his. Moses has been supposed to be referred to in Dt 33° as the repre- sentative, and then, presumably, as the father, of the priesthood ; but the context of this passage favours rather a reference to Aaron in this capacity (Gesch. p. 76), in harmony with which is the cir- cumstance that Dt 33 probably had its origin in Ephraim, and we find traces that it was in Ephraim that Aaron first came to be looked upon as father of the priests (see below, § 3, on the bull-worship of Aaron). If really from the time of Moses one special body was regarded as called to the priesthood, yet it is by no means the case that from that time it alone exercised priestly functions. Long after Moses, it is not contested that men of non-Levitical descent discharged the priest’s office occasionally or even permanently. In the latter case they probably passed as adopted into the tribe of Levi, which accordingly we are not to think of as having originated in a purely genealogical way. Only, one can hardly, with Wellhausen, appeal in favour of this to what is said in Dt 33° about Levi's having renounced his kinship. Seeing that in this pas- sage the denying of his sons is also spoken of, the reference must be understood not of the loosening of connexion with a family, but of impartial official action, without regard to family interests, in allu- sion to the narrative of Ex 3247. " (Gesch. p. 77; Sellin, p. 110 fl. ; Van Hoomacker, Sacerdoce, etc. p. 133). As in Dt 33 the whole tribe of Levi . as in possession of the priesthood, so elsewhere down to a late period no trace is to be found of a distinction between Levites and priests |)] ()])(3]". l N. special weight is to be laid on the circum- stance that, according to the statement of one source of the Jellowistic book, Moses employed ‘young men of the children of Israel’ to ofter sacrifice (Ex 24"; it is impossible that either here or in 1 S 2*, * ma'ar, in its sense of ‘servant,’ can be a designation of the priest as the servant [“ministre ºl, namely, of the cultus or of the people ‘in the celebration of Divine worship’ [so Van Hoomacker, Sacerdoce, etc. p. 140 f.]), for this happened prior to the appointment (recorded, in- º as it seems, by a different narrator) of the Levites to the priestly service (Ex 32*). As early as the arrival at Sinai we read in Ex 19°. * (a narrative in any case from another hand than 32*) of priests (Gesch. p. 58 ft.), without being told whether these are to be thought of as Levites or not. It is mentioned in the Jellowistic book, as 70 PRIESTS AND LEVITES PRIESTS AND IEWITES an arrangement in force all through the lifetime of Moses, that his attendant, Joshua, who is repre- sented as of non-Levitical descent (Nu 13°, P), did not depart out of the holy tent (Ex 33"). The Ephraimite Micah, in the period of the Judges, appoints as priest in his private sanctuary, first of all one of his sons (Jg 17"). Gideon, of the tribe of Manasseh (Jg 6*), and Manoah of the tribe of Dan (13”), offer sacrifice with their own hands. Under Saul the Israelites pour out the blood of the captured animals at the altar stone without any priestly interposition (1 S 14*). At a still later period the non-priestly prophet Elijah sacrifices with his own hand (1 K 18*). While the sacred ark, in the course of its wanderings, tarried in the house of Abimadab, who was plainly no priest, it was served by his sons (1 S 71, 2 S 6*; the emen- dation of Van Hoonacker, Sacerdoce, etc. p. 171, is unwarranted). Of the ancient priestly prerogative of the father of the house, a relic was preserved down to the latest times of the Jewish cultus, in the slaughtering of the Paschal lamb by the father of the house without any priest taking part in the ceremony (Ex 12"[P] vv.” [JE]), although it is true, at the same time, that the sacrificial character of the Paschal lamb had been obliterated. Sacrificing was, then, manifestly, in early times not the exclusive function of a priestly class. The latter was certainly in existence. et even for admittance to this no special descent was requisite. Samuel, by birth an Ephraimite, yet, according to the representation contained in the history of his childhood, becomes, in fulfilment of a vow of his mother, a servant of Jahweh, clothed with the priestly ephod, at the sanctuary at Shiloh (1 S 1" 2**). The fact that Samuel becomes a priest in consequence of a vow, shows that he was not one by descent ; and the representation of the Chronicler (1 Ch 6**), according to which he is a Levite, is not, with Van Hoonacker (Sacerdoce, etc. p. 265 f.) and Girdlestone (‘To what tribe did Samuel be- long?’ in Eapositor, Nov. 1899, pp. 385-388), to be justified, as if Samuel were a Levite from Ephraim. III the descriptions of Samuel's later life he appears not as a priest, but as one who, in the extraordi- nary capacity of Shöphèt and mābā’, presents the offerings of the peo %. (1 S 79t. 16°m.). A priestly class is presup ...} by the oldest collection of laws, the ...}. Book of the Covenant (Ex 22°), and yet, in an enactment later prefixed to this, the general right to sacrifice is assumed in the demand made of the Israelites as a whole : ‘An altar of earth thou shalt make unto mre, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings and thy shēlāmām- offerings’ (Ex 20%). When, on the other hand, in the Jehovistic book the people of Israel is called “a kingdom of priests’ (Ex 19%), this is certainly to be understood not of the actual exercise of priestly rights, but in a transferred sense as meaning that the whole of Israel stands in a priestly relation to God, Where a professional priest was not available, young men appear to have, by preference, replaced the father of the house in the exercise of his »riestly function, or even to have acted as priests }. a larger body. Of Moses we found it recorded that he appointed young men to offer sacrifice. The Ephraimite Micah installs one of his sons as priest. Certain traces appear to point to a prefer- ence at one time for making firstborn Sons priests, or even to indicate that in earlier times the whole of the firstborn sons were regarded as destined for holy service—an idea which certainly can hardly at any time have been strictly carried out in practice. The circumstance that Samuel, accord- ing to the story of his childhood, was a firstborn son, is of no importance, because it was not as buch that he was set apart for priestly functions, **º but in consequence of a vow of his mother. But in the ancient code, the Book of the Covenant (Ex 22* [Eng. *]), the demand is made that the firstborn son be given to Jahweh. The spirit of this book, whether it belongs to the time of the Judges or to the earlier monarchical period, appears to exclude the interpretation that the firstborn is to be offered in sacrifice to the deity; and then there remains scarcely any other possibility except to understand the “giving' to mean consecration to holy service (Gesch. p. 55 ft. ; Smend, Alttest. IReligionsgeschichte”, I'reiburg i. B., 1899, p. 282 f., note 3; cf. Kamphausen, Das Verhältnis des Menschenopfers zur is 'ael. Religion, Bonn, 1896, p. 66). In the Priestly Writing it is said of the łº, that they are ‘given' to Jahweh (Nu 8"), and even the consecration of Samuel is described by the term ‘given' (1 S 1"). In spite of this freedom in the matter of sacri- ficial arrangements, from early times it was con- sidered an advantage in the regular and constant service of a sanctuary to have a ‘Levite’ for priest. When one of these happens to pass the sanctuary of Micah the Ephraimite, the latter gives the preference to him as priest over his own son (Jg 1770); and the Danites who wish to establish for themselves a new sanctuary in their new home, do not let the º slip to obtain by force the services of this same Levite (18”). Even if in the time of Moses a single family amongst the Ilevites had possession of the priesthood proper, in subsequent times, at all events, this was viewed not as their exclusive privilege, but as that of the Levites in general. Nevertheless, the term ‘Levite’ nowhere occurs as the exact equivalent of “priest,’ a circumstance which is not without importance in its bearing upon the origin of the term. The above-named Micah the ſºphraimite is represented as saying, ‘The Levite has become my priest’ (Jg 1718). - As to the instalment in the priestly office, even that ancient narrative in the 13k. of Judges mentions certain formalities which in a modified form are retained in the later ceremonial law of the Pentateuch. Micah “fills the hand ’ of one of his sons, so that he becomes his priest (Jg 17%). He does precisely, the same thing afterwards to the Levite (v.”). Wherein this ‘ſilling of the hand” consisted is not clear. It has been suggested that it means the handing over of the earnest money (Watke, Wellhausen), which appears to be favoured by the fact that the Levite who renders priestly services to Micah certainly speaks of him- self as “hired by the latter (Jg 18%). This hiring, however, need not refer to a sum of money paid down, but may consist in the arrangement about an annual salary, clothing, and maintenance (17"). It is not at all likely that Micah hired his own son with a piece of earnest money, and in any case the narrator in the Jehovistic book (Ex 32*) was not thinking of earnest money when he makes Moses say to the sons of Levi themselves : “Fill your hands to-day for Jahweh.” Still less likely is it that the expression “fill the hand ’ refers to the handing over of the arrows which are alleged to have been used in giving the priestly oracle (Sellin, p. 118 f.). This interpretation is based upon Ex 32*, where, however, lê-Jahweh standing alone cannot mean ‘on behalf of Jahweh ' (sc. take hold of the arrows), but shows that “fill your hand” refers in some way to a consecration to Jahweh, an instalment into service related to Ilinn (still an- other interpretation of the ‘ſilling the hand ’ in Ex 32” is adopted by Van Hoomacker, Sacerdoge, etc. p. 135). In the Priestly Writing the ex- pression ‘ſill the hand ’ is retained in speaking of instalment into the priestly oſlice (Ex 28" al.), and the term “fill-oflering' (uvillº'im, Iºx 29* al.] SJILIAGIT CINV SLSGII?ICI I.T. SGILIAQIT CINV SLSGII?ICI ‘(unºz ºr Iz, S I) qo N qu ‘osnouſ stoliºtºſ súl II). A 5uoſº ‘aouopisol stu putſ ‘soud Joſuo su KIluo.Iuddu ‘ûootoutſil V sul, 'üoolouſ UIV SLItto ootnos lotl) out: utou A ququ V. Jo uos outl In A Tuoluopſ KIQuopſ Ao sy opi (cf. I S I) Inus Jo outſ) oil] uſ boutdo out, otoq ‘IIGI Jo uos ou', ‘Saruouſu. I go uos old ‘quºrul V. Jo uos aul Huſtuſ V ‘stu Jo uospuuld-ºuati u : pousſuiu In No Alonoidtuoo “toxãAou ‘hou Suw III go osmou ou.I. ‘(priº S I) 5uſ)sixo sº pouolºuaul splu.A.lo) ju JoAou sy uomi M ‘qoſſus Jo Kittuqouts out, oslu KIqbqold uouſ] úl A but “soul)sulful, I oug HQſAA StºA out, uſ pousſiod suos S.III 'suos UAVo sºul go put; Ionutus jo uſu on uomulot out) utoly polouſ)tā od Kutu su ‘olduo) out) ul qsolid Joſuo go uoi) sod oul plou ‘olou Aoslo Kiſuuſ out, Jo puoll outſ, u) IAN AIIºubo osuo on) st:A\ qquop ou Su ‘IIGI 'uo Ali, Ālūt; -qold sºw Kāoluouai sitſ stun uſ put “soluood oAut asuut unu Jo uomº uoul out, toy Áu.A out ºut Aud of us -sud u : (Al S I) AI1ſluidº poonpothuſ sº III “Ionutus Jo poolſplitto out) Jo Klons! (I out) u I (‘J 9FI ‘d “t ontoutoſoſo.toſ “uosnºullo AA) sough - lonju up Áluo poquqºstlus od On ottloo quju lou)0.Uſ! sput ulou A JoJ ‘JIostului Soso IV ot! On p[ou StºAV IIGI Jo . out) Jo Ionsoout out) uo.Ao puts ‘snpox'ſ out) go ºsotid out, ÁIIuujju.to quuq ‘uoos o Abū oA su ‘osſu ol Kutu q qugſ ‘(cfa UK) I) uolº V go uos tº itsutºll', I on aspilgſ ou] go quoosop oud pools.I.) ou A soutſ] toºl uſ osotſ, Áq poMoMA Su.A lon, but outſ, suo qu os : uo.It V ÁlouTuu ‘sosoſ.W. Jo Louino.Iq ĀInsolid outſ, UIOU Tuoosop o, wu'ulo pyg| Osſu III go osmou out, quitº, og Keul qI ‘son Aoſſ out go Álojonto oilº Ol posuoloq SquoAo [[tº gº snu) pub (ºra, S I) qd Kūq tuo, J Snpox'ſ out, Jo out, oùn on Squidi, Kūsoild Sqſ Mouq poot.In Ioſua. ‘osuouſ SITI put, IIGI pontºyouſo otoli,I, ‘stoddſ usio.A Jo Oſo.110 oppy tº Ka Oº polioso. olow stainsoy Iºnuţiu osot A ..". qu old tuo, out, St. A sojpu ( out, Jo ouſ, oud uſ Kūsuioubs quºquodup qsoul ou.I. ‘(3 puts ‘pua y “S $ ‘Aoſaq jo) dusto A go soond quopoul; on quod Ali'uoſo uopou -(too stuſ, III poiſſoods soſqo go sautºu out Jo onios ‘son ſo ÁInsolid Io lºoſq Ao’ſ poquoddº; KIIuyoods Jo so Aſoonoo (IoIUAV ‘ûonoquxoPI out go 5uſq.IAA A[1sold out, up postosold St SIU) go oouoost uſual V ‘sortendout's quºquodup otout out, qu Kluo poſºgos oAbū IIIA Kotſ,I, ‘ool Atos (Ions Jo spoou ouq Qootu on quoroſlynsuſ KIT'uqold allow sonſ Aoſt out, Jo Stodunu otſ.I., "solid sº polou onjutſu.IIIdºl ou? (ſeop IV Jo uos e quitº Joby oth uloly oos oA su ‘nsolid [boy]]Aoſſ t; Jo soo!A.los out, Koſuo II’d qou pºp soºnqoubs asoiſ.J., 'uiou, Qt, IIowult, ſº go drus.IOAA ou" du qas put sonſutºut;0 ouſ, Jo soould pologs out, IoAo uoxſºn put[so] IIob.ISI ou? “utºut;0 up poſºlos Koun uot AA "(I Onou “L03 ‘d "ſosof)), qon.11suſ, “(sz95 up), ºuſtin -outos quo quiod, “Itoi, b on puol, uoun put "5uſtin -autos qu (uſe, go juſti'uoul ou', ‘(7p gaOz, S () swolſo 5uſhoots go posm si (IoIIIA “ſy.007/ pull touquyſ qol Áq pourg1(IO Solotºto liq: A op on 5uſu')ou sºu (IoIUAA ‘shoudoid out, go ºuTuogon out log osſe (p.10% go osn oil, Jo Aaj A uſ oſquqold Koolgos sſ sitſ, qugſ sqol potous alſº go 5uſºsto out on XIoud poot,tº od pinous ,5uiqon.Insuſ, go uoſqou sitſ uſ (ſp.tº) plow-qoo.1 oun quuſ, poisoãìns uootſ setſ qI (oigg q(I) Sqsoºd out, Jo Khup oun St. Stuaddu soulſ, quopout, utoly Moſq.M. ‘(afº) 'd 'III IOA ‘LO NIAAVI oos) , IIoMoo.IIp, Io uoſº, -on.Insuſ, “ſp.to; ou', ponsist100 oAbu Sulú IIIA ‘Āqop oul on 5uisto[d-IIoA StºA quu A Jo It: Iouds up put ‘todoid KIIgnqi. StºA quu.A go uoſquoppuſ out up osſo qquop ou qug ‘oonsn'ſ go uomº.14sſuytupu and uſ ‘(If I (IF)), UOIsſoop Jo IIoA, ‘īpd/sºut -*tar, osſo poſſuo sº “KUenqoues, ‘ſsøppy outbu outa stºod Uſoju A oopſd outs ou.I. Joi KIQsoſ.1d out Kol uoisſoop tº Oq Igoddu on 'o'; ‘(szz xq.), poº) orogoq, Juodde on quguoAOO out, Jo Nootſ out Ka polymbol où son.I'ud ou'l QInsAt F \inoujſp tº oppoop on topio uſ ‘Sqsa IId out go XISgº ouſ quoso I qsbſ out up sew Uſoſ (IAA ‘ooſqsn'ſ go uoſqt.Iqsſuſtupg out go sqsoloquy aul Kºutºut poA.tos ÁII'buffy,to sologio ÁIqsoºd jo 5uſAI3 ouq Qºlī) qo'by on 1 Oq Squiod .%uşii, ‘("I) 0&I ‘SIl doſ "1H8] ‘nuſso.1%I “Iſ Itou I, ‘onxo I, oùosſzútiquid ‘almos.tv/ſ (tod loſºp),(aſ to .tmz.tppitouttuto() ‘toſh)7/1.0) VI top twosom.toſtl() sp(I ‘StoAo IV 'ſ) 'ol oos) sºutſ.toUo out) utto.J oottu AOII"; alouſ) Luu Shso.ul out) 'squo podolo Aop ATuju llu upw osuo ou', ssol)(unop sus, su ‘suujuol - Aquºſ out, puts suuyoſuould ou? ºuouin, juu? Soot,\! put oA, “utºutºutny? outrit out.I. 'uo.It V. Jo qtuq Su KIlai, -IJſoods ououi Kittuqot'i puu ‘IAorſ Jo JoAop [upoods où1 St. Jo quinouſ) olt; utilſh put, tutulunull, “(88% q(I) Soso IN Jo Suissoigſ out, ul qsoºd Ištú loyul . Jo uſulunul.I, puts (982, S I jo) utilſ) ouſ, Jo odAqoqold ou', ‘Sºloſ - oiou.IO out, qdox wood oAbu qsnu SIU, U.I. (pºſ(la, put).I wº,ty, Io; otou A “...sri, I S I) Sofoulio oat:5 out º Jo suuoul Ka ‘oud uouſ out utou juoloſſºp poulo tougout pull ouw Kiungouts oſquiopisuoo tº Jo solid Joſilo out, AIUIo Su A q ‘(pºz, S I) (ION Jo qsolid out) (NIVH.I.V.I.IV) (buquiſtºl u0s sitſ puu (ºf I S I) (IGI Jo qu'upuoosop .. (UOo(otul UV) uuſ IUV Jo Itou ow quil A uto.U Iuoddu pino A SV ‘(II Ig I ‘d ‘s 97808ſ ‘uosn'guillo AA oos ‘squit V quoroug oul duoutu sqsolid ou, Aq solobuo Jo 5uſ A15 outſ, uo : SI 3 () slot(\o go qsonbo.1 out, qu poſſ) sºlusuoo oq Ao'I sºutsoſ IN solou.Io oAtº; Kolū ºbtſ) pop.1000. st qi qtuq Sqsold [buoissojold Jo Kuo si q ‘Sqsoºd oul on sº IIoM Su slot(qo on uodo south Kūto uſ StºA oojitous Jo juſtøIjo oliſ, oùùAA (or LI 3ſ) pooj SITI putt juſtinoſo sitſ poſſddus put K.UUIus tº qsoud SIU prud Kūm)ounts ouſ, go tou Ao ouq ..". où" (I'boyſ) Jo pIO, oſu oAA St: ‘Sol.Ibnqoubs on tPAI.IC oul TV º oq ĀIoo.Itsos uto ‘totaljo out, Jo O.Insuold out, on qJoſ O.I.O.A to ‘(gz, I 'd ‘XIowavo N SIU, qsuſtju put, ‘803 d "ſosop) pox, Kloquijop olo A osotiſ, Ioll) out A : (ºuetz, S I) 00u'uuoquitºul IIou) Joy Ultoun poußisst, alo A poquosold sºul.Ioljo out Jo Suoſ).I.O.I (or -ara. S I) Squ'u.A.los Áq poqsissu olto. A Kolū dITISIOAA go soon}{d poquombo.1ſ otout out qu (IoIIIAA uſ XIIOA tº ‘It?"It, où) uo Soogitots outſ, pologo Kou() olotſ.I., (ºurg S I) <nº outs out, uſ ºws put; IISI Jo ostro ouſ, up IIIbol oA St. º 9III, '(grö S I) o,IOAA &otiq polido uouſ I outſ, Kot Kiplº Aquo pox.tºul oloA [ots.ISI quotout; Jo Soiſºnqoubs out! Jo Kut: qu poA.los on A Sqsolid ou.I. (618 ot!...I ſiſ), touTuj, “Inoudu go oſq., ouſ, Kºl º sº AA “utºut ºutloA t; su.A ou uoq A uoAo ‘nsolid ou? soulſ, KLIGo uſ 'drag Xºl uſ poons.topun Joãuo ou SpA q ‘uoissold Ko Aoldo Houſ] go osuos IbuIdito ouſ, StºA oAoqi oilº Ji uoAgI (60%, ’d ‘aqn ‘a’s ‘Q,toºt00. -puppy .t/iss W ‘IloszqūoCI p. I ‘uoissoid Xo uti.I.Kss V oùº uo Jo : KAQIT, H 5uſ AOIIoy “J OZI 'd ‘XIou AON) , quosold IJooyuo ‘qūţoddu ‘oAI5, Jo osuos Iºlouod oul setſ 7//mut mayy 5uſpuodso.Ltoo out uuſ IKSSV uſ toy ‘ooplſo Áſºsolid out, Ol uoſqonpolluſ Oq oouo -logo.! It’ſoods & KIIbuIdito qou putſ , pupil; out. III), uOISsold Xo out, quuſ, ‘Louqing ‘oq Abu qi qugſ ‘(Iz I 'd ‘XIobavo Nosſ Ataúqo) qsoºd u/\o syu Se qug It...Ioua:3 uſ qsoſ.1d tº su tutu Ka pollºqsuſ qou Sºw out AA oud Jo St, *oq Aort out go osuo oud uſ quor IN Uglu Kul out Áquo&op0Koiduro od IIoA quºuſ oogo on uoſłoup -oidu utuolos tº Ions (19 'd [S68I] IIIAX AM.ſ, VZ uſ "oquaſ.IoCI ouſos pull dau, "It ‘[ouſo AA Osſu Os : J &SI 'd "ſosoſ)) suo'ſ]oung ÁIqsoſ.1d out on poquiod st suoſ).Iod [b]oj.Iogs go to Ao º * IIons qs.III où.) utoly Aoi A uſ putſ ‘oopſ!o ÁInsolid out uſ utoſh -UIIºsuſ Jo posh , putºu ouſ III), uoissoidza out, Tºuq oſquqolduſ qou ‘nstal ou? Kus on ‘st q ‘Kišump.looov ‘JIosuiſtſ Ioy uouſ) oxlt;1 on ‘od Águ ostro outl so *IO º où, uodn sooord osotiq Kūſ on potoAqduo SI qsolid out qtuq Ssold xo on º qugouti SpA Kuouſ -otoo uoſº.109suoo ouſ I, Sqsoſ.1d out on IIoy Hoſt(AA Jo IgnIt, oùn uodn pou.Inq 0.19A ooji Iots uſ iſoſu M Ibuſug out Jo S1Pud out old poſſ ſoods out, quil A ‘oolſ.Iogs out, Jo Suoſ).Iod osauq uq(A poqm.toosuoo oq Oq q.modt, GSO11) Jo Spubu ouq SIII) ‘spioA touTo uſ—suos SIU put uolºv Jo Spubtſ out, uodn ſoutput, Igogliogs ouq go suoſquod uſeqJoo soot, Id Soso IN quiſh oqi, opºsitoqoºtbüo ouſ, Sºul juſtølſo SITII, ‘ooHºo ÁInsolid out on Suos Stu put uorºv go uolºuloosuoo out 40 poquosoid suav (IoTuA 5uſtojo out go posh sy *** 72 PRIESTS AND LEVITES PRIESTS AND IEVITES the ‘city of the priests’ (22*). Here then it would #. that the ancient priestly family of the 3xodus gathered itself together after the downfall of Shiloh. Itenan (Histoire, i. 420, note 1) finds difficulty in the identification of Ahijah with Ahimelech, because the priests of Nob, can, he thinks, hardly have belonged to the family of the riests of Shiloll. But why not, and why should it be necessary to impute an error to 1 K 2*, where Ebiathar (Ahimelech's son) is reckoned to the house of Eli 2 There was similarly at Dan a Levitical priesthood which traced its descent to the before-mentioned Levite of Micah the Eph- rainite, and consequently to Moses (Jg 18”). 3. THE PRIESTHOOD FROM DAVID TO JOSIAH.— When David had acquired for his capital the Jebusite citadel, he conferred upon it the disting- tion of transferring the sacred ark to the summit of its hill, the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite. By this act he established a royal sanctuary of which the king was the proprietor, in the same sense in which the private person Micah was the owner of the sanctuary set up by him. David and, subsequently to the building of the temple by Solomon on $1. Zion, his suc- cessors assumed a kind of chief priestly position at the sanctuary of Jerusalem.” David presented offerings, manifestly discharging priestly functions in person, for it is said that he ‘made an end of offering’ (2 S 6'7"); he pronounced the liturgical blessing (v.”), and danced in the priestly garb, the linen ephod, before the ark of the covenant (v.”). Of Solomon, too, it is recorded that, at the dedica- tion of the temple, he offered sacrifice (I K 8°."), and that three times in the year he offered burnt- offerings, and peace-offerings and “sweet smoke’ (1 K 9°). There is no mention of priests on this occasion ; their presence may, however, be taken for granted ºs self-evident, for, of course, Solomon could not, without help of some kind, have over- taken all the dedicatory offerings. I’rom the above statements, then, it is not clear to what extent Solomon in his offering discharged priestly functions in person. But it is difficult to suppose him to have acted in this matter differently from David. In any case the blessing which, standing by the altar, he pronounced upon the people (1 K 8”) is a priestly act. Of the first king of the Northern kingdom, Jeroboam, we are expressly told that he ascended the altar of Bethel and made the oſlering (1 K 12”), although he too had priests at his command (v.”). The position of the kings of the Northern kingdom in relation to its chief sanctuary at Bethel wiſi have been practically the same as that of the kings of Judah to the temple at Jerusalem. Under Jeroboam II. Amaziah the priest at Bethel speaks of the sanctuary there as a royal one (Ann 7”); Amaziah, that is to say, officiated under the king's commission. Of one of the later kings of Judah, Ahaz, it is expressly re- corded that he ascended the temple altar, kindled the offering, poured out the drink-offering, and sprinkled the altar with the sacrificial blood (2 K 16*). Consequently it is at least not an incorrect condition of things that is presupposed in Chronicles when we are told how tº. the second prede- cessor of Ahaz, offered incense upon the altar of incense (2 Ch 26"). All that belongs to the later standpoint of the Chronicler is the notion that this offering by the king in person was an illegitimate encroachment upon the priestly privileges, and that Uzziah was on j. account punished with leprosy; perhaps also the assumption of a special altar for incense bespeaks a later viewpoint. At least the earliest kings looked upon the * Among the Assyrians as well the king was at the same time the chief priest (see Alf. Jeremias, Die bab.-assyr. Worstellwngen vom Leben mach demn T'ode, Leipzig, 1887, p. 97, note 1). —a Jerusalemite priests as subordinate officials whom they could appoint and depose. I'rom the massacre which Saul perpetrated amongst the priests at Nob who held with David (1 S 221"), none escaped of the family of Eli but Ebiathar, who fled for refuge to David, ºg with him the oracle- ephod (1 S 22° 23'). He was installed by David as priest in attendance on the sacred ark on Mt. Zion. Along with him Zadok is named as David's priest (2 S 8", where read “Ebiathar son of Allimelech'). Both have their sons at their side as priests (2 S 15**). Ebiathar must have held the higher rank of the two, for we are told in 1 K 2* that Solomon, after deposing Ebiathar, gave his post to Zadok. Ebiathar, with his son Jonathan, had taken the side of Adonijah when the latter conspired against his father David (1 lº 1*, *). By command of David, Zadok anointed Solomon king (1 K lºº), and Ebiathar was banished. He retired to his landed property at Anathoth (1 K 2*), where in the time of Jere- miah we still find a priestly family settled, to which Jeremiah iº belonged (Jer 1, 32"). Accordingly Jeremiah was probably a descendant of Ebiathar, and thus of the ancient priestly family which dated its possession of the dignity from the time of the Exodus (see above, § 2). The house of Zadok continued in possession of the Jerusalemite priesthood. This we know from the exilian prophet Ezekiel, who constantly speaks of the Jerusalemite priests as ‘the sons of Zadok.’ What was Zadok’s descent is not clearly to be seen. This much only is plain, that he did not belong, like Ebiathar, to the old-privileged priestly family, for a prophecy, put into the mouth of an unnamed man of God in the time of Eli, announces that God, after He had chosen in IEgypt the fathers' house of Eli for the º had now rejected this house, and would appoint for Him- ; a trustworthy priest who should walk after Jahweh’s heart and mind, for whom Jahwell would build an enduring house, and who should walk before Jahweh’s anointed for ever (1 S 297"). This prophecy is in 1 K 2" understood of the installa- tion of Zadok in the Jerusalemite priesthood, and was certainly so intended from the first, for—the only other conceivable supposition—to refer it to the priestly Samuel will not answer, seeing that Samuel is never represented as a king's priest. Thus, then, Zadok did not belong to the family or the fathers’ house of Eli, and consequently not to the ancient priesthood. Zadok cannot, therefore, as Poels supposes, have really belonged, although, to be sure, later generations represented him as belonging, to an ancient Aaronite family, namely that of the Eleazarites. This family, according to Poels, had discharged the priestly duties at Nob, and when the national sanctuary was trans- ferred to Jerusalem, Zadok came from Nob to the capital (so, already, essentially, Moyers, kritische Untersuchungen über die biblische Chronik, Bonn, 1834, p. 294 f., according to whom Zadok was at first chief priest in the Mosaic tabernacle at Gibeon [which Poels identifies with the sanctuary of Nobl). It is maintained by Van Hoonacker (Sacerdoce, etc. p. 168 ft.) that according to 1 S 2* the house of Eli was chosen ‘non pas isolément,’ but, together with others, as one particular lamily of the priesthood which included a plurality of families; but this notion is read into the text. Zadok is called the son of Ahitub (2 S 8"). In the state of the case just described, we are not to think of this Ahitub as the same as the grandson of Eli (1 S 14°). The above-cited oracle of the man of God gives undoubtedly the correct account of Zadok, for in later times, when the sons of Zadok had exclusive possession of the priesthood, men would uot have attributed to them a prestige as priests less lofty PRIESTS AND LEVITES PRIESTS AND LEVITES 73 # all bound up with a special descent. in its origin than that of the Elidae who had now fallen into the background. stances it may be ãoubted whether Zadok was a Levite at all. No certain decision can be pro- nounced, because we do not know how º is included in the expression ‘fathers’ house’ of Eli in the above oracle. If it means the same thing as ‘sons of Levi,’ then Zadok was no Levite ; but it may be intended in a narrower sense, perhaps, to mean the house of Aaron. Since even prior to the time of David, as we saw from the story of the Levite of Micah the Ephraimite, it was considered desirable to have a Levite for priest, David is unlikely to have overlooked this advan- tage in the selection of Zadok, who ſº WàS his priest. Subsequent generations naturally did full honour to the genealogy of Zadok, whose descent was traced back to a son of Aaron, nay, to his eldest son Eleazar (1 Ch 24°). In the circum- stance that the later writers made the Elidae to be descended from another son of Aaron, namely Ithamar (1 Ch, l.c.), there is preserved a reminiscence of the difference in the descent of the two priestly families. The descendants of Ebiathar, when expelled from the priesthood at Jerusalem, are hardly likely to have aii remained settled at Anathoth. Prob- ably a portion of them found employment at the sanctuaries of the Northern kingdom, where they took part in ihe official worship of Jahweh under the figure of a bull. In this way we may explain the narrative in the Jehovistic book, which attri- |butes to Aaron a part in bull-worship, Ex 32* (Gesch. p. 199; so previously Th. Nöldeke, Unter- Swchwngen, 27tr Kritik des AT, Kiel, 1869, p. 55, note). At all events the Northern kingdom too had an organized priestly body, as may be gathered from the story that, after the downfall of Samaria, a priest from amongst the exiles was sent back to Ephraim, to instruct the inhabitants of the land in the worship of the god of the land, i.e. Jahweh (2 K 1727ſ.). }}esides Ebiathar and Zadok and the son of Ebi- athar and the son of Zadok, there is mention of another otherwise unknown "Ira as priest under I)avid (2 S 20°). According to the traditional text he was a Jairite, i.e. belonged to a Gileadite family, and was consequently no Levite ; but perhaps the statement should be emended to the effect that he was a Jattirite, i.e. belonged to the priestly city Jattir in Judah (So [following Thenius, ad loc.] Gesch. p. 192, and Löhr, ad loc.), in which case the possibility is not excluded that he was a Levite. In addition to him, David's own sons are called in 2S8°/cóhámām. In itself there is nothing impossible in the view that David ºpºº. members of his own non-Levitical family to be actual priests, for we see from the picture of Samuel as a priest that at that time and probably for long afterwards the priestly status was not at But, on the other hand, against understanding kóhám’m in the literal sense, when applied to David’s sons (as is done by Löhr and }. P. Smith, ad loc.), is the circumstance that just immediately before (v.”) the priests of David, namely Zadok and Ebiathar, have been already enumerated amongst the other court officials. ºence it is perhaps probable rather that the sons of David only bore the title of Jºãhámim in the same way as, in the time of Solomon, we find Zabud, a son of Nathan (prob- ably the son of David), called ‘ſcóhön, friend of the king’ (1 K 4" [Van Hoomacker, Sacerdoce, etc. }. 280 f., and Benzinger, ad loc., following 13 and luc. of the LXX, strike out the T5 ; but Kittel, ad loc., defends its genuineness]), where in any case “friend’ is a title. But köhön can scarcely be the title of a court official in the sense of ‘representa- Under these circum- On the other hand, it is possible that the ti tive,” Scilicet, of the king (so I'lostermann, ad loc., who reads 2 S 8* köhöné, ha-melekh). As little justification is there for giving up the statement in Samuel in favour of the different expression of the Chronicler (1 Ch 1847), as is done by Van Hoon- acker, Sacerdoce, etc. p. 275 f. Hitzig's emenda- tion of ſcóhán?m to sòſchön?m, ‘administrators’ (Is 22*), which is adopted afresh by Cheyne, rests upon the correct impression that from the context it must be a court office that is in view, and the emendation is not demonstrably wrong. Yet it would be surprising if in two passages copyists erroneously introduced the word köhön in a context where this word must have struck them as strange. Perhaps, then, köhön is in both instances the original reading after all. Such a title as köhön may be an imitation of the Phoenicians, amongst whom members of the royal house were often invested with priestly offices (so Movers, and similarly Ewald ; see Gesch. 191 f., and cf., further, Driver on 2 S 81°, who is not quite decided as to the sense of kóháněm in this passage, although he believes that it means priests of some kind). Although the Judaean kings always reserved for themselves a kind of chief priestly position, yet in view of the importance of th. tell) M. at Jerusalem as the central sanctuary, and º considerable number of priests which such a sanctuary pre- supposes, it is hardly possible to avoid supposing that amongst the Jerusalemite priests there was one who claimed the first place, as had already been done at Shiloh by the head of the priestly family. The priest who evidently claimed this first place is in the Books of Kings called for the most part simply ‘the ſcóhén'; so Jehoiada (2 K 11* al.), Urijah (1619, 19t.), and Hilkiah (2219 al.). The same iii. is given in Is 8° to Uriah, and in Jer 29-" to Jehoiada." Along with this we have once in lºings (2 K 25*=Jer 52*) the term ‘head- priest’ (köhēn hó-ró’sh) applied to Seraiah. This title in this instance (differently in 2 S 1597 where we should read ha-köhēn hó-rö'sh) is certainly not due to later insertion (Nowack, p. 107, note 1), for in that case the designation ‘high priest,’ sanctioned by the Priests’ Code of the Pentateuch, would have been employed. The title ‘ head-priest,’ found nowhere else except in Ezr 7° and in Chron- icles, where it occurs along with ‘high priest,’ is certainly, for the very reason that it is not found in the Priests’ Code, derived from earlier antiquity. §. by which the later high priest is distinguished, namely ha-köhön ha-gādāl, which is once applied to Jehoiada (2 K 12*) and thrice to Hilkiah (22*. 8 23*), is due to antedating of this title on the part of the redactor of Kings who wrote during the Exile, or it may even be a later insertion. The Deutero- nomic law uses the simple title ‘the köhön' to designate the chief priest. The dignity and influence of the chief priest of Jerusalem must even in early times have been great. This comes out especially in the command- ing rôle which, about the middle of the 9th cent. B.C., was played by the chief priest Jehoiada in connexion with the overthrow of queen Athaliah and the proclamation of her grandson Joash as king, in whose name Jehoiada at first directed the government (2 K ll* 12*). The authority * It may, indeed, be doubted whether in Jeremiah the refer- ence is to the same Jehoiada, who was chief priest under Joash. Renan (Hist. ii. (1889) 328, note) and Van Hoomacker (Sacerdoce, etº, 158 f.) contest it; but see Hitzig and Graf on Jer 2020. # Tradition furnishes no warrant for reconstructing the history with Renam (Iſist. ii. 323, 409, note 1), who introduces, alongside of Jehoiada, the priest, in 2 K. 114, an officer of the guard of the same name. No priest, it is true, had the right to summon the army, but the priest Jehoiada could act in accord with the chiefs of the army. That the latter allowed them- selves to be led by him is an indication of the respect paid to his position. $ SHLIAGIT CINV SLSCII’Idſ #! SJIJIAGITI CINV SLSGIIHCI MoſtIA ‘tutog o Aſquild Sqn (II AgI opulouolonnoGI ouſ.I. "spuoluo) out loſt|A toy Smºlno out, Jo uoſquzHu,1]uoo oul go puno.13 outſ, uodu Suoſquiol osotº KJIpoul O) toºls13oſ out, Aq optitut sº qduioqqº out join An I qou ‘Auſ outouo.1011:0CI out uſ poAutºlod Kiqu -upſ sonbum 3.It poſiod [moſt[0,1tuoul and Jo osopo on 10 70 watos, tod. Snºho ouſ" Jo Suoſqt:(0.1 ouſ I-XIVON -ORIGILſ)01(I O.L to NICIHOOOV (IOOH.I.S.I.I.I.I. SIH.I, ºf ‘(Ioun [t] (Ionuſ off poſiod of Ixo -oid on 5uſp.ttºo.I ‘to Ao Aouſ ‘stionſ[tunssº osoil w ‘oltonoyi Kiſuſoodso put : J SSZ 'd ‘gogi ‘uopio"I ‘III IOA ‘spºtoſ),toA wopm() sop wo:/00) op upa ſºul/ -out”2,toa op 'wo wy/s/wo 777ſ (pyu yooz.topuo 'A',ty -'As, JI ‘uouony ‘V osſu os) odulo', oilſ No-old ouq uſ sooljo outs oth poſſibliosip put on A osotſ, Jo squº; -puoosop ‘Āq IIIqbqold IIT, ul ºp o,Its slodooxI -Joop put Stojuts-oſduion on Ixo-qsod ou.I. 'Iſºui -oilo N Jo quo Apt, où put u.Inqox I q8.III ouq Itoo.wq -oſt poſiod out) up ooſatos smoliſſol polio]sot ou'l Jo såuſuuſiſoq oſquitosſut out 5uſ.tup uorquoio Aou o oto w Kotī, qutſ, oAoſtaq on Os KIIonbo put ‘oppºſ otſ, Jo poliod 5upſoul-snquo out up osſi Iſotſ, Mool Shuru Atos Kºuuqoubs jo stino.13 osotſ, qullq osoddins O] )[noljſp $1 I ("IfZ IZSI = ºrpſ (ION) Ioſitºl(Ill.137 II); A QUIXSI ou? UIO.U pou.Inqol oAgiſ on potopisuoo ‘poſitoti loºt. I tº qu to ‘uouſ] otoA oilAN “saadaoyi -Ioop puu Sueñuis-olduo, Jo Kpoq off.It'ſ tº Kquntil -Uloo Aoti oſſº (II st; A. olotl) Uſulutoto N go ouſ) oùn uſ ..todº).[d Sqsoſ.1d outſ, uo.U qouſºstposſ; otoA otſ,\ ‘Squarpuoqqº ÁIt nº outs go ‘opt tº qso Aol s{(In on torqppº III “sophi.15 to Iqo (111A poquyunbou uooq OA'uu ol lºod du pillo A poſitorſ of Ixo-old out uoAGI ‘(or 8 Izq) oſduio) out toy ‘o'? 'Sonſ Aorſ old Jo ool Atos ouſ, Joy, soouſld outſ, put plant(I Kot (to Aſº uooq oAbū ol pros org OUAA “tuluſ U10 N. Jo Osſu Itou oA ouxSI ou? IoqJV ('70 ºurſ, Izºſ) , (to A13 Osotiſ, ‘2’ſ “uſtiſuqa N ou', ‘so Atºſs -old tuo" (outlo (ITIAA 5uott, “uouolo; Jo Squg Kaos, III]s olo A olotl) poſiod oilſ Ko-qsod out” up ue AQI ‘(pró XI I) ool Atos pooloſ on utoqq q.md uoulolos qt ([] politol s{ q tuous go ‘[ou.ISI go qspºut ou? uſ sonſutºut:0 oun Jo Squuutuo.1 ouq on qquop ou posuoloq utout) Jo poAIA.Ins quil A : (ºut Iz, Sz) soºn -IIooqº) on 1 Suſquuſuioqxo uſ popoooons on Imb qou put Juus ‘Squupuloqqº go qos sqi put old tuo" out, Soyudſonut, snu" put ‘poº) go osmoti out alºxoş2 tox st aiduo', utopusu toſ attº on poſſuoloq quitº osotſ, go ÁIqtuoſºsombun Wuppºrtſ, sº XIooq ons/Aoûof otin go toº IIAA outſ, so Atºſs-old utoq Jo uoſquqinsul oilſ, Jo Tunoooº split u1 ([uoſqppū oſtuouoloquo(I tº IIqAA ‘...I put ºiſ'] tº 'A Jo ‘tz'A up J KIQuo.IoIII p) >[ooq op)SIAoûoſ ouſ, tuolj od Oquoos sp“(5uyºyº AA KI1solidſ oul uſ St. “olouiiloquy, qou), pot) go osmouſ out, go uoſquouſ out) tuoly %5ussed SITII, ‘poº) SIU go osmou out) Ioſ Ionu A Jo StoAb.1p put poo.W. Jo StoAoû ÁIotubu ‘sſioš od on populàop put postmoot unuso Áq poounoud.Id otoM ‘soºtſouls out, uodu pontiqod -Iod Kotī, puts...] ouſ, Jo quuoooº uo ‘soºtuood10 où, “gró soſ on 5uſp.tooow 'soauts to squupubqºu oIduo, on ‘pollod spun Suſump ‘suoism[It usuoud Teoto ott, otou, Qugſ poptod. Tuoluotºbuoul ouq toy poAold od qouli'uo “sonſ Aorſ, poſſed otoA ou A put ‘tuouſ, on ontºuſ ploqus to sqsoud out, uo.1, Quo.toUpp ‘Squupuonqu Arundout's Jo SSuſo u go oouonsixo oilſ, ‘(163I XI I) , IAOT Jo Suos out, Jo houſ otoA iſopuſ AA ‘oldood ou, Iſu §tiou’u tuoq, sqsoºd Suppuu toy lutonotoſ soutſid oùA “sºul SI go toutºut, oùn on u, woux StºA ooljo Áºsolid out) osſotoxo on poinpºuo otoA oilA osotil top IAo"I go stios, utton oun “JoAoAoû ‘outs ouſ, ITV ‘sſuſ, pºp so??a.0T pup sqsoºd quill opuuſ XII'uutol Atuluouloiddus out, sº splu.A.loqJu Kuo put ‘SIosso A s]] put 5uſhoout Jo Juan ouq ‘XLIt out, du Moon Sqsoºd quul II"; Jo 1s.II, ppus sº q, Ioy (V up Kluo XXT out uſ punoy strºA Jo osoto ou?) uomºlod.Ionuţ loyul tº Jo Suuou Ka qxo) out onuſ qsultſ, Åltuoſo 9tu Aoû] olo PI ºn 8 XI I up Árotubu ‘son Aoq Jo uo. Yuouſ olduſs G Mino SI orouſ, såupyſ uſ 'sonſ.Ao"I * * * otſ, Jo oouosold oil uoun qsºo upºn oran sº qqnon qunooon still uo put “dn.Ltoo sº ojºss'ud oſot A olin Jo qxon oilſ, ºutſ, possøjūoo od snut qi quq : oomſd Jo quo qou oit, ‘Nopu'Z qsoſ.1d oilº Jo onlinoi otſ, up oloiſ puuoy out; otA ‘son IAoT oil) of hissºl puooos où" uſ ‘puttſ Ioilº o oſ', u() "poqºſoquoquy Kinsoy -Inutu sº ‘ĀIndniqu on Imb ooutº.itodoſt. Iſotſ, oxtºtil soq IAoſſ ouſ, otolia\ “sofºussed osottº Jo q8.III auſſ, ‘Āuſonotonuo(I uſ put 5uſqLAA AIlson, oil) u su qsn'ſ “IoAſſuſ’ go XLIt out Jo Sto.Tºoq St. Juoddº; Kotī, tagſ Sz, put aro S I uſ poſiod. Itoſuo Ituoul oil, ăuţimp poubu soº!Aorſ old ‘south IoIII'uo on polloy -Su'u.[4 onou AKIOAo out: Suoſquiol ut, ſIIxo-qsod otoſ A ‘soſoruo.IIIO ulo.1, Qiudu ‘sojºussed Aoy tº Åluo III ‘sdno.15 Jo sport[o ubiſq osſo juſtiqou od urbo otA . “Sqsolid out Jo stopio, Jo peo.I ow olotſ toy ‘Imptozo H. Jo outſ) out St KLIto st; Sduo.15 IIſ poiu'u.I.It SuM Apoſt Kinsolid ouſ, “(a16: SI):GI XI a on 5uſp.Iooow ‘sottiſh toºl (II UAouxtun si (IoIIIAA ooſijo ut, sI qſ toy ‘ooHjo ÁIQsolid utiſixo-old Iuuqou ut, IITIAA op oh pſorisaitú oun jo Stodůox out uſ ovelſ ow janop II* pueKoçI 'suosiod ooltºn KIuo Ád uoxſºn to Ao uooq oAtºq Ātoo.Intos pinoo (IoIIIA “soyºmp Iſouin Jo oij.It IIosip out) uſ puttuluoo Iſoq) qt otoAA squupuoqqº oI(ſtuoq Jo Sqsoſtol touqo quitº osoddns qsutti o AA ‘olduoq out on Suoſquqſ.Inuod soldſood oilº qooHoo on St. A plotso.IUT ou" Jo Stodoox outſ, Jo Soſqmp outſ, Jo ouo ‘izz, XI a Sº IIoA st; ošuss'ud outs sitſ, Oq 3uſploo -OV Buſ.Ioljo-quinq Jo Jºſe oil" (ITIA aluoo-o.Ioy touliſ ouſ, Oq ooutº.11uo out, plună on 5uſ Abū su (otz, I XI 2) U.Stºoſ Jo outſ) out uſ Igoddº; Kpeo.IIſ, pIo -IIso.Itſ, out) Jo Stodoox out,L, (sonſ Aoſſ out 5uouie pouox109.1 out, OUIAA piouso.III] ouſ, Jo S.Iodoox out, IITIAA osolſ, Sośnguoo dig u() z) Kutsui quo.13 g o La M. o.Iouſ, tuouſA go ‘(utº.tp,0/s) slodoox{Ioop utilixo-qsod out Jo uoſquqs IoIqtunuſ ouſ, UIO.U quo.toUp ‘oogo ÁIqsoud poqLuxo ÁIII by g go olouſ XIIIſu" sutu o AA Kluſeſ.[ 'Iolunu uſ oo.III, otoax plouso.IUQ outſ, jº s.todoox{ où of GSSud SUIn Oq 5utp.loood : qsoºd , puooos, où put qsoud-poolſ ou? (IAIA 5uoiu (|zg ioſ) sigz, XI & UT poulºu Osſe 9.18 (ſdoš-ºn/ 9tattoº/s) pio -usoau, out Jo Saadaoxi ou I, oſduion ouſ, up squotu -ošut.I.Ug 99pſod out, Jo Ioosio Ao Iºdiouſ.Id su jazóz Joſ' uſ stºoddu uoſºsomb up iſºſuuqdoz alſ.I. (Huſq.IAA ÁInsolid out! Jo Soqiao"I ou? ſowysºul-pºp guyſoy ouq uſ puſ) on ‘z9I ‘d ‘olo ‘ooop.toops, ‘Ioxiou uoopſ up A (IqAA ‘aţqissiuttod qou ologo.Ioun sº q) >[uut qs.III eqq Jo Sqsoſ.1d Jo uoſquoiti ou Utooq Soul oiotſ, tioUM AIaşut 11s up ouoo pInoA ‘pouſso.III] ouſ, Jo stodooxt ou', put ‘poulou otoli SI ou A ‘qsoud qiāyú ouq optsoq “Nut I puooos out, Jo Sqsolid, Jo Anſip.In Id u oouts ‘unj.It I, où1 UIQIA pºol og Oq sº I'm Insus out, ‘You"/sºut-pºp gºtp:/07 Iginlci otſ, Jo puaqsuſ ‘a Iou A ‘rga, XI a uſ sinooo old ſº outus ou.I., "solid-pºolſ oul go oA:10]uoso.Idol Āquqold 'o'; 'uoy1146do.1 out, go qsoud, qul “(yout/sºul-pºp up/gy) ſoul/sºul wayo-y Su Tujuuuſdoz go (ragg (oſ) sigz, XI a uſ trophuou SI orouſ, uſupuloS qsold-peout out, go opps#uoIV “Stojuts.tºs Jo uo;sula -up out taljns on AOIs KIOA od pluoAA sonpopuz out, olou A ‘uatusntoſ' qu soonjo ÁInsolid out aspilºt out) go uoſqdooo...I go Muſul on outs ow quild og Kloo.Intos uto qI Sqsolid Jo Iroqs Ilouq on squotuqugoddo opulu put ‘osauq to Ao Koeuoldns upg|loo a posio -Ioxo ‘tuoſosmioſ quº old tuo" out, Jo qsa Ionuţ oun up posoddo Tou Stºw tupnſ go soºtuuqouts IoIſolus ouſ, go oouoqsixo ou? Sº 5uol os ‘tuousnuoſ ſo qsoºid Joſuo oilº quuſ, oneoſpur Kutu sºul, (nºz, SI) pool go tos.ſoul tº uſeqqo qušput Áou? ºutſ, soonjo Sisopić où, Jo ouo onuſ tuouſ, qud on qsolid IgAot out Jo 5uijãoq Su Osmouſ spliº Jo StoAIAlms oun squoso.Idol osuouſ S.IIGI Jo II*Juavop out? §ulptuğol on politoyo. oAoqu uoſº oppold out, qox 'uoyuuLoyol s, quºsoſ go ourſ, ou, on UAop ‘Sqsoud UAo IIoun unpav drus.IoM go soot (d. Toulo utºpnſ up uðAô qsixe on poutſºluoo olotº USIUAA sappsoq ‘tuoſosuuoſ qū olduto, on 1 Jo otouds out, pub Kod ‘otnit a st ‘popuo)xo Áloo.Iuos ‘10A0AAoû ‘qsoºd Joſuo out, go PRIESTS AND LEWITES IPRIESTS AND LEVITES 75 * , has to be recovered from the present Blc. of Dt., is that book of the law which was found in the temple in the reign of Josiah, and which was the Occasion of his reform of the cultus. The law- book proper is in any case contained in chs. 12–26. As a whole it cannot be much older than the date of its discovery, since its standpoint and its lan- guage both point to the time of Jeremiah. A ritual code proper it is not, rather are regulations about the cultus treated of only in so far as they touch the one demand of the legislator directly affecting the cultus, namely that for a single Sanctuary, or have a bearing upon the Social rela- tions about which he is concerned. Even the demand for a single place of worship is not really made in the interest of the cultus, but rather in that of the form of the belief in God. In the course of his legislation, which is not directed specially from the point of view of 11 e Divine Service, the author of the Deuteronom.ic law is far from giving a complete picture of the existing priestly relations, or of those to be established. n what he says about them there are gaps which must be filled up from what we know from other Sources. This cannot be done with complete certainty on all points. The priests are constantly referred to in Dt as ‘the Levite priests’ (ha - kóhánim ha-lèwiyyim, 17”. 19 18" al.). The legislator evidently has in view, in this expression, a special descent, for in 21", in an older enactment, as it seems, borrowed by the author, there occurs the other expression, ‘the priests, the sons of Levi' (so also 31"). The same inference follows from 18; ‘the Levite priests, the whole tribe of Levi,” where the second desig- nation is probably in apposition with the first, in which case the author of the Deuteronomic law would not distinguish between ‘Levite priests’ and ‘I.evites.’ Since he recognizes only the one place chosen by Jahweh, namely Jerusalem, as a place of worship, it is only there that in his estimation real priests are to be found. But he knows of Levites who live scattered up and down in the land, and appears to be willing to concede to the whole of these, if they come to reside at Jerusalem, the same rights at its temple as the Levite priests who are settled there. Such at least is the simplest way of understanding Dt 18": ‘And if a Levite come from any of thy gates out of all Israel, where he sojourneth, and come with all the desire of his soul unto the place which Jahweh shall choose, to minister there in the name of Jahweh his God like all his brethren, the Levites, who stand there before Jahweh, he shall eat the same portion [as they].” This last expression appears to refer to the priest’s right to the sacrificial portions mentioned in v.” and to the ré'shitſ. Every Levite thus appears to acquire priestly rights as soon as he takes up his abode at Jerusalem. It is true that 18" does, not say that [the Levite] serves there “like all his brethren the Levite priests,’ but ‘like all his brethren the Levites.’ Hence the interpretation is not abso- lutely excluded that the passage means to say that every member of the tribe of Levi who comes to Jerusalem may discharge functions there, ac- cording to his special station, whether as priestly or as serving Levite, and that he is entitled to the payment corresponding to the particular ser- vice rendered (so Van Hoomacker, Sacerdoce, etc. p. 174). This explanation, however, is not a prob- able one, because even in this passage there is not the slightest hint of any distinction amongst the Levites; and the expression here used of the Levites at Jerusalem, ‘stand before Jahweh,’ ap- pears also outside Dt as the designation of the specifically priestly service (Ezk 44"). In Dt 21° it is prescribed that the “priests, the sons of Levi,’ are to assist in the atoning ceremony for a murder that has been committed in the neighbourhood of a city of Israel ; those meant then are º. priests from this particular city. In like manner in 24°, where the treatment of leprosy is entrusted in quite general terms to the Levite priests, the existence of priests outside Jerusalem appears to be presupposed, for the Jerusalem priests could hardly have exercised the Supervision in question for the whole country. Both these passages, which appear to be out of harmony with the Deuteronomic conception that there are priests only at Jerusalem, are probably borrowed from older laws which recognized a pºthood Scattered up and down throughout the and. A distinction between priests and Levites is equally unknown to the expansions of the Deutero- nomic law. The parenetic introduction to Dt. assumes that the tribe of Levi, after the destruc- tion of the golden calf (10", cf. 919"), was chosen by Jahweh to bear the ark of the covenant, to stand before Jahweh to serve Him, and to bless in His name (10%). This serving (shöröth) and blessing are specially priestly functions. The meaning of this passage might, indeed, be that these functions and the bearing of the ark (which, according to another conception, that of the Priests’ Codex [see below, § 8 d], is not a specially priestly office) were divided amongst different branches of the tribe of Levi. Ibut in the passage belonging to some redactor of the Deuteronomic law, 31", the ark is borne by “the priests, the sons of Levi,” while in v.” its bearers are the Levites. The preservation of the law is, according to 31*, the business of the Levites; according to v.” (and 17*), it is the business of the priests, the sons of Levi (the Levite priests). Everywhere here there appears to be no difference recognized between Levites and priests. In ch. 27, which is also a section belonging to a redactor of the Deuteronomic law, the same persons who in v.” are called Levite priests, appear to be called in v.” Levites (but cf., on this passage, Kautzsch, p. 288). Taking everything into account, neither in the Deuteronomic law nor in the additions to it is ‘Levite' employed as the special designation for a class of temple-servants subordinate to the priests. . The supposition is, indeed, not absolutely excluded that priests and temple-servants are both included in the name ‘Levites,’ but even this is not likely. Rather would it appear that all through the Bk. of Deuteronomy we are to under- stand by Levites those only who are called to the priesthood proper. There can, indeed, be no doubt, after what we know from the Jehovistic account in the Blv. of Joshua (see above, $ 3) about temple-slaves, that the author of the Deuteronomic law and those who expounded his law were ac- quainted with lower grades of temple-servants, but to all appearance they did not reckon these among the Levites. In the words of Dt 26° ‘the priest who shall be in those days,’ there appears to be an allusion to one special priest, a chief priest. In 17*, on the other hand, ‘the priest' may be taken rather as a typical designation for any priest (although it is against this interpretation that in v." We have the sing. ‘the judge’ side by side with ‘the Levite priests’ in the plural). Certainly in the redactory addition to the narrative introduction to Deutero- nomy, namely 10", a chief priest is taken for granted: ‘Aaron died, and his son Eleazar became priest in his stead,” i.e. Eleazar then became chief priest, he was a priest already (Gesch, p. 88 f.). If no undoubted mention of a chief priest cant be found in the Deuteronomic law º. still less does it speak of the other priestly dignities which, 76 PRIESTS AND LEVITES PRIESTS AND LEVITES according to the Books of Kings (see above, § 3), already existed in the pre-exilic period. This shows the incompleteness of the Deuteronomic data regarding priestly relations. )euteronomy shows a distinct advance upon the older relations witnessed to in the Jehovistic book, in this, that no longer do we hear of lay priests. It is plainly assumed in Dt that only Levite priests are entitled to offer sacrifice. The whole duty of the priests is summed up in the expression ‘serve Jahweh’ (shārēth Jahweh, 17” 21%, also shūréth absolutely, 18%. 7), or in the equivalent expression, “stand before Jahweh’ (189: 7). To this service belongs the pronouncing of the blessing upon the people (21° 10°). Besides their special functions in connexion with the cultus, the priests are entrusted with the supervision of leprosy (24°). Further, the priest has to give a hortatory address to the host of Israel before it moves out to battle (20°"). The ancient priestly task of giving judicial decisions still persists in Deuteronomy. To deal with diffi- cult lawsuits, a superior court is established at Jerusalem (179*), in which Levite priests have a seat along with a lay judge (shöphćt). Iły the body of judges mentioned in 1917 as consisting of priests and a plurality of Shöphētim, we should probably understand the local court. According to the decision of ‘the priests, the sons of Levi,” shall every controversy and every offence be judged, hence the priests have to take part in the atoning ceremony performed when a man has been mur- dered by an unknown hand (21°). Moreover, according to a passage, whose place as a con- stituent of the primitive Deuteronomy is not uncontested, “the priests, the sons of Levi,’ have to see to the preservation of the book of the law (17*; cf. 31" and also v.”). The tribe of Levi has, according to Dt, no in- heritance in the land ; Jahweh is their inheritance, i.e. the Levite priests are to live by their holy service (181* al., also in the introduction 10°). Personal ownership of land on the part of a Levite is not thereby excluded (18°). As he discharges his holy office, certain specified portions of the sacrifices and the dedicated gifts fall to the ofliciating priest. He receives the shoulder, the cheek, and the naw of all offerings in cattle and º (18%). The priest is to have the 16'shith, the best, of corn, must, oil, and (cf. 15”) wool of sheep (18"). According to 26*, however, the whole of the ré'shíth did not fall to the priest, at least not that of the fruit of trees (vv.” ”); on the contrary, a feast is to be made of this, which does not, however, exclude the supposition that a jº of this meal had to be given to the priest. n what relation this rê'shith stands to the tenth, and whether the regulations about the rô'shith belong to the original elements of the Deuteronomic law, is not quite clear (Nowack, p. 126); there is no mention of the officiating priest having a share of the meals held with the tithes. Quite peculiar weight is laid by the author of the IDeuteronomic law on injunctions of kindness to the Levites. These manifestly cannot have in view the Levites who exercise priestly functions at Jerusalem, for they had their fixed perquisites from tle offerings, and did not require kindness. Iłather has the lawgiver in his mind the Levites of the country who did not discharge holy services, and he refers to them clearly in the expression, “the Levite that is within thy gates’ (121* * al.). It is expressly enjoined that the Levites, along with other needy persons, are to be invited to the meals held with th. titles (1447. *), to the sacrificial meals (12” lºº. 26"), especially to the joyous cele- bration of the festivals (16' 1"), and that the third year's tithe is to be given to them and to other needy ones (26*). One is not, as it is expressed in these enactments, to “forsake' the Levite (12” 14”), who is thus in need of religious charity. It is not clear at the outset what kind of Levites outside Jerusalem the author of the Deuteronomic law has in view in the above injunctions. It is generally supposed that he refers to the country Tevites in general, in so far as these, owing to the centralization of the cultus demanded by the Deuteronomic law, would be deprived of theil former income derived from the numerous places of worship in the country, the bêmóth. But it is not at all likely that the author of the Deuteronomic law should confess to so special an interest in the priests of the bêm0th service which he prohibits, and which was largely mingled with idolatry. Moreover, he evidently conceives of the Levites, who are commended to charitable support, as already in destitution ; it is not as of the future but as of something present that he speaks, when he refers to the Levite ‘who is within thy gates.” Probably he is thinking of those Levites who had not taken part in the service on the high places, and yet, as not belonging to the Jerusalem priest- hood, were excluded from officiating in the cultus of the temple. He may also have had this class specially in view in speaking of the Levites to whom he desires to open the entrance to the cultus at Jerusalem whenever they take up their abode there. That there were such Levites in the time of Josiah is not to be doubted. The priestly family to which Jeremiah belonged lived at Anathoth, probably traced its origin to the Elidae (see alyove, § 3), and can hardly be supposed to have been admitted by the Zadokite priests at Jerusalem to a share in the temple service. On the other hand, it is not conceivable, at least in the case of Jeremiah himself, that he took part in the bóm0th service, and thus his priestly descent brought him no income. Other Levites, too, may have found themselves in the same situation. The attitude of the author of the Deuteronomic law to the non-Jerusalemite Levites is of great importance for the forming of a judgment on his legislation and its origin. It is accordingly, in the opinion of the present Writer, improbable that }. author of the Deuteronomic law belonged, as is mostly held at present, to the Jerusalemite priesthood, and it is further extremely probable that although, like the prophets long before him, he stands up for Jerusalem as the legitimate place of worship, the cultus forms he describes are not specifically Jerusalemite. To this may be ascribed many of the differences between the Deuteronomic prescriptions and those of other codes in the Penta- teuch. In any case the author of the Deutero- nomic law, in view of the many points of contact between Jeremiah and the laws in Dt., must have stood near to the circle in which Jeremiah moved, that is to say, at once the prophetical and the non- Jerusalemite Levitical circle. The circumstance that it was Hilkiah, the chief priest under Josiah, who caused the ‘book of the law ' (i.e. 1)eutero- nomy), which he found in the º during the execution of some repairs, to be submitted to the king (2 K 228"), is no evidence that this book was the genuine expression of the then aims of the Jerusalemite priesthood. We have no reason to doubt that Ilº. bond fide regarded the book which he had found, and whose origin he need not have known, as the ancient book of the law, and gave weight to it as such, without regard to the cºn- venience or inconvenience of its contents. Besides, we may suppose that the requirement of the con- tralization of the cultus, which underlies the whole of I)t, was so extremely welcome to the Jerusalemite chief priest that it would go less against the grain for him to take into the bargain other requirements which did not exactly serve the special interests of PRIESTS AND LEVITES PRIESTS AND LEVITEs 7, *. the Jerusalemite priesthood. Further, we have no reason to think of Hilkiah as prejudiced in favour of this special interest. 5. THE PRIESTHOOD FROM JOSIAH'S REFORM TO THE EXILE.—The requirements of Dt on behalf of the Levites were not carried out to their full extent in Josiah’s reform. Even from this circumstance it may be inferred that Hilkiah, under whose guid- ance probably the reform was conducted, is not to be credited with the formulating of the Deutero- nomic legislation. A consistent carrying out of the letter of the Deuteronomic prescriptions would have required that, after the abolition by Josiah of all places of worship except the temple at Jeru- salem, all non-Jerusalemite Levites who desired it should be º admitted to the cultus at Jerusalem ; for Dt sets up no distinction amongst the Levites outside Jerusalem, between those who are entitled to this and those who are not. Not- withstanding, in so far as the narrative in Kings is correct, and in this instance its correctness hardly, admits of doubt, nothing like a general admission of Levites took place. Hilkiah, if he was the moving agent in formulating Dt, must thus either have failed to carry out thoroughly his own aims, or he did not in the Deuteronomic pro- gramme give correct expression to these aims. Little probability attaches to either of these suppositions. According to the narrative of Kings (2 K 23), Josiah, in his purification of the cuſtus by the suppression of the bóm0th worship, appears to have distinguished between three categories of priests outside Jerusalem. The kémārīm he deposed (v."). Jºy these are meant, in accordance with the uniform OT use of this word (see above, § 1), and in view of the way in which the kémárºm are introduced in connexion with the suppression of the Baal worship which found expression in the adoration of sun, moon, and stars—idolatrous priests. The köhčním. from the cities of Judah were assembled by the king (v. 8), but he did not permit the priests of the high places to ascend the altar of Jahweh at Jeru- salem, but allowed them to ‘eat mazzóth in the midst of their brethren” (v."). By this is perhaps meant that they had to remain in their respective places and there find their bread. In this sense the expression would certainly be somewhat strange, and there would be no indication then that these biºmóth priests were treated with any less severity than th. kémárºm, although it must be assumed that they were. We must therefore suppose that the expression ‘eating of mazzóth has reforence to some favour shown them in the matter of maintenance (Gesch. p. 225 f.). Of a third class of non-Jerusalemite priests there is not express mention ; but since it is said that the - jº, (in a body) were assembled at Jerusalem, and then the special treatment of the köhönim of the high places is indicated, the assembling can hardly have had any object except to separate these bámóth priests from other non-J sº priests who had not been priests of the high places. IGuenen (ThT, xxiv. [1890] p. 27) objects, indeed, to this explanation, with apparent right, when he says that then the order of words in 2 K 239 would require to be 'akh kóhámé ha-bämóth lä’ ya'lú. But the contrast is between ‘ he brought to Jeru- salem' (v. 8) and ‘the priests of the high places went not up,” so that the order of words ('akh lä’ ya'ālū) can be justified also on our view. Those non-Jerusalemite priests who had not been priests of the high places were then probably admitted by Josiah, in accordance with the directions of Dt regarding the Levites, to a share in the cultus at Jerusalem. If this was done, the requirements of |Dt were satisfied in the spirit, although certainly not to the extent of what, taken in the letter, they had no regard paid to them at all. might express. On the other hand, if by the priests of the high places (y.") who were excluded by Josiah from the service of the altar, we are to understand all non-Jerusalemite Levites, it must be held that the Deuteronomic demands in favour of the admission of the non-Jerusalemite Levites Considering the impression which the law made upon Josiah, this is not exactly probable, for Dt demands in no ambiguous terms that the non-Jerusalemite Levites should be admitted to some share in the holy ser- vice. It is possible, no doubt, that in the narrative of Kings the admission of non-Jerusalemite Levites to the cultus is passed over in silence, not without intention, because it might appear objectionable to the author. In the cities ºp the old kingdom of Samaria, which were , likewise purified of the bámóth, Josiah, according to the narrative of Kings, offered all the bóm0th priests upon the altars (v.”). Whether this bloody measure was literally carried out may indeed be doubted. On other points, the story of the reform of the cultus makes the impression of being based upon good authority. For instance, in the mention of the eating of mazzóth (or whatever may have been the original expression in what is perhaps now a corrupt text) by the former priests . the high places in the midst of their brethren, the author must have had in view a special arrangement no longer clearly intelligible to us, which cannot have been invented by him after the analogy of certain relations in which the priests found themselves at a later period, or which were known from other Sources. The Blv. of Jeremiah calls the prophet's rela- tives at Anathoth kóhánim (1*); they would have been called in Dt Levites. Besides this, in a }.; which it is difficult to assign to Jeremiah himself, the Deuteronomic expression ‘Levite priests’ is employed (33*), and in the same place there is mention of ‘the Levites, the priests, my (sc. Jahweh’s) ministers’ (v.”), or, more briefly, “the Levites that minister to me? (v.”). The #. of Jeremiah bears no witness to the existence of a class of Levites distinct from the priests. But it certainly, witnesses to an organization of the priestly body. There is mention of elders of the priests (19%), the office of chief superintendent in the temple (20, 29*), as well as that of keeper of the threshold (35°). The priests, even the higher grades of them, appear to be still regarded as court officials; at least the chief superintendent Zephaniah (29**) makes his appearance as a messenger of king Zedekiah (21' 37°). 6. THE PRIESTHOOD IN EZERIEL'S STATE OF THE FUTURE. — During the Exile, the prophet Ezekiel, the son of Buzi, of priestly descent (Ezk 1*), drew up a set of statutes for the future theo- cracy. These statutes are thoroughly imbued with a priestly spirit, and in view of the com- manding position which is assigned in them to the sons of Zadok, the Jerusalemite priestly family, there can be no doubt that Ezekiel himself belonged to this family. In the State of the future, in what shall then be the sole existing temple, that at Jerusalem, he permits (44*) none but the Levite priests (cf. 4.3"), the sons of Zadok, to enjoy priestly rights, to offer to Jahweh fat and blood, to enter His sanctuary and to approach His table ; this prerogative is to belong to them because they kept, the charge of the sanctuary of Jahweh when the children of Israel went astray. The prophet's meaning clearly is, that the Zadokites kept the service of Jahweh pure when the people deviated into idolatry—a statement which, of course, has only a measure of truth, for the intrusion of idolatry into the temple at Jerusalem in the reign of Manasseh cannot Sºſ.J.I.AQIT CINV SLSCII’Idſ 81. S}{\LIAGIT (INV SLS&II?HCI Kup qsuſ otº uo Kittinqotius on Ioj quouloſio]t on 1 ->{opmZ utoly poſsinfuſºsp sº strº Ao'ſ pitulsiopuu Ju so)":loſſo otA . Tsolid otſ,I, , (“J (;GI 'd "/989?)) oldood ouq to put ‘sh;Aſsoj quotid ou'l Qu săuſ -ioljo ouq to Itºi.104trut otiq put it to Ijo ÁIſtºp oſſ, Jo qsoo ouſ, Ku. Jop on sſ ouſ : Josq q.luoo sitſ, qou quq ‘qūuoo-o-oj touti; out) Jo on tº qsto ouſ, loquo suoist ooo uniq.too uodu Kuuſ oouſld ouſ.I, juſXI on Ixo-old out on oudp put Áoiſ, Su ‘àuoſoq so A11 -užotold KIQsoſ.Itſ uſa;).too triotſ AA on ‘(.789tt) , ooliſ.1d , u Kluo quºt ‘jupi a utú) ouou Kuu Iopozºl Jo Koulo -oolſ, O.Inquſ otl) on u. Aoux qou si qsoºd Joſio V ‘Sloušiolog out, but Muti.I puoooš où.) Jo Sqsoºtſ ouſ, KQ poiſtullosſp uooq oAtºll O'llotſ]!" tloyu A sorºup ouſ, snquo oinquy ouſ up 95.It iſo -sup on ‘uoſqisoddusold sitſ, lio “out ‘soot (d. 15III où Jo's solid ſoultoſ oilº 'o'; ‘soº!Ao'ſ SIH poptik -sip KIIou A oluqug uſ oºt on Ioptozºſ Kºt potmbol ove Ionqui ou J, so Auſs-old tuo" ou', ‘stoujyotoſ ouſ] uto.1] quo.toUp uood oAull ‘ostnoo go ‘IIIA Muti, A.It puooos Jo Sqsolid out ‘osuo ouſ, KII tºol otoA sitſ, JI (g Š *oAoqu oos) sºuTyſ Jo 's-IgE oth uſ pozſußooo. Soſqu -$Up Kinsolid Suoſau.A outſ, Jo AoA uſ juſtisſuolsº qoli sº oux'ſ oilº on Iolid IIoAo Sºsoſid Jo 8stºo puooos tº uood oat; (I pluous O.Iollº, .# '88" () SIUſ) on poujissu olo A ou A sonſ Ao’ſ oluºsodiu oil’) on Joqot, -Iulio ÁInsolid outſ, poluop pull oil 101ſt “S1so.Itſ, go ouiniu oil, ssdio 19AVoI oth ol āuſ Alī; popſoat, Kosod -Ind ou sooutºlomºn toºth stuſ uſ quil) ºuq ‘(gGI 'd ‘olo ‘ooop.1007/S “toxiou uooH unA os) suolºtſol 5uſ -qspºo Ápûo.IIa uto.1] [opozºl on tuſſurug suav Sopulà oAq Jo wºup/07 Jo Moſqoulºsºp outſ, quuſ, ‘ssulo to AOI ou" on lºop uſ Aſtro poſſddu “wºup/0% ‘uoſquuäſsop Jo tutoj It iſnood oul tuo, J AOIIoy O., stuoos q odoy -oiotſ,I, , osmouſ out, Jo stoºsſuytu auſ, ‘soq Aoſſ out, , go ‘osolſ, unpav šuolu ‘putt “HoAAuſt'ſ O1 Ioqsſuſ tu on tuou Ab.1p ou A ‘K.It nº outs ot! Jo Stoºsiuſ (ú ouq ‘Sqsoud ou", Jo SNuods ºrgī, ‘Aatiquoo ou" u() soo! Atos Kºsolid of tutosºp on to duo ou olu Ku.14st quoA ou A soli Aorſ ouſ qtl11 #f "Io uſ UAAop pºtſ uooq stuſ out oil, Ionje odou ou Sinooo 88tº Io ao Aol out, Ioſ utyuyſ/.0% uoſquuäſsop ou'l Quq ‘uously outs out uſ [optozº[ Kq pousinjugsſp otou Aosio ove sosºlo ow) ou I, ºutgup"/09/ Sº go uoxods SSºlo JoAol out uoAo ott, grOf uſ XIIIo quuq Ruſsitdius Kluyuq.too sº q1 ‘os JI soot (d. 15III oug Jo Sqsoud ouq Jo 5uſptº.15ap out, quoqu squoulolºs Iolt, où1 on oouotojo.1 opºdolold tº spun uſ sſ olouq quuſ, oſqissotſ SI q1 ‘xual puooos put qstſ, Jo Sqsolid uoo.wqoq opulu Ápûo. It stuoſqoughsh) u oſſusstad spun uſ JI utoAo qugſ soploptºſ, su poplujo.1 od On II'u olu jar(); uſ pouon) -tuouſ wºup/py out, quuſ, pollojuſ od uouſ, qoutito nº gº tuo, I '('907 pay “puoluş oos) sops (Iquos out untou ş); tıo ‘to 11th out, opish no 'o'; 'quoo-oto, toutuſ out! opsoddo poquinqis o.It graf go silºu (Iquos put, sIIull Mºdou ou I (r.'A) 0115 oun go opps out, Ka * Imoo-olog toutly out) 01 juipuoſ ontº UIQ,tou out) put; oquš (Innos ou', ‘2’ ‘oyuş touliſ out) oppsluo on atop Jo siſou ol āuis OAA) ouſ.I., (Iºund otl) iſ sout!" Ulot “qquos out on s(Igll but I'llou ouſ, Ol sutu o Aos -qo) tº Jo situu (Iluos put, sIIull (Iliou ou" tuoly quo.toUp on In D olt; ratſ); Jo IIull (I'llou oil] put [[ut (Iquos ouſ, ‘so popu/ ou', 'o'? ..." (IOAUIt'ſ O1 (tou Aulp otA, ‘todotuſ $1solid ou" toy popuoquy u10q ‘stºp on Strip.Ioooº “ota: “Mullu ouſ, Jo 95.1buo outſ, go s.todooxI ot) toy puooos ou', put ‘osnou oul go oj.Itsuo où Jo stodooxt out" to $1 1s.III ou? (IoIt|A go ‘ror of uſ Iluuſ II].tou outſ, puu II'êu UQuos out quuq Sqooſqo ou “...lorop uſ $1sold go sossulo OAA) go ºuſtisinjurisp 8, Jo) LIAA quosold out, on to Asub up ‘uouſ AA 5uo.IAA ÁUpop!oop od on stuoddo uouonyſ "I'mºſt out go aş,tuuſo ouſ, doox. On , uoſquijop out! O! spuodsolloo Joſua ‘towtruſ Jo oſqun oun on nou Autp on ord Aoun quuq XIopuz Jo Suos out, Jo SÄus otfi, suolou A ‘(p:0} jo) , osmoll out, go ojiulio out) Jo StodooxI, od on old ºutiq Aoû] sº qi quuq riff uſ pub “osnout out, Jo stonsulu , od Oq 0.It. Adul quill sonſ Ao’I out, Jo plus ÁIssoid Xo SI q1 riff uſ quuq 5uyoos ‘oſqissitu.Iod od Oq tón! (A quosoid oth on toddaï 'ou soop sitſ.I, ‘soºt oq oatſ qou pilots ow , osmoil oil) go 95.tutio oil) Jo slotlooxl, Koſ quqq os “utºuy/0.7 ouſ, Jo stioſ, Iuſſop 5uſpooo.1d ouſ) (11oſſ on , Mopt/ Jo Suos o (14 out: osotiſ), sp.tow out togol pluow (gz, d ‘068 fºſſ.) uouau XI put ('907 pp) buouls (90I 'd "/0804)), ut!!! o, loqsſului O1 (IoM (It'ſ on tºou Atºlp (AO'I go suos ouq Buould tuo II ou A ‘x(opuz Jo Suos oiſ, ott; IoIIIAA ‘tuqu oug Jo of Iullo oth go slodoox{ oil] ‘81solid où), put osmoil ou" go of; it to 911) Jo Stodooxl oùq ‘Slsoſ.1d outſ, uooAqoq optºſi SI uoſº ouſ) sip t—Jo uox{ods SI sonſ Ao I suo.[4thopſ ouſ) go ºutpºld -op ouſ] odojoq-9.Iou A ‘.jar()} (ito.IJ QI oolipop O1 >[uſtin quâut ouo 'uoissolidzo ſuolo e olotſ wou ÁIIIIth too si otout, sIII] go ‘Sqsolid (491ſtºpſ, Jaulioſ où) on poujiššu Aou uo;11sod oiſ, poſdnooo poſtol loſſ tuo ut: qu uoAo pull otlaw osotin A[outºu ‘IoplozºL Aq poziušoool so), Ao’I go duo.13 tougout 10K Si oilotſ, so] plopt;7, otº put Kai.Iqst quoA out A osotid sopisoq quil,I, ‘ssouq.tolls Jo oxiºs ouſ, Ioj qual os of Autu q ‘Autºsu şu Hoà s! (11 Jo Iou utu ouſ, Jo uoſºdilosop snoſ Aoid out 10qJu ‘qūq “Kö.11st quo AA, Aoi (, qutſ, ‘Nopt;7, Jo Suos ouſ, luo,(J uoſqouſºsp uſ ‘ĀII*.touloſſ; , sonſ Aof I, ouſ, Jo Kus out soop (t18F) of tissueſ loºt, I tº uſ KIUO dusto A-Iopſ ouſ, Jo S]soſ.1d uood putſ oqAA uouſ, Jo osotil Jo KIIIo qual “Kpoſſ tº st; sonſ Ao'I otſ, Jo qou uoſºtºpºliop tº go sortiods [optozºſ ...] ou', put tuouſ) udo Aqoq ont; ſpotti.Ioluſ put $1so.1( ouq ol odºuſ ploquš (IoIQIsod u oſduio, oth uſ plou ot|A ‘It’luoſº.It d uſ sonſ Ao'I (to Ao XIIIssod ‘solilot; ISI tlood oauti (optozº[ go out 4 outſ, on topid uo Ao ‘Kuuu olou', ‘Squu Atos (ſous sopisoq qugſ ‘soot. Id ...] oqq Jo Sqşol.II Iotti.Ioy outſ, Kq. o.Inqug uſ uoxſul oot;U. Jouq oatu pinous ‘so.Auſs-old utoq sº (g $ ‘oAoqū oos) unt[soſ, Jo XIgſ oug uſ sojussed oſqs. Aoûof oil) uto.II u.Aoux olt, oùAA put: ‘A.Iºnqouts ouſ] uſ ool A -tos uoAI3 Kisnoſ Aold pull ou A stoušiolog ou', qullq Kio.toul sputsulop (optozº[ Jo (toxiotis Stoušiolog ouiſ, puo Koq aid tuo" otiq go to s]soſ.1d oth Jo Squu Atos lotſo ou tuolºsm.to'ſ 16 olduioq ol () uſ odow olouq uoul III] din quill “ofºo oliſ, Jo uoſquTuosold S.Ioptozº[ uo.1] ‘poulºu qsn'ſ stoºl.IAA on 1 Aq ouop uooq Stu so “loguſ qoutigo ouo “pubu tourno out uO 'uosn'gl: -IIoAA put, ‘uouonyl ‘Jult) .(q ĀIIugoodso ‘pouſequgºu Ágújº uood stºu soot (duºuſ oth go s]sorld Joulroy oul Su , so IAOT, S, topioz'ſ Jo uoſº but Idko ouſ I, ‘olouq snquo out? On soAIosurouſ, UIQt44% on ouoo qušju ou A sopao'I [It on uodo St. A tuoſºsnioſ qu oo: A.los ÁInsold on uſ ontºus Iunbout Aqolou A ‘QCI Jo quouqo'buo out, on Igodoſt, “ulogo.I qtuq go oog up ‘pluoo Kotſ,I, "Squisit AI1solid on uſuio s]soil ºf 107ttpq (ouloſ out? Kollsop on o[qº uooq qou puu u.logo.1 subſsoſ' quuſ, uoos og Kuuſ q spliº tuo.I.I ‘Squit; Allos - º Jo uoſºpsod outſ, OT populàop puu Mutº. ÁInsoud loul.Ioſ Iſotſ, go poAIIdop od on out Aauq spun to I soot, Id tº ſu ol () uo Kuquſopſ Jo oophould sodood oun polloqu pºu ou A “sooth ūšyu oilº Jo Sqsoºd lotuloy out subotſi IoINozgſ ‘son, Ao’I opſopuz-uou ou? Aq quiſ, uſuld si qL ‘(rºof) odood otſ, ſo soon IIoes outſ, Mooo on ‘Totiling ‘oAnju ‘soq Ao'I oqplopuſ/-uouſ oil', 'o'; 'osuouſ out Josions uſul, où1 ‘stumoſ A out, ºuſto]ujutsis sopisogI (toff) ulouq on tonsſului on (so) Iſou,ISI out)) tuouſ, otojoq puuqs on puts ‘odood oul go oogliot's out, put 5uptaIIo ..". oùn Kuſs on ‘osuouſ out! Jo Stons, uſul od on ‘olduo) out go sloop out, qu (100*A doox on ovu Áouq tuoo.1 UIQUIQ up puu ‘q Jo slotſaoxi su Ātunqoubs où, Ioluo ol powo II tº uooq ontoulºſu aabu ou A sloušiolog out go oould out, oxiu, o, oit, Kotſ, “Kluid -uoo ouſ, uo : săuţū, KIou sph Uouolddu Lou .# oq solid go ooſpo attº osotoxo oi Ilow uſeſ Hobo.iddu qou II bus Kou', ‘Kambuſ IIoun Itaq on oth Áoul.I. ‘SIOpp go qºu? Ioy (IoM Uſeſ go ool Atos oſſ] qJo ot|A ‘pozygºsodu loºtsIuouſAuo.Augſ tuouſ Aetnse quo.A ou A Soº LAOT ouſ, UTIAA Ioptozºſ Áq polsu (Quod out, soqXIopuz oil I, Sqsoud onluorºsmitoſ out, go qued otſ, uo Kqſoudutoo ouos quount A oould uox10, eauu SJIJIAGIT CINV SLSCII?[dſ 6. SJIJIAJIT CINW SJLSGII?HCI oqoo.up oun “oldood ou" Jo pubu Suſquuſul [mo ouq st go quâuouſ, snu) sl unusoſ (18) poº) orogoºl putins ou.A. osou) duouis XIIu.A on oould u ovull puu ‘sq.inoo sph doox{ *(qxoluo) outs ou? III sq.inoo, go uomºuout ouq tonnoq qus on stuoddu olduoq oun uinouhſu [Siouxo N 'uosnuulio AA] olduo, ou, Jo quoulošuuuul oil) Jo posm on Aloo tuos pluow ºppº : Iouis] 'orº) osmouſ suo Autºſ ojpuſ IIulls out ‘oil’utto st II door put sAux suo Auſt'ſ uſ XIIu.A IIIA out JI ‘quil) opºul silosſutold oui unusoſ oſ, (958) Aup ouo ul Áu wu ud Muq od on sº puul out, Jo ups ou" tuou A topuu ‘ſoutoſ, ou, Jo 5uſuoo ou" on uoistullu uſ "ušis ouſ, go uou, ovu Koul quuſ, ‘Slsolid ou'l Jo qso.1 ou', '9'? ‘suoyuuduloo stu put unusoſ Jo prus sº quotia so.A.) -tºotold Klºsopid go uoissossod uſ su º oq on stuodda: J.Lostulu. Ubyssoſ.W ou', ‘qoudold outs stuſ) uſ odussaid dougout uſ (c10) 5upſ olnquy outſ, Jo (XXT) qušII out! (Io 5utput:4s su qsoºd tº Jo SMUſ (11 op| 'uºissoſ.W out, 'o', ‘iſputoZ ou', topum sºutuſ, Itu Jo uoſquuuuuusuoo out Autºlod houli'uo utiluuooZ ‘qsoud . oul quouq AA 'Aquintuluoo olou A out, Jo ‘ĀqLiquotold II* uſ ‘suuq pub ‘tuolusmtoſ’ go oAI]*) -uoso.Idol outſ, su poAoi A KLtuoſo sº uouſ, 1solid tâIUI out,L, (ag ooZ), Uuo(usu.toſ uosoqo Sull out A, uoAUT'ſ go outtu out, uſ .." ſº Jo Iojuts outſ, Kot pollodol st quit: Idutoo stuſ “solid uljiu outſ, sosuoob (I'uqus ou" “utiluutoo/, Jo uoist A oud uſ ‘uouſ AA ‘olly, oilſ Xo-old tº su qi uodu Mool on pointhuo out ow quilº osoul tuoly ooqu'u.Luuä Kut, jui Aull quouq A “sºul XI uſ soouo.I.Inooo bonuIosſ Kuo Oquouqu punoy oats (I oA (IoIUIAA go uoſº -bujºsop tº ‘('71) s.18 ooZ ‘rt at .tl. SuH ‘70ppſ-viſ up"/09/ -vºſ) , "soad u? Iu, Su ‘Apoq ĀInsolid oul go buouſ ou? '. go Mºods Sqoudoid osoul, unogl '02g 'o';I ‘(sidst 18AH) suſ.It’CI 5uſ XI go tºok puooos out! uſ Ugſ.tullooZ put ºujśu H uo.U II"; Jo 1s.III “pool -qsoſ.1d out, Jo uoſqpuoo out" quoqu (IoIqtuu.loguy oyſ, -uouſ] nº oAbū ol\ Kniumutuoo onlixo-qsod out, uoi I .'s sold on Aoſſ log, tº &cif.G ([118 ‘d ‘QGSI ‘ûopuoſ I ‘ſwºws ſo yoog aſ 'o, ‘pot?uſ] ouſou O put: “[-oo! pay] IoqqXI ‘[*207 pollutingſ ‘uouonyl UTIAA) spuoluo ouo Ji Ionotºrullo q soldus où) sounssu quouoquqs ou.L "soq Ao’ſ ‘Sqsoſ.1d , Iopto out uſ Xutuſ]o-Inue ut, od p(no A olouq osţAA -totilo St. ‘quoit Ambo su pop.Itºol old suito, oAA) ou? quuq SI AAIIIqbqold oth qug Itzolo ÁIqooylod qou st ‘(IJ 003 'd 'olo ‘ooop.1092/S. ‘IoxiotiuooH ut: A ‘uſt:50 ‘Āquooo..I ‘os) tuouſ] uooAqoq sousſnijuſhstp to ‘şuſ -u bout uſ It?014uopp od Oq solſ Aoſſ, put, , Sqsold , stuion out, spuuqs.topun qoudoid ou', toulou.A ‘(‘J Gjø 'd “ſasa;) oos : cut.G 4.0 pºol 9,10UIAA “trø9 SI), sonſ Aoſſ toy ‘Sqsoſ.1d toy , so IIquio+) uoAo JIosul III o] ox{t}] IIIA olmqng out, ul HaAugſ quiſ, liopºuqoodxo bopuluſ-pºoid outſ, OT sosit “uſu UAIA lºoſquopp IIooq oAbū Ātoolbos utio qug ‘qūposſ-olloquaCI go ſoouſos oul o' poſſuoloq oAgu on Suboddº ou A ‘u.Inqoyſ out longe poſiod oil, up 5uſq.IA qoudold V shupyſ uſ H][A ooutºuyenbog oxiºuſ oA su qons ‘posoddnsold si sopulà quotolyſp uſ poziubińio poolſ1.soſ.1d tº osco quuq uſ put ‘qu'uoul out soouſld-qsajid KIqbqold Moſq.A Aq ‘(sigf). Soonſid ÁIolſ, go syſtiods iſºſus I-olloqmoGI ÁIUO squouojubile Kinsolid out Jo uoſqipuoo out, quoqu 5uguſłou ultio ow. ‘pouloſiod ool Atos ÁIou ou StºA ouauq uot A ‘olixºi out? §uſ.Inq Aotºtooot!" où, Jo uomº.101sol loy - podou tº uodu poqºpmoſeo ‘Iolot.tullo Itoppuu Jo otoA sooutºuſ pio S.Ioptozº[– ‘VºIZSI OJ, 'I&IIXIGIZSI INOXII CIOOH.I.S.I.I.I.I &IIII, ‘L ‘('J 9&I ‘d "ſosok)) oyoºs ou" on sooš qi scleuſ -Iod “poluoſput qou si qso.1 oun qqiA ouqp aq on st quiUAA “solid oul on poußisso si (737s.g. euth KIuo OSIU 5uſtol]o-oAgou out, JO ‘pouoſquouſ Apuoiſt, Sqn.IJ-1s.III oug IIQſAA 5uolu ‘pupſ out, Jo Sºonpold oIqbqoğoA quºqu og on stºod do ºuſtol]o-oAbou ouq Ágſ (off) uinop out, Jo (/?pºſs 2.0 oun) qsod out Jo ‘lolling ‘optºut SI uoſquou Itºyoods (loſt|A qq.A 5uoſo ‘siuſ IoIIo-oAgou Itº go 5uţūq Ātoao Jo “(ſput -?.19%) juſtølſo-oAgou KIOAo go put, ‘āuyun KIOAo go Sºulj-4S.II) ou? II'd go (177/s.2.0 out") qsoºt out ‘SqJ15 poqºloosuoo out, go osco euq uſ ‘put, ‘(acff) uſeuq on sIIuy [outs] uſ 5uţū1 poqoAop, Ato ASI (ºrff clap) olduo) out) Jo Sloquiullo out uſ outlusttoo on oatsu Áould duploijo-)Huà ou', put 5ul.IoIJo-US oil) “ſºy", -wºut out,L 'sqlā polous put soojitous out, Jo tuouſ] pouăissu Suopºlod oliuſſop ‘quouojuuLIt quotol) ſp a loqJu qug ‘CI uſ su ‘o.Abū sqsolid out) stuſ, sopis -ogi (risp) uoussossod olquuo IIulu unt sº so] IAo'I put: Sºsolid out, Jo puul outſ, (etSF (gp) puu Sºsolid ou) uo 5utuono, qoſ.[1s!p ou', oak)ool son IAo"I ou? $ (quotSF qugh) uo IIoMp on , liopºlod, to "ſputy,t27 KIoll t; Su ‘olduo, oud ºutpuuo Ilus KIoquipoultuſ put I ou? Sqsolid ouq ol suitssu o H 'Ioptozºl Āq KIQuoqssuo." ūjuoluº, pollutto qou şi (sºff) oout!)I.lotuſ lotl) ºf toaut'ſ quun "toutsi Jo put out uſ ooutºnourſ ou oAuu on out, s\solid out, quil, ‘Iopioz'I Aq pontºod -oil put, “CI uſ unwop pitºl Kpºol Itº old ſoulld out.I. “(Jes'A) suojsloop [thoſphſ Jo Suſ Ald ou? Sº IIoA st ‘liuoloun put uuolo “outgoid put KIOUI uoo.wqoq oouo.toUp out, up oldood out, Jo uoſqon.14suſ ou? sº olouq ‘oojitous go duſtojo ou? sopisoq “sqsolid ou, o, poulºssu Suoploung out, qsjuoul V (tº A) ulo) uooq do so Alosuouſ, Jo pop oAbu quuq sºutput, Jo quo on qou out: Kouq Quuq Ātout'uu ‘Sqsolid out, on SISuuduro Tuloods (IATA possol ppu SI (nºz, XSI jo) uoſº tºoliddu Its touoš Jo poopu, St.A. Uſoſ UAV ‘uoſqouluſuſ u V ‘(Ins'A) uoyºtouji Tud sitſ toºju Atºp Uluo.AoS ou? III] 5uluoljo-uſs stu quosold put quoo loulu out, Ioquo oq powo It oct on qou şi solid ouq quouolijop (Ious Jo quoAo out] uſ : Suoſº Iol soltou out) Jo osuo ou? uſ qdooxo soupoq ptop (ITIAA SoAIosulouſ! O Jop on Jou o,It! Kou(J., (zz"A) soutd tº Jo Aopſ.w ou" to [ot.ISI go osmou out, Jo utilia º Kuo quq ‘ubuoAA pool.o.A: p 't A.I.Ubul qou Aºu Koul.I., (-roºf?) out A Muſ,Up qou Kuul Áouq q.Inoo toutuſ oth out of Koun uouw quo on qud "IJo oAgus on Iou duoſ Ao.15 qol on lºſſou ove Kouin Utu Üotſ.I., (1619;) quoo loqmo ouſ, Oqu Uroll! 5uſiq ol Qou qug ‘qūnoo Mouttſ outſ, Jo Stoquiulio uſ ºpiſuyut outſ, oxiuq on put, juſtøljo-uſs ou', put 5uſtolſo -][Imº oil, Iſoq on one Sqsolid out, qullq pologuo Si qi ‘oldood out 5uſ KJ11out's pſoat on top to uſ ‘touttuut ox|II uT (at'A) sluou.It's KIOU IIotſ, unIAA oldood out, Ágúduus qou Kuu Aoun quuſ, ‘almoo tonno ouſ, on q'ao oš Kouº (Iou A Jo qud on Olu Kouſ, Sso1p [UIoIIIo STUIJ, ‘(Iliff) quoAs pyoAt on top to uſ ‘IOOA uſ qou ‘uouſ I up pounoſo ‘ooſatos ÁIOU ou" tutoglod on ott, Kou(J, ‘Sqsolid out 04 Suoſqounſuſ Igoods soAI3 IoIXIozºL ‘pop.It:0 -sp osſo od oº poolinsolid Uşţū 5uſqşINo ontou?! (I tº quuou ou Ji Suisſid.Ins og jou pſu.o.A q ‘Aouloool!? sloptozº] uſ 5upſ, Jo oilſ, ouſ, Jo 5uddoup ou! go Aoya up squoAo II* qV (‘J 81 I'd "ſosop) possold Ko pool{Qsopºd qāyú ouq go put diſsºup out, Jo Wºod uoſqooſot qouſqsip G sº olouq ‘(ſprºug|] telz, SIZSI) , uMoto outſ, unIAA oouou ‘(68 ooz uſ /dºwyż go ‘opoſ) sqsoºdſ out, up ueqinq S.1soild uſin out go uoſquu -51sop out St. Kluo olotAosio ‘ſ?07/dou?!?ſt) G.Igú ou? UniMA AeAV , ‘spioAA out, uſ quuq od Köul I “odutoq ouq uſ $119A.p g[osuſ H. poſſ) qud “I'dou Atºp on pºll qsoud tº uoms doux on ‘xtic pologs ou sºil olduo; sloptozº (so Axiopez St, lions , qsoºd qāyú , tº oining ºt, Jo ongºs sit uſ ozſußooo.1 on ‘pool{\sold .. ſ' ou" Jo toujuy ouſ, St. XIopt;7 uo S&I out sisuuſduo out, Aq ‘spuoquy [optozºſ quuq splot on A ‘898 'd 'aqo ‘ooop.toops “tox{outlooH ut: A Tsuyuşū osſe spuſ) songſpou AT]softd offuſs tº go qu'u.A uſ oqqºſ sú qsn'ſ sº put ºupſ uguinu 6 log luool ou still q oduouſ ‘quosold KIJoolſp $1 IoMut ( Kotºtoool!! sloptozºſ uſ 'uloſesmitoſ' qº qsolid ſolºſo tº StºA olouq orixq out, on uo Ao Joſ.1d qtl14 “Sãuſy[ Jo SXI&I ou, up sºuguº, Jo qumoooº ouſ, tuo, J ‘qqnop ou od utio olouq q.mq : , qsoºd (1311|, otºſ, qouxo oilſ, oloq "solid ou Loptozº[o] Iolid quuſ, ‘poopUI ‘oq Kulu qI ‘ouiſ, stuſ on dn , 1sojad u?pu , tº Jo oouoqsixo-UOII ot? *. A. Jo sooutºutp.lo osotſ, quuſ, politussº uðoq Āinuombony soul qI ‘oyujollyo on suoddull ou.A opiopez Toſmoſquad ou', sº poptºdo1 od to Iqb.I Águi quq ‘('007 pp ‘puous) q$oſtd Joſuo out, oſt A[p.Itsu upo (‘iatgift) suTuouſ unuoAoS pub qs.II) oliſ, Jo 80 PRIESTS AND LEWITES IPRIESTS AND LEWITES of the cultus, the mediator between the community and God. The high priest is manifestly conceived of by Zechariah as anointed (as in the Priests’ Code), for the “two sons of oil” of Zec 4” can hardly stand for anything else than the Davidic- ally descended Zerubbabel and the high priest Joshua. All this marks a view of the dignity of the chief priest which is diametrically opposed to the pro- gramme of Ezekiel, and which cannot be under- stood as a direct expansion of what we have learned from Dt or the prophets or the historical books to have been the development of things hitherto. Of course, through the restoration of israel, after the Exile, the dignity of the chief priest acquired extra elevation, because he was now head of the com- munity with no longer a king by his side. But in spite of all this it appears to the present writer inconceivable, that in the course of the 52 years which had elapsed since Ezekiel in the five and twentieth year of his captivity (B.C. 572) had his vision of the new Jerusalem with its new ordin- ances (40'), the high priestly dignity should have made its appearance as a wholly new creation. If Ezekiel is silent about a chief priest, this is—as the statements in the Bks, of Kings show — plainly not because there had been no chief priest at Jerusalem up till then, but is due to an intentional reaction against a then actually existing office. But even if this be so, the rank of the chief priest must, in the interval between Dt and Zechariah, or even between Ezekiel and Zechariah, have been raised in a way of which there is no evidence in the Sources as yet adduced, and which is not intelligible on the ground simply of the changed circumstances. We shall have to return later on to inquire to what influence this alteration is to be ascribed (see below, 8 g). In Haggai the priests are asked for táráh, i.e. oral direction, ºf this with reference to the dis- tinction of clean and unclean (2*). From the fact that the reply is given by word of mouth, it does not follow that there was as vet no written tērāh at all on this subject ; even where such exists, oral direction as to its application in any particular case is still requisite. # Zechariah, too, it is regarded as the business of the priests—as well as the pro- hets—to give information about a question affect- ing religious observances (7%). Neither Haggai nor Zechariah make any mention of Levites alongside of priests. Our first authentic witness to Levites is in the time of Ezra. Accord- ing to the account given in Ezra's own Memoirs (indicated hereafter by M, which stands also for the Memoirs of Nehemiah), Ezra was accompanied to Palestine by two priestly houses, that of Gershom of the sons of Phinehas, and that of Daniel of the sons of Ithamar (Ezr 8* M). No Levites came for- Ward at first to join him (v.” M). It was only at Ezra's special request that 38 Levites were at length prepared to go with him (v. 18t. M). Of the Nethinim, ‘whom J)avid and the princes had given for the service of the Levites,’ there went with Ezra 220 men (v.” M). The fact that so few Levites, and these only after much pressing, con- sented to follow Ezra, must have been Čue to special circumstances. The Levites, who in Ezr and Neh are everywhere sharply distinguished from the priest8, must be understood to be those whom Ezekiel had called Levites in the narrower sense, i.e. the descendants of the non-Jerusalemite priests of the high places. The station which Ezekiel had assigned to them in the State of the future must have presented few attractions. Still the distinc- tion between priests and Levites among those who returned with Ezra can scarcely be based merely upon the ordinance proposed by Ezekiel, but, like the appearance of the high priest in Zechariah, is probably to be attributed to the influence of another classification which had meanwhile come into force (cf. below, § 8 g). But even apart from such, and even if there was no thought of introducing the ideal constitution of Ezekiel, the situation was not a favourable one for these ‘I,evites.” As Ezra himself, according to what is quite a credible account of his descent (Ezr 7*), was a Zadokite, the descendants of the former priests of Jeru- salem would, as a matter of course, take the lead amongst the returned exiles, so that other ‘Levites,’ who were not in a position to claim that they belonged to the priestly aristocracy, must give way to them. The Memoirs of both Ezra and Nehemiah make a distinction, which the Blºs. of Ezr and Neh do not make everywhere throughout, between the Levites and the singers and doorkeepers of the temple (e.g. Ezr 10* M ; see Gesch, p. 142, and cf. below, § 9). These are classes which meet us for the first time in the post-exilic period (the “singers’ of Ezk 40” are based upon a textual error, see Smend, ad loc.; otherwise Köberle, p. 17 ff.). But it is not likely that these classes constitute a really, new phenomenon, which first took its rise in the Exile, for, during a period when there was neither temple nor cultus, professional classes like these can scarcely have been formed. And as little—even if the representation given in Neh 7 (? M) = Ezr 2, that already amongst those who returned with Zerubbabel there were singers and doorkeepers, should be incorrect—can these classes have come into being for the first time under the wretched conditions that marked the beginnings of the cultus in º Jerusalem. Rather, it may be inferred, in the post-exilic singers and doorkeepers we have to do with the descendants of doorkeepers and singers of the pre- exilic temple, just as in the Nethinim with descendants of pre-exilic temple-slaves. The post- exilic singers, doorkeepers, and Nethinim are con- sequently an argument in favour of the existence of a numerous non-priestly personnel of servants in the pre-exilic temple. In a statistical account of the Astarte temple, inscribed on stone, found on the site of the ancient Kition, and belonging perhaps to the 4th cent. B.C. (CIS, I. 86A and B), tº: is mention of a whole series of different servants of the temple, who correspond in part to the Jerusalem temple- servants: those who had clarge of the curtains, gatekeepers, those who had to attend to the slaying of the sacrificial victims, female singers or dancers (npºy). A personnel of a similar kind was, in fact, required by every considerable temple. The post-exilic Levites in the narrower sense, on the other hand, cannot be identified with any office in the pre-exilic temple. Although the clash known in post-exilic times as ‘Levites’ owed its origin, to all appearance, to the ". of Ezekiel, yet the presence of special doorkeepers, alongside the Levites, in the post-exilic temple, shows that the Levites had not become precisely what he intended, for he had assigned to them the charge of the temple doors (see above, § 6). From the same circumstance it may be inferred with probability that the class of doorkeepers º prior to Ezekiel, and that he intended to amalgamate his Levites with these. If the list contained in Nell 7 is what in the present text it gives itself out to be, namely a civtalogue of those who at the first returned fron, the Exile with Zerublabel (Neh 77), the first g6/ſi/ that returned already included all the albove classes of sanctuary servants. Along with 4289 priests the list mentions 74 Levitos, 148 (128) singers, 138 (130) doorkeepers, 392 Nethinim and sons of PRIESTS AND LEWITES PRIESTS AND LEVITES 8] Solomon's servants (Neh 780ſ, cf. Ezr 290ſ.). But perhaps the probability is greater that we have to do here with a list of the population of Judah at the time of Nehemiah. The very small number of Levites will have to be explained in this passage in the same way as in the notice regarding those that returned with Ezra (see above). Another list (Neh 11"-"), which likewise has reference per- haps to the time of Nelhemiah (the Chronicler, at all events, understands it so), gives, amongst the numbers of those dwelling in Jerusalem, for the priests 1192; for the Levites, to whom the singers are here reckoned, 284; for the doorkeepers 172. This list, however, as it does not distinguish be- tween Levites and singers, may not have been drawn up till after the time of Nehemiah. Ezra himself says nothing of singers and doorkeepers having returned with him ; it is only in the later narrative, Ezr 77, that they are mentioned, but without any statement of their numbers, amongst the different classes of those who accompanied Ezra. . It may be that they had already returned in such numbers, that, when Ezra set out, there were either no more singers and doorkeepers in Babylon at all (Vogelstein, p. 38 f.), or none that were prepared to go with him. On the other º, 220 Nethinim returned with Ezra (Ezr 8” ). The same list in Neh 7, whose date is uncertain, lays great stress on the priests being able to prove their priestly genealogy; the families that could not do this were excluded from the priesthood (v.”). What was demanded in the matter of this genealogy is not evident from the expressions used, whether perchance descent from Zadok had to be proved, in accordance with the ordinance of Iºzekiel, or from Aaron, as is required by the Priests’ Code. The above were the constituent elements of the Service of the temple, when, according to the usually accepted date, in B.C. 445 or 444, during the governorship of Nellemiah, Ezra, caused the Law to be read aloud in solemn assembly (Neh 8 ft.). This law—probably the whole Pentateuch, otherwise only the so-called Priests' Code, i.e. the ceremonial law contained in the middle books of the Pentateuch — contained also regulations re- garding the priesthood which º till then had not possessed normative force, at whatever time they may have originated. In the pºsition, however, answering to that in the Priests’ Code, which was assumed by the high priest in the new Jewish Community, even before the arrival of Ezra (see above), we shall have to recognize an influence exerted, prior to its public promulgation, by the legislation of the Priests’ Code which was gradu- ally arranged or collected, if not composed, by the scribes in Babylon. In this Code, as is well known, the high priest has a unique position given to him. The influence of the same legisla- tion is probably to be traced likewise in the ex- plicit distinction between priests and Levites amongst those who returned with lºzra, and still more clearly in the circumstance that some priests who returned with Ezra traced their descent to Aaron (Ithamar), but not to Zadok (I’hinehas). This influence of the Priests’ Code upon the re- lations of the new community prior to Ezra's appearance in Palestine, is enough to exclude the view, which is sometimes put forward, that Ezra composed the l’riests’ Code after his arrival, i.e., according to the usual chronology, between the years B.C. 458 and 445 or 444. At least the rudi- mentary stage of the l’riests’ Code must be placed, in view of the position of the high priest in the time of the prophet Zechariah, not less than about a contury before the time of Ezra. In all probability the publication of the Law was VOL. IV.-6 preceded by the appearance of the short prophetical Writing which has come down to us under the name Malachi, which is derived from one of its catch-words, or may even be a title of honour given to its author. It was probably written after the arrival of Ezra, as it occupies itself with the question of the mixed marriages, which, so far as we know, was first agitated by him. The Covenant with the priests is called in Malachi the covenant with Levi or with the Levites (24.8), Yhich does not agree with the terminology of the Priests’ Codex, and hence appears to point to a date prior to , its publication. It cannot, surely, be supposed that, with reference to an oppression of the serving Levites by the priests, the latter are reminded by Malachi that Jahweh has entered into covenant with the whole tribe of Levi (Vogel- Stein, p. 24 f.), for what Malachi complains of is not ill-treatment of the Levites by the priests, but that the priests handle the t0rāh wrongly and with respect of persons (2*), i.e. of course in their dealings with the community. Malachi calls those who present the offerings ‘sons of Levi’ (38), and betrays no acquaintance with the term ‘Levites’ in the special sense of the Priests’ Code, namely as the appellation of a class of inferior ministers of the sanctuary. The terminology of the Priests’ Codex had thus, at all events, not become current in the time of Malachi. It is true that in Malachi the paying of the tithes is demanded, not for the jë. of feasts, as in Dt, but for the store-house of the temple, as ‘food,” i.e., for those who live by their temple service (3**"). This agrees with the requirement of the Priests’ Code published by Ezra, but this par- ticular ordinance may have come into force even prior to the publication of the Code. 8. THE PRIESTHOOD ACCORDING TO THE LAW CONTAINED IN TIII. “PRIESTI, Y WIRITING!.”—Wo do not know what was the compass of the law- book which obtained recognition under Ezra. Probably we should understand by it the whole Pentateuch. The narrative of the reading of the law and the binding of the people to obey it is scarcely, it is true, taken directly from the Memoirs of Ezra, but certain traces indicate that it goes back to these. The indications which the narrative of the reading of the law gives as to its contents point in part (the prollibition of marriage with the Canaanites, Nell 10") to Deuteronomy, or even to the still older legislation contained in the Jehovistic book, but in great measure to enactments which are to be found only in the code contained in that source of the Pentateuch which it has become customary to 'all as a whole the ‘Priestly Writing’ (Neh 8%. 18 10* *). This portion of the law of Ezra is a new factor which, at whatever time it may have originated, had not hitherto obtained public recog- nition or been generally known. It is true that in certain new ordinances regarding the situation of the priests, introduced in the period between the First Return and the alºa of Ezra (see above, § 7), influences are to be traced which pro- ceeded from this code, whether already in existence or in process of coming into being. The Priestly Writing occupies itself more than any of the collections of laws that had hitherto obtained validity, with the relations of the priest- hood, and, on this account and because of its having undeniably originated in the circle of the priests, may be called after them. Its legislation, which deals mainly with ritual, is not, indeed, specially designed for the priests. It is not meant to be a manual of rules }. the discharge of the priestly service. These, indeed, are not fully given on many points; rather are the readers or hearers it has in view, primarily the members of the con. SGILIA®IT CINV SLS&IIHoſ 38 SGILIA®IT CINV SLSCII?HCI “o Attu Kºsopid ou.I. ('J PII 'd "ſosoft) oos : 70 rºl Aſ I) utput/ºuſ at od out pinous uoAo ‘juſtølſo ouq juſNutu uoslotſ ouſ, Jo shousing ou', ‘(Ioptozºl tuouſ SIUI uſ 5uſ.IoI) ſp) opoſ) (81sol.1, I out) on 5uſplooot! ‘sſ turnoy A out, Jo din Suſqqno puts ‘ºuſ Kahj ‘juſtix out ‘puttu tollgo Oul IIO ("olo cº paſſ A"I) sºul.IoI)0 oilſ, Jo uoſºluoso.id ou, Kol poqooljo (, 5uſ.to Aoo,) (19.tpdday.) ou? (Ist Idulooot! Kutti ouoſº Kotſ) : ('040 11-q1 Jrt q-, I Aſ I) ouſ polious oiſ) uſ (In od on tuouſ, osulio put I'uq It oil" uodu ulouq Kūſ ‘a") sooijl.logs ouq loIJo on ‘(‘oqo or .It al. Aſ I) Kittuqolitis oliº uſ turqoſ A où.) Jo poolq out, opiuſ.lds on oaqrt[ 81solid ou.I. ‘.1910 tºtatuto loſojutºut tº Jo olt; ‘opoſ) ,80sol.I.I out, uſ poſſ Ioods ‘s) solid ouſ, Jo Swoº/outhſ 770m/?, où,I, ‘quoulouſſol loqul as St. (IAop qos od on si uouſ I uoultuoo otou on 1 Jo pºoqsuſ /sgº/s Jo quotti Koiduo ou.I., (“J (), 'd “yosaſ) ; (;f I ‘I ‘790,787.7% 9///mod n), 1st Iſ ‘unruoy] : “If 20I 'd ‘Issoon V) sutº -(IAWQI oilſ, put (162 'd [86SI] ‘ ‘7/07/0s was sºatswoºſh? -oºr / alſo, W ‘Ioxlun+)) suuſuo Kqug out, Huout, osſu ssolip sasoid oun jo Iulloquiu out sus, uouſ"I ‘(siz, S I) sysopºd Aotºto H out, Kol utoA St. A soulſ, uopio uſ (IoIRIAA ‘py') poſ/do, ou', ‘oqol uouſ I ot(q on puods?...too /sa/s Jo Squatu.Intſ; on IIAA ou.I. (gzz, 'd ‘688I ‘uſ Lto:I “...toº?! won/...I tap "ſosof) ‘uuuutsulos']oj.I) sXIoos uouſ I quot sooq's jou o'low Sqsoºd "...] ouq St. 1sn'ſ ‘([[If] g6 xºJ) ponoojo.It'd of KIQtdo.1( Áoul : oolijo polous out! 3uſu.Ioj,iod oſſuſ A Sqsolid ou? Kg utoA od on qou KIAuo.uuddu out ‘pouoſº -uouſ otou Aou out, U21 (IAA ‘soot|S 11 Oluſ quino.IAA Sunoloo anoy out) Jo StoAAOU pull olp,113 s.1solid ou" Jo puno.15 onju A outſ, “(z IIA III Art F) ºf oq 5uſploooo “sluoAo II'u QV old.Ind-pot puts ‘old.Ind -on/q ‘uostuſ.to ‘oqūA Kloutºu ‘Ālumnotics out, Jo §Inoloo Inoy out) Jo posodiuoo sº “(Jo uox{ods sº quuq qsolid usu oug Jo quitº qou put [blouoš uſ $qsolid où" Jo op.115 outſ, si qi otout JI) ox68 x I on 5uſplooot! ‘ûoſtIAA ‘opuš oth on outoo oav III] ‘oqu AA ologo.Ioilº ‘sn&sſiq ‘u.Ion up!"d Kāq up 5uţAolloq “0” “ſsays go II* od on ‘gró8 xq. on 5uſp.toooº “o.10 Squatu.Itº loddin ou.I, ºutiq.Inq tº put oſpit; tº soprsoq (ſpouo -(797) qtoo 5uoſ tº put soutdoo.Iq uouſ I–ºuntsz, xSI ‘9.tº) ſt/?sa!.td. It’ſoods G uqi A popſ Aold oit, uotev Jo Guos ouq 00II]o ÁIou out, go osotoxo out" to I ‘(ºrigă nN) poos sitſ put uſu (IqAA AIuo onuſ potoqua sy pool{}sold 5uſhstillo Ao ut, Jo qu'uuoAoo oth ‘Itzgoſ I go uos ou', ‘suitouſ (I, I go quud out uo uo;got K.Ioqºſºpd -old tº go uoisuood ox11 uo ‘uouſ A ‘It’tutuq I go osou? oAoqu Udzuo(GI Jo Suos ou" on uoA15 sº “loao Aou ‘oouotogold V Kiſuilty out on unqoduod ‘Toulºuq I put; Itzgoſ I ‘suos suo It, W go oAq ĀlūC) (‘oqo ºuztof rigz, itsz., x&I) suoul Kuouſ's Snu1 ovu . Sqsoºd, put , uo.It V Jo Suos, sulloq on J, tio SSud squºil ÁInsorld out, op osotſ, Jo Shutpuoosop oth on º 'suos s.1000th ou', put uoruv Ioulo.Iq SITI sq.soſ.1d St. pollºqsuſ soso IN “sqsolid ou polympol Ālnuoubosuoo put ‘sootſitous out potolſo put [ou.ISI go slotſ,uy out ‘şūſq.IAA spun on 5uſploooo ‘Āſsuo: Aol, I potisſ Iquqso Uomooup out AICI Aq Su AA ‘juſqoout Jo quo) out, ‘ool]].tous go oogld on outſºoſ oud out, uouſ A “soso IN Jo ouſ, out uſ [outs] up 5uſoq onuſ outro qsn]] ‘5uſ? II AA KIqsol.I.I out on juſp.tooou ‘pool{1soſ.1d V ‘poxloo to Ao od on qou ovo suoſhuaoulu put und.Ins smoſ.It A Jo soouolourp ‘Irºqop Jo Stoqqºut uſ ‘olou uo.º.o uinouqu : poolinsolid outſ, Jo uomºzyuuäto go u01.s As snoſuouſ.tulſ tº qquxo apoo Sqsoil, I out go squouoduoo louno out,L–’sqsaq.td agºwo, tº W an/ſ, "q ‘soºtundoubs quotoljſp out go ojitſuo 5upitºl Sqsold Joſuo go tooltumu tº od IIIAA otou, quuq sounssu to ‘solium]ougs out, II'd log qsoºd Joſuo oùuts tº go syluſuſ, qi touqau A. Inyºn nop supuluo.I qſ ‘solionqouns Jo Anyſbund a go oolio]sixa ou? posoddusold AIIuulfil to ssoulſoh. Jo Avarſ out, JI ‘(afz q(I) uſu ol u AouxI SI Sqsoºd ou" on poqsniquo ſp.tog-Aso.Idol ouos ‘shuo Ao II’d qu ‘quuq 5uroos ‘old’udolduſ qou si “(oaoqu oos) Atri spun o] uplu (49.97 Iuloods osoul O' 3uliuoloq quq ‘ssou -IIoH Jo Aurſ, poſſuo-oš ĀII*Ioods out, opišqno “I g| A’ſ III su ol (IAAop outloo Sull Uſoſ (IAA Aso.Idol quotſu */19.19% ou" (IqAA poquſtºn bott StºA At'ſ ...} oiſ, Jo Jolſºn't, où, ºutſ,I, poſiod optuouoloquo(I-9.IC 911) Jo XIII III) on su ptoſ pino AA stuſ,I, (15 (I “ſosoſ) ‘uuuutſu (I juſAAOLIoj ‘os) ouo uniqq soºnqouts oiotii 9.ſoas otoliº uot A outſº u qu Kuo pokoſſo od pinoo ‘(poliotºutout KIIuuſºlo qou şu A upolu A ‘şūſhoou Jo quoq ol (1 on lioſaulo.1 onuſ ionotºpol tº Ka quºuo.I Spitºlo)) tº su.A (IoIIIA) K.Injuqouts ouſ, otojoq oopſ, oxlº') sulu SITſuiſtia; Jo Buſ Kuſs II* ºutiq (ºut LI Aſ I) Aul spin jo puoll oth it spuns Hoſt|A puuutop ou.I. ‘q 04 Josu III poulouq)"; KII*I.)ods pun: “ssouflo H. Jo At"I ol, Jo Osu It ſootls tº on ſub optºut [optozºi quiſh 400; ou? O', oup og Kaiul Jouquoo go squiod osoul.I. ‘poſiod outt's out KLItou on 5uoſoq Iſaoq quitº ‘Auſ $1111 put [optozº[ uoo.wqaq q.ouquoo Jo squiod It’ſoods out tuolj KII.tussooou Aoſſoſ qou soop aſ ‘silſ, puoſoq “Qugſ (ºut 92 AT) poſtod quila Kitſo Sº Iſ Uſoſ (IAA uo Isnouo) Sq (IoII, poA:ooo..I qi quitº put ‘olſ x&I oliſ, juſtmp JIosq Āq uomooloº tº st: po)sixo IUQ's SSouilo H. Jo Wu'ſ ouſ, ºutſ, “Autº.1 KIqaluonsonb -un SI uſantil OS ‘Iopſozºi Jo ottiſh ou? Itou ‘alix'ſ oul on poußIsse ÅIIunsu out Kouº attosolid qv oppo -op on plºt SI q. poquqi.111t, eq pluous opoi) Sqsoil, I ou! Jo Squouodutoo qsop[o osolin ontºp quil A O.I., ‘opoſ) Sq891.I.I otlº III osſo olotAoti uoxIt!, SI uoit AA AAoſ A tº ‘(pip III su) Kittuqoubs out) uſ so AII ou quuſ, sosoddnsolid UOIUAV (z, Iz, AT) quoulo Atoloq tº go quoAo ouſ, uſ Attºuqouts out oatoſ on qori si qsoſ.1d qs.III SITI', quuq uoiºdſ.Iosold out, Oslº, sîuoroq AIqbqold Squoulolo topio ou? O.I., (or ‘A) , uo.III.10.1Q syū ubuq Loquo.13 sI ou A qsolid out . ‘opoſ) 81soi...I oug uſ otou A -ošlo post qou ‘uoissezd Xo ouſ sº uoixoutloo slug Jo lmoAuj u I (I) Sz, 'd ‘868I ‘Aſ.I. F. Z uſ 'o','bailo(I oulos pun Clau, ‘louſo AA H Kq ‘poopuſ ‘poqqnop st q) qqnop tº Jo Squipt; Klooftos ssouſ IoH JO AAUT où" (IQIA (ºunt Iz, AI) AqJr. ſu log solu, Igoods uAAop SAt UIoſul AA uoſqoos ouſ, Jo uoixoutloo out loy “solid jojub at 1141A ponuſunbou uāoq oatu on ‘Iouding ‘s.Itsoddu Atºl studſ, (sut Iz, AT) sqsolid ou" go qued out, uo Kqind on so suoºdſtosold on nului Álo.4 pouyuquoo ÁIquqoid ssoul IoH go Awarſ. It uſ; IIo ouq (IoAo ‘puttu tou?o ouq uO 'uoſquiod.loquy ut; ÁIuſt 1,100 si (ra-aggz, AT) suoſquod osauq uſ soºnAo'I ouq go uoſquoul poquios. oºmb out,L, d.19A out, Jo It induis out, Ad (at) s”A uſ powoſſoſ sſ 100ſqns sitſ, Ioy .*qsolid out, IbuIdºlo ut, go oot. Id out, up pubqs on stºod du , uolo V go suos, (rrºugl) 19 AT uſ 'suos sitſ put uolºv on ooliologo.I uqi A sqsolid out go uoſº, -bušIsop out, sojussed osolſ, onuſ poonpolluſ Stu quuq uoſqoupe.I. Jo SSooo.Id 101*It si qI 'uouq ūqi A Suoit, Squu Atos ÁIºnqoubs Jouqo Io sonſ Aorſ Jo uoſquou ou sy olouq put ‘quoosop (Ioun on so pougop ÁLiuoſo otout qou oug Sqsolid out, quo 5uſqujolſo oud out, KIougu .“sould out, to , Sqsolid out, Jo KIuo Ibou ow. “(tr-leg I in-to uttg n N ‘[1z, ‘g I-3I] II “J 9 AT) so AIostuou? Aq Kouound pull oatsu Kuul to q ūq;A pourquoo ÁIIbuIdºlo squillod oio AA qolu A “sºul on uptu (19.0% Tutmoſqu'ud Su IIoA Su ‘93–LI Aſſ Jo Moons uſetu ould 'o'? ..'ssouſſo FI Jo At;"I, polito-Os outſ, ‘qsopio out so pozyuāooo.1 od on olt, KIQsoutubu (IoTuA opoo Sºsolid out, Jo Squouoduoo osou% uſ plmouſ ououſ qsbo IIo uood qou o Abu Suoſquio.I & Insolid ouq go so.A:3 q SAoy A out, uoAQI squouoduoo Jo Khoſlºga tº tuoly Toulošo, qi popto A A Libolo sºil uoſqoupol spun : 1040t.Itſuo snoruoulºu u peulogo.I suit opoo sqsoºd out, quuq pubu ol āuſs tº ; uoſqoupol on AIuo 5uſ Ao sº qI–,”/29.494, tºo??.tº w? pup ssou??011 ſo avo'ſ own wº sqsoºd on, "e ‘opoo Sqsoil, I out, ‘Siouqo go oduuxo où, IoqJº ‘poſ[uo od Kuul , 5uſq.(AA AIqseſ.I.L., eu, up pouyuquoo Atl ou', ‘Āq Aold go oxius out, Ioy “ssol -oudloAoN Sqsoºd out, ol āuluºiaddo soyºmp pub squart out, anoqu ‘q tutopiad ou A osouq go put ooſ A -los ÁIou oug Jo uoſquzlutº.to ouſ, quoqu Kluyguſ poqon.14sup old ‘to AoAoû ‘loqqol ou.L 'uoſºsolji PRIESTS AND LEVITES PRIESTS AND LEWITES 83 further, to pour out the drink-offering (Nu 6'7), they have to perform the whole service connected with the altar of burnt - offering (Ex 30”) and (spoken with special reference to Aaron) the altar of incense (IEx 307*). Only an Aaronite, and ‘no stranger’ may offer incense at all (Nu 17° [Eng. 16"]). The Aaronites alone have charge of the table of shewbread (Lv 24°, spoken specially of Aaron) and the candlestick (Ex 27”). From Ex 307", Lv 24”, Nu 8* it does not result that, accord- ing to another older enactment, only the high priest had charge of the candlestick (Vogelstein, p. 63). When ‘Aaron’ alone is spoken of here, it is as the representative of the priesthood in general. As such he performs in the Priests’ Code the whole of the priestly service, and in other passages as well he is named alone as stand- ing for the priests in general. Ex 27” Aaron and his sons’ will not be incorrect, then, as the explana- tion of the other passages which speak of Aaron alone. Only the priests may go within the sanc- tuary (Ex 30”). A “stranger,’ i.e. a non-Aaronite, who approaches the altar or the space inside the curtain shall die (Nu 187). Amongst the holiest articles which may be approached only by holy persons, i.e. only by the priests, is reckoned even the laver in the fore-court (Ex 30”). Even outside the sanctuary there are special duties assigned to the priests. They have to remove the ashes from the altar to a clean º without the camp (Lv 6" [Eng. *]); they have (specially Eleazar, but this while Aaron was yet alive) charge of the holy anointing oil (Nu 4", which is perhaps to be assigned to a redactor, see Dillm. Numeri, etc., 1886, p. 14 f.). They alone may pronounce the blessing upon the people (Nu 6*), and in war or at the festivals are to blow with the sacred trumpets (Nu 10*. 31"). They have to watch over the distinction between holy and profane, unclean and clean, and to instruct the cliildren of Israel in all statutes which Jahweh has º to them through Moses (Lv 101*), whereby probably those statutes are specially in- tended which have regard to holy and profane, clean and unclean. The priests have, further, to pronounce the curse on the woman who is accused of adultery, and to give her the water of bitterness to drink (Nu 5*); they have to reconsecrate the head of the Nazirite who has been defiled (Nu 6”), to determine the presence of leprosy in human beings, in houses, and in clothes, as well as to pronounce the declara- tion of cleanness from leprosy, and, in the latter case, to carry out the sprinkling of the man to be cleansed with the sacriticial blood, as well as the sprinkling and pouring out of oil (LV 13 f.). At the slaying id burning of the red heifer, from whose ashes the water of purification for those who have been deſiled by touching a dead body is to be prepared, the priest (Eleazar in the lifetime of Aaron) is to be present ; he has to sprinkle the blood, and to throw various ingredients into the burning (Nu 10”). The priests have, further, to determine the valuation of persons that have been vowed (Lv 27°), of vowed unclean beasts (v.'"), of the consecrated house (v.”) or field (v.”). Aaron and 'Vis sons are installed in office by a solemn consecration, with ‘ſilling of the hand,’ i.e. by the presenting of a dedicatory offering placed in their hand, the “fill-offering” (Ex 29, Lv 8 al.; cf. on the ſilling of the hand, above, § 2). That this act of consecration is to be repeated in the case of every priest afterwards is not said, and how far this was actually done is questionable (Schürer, p. 231 f., note 25). In other passages an anointing of the priests is spoken of (Ex 28' 30" al.). But at the same time the title ‘the anointed as an expression of honour is used only of the high priest (Lv 4”, “" al.). At the ceremony of consecrating the priests there is mention only of the anointing of Aaron (Ex 297), and the anointing is viewed as the sign of the high-priestly succession (v.”). Clearly we have to do here (as Wellhausen was the first to see) with two strata of the Priests’ Code; one of which assumes the anointing of all priests, the other only that of the high priest. Through combining the two views, the description has originated which makes it appear as if origin- ally all priests were anointed, while in future the high priest alone is to be anointed (Gesch. pp. 25, 48 f.). Nowhere in the OT outside the Priests’ Code is the anointing of ordinary priests assumed, but that of the high priest is assumed in several passages (Weinel in ZATW, 1898, p. 28). fuſſ priestly rights belong to such Aaronites as are free from bodily defects. No one who suffers from any such blennish is to go within the sanctu- ary or approach the altar. On the other hand, even such persons are entitled, like the other Aaronites, to eat of the holy and the most holy offerings (Lv 21*). On pain of being cut off, the priests have to refrain from sacrificing and from eating of the sacriſicial ſlesh as long as they are tainted with any J.evitical atmelcanness (Lv 22*). The prohibition which applied to all Israelites (Lv 17*) against eating |. flesh of an animal that had died of itself or been torn, is addressed with special emphasis to the priests (Lv 228). Before performing the sacred of ice they have to wash their hands and feet in the brazen laver (Ex 30” 40*), and may not, before going into the sanctuary to perform their duties, drink wine or strong drink (Lv 10*). They are forbidden to marry a harlot, a polluted, or a divorced woman (Lv 217). A priest’s daughter who by harlotry has profaned the office of her father is to be burned with fire (v."). The priests are forbidden to deſile themselves through the dead, with the exception of defilement by the corpse of the nearest blood relations (Lv 21*). In all cases of bereavennent they are forbidden to exhibit signs of mourning by making a baldness upon their heads, cutting their beards at the corners, or making cuttings in their flesh (v.”). —These preseriptions for the main- taining of purity on the part of the priests are found to a large extent in the Law of Holiness, and may already have belonged to its main stock, and thus have been merely adopted by the Priests’ Code. c. The high priest.--At the head of the priestly body stands, in the time of Moses, his brother Aaron, and in later times always one of the descendants of the latter (Ex 29*. etc.). After the death of Aaron the functions of chief º are undertaken by his eldest son Eleazar, who in turn is succeeded by his son Phinellas (Nu 25"); which seems to assume an arrangement for the succession of the firstborn. Aaron, like the other priests, usually bears the simple title ha-kohºn (Ex 29° 3119 etc.). There are few passages in which the chief priest receives the name of honour ‘the anointed priest' (ha-köhön, hºt-mâsh all, Lv 49. ". 19 6"; cf. Gesch. p. 26; these passages, and, in general, the majority of those in P in which an anointing is mentioned, are considered by Weinel [ZATIV, 1898, p. 30 fl.] to be additions). Equally seldom, three times only, does the chief priest bear the title ‘ high priest’ (hºt-köhön ha-Jūdol, LY 21", Nu 35*, *). The high-priestly dignity is clearly thought of as conferred for life (Nu 35*, *). W ith solemnities lasting for seven days each new high priest is to be installed in office, with putting on of the holy attire, anointing, and filling the hand (Ex 29*); he has on this occasion, like Aaron on the day of his anointing, to offer a minkſih (LV 6'8"; so at least according to the present text, see Dillm. ad loc.). 84 PRIESTS AND LEVITES PRIESTS AND LEWITES The chief priest is distinguished by two minutely described official costumes. One of these is wholly of linen. He wears this only when he goes into the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement (Lv 16** *). In discharging the rest of his functions, he has to wear above the white këthôneth of Shēsh worn by all the priests, a variegated dress of the four colours of the sanctuary, blue-purple, red-purple, crimson, and white, interwoven with gold (Ex 28*, Lv 87" al.). The different parts of this dress are described in detail, yet their exact structure is not quite clearly recognizable. Above his under- garnment the high priest wears his distinguishing ephod, kept together at the shoulders by a couple of clasps formed of shöham stone, upon each of which are engraved six names of the tribes of Israel (cf. art. EPHOD). Upon his breast, above the ephod, the high priest wears the four-cornered hôshen suspended by little chains. Set in this externally are twelve precious stones in four rows, having engraved upon them the names of the twelve tribes. The hôshen must be conceived of as a species of pocket (cf. art. BREASTPLATE OF THE HIGH PRIEST), for in it are deposited the Urim and Thummim, which evidently are to be thought of as tangible objects (cf. art. URIM AND THUMMIM). Upon the hem of the upper-garment (mě'il) which was attached to the ephod, there hang alternately pomegranates and little bells. In the front of his turban (miznepheth) the high priest wears upon his forehead a golden diadem inscribed “Holy to Jahweh.” The high priest alone is entitled to carry the Urim and Thummim (Ex 28”, Lv 8°), and to pronounce the ‘judgment of the Urim before Jahweh ; and by this decision, 8,S that of a Divine oracle, Israel has to abide (Nu 272). None but the high priest may go into the Holy of Holies on the yearly Day of Atonement, to make propitiation for the priests and the congrega- tion, and carry through the ceremony with the two goats, in which he has to make atonement also for the sanctuary (Lv. 16", cf. Ex 30"). Above all, it rests with him alone to make atonement for his own guilt and that of his house (Lv 4”, cf. 9°"), as well as for the community as a whole (Lv 4”, cf. 9”; differently, as it would appear, Nu 15", see Gesch. p. 27, note). He has to offer a daily minhãh (Lv 6**, where “on the day of his anoint- ing' [w.”] is probably a later addition, by which the daily offering is transformed into one offered once for all at the time of his installation in the priestly office). Moreover, he has to take his share in the service rendered by the other priests (Ex 27*). The rôle of mediator, apart from the above- mentioned atoning transactions, he assumes by bearing upon his breastplate the names of the children of Israel, When he goes into the sanctuary (Ex 28*). The high priest Eleazar is named in the first rank, along with Joshua, the prince of the tribes (Nu 34.7", cf. Jos 14). At his word, spoken by means of the Urim, the whole congregation is to go out and come in (Nu 27*). After the death of the high priest the manslayer is safe to leave the city of refuge (Nu 35*, *). The duration of the high priest’s office is treated in this enactment as an epoch at whose close certain questions that have remained open are to be regarded as now settled (the interpretation proposed in Gesch. p. 28, and approved by Van Hoonacker, Sacerdoce, etc. p. 340, finds no justification either, in the Priests’ Code or in the OT generally). The high priest holds no other position of Secular authority. When Moses and Aaron together number the people (Nu 1" "), Aaron acts in this matter simply Ø.S . brother of Israel’s leader. Special injunctions regarding purity are laid upon the high priest, which are stricter than those for the rest of the priests. Like the latter, they are found in the Law of Holiness. According to them, ‘the priest who is greater than his brethren” may marry only a virgin of his people, and not, as is lºmitted to the other priests, a widow (Lv 21*). He is not to deſile himself through any dead body, even that of a father or mother (v.”). He is forbidden, as a sign of mourning, to let his hair grow long or to rend his clothes (v.19). If the high priest have brought guilt upon the people through any sin of his, he has to present a sin-offering, with ceremonies specially prescribed for this particular case (Lv 4”), because a sin on the part of the spiritual head of the people is looked on as bringing special trouble upon the whole community. Sims affecting the priesthood, i.e. violations of the laws given to the priests, have to be expiated by Aaron and his sons (Nu 18' ; not by the high priest alone [Benzinger, p. 422], but by †. and the rest of the priests). d. The Levites.—The Aaronite priests are, in the Priests’ Code, a special family of the tribe of Levi. The designation ‘Levites’ is only in isolated instances used of all that belong to this tribe, including the Aaronites (Ex 6*, Lv 25*, Nu 35*); it is usually applied to the non-Aaronite Levites alone. The §. tribe is, like the other tribes, divided into ‘fathers’ houses with their heads or princes (Ex 6”, Nu 31*). The tribe as a whole is considered as consecrated to God, this by way of compensation for the firstborn of man in Israel who all rightfully belonged to the Deity (Nu 3* al.). The Levites in the narrower sense are not, like the Aaronites, servants of Jahweh, but are given to the priests or to Jahweh for the service of the tabernacle, as is emphatically ex- pressed in the designation of the Levites as méthºnim, “given' (Nu 3' 8" 18%), which clearly stands in some relation to the name applied to the foreign temple-slaves in the I3KS. of Ezr and Neh, namely, Nothinim. In other passages, without the term méthºnim being employed, it is said of the Levites that they serve il. dwelling-place of Jahweh, or that they serve Aaron, or the congre- gation. Here, as in the case of the priestly service, the verb "shārēth is used, but not, as in that case, absolutely, but with the object of service : the ‘ dwelling - place,’ i.e. the tent of meeting, ‘Aaron,’ or ‘the congregation (Nu 1" 3° 16' 18%). The Levites minister to the priests ‘before the tent of meeting. The Levites are forbidden to approach, like the priests, the vessels in the inner sanctuary or the altar; by doing so they would bring death upon themselves and upon the priests (Nu 18*). The technical term for the service of the Ilevites is shſīmſtrº, “guard,” which suits the Levites of the Priests’ Code in so far as they, in the arrangement of the camp, have to encamp with the priests immediately around the tabernacle, so that in point of fact they do guard the latter (Nu 1". " al.). A “stranger,’ i.e. one who is neither priest nor Levite, who intrudes into this circle round the holy dwelling-place, shall die (Nu 3%). The standing employment of the verb Shāma, for the service of the Levites indicates clearly that the prescription for the (purely ideal) arrangement of the camp corresponds to some actual duties performed by those whom the I’riests’ Code calls Levites. Surely the Shāmar of the Levites has some connexion with the work of the doorkeepers of the temple in the Blv. of Fzra. The J.evites are called in the l’riests’ Code directly shomré mish Infºrct/, “guardians' of the ºy or ‘the dwelling-place’ of Jahweh (Nu 3* * 3190. 47). In Nu 3% the term is extended even to the priests, with reference to the arrange- ment of the camp. Desides, the same verb Shāmar PRIESTS AND T.EWITES PRIESTS AND LEVITES 85 is employed in an untechnical sense, in a few isolated instances in the Priests’ Code (Nu 319 187), of the priestly service in general (so also in the post - exilic Zechariah), and then, further (so shāmar is used in the Priests’ Code), of the ser- vice of God in general, i.e. of one's attitude towards His commandments (Gn 26"). All this shows that we have here to do with a very ancient terminology, which probably reaches back far beyond the time when there was a special class of doorkeepers of the temple. Perhaps it preserves a trace that the Levites were originally the “guarding’ escort of the sacred ark, which would be quite conceivable, even if the name löw? has nothing to do with this duty (see above, $ 1). In any case, it may be gathered from the above use of Shāma,’ that the guarding of a sanctuary in Some form was at one time the essential task of the Levites. It has been suggested that it was the guarding of a divine image, as was the main duty of the priest among the ancient Arabs (Well- hausen, Reste”, p. 130). But there appears to be a special reference to the escorting of the sacred ark, which accompanied Israel in their journeyings and campaigns, in the remarkable term, likewise used very occasionally of the Levites’ service, zābā’, “to render military service' (Nu 4* al.). When the host of Israel is upon the march, the Levitical family of the Kohathites has charge of carrying the tabernacle and its vessels, after these have been covered by the priests from the view of the Levites, who may not look upon them (Nu 4"). None but Levites may attend to the carry- ing and the setting-up of the tabernacle; any non- Levite doing so must be put to death (Nu 101 184. *). Hence the service of the Levites is spoken of as a ‘covering’ for the children of Israel, that, no plague come upon them when they come nigh to the sanctuary (Nu 8”). Then it is the Levites who, according to Ex 38”, under the direction of the Aaronite Ithamar, take charge of the “num- bering of the dwelling of the testimony,’ i.e. the keeping account of the gifts offered for its con- struction. . There is no indication of any other duties performed by the Levites than those of Carrying the tabernacle, encamping around the Sanctuary, and keeping the account just men- tioned. Wherein, apart from encamping round the Sanctuary, consisted the charge assigned to the Levites over the dwelling of the testimony and all its vessels and everything belonging to it (Nu 1"), or ‘the keeping of the charge” of the dwelling of the testimony and its vessels (Nu lº 3° al.), or the ‘work’ of the Levites “about the tabernacle” (Nu 4"), or their ‘service’ about the dwelling or the tabernacle (Nu 37° 4” al.)—is not indicated. Thus we do not learn what the Levites have to do when the sanctuary is set up and the service is being conducted in it, and * have, further, no indication of what is to be the work of the Levites once Israel has reached the goal of its wanderings and attained to a settled mode of life. It may only be supposed from the desig- nation of the Levites’ j. as ‘service of the congregation,” that the intention of the law was to assign to the Levites some kind of intermediate function between the congregation and the priests. The lower services at the sanctuary, once it was Set up, appear also to be pointed to in Nu 1", wh re the service of the tabernacle is presented as a duty distinct from that of carrying it. The data regarding the period of service of the Levites are not harmonious. In Nu 4* it is given as from the thirtieth to the fiftieth year; Nu 8*, on the other hand, enacts that the Levites have to serve from their twenty-fifth year, and it is added that from their fiftieth year onwards they are no longer to serve, but to assist their brethren (the serving Levites). This enactment is clearly a later addition (Gesch. p. 34). In Nu 8* a ceremony for the installation of the Levites is described : the children of Israel (no doubt the elders) lay their hands upon them as upon an offering, and the Levites are waved be- fore Jahweh as a gift of the Israelites—a repre- sentation which manifestly results from the con- ception of the Levites as a substitute for the offering of the firstborn of man. They are to be treated in this ceremony—which cannot be thought of as literally performed, but simply gives expres- sion to a theory—like those sacrificial portions which fall to the priests, because the Levites also are given to the latter to be their own (so rightly A. Van Hoomacker, Le vacu de Jephthé, Louvain, 1893, p. 40 ft.). The “tribe of Levi,’ i.e. probably the Levites and also the Aaronites, is exempted from being numbered amongst the children of Israel (Nu 1” 2”), i.e. from military service. - Sins affecting the sanctuary, i.e. any defilement of it, have to be expiated by the Aaronites and Aaron’s father’s house, the Kohathites, that branch of the Levites who have to carry the holiest vessels (Nu 18%). The Levites, without distinction, have to expiate the sins of their service (Nu 18*). The distinction between priests and Levites is not represented as having gained validity without opposition. The narrative of the rebellion of the Levite Korah against Aaron and Moses (Nu 16) serves to exhibit this distinction as one divinely determined : the prerogatives of Aaron are estab- lished in opposition to IXorah. In this account, however, a still older narrative, belonging to an- other stratum of the Priests’ Code, may be dis- entangled, in which Korah Stands up, not for the prerogatives of the Levites as against the Aaron- ites, but for those of the whole congregation as against the Levites. To this older stratumn at- taches itself the narrative of Nu 17*, in which the budding of Aaron’s rod confirms the unique position, not of the Aaronites, but of the whole tribe of Levi (Gesch. p. 34 fl. ; cf. art. I&ORAH, DATIIAN, ABIRAM). e. The serving women.—Only in a single passage in the IPriests’ Code is there mention of serving women (Ex 38°). They minister at the door of the tabernacle ; and this service, like that of the Levites, is described by the term zābā’; but wherein it consisted we have not a word of information. We learn merely that these women were provided with mirrors of brass. The only other reference in the whole of the OT to such women as serving at the sanctuary is in 1 S 2* (wanting in LXX except in A and Luc.), where they are introduced as if they had been in existence in the time of Eli at Shiloh ; but as in this passage the ‘tent of meeting’ is spoken of, as in the Priests’ Code, whereas, in other passages, at Shiloh a built temple is presupposed, we have to do, no doubt, with an interpolation based upon the Priests’ Code. f. The revenues of the priests and Levites.—The priests, like the Levites, have a fixed revenue assigned them in return for their services. It is presupposed in this that they are without posses- sions, i.e. they have not, like the other tribes, a tribal territory (Nu 18% ºf 26°). The priests' dues from the offerings, the târſt- móth, “heave-offerings” (Nu 18*, *), are calculated on a more liberal scale than in Dt and even than in Ezk, or at all events they are specified more exactly than in the latter book, which does not name the tithe and the firstlings. The skin of the burnt-offering falls to the officiating priest (Lv 78); from the shölämöm-offerings he is entitled to a cake (V.4"), as well as to the wave-breast and the heave-thigh (Ex 29* al.); in the case of the 86 PRIESTS AND LEWITES IPRIESTS AND LEVITES shēlāmām-offering of the Nazirite he receives not only the wave-breast and heave-thigh, but also the shoulder of the ram and two cakes as a wave- offering (Nu 6*). Of the ‘holy,” i.e. not “most holy,” offerings the male and female members of the house of Aaron are to eat in a clean place the wave-breast and the heave-thigh, and in general the tºrtºmóth that fell due of these offerings (Lv 101*, Nu 1819); the priest who presents the offering may thus bring these portions into his house and there distribute them. The members of the priest’s house who are entitled to participate in these meals are exactly specified ; any one who by mistake and without warrant eats of the holy thing is to restore to the priest what he has taken, with a fifth part added to it (Lv 22*). Every térémāh belongs to the particular priest to whom on any occasion one hands it over, and not to the whole of the priests (Nu 5*). Of the “most holy’ offerings—the minhãh, the guilt-offering, and the sin-offering—nothing may be taken into the priests’ houses; whatever portion of these does not find its way to the altar, or is not in certain specified instances burned (Lv 6*), is to be eaten only by Levitically clean male Aaronites in the holy place, according to the different regulations for the re- spective offerings, it may be by the priest who presents the offering, it may be by all male Aaron- ites (Lv 2° 51° 619 etc.). The shewbread also, as most holy, is to be eaten by male Aaronites in the holy place (LV 24°). Besides the above, the priests have firstling- dues. To them belong the firstborn of clean beasts; those of unclean beasts and of man are to be redeemed (Nu 18*). The redemption price, for arriving at which a mode of reckoning is given, probably falls, as a logical consequence, to the priests, although this is not expressly stated (Gesch. p. 41). In later times, at all events, it was so arranged (Schürer, p. 254). In the case of the first- born of clean beasts, the flesh, in so far as this is not the portion of the altar, fºlls to the priest, and may be eaten by him and the male and female members of his household (Nu 18.7%). The ré'shith that has to be offered of oil, must, and corn, as well as the first-fruits (bikkārīm) of everything, belong to the priests; all clean persons in the priest’s house, male and female, may eat of them (Nu 18*). The question whether ré'shith and bikköröm have both to be paid from the same products of the ground may remain open (Gesch. p. 124 ft.; Schürer, p. 245). The two leavened firstling-loaves of the Feast of Pentecost, along with the two lambs to be added as a shēlāmām-offering, are assigned to the priest (Lv 23°). Further, of the devoted things that which is called hérem belongs to the priests (Nu 18"); likewise in the year of jubilee there falls to them the field regarded as Aérem, which has been dedicated, not redeemed, and yet sold (Lv 27*). The ré'shith of dough, which, according to Nu 1517-?), is to be paid to Jahweh, is probabl to be understood as falling to the priests, although this is not expressly said. In the case of a with- holding of the proper dues, restitution has to be made to the priest, with the addition of a fifth part (Lv 51%). If any one has unwittingly taken from his neighbour anything belonging to him, and if restitution to the injured party is not pos- sible, the articles which require to be restored belong to the priest who offers the guilt-offering for the offender (Nu 5°). Of sacred dues the tenth belongs to the Levites, who in turn have to pay a tenth of this to the priests (Nu 18*, *). Originally, according to Nu 1899, all that was in view here was the tenth of field and vineyard produce. It appears to be a later expansion when Lv 27* demands, in addi- tion to this, the tenth of cattle and sheep. Priests and Levites receive a fixed percentage of the spoil taken in war (Nu 31*). The Priests’ Code enjoins, further, in what is R. an addition subsequent to the time of Yehemiah, a taa: for the sanctuary (Ex 30* ; see Gesch. p. 219 f.); this does not fall to the priests, but is spent on the ‘service of the tent of meeting,' Č.e. for the expense of the regular cultus. The idea that the tribe of Levi has no inherit- ance finds strange expression in the purely theo- retical and evidently late added (Gesch. p. 42 f.) statement (Nu 3**) that Jahweh has taken to Himself the cattle of the Levites in place of the firstborn of the cattle of the children of Israel. The matter is meant thus to be viewed as if the Levites had not an absolute property in their cattle, but only the usufruct of them. In speak- ing of the possession of cattle the Priests’ Code is thinking of the injunction (which is not quite in harmony with the absence of possessions on the art of the tribe of Levi) that 48 cities in the °romised Land should be set apart for the tribe of Levi to dwell in, along with the surrounding pasture lands to feed their cattle (Nu 35"). These cities, with their houses and pasture lands, are an inalienable possession ; whatever may have been sold of them is redeemable at any time, and, if it is not redeemed, it returns to the Levites in the year of jubilee (Lv 25*). The carrying out of this enactment about Levitical cities is recorded in a narrative in the Blº. of Joshua (ch. 21), belong- ing to the Priestly Writing; and here a distinction, not found in the earlier directions, is made between Levitical and priestly cities; the sons of Aaron receive 13 of the 48 cities. g. The date of the priestly system in the ‘Priestly Writing.”—Even apart from the older elements (P1, see above, § 8 a.) which detach themselves from the main body of the Priests’ Code, the date of the priestly system exhibited by this Code is not a single one. In general the consistent character of the system (P’) is not to be denied, but certain smaller constituents detach themselves as clearly new to it (P8). But, even after the removal of these elements, everything (in Pº) is not of one cast ; in the view taken of the Levites, for instance, apart from an innovation (Nu 8” [see, further, i. and vv.” [see above, § 8 d.), there is no mistaking the presence of two different strata (in Nu 16, cf. ch. 17; see, further, below). At present it is commonly held that the whole of the priestly system of the Priests’ Code, and in general this whole Code itself, belongs to the post- exilic period, and that Ezekiel's enactments regard- ing the priests, especially his distinction between Levites and priests, paves the way for the Priests’ Code (so the adherents of the Graf hypothesis). On one point there can be no doubt, namely this, that the affinity between the law of Ezekiel and the Priests’ Code is so great that it can be explained only by the dependence of one of these upon the other. For the priority of Ezekiel it is quoted as decisive that in }. State of the future he knows no high priest such as stands at the head of the priestly body in the Priests’ Code. Ezekiel, it is #. does not mention the one unique function assigned to the high priest in the Priests’ Code, namely the propitiatory transactions on the Day of Atonement, and it is hard to suppose him to have been acquainted with them. , 13ut the law concerning the Day of Atonement in Lv 16 bears quite a peculiar character which, e.g., in the con- ception of AzAZEL (which see), distinguishes it from the rest of the Priests’ Code. This law has its place immediately before the Law of Holiness (Lv 17–26), which, as it appears to the present writer necessary to assume, was incorporated in the system of the Priests’ Code, not by the real PRIESTS AND LEVITES PRIESTS AND LEVITES 87 author of P* but by a later redactor; probably the section contained in Lv 16 was also a later addition (Gesch. p. 128 f.), and so were also, in that case, as a matter of course, the merely brief allusions to the Day of Atonement which are found elsewhere in the Priests’ Code. Ezekiel has no Day of Atonement, but merely certain propitiator transactions on two days every year, which look like a first step towards the Day of Atonement. There is no period at which the law of the Day of Atonement, of which there is not a trace in the º: history, can be more readily conceived to have originated than during the great chastening of the Exile, or even it may be shortly thereafter. Zec 3° appears to contain the earliest allusion to the Day of Atonement. If the function assigned by the Priests’ Code to the high priest on the Day of Atonement is a later insertion, the original high priest of this Code has no station left to him but that of primus inter pares. Even the distinc- tive dress he wears appears to mean nothing more (see below). A chief priest, however, was, beyond all doubt, found at Jerusalem prior to Ezekiel (see above, § 3). As to the further argument in favour of the priority of Ezekiel's system to that of the Priests’ Code, namely that Ezekiel was the first to introduce the distinction between priests and Levites, this rests upon an interpretation, which per se is a possible one, but which is not to be deduced ºnly from the language of Ezekiel. It is true that Ezekiel gave a new arrangement to the station of those Levites who had formerly been priests at the high places, but his language by no means excludes or even renders improbable the supposition that in the pre-exilic temple there were other Levites besides these, or that there were, besides the foreign temple-slaves, other temple-servants not called Levites, or priests of the second rank side by side with the priests tºº. i.e. the Zadokites (see above, $ 6). We will seek to show further, below, that Ezekiel’s designating of the priests as “Zadokites,’ in con- trast to their being called in the Priests’ Code ‘Aaronites,’ is by no means an evidence of Ezekiel’s priority. On two points, it is true, the Priests’ Code con- tains regulations affecting the priests which cannot be separated from its system (Pº), and which yet undoubtedly go beyond what is found in Ezekiel. In the Priests’ Code the tenth falls to the Levites and the tenth of the tenth to the priests, to whom belong also the firstborn of clean beasts. Ezekiel says nothing about either of these things. But in the Deuteronomic regulations it is clear that neither the tenth nor the firstborn are considered as be- longing to the Levites or priests (cf., further, below). Other differences between the law of Ezekiel and that of the Priests’ Code appear to the present writer to speak necessarily in favour of the priority of the Priests’ Code, or at least of the system repre- sented by it. In this Code the killing, flaying, and cutting up of the sacrificial animal has to be done by the layman presenting the offering (Lv 1": ". etc.; see Gesch. p. 114); in Ezekiel the Levites have to perform the killing. There can be no doubt that in this instance the Priests’ Code repre- sents the earlier custom, which was based upon the view that by slaying his sacrifice the offerer W. presents his gift to the deity, and thereby expresses the fact that it is meant for him. In }. OIl the other hand, this action is undertaken by the Levites as a class intermediate between laity and priests, in order to remove the layman a stage further from sacred functions. Vogelstein (p. 67), indeed, reverses the chronological order, and holds that the flow of an anti-Levite current has with- drawn from the Levites the slaying of the sacriſicial victims; but surely the slaughter by the hand of the sacrificing layman is a relic of primitive times when every Israelite was entitled to offer sacrifice. Besides, by setting down the killing of the animal by the lay offerer as a later custom, a very im- probable course would be given to the development of the practice in this matter (as it cannot be imagined that the regulations of the Priests' Code we are considering are due to a later alteration of the text); that is to say, the Chronicler, who makes the Levites take part in the slaying of the victims (see below, § 9), would, on this view, have taken a step backwards from the Priests’ Code in the direction of Ezekiel. The practice of later times in regard to the temple service appears, indeed, to have excluded both laymen and Levites from the slaying of the sacrificial animals, and to have reserved this for the priests alone (Büchler, Priester, 136 ft.); it is º a matter of pure theory when the Talmud, in agreement with the Priests’ Code (Vogelstein, p. 68, note 1), represents laymen as performing the act of slaughter. Amongst the ordinances of Ezekiel which go beyond the Priests’ Code in the sense of keeping the laity at a distance, besides the one we have considered, there are the enactments that the priests are not to come out amongst the people with their holy garments or with the sacrificial portions, lest the people be hallowed thereby—regulations which are wanting in the Priests’ Code. We find expressed here a materialistic conception of holiness as if it were something that could be transferred by external contact. The same conception shows itself in the Priests’ Code only, on what is not an impossible explanation, in the case of the sin-offering (whoever touches the flesh of this offering ‘becomes holy’ [?], Lv 6” [Eng.”]), and the “most holy’ offerings in general (Lv 61 [Eng.”]; cf. Ex 29°7'30”). But in these passages the thought of ‘becoming holy’ (Heiligwerden) by touching can hardly be really º rather would it appear that it is being l oly ’ (Heiligsein), i.e. “being a priest,’ that is specified as the condition of touching (see Baudissin, Studien zur Semit. Iteligionsgeschichte, ii., Leipzig, 1878, p. 54 f. note). The post-exilic Haggai (2*) denies that contact with the skirt of a garment in which one carries holy flesh makes holy; but he does not deny that direct contact with sacrificial flesh has this effect. In this way he does not, as Kuenen (ThT, 1890, p. 17) supposes, contradict Ezekiel ; and, therefore, we may not infer from Haggai's language that Ezekiel’s view was an older one, which was abandoned in the post-exilic period (and so also in the l’riests’ {.. on the assumption of its post-exilic composition). It is alleged that Ezekiel was not acquainted with Lv 21*, where, perhaps, the priest is for- bidden (although this is extremely questionable) to deſile himself for a dead wife. But this does not follow (Nowack, p. 115, note 1) from the fact that in Ezk 24” mourning on the part of the priest for his wife is assumed as a matter of course, for it is not mourning in general that is forbidden in Lv 21*, but only certain specified mourning customs, besides the deſilement by the corpse (v."; cf. Ezk 44"; cf. Joh. Frey, Tod, Seelenglantbe und. Seelenkult im alten Israel, Leipzig, 1898, p. 74 f.). Ezekiel's arrangements about the Levitical and priestly land are much more practical than in the Priests’ Code. In Ezekiel's State of the future, briests and Levites live in the immediate neigh- i. of the temple where they have to serve ; according to the Priests’ Code they are distributed among diſſerent cities throughout the land, where they have nothing to do. . It is hardly conceivable that the author of the Priests’ Code should have so changed for the worse the arrangements of Ezekiel, if these were the earlier. Rather does the Priests 88 PRIESTS AND LEVITES PRIESTS AND LEWITES — — Code in this instance still adhere more than Ezekiel to the conditions which really existed in the pre- exilic period. Amongst the priestly cities named in Jos 21 (P), is Anathoth, which we know from Jeremiah as a city where priests lived. . Among the Levitical cities are, further, included the six Cities of Refuge. The latter were old sanctuaries to whose altar the mamslayer fled. Besides, in the case of four of these Cities of Refuge which are named in Jos 21*, it may be shown either from history or from the names themselves that they were places of worship (Hebron, Shechem, Kadesh, Rºmoth [probably identical with Mizpah of Hos 5 If the system represented by the Priests’ Code is prior to Ezekiel, then the silence of the latter about the tenth and the firstborn as priestly dues, can be explained only by assuming that these particular ordinances had not obtained practical recognition before Ezekiel's time, and that he º passes them over, presumably because he had doubts as to the possibility of carrying them out. He is silent also as to the tithe-meals of Dt, and the sacrificial meals which, according to Dt, are to be held with the firstborn of cattle and sheep. He must have been acquainted with both these regulations, and has thus not sought to inter- fere with the treatment of the tenth and the firstborn. The old view, as represented in the Jeho- vistic book (Gn 28”), is that the tenth is to be given to the Deity. The same demand is expressly made by the Book of the Covenant (Ex 22*) in the case of the firstborn of cattle and sheep. The arrange- ment in the Priests’ Code, in so far as it assigns tithes and firstborn to the servants of the Deity, comes nearer to this view than the common meals of Dt (see IDillmann on Lv 27*). The term ‘tenth can originally have been applied only to an impost, and not to the material for a sacrificial º (so also Van Hoonacker, Sacerdoce, etc. p. 393). Only in this particular is something secondary to be recognized in the Priests’ Code, namely that it assigns the tenth—differently with the firstborn— not, or at least only indirectly, to the proper ser- vants of the Deity, namely the priests, but in the first instance to the servants of the sanctuary, the Levites. That the priestly legislation of the Priests’ Code (P*) is to be placed prior to Ezekiel, appears to the present writer to result also from the circumstance that it shows no regard to the special conditions of the personnel of the sanctuary at the Return from the Exile. In the early days of the Jewish colony, at all events at the time of Ezra, if not earlier, we find, alongside of the priests, these classes— Levites, singers, and doorkeepers (both these originally distinct from the Levites), and Nethi- mim ; the Priests’ Code, on the other hand, knows only the two classes—priests and Levites. The Levites, called in the Priests’ Code méthºnim, are evidently intended to replace the foreign Nethinim who are no less disapproved of in the Priests’ Code indirectly than they are in the direct polemic of Ezekiel. It may be seen from the narrative bortions of the Bk. of Joshua, which belong to the }. Writing, that the latter does not, indeed, mean to set aside the Nethinim entirely; for in Jos 9%, which evidently belongs to this source, it is said that the inhabitants of Gibeon and the neighbouring cities were set aside by the princes of Israel to be hewers of wood and drawers of water “for the congregation.” These serfs are thus looked upon here, not as servants of the temple or the priests, but as servants of the congregation, i.e. the laity. As far as the temple service is con- cerned, their place iſ; to be taken by the Levites. IBut the latter have in this matter, as it would appear, to discharge the functions, not so much of the Nethinim as of the post-exilic doorkeepers, for they are called ‘keepers.”—It is difficult to º!'. that a legislator, who was face to face with the complicated relations of the temple personnel in post-exilic times, should have imagined that he could come to an adjustment with them by simply throwing all non-priestly temple-servants, without any further argument or justilication, into a single class. In particular, upon any theory which makes the Priests’ Code exilic or post-exilic, we miss in it that regard we should expect to the former priests of the high places, who, since the centralization of the cultus under Josiah, gave rise to difficulties. Josiah sought to exclude them from the Jerusalem cultus, but evidently was unable to set aside their pre- tensions to a share in the priestly service in the temple; for Ezekiel considered it necessary to announce to them in unambiguous terms that it was God’s decree that they should be removed from the priesthood. In Ezra's time only a few of the descendants of the old priests of the high places, those who, in Ezekiel’s terminology, are called ‘Levites,’ had accommodated themselves to the position assigned to them. It is true that the Priests’ Code contains a clear trace of a conflict between the Levites and the priests, in the narrative of the rebellion of the Levite Korah against Moses and Aaron. But that the conſlict here spoken of has regard to the claims of the deposed priests of the high places is not to be gathered. On the contrary, Korah cannot be the representative of these whilom búmòth priests, for in the post-exilic period the Korahites belong to the singers or to the door- keepers (1 Ch 6* 9" al.), and hence not to the Levites in the sense of that term as used by Ezekiel, and in the Memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah, whose use of the term is fashioned upon Ezekiel’s model. Instead of a conflict between former priests of the high places and the old Jerusalem priests, one might see in the narrative about Korah the de- scription of a conflict in the time after Ezra, when the singers were reckoned to the Levites. This is the view of Vogelstein (p. 45 ft.), who, upon the ground of very precarious combinations, places an attempt of these later Levites to seize the right of offering incense, in the time of the high priest Johanan I. (the son of Joiada) and the Persian satrap Bagoses, who probably belong to the reign of Artaxerxes II. (B.C. 404–359). But the narrative of korah's rebellion, i.e. the later account of the I’riests' Code about this rebellion (see above, $8 d ent!, and cf., further, below), can scarcely be separated from the Priests’ Code of Ezra (l”) and assigned to a later innovation (P’); for then the law of Ezra would merely have contained a narrative giving expression to the priestly prerogatives of the whole tribe of Levi as against th. rest of the congrega- tion. Iłut this is not to be supposed, seeing that the Priests' Code (P’) everywhere insists most dis- tinctly on the priestly rights of the Aaronites alone. This it does, in the opinion of the present writer, not in opposition to claims of non-Jeru- salemite priests, which do not come into view with P” at all, but rather—and so also in the story of Korah—in opposition to pretensions put forward by the personnel at the Jerusalem temple who were not counted as belonging to the (Zadokite) priestly family. The duties of the Levites of the I’riests’ Codo and their relations to priests and people are so vaguely defined as to give rise to the impression that these ‘Levites,’ as servants of the priests, are simply an innovation of the legislator, not corre- sponding at all to the actually existl ig relations. In other words, the legislator appears to havo written at a time when, in addition to a special priestly family, namely the Aaronites of the SGILIAGITI CINW SJLSGII?ICI 68 SGILIAGITI OLNW SLSCIIHCI -sp pinoo Aoun uolu A qu solºund outs toujo olow alouſ) ‘uolusuio'ſ qu ol duoq ou', sopisoq ‘uoul A out!) u yū ‘oº º upons ousop qou pro Kott? out!" Juuſº qu osmuood ‘uo somb Jo looſqus out) ultoſ qou pºp sulpho olduo) ou) uſ sonſuolu V, o]\tuous -n.loſ-uou go uoiºdoſquid oul uous outſ) at Qu ATuo old ºptionuſ og on tonſ (A quosold oul on stuoddu ‘pooutºsolid Kuo's stun to ‘uorusutoſ' go old utoq ou? ‘Kūhī) outs oyuuuqāo Kuo ou'l Jo pool]]solad ou'l on 5uliuoloq toºls13ol as Āq poRolduo si uolu V go suos, uo uounty, outnu out ºutſ, qour oun ‘Nopuz Jo osuoul ou" on 5uoloq Jou plp ou A , Soquolu V, 9.low olouſ) soulſ, oluxo-old tuo, J JI utopjuſXI u.toulton ou, Jo sqsolid out Jo ‘tonsoout, où) st: OSIU AIquqolt Auu ‘od K) ou? sº poluosold suq SI ou log ‘JI tºo uopioid ou, Jo dºllstow ou? III q.vud suolº V Jo Mooq oils, Aouloſ' out) uſ quuooou ou') tuoly STIusol (IoIsuto -uod outs K.IoM ou.I. 'snpox?I out) Jo qsould out, su uo.In V on quoosop Iſou) pools.I.) ou A Sqsoºd op|opuz -uou olo.W. olotl) soulſ, oilſ Xo-old up uo.Ao quuq oquqolduty qou ‘nsitol out, Aus on ‘sº uoſqdumssu oul) (poulºu ‘poopu, “You SI ou A) supoxºl out) go qsorld oul on (.11:2, S I) Notid pools.I] ‘(onuxo-qsod to oul IXö 90 qouli'uo ulzz. S I Jo OIOU.I.O out, ‘tº, XI I OSIt? ÁIſluqold put ‘ntº S I Jo Ao(A uſ) soul Iq ol (Ixo-old uſ uo.Ao ‘stºw ostro Áut up iſ I Jo Kutu'uy ouſ quuſ, ºut -aos Toptozºſ Jo Soquq'uqs ouſ, on put; soploptºz out, o] uollisoddo UI solilºutºut) I out, Kºt pouyuj uood oAºti pluod ooutº.1quo sluiſ, oth]] toulo quu A Kol old 13 -IIIoquy od qou pino A q ostro quuq uſ log ‘pooutºsolid ouq on ootiu.Inuo pouyuş pull U.1zºſ topum so! I.Ituºuſ, I outſ, tolyt; p.It'Alloy qud qs.III st; A uo.It V Unpav Iºutru"I Jo uorkoutloo out quuſ, KIoxIII ou SI q qugſ (z, onou ‘90I 'd “Not AoN 'yo) Kus oº old Issoduſ sſ qi “opoſ) Sqsoil, I oug uſ ouop SI st: “uolu V 04 Mouq pool;.14 suw ‘(IN) :8 Izq ol Ionid Kloºsitſ out uſ Igoddt; Jou soop loſt|A ‘I'uubuſ, I go osmou out" quji.I quu A UAIAA ‘opuul od on pull quouqsnſp0 up to UAA qq.A ‘ouo top ſo ut; St. A pool ("sould oul on so]]uotºv Iſu ăuţIniquo oſmit out, JJ potſpuldzo KIISuo oioiu Monu st outſ) sloplozgſ on KIAuombosqus quouidoo."op où, puts ‘oot.In ou SAoûs uoſqpu.I] ‘Ioqqutu spill uſ soploptºſ, ouq ūq[A seſſfuty AIqseſ.Id opioptºz -uou out, Jo qsoquod oatsioop tº JO squji, Kūsoild Touq go uoſquiodo.1 ou" on potajo St. A uoſqisoddo ou put ‘t’.Izº pouloſ Sysoſtd Jo Kiſuuj optolye?-uou tº quuſ. It'ſ os uoqqostoy Ápûo.II'd st:A poounsolid out Jo uorºquill slop[ozº[ ‘80ſ, ItoA out, up pou.Inqo.I tº Izº (Iou A ‘qūlīq os ‘qooljo quouq(A qou uood oAttſ qsmuſ puts ‘ooutºuſ pio stuq ol uoſq;soddo uſ Josqi poultoſ oAbu ". slo.WOIIoy sitſ pub q.(OO St. ‘qsutu soil ſtudy Kºsopid optopaz-uou go quoulo.Aout V squ'u Alos Álting outs out on polºloop so), Aorſ oqºſopuſz-uou II's oatsu ol qduloqqo qš.[1] ºp oppuſ puu (optozºſ Zlg IdoA ouſ, quoqv Sqsolid out. Jo loquiuti out, Onuſ ponditupu og Oq pºtſ soap opez-uou Toju w KQ ‘poonpo.11uſ otoA suoſhuſhāo.1 Aou ‘q 04 uoſqisoddo qoo.up uſ ‘quuq ooutºdoooº 6144: I os punoy uoſqou!] SIp outus sitſ ‘puttſ Jouqo out, uo ‘qūuq qnq : sootid lituſ out, Jo Sqsolid touloy out, Jo qmo pouloſ St. A “soq Aoſſ ou", “ssºlo Aou tº qtl14 quoqxo up tons on ‘pp AIpoqquopun q so “ooutºdooot! pouTuj oAgu pinous songxiopºz put sonſ Aorſ olpopu7 -uou uooAqoq uoſqouſ sſp slopioz'ſ putºu oud ou" to qau1 KIOXIII II’d qu qou si qi qugſ (#01 'd ‘SSSI ‘ūII.19%I “Iſ IA #9 optºs “ſp98I] q.IOO 101ſt qs.III out, Sº ‘uoſquu'GIdxo outs ouq Ioy ‘’Jo : 6% odou ‘682, 'd ‘IolutioS OSIt Os) uſ?iIo Iſoqq poAo opoo. §1soſ.I.I où, Jo Squouqobuo ouq osſuloiduoo spun on qtl14 pug ‘soluuty A[1solid only optiz-uou º outſ, S.IOplozºſ IoqJu Sonyxiopºzouq uooAqaq oot"Id Mooq asſuotduloo u ºbtſ, piou ‘uſolstojoA pub quo() ºupAolloy ‘Ālāuſ -ploooº ‘uouany[ _ "so1p(opuz, Jo quuq utt[ſ] toppax poſiod onlyzo-sod ouq uſ uoAo—ooſqot'id up poſſddu st and ‘Ātoolſ, up Álotout hou situ pue—s sonſ -uo,It'V, ui,191 out Jo uopºgº outloo ou.J., poulogo.1 oAbu 0A (IoISnIouoo ou? on outlo ‘uioqsſośoA put ‘tonſ.I.A quosoid ou', ‘q.IOO uq(A 5uloo.133 ÅIIółye ‘(IJ 83 'd on SIGoddo of ‘06SI ‘lºſſ.) Itouan XI “soºtylopuz, toy tusſºuſo.It (I'm Altlu Is so] Ittoquy, tulo) out) up udos q.It'd qsoul out) loy ontoulºu put Sisoul]od Kū Jū.1%) oil) Jo Shuto.toulbut out) oliul AA "Solluo.It V, o]}}|opu% - uoul KII'uujot, olo AA odould ‘SAAous as IzGI su ‘joy ‘loquisſºol only No -]sod to ouxo unt Jo quad oul uo southl (111A Aut(I oloui º od qoutluo Mopuz ulıopotu KIOAI)^*[0,1 out? to liott; W quotout; out, Jo uoi) uniqsqus ou.I. 'Sonſ ->{opuz ou" || A Squidſ. Iºmbo sqsolid opiopt;7-uouſ oq popoouoo oathu ‘joudold suſ, luol] oduoſito App uţ ‘pluous [optozºſ Ionju poſiod ouſ, Jo on ploptºz tº quitº old uqo.iduu Klouto.11xo si qu qug[ ‘old utoq oùuſs poqupaqut ou', 'o'; ‘olouviloquy ou', ‘dºus to A Jo Oould Iujol ouo ouq Jo Injuqſ, ou? (ITIAA SI out $g Tulſiut) os od qou pluoo oll osſ Atoll)o toy ‘utioſºsutoſ' Jo pool(1Solid outſ, Ol pošiuoloq (F.I.) Opoo 81soil, I out) Jo uoſquisijoſ ÁInsolid out] go tou]uu ouq Quuq qqnop ou ol litto Olouſ AON 'So Alostuouſ, UlſAA suoſqoting poious oº pointſ|uo Kiſumbo su Kiſuuſ liol|| oq Suoſoq qou pºp ou A sqsoºd osottº uo Ao quo.14 O) osottº) polyubo. I loy “so)popuZ out) Jo qsotoquy lºoods out, oatos on poºl) “dn qos sº AA Knium ful -uloo Aou ouſ, utou A ‘dou Su A ‘oolſo KIQsolid out oslotoxo oil point) (to II* out; uolu V Jo Suos out ºut!! ‘opoC) Sqsolid out! Jo quoullotsuo out! ‘ĀInuoubosuo () 'uo.It V tuo.1] solatullod put ‘snpox. I ouq go out 10 ouq qt, KITUUUJ Kūsoild quopout ou" (uo.14 poA:top ool on JIoshi plou ‘Nopuz Jo osmou ou tuo,(J (IoIQouthsip III ‘uqouquu W Jo pool(1sorld ou', ‘I’duqa; ſqGI on quoosop Jyou!" Nodd pools.I., Kl'Iº (old ou A ‘outiq sºutnuto.toſ uſ ulouq'u (IV qu Sqsolid out) Jo put: “[I]oulºu (IV O4 pousſuuq StºA ou A ‘tut[quiqGI quºpuoosop S.IISI Jo Kloºsſuſ out, utoly (a $ Jo ‘g $ ‘oAoqº oos) opulo -Uoo on uoisºtooo pulloy ox SV 'suoſºpuſ toujo uto.1] oſquqold Oslº sy. . soºjuo.It V, opiopt:7-uou Hous Jo Oouonsixo Ito.1 ouſ I, pool(1solid uloſt snuoſº bIO ou" on 5uoloq qou pºp smud puts ‘(IN 68 IzºL) lºtutuq I go quuq ol Qud ‘Utzºolºſ Io Sºulouſ II.I. Jo ÁIſutºy ouſ, Oq ‘so poptºſ, ou% ox{II ‘qou ‘quoosop sh; boots,1) (IoIIIA ‘G.Izq ū)|A pou.Inqo.I & Illutzy KI)sGI. 'u T'uul) StºA QInsol ºn I ‘IoIXioz'ſ ologoq qşūol qu Io ‘ul.logo.1 sumſsoſ' otojoq outſ, ouq ol quyod. On Ion IIA quosold ou" on stºod du ‘sonſuolºv, Kloutºu ‘opoo Sqsolid out up Sqsolid Ioſ (tosolſo uoſqtušišop out.I. “Sosnºtt. It tou Ioſ (IoISuono 5uſ (Isſuing S'g put, ‘yo/mopotoºſ out! II tool on 5utpuoq St. ‘KIo.11%uo uoutoA 5uſ Atos osotſ, UTIA AusAt pip oit; Ionuſ V ‘oxIII Ubms put 5utubolo uſ poſolduto St. KIuo qual ‘807mopotoºſ ojjutºut;0 out! Jo osodiumd out, juſAtos Arundougs àu. Gu uoutoA Jo Muſſº qou pudo uoſºlor ºf ouq Jo Joju Isidoſ º (15uouqe ‘(IJ g?I ‘d ‘II ‘qd ‘868I ‘T&T ſº uſ ..."In O Aoûto II quopout; ouq uſ uuuto M, ‘zqıodſ ‘ſ’ I’dusI go : J 611 “J 98 “dd “ºſosok)) oIduro) ulolºsin.toſ out" uſ uoAo punoy otoA spol.tod oil pºo-old uſeqtoo uſ otAA “soprengouds oputºut:0 quopout ouq go /207/s2p2% out, ‘uoulow poqt.Ioosuoo où" (IqAA poqoou uoo od Abul osotiſ, (a 8 $ ‘oAoqū oos) uouloſſ 311||Aues ou', Koutou “poſted onlyxo-qsod out uſ otoqaoû noolu oA Hoſt(A tiha Āionqoubs oul go 70°twos.tod ou', q85uoult, SSuſo 6 uq A ‘pubu Jouqo ouſ, uo “poluºgnbou SI opoo. Sºsopidſ ouſ.I. 'Squepuoosop Iſotſ, Io Sqsolid onſuloſesntoſ-uou ouq uoſqbiopisuoo oquy #upitºl top oaqoul ou putſ oud uouſA outſ] u qa osit Sq >100% tuo"SKs sittº, Ji uoſº out!!d Xo Jo oſqudbo ÁIIstºo qsou ooutº stuno.IIo e – old tuo, tuoſºsilloſ, pIo ouſ, Jo 70°luostad out, od ‘Āpà SITU) up ‘pillo AA AoA uſ son.It!d Ktuo out “systiq tºol tº Sou siſtſ, so Itſy OS ‘opoC) Sqsoil, I ouq go uoqs.As AIqsoºd out! III ‘stodoox{toop put, ‘Stojuts ‘squgAIos Kremlout’s go opºlš JoAOI ou log . Soq Aorſ, out U out olnqūsqns 'uoſqon.14suoo Toopſ uodn_olmsgou of 181 up posed SI osſu olton Aosio uoqsAs osot AA ‘Iondisſioi out go àiod oilº uo Kioolſ, ound go toºdu tº od on SIGodda oorlſo sitſ, toy sonſ Aorſ go quout -Koſduo ou', put ; Kitnqoubs oilº qu slugoſljo JoAoſ St. Buſ Atos ‘soq, Aorſ poſtºo od quâyu quoosop Iſou, tuoly ou A “SSuſo o qou SpA olouq ‘opoo sqsoºd 90 IPRIESTS AND LEWITES PRIESTS AND LEWITES charge priestly service—in other words, before Josiah’s reform. - The Priests’ Code appears to the present writer to betray quite clearly the circumstance that, at the time when it was written, all Aaronites did not de facto º, priestly rights, but only that branch to which (so Ezr 7*) the Zadokites were reckoned, namely the branch of Phinehas (cf. Ezr 8* M). In Nu 25* it is only to Phinehas, of all the Aaronites, that an everlasting priesthood is promised. And yet Ezra had to admit priests who were not reckoned to the house of Phinehas. This appears to us to be explicable only on the supposition that that saying about the everlasting priesthood of Phinehas alone belongs to a different age from that of Ezra. This cannot be the age after Ezra, for the non-Zadokite Ithamarites who under him were admitted to the priesthood at Jerusalem were not afterwards removed from this office (Gesch. p. 139). No doubt the Zadokites, as is shown by the term Sadducees derived from their family name, formed still later a special priestly aristocracy; but this does not authorize our taking, with Kuenen (ThT, 1890, p. 37), the promise of an everlasting priesthood to Phinehas alone, as a later interpola- tion, for the everlasting priesthood was from the time of Ezra not an exclusive characteristic of Phinehas, i.e. of the Zadokites. In the narrative of the Priests’ Code regarding the destruction of two of Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, without issue (Lv 10%-7, Nu 3° 26", cf. Lv 16'), we should apparently find either a reminiscence of priestly families that actually died out (so, fanci- #. Ad. Moses, Nadab wºnd Abihu, oder der Untergang der Sqawlidem und des grösstem. Theils des Stammes Benjamin, Berlin, 1890: Nadab = Abinadab, 1 S 71 ; Abihu = Abiel, 1 S 91), or even a olemic against the claim of certain families to belong to ‘Aaron.” If the latter is the case, the genuineness of the genealogy of these families, which went back to Nadab and Abihu, would be denied, since these sons of Aaron perished with- out leaving any issue behind them. It is impos- sible to find in the narrative of their fate any indica- tion of conditions pointing to a particular period of time, unless we are to hold, with Oort (p. 331), that the ‘strange fire' which Nadab and Abihu brought ‘before Jahweh’ has reference to their participation in bāmóth worship. The effect of this would be that in this narrative the Aaronite families Nadal) and Abihu would stand for the non-Jerusalemite priests (as ‘Aaron’ stands else- where for the priests of the bull-worship) who were displaced by Aaron’s son Eleazar, whom the Zadokites regarded as their ancestor. Such an in- terpretation, however, is not very probable, for the ‘strange fire' is at least offered to Jahweh, which appears to presuppose that it is offered at the legal sanctuary and not in the high places (see, further, art. NADAB). The designation of the priests as ‘Aaronites’ does not belong to the oldest strata of the Priests’ Code, even apart from the Law of Holiness and the tóróth akin to it. . In a version of the story of Rorah which has been worked over, and which does not belong to the Jehovistic book but to the Priests’ Code, Korah is regarded as the champion of the congregation against Moses and Aaron (Nu 16”), i.e. the Levites. Here the Levites as a body are thought of as priests, just as in the narrative of the rod that blossomed (Nu 17*) Aaron is the representative of the tribe of Levi, which in its totality is thought of as invested with priestly prerogatives. In opposition to this older Conception of the Levites as priests, the main body (P”) of the U'riests’ Code seeks to establish the exclusive right of the Aaronites, i.e., in the view of the legislator, the Jerusalem priesthood. -w A different procedure, again, is followed by a recent addition to the legislation, which seeks to present the Levites as more like the priests. We refer to what evidently was never carried into actual practice, the consecration of the Levites (Nu 89"), which is intended to be an analogue to the consecration of the priests. This representa- tion, which shows a higher estimate of the Levites, will belong to the exilic or post-exilic period (I”), when by *ievites’ were understood the families of the former priests of the high places, and it was desired to give to these a priest-like rank corre- sponding to their pretensions. Among the later elements of the Priests’ Code would have to be reckoned also the description of the vestments of the high priest, if we are to see in the latter an investiture with the insignia of royalty, of which, of course, there could be no word before the post-monarchical period, when the high priest was the only visible head of Israel. But the purple in the high priest's robe can hardly be the symbol of royalty; the principal colour of the high priest’s garments is not red- but blue- purple. The diadem, to be sure, is a sign of princely rank, but ‘holy princes’ (sārīm) appear already in the exilic ‘Isaiah’ (43*), surely not as a new grea- tion of the Exile. The chief priest of royal Tyre assumed a very high dignity as “next after the king’ (Movers, Die Phönizier, II. i. 1849, p. 542 ft.). The circumstance that the high priest of the Priests’ Code bears, as the most important item in his attire, the Urim and Thummim, is not favour- able to an exilic or post-exilic date for the com- position of the passage embodying this view, for the post-exilic period had no Urim and Thummim (Neh 7"). The priests in old Israel were in posses- sion of them prior to the overthrow of the Northern kingdom (Dt 33°). Perhaps these insignia, and probably also the sacred ark, were lost when the temple was destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar. That the author of the Priests’ Code had before his mind’s eye the post-exilic high priest as also the secular head of the community, does not follow from Nu 27” (Benzinger, p. 423), where it is said that Joshua and all the children of Israel and the whole congregation are ‘to go out and come in at the word of Eleazar.” Eleazar gives this direction on the ground of the Urim and Thummim, that is, God issues His commands through him. No other means of ascertaining the will of God was open to the congregation after the death of Moses; there is no thought here of a ruling position occu- pied by the high priest himself, least of all of the position of the post-exilic high yº who had not the Urim and Thummin) at all. The circum- stance that in Nu 347 and Jos 144 the priest Eleazar is mentioned first, before Joshua, among the heads of the people, is due to the fact that Eleazar, as Aaron's son, stands in a closer relation to Moses, the former leader of the people, than does Moses’ servant Joshua or any of the other then princes of the people (on the relation between the high priest in P and in the post-exilic period, cf. Van Hºnºr, Sacerdoce, etc. p. 324 fl.). It is scarcely possible to arrive at a definite date for the various strata of the priestly system in the Priests’ Code, and thus for th. Priests’ Code as a whole. The probable conclusion from the preced- ing considerations, if these are justified,—differing from what is reached on the view of the case adopted by the majority of modern critics, would be that the main stock of the Priests' Code (Pº) is prior to Ezekiel, and, in that case, belongs probably even to the period preceding Josiah’s reform of the cultus. T. programme of Ezekiel, which in one way or other is of decisive im- portance for the dating of the Priests’ Code, appears to the present writer to be intelligible, DRIESTS AND LEWITES PRIESTS AND LEVITES 91 if the prophet considers an older cultus-legislation to have been abolished with the overthrow of the ancient temple, and if he substitutes a new system for use in his new temple. But it appears difficult to comprehend how a legislator posterior to Ezekiel should have displaced the law of the Drophet written down for the new Israel by a legis- }. scheme of his own. On the other hand, again, it is readily intelligible that through the impulse of the law of Ezekiel, and owing to the new conditions and the new conceptions that grew up during the Exile, expansions and modifications should have been made by exilic priests upon an ancient law, in order to fit it for application to the new community. The form of the Bk. of Ezekiel, apparently intermediate between Deuteronomy and the Priests’ Code, is more simply explained if Ezekiel is dependent, not only, as he clearly is, upon Deuteronomy and Jeremiah, but also upon an older code emanating from the J sº priesthood, than if he makes an original start in dealing with the cultus. The same remark applies to his language, which on the one hand recalls 1)euteronomy and Jeremiah, and on the other hand the Priests’ Code. The different views held as to the date of the system of the Priests’ Code do not affect essentially the actual history of the priesthood itself except on a few points, as, for instance, in the view which is to be taken of the position of the chief priest prior to the time of Ezekiel, if the Code is to be placed thus early. This is owing to the fact that the organization of the priesthood in the Priests’ Code is of a theoretical character, for as a whole it does not ſit the real conditions of any period whatever. Of much more importance is º ques- tion of the date of the Priests’ Code for the history of sacrifice. But, whatever date may be fixed for the redac- tion of the system of this łº, it will not be lº. to avoid the conclusion that the whole Jody of ritual set up in it could not have taken its rise in its special form—i.e. in its deviation from Dt and Ezk—during the relatively short period between Ezekiel (B.C. 572) and Ezra (B.C. 458), namely some 110 years, but that it represents a long development of cultus-practice as well as cultus-language. The beginnings of this develop- ment go back in any case to the pre-exilic º, and are not unintelligible there, when we consider, what to the mind of the present writer is clear, that the IDeuteronomic law did not emanate from the priesthood at Jerusalem, in which case no specimen of the cultus-language and cultus-practice of this priesthood prior to Ezekiel has been pre- served outside the Priests’ Code, and when we note, further, that Jeremiah (8°) is acquainted with a literary activity exercised in the way of giving form to the t0ráh, an activity of which he disapproves, and which therefore cannot be taken to refer to the codifying of the Deuteronomic law, with which the prophet undeniably sympathized. What incurs his disapproval can scarcely be any- thing else than the resolving of God’s will, which he interprets ethically (7%), into ritual demands. Here, then, in Jeremiah we find pretty clear traces of a priestly literary activity answering to the rise of the Priests’ Code. These literary productions, however, as may be gathered from the same refer. ence in jºi. have not yet gained the position of a generally accepted ceremonial law. Even the Deuteronomic law betrays no acquaintance with this last, but knows only of some particular torāh for the priests (I)t 24°), which may afterwards have been taken over by the Priests’ Code (see above, § 8 a). On the other hand, a point which cannot be more fully discussed here, the redaction of the Deuteronomic law and the position it assigns to this as a farewell address of Moses, presupposes an acquaintance with the Priests’ Code, and an accept- ance of it as the law proper, of which Dt is meant to appear as a recapitulation. The redaction of Dt is, in view of its relations to the Deuteronomic law, not to be placed at a very great distance from the latter; it cannot belong to so late a period as the rise of the new post-exilic community. If the system of the Priestly Writing is earlier than the Exile, and thus probably prior to Josiah’s reform, it can have originated at such a time purely as an ideal picture sketched by a Jerusalem priest, and not, or at least only very partially, as a de- scription of the actually existing state of things. At whatever time the Priests’ Code was written, the first unmistakable trace which at the same time is capable of being dated with certainty, of the influence of the system embodied in it, is to be found in the place given to the high priest in Zechariah, and the first evidence of its close is found in the reading aloud of the law in the time of Ezra. 9. THE PRIESTIIOOD FROM EZRA TO THE CHRONICLER.—After the Pentateuch had, under Ezra, obtained recognition as the law book, we ſind, as could not but have been expected, that the relations of the sanctuary servants were moulded according to the finished system set forth in the Priests’ Code. The Deuteronomic views of these relations, not being rounded off into one well - compacted whole, must give place to this system. s Thus, with the author of the chronicle written between B.C. 300 and 200, i.e. in the Books of Chronicles and in the redaction by his hand of the Books of Ezra, and Nehemiah, we find the relations of the personnel of the sanctuary, as these had existed in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, modi- fied in various points, in order to bring them more into harmony with the requirements of the Priests’ Code. The Chronicler transfers the relations ex- isting in his own time without distinction to earlier times, as if everything had been in force in the same way from the time of David down- wards. It is possible, indeed, that his descrip- tions do not in every single point correspond to the actual conditions of his own day. It cannot, however, be inferred from this, with Van Hoon- acker, that the Chronicler portrays the pre-exilic conditions as these really existed, for this con- clusion is opposed by all that we know from earlier writings. The Chronicler may be assumed to have used for the pre-exilic history, at least indirectly if not directly, ancient sources that have not come down to us, but for his account of the condition of the priesthood prior to the Exile he certainly had no such sources at his disposal. Wherever this account exhibits a deviation from the conditions after the Exile, the Chronicler evidently puts forward, as a rule, not something corresponding to any actual state of things, but only what º to him desirable. His de- scriptions tend to glorify the Levites, to whom he everywhere shows regard even more than to the Jriests. Probably he was himself a Levite, and, in view of his special interest in the º singers, he may have belonged to this group of the Leyites. The Chronicler is acquainted with 24 divisions or families of priests, which, after his manner, he carries ind. to the time of David (1 Ch 247th). Since in the list of these divisions, as it lies before us, the first place is occupied by the family of Joiarib, from which the Hasmonacans sprang, it may perhaps be inferred that this list was first drawn up in the IIasmona'an period (Schürer, p. 237, note 44). These 24 priestly families are referred to, in some instances clearly, in others at least to all appearance, by the 92 PRIESTS AND LEWITES PRIESTS AND LEWITES terms mahlěkóth, ‘divisions” (1 Ch 24, 281*, *, 2 Ch 814 [2387) 31* int.); bêth 'ºbóth, ‘fathers' houses’ (1 Ch 24* * al.); and mishmāróth, ‘watches' (2 Ch 31*), this last occurring , already in Nehemiah (13” M). According to the Rabbinic tradition, the 24 classes, with which Josephus (Amt. VII. xiv. 7 ; Vita, 1) is acquainted as still existing in his time, are held to have been in existence from the time of the Exile (Schürer, p. 232 f.). This cannot be quite correct. The list in Neh 7*. names only four priestly families (cf. Ezr 10**), and two * with Ezra (Ezr 8* M). But Neh 121-7 mentions, for the time of Zerubbabel and Joshua, 22 divisions of priests, and the same, with one omission, are given in Neh 12.** for the time of Joiakim the son of Joshua. Neh 10°-9, on the other hand, names 21 divi- sions, in which, indeed, the names show changes (cf. Ed. Meyer, p. 168 ft.). Those four families in Neh 7 should therefore probably be thought of as falling into subdivisions. The two groups that returned with Ezra do not necessarily represent other two families besides those four ; they are representatives of the two great branches into which, according to the Priests’ Code, the whole body of priests falls, namely Phinehas (or Eleazar) and Ithamar, i.e. Zadokites and non-Zadokites. The heads of the 21 to 24 divisions are spoken of as rä'shim of fathers’ houses (Neh 12”, l Ch 24*"), with whom we should probably identify the priest- princes (sārīm) of Ezr 8* * M, 10%, 2 Ch 36”. The Chronicler divides the singers likewise into 24 classes (1 Ch 25), and appears to have designed to give in like manner, for the Levites in general, a list of 24 classes, which has certainly not reached us in a correct form in the present text of 1 Ch 23%. Since the division of the Levites into 24 classes is witnessed to in the period posterior to the OT (Jos. Amt. VII. xiv. 7 ; cf. Schürer, p. 242, and, on the other side, Van Hoon- acker, Sacerdoce, etc. p. 41 ff.), these statements of the Chronicler are probably due to the circum- stance that with him the classes of singers and Levites are practically identical (see below, § 10). Divisions of the Levites, without speciſication of the number of these, are presupposed by the Chronicler in various ways (malºlékóth, 1 Ch 28* * al. ; mishmāróth of the Levites [singers] and "malilékóth of the doorkeepers, 2 Ch 8*; [0éth] ’ābóth of the Levites, 1 Ch 9” al.), and even Nehemiah (13” M) speaks of mishmāróth of the Levites. The heads of the divisions of the Levites, like those of the priests, are called by the Chronicler sårim (Ezr 10°, 1 Ch 15" al.) or rà'shim (Neh 12*, 1 Ch 9” [of the singers and doorkeepers, vv.”] al.). In the Priests’ Code, nási', is the designation of the heads of the Levitical fathers' houses (Nu 3*), along with which we find rú'shim | used of the heads of the whole tribe of Levi (Ex 62%). In the position of the high priest no essential change can be traced since the time of 12Zra. The very first of the post-exilic high priests assumed the place claimed for him in the Priests’ Code. Nehemiah (31. 99 M., 13% M) and the Chronicler give to the high priest the title of ha-köhön ha- gärlöl (2 Ch 34"), th. Chronicler has also the older title [ha-J Jºhèn ha-rö’sh (Ezr 7", 2 Ch 19" al.). In addition, the Chronicler employs the designa- tion, not found in the Pentateuch, “prince (nàgid) of the house of God’ (1 Ch 9" al.; cf. ‘prince of Aaron,’ 1 Ch 27*), which marks the later time when the high priest was at the same time the head of the political community. Usually, how- ever, the Clironicler (1 Ch 16”), as well as Nehe- mial (Neh 13 M), calls the high priest simply ‘the priest,’ as is likewise done frequently in the Priests’ Code. * written source in which — —- By the Chronicler, as in the Priests’ Code, the priests recognized are the Aaronites, including both the IEleazarites and the Ithamarites (1 Ch 24* al.). The equalizing of the latter with the Zadokites (i.e. Eleazarites), which as a necessary concession to the system of the Priests' Code appears to have been first recognized under Ezra (Ezr 8* M), has thus become permanent. A difference, as compared with the conditions in the time of Ezra, reveals itself with the Chronicler only in regard to the inferior personnel of the temple, and in some points concerning the relation of this to the priests. A distinction between Levites on the one hand and singers and door- keepers on the other, such as we noted (see above, § 7) in the time of Ezra, is no longer made. The the Chronicler would appear to have found at the same time the emoirs of Ezra and those of Nehemiah, appears to have still made this distinction, seeing that even outside the Memoir passages in the BRs, of Ezr and Neh the singers are only very occasionally, and the doorkeepers not at all, reckoned to one comprehensive . the Levites (Gesch. p. 143 f.). On the other hand, for the Chronicler singers and doorkeepers are subdivisions of the one class, the Levites (1 Ch 610". [note v.”] 9” al., see Gesch. p. 151 ff.). C. C. Torrey (The Composition and IIistorical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah, Giessen, 1896, p. 22 f.) is decidedly wrong when he denies the existence of a difference in this respect between the Chronicler and the older portions of the BRs. of Ezra and Nehemiah (See above, § 7). Still less, in view of the material evidence that exists, can it be held, with Köberle and Van Hoonacker (Steer- doce, etc. p. 49, cf. 70), that the reckoning of the singers and doorkeepers to the Levites, as we find done by the Chronicler in the 13ks. of Chronicles themselves and in his working over of the sources of Ezr and Neh, is presupposed by Ezra and Nehe- miah as existing, and rests even upon a pre-exilic application of the name ‘Levites’ to those classes of sanctuary servants. On the contrary, the application of the name ‘Levite’, even to the singers and doorkeepers is plainly introduced through the influence of the Priests’ Code, which knows of only the one class besides the priests, namely the Levites. The Nethinim, who under Ezra were received into the community (Neh 10”), appear to have disappeared at the time of the Chronicler, who mentions them only once, namely at the time of the founding of the first post-exilic community (1 Ch 9°). Whether they were re- moved from the service of the sanctuary or by a genealogical device were absorbed among the Levites can scarcely be determined, but even here the influence of the Priests’ Code is unmistakable. For the priests the Chronicler sometimes uses the expression, which is somewhat strange for him, ha-kohdīnim, ha-lèwiyyim. It is not, indeed, quite certain that he actually uses it, for the copulative waw may easily have dropped out between the two appellations just quoted, and the readings of the MSS vacillate (Gesch. p. 154 ft.). But there is an a priori probability in favour of the reading with- out wav, for this form of expression is just what does not correspond with the ordinary usage of later times, and in any case in 2 Ch 30”, where it is said of the ‘Levite priests’ that they blessed the people, this reading is undoubtedly correct, since blessing is the function of the priests ex. clusively. In this instance, by way of exception, the terminology of Dt has again forced itself to the front, as in like manner the designation ‘I,evites’ is also occasionally still used by the Chronicler in a wider sense so as to include the priests (Gesch. p. 136). In the employment of the title ‘Levite priests' we may find an approxima. PRIESTS AND LEVITES PRIESTS AND LEVITES 93 tion of the position of the Levites to that of the priests, .. would have to be viewed as a con- cession to the pretensions of those whom Ezekiel and Ezra, jià Levites, namely the descendants of the deposed priests of the high places. Such a raising of the dignity of the Levites would not be without analogies in Chronicles. In point of fact they have in these books a more oriest-like standing. This is shown, in particular, !. the services they have to render at the offering of the burnt-offering on the Sabbaths, and at the new moons and great festivals (1 Ch 23*), and by their (in an exceptional way) helping the priests to flay the victims on the occasion of extraordinary offerings for the whole people (2 Ch 29°). From the latter passage it may be inferred that the service of the Levites at the offering of the burnt-offering also on holy days consisted in the flaying, and, it may be, in accordance with Ezekiel's enactment, the slaying of the victims. At all events, in Chronicles it is the Levites who undertake the killing and ſlaying of the Paschal lambs, hand to the pºiests the blood for sprinkling (2 Ch 30" 35" "), and attend to the roasting of the Paschal offering (2 Ch 35%); whereas in the Priests’ Code it is the head of the house who kills and roasts the Paschal lamb (Ex 12" ; Gesch. p. 163). On the other hand, in 2 Ch 29** it is the priests who slay the sacrifices, probably because we have here to do with extraordinary sacrifices for the whole people. By the ‘Rohathite Levites’ who prepare the shew- bread (1 Ch 9°), the Chronicler appears to mean not the Aaronites (who, to be sure, belonged to the Rohathites), to whom alone that duty falls in the Priests’ Code (but cf. Gesch. p. 161 f.). While, further, in the Priests’ Code the duty of teaching belongs only to the priests, this duty, particularly that of instructing in the târâh, is assigned in Neh 87-9 (cf. v.il), 2 Ch 1781. 359 also to the Levites (Gesch. p. 163f.). The more priest-like position of the Levites finds quite peculiar expression in the fact that in Chronicles not only the priests, as in the Priests’ Code, but also the Levites are called holy (2 Ch 23° 35%; cf., further, Ezr 8* M, where already the Levites seem to be included [with the priests] in the ‘Ye are holy to Jahweh’). Regarding the service of the doorkeepers in par- ticular, we learn that they had daily to set in all 24 watches, under four chiefs belonging to the doorkeepers, at the four quarters of the temple (1 Ch 26**) — an arrangement which, although given as existing in the time of David, will really have reference to the temple of Zerubbabel. As concerns the singers, Büchler (ZATW, 1899, p. 97 ff.) seeks to prove that the data regarding temple music ind temple singing were not found in the authority used by the Chronicler, and are thus added by himself. This is not impossible; but so sharp a distinction between the Chronicler and his authority (the lost Midrash on Kings), with which we are wholly unacquainted, appears to the present writer incapable of being carried out. There is, moreover, an ‘external activity,’ i.e. one outside the sanctuary, assigned to the Levites in Chronicles (1 Ch 26”). They are employed as overseers and, like the priests, as judges (1 Ch 23% 26” al.). In particular, their charge of measures is leferred to in 1 Ch 23” (Gesch. p. 162). While the Priests’ Code ſixes the counnencement of the Levites' service at their thirtieth, or, according to an innovation, their twenty-fifth year, they have, according to 1 Ch 23* and other passages, to serve from their twentieth year onwards—an arrangement, which the Chronicler is aware is a deviation from the legal statute, and which he seeks to justify as a change made by David. In the matter of the revenues falling to the priests and Levites, from the time of Ezra, an attempt was made to carry out the prescriptions of the Priests’ Code. But the setting-up of Levitical cities was as little carried into practice after Ezra as it had been up till then. When the Chronicler represents these cities as having existed in the time of David (1 Ch 13°) and later, this is simply due to his theory, which he forgets in 2 Ch 23%, where the Levites, at the accession of Joash, are assembled out of all the cities of Judah. Nor is the meaning of the migräsh of the Levitical cities quite clear to the Chronicler (2 Ch 3119). Accord- ing to Neh 7”= Ezr 2", and other passages, in the º period priests, Levites, singers, door- keepers, and Nethinin, dwelt dispersed in various localities, which did not, however, bear the char- acter of the Levitical cities of the Priests’ Code. So also in the period subsequent to the OT, the priests did not all live at Jerusalem : the Maccabees came from Modein (1 Mac 2'), to which, indeed, they had retired from Jerusalem only in conse- quence of the troubles under Antiochus Epiphanes; and the priest Zacharias (Llº 1*) had his |. in the hill-country of Judah (cf. Büchler, Priester, pp. 159–205 : * Die Priester ausserlıalb Jeru- salem’s’). The doorkeepers, according to 1 Ch 9”, betook themselves every seven days, according to their divisions, from their villages to Jerusalem to perform their service. The Levites and singers (and so, no doubt, the priests also) in Nehemiah's time possessed at their places of residence fields, from whose produce they supported themselves when their dues were not paid (Nell 1319 M), and probably in general when they were not on duty, for the tenth in the time of Nehemiah was paid at the temple (Nell 13* * M), and thus will hardly have extended to the Levites and priests outside Jerusalem. The Nethinim lived in Nellennialı's time on the OPHEI, (which see) at Jerusalem (Nell 3** M); the (officiating) priests had houses in Jerusalem, situated apparently on the temple area (Neh 328 M). On the subject of the dues falling to the temple personnel, we have a certain amount of informa- tion for the time of Nehemiah. The latter tells us in his Memoirs (Neh 13") that before his departure from Jerusalem the tenth of corn, must, and oil was paid and deposited in the storehouses as the ortion of the Levites, temple-singers, and door. keepers, which three classes received the tenth, and the priest the tārūmāh. The tºrtimãh here might possibly mean the tenth of the tenth, but linguistic usage favours rather our referring it to the handing over of the first-fruits. In that case the paying of the tenth of the tenth to the priests is not witnessed to for the time of Nehemiah. The tenth of the tenth in Neh 1099-40 owes its presence apparently to a later hand (Gesch. p. 171 f.), to which is due also the additional enact- ment, which perhaps suits even the time of Nehemiah, but in any case is characteristic of the later development, that an Aaronite priest is to superintend the operations of the Levites, as they receive the titles (v.”). After a while remissiness in paying the titles set in, so that Nehemiah at his second visit had to adopt drastic measures in order to bring the payment of them into force again (Neh 131". M). There is no mention in Nehemiah of the tenth of cattle. The demand for this made by the Priests’ Code is probably an innovation, the result of purely theoretical con- struction, and is perhaps not earlier than the period subsequent to Nehemiah. The Chronicler, on the other hand, is acquainted with the require- ment of the tenth of cattle (2 Ch 31"). Priests and Levites were appointed by Nellemiah to take charge of the wood that had to be delivered at fixed times, and of the bikkºtrim (Nell 13" M). According to Neh 10” those contributions of wood SGILIAGIT OINW SLSCIIHCI #6 SGILIAGIT CINV SLSCII?ICI otſ, KIIIo nou suffIssm oſtſ.T 'sion)o Árt º tioot oAntu qsnut soona,tos toovoy ou', ‘ool Atos old tuoq o!!" [] IAA uoſ Xoutloo uſ pouoſquoit qou out, ‘poſiod 100th a qu pouoſquoul lùs iſºmou?!"; ‘olduo) 'ou'. go ool Atos ouq Ioſ ssa; ſo Iºſoods tº Su po Kold tuo Joſoluto.it/ſ) out, Jo outſ, oil) uſ (10Ao 195uo ou 9.to AA AI) us.tuddu oil.w ‘uiſultſ, o N ouq Qullq du 100S '(z, ‘I ‘I ſ/oppd/ſ) 1soſ.1d tº ‘a’ ‘oldutoº otſ, Jo uſanduo u Jo Jo.1quoo ollº topun StºA sonſ Aorſ otſ, Ad poſſddus plaini; ot.I., '80soſ.1d Koi pold nooo olow quoo Mouttſ out, up suolygºs ooltſ, oil? Sºotou A ‘squod Iz, qu opisquo oun uo KIIIo iſoqºw doox on ‘buus; IN outſ, o] jumpiodou “pull qug ‘old tuo" oti, Jo 2010.tos (970)al ou" Jo olotſ A oliſ, IITIA polism.I.) Ioſitio ou aloa AoûJ, son Ao'ſ out, uloiſ usulptinº old.A S1115ſ.I smoſ Aoid lotſ]o qugſ ouſly, otſ, KIuo 10 N ‘opoſ) shsol.I.I. ou" Jo Atºſ on 111 poſtoſ[d -Ittoo ÁIptºw.x|An ouq Huſtoniº toy pozios od pino A Åhlunqioddo Kut, qullq olqu'Alootio9 ÅII pºol sº q ſud ‘pouyui.Ioqop o't qoutlºo At;I oil') tuo, J Buſqtº Aop ...to) oathout [bo].101st I ot.I., (AAOIod oos) Sq80ſ.Id out Jo quotu Itº uouſ oth InfoA on qūji, ou, Huguſt 4qo uſ popoooons II ºddſ.(3V Jo outſ] ouſ) uſ—s.195uſs old tuo, oud Klûo quot—on A “sonſ Ao'I otlº, Jo uoſº, -duuusoid ou" on Kuul pousſund st: Aoſ A uſ oolioIſo ou] T'uuq ('ll 86 'd 'o'?) zºo’ū.1%) Kol poliogui uood Stu q ('J LOI 'd ‘988I ‘2/.tº/OSS/2010// ‘Zqoº.1#)) old tuoq où.) Jo uoſqon.1qsop out 10qJu tuoqsilo otlº St. A UIoſ (IAA ‘puoqsuſ Sqsoºd outſ, on prud put soº!Aoſſ ouſ, u0,1] UIAAt, puſh! AA StºA ound out quuſ quoulusſuud tº sº q uodu Solool puluſe,], oud Tºul qot'ſ outſ, tuo,(I '5uſtin Itºnsu tº st; soº!Aorſ out on qquoq on 1 Jo 5uſ Kºd où" (IqAA poquſumbotum on ſub od On Sulú S.Iuoddt; oII Sqsoºd oul oº so] IAorſ out, Kot pitid od O1 putſ quitº (Iqtion oth Ao(A uſ oAbū qoutlºo ot ‘Knſuſ oth Jo sputºu out qt, oùnſ, out 5upſt:1 st; s]solid ou', sodilosop smudosoſ. oouis II udditſ; V Jo otuſ) out Jo jupluods SI of oolog Kot qi oxiuq sqsoud outos quila Kuo suit Iſltuoo put ‘ūntion oud oAloool Sqsoſ.1d out" quqq quji.I. Jo Lo?] bul tº sº q Sottinssº (’o:7) Snudosoſ' 'outiq 101*I (Ionuſ g luo, J soutloo (Inuoq on 1 poA:oool Sqsolid out, qullq ooliopſ Ao qsoil tºo ImC) (smuto.IAH (IUſoſ. SuM to Kºld out 14 out, bousſioqt, oùA utºutuoſº out, quuq splot ‘SI 'd ‘ploy -toq191 ‘putti tou]o oth UO : U.Izq Jo K.It...todtuoquo) tº st: uttiglioſ sitſ, sp.tušot ‘[•] 09 'd] outou os Igoldoſ -oudlūo stu on 5uſplooot! ‘ou A ‘IOf “d ‘olo ‘ooop.toops “toxiou uooH uu Aosta os : 3 8 S to Aoqu 'yo) sosojugſ dº tºus utºslo, I ouq go Á.It...Ioditioquoo out poons -Iopun od on SI utºutiqoſ stil Ág quuſ, put ‘sonſ Aorſ out, Ol oil);4 oilº Jo 5uſ Aud old Jo uoſº IIoqt, où" on S.Iojo.I.'ou'. In oth qu uoissoguoo put 5uſAI3sMutuq go to ºutd où), pousſioqº utºut, Uſoſ, qsoſ.1d tº itſ ouſ, yºu? qooljo ouq on “ºuts! W ouq uſ UAAop poputti uoſqipë.I.) outſ, ‘spiou (I aſ ‘d) utoqslošo A St, *qūlū ol (UIssod st qI ‘soutſº Ioquſ Jo Suoſquio. 5uſqsixo KII*nqotº ouſ? (IqAA puodso.I.Ioo qou pino A ‘şūtoos q so ‘uond IIosop sitſ, uotin quo (## onou ‘892, 'd ‘IolutioS) soº!AoT out. Kuo oq pluod SSuſo qşū) out,L, ‘Uhuo, out) Jo ſpºtty.0% out) StouTo put (ſquoq qs.III ou% oA:ooo.1 outos quuq ooſqould Joo.Ltoo ouſ, su ounssu on ‘poopu, ‘sitoddu (9 A ‘Aways wosop/AI) butts IN ou.I. (Of 'd ‘olo ‘000p.toopS “toxiou -uooH up A yo) sqsoºd out, o] Klaatsu[oxo poušisso puu solſ AOT out utoly UAAtºll pullſ A olòAA SouTI) où" ("Iſ L6 “d ‘988I ‘ºſ.tv/0s.sqpuo/ſ ‘zhou.1%) up soouo -logo.I out 90s) º ou', put (GI ‘z, I ‘vº! A : z XI ‘8 ‘IIIA ºxx quiz) sulldosoſ Jo Kuoup)soq ou" on 5uſ -ploooo “soul!') toºl uſ quguouſo N topum oolog uſ qud IIºnqog uood pull opoo Sqsould outſ, Jo uoſºt;União.I ou?!] ouſ, toy V ('J Zg 'd “posop) Sqsoºd ou', go uoſ) buffIsop tº AIIºuisito Sºw , sonſ Aorſ, output out, Tºuq odutºstumolpo Áloa stun Āq SAAous ‘soq Aoſſ ouſ, O] q suffy'sst UOIUIAA ‘opoC) Sqsolid ou.J., &ttºnqouts où, Jo Squ'u Atos ontºuſ ploqus on s(Iuy q uot A qou qnq ‘Anſop out) Jo SoAntiquoso.Idol Su ‘Sqsolid ou" on uo Ali; tıoAo Ao ‘(n(I up posodoid su) Igou Itºſoljitous b on poqoAop tou]lo si qu gº old 15IIIonuţ AIIbuo.1 st onp polous u Su (Away ou.I. 'uoism.Juoo Igoi.104sſu Og to Kioonº IgloſſInUp tip on Syſutiſm ‘KhippſbA pokoſua otuſ) outlos IOJ pt; II (IoIIIA sooutºu ºpio pop.Itºo.I -sp put ‘judiuojun.i.lt. In Inquu oioſit put loſſItuſs où.) IIoA st; Sluloſſ totlºo uo pondoooº offu. Ioji;I tº ‘ſouvos.100. Snqno ot|] Jo uoſqisod out 5uix I, III 'oïqq II st; SAoux 70 watos.ſad suq [no IIST1Hot IsI oilº Jo Kloºsſil ºp go osoſo out" put ‘ījuſt 1ou Aouxſ on sittoos q.It:(l sitſ Joy of soq Aorſ Jo puſXI tolſo Kut, JO (, (looxi, tit.10, Itoi utſooq oil, oo!A.Ios Iſotſ, oſſilosop on SAoſduto oil Iog) S.Iodoo’ſ -toop puni (soq (It loyſ ouſ, Jo Kittutºſ-tojuts ou" tuouſ) On Suox{ool on JoJ) stoju is sº so] IAo'I sitſ Jo quiºnoid oII ‘AoA uſ putſ ‘Āſhū31.1 poi; pinſ ow. JI ‘opoſ) sqsoil, I otſ, Jo tolſ, nu ou? (IoIIIA “puno.15 pouyuj quotuojun.itt, ou, KuA stuſ] uſ 'soq Ao I go sossulo Itsuoissogo.id juſAIAtus ow', KItio ouſ poqnqqsuoo oùA ‘stodoox{toop put $105uis ouſ] uſ poq losqu oro AA alºxo;3 lox Holſ Ao’ſ ot|] qsul qt quuſ, quoqu outgo q Sull,I, Iotſ]o ouſ, uo stodoox.1oop put slošuſs ou? but putti oilo ouſ, uo $1solid out uooAqoq “ouſſop o', plºtſ sº Hoſt|A ‘oot; Id oºth potti.ioluſ ut: , solſ Aor I, su boA:ooo..I Kotſ) “pool (1soild of IJNo-qsod oul oº poqquipu ‘891ſ.Ituitºuſ I ot(ſ) oxiII ‘qou otoA osotiq St. It'ſ os III ‘Sqsoºd onſtitoſłsuloſ'-uouſ pio ouſ, Jo 5uſsocisſp Jo osodind ouſ, KIuo poA.Ios IIoIIIA ‘uoſquoto Ipſoſº.it; tım StºA Soq Ao’I, su ulzGI go outſ) out uſ put loplozºi on us\ouxI SSºlo oil.J., S.Iodoox.loop put stoºuis oul Altio ‘sqsold out sopisoq “populouſ sque Allos Attºnqouts Jo Sossºlo ‘(pua £ $ ‘oAoqu oos) oilſ wo -old ‘th;oddt, pluow st: “0” “quopout; ou.I, asuos IoAAO.I.Itºu oug uſ sonſ Aoſſ ouſ, Jo uſ;1.10 oug Jo Aoya ul 5u ISI.Id.Ins qou si qtl11 qInso.I tº SI sitſ.I., ( II 96 I 'dso ‘‘II & II 'd ‘...to 1897.t, I ‘IoIIIongſ “Jouq.luj ‘put; : G8 ‘d ‘uponsojoA ‘do ‘sopruoturu IN Jo) old tuo, oth uſ juſtion tPA go quuq put duos go qtuq ‘oo!AIos Iuoſº Ao, I Jo spupſ OAA) ÁIuo SAOuxi squo Ao II's qu pulult. I, oul.I., (“J 19. I ‘d "ſosos)) QSIXo on potuussu olu (cº'A) Stoju Is ouſ, put (or z ºr’AA) slodoo [loop ou? sopisoq (ºr 'rt'AA). Soº IAo’I, IoI10 tº-rt|6 UIO I II Joujoli.A Illy -qquop SI q1 (I) 20I ‘Og ‘dd “uroºstojoA) oouoqsixo Igoſqoloolſ, tº KIO.Iotti lo[oruo.IIIO ou? Ioy u0Ao pull loqqol out quuſ, qsośāns on poqdulaq aq qušjul oud quuſ, OS ‘osuos 10A0IIdu out) uſ poſſGo-Ossoqiao"I ou? utún qu'ud quºqiodſtuſ otolu o Kuld slodoax|loop puu Stoju Is otou A ‘Soloſuo IU[O uſ LO ouq uſ oſquioxoo -sup Appo.II* SI q.[uso.I SIU, Oq Kouopuoq au" qsual q W ‘Ioqot'.Itsuo onbrun Iſou, Jo osotiſ, possossodsip ‘osuos to Aollºu oug uſ polluo-os Sonſ Aoſſ out" usuº Suo toutnu oloui Monut otoA quituoulo N put; b.Izº[ Jo ouſ, oth qu (IoIUIAA “Sosseto OAAq osotiſ, q'eqq St. A solſ Ao'I owl) 5uoult stodooxidoop put, S.Iošups ouſ, Jo uoismouſ otſ, go oouonbosuoo out,L–’sozºao'ſ pºp s?s2?.toſ “e 'I.O ou" on quoubosqns poſiod ou" uſ so AIosutou, Aous IIIqs Ālūnqoubs out Jo fountos -.tod out? Jo suoſquio.1 out up squaludo Ioaop lottling IgloAoS-'SSINIJ, JO &ICIJ.JV CIOOH.I.S.II?IJ &III,I, ‘OI “utilo I, où uſ quoddus qoo.IIp ou spuſ) (IoIIIA ‘sonp go spupi ootuſ) go uoſº outpºstp or pntulu I, out) postºl Sy stuſ, uO 'uquoq put “ſyº/s2. “WA0tuº.19% q uſ potutºu ote soloods oo.IIII, uſupuloua N Jo Suſoluo)\ ou" on sºuoloq q. Ioudou A [uy]ºlnop sº q1 (IoIUAV jump Itº -ol of USSud tº ‘rtz I to N uſ poqºlotlinuo Álosiouo) qsoul old somp go spupſ snoi.It A out,L “ſputy.192 ouq II*IA (IQuo) out go UOIsnyu.00 tº uo(In Slso.I ‘(o'A) pouoſquoul osſ AoxUI SI u21u4A sqJ13 poleopop go quo" ou" ; (c.18 MO z) Aouou go quo, a on uoſsulſº ut, otout, SI soloſuolu O uſ AIUO (II 691 'd "ſosoº)) sAGIp out oinoid posijuoo Ötti tuoſi Aoya qouſasp tº upgå on aidissoduſ sº qI ‘somp Hugoodso.1 suojº, -uImāo.1 ou', go oſot|A out go 5uſ pubqslopun Ibolo tº JoãuoI ou put uuptuoua N. Jo SIſoluo IN oug Jo uoſº, -oupol out, up lossooopold stuſ IO IoIoſuolu O ou.I. ‘(369 AT go quq) up.I.O.L out on stuoddt, qmptuouſe N uſ oſſussud spun (Snoiſ, |. ‘Ionoququod out, uſ pouyuquoo qou si (IoIIIA uoſqditosold º-opdood où, puts ‘soq Aort attº “sqsolid out, uodn posoduſ olow §uitoſyo-quinq go Ibn Ib out, go squoulolymbol ou? Ioy PRIESTS AND LEWITES PRIESTS AND LEWITES 95 watch service but also the cleaning of the temple to the vewkópot, i.e. the Levites; for other duties, growing boys of the priests were employed (Schürer, p. 279). n addition, we hear (Sukka iv. 4; Tamid v. 3) of ‘attendants’ (Dºn), without its being clear whether they were Levites (So Büchler, Priester, p. 149 ft.) or non-Levites that were thus employed. In any case the only class of Levites that could enter into consideration would be the doorkeepers, for the singers were doubtless regarded as holding too dignified a position to have such a name applied to them. Shortly before the destruction of the temple, the singers succeeded in obtaining from Agrippa II. and the Sanhedrin permission to wear the ‘linen’ garment of the priests (Jos. Amt. XX. ix. 6). The desire to do this was not new ; according to 1 Ch 15”, 2 Ch 51°, in the time of David and Solomon not only the singers but the Levites in general wore the priestly byssus robe—a statement which shows merely that at the time of the Chronicler this practice was an object of desire. Agrippa II. not only granted the desire of the singers, but allowed a portion of the Levites, }. whom only doorkeepers can be meant, to learn the singing of hymns (Jos. l.c.), i.e. to hold an equal place with the division of singers. It is to the Levites apparently that we should refer the designation of Ypapparets toū lepoº, ‘the teachers of the law of the temple,’ which occurs in the letter of Antiochus the &º ap. Jos. Amt. XII. iii. 3. As these Ypappareſs are named between the lepets and the tepopóXTau, they can hardly be other than Levites (Sam. Krauss, p. 675). The mention of them tallies with what we learn from Neh 87° about the instruction in the Torah which was given by the Levites. b. The revenues of the priests and Devites.—The dues demanded for the priests by the Priests’ Code were augmented by that imposed by Deuteronomy upon sheep's wool (Chullin. xi. 1, 2). By combin- ing the requirements of Dt with those of the Priests’ Code, the income of the priests was further augmented, inasmuch as those portions of the sacrificial victims which, according to Dt., fell to the priests, had at a later period to be paid to them from all animals that might legitimately be offered in sacrifice, even when these were slaugh- tered for a common use, namely the foreleg, the cleek, and the maw of cattle, sheep, and goats (Chullin x. l ; cf. Schürer, p. 255). The bikkitrim were more specifically deſimed as having to be paid from seven sources, adopted from IOt. Sº, namely Wheat, barley, grapes, figs, pomegranates, olives, and honey. According as the parties concerned resided near to or far from Jerusalem the bik- Jºttröm were to be handed over fresh or dried, and were to be brought in general processions to Jeru- salem (Schürer, p. 249). A distinction, based on Neh 12", was made between the bikkitrim and the tèrºmâh in the narrower sense, i.e. the due levied on the best not only of the above seven kinds but on all fruits of field and tree. There was no fixed measure prescribed for these dues, but on an average they were to amount to ºth of one's in- come. This téritmāh was to be eaten, according to Nu 18”, by priests alone (Schürer, p. 249 f.). The due to be presented of dough was also more speciſi- cally defined, as well as the products of the ground which had to be regarded as tithable (Schürer, p. 250 fl.). According to the Mishna (Menahoth x. 4), a portion of the firstling sheaf that was waved by the priest before Jahweh (Lv 23*) falls to the priest-–an arrangement of which there is no indica- tion in the OT. According to Josephus (Amt. IV. iv. 4), the redemption price for the vow of one's own person is considered to belong to the priests, * whereas in the Priests’ Code (Lv 27) this is not expressly said, as it is in the case of the hôrem. Perhaps the statement of Josephus is inexact; as a rule, at least the things vowed appear to have been used for general cultus purposes (Schürer, 256 f.). In one point the practice of later times took a turn less favourable to the temple-servants than the Priests' Code had intended. Not only the so- called second tenth, i.e. th 3 one which, upon the ground of the tithe regulations in Dt was levied besides the tithe of the Levites, but also the title of cattle, are required by the IRabbinical rules to be devoted to sacrificial meals at Jerusalem. The latter thus did not fall, as is unquestionally the intention of the Priests’ Code, to the Levites and priests (Schürer, p. 251 f., note 22). Those dues of the priests which did not consist of portions of the offerings, and which were not therefore necessarily brought to Jerusalem, were paid “everywhere where there was a priest,’ i.e. on the spot to any priest who happened to be present, and this was enjoined to be continued even after the destruction of the temple (Schürer, p. 257). c. The duties and offices of the priests.-The enactments concerning the priests were in later times simply made more precise, upon the basis of the Priests’ Code; for instance, the laws about their marriage (Schürer, p. 227 f.), and the requirements of freedom from bodily blennish (ib. p. 230 f.). It would appear that in later times it was, not indeed a law but a custom that the principal priests married only the daughters of priests (Büchler, Priester, p. 88 ft.). A particular age for admittance to the priestly service was no more fixed in the period following the OT than is done by the Priests’ Code in the case of the Aaronites; but, as a matter of |. those admitted required apparently to have passed their twentieth year (Schürer, p. 231). Among the priestly duties, the blowing of trum- pets takes a wider scope than in the Priests’ Code or the statements of the Chronicler, according to which this ceremony was practised only in war and at the regular festivals and on special festive occa- sions. In later times it took place also in connexiom with the sabbatical and daily offerings (Jos. Amt. III. xii. 6), and to announce the beginning of the Sabbath from the battlements of the temple (BJ IV. ix. 12; cf. Schürer, p. 278 f.). In addition to the washing, required in the Priests' Code, of hands and feet in the brazen laver before performing the sacred office (on the mode of performing this wash- ing see Büchler, Priester, p. 74, note 1), the priests had in later times to tº a plunge-bath every morning before commencing the work of the day (Schürer, p. 283). In the last days of the temple it would appear that the higher ranks of priests took no part in the work of sacrifice, with the exception of the offerings presented by the high priest on the feast days, as |. non-participation in sacrificial work is to all appearance to be assumed in the case of the priest Flavius Josephus (Büchler, Priester, p. 70 ſl.). The 24 divisions of priests, of which we know as early as Chronicles, served for the performance of the cultus to which they attended in turn. The 24 divisions are distinguished, in the literature pos- terior to the OT, as the mishmārūth, from the sub- divisions not mentioned in the OT, the batté'ābóth. Each principal division included, according to tra- dition, from ſive to nine subdivisions (Schürer, p. 235 f.). A principal division is called in Greek Tarpid (Jos. Amt. VII. xiv. 7), or épmkeptg (Lk 1", *), or épmuepts (Jos. Witt, 1); a subdivision, qu)\# (Jos. Vito, 1). Each of the 24 divisions went on duty for a week, the exchange with the next division taking place on the Sabbath. . At the three grent annual festivals all the 24 divisions officiated simul- taneously (Schürer, p. 279 f.). 96 PRIESTS AND LEVITES PRIESTS AND LEWITES The position of the high priest underwent a change towards the close of the Jewish hierarchy through respect being no longer paid to the office as one that was to be held for life and to be heredi. §. The elevation of the Hasmonasans to the high-priestly dignity had already marked a break- ing with the past, for thereby the hereditary succession of high priests was interrupted. The Hasmonaeans sprang from the priestly class of Joiarib (1 Mac 2, 14*). Whether the latter was reckoned to the Zadokites or not, cannot be deter. mined. In the lists contained in the Book of Nehemiah (121-7. ***) it holds a subordinate posi- tion ; a list, perhaps not earlier than the time of the Hasmonaeans (cf. above, § 9), found in 1 Ch 247", assigns to it the first place. . In one of the recently discovered flagments of the Hebrew original text of Jesus Sirach, namely 51*), the house of Zadok is highly exalted : ‘O give thanks unto Him that chose the sons of Zadoktöbe priests’ (S. Schechter and C. Taylor, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, Portions of the Book Ecclesiasticus, Cam. bridge, 1899). The whole hymn to which this passage belongs, namely vv.”(9-12°09), is omitted in the Greek translation of the grandson of Jesus Ben Sira, perhaps as Schechter (p. 35 f.) suggests (cf. Th. Nöldeke, ZATW, 1900, p. 92), because in the interval between the composition of the original text and that of the translation (i.e. between c. 200 and 130 B.C.) the family of the previous Zadokite high priests had been superseded by the Has- monaºans. But after this latter event the high priesthood again became hereditary in the Has- monaean line. At a later period Herod and the Romans set up and deposed high priests at their pleasure. From these non-acting high priests arose the group known as āpxtepets. But the custom was always rigidly alſº to of select- ing the high priests only from certain special priestly families (Schürer, }. 215 ft.). The anoint- ing of the high priest, which is ordained in the Priests’ Code, was not in later times carried out in the case of all high priests, perhaps it was in general omitted; the Mishna knows of high priests who were installed in office simply by clothing them with the official robes (H...}} iii. 4; cf. Gesch. p. 140; Schürer, p. 232, note 26 ; Weinel, ZATW, 1898, p. 66 f. ..". Hoonacker, Sacerdoce, etc., p. 351 f.). The high priest, who, during the period of Jewish independence, was the head also of the State, was at least in later times president of the Sanhedrin, and in so far also the representative of the people in political matters in dealing with the Romans. As regards his partici- ation in the performance of the cultus, it was a ater custom for him to offer the daily offering during the week preceding the Day of Atonement; any other share he might take in the work of sacrifice was simply according to his pleasure (Joma i. 2). Josephus states that the high priest offered as a rule on the Sabbath, at the new moon, and at the yearly festivals (B.J. V. v. 7; Büchler, Priester, p. 68 ft., doubts whether in later times the high priest offered except at the yearly festivals). The daily minhãh, which according to the original intention of Lv 6* he had to offer (see above, § 8 c), was not always offered by the high priest in person, but he defrayed the cost of it (Jos. Amt. III. x. 7, where lepei's can be none but the high priest), a duty which Ezekiel imposed upon the ‘prince.’ In the Roman period a conflict arose on the question of the keeping of the high priest's robes (Jos. Ant. XV. xi. 4, XVIII. iv. 3, XX. i. 1, 2); when Jerusalem was taken, his robe of state fell into the hands of the Romans (IBJ VI. viii. 3). Besides the high-priestly office, we hear in the Rabbinical literature of an exalted priestly office, that of the $égam (117), of which there is no mention which is used in the in the OT. The ségan has usually been viewed as the high priest’s substitute, who had to take his lace if he was prevented by Levitical uncleanness rom discharging the duties of his office. But the existence of a standing vicarints for the ligh priest is rendered improbabie by the statement of the Mishna (Joma i. 1) that seven days before the Day of Atonement ‘another priest’ was to be set apart to act for the high priest in the event of his being prevented from officiating. It is not at all likely that this statement in the Mishna relates to an earlier practice, and that afterwards (subsequent to the year A.D. 63), the Ségam, was appointed as substitute for the high priest (Büchler, Priester, p. 113), for there is nothing known of such a change. Since the LXX usually reproduces the wordsågånön, 8: for non-priestly officials, by arpatmyol, Schürer § 264 f.) is probably right in seeing in the ségan the captain of the temple (orpa- tnyós roß lepod), who is repeatedly mentioned in the NT and by Josephus, and in attributing to him the principal oversight of the external order of the temple. Yet Joma 39" (Büchler, Priester, p. 105) looks upon the Ségan as in some measure the repre- sentative of the high priest. The º in the plural (Bikkurim, iii. 3) are doubtless, like the otpa- Tºyot (Lk 22*, *), heads of the temple police sub- ordinate to the ségan. In the Mishna (Bikkurim iii. 3) there are mentioned as going to meet the festive procession which accompanied the bikkſtröm.—the paháth (mns), the ségānīm, and the gizbārīm. It may be inferred that by the first of these desigma- tions, as by the two º priests are intended, although palboth is used also for secular governors. But a special priestly office can hardly be con- noted by the word, which apparently corresponds to the NT &pxtepe's (Schürer, p. 266). The giz bārīm (Dºnala, Peah i. 6 end) or ya; opt)\akes (Jos. Amt. XV. xi. 4, XVIII. iv. 3) had charge of the rich temple treasures. From the º of the Chronicler, it appears necessary to hold that in his time the administration of the temple revenue and capital was in the hands of the Levites. At a later period the higher posts as treasurers appear to have {. held by priests, for the gizbārīm appear as high temple officials alongside of the Ségåröm (Bikkurim, iii. 3); and Josephus (Amt. XX. viii. 11) names the ya! opóXaš, i.e. probably the head of the treasurers, innmediately after the high priest. It is possible that the Chronicler, in his account of the management of the temple treasury, has, in his preference for the Levites, arbitrarily put these in the foreground (but cf. Ex 38”). But, seeing that in the matter of other duties and rights the Levites were in point of fact displaced in later times by the riests, the same may have happened with the holding of treasury offices. Under Nehemiah (Neh 13° M) a priest was at the head of the treasurers (i.e. those who were set over the '62&7:0th, “Store- houses'), anong whom only one is stated to have been a Levite. Sam. Krauss (p. 673 f.) doubts, however, whether the gizbā'īm were priests, they being, as far as is known to the present writer, nowhere directly called such. To the treasury officials probably belonged also the ’āmarkélèn ("95-ps), who, without a more particular definition of the term, are mentioned in the Mishna only once, along with the gizbārīm (Shekalim v. 2), and are named also in later literature, as a rule, together with the gizbārīm (Schürer, p. 270 f.). Sam. Krauss (p. 673) holds the 'đmarkélim, also to have been lay- men, drawing this inference from the Midrash Wajikra Iºabba (Par. V. ch. v. 3; in A. Wünsche's Bibliotheca Iºabbinica, Jiefer. 26, 1884, p. 36), according to which the '&marköl had a right to par take of the holy things, but not, like the high priest, of the offerings. But Schürer (p. 270) is probably right in referring to Tosºfla Horajoth, end (Tosºfta, PRIESTS AND LEWITES PRIEST IN NT 97 ed. by M. S. Zuckermandel, 1880, p. 476, bottom), where in a graduated list the 'đmarköl and the gizbār are above the ordinary priest, the latter is above the Levite, and this last again above the Israelite, i.e. the layman (cf. also Graetz, Momats- schrift, 1885, p. 194). It is correct, however, that the official name 'dimarköl is used to designate the office not only of priest, but of administrator in general (Büchler, Priester, p. 100 ft. ; Schürer, p. 270). According to Büchler (p. 90 ft.), there were, in addition to the regular priestly gizbārīm and 'cºmarkélèn, others who were selected from the successive divisions of officiating priests; but no express testimony is known of the use of these two names for heads of these divisions.—Only in the Jerusalem Talmud is the office of the katolikin ("pºnp, ka00Xukot) named (Schürer, p. 271). The cultus was, according to the Law, to be performed by all priests; but in course of time the different functions became so complicated and in part difficult, that, according to the Mishna, they were apportioned among different priestly officials, and certain duties, such as that of preparing the shewbread and the incense, became hereditary in particular families (Schürer, p. 275 ft.). In addition to their service in the temple, the priests are known to Josephus as administrators of the most important concerns of the community, under the presidency of the high priest (c. A pion. ii. 21). He has in view primarily Jerusalem. But in all cities there were, according to him (Ant. IV. viii. 14), as Moses had enjoined, men of the tribe of Levi appointed, two for each court of seven, to assist the members as Ürmpétat. Such an enact- ment is not found in the Pentateuch ; Josephus must then have in view arrangements existing in his own time in Judaea, under the Romans (dif- ferently Van Hoonacker, Sacerdoce, etc. p. 45 f.). Prom the designation warmpétat it is more likely that these two assessors were Levites (Schürer, }. 178) than that priests are meant (Büchler, Priester, p. 180). According to the Mishna (San- Jiedrin, i. 3), priests are in certain instances to be called in as judges (cf. Jos. c. Apion. ii. 21). This judicial activity of the priests, perhaps also of the evites, is a continuation of the corresponding duties assigned to the priests in Deuteronomy and Ezekiel, and to the priests and Levites in Chron- icles. In the last resort this species of activity on the part of the personnel of the sanctuary goes back to the practice, with which we make acquaint- ance in the Book of the Covenant, of having certain lawsuits decided at the sanctuary, by means of the oracle of the Deity communicated by the priests. LITERATURE.—Jn. Lightfoot, Ministeriwm Templi quale erat tempore nostri Salvatoris descriptum tº scripturg et gºtiatiº- 8ūmīs Judaiorum monwmentis (Opera, Ivoterodami, 1686, vol. i. pp. 671–768); Joh, Lundius, Die alten jūdischen Heiligthtimer, Gottesdien8te wºnd Gºmoh.nheiton, für Awgen gestellet, in einer awsführlichen Beschreibung des gantzen Levitischen Priester- thwins, etc., itzo vom mewen übersehen, wºnd in bel/Jeſtigten Ammerckwingen, him wind wieder theils verbessert, theils ºver- mehret dwych Joh. Christoph. Wolſium, Hamburg, 1788; Joh. Gottlob Carpzov, Apparatus historico-criticus antiquitatuan sacri codicis, et gentis hebraſe wberrinnis ammotationibus in Thona Goodwimi Mosen et Aaronem, Francofurthi et Lipsiae, 1748.—On various points connected with the subject : Blasius Ugolinus, Thesaurus antiquitation sacrarum, vols. ix. xii. and xiii., Venetiis, 1748, 1751, and 1752, especially Pauli Frid. Opitii commentarius de custodia º nocturma,’ vol. ix. cc. DéccCLxxix-MLxxvi ; ‘Joh. Sauberti de Sacerdotibus et sacris Ebraeorum personis commentarius,” Vol. xii. Co. I-LXXX: ‘Jona Krumblioltz Sacerdotium Ebraicum,’ ib. cc. LXXXI- cxx; “Blas. Ugolini Sacerdotium IIebraicum,’ vol. xiii, cc, oxxxv-MGI,v1.—R. H. Graf, “Zur Geschichte des Stammes Levi,' in Merx' Archiv für wissenschaftliche Eºforschung des Altem Testamentes, Bd. i. 1807-1860, pp. (S-106, 208-286;.S.I. Curtiss, The Levitical Priests, a comtribution to the criticism of the Pentatewch, Edinburgh and Leipzig, 1877, also J)e Aſtronitici sacerdotii atque Thora clohistical origine dissertatio historico- critica, Lipsilo, 1878; Oort, ‘De Airomieden,’ in Thºl', Jaſurg, xviii. Iss4, pp. 280-336; W. W. Grf. Baudissin, Die Geschächte des alttestainentlichen Priesterthums untersucht, Leipzig, 18S9, on pp. xi-xv of which see a fuller list of the Literature on the VOI, IV.-7 history of the OT priesthood since 1806, to which ma added: J.M., Jost, Geschichte des Judentiums wnd §: Segten, Abtheilung i., Leipzig, 1857, pp. 146–156 (‘’Der jüngere Priesterstand'), p. 156 f. (‘Leviten'), pp. 158–167 ('Gottesdienst. Ordnung im Tempel'), P; 168-186 (“Gottesdienst der Synagoge lind gottesdienstliche, Handlungen'); Graetz, ‘Die" letzten Tempelbeamten yor, der Tempelzerstörung und die Tempel. ämter, in Monatsschrift für Geseltichte wind Wissenschaft des Judenthumb, , Jahrg. xxxiv. 1885, pp. 193–205, also “Eine Strafmassregel, gegen die Leviten,' ib. xxxv. 1886, pp. 97-108; Heinr. Biberfel , Der Ubergang des levitischen. Diºistgahalies (twf die Priester (Leipziger Dissertation), Berlin, 1888 –More recent works: E. Kautzsch, article ‘Levi, Leviten,' in Ersch and Gruber's Allgemeine Encyklopädie, Section ii. Thl. xliii. 1889, pp. 282-293; , H. Vogelstein, her Kampf zwischem. Priestern wrvd Leviten seit den Tagen Ezechiels, Stettin 1889; A. Kuenen, “De geschiedenis der pricsters van jahwe en de Ouderdom der priesterlijke wet," in Th T, Jaarg. xxiv, 1890, pp. 1-42 [=Ge&ammelté Abhandlungen zur Biblischen Wissellschaft, tr. by K. Budde, Freiburg i. B. 1894, pp. 465. 500); Ch. Piepenbring, ‘Histoire des lieux de culte et du sacer. doce en Israel,’ in Icevue de l'histoire des Religions, Ann. xii, t. Xxiv. 1891, pp. 1–60, 133–186 (a résumé of the Reuss-Well- hausen yiew of the history); Bruno Baentsch, Das Heiligkeits- lesetz Lv, avīt-wavi, Erfurt, 1893, pp. 142-144 (“Die heiligen Personen'); J. H. Breasted, “The dºjº. of the priest- hood in Israel and Egypt, a comparison,’ in The Biblical World, new series, II. i., July 1893, #. 19–28 (not seen]; I. Benzinger, IHebräische Archäologie, Freiburg i. B., 1894, pp. 405-428; W. Nowack, Lehrbuch der hebräischgn Archäologie, Freiburg i. B. 1894, Bd. ii. pp. 87–130: Ad. Büchler, Die Priester whid der Cultw8 m letzten Jahrzehnt, des Jerusalemischem Tempels, Wien, 1895 (see a review of this work by Schürer in T.LZ, 1895, col. 516 ft.); Samuel Krauss, ‘Priests and worship in the last decade of the temple at Jerusalem,' in the J(Q18, vol. viii. 1896, pp. 666-678; Ed. Meyer, Die Entstehwng des Jwden- thwins, Halle a. S. 1896, pp. 168–183 (“Die Geistlichkeit"); H. A. Poels, Eaſt men critique de l’histoire du sanctuaire de l'arche, tome i., Louvain, 1897, pp. 292–301 (“Les prêtres de Nob'); E. Sellin, Beiträge zur Israelitischen wrºd jūdischem ſteligions- geschüchte, Heft il., Leipzig, 1897, pp. 109–121; E. Schürer Geschichte des jitdischem. Volkes im, Zeitalter Jesu Christ;3 [Eng. tr. from 2nd ed., under title History of the Jewish People in the time of Jesus Christ, 5 vols., Edin., T. & T. Clark, 1885– 1890), Bd. ii., Leipzig, 1898, pp. 214–299 (‘Die Hohenpriester,’ “Die Priesterschaft und der Tempelcultus'); Ad. Büchler, “Zur Geschichte des Tempelcultus in Jerusalem,' in Irecueil des travanta: rédigés en mêmoire du Jubilé Scientific de M. Damiel Chwolsom, Berlin, 1899, pp. 1–41 (I. “Die Verloosung der Dienst- geschäfte '; II, ‘Simon, der Gerechte'; III. “Die Signale im Tempel für die einzelnen Dienstgeschäfte '); T. K. Cheyne, “The priesthood of David's sons,’ in Ea'pos., Fifth series, ix. [1899), pp. 453-457; A. Van Hoonacker, Le Sacerdoce Lévitique dams la loi et dans l'histoire des Iſèbrewa, London and Louvain, 1899 (cf. ThDZ, 1899, col. 359 ft.), “Les prêtres et les lévites dans le livre d'Ezéchiel,’ in Rev. bibl. intermat. 1899, ii. pp. 177– 205 [not seen] ; lºr. v. Hummelauer, Das vormosaische Priester- thwin in Israel, Freiburg i. B. 1899 ; J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, zur Geschichte Israelsº, Berlin, 1899, Kap. 4 (“Die Priester und Leviten ), Kap. 5 i. Die Ausstattung des IXlerus') [1st ed., under title “Geschichte Israels,’ 1878, pp. 123–174]. On the high priests, see Literature in Schürer (l.c. p. 214), and add B. Pick, ‘The Jewish High Priests subsequent to the return from Babylon,’ in the Lutheran Church IReview, 1898, i. pp. 127-142, ii. pp. 370-374, iii. pp. 550-550, iv. pp. 655-664 [not Seen J. On the temple singers: Justus Köberle, Die Tempelsånger im, Alten Testament, Erlangen, 1809 (cf. 'I'h LZ, 1890, col. 676 ft.); Ad. Büchler, “Zur Geschichte der Tempelmusik und der Tem- pelpsalmen,' in ZAT"W, xix. 1899, pp. 90–133, 320-344, xx. 1900, pp. 97–135. On the Nethinim, see Literature in Schürer, l.c. p. 279, note 94. On the kåmårim : Christoph. Braunhardt, Dissertatio philo- logica de Dºnbi sew hierophantis Judæorum ea 3 Reg. £3, 6, Wittebergao, 1680; Conr. Ikenius, Dissertatio theologico-philo- logica de Cemarim ad illustrationent locorum & Reg. 33, 5, os, 10. 5, Zeph. 1. A, Brennae, 1729. On the priests' dress : Joh. Braun, Westituts sacerdottºm Hebraeorum2, Amstelod. 1701; ‘Bened. David Carpzovii, dis- sertatio de pontificum Hebræorum vestitu sacro,' in Ugolinus, Thesaurus, vol. xii. cc. occLXXXV-DCCCX ; further, on the same subject, some other dissertations, ib, vols. xii., and xiii.; F. de Saulcy, ‘Recherches sur le costume Sacerdotal chez les Juifs,” in Revue archéologique, nouv. Série, vol. XX, 1869, pp. 100–115; V. Ancessi, ‘Les vôtements du grand pretre et des lévites' (śī. et Moise, première, partie), Paris, 1875. Of., further, the Literature cited in Schürer, l.c. p. 263 f. note (i. On the priesthood among the ancient Arabs: J. Wellhausen, Reste arabischen Heidentatiºns”, Herlin, 1897, pp. 130-140 (‘Ileilige Personen'); among the Babylonians: Friedr. Jere- mias in Chantepie de la Saussaye, Lehrbuch der Religions- geschächte2, Freiburg i. B. 1897, Bd. i. p. 203 f ; anong the Phoenicians: F. C. Movers, Die Phönizier, Bol. i., Bonn, 1811, pp. 670–690. . WOLF BAUDISSIN. PRIEST IN NT.—l. The word “priest (tepe (s) is used in the NT of the sacrificing ministers of any 98 PRIEST IN NT |PRIEST IN NT religion. The priest of Zeus is mentioned in Ac 14*, the priest of the true God in Mt 8*. Refer- ences, indeed, are numerous in the NT, especially in the Gospels, to the priests of the OT. In Lk 1** allusion is made to the twenty-four épmueptat into which they were divided, and to the assign- ment of certain of their duties by lot. The NT throws little light, however, on the standing of the priests generally, or on the service the rendered to the nation. The Gospels speak almost exclusively of those whom they call the dpxtepeſs, or chief priests. The high priest was chosen, as a rule, from one of a small number of F. families, and, when the office ceased to be held for life, there might be a number of persons entitled by courtesy to the name. An ex-high priest, if a man of unusual force of character, might actually exercise a greater influence in the lirection of ecclesiastical or political affairs than the proper holder of the office, and either over- shadow the latter in the common mind, or prac- tically share his distinction. It is thus we must explain such expressions as Lk 3° tº 3pxtepéas "Avva kal Kaúſpa = ‘in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas,' and the part taken by Annas (while Caiaphas was titular high priest) in the trial of Jesus (Jn 18°). So also in Ac 4" the dignity of the high priesthood is reflected on if not extended to all the members of the yévos dpxteparuköv ; there was a kind of aristocracy annong the priests, and it was from it that the high priest proper was chosen. Though the dpxtepets made common cause with the Pharisees in their hostility to Christi- anity, they were themselves on the Sadductean side (Ac 5"), and the most determined opposition to the preaching of the resurrection came from them. Probably the inferior members of the priestly order, who had but a nominal share in its prerogatives, were more free from its preju- dices; it would be among them that the great multitude of priests was found which “became obedient to the faith’ (Ac 67). On the whole sub- ject of the Jewish priests in NT times, see Schürer, GJ V* ii. 214–305 [HJP II. i. 195–305], and the pre- ceding article, esp. § 10c. 2. A more important subject is that which is suggested by the use of the word “priest’ in the interpretation of the Christian religion. In the NT it is only in the Epistle to the Hebrews that Jesus is spoken of as tepe's, uéyas lepeiſs, and dpxtepe Üs—terms which are not to be distinguished from each other, the last two only signifying Christ's eminence in the priestly character. In the highest sense of the term, so to speak, He is a briest. But what is a priest ? In the Ep. to the Hºw: it may be sºil. the priest is the person through whom and through whose ministry people draw near to God, through whom they are “sancti- fied '; that is, made a people of God, and enabled to worship. The writer does not think of such a thing as a religion without a priest. Men are sinful men, and without mediation of some kind they cannot draw near to God at all. The people of God had mediators under the OT, and they have a mediator under the NT. It is on the character of the mediator that the character of the religion depends. If he is imperfect the religion will be imperfect ; there will be no real or permanent access to God, no real liberation of the conscience. 3ut if he is what he should be, then the perfect, and therefore the final, religion has come. The conscience will be effectually purged, sin as a barrier between God and man will be effectually renoved, the way into the holiest of all will be opened, and the covenant realized in the abiding fellowship of God and His people. It is from this point of view that the writer works out the contrast between the OT and the NT. The Jewish religion was a true one, for God had given it ; but it was not the true and therefore not the final one, for its priesthood was imperfect. Everything about it was imperfect. The priests themselves were im- perfect. They were mortal men, and could not continue because of death. They were sinful men, too, and had to offer for their own sins before they could offer for those of the people. The sanctuar was imperfect, a dylov koopaków, not the real dwell- ing-place of God. The sacrifices were imperfect ; the blood of bulls and goats and other animals, whatever its virtue, could not make the worship- pers perfect touching the conscience ; that is, could not bring them to the desired goal of a fearless peace toward God. The very repetition of the sacrifices showed that the work of removing sin had not really and once for all been achieved. And, finally, the access to God was imperfect. The priests had no access at all into the Holiest Place, and when the high priest did enter on one day in the year it was no abiding entrance ; the communion of the people with God, which his presence there symbol- ized, was lost, it might be said, as soon as won ; he came out from the shrine and the veil closed behind him, ‘the Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all had not yet been made manifest.” Everything in the old religion had im- perfection written upon it—the imperfection in- volved in the nature of its priests (ovöév yāp éte- Networev 6 vôpos, He 7”). It is in contrast with this that Christ's priest- hood is set forth. Christianity is the perfect and final religion, because Christ is the perfect priest. An OT foundation for this doctrine is found in Ps 110°, where the Messiah is addressed by God as ‘a priest for ever, after the order of Melchize- dek.” Perhaps one should call it rather a point of attachment than a foundation, for though it probably served the writer's purpose in arresting the attention of his readers, the ideas which he connects with the priesthood of Christ are not, strictly speaking, derived from it. The order of Melchizedek is contrasted with that of Aaron : the two orders exclude each other. Christ is not a priest after the order of Aaron upon earth, and afterwards, in heaven, a priest after the order of Melchizedek : being what He is, the Son of God, in the sense tunderstood in this Epistle, His priesthood can be of the Melchizedek order alone. In Him and through His ministry a fellowship with God has been realized on the behalf of men which is perfect and which abides. The word which is used to express this in the Epistle is alavlos. Inasmuch as He is the true priest, Christ’s blood is the blood of an etermal covenant, He offered Himself through eternal spirit, He has become the author of etermal salvation, has ob- tained etermal redemption, and enables men to get hold of the eternal inheritance (5° 9” ” ” 13”). All these are ways of indicating the perfection and finality of His priesthood, i.e. of His function to mediate between the holy God and sinful men, and to realize in Himself, and eu, uble sinful men to realize, a complete and abiding fellowship with God. Among the aspects or constituents of Christ's priesthood on which the writer lays emphasis {ll’O these. (1) His commission, He 5". God must appoint the priest, for he is to be the minister of His grace. No man can take this honour to hina- self. The writer seems to find the IDivine commis- sion in the psalms quoted in He 5” (Ps 27 110°), but he connects these immediately in v.7" with what seems to be a reference to the agony in Gethsemane, as though it were there, historically, that Jesus received this high and hard calling. (2) His preparation. This is a point on which great stress is put. To be a merciful and trust- worthy high priest (27), it is necessary that he PRIEST IN NT PRIEST IN NT 99 should be to the utmost possible extent one with then that he is in the full sense a priest. Hence those whom he represents before God. Hence he becomes like them a partaker of flesh and blood (2”), is tempted in all points like us (4”), learns obedience by the things which he suffers (5°), knows what it is to worship with others and to wait upon God (2*), and at last to taste death. Sin apart (4%), nothing human is alien to him ; in virtue of his nature and his experience he can sympathize with us; through suffering, especially, he has been made ‘perfect,’ i.e. been made all that he ought to be as a ‘captain of salvation,’ or a priest to stand before God for sinful men, able truly to enter into their case. On the word ‘perfect ' (TeXetóa'at) see Davidson, Hebrews, p. 207 f. (3). His offering. Every priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices (8%) for sins (5'), and this one also must have something to offer. What is it 7 In a word, it is himself. This is more easily said than interpreted. There is a passage in the Epistle (104-9) in which, following Ps 407-9, what Christ did is contrasted with “sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt-offerings and sin-offer- ings,’ as ‘doing the will of God’; and it is said that Scripture puts away the first to establish the second. From this it is often inferred that Christ's work was not sacrificial, and especially that His death is not to be conceived as an offering for sin; sacrifice, it is said, is abolished to make room for obedience. But this is certainly not the contrast in the writer's mind. The conception of offering or sacrifice is essential to him, and to Christ as priest. This priest, like every other, must have somewhat to offer. Indeed, immediately after the remark that He puts away the first (the OT sacri- fices) to establish the second (the doing of God’s will), he adds, ‘in which will we have been sancti- fied through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” What He opposes is not sacrifice and obedience simpliciter, }. the OT sacrifices, in which the victims were involuntary, and the offering therefore morally imperfect, not to say meaningless, and Christ's willing sacrifice of Him- self, which was an act of obedience to the Father. As a voluntary act of obedience this sacrifice had a significance and a moral worth which no animal sacrifice could have. But the obedience involved in it was not simply the obedience required of man as such ; it was the obedience required of the Son whom the Father had commissioned to be the mediator of a new covenant, the restorer of fellow- ship between Himself and sinful men ; in other words, it was the obedience of a priest, who had “to annul sin by the sacrifice of himself” (997), to be ‘offered once for all to bear the sins of many’ (9*), to enter into the sanctuary ‘through his own blood” (91*), ‘by one offering to perfect for ever them that are being sanctified (10”). In short, it is not sacrifice and obedience that are blankly contrasted here, but unintelligent will-less animal sacrifice, and the sacriſicial obedience of the Priest who willingly dies to make purgation of sins (1*). As the perfect priest Christ made once for all the perfect sacrifice for sin ; that is why the Levitical sacrifices have passed away. (4) The scene of His ministry, or the sanctuary. The true offering is made in the true sanctuary, i.e. heaven. It is there that Christ appears in the presence of God for us. It is there, in His person, that there is realized the abiding fellowship of God and man into which the gospel calls us. Ibut this does not mean that what has been spoken of under the head of His offering, namely His death, is not included in His priestly work. To break the work of the perfect priest into pieces in this way is foreign to the writer's mode of thought. The priest’s work, his offering, is not consummated till }. enters with it (and by means of it) into God’s presence ; it is Christ is, conceived as exercising. His priestly function in the sanctuary above ; but He could not be priest there except in virtue of the com- mission, the preparation, and the offering, which have just been described. All these therefore belong to the conception of the priesthood as much as what is done in the ſº Sanctuary itself. (5) His intercession. He is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through Hinn, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them. In what the intercession consists is nowhere explained. The writer to the Hebrews does not define it as the perpetuating, or making prevalent for all time, of an atoning work achieved on earth; he does not conceive of the atoning work as achieved at all except through the entrance of the priest into the presence of God 6tſ, toº l8tov aluatos. On the other hand, it seems to be less than what he means, if we say that His mere appearing in God’s presence, even with the virtue of His sin-annulling work in Him, is itself the intercession — a continuous and prevailing plea with God to receive even those wº have sinned into fellowship with Himself, and not to let sin annul His covenant. It is a fair inference from 410 (that we may find grace for timely succontr), taken in connexion with what precedes, that the inter- cession of the great High Priest is not a continu- ous unvarying representation of man before God, but relates itself sympathetically to the vari- ously emergent necessities and crises of individual life. (6) The result of Christ's priesthood. The result is, in a word, the establishment of the new covenant between God and man. In Christ, and on the basis of His work, God is our God again, and we are His º Because Christ is all that a priest should be, the new relation of God and man realized in Him is all that such a relation should be ; Christianity is a new, but also the final, because the perfect religion. There are various ways in which this is expressed in detail. Those who have the perfect priest are freed from the fear of death (2*); can come with boldness to God’s throne and find it a throne of grace (4"); have a hope of immortality that nothing ean shake, knowing as they do that Jesus has entered within the veil as their forerunner (6*); have an assurance, in the indissoluble life of Christ (7"), in the priesthood which as founded on it never passes to another or can never be trenched upon by another (7°), and in the intercession of their deathless repre- sentative, that complete salvation awaits them : in their worship are made perfect as touching the conscience, i.e. completely delivered from sin as that which hinders access to God (9°). And as the blessings of the covenant are infinite, so the deliberate and wilful rejection of them, and the relapse from the fellowship with God assured in Christ to any inferior religious standpoint (6". 10*), is the unpardonable sin. 3. The Epistle to the Hebrews does not attrib- ute to believers as priests any of the special functions involved in the unique priesthood, of Christ. In Ex 19° Israel is spoken of as n:ºpp pº, i.e. God’s people are His kingdom, and they are priests, with the right of access to Him. As the Nº point of view is that there is only one people of God through all time, this conception is found in the NT also : see especially liev 1" 5" 20", 1 P 2". " (lepáreupta äytov, BagiNetov : Bagwelav, tepets ró 0eó kai tarpi atroſ). In substance, the same thing is meant when we read in Hebrews of the right to ‘draw near with boldness,” or in Eph 2" that through Christ all Christians alike have their access (riv irpoo`aywyju : the characteristic privilege of the new religion, Ro 5”, l l’ 3”) in one spirit to the Father.’ To the l’ather : for in experience the 100 PRINCE wº PRINCE sonship of believers and their and the same thing. Sonship two figures, under which we can represent the characteristic relation of man to God, his charac- teristic standing toward God, in the new religion instituted by Christ. Formally distinguishable, they are really and experimentally the same. Christ Himself was perfect priest only because. He was true Son of God; His priesthood, though it was His yocation, was grounded in His nature : it had nothing official in it, but was throughout ersonal and real. So it is with the priesthood of elievers: it also is involved in Sonship, is one element or function of sonship, and only as such has it any meaning. The writer to the Hebrews speaks of Christians as offering to God sacrifices of praise, the fruit of lips making confession to His name. He bids them remember beneficence and charity, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased: So St. Peter says Christians are a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (1 P 2"); and St. Paul bids the Romans present their bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is the rational worship required of them (Ro 12%). Praise, self- consecration, charity, if we include Rev 8", we may add, after the analogy of Ps 141*, prayer, these are the only sacrifices which the priestl people of God may offer now. There is no . thing in the NT as a sacrifice for sin except the sacriſice which Christ offered once for all. | 4. The NT does not apply the word lepei's to any Christian minister, nor indeed to any Christian at all, except so far as the people of God are spoken of as a “royal º It is easy to see why. Christianity is what it is—a perfect and abiding fellowship with God—because it is realized in the Eternal Son of God. It cannot be realized or guaranteed in any other. He is the Mediator of it, to whom it owes its character. To introduce into it, no matter how we define their relation to Him, official mediators, is to relapse from the Melchizedek priesthood to the Aaronic ; it is in principle to apostatize from Christianity. The pic- torial use of language borrowed from the old re- ligion is, of course, intelligible enough. St. Paul, e.g., can speak of himself as lepoupyóu rô evayyéAvov toū 0600, disclarging a sacred function toward the gospel, and presenting the Gentiles as an offering to God (Ro 15"; cf. Ph 27). Iłut there is not, as in the nature of the case there could not be, any trace in the NT of a Christian priest making sacrifice for sin, and mediating again (in the Aaronic, official, mortal, never perfect, and never to be perfected fashion) between God and man. priesthood are one and priesthood are LITERATURE.-Schürer, as above; the books on NT theology, Weiss, Pfleiderer, Beyschlag, Holtzmann ; the commentaries on Hebrews, esp. the extended notes in Davidson ; Bruce, Ep. to the Hebrews, and art. HEBREWS in this Dictionary ; Milligan, A scension and Heavenly Priesthood ; Westcott, Hebrews ; also Priesthood and Sacrifice (Report of Conference at Oxford), edited by W. Sanday, 1000. J. DENNEY. PRINCE is the AV tr. of no fewer than 16 Hebrew or Hebraized terms in OT and 3 Greek ones in NT. 1. Nº, lit. ‘exalted one’ from Ry, ‘lift up.’ This word is practically conſined (the only exceptions are Ex 22" (*) [J or E), 1 K 8, 1194 [both R', and Pr 25”) to the writings of P, the Chronicler, and IEzekiel. It is used in Gn 17” (LXX 800m ‘nations’) 25° (àpxovres) of the twelve ‘princes’ descended from Ishmael ; in 23" it is put by P in the mouth of the ‘children of Heth' as a designation of Abra- litum (LXX Baat)\eſs); in 34” it is applied to Shechem the son of Hamor (àpxwu ; so, or àpxovres, in the LXX of all the foliowing passages, unless other- wise noted); in Nu 25” of a prince of Midian ; in Jos 13° of the princes of Sihon. It is especially frequent for the heads of the Isr. tribes: Ex 16” from?,’ ‘a leader.’ 34*, Lv 4” (AV and RV in these three passages ‘rulers”), Nu 28 790, 3118 etc., Jos 910, 18, 19, 21 17° 224, 30.8°, so also 1 Ch 210 498 5% 719 etc., cf. Ex 22” (*) (‘Thou shalt not revile God nor curse a ruler of thy people’), and 1 IC 8" (A &rmguévot, prob, error for étrnpuévos, Aq.’s tr. of Nºw, in Ex 22*; B on.)= 2 Ch 5° (àpxovres), where the princes of the fathers' houses of the children of Israel were assembled by Solomon. In 1 K 11” the term mdl.st’ is used of Solomon himself (“I will make him prince,” Nºw; *3PWN, LXX &vrutaa.orógevos duriráčouaw), and in Ezr 1° the Chronicler applies it to Sheshbazzar. In Ezk not only is it used of the king of Judah (12", "21" [Eng. *] [äqºmyoſuévos]), and of Isr. and foreign princes (7.7 2117 (Eng. 19. [34 myoguevot] 26° 3018 32” etc.), but han-nāsā’ is the special designation of the head of the future ideal State (34° 37* [both & 6pxov) 44° [6 #yoguevos] 457. 16. 17.24 464 + 8, 10, 12.1%. 17. 1848%l. 28 [all & dqºmºyotºuevos]). For the later Talmudic use of măs? as the technical title for the president of the Sanhedrin see art. SANHEDRIN ; Kuenen, Ge- samm. Abhandl. [Budde's tr.], p. 58 f.; Schürer, HJP II, i. 180ff, ; Weber, Jüd. Theologie, p. 140. The title más?’ was also assumed by Simeon bar- Cochba (the leader of the Jewish revolt A.D. 132), whose coins are stamped ‘Simeon mäst' of Israel’ (see art. Mon EY in vol. iii. p. 430°, and Schürer, HJP I. ii. 299). - 2. Tº occurs with extreme frequency. The verbal form ºnly is found 4 times in Qal (Jp. 9”, Is 32", Pr 8", Est 1”), twice in Hithp. (Nu 16” bis), and once in Hiph. (Hos 84). In Jg 9° and Hos 84 it is pointed in MT as if from my, but see König, i. 328, 352. It is uncertain whether this is the primitive root= ‘have power,’ ‘exercise rule,” or whether it is a denominative from ny. Amongst other applica- tions, nº [in the following passages reproduced in LXX, unless otherwise noted, by dipxay] is used of officers or rulers whether military Ex 18” (AV and RV ‘rulers”), Nu 2118, Is 21", 2 Ch 32” Tºy (AV and RV ‘ captains”), or civil 1 Ch 27” (Tpoo Tátat, AV and RV ‘rulers’), cf. 29" etc., particularly of royal officials Gn 1219, 2 K. 41%, Hos 34, Ezr 8*; of the chiefs of foreign nations Jg 7” 8° (Midian), 1 S 18” (Philistines); of leaders in war 1 S 22° (hºyotº- pevot, AV and RV ‘captains'), cf. 2 S 24” and Neh 2° (àpxnyol); of the ‘ruler of the city’ Jg 9", cf. 1 K 22% (8aat)\eſs, AV and IRV ‘governor’), Nell 7”; of the chief of the eunuchs Dn 17* * (Gpxtevvoſ Yos); the chief of the butlers or bakers Gn 40**" (&pxt- ouvoxoos, 3pxuatrotrotés), etc.; the head of the priestly or Levitical classes Ezr 8* 10°, 1 Ch 15% “ etc.; the directors of the post-exilic community Neh 4”, cf. Ezr 9, 101*, Nell 111. With the sense of ‘prince’ proper, nº is mainly post-exilic, Est l”, Job 29° (&6pot) || Dºnº, Ps. 119-9.1"; of the Messiah, “the prince of peace’ Is 9" (A dipxwu elpſiums, B follows a different text); of the guardian angels of the nations Dn 1019. 20. 9, 12! (Theod, in all dipxwu, LXX in first three otpatmy®s, in last dyyekos); of God Dn 8” (“prince of the host,’ &pxtorpármyos)” (“prince of princes,’ LXX follows a diſſerent text). The noun ‘princess’ in EV always represents TV (cf. the proper name SARAH). Its only two occurrences in AV are 1 K II* (of the Seven hundred wives of Solomon ; LXX dipxova'at), La l' (of Jerusa- lem ‘princess among the provinces’; LXX (pxovo'a). To these IRW adds Est 11° (AW ‘ladies,’ J.XX rupavvlóes). There are only two other occurrences of Finty in the Hebrew Bible. The one is J.g. 5* ºnny n\pin (AV and RV her wise ladies,’ Moore [cf. his note on the text], ‘the sagest of her princesses’; I,XX &pxova'at); the other is Is 49* (AV and RV ‘queens,’ AVm ‘princesses’; 1.xx &lpxougal). 3. Tºy, The root meaning is probably ‘one in This word is used in general of rulers or princes in Job 29" (AV and RV ‘nobles,’ LXX wants this verse) 31” (LXX follows PRINCE PRINCE 101 a different text), Ps 76” (” (àpxwy), Pr 28" (6agiNews). More particularly it is the designation of (a) the king of Israel: Saul I S 91° 10' [the use of T'uq is beculiar to the earlier of the two narratives of §. election, Tºp ‘king’ being used in the other; the same distinction is observed in the LXX (pxov and 8aat)\et's]; David 13° (àpxav; in the following passages hyotºuevos unless otherwise noted), 25”, 2 S 5° (elanyotſuevos) 6” 78, 1 Ch 11° 177, 2 Ch 69 [in all these passages relating to Saul and David, IłV has ‘prince,’ AV has “captain’ in all except 1 S 2599, 2 S 63 78, 1 Ch 112 177, 2 Ch 69, where it has “ruler’], Is 554 (AV and RV “leader,’ IRVm ‘prince,’ LXX &pxov); Solomon l K 19° (AV ‘ruler’), 1 Ch 29* (AW ‘chief governor,’ LXX 8aat)\ews); Jeroboam I K 147; Baasha, 16%; Hezekiah 2 K 20° (AV ‘captain’); Abijah 2 Ch 11” (AV ‘ruler’); cf. the choice of Judah 1 Ch 284 (AV ‘ruler,’ LXX &v 'Ioſég ºpérukev rô 6ao (Aetov). —(b) A foreign ruler or rince : the prince of Tyre Ezk 28° (àpxwv); per- haps also ‘the prince that shall come Dn 9” (? Antiochus Epiphanes, see below ; Theod. 6 hyotº- Auevos 6 €pxöuevos, LXX 8aot)\eta étºváv).—(c) A high temple official : Pashhur Jer 20' (AW ‘chief gover- nor,” It V ‘chief officer’); cf. 1 Ch 911, 2 Ch 31.1° 358 (AW and RV ‘ruler(s’), LXX in last dipxovres), Neh 11” (AV and RV ‘ruler,’ LXX &révavrt olkoff roſ, 0600); the high priest Dn 11” (“the prince of the covenant”), and perhaps 9* * (AV in v.” “the Messiah the prince,’ RV ‘the anointed one, the prince’; Theod, Xplorës hyoºpeyos). The prince in v.* is frequently understood of Cyrus, and in v.” of Epiphanes, but Bevan argues in favour of under- standing the reference in both instances to be to the high priest, the first being to Joshua, the son of Jozadak (Ezr 3°, Hag l', Zec 3'), and the second [reading Dy nº “shall be destroyed with,’ for py . the people shall destroy”] to Jason, the brother and successor of Onias III.-(d) A ruler in other capacities. This use of the word is late: the ‘ruler’ of each tribe 1 Ch 27", 2 Ch 1911; the ‘ruler’ of the Rora.hites 1 Ch 999; the “leader’ of the Aaronite warriors 1 Ch 1247; the “leader’ of an army division 1 Ch 13, 27" (AW and RV ‘ruler,’ LXX &pxov), 2 Ch 11” (“captain' of a fortress) 32” (in the Assyrian army; AV and RV “leaders,’ LXX dpxoutes); the ‘ruler” over the temple treasuries 1 Ch 26° (à étri Tôv 0mgaupāv), cf. 2 Ch 311” (étrº- atárms). In 2 Ch 287 the ‘house’ (nºn) of which Azrikam was ruler (AW ‘governor’), is probably the palace; cf. the familiar nºn-ºy ng's Is 22° 36', 1 K 4", 2 K 150 etc. 4, all, lit. ‘willing,” e.g. nº any ‘willing of heart’. Ex 35". ", 2 Ch 29°1; Hºn; ºn ‘a willing (AV and RV ‘free’) spirit” I’s 511" (19); cf. the use of the verb nig “ to volunteer’ Jg 5°. 9, 2 Ch 1710, Neh 11°, and the noun Hill ‘freewill offering’ Ex 35° 36°, lºzr 1" et al. Hence n'T) may mean generous or noble in disposition : Pr 17* (AW ‘princes,’ RV ‘the noble,’ | pºſs), v.7 (LXX 6tratos; AV and RV “a prince’ is quite misleading, see Toy, ad loc.), Is 32". " (AV and IRV the liberal’; opposed here, as in Prºl 77, to 9;). The word is º of noble or princely rank in Nu 21” (the Song of the Well; AV and IłV ‘the nobles,’ LXX Baat)\eſs, bºy ‘princes,’ dipxoutes. In the following passages, un- less otherwise noted, dipxwu is used by LXX to tr. n"), 1 S. 2” (“to make them sit with princes, perd ôuvagráv \ačv), Job 12* = l’s 107" (“He poureth contempt upon princes') 21” (“Where is the house of the prince 2' º olkos dipxovros, but A olkos dpxalos) 341", 1's 4710 (9) S319 (1) (AV and RV ‘nobles') 1138 vis 118'' 146", Pr 8" (I Dºny, LXX usyta rāves and rºpavvot respectively) 19% (AV and RVm &". SCC) ill S preferable to IRV ‘liberal man’; LXX gaori Neſs) 257 (óvvárrms), Ca 7" (‘O prince's daughter,’ B 00 yarep Načá6, A 0Vy. 'Auvvačág). 5. Tº (Assyr. nasiku), from root TD) “install’ (cf. Ps 2" Iyyºv ºp 'n?p, ‘I have installed my king upon Zion'), occurs 4 times in OT : Jos 13” “thd princes (AV “dukes,’ LXX dipxovres [but the Gr. text is confused]) of Sihon '; Ezk 32” “the princes (dpxovres) of the north'; Mic 5" () eight pringipal men’ (DTS ºpj, RVm ‘princes among men,’ LXX àiryuata ävöpdºrov); Ps, 83° tº “make their princes (|| Dº", see above ; LXX &pxovres) like Zebah and Zalmunna.’ In Dn 11° DI]";"pi, which is rendered in AV and RVm ‘their princes,’ is much more likely from another "p, a º of Tºj, and means ‘their molten images' (so RV, Oaf, Heb. Leac. etc.; cf. LXX and Theod. rà Xavevrá). We reach the same result by siniply changing the Massoretic reading to Drºp. See, further, Bevan, ad loc. 6. Dºnºns (Ezr 8", Est 31°.8% 9°), or sºns (Dn 32.8% 6' 4 7.7 °) is uniformly rendered 'iy, RW satraps, while AV gives ‘lieutenants’ in the pas- sages in Ezra and Esther, ‘princes’ in those in Daniel. See art. LIEUTENANT, 7. D'jpºn in Ps 68°, ſº is rendered by both AV and RV ‘princes.’ The LXX has Tpéggets ‘am- bassadors,’ Vulg. legati ; but all these renderings are purely conjectural, founded upon the context. Probably we ought, with Nestle (JBL, 1891, p. 152), to emend to D'jpty: “they shall come with oils or ointments’ (So Duhm, et al.). 8. D'yº is rendered ‘princes’ in AV of Job 12", but there is no reason for departing from the usual meaning “priests' (so IRV, LXX ispels). 9. Dºp Is 41* “he (Cyrus), shall come upon princes (RV ‘rulers,” RVm “deputies’) as upon mortar.” The LXX has āpxovres. Sºgănim (found only in the plural) is a loan - word from the Assyrian, where it appears as Saknut, ‘prefect” of a conquered city or province. For the other OT uses and the later meaning of Ségéin im See art. PRIESTs AND LEVITES, p. 96. 10. Dºnne, a Persian loan-word, probably =fra- tama, “ first,’ occurs 3 times: Dn 1° certain of the children of Israel, even of the seed royal and of the nobles’ (AW ‘princes’; LXX &K Töv ćtriNékrøv, Theod. B &trö Tów pop0oupweiv, A. . . . tropboupelv, Symm. and Pesh. tr. ‘Parthians’); Est 1” (AV and RV ‘nobles,’ || D-ly; LXX &vöošet); 6" ‘one of the king's most noble princes’ (DºFn=n mººn nº cºs, LXX &vl rôv plMajv Tod Baq i\ea's Tów évôóšwu). 11. "Yº (= Arab. kādī, from lºatſá ‘to decide,’ ‘to pronounce a sentence’) is a term used of hoth military and civil leaders: Jos, 10” (“the chiefs of the men of war”), Jg 11" " (of Jephthah), l’r 67 (in a saying about the ant, joined with nºt and typ), Is in 3%. 7229. The OT passages where it is tr. ‘ prince’ in AV are: Pr25” “By long forbear- ing is a prince (IRV ‘ruler,’ RV m ‘judge') per- suaded' (LXX &v Makpodupuig evoëta Gaol)\cdotu ; there appears to be no sufficient reason for Toy's and Frankenberg's emendation of the last two words of the MT ºn HFR, to Tºp, pp.;; or ºf 'º'; ‘is anger [or an angry man] lº. '); Mic 3: "...ye princes (RV ‘rulers’) of the house of Israel’ (LXX ol karáNoltrot ; in both verses || Dºsh ‘heads’); Dn 11° ‘a prince (RVm ‘captain’) shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease.’ The reference is to the Roman general Lucius Scipio who defeated Antiochus the Great at Magnesia, B.C. 190 (see 13evan, ad loc.). There is nothing in Theod. or the LXX text here corresponding to the word 'sſ. 12. 13. an, which is especially familiar as the first part of official titles like RAB-MAG, RAR- s.Alris, RAB-sii Akrºn (see the artt, on these names), is twice tr. ‘prince’ in AV : Jer 39° 41', of the princes (RV chief officers’) of the king of Baby |. ; LXX in the first passage [46" hysſºves, in the second the term is dropped. In Dn 4*") 51. 2. 3. 9, 10.2% 618 (17) the form ºn ºn occurs. Both AV and IRV render uniformly by ‘lords’ except in 52.8 where AV has ‘princes’; Theod. has uen- I 02 PRINCESS PRISCA OR PRISCII LA. gräves in every instance, so LXX in 5* and 61807), om. in the other passages. 14. 15. jin (cf. the proper name REzoN, 1 K 11*) only Prlá* “in the want of people is the destruc- tion of the prince’ (LXX 6vváorms); elsewhere jih, namely Jg 5° ‘Give ear, O ye princes’ (B garpátrat, A adds ovvarol), Ps 2° (àpxovres, AV and RV ‘rulers’), Pr 8" (6vvágrat) 31", Hab 119 (rºpavvot), Is 40° (àpxovres). In all these passages jºin or th is || Hºp ‘king,’ except in the last, where D'jih is || PTS ºne ‘judges of the earth.” Cf. Arab. razin, ‘grave,” “steady,’ from razuma, “to be heavy.” 16. Jºy is once (Ezk 23”) tr. ‘prince.’ A better rendering would be “officer’ or ‘captain.” The word, which means literally ‘third ' (cf. the LXX, but not in above passage, Tptorárms), is usually explained to have denoted originally the man who, in addition to the driver, stood beside the king on his war-chariot, lolding his shield or the like. But the adequacy of this as an explanation of the general usage of the term is questioned by Dillmann (on Ex 147), Kraetzschmar (‘Ezechiel’ in Nowack’s Halkomm.), and others. IGraetzschmar prefers to make the meaning simply third in military rank (comparing the obsolete titles “first lieutenant,’ ‘second lieutenant'), or to regard shälish as a loan - word. The term occurs fre- uently elsewhere in OT in the same sense (e.g. }. 147 15, 2 K 9° 10° 15'", AV and RV always ‘captain'). In the NT the terms rendered in AV ‘prince’ are 1. dpxmyós :—Ac 3” “ye killed the Prince (AVm and lèVm ‘Author') of life.’ ‘Author’ appears to be the better rendering here (cf. He 219 ‘the author [AVm and RVm “captain 'l of their salvation’). The only other instance where 3pxmyós is tr. ‘prince’ (AV and RV) is Ac 5” “Him did God exalt with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour.” The Gr. term occurs once more in NT, namely in He 12” “Jesus the author (AVm ‘be- #. RVm captain’) and finisher (IRV “per- ecter') of our faith,’ where the meaning is prob- ably “leader’ or ‘antesigmanus.” 2. dipxov : Mt 994 12*, Mk 3% of (Beelzebub) “the prince of the demons’; Mt. 20." “the princes of the Gentiles,” cf. 1 Co 2". * “the princes of this world' (ol āpxovres rod atóvos Towrov); Jn 129, 14° 16” “the prince of this world” (à dipxwu roi, Kūguov roſtov); Eph 2° ‘the prince of the power of the air' (6 &pxwu Tàs é$ovalas toū āépos; on this expression see art. SATAN); Rev 1" “the Prince of the kings of the earth’ (6 dipxwu Töv Baa'l Néaou Tàs yńs, probably a reminiscence of I's 80 (88)”). 3, #yepatºv is tr. ‘prince’ only in Mt. 2", ‘thou art not the least among the princes of Judah.” On the surprising variations between St. Matthew's quotation and the original passage Mic 5", and the possible explanation of these, see art. QUOTATIONS, i. D. J. A. SELBI.E. PRINCESS.—See PRINCE, No. 2, ad fin. PRINCIPALITY.-In Jer 1318 nºvsnº (from wºn the head) is tr. ‘principalities,’ apparently in the sense of privilege, pre-eminence, as in Jer. Taylor, Worthy Communicant, i. 83, ‘If any mystery, rite, or sacrament be effective of any spiritual blessings, then this is much more, as having the prerogative and illustrious principality above everything else.” This is better than the tr. ‘ from your head' or ‘ from your heads’ of the previous versions (Vulg. de capite vestro, LXX &ró Kepaxºs ūgºv); but the meaning is evidently, as in AV m and ItW, ‘head- tires.’ In 2 Mac 4” 57 the high priesthood is called the ‘principality, i.e. principal office or supreme power (àpxã). Cf. Milton, Itºform, ii. “The Bishops of Rome and Alexandria, who beyond their Priestly bounds now long agoe had stept into principality.” For the ‘ principalities. (ópxat) of Ro 8°, Eph 1” (āpx|, RV ‘rule ') 319 61°, Col 219. 1", Tit 3i (RW ‘rulers’), see DOMINION in vol. i. p. 616°. J. HASTINGS. PRINCIPLE.—See ELEMENT in vol. i. p. 682". PRISCA or PRISCILLA (IIpſoka, IIpſokiNXa). — The wife of AQUILA. The name is Latin, Priscilla being the diminutive form. In the three places in Acts where the word is used (18” 18 °"), the form is always Priscilla ; in the three places in St. Paul's Epistles (IRo 16”, l Co 16”, 2 Ti 4") it is in the best MSS always l’risca. In Ac 1818. *, Ro 16°, 2 Ti 419 the wife's name appears first, in the other two places the husband's. There is some variation in the MSS and VSS. In Ac 1820 NABE vulg. boh. read IIpiazºo. zzi 'AzóAo.; ; DIILP, etc., gig, Syrr, Sah. read 'Az. zoº IIp. In Ito 163 and 2 Ti 419 the evi- dence for lipiazz is preponderating; in 1 Co 1610 IIpirzo is read by NBMIP vulg. codd., boh. arm. ; IIpſorziAXce by ACDEFGHI, and most later MSS, vulg. codd., syrr, Chrys., Thdrt., Dam. and TR ; the former reading is undoubtedly right. In 2 Ti 419 there is a curious addition after 'Azóxcºy in 46, 109, and 100 lat. Atarpºv (sic) rºº yovo.ixx xºroč zai Xiaozizy (sic) 22, Znvčva rows v/69; dº wºrd v. The variations in the text of Ac 181-27 have been examined very carefully by Harmack, who shows that the longer text (usually called the Western, or by Blass g) is clearly formed Out of the shorter, and suggests that it has been modified by an interpolator who objected to the too great prominence given to a woman, and has made the position of l’riscilla less pro- minent. With his conclusion we may compare the remarks of Iłamsay (Church in the Ito), lam. I’mpire, p. 101) on the omission of Damaris in the Wostern text, Ac 1784. Prisca is always mentioned with her husband. He is described as a Jew of Pontus, and a tent- maker. St. Paul is associated with them first at Corinth, whither they had retired after the decree expelling the Jews from Rome. After remaining there about eighteen months, they went with St. Paul to Ephesus, and remained there while he went on to Jerusalem. At Ephesus they were concerned in the instruction of Apollos, and seem to have re- mained throughout St. Paul’s residence, their house being used for Christian meetings. Later, probably in consequence of the uproar in the theatre, when there seem to have been considerable riots, they returned to Itome, where again their house was used for Christian worship; and ultimately we again find them at Ephesus. These numerous changes between IRome, Ephesus, and Corinth have caused difficulty to critics, who have for this and other causes suggested that Ito 16 was really addressed to Ephesus. A sufficient explanation is, however, aſſorded by the nomadic character of the Jewish world in general, of Aquila and I’riscilla in par- ticular, and by their occupation as Christian missionaries interested in the spread and support of the Christian Churches. They were evidently persons of prominence in the early Christian com- munity. St. Paul speaks of them with affection, and says that they had endangered their lives for his sake (Ro 16"). The above is all that we learn from the New Testament, but the traditions of the Roman Church, where the name Prisca was of consider- able importance, suggest the possibility, of some interesting discoveries being made. The name occurs in two connexions. (1) There is a church on the Aventine bearing the name of St. Prisca, which gives a title to one of the Roman cardinals. This church bore the name of the Titulus St. Priscale from the 4th to the 8th cent. (Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, i. 501, 517*); later, under Leo III. (795-816), it is called the Titulus Aquilae et Priscae (ib. ii. 20). There are legendary Acts of St. Prisca, dating from the 10th cent., in which it is stated that the body of St. Prisca was translated from the place on the Ostian Way where she had been buried and trans- ferred to the Church of St. Aquila and I’risca on PRISON PRIVY, PRIVILY 103 the Aventine (Acta Sanctorum, Jan. ii. p. , 187). An inscription of the 10th cent. (C. Ins. Christ. ii. p. 443) also calls it domus Aquilae sew Priscae. (2) In the legendary account of Pudens, Puden- ziana, and Praxedis, Priscilla is stated to have been the mother of Pudens (Acta Sanct. May, iv. 295). (3) One of the oldest of the catacombs of Rome is the Coemeterium Priscillae, outside the Porta. Salaria, and there seems to be some evidence to connect the name Prisca with the Acilian gens, members of which were buried there. Now it has been noticed that the name Prisca. in four out of six |* is mentioned before that of her husband. Hort, following out this point, suggests that she was a member of a distinguished Roman family who had married a Jew. This would account both for the prominence given to her, and the connexion of the name with one of the oldest cemeteries. A more plausible suggestion is that both Prisca and Aquila were freedmen of , the Acilian or some other gens ; that through them Christianity had reached a distinguished Roman family, whose name they had taken, and that this accounted for the prominence of the name Prisca in the early Church. More discovery and investigation are needed, but the point of interest is that the name Prisca in some way or other occupied a prominent position in the Rom. Church. An interesting suggestion, which has the merit of novelty, has been made by Professor Harmack, that in Priscilla and Aquila, we have the authors of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 1°risca and Aquila, were, we know, teachers of prominence who had turned Apollos to Christianity ; they belonged to the intimate circle of St. Paul's friends; they were close friends of Timothy, and personally received St. Paul. They had for some time been connected with a small Christian community in Rome, and the Epistle to the Hebrews was clearly, he argues, written to Rome, and not to the Church as a whole, but to a small circle within the Church. They were with Italian con- nections, but living outside Italy, . In the Epistle there is a curious interchange of “We’ and ‘I,’ Lastly, the authorship of Priscilla will explain why the writing is now anonymous. The Church of the 2nd cent. objected very strongly to the prominent position of women in the Apostolic age. This had caused the gradual modification of various passages in the Acts, and the desire to separate this work from the name of Priscilla. The whole argument is as ingenious as Professor Harnack always is, but it does not succeed in being quite convincing. LITERATURE.—De Rossi, Bull. Arch. Christ. Ser. i. No. 5 (1867), p. 45 ft., Ser. iv, No. 6 (1888–89), p. 129; Duchesne, Liber Pontificalis; Hort, IRom. and 19 ph. pp. 12–14; Plumptre, . Biblical Studies, p. 417; Sanday-Headlam, Romans, pp. xxvii, 418 ſt. ; Ramsay, St. Pawl the Traveller, 268 f.; llarnack, Sitzungsberichte der K. Prewssichen Akademie der Wissen- Schaftem, 1900, i., and Zeitschrift für die mewtestamentliche Wigsenschaft wind die Kwºnde des Urchristentwins, 1900, p. 10. A. C. HEADI, AM. PRISON.—Joseph was imprisoned in an Egyp- tian prison (nºbº nº, perhaps ‘house of enclosure,’ i.e. walled, or ‘fortress,’ cf. cognate Syriac NninD ‘palace,’ and Targumic nſib ‘to go round,” “sur- round”; 6xºpwpta, Öeopa,Tiptov ; carcer, custodia, Gn 39*-* 40% " [JE]; also ºn ‘pit,” EV ‘dungeon’; Xàkkos, 6x ſpapa ; lacus, career, Gn 40° 41*[JE]; in 40°, Dºnžºn ny nº ‘house of the captain of the execu- tioners,’ i.e. the guard). “Fortress’ suggests the use, always common, of fortresses as prisons; “house of the captain of the guard' suggests that the care of prisoners was one of the duties of that official. Ebers, Ægypton, p. 317 ff., identifies this ‘fort- ress’ with that at Memphis, mentioned in inscrip- tions as the ‘White Wall’; see, further, art. Joslºpii in vol. ii. p. 768", note ||. In Egypt, in addition to the royal prisons, the great temples had prisons of their own (Erman, Life, etc. p. 304). Imprisonment is mentioned as a penalty; and the great gold and other mines of Ethiopia and Sinai, which were worked by convicts and captives under conditions of barbarous cruelty, were really vast prisons (Maspero, Dawn, etc. 337). Joseph's breth- T(XIl Q,\"(2 ...] (Gn 4217. 1") to have been kept in custody, nººn, quxa Kºń. Samson was imprisoned by the Philistines in a Dºbsº nº, (Kt. Dºn'ts) “louse of those who are bound,’ olkos toū āeo garmptov, carcer, Jg 16**. The terms sº? (n-3), nº?'a, nº 'a ‘house of confinement,’ ºvXakh, are used of the places of imprisonment of Micaiah, 1 K 22”; Hoshea (in Assyria), 2 ly 174; Jehoiachin (in Babylon), 2 K 25” ; and Jeremiah, Jer 37** etc.; also in Is 427. *. Jeremiah's place of confinement is also called Tºp ‘place of guard,’ qvXakſ, carcer; and mbs nº, 37*=DTDs, n'a (see above, Samson). In 2 Ch 16", Jer 29*, nºnp (AV “prison,’ pu)\akº), etc., should be ‘stocks.” Zedekiah was imprisoned at Babylon in a nº nº ‘house of inspection,’ olkta uſNovos, domo carceris, Jer 52*. Other terms used are nº “enclosure,’ 8x8poua, qvXakºff, etc. carcer, Ps 1427, Is 24” 427; hy, rather ‘oppression,' Is, 53°; nºn- ‘ward, custody,’ Gn 42*. ‘Prison’ is supplied in Is 61%. The case of Samson suggests buildings like the Roman ergas- tulum, in which malefactors and slaves were con- fined and kept at work. Jeremiah's prison was at one time part of the palace, 32°, cf. 37*, 1 IK 22*7, Neh 3*, 2 K 25”; at another a private house, Jer 37*. As Tºpp in Jer 32°– “guardhouse,” it seems that the care of prisoners was one of the duties of the body-guard, and that the prisoners were con- fined in rooms attached to their quarters. The ‘pit (ºn, Jer 38%-", cf. Gn 37*) may have been an empty cistern, or possibly an oubliette. . Our available evidence points to places of confine- ment being parts of º temples, fortresses, etc., rather than special buildings set apart for the purpose. For the crimes punished by con- finement, and the conditions and treatment of prisoners, see CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS in vol. i. p. 525, s. “Imprisonment.’ In NT, John the Baptist (Mt 14° etc.), Peter (Ac 5" etc.), Paul and Silas (16” etc.), and others were conſined in a pu)\ak’ſ “prison, place of guard- ing’; John (Mt 11°), Paul, etc. (Ac 16”) in a ôéopºgrºñptov “prison,’ ‘place of bonds.’ The apostles (Ac 5**) were confined in the Öeap wriptov, also Túpmats (518) plºe of keeping.” In Ac 12" or mua ‘house,” is trº ‘prison.” According to Jos. (Ant. XVIII. v. 2), John was imprisoned at the royal fortress of Machaerus. The prison at Jerusalem mentioned in Ac 5 was under the control of the Jriests, and probably attached to the temple or the #. priest's palace. Paul was imprisoned in the fort Antonia (Ac 23") at Jerusalem, in the Prae- torium (or Palace) of Herod at Caesarea (Ac 23”). At Itome he was allowed to live in his ‘own hired house’ (Ac 28"), doubtless in charge of a soldier. Before his trial, however, he may have been trans- ferred to prison, perhaps the carcer specially so called (named in mediaeval times Mamertinus), and consisting of a larger oblong upper storey and a smaller circular underground dungeon—the Tulli- amatm. This carcer may have been l'aul's place of confinement in his second imprisonment. Cf. ‘Carcer’ in Smith's Dict. of Class. Antiquities. On ‘the spirits in prison’ of 1 P 3" see vol. i. p. 754° and vol. iii. p. 795. W. II. BENNETT. PRIVY, PRIVILY.–These words, which came into the Eng. language through the Old Fr. price, have now been displaced (except in some com- pounds) by ‘private,’ ‘privately,’ which were taken direct from the Lat. privatus, and which are also found in AV. Cf. Mk 4* Tind. “There is nothinge so prevy that shall not be opened' (AV “nothing hid which shall not be manifested '); Jn 710 Tind. “Then went he also up unto the feast; not openly, but as it were prevely.’ (AV ‘in secret.'); Erasmus, Earposition of the Crede, By the spirite he doth understand and meane privye or secrete grace of faythe’; More, Utopia, 43, ‘Howe should n man, that in no parte of his apparell is like other men, flye prevelie and unknowen º' 104 PROCHORUS PROMISE To be privy to a thing (1 K 2", Ac 5°) is simply to have a Kºi…. of it. Cf. Calderwood, History of the Church of Scotland, 140, ‘Argile came to St. Andrews the day following, privie, as appeared, to the purpose”; Bishops' Bible, Ps 1911 * Who can knowe his owne errours? Oh clense thou me from those that I am not privie of '; Spenser, Shep. Cal. viii. 153–– *Ye carelesse byrds are privie to my cries. J. HASTINGS. PROCHORUS (IIpóxopos). — One of the ‘seven appointed, Ac 6°. Later tradition made him bishop of Nicomedia, and a martyr at Antioch. He was commemorated by the Latins on April 9, by the Greeks on July 28, See Baronius, i. ad anm, 44; Acta Sanctorum, Ap., i. 818. There is published in Magna Bibliotheca Patrum, Colon. Agr. 1618, i., 49–69, a spurious Historia Proghori, Christi Discipuli, de vita B. Ioannis Apostoli. º A. C. HEADLAM. PROCONSUL (Lat. proconsul ; Gr. 3900 taros).-- The technical term for the governor of a senatorial 3rovince, used Ac 137. * * of Sergius Paulus in yprus; 181* of Gallio at Corinth ; ; 19% of the 'overnors of Asia. Some little difficulty has been felt by the use of the plural in the last case, but it quite normally expresses what is habitual : ‘If any man has a definite charge, there are law courts and judges,’ as we should say. The proconsuls were of two classes—those who were ex-consuls, viz. the rulers of Asia and Africa, who were therefore correctly (according to republican usage) roconsuls, and those who were only ex-praetors. for fuller details see under PROVINCE. A. C. HEADLAM. PROCURATOR.—The technical term to describe the office held by Pontius Pilate and the other governors of Judaea. The word means originally a bailiff or steward ; under the empire it was used for the imperial officials, sometimes of equestrian rank, sometimes only freedmen, who were appointed in the provinces to collect the imperial revenue or fiscus. In imperial provinces they managed the whole of the revenue ; in Senatorial provinces, where there were quaestors, only that part which belonged to the emperor. Even in Senatorial pro- vinces their authority had a tendency gradually to increase, and they obtained judicial powers in revenue cases; but in addition to that there were certain provinces which were governed directly by a procurator, who possessed all the powers of an $º governor. The provinces so governed were usually those in a transitional state — provinces which had not been thoroughly romanized, and were passing from the rule of one of the reges socii to the conditions of a province. The following pro- vinces were governed in this way (at any rate at certain periods):—Mauritania, Ithactia, Noricum, Thrace, Cappadocia, the Maritime Alps, the Alps of Savoy, and Judaea. These provinces, governed by procurators, were in some sense subordinate to the governor of the neighbouring province : for instance, Cappadocia was subordinate to Galatia, and Judaea to Syria. With this limitation, the lº. had the full power of the governor. He commanded such troops as were within his pro- vince, he held the power of life and death, and full judicial, administrative, and financial authority. The technical term in connexion with Judaea is given in Tacitus, Amºnſtl. xv. 44 : Christus Tiberio &mperitante per procuratorem, I’ontium, Pi/ºttum supplicio (trifectus est. The proper Greek transla- tion would be €Tirporos, but in the NT we find the vaguer term in epidºu, which might include rulers of other categories (Mt. 27°. ii. 14, 1%. 21. 27 281*, Lk 3, 2020, Ac 23* * * 24!. "20"). In Josephus we find both étritpotros and hyepatºv. . C. H.I.ADLAM. PROFANE.-The Eng. word comes from Lat. rofanus (through Fr. profane), which is taken to §. pro ‘before and fanum ‘the temple,’ hence outside the temple limits,” outside the limits of that which is holy, unholy, secular." The incorrect º prophane became common in the 10th cent., and is the spelling in the 1011 ed., of AV everywhere except Ezk 2338, 99, 1 Mac 301, 2 Mac 60, Ao 240. The Heb. word so trº in AV is ºn to pollute, with its derivatives ºn pollution, and ºf (adj.) polluted. Once also (Jer 23*) the verb [hiſ], and once (Jer 23*) its deriv. HP;II, are trº ‘[is] profane' and “profaneness.’ AV m gives ‘hypocrisy” in the º Dassage, Amer. It V prefers “ungodliness.’ In §. the verb is Begm),66, and the adj. Bépm)\os. The subst. 8e0}\worts is thrice (Jth 4**, 1 Mac 1*) trº ‘profanation.” The ptcp. &roôteora Ngävos is also tra ‘profane’ in 2 Mac 6" (RW ‘abominable'). In 2 Mac 41° the subst. trº ‘profaneness’ is &vayvela. Finally in 2 Es we find º vb. profamare trº ‘to brofane’ (10*), and the adv. irreligiose trº ‘pro- fanely' (15°). See UNCLEAN, UNCLEANNISS. J. HASTINGS. PROFESS, PROFESSION.—The yerb to ‘pro: fess’ and the subst, ‘profession' have acquired a narrow “professional ', meaning ; in AV they still have the sense of ‘speak out,’ ‘ declare openly ” (from profiteri, ptcp. professus). Thus Dt 26° “ſ profess this day unto the Lord thy God, that I am come unto the country which the Lord sware unto our fathers for to give us’ ("RT3T1); Mt 7” “And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you’ (ÖgoNoyijaw atrols); 1 Ti 6” “Thou hast professed a good profession before many wit- nesses’ (diplox0-ymo as thu ka?\?\v Öpoxoylav, IłV ‘didst confess the good confession '); He 3’ “Consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession’ (Tijs 6poxoylas huôv, 1&W ‘of our confession,’ that is, says Rendall, whom our Christian confession of faith acknowledges in this character’). J. HASTINGS. PROGNOSTICATOR.—In Is 47” the ‘monthly 3rognosticators’ (Bºſnº D'yºp, AVm ‘that give |...}. concerning the months’) are mentioned along with the “astrologers’ and the ‘star-gazers’ as unable to help ...Babylon in her hour of need. The meaning of Dºliº is probably “at (the) new moons,’ the reference being to the forecasts which it was usual to make at that season of what was likely to happen during the coming month. The lucky and unlucky days of each month were duly noted in the Assyrian and Babylonian calendars, and reports were given in monthly by the official astronomers and astrologers (cf. Sayce in TSI3A iii. p. 229, and see also art. ASTROLOGY in vol. i. p. 194"). The LXX has nothing answering to ‘monthly prognosticators,’ the text reading in such a way that the ‘astrologers’ are called on to stand forth and save their votaries, and the ‘star-gazers’ are challenged to make known (āvayyet)\áTwaav, representing somehow Dy"Tip) what is going to happen. J. A. SELDIE. PROLOGUE.—The Book of Sirach opens with a preface by the author's grandson, which bears in BA the title Tp(\oyos (C Tp. Xupax, N om.). For its contents see art. SI RACII. The opening verses of the Fourth Gospel are also frequently called the Prologue to that Gospel. See JOHN (GOSPLL OF). PROMISE. The Word ‘ lº. is used in Scrip- ture with the same latitude as in language gener- ally, but the present art. takes account only of * Cf. Jºzlº 4220 “to make a separation between the sanctuary and the profane place.” e # (ºf. Tymme's tr, of Calvin's Genesis, on 477 ‘When Jacob is Saide to blesse the king, Moses thereby meaneth not a common and prophane salutation, but a godlic and holic prayer q t the Servant of God.” (ISIWO?ICI 901 QISIWO?Idſ Motunuo (II (g oyſ) utoun on opunt osmtrooq ‘Stoll)"; oul on 5uliuoloq “o', 'stou)": ott) Jo Sosituott ouq ultijuoo on ‘pot) go unu.1) out) Jo Júrûot lio ‘uolsloutuoluo ouſ, Jo lostulut u Suw silu, ) susoſ quun Kus upo ina, I as uo'Aº ‘JI uſ ºud tº pull ouou louasi Tuu)—loutsi on pollſ]]uj su.A ); ºutl) Kus o, suo Aqo pouloos q ‘susoſ uſ pollſ][m] out on Iloos su.A. osſuold oun uous, uoAI upinuo ox!)Itulid ou? up ÁsióAoûuoo go looſqns quoli ou? stºw ºf Jo uoſº -timoudlonuţ Lodoid oul jok puu 'suolºuloid lonuſ ow? jo old uduo qou uoyssoid No uti otoA ultuºuld V Jo poos oup), Ji su tuoos quilui qì (aſ I oli), osſuloid outs ou) Jo upu unlaw suou, otoA, loouſ put outsi 'poos su put utulluld V on to ‘tuutſu.I.TV on 1s.III qu uoAin sus, "I uosº || SI utoll A on : osſutold oul go stºolſ out, sulloouoo uoſºsomb buoods ou.I. (3) ºf uſ. I uſ uo'ssoudNo go opoul suº jo Josh polyu Au Sull quiuouſ] ouguttulloſ Álo Anoughsºp tº “puniq louno oil) u() 'suºſºsºluſ) oaſquid Ilt u), w Inu, I “S on uouluoo suº uolu A osſuold ou, Jo uouldoouoo quuſ, Jo out out) uſ oil (UIIII oaoſ quiU) tuouſ, on posituold liquu pok) loſul A uopiuſ XI ou? ‘oj II Jo uxoto ou?) cz, all uſ al QRI, uinoll) ‘suoſqub ouout out. J.N. out uſ osſutold out" on soouologo.I Joun()—‘sulo) tougo Kuti uo uſu!!!"; to Aou pluoo uatu Injuis Moſt|A on §§ousnoonušil put ºyſ! Aou tº Jo old ſourid out) sº qi quuſ, “slum up ontº A Tulluood sq; sut ‘ostuloid ou" go 5uissolq ſuſ]uosso out) st qLuds out, to , ‘qūIIdS oilº Jo osſulo.rd on 1, 8 Infº) III ‘5uſoq Jo opoul suopiolā pub quopuoostit.1% u sku.AIA: SI Int, I “S toy (Ioſul AA pok) go utopful XI quiU) onuſ oountlºud ut, oattu put ‘(11-018 OM) uoS polluxo S.poł) go oiuluſ ou" on poultoguoo od 10K IIulls puu ‘nsiluſ) un! A suou quioſ ord ow quil) ooutºlussu out, st qi di usuos go quds outſ, sº : (atl IOO ‘rtl IIIgſ) quâII oul uſ $) uſus out, UlſAA oottuq.touliſ (It ‘oottuq (otiuſ Áluoatau u go qsou.Into outſ, si q : qſ uſ osſuloid Jo 5uſtiqoulos Sull quids ouſ, Jo qJ13 out.I., (rig Itº)) qqu, uino.III.] quids ouſ, Jo ostuloid out, Hui Atooo..I su puu (gil (Idºl) ostuloid oul Jo 1ſ.IIdS KIOH ou? II]]AA boltios Su Suutº situ O go syluods out snu,I, ‘Stoll. A J.N. lot(ſ)o Áq St. Int, I “S Kq goſſo.I uſ qos old SITIQ go Sqoodsu ſujoods qşūtūO uſ du pouluins oro poſſ) go º oul III, osſulotd out Ka qu'uouſ sp. sIIIIO up sº quuſ) [IV ‘suilon snoun Kuouſs KII boſqould out: osſulo.(d outſ, put qsituſ) toy Aoûs on Käoſoo"I", solºsode ouſ IIu go uoſqsodxo ug olyubot p(now q ‘sſ odou quil) go quoquoo out, you.A 'smsoſ ponſºx. put uosº I out uſ du pumoq so pop.1050.1 soiussuc osoul up si “I toy op on postuoid sºul poº) quul II’d ‘Louis I go odou out.I., (, uſuno SIU, Uſq(A punoq (Itu I Iouts] go odoul oil) log, or Sz, Jo ‘pſ)3 ov), Slougºj Imo on poſſ) Áq optitu asſuold out, Jo odou out! log, Soſquotº, ūons up posio Auſ so JIostulu quoso.Idol upo Int, I “S “udditiv ouojoq spuuqs ou St, *oqºp 1000 tonu o qv (częI ov), Smsoſ Inoſatºs at 1 Iot.ISI on 1 ([3mold, still poº) quith , ostuoid on 5up toooo, spºnſ ostro Mounto uſ ; tıoſqoo.I.Insoºt out, on to ‘Āions!! Jo ojºqs Qūq ol uo Snsoſ Jo 5uliuſ Iq oil') on Touqo oouologo.I juſAbū du Suisſºr otiq—smsoſ du Suisſol Āq (cºgſ ov ‘aoxodºx usuxp) toduſ syſ II'd uſ poſ(IIIuy Sull poſſ) Stoujuy out on opoul osſuloid ou.I. 'Ioloureto ourus oul go uoſº doouoo Iglouai; tı qs.II; 10 putſ ow. Int, I "S o, SStd oA uou.A–"painssu Sºw too.ISI Jo onquy out! (IoIIIA uſ sostuloid out issoſ.W quo.13 out unlaw puſtu solºsode of uſ poosaſuoo snsaſ Jo osſuloid [uſoods slu, Aoû SAous ponomb of ossed ºut ouq âna soldiosip siRI on hirids out, puos on posſuloid putſ smsoſ quuq Qogy ou', o, oouologo.1 o otouſ qqmop ou si otolſ.I. (gº), uotp[ſuo InoA put no Kojun sy osſutold ou', ‘s&s 1049. I’ms quitº Aoya uſ spun UTA SI qi put, ‘(cºg ow), qi IIdSouq go estuoid outd, tou?” （I où" tuo Ig poA:009.I setſ Snsoſ : (; I ov, “aja §§ , IouTu I ouq go osſtuoid ou", so Jo uoxiods KIIºſoods SI 1004 UI ot.I, 1soulf) KIoH out, Jo qJ15 oil', pub Suſs Jo SSoudaijio, ou?—ttornuo uppºsiuſ) out go Suoissossod powolsoq-KiouſAmp own on 1 KIuyuul od 04 ppgs od Muuu squoquoo sqi put, ‘polliſing uood Sou osſuloid out, ulou A up "sittiO puu plorſ uqoq, poſſ) Kd opulu ‘susoſ uosº I out si qi "Show Jo Stoqduqo ALLuo ould ul qi putſ ow St. ‘lolo. I q.S Jo juſtionio.id out) uſ '916 if pt-6T I O LI ooS ‘SAA9.Iq9 II ... olºsſ dº out) Sopu-Allod uopu A osſuloud out, Jo loodst ou? od on ppus oq Kuul slui,I, ‘ooutº.toulu Iuu.Iolo tút ‘SSoutopUIAA oul posio.Autº oAuu ow tongu to?uo Kutu o AA Topu A onuſ ‘poo go ºsot Tºuqqus oth oxuſ isot a 'suom -upunoy out 1101A Aquo out), aouqui 'suoſº opunoy UniM Knſo u, ‘ūntuo uo Su Sulțiºud put slošumlins oq qou lūtūs ow. Uſoſt A (It puu u ‘stuodduo.I . uwo Iuo Jo A.I]unoo, º Jo bop, Iuujjulo ouſ) soup)outoS ‘stopſ LO smoſ.It'A Jo O'ouou Ijul out) topun SAuA smoºtu A uſ pouſſop out: Kou() qud ‘qsſ.Itſ) on ponuſ -ol SAuXIu olu osſuold out, Jo squoquoo oll. I, (I) ‘quoul IIIIuy Sqi Jo Suoſqbuoo ou" (g) : qſ Jo S.IIout out) (3) : osſutold outſ, Jo KQuoquoo ou? (I) : Spuouſ osotil Topun poèuuttu og uuo qooſqns sitſ] uo Huguouon J.N. Jo ooutºnsqms out I, (or I OO 3) II*; tuouſ] go quotu -l!][n] put uoyºutul Juoo ouſAICI ou', ‘SI quuq ‘box ou? sºutput uſ [poAIOso.I oquº o/V3//plp ºuſou.Iquo -In oud ou? Houx onuſ sºulssolq onurudos oth] pop Jo Sosſuold out, ott to Aoos Kuulu Aoil IoT, quuouſ qſ quu A potoAOostp uoul quuſ qşūlūſ) at Suppool Āq StºA qi put ‘‘silu () uſ polliſilly qsbſ qu (tooq put[ ]] : m?uoad a:0 pountu.Ionop SuM Osſuloid out Jo oouto -Uluğıs ou', ‘to AoAoû “soluſ, LN uſ (’ono ..toº/?pſ ...tno utºpſy,tº W 07711, 2,100ts of 7/07/07 (700 o’ſº, c. A go ‘’Ital SIT) ..todo .toſ poos sy'ſ puy attv/72.1% W ſp.tºpolog (s,toº/*p/ .tno onwn oyods of so) ſºotout woquouto.t Ayſiºu aſ º quº Atos slui Iot.ISI uodiouſ ...] 9H, : ); Ullſw poſdūoooold otoA lots.ISI uſ sinos suold Aoû sm ºpowogſ out uſ put ºvo/httſioſiſ ouſ uſ oos oAA "Bop! ou" din soxI'uq LN on Juul quiod sitſ, qu si qI ‘p.IOAA SIH on SSoutnjūrūj spok) 01 SSouq A tº sº qI quotti -UIUng Sqſ qug uoſºlo Ao.1 sq Āluo qou put ‘os, told oA101 tulid outſ, UI poa IOAUI Sºw quu A Jo (torquio AG.I où, si uopºult out, Jo Kiloqsſuſ oil, uſuuu.Iqv on pits poſſ) uppu A āuſúqoulos uſ du punoq st; poA:oo -uoo olou 0.18 ‘qi loy quâno-AA sooutºtoallop out, Iſu ‘Iots,ISI go 0.Inqn.J. olotAA out, I, , ‘Awwa.tos súſ "tºp"/A),tº Fr pup ‘puoot /i/oºſ súſ polloquiouto.1 .# gh90ſ SCI (II osuos [uoſutlood out 04 IIIqs (ſouolddu Moltrou tº sp oloun qugſ -osſuold outſ, Aq quuou SI quu A sº “pox) go pto A olns out uſ (14ty qāno.III) pozi.[uo.1 od oº quq ‘pozHuolum pooj; ouos Jo uoi?doouoo spu.L 'adoy A pup own?mſ o moſt 2040 of ‘UAo go qou put oogod Jo Squšmouſ, ‘pionſ out Ulyūs ‘noA p.10Aoq >[u]tſ, I quuq Squinouq Qu'l Aoux I, II63 (aſ uſ tropy Ibroud; outſ, oq ūouo Iddo uºu si otollſ, ‘pouloouoo 6.1out 0.10 ow IIoſua. UTA osuos Tuolutioqq outſ, up osſuold, SIH O1 poquío.1 uoplos SI qi qug “poſſ) uo puodop soop uomºu otſ, go olnquy out.I. 'Iouis I go oouoplodzo out', qold -loquy on KIojoquo SITIQ go osm (Ionuţ oxſoul qou soop ‘(zig tid'I asſuold out go Squguo'Aoo olin, Jo Syſtºods Int, I q.S quuq os) quguo Aoo SIH Jo Squoquoo ou? oq on ppus og Kuu poſſ) Jo Sosiuoid outſ, usuouſ, ‘LO où,I, (Jazi u ę)) uoſquinqū.15uoo go pIt putºs o q oxiouſ IIIA suoſº ou II's quuq snomoydsuoo os Knoſſo puu ssauquo.15 poinoos-ÅiouſAIp a sp. 41 KIIuliouoš olou : (86 oyſ), osſuold ouſ, Jo uolp!!!!o ouq, Jo 1s.Ig où, Sy outsi–(ºgI orgI u})) (3,100 ou" Jo qSnp oil" to uoAgou Jo siggs out, ox{II poos & ‘Āq to sod snoMounu tº go IO uos tº go Uſq.III outſ, sº q soutſºoutos : (aſ I of I), osſuloid out go putſ out , sſ (Intrutto—KI4 (inoo tº go uoissossod out, si posſuold 5uyun ou? soup) -oudS ‘SAuA quodoljſp uſ soluſ, quotolpºp qu pouſſop sy %y “poſſ) Áq tulu on poojutſumā olnquy orou A où, StoAoo q ‘odoos q895.It'ſ Sqſ uſ ‘ūānoun puu : tutºutiq W on uoatã AIIuuſjido SbA osſuold ou.I. ‘lomajuo, o ſo and so "uoiºſh?qo up topun owing on 5up/ſyſtiflis 1914 aſ ouſ, ‘ing oysaxo.uq ol posoddo so 10002VY?//plug Ka poſſiušis sº quu A sys!!!! : ).Tod SyFI uo uqtoj qud KISnoougºuods sº q putſ ‘osſuloid outſ, Jo Jonqng out sº poſſ) ‘uoſquogiſonb Kuo quouq(A , osſutold out, Jo pool oak uoulas. AoA onuſ Souloo uolu A q go osuos Ibogutſooq-Iluos Io ſòoyuuſooq out, 106 PROMISE PROPHECY AND PROPHETS ating the prerogatives of Israel, he says frankly, “to whom belong the promises’ (Ro 9°). In de- scribing the pre-Christian condition of a Gentile Church he says its members had been ‘strangers to the covenants of the promise,’ and therefore without hope. No pagan people had that kind of assurance as to its own future which pious Israel- ites derived from the word of God, and hence the pessimism with which paganism generally contem- plated the issues of human existence. It was the work of St. Paul to show that the promise was not subject to physical or historical limitations, and that IlO lºº or historical accident, such as Jewish birth or upbringing, could give one a claim as of right against God for its fulfilment. The chief pas- sages in which he deals with the problem are Gal 3 and Tło 9–11. In the former he discusses rather the conditions on which the promise is inherited, to which we shall refer below, and comes to the conclusion that all who are Christ’s by faith are Abraham’s seed, the Israel of God, and heirs ac- cording to promise. In the latter he is confronted with the fact that the promise—to judge by the results of his own preaching—is not being fulfilled to those to whom it belongs, and is being fulfilled (according to him) to those to whom it does not belong. What strikes one most in this extra- ordinary passage is the extent to which St. Paul's heart is on the side of those against whom he argues. Thus, after proving in ch. 9 that no man can claim unconditionally that God shall fulfil the promise to him, and in ch. 10 that the Jews, by persistent disobedience, have forfeited all title to be counted God’s people and the heirs of His promise, he falls back in ch. 11 on the abstract theological principle that the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. It is as if he said—After all, there is no denying that Israel is God’s people. God has given them the promise, and He cannot deny Himself. In spite of all their unbelief they are beloved for the fathers' sakes; God will remember His oath to Abraham, and ‘so all Israel shall be saved.” Such faith may well seem bewilder- ing to Gentiles who calmly assume that the promise is their own ab initio, and ignore even the historic prerogative of the Jew. But to the last the Jew was to St. Paul the root, the first-fruits; and the Gentiles were only orvupéroxa rās étrayyektas (Eph 39), not its original and proper heirs.--In later NT writ- ings the echoes of this conflict die away, and the scope of the promise is universalized as instinctively as Christ is felt to be Lord of all. “The promise,’ in short, is a historically conditioned way of conceiv- ing the grace of God, and once the critical stage had been passed—as it was in St. Paul’s lifetime— the discussions as to its range lost interest. Men could question who were the true heirs of the promise, but not under the same forms who were the objects of the redeeming love of God in Christ. (3) The conditions on which the promise are ful- filled are discussed in various connexions. As already remarked, the very idea of étrayye)\la is spontaneity on the part of the promiser. The 3romise is of grace. In Ro 4 and Gal 3 St. Paul abours to show that it is subject to no control on the part of law, or of works of law. In Galatians he gives a historical proof of this. The promise was given to Abraham, and to his faith, 430 years before the law was heard of ; and this late in- trusion of law, whatever it may mean, cannot mean that we must earn the fulfilment of the promise; if this were the case it would be an gray-ye Āta—a free spontaneous motion on the part of God—no more. In Ito. 4, the proof is rather speculative or experimental than historical. Cer: tain ideas and experiences hang together, and certain others do not. Promise, grace, and faith are parts of one whole; wages, debt, and works are parts of another whole; but these two wholes, and the parts of them, exclude each other. Hence the promise, in all the fulness of its content, ex- plained above, is fulfilled, not to works of law, not to merit, but to faith in Jesus Christ. All that God holds out to us becomes ours as in faith we attach ourselves to Him. Where the blessings of salva- tion are presented as ‘promise,’ there is always, of course, the suggestion that they are not yet realized, and hence faith (when this conception is prominent, as in the Epistle to the Hebrews) assumes some of the characteristics of hope and of patience. We read of those who ‘through faith and patience’ inherit the promises; we have “need of patience’ that after “having done the will of God’ we may receive the promise (He 6*10*). It is part of the heroism of faith that having God's promise to go upon it can maintain a strong con- viction as to the things it hopes for, and give reality to things unseen (He 11*). It is the mark of an evil time that scoffers ask, in regard to the one great promise of the NT, Troö éotiv h étrayyexia Tăs trapovalas avroſ), 2 P 3". J. DENNEY. PROPER.—Like the Lat. proprium, from which it is derived through the Fr. propre, ‘proper’ means one’s own. Thus Udall, Erasmus' Para- phrase, i. 77, ‘ Onely God chaungeth the myndes and heartes of riche men, that they will cherefully eyther cast awaie that which they doe possesse, or els possesse them as common and not proper’; inj Eacpositions, 124, ‘lºorsooth I have no goods, nor anything proper, or that is mine own ; it is the convent’s’; Rhem. NT, note on Mt 9” “The faithlesse Jewes thought (as Heretikes now a daies) that to forgeve sinnes was so proper to God, that it could not be communicated unto man’; and especially Adams, Works, i. 69, ‘Sal- vation is common, as St Jude speaketh, ver. 3, “When I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation ”; but few make it proper to themselves: that God is my salvation and thy salvation, this is the comfort.’ This meaning occurs in AV five times. For 1 Ch 29° see PECULIAR. The other instances are Wis 18” 199, Ac 119, 1 Co 77. The Gr. is always 16tos. RV adds Wis 2* and Jude" where the Gr. is also łólos.” Another meaning, a derivative of the above, is ‘ of good appearance,’ ‘handsonne,’ as in Fuller's Holy War, ii., ‘What a pitie is it to see a proper Gentleman to have such a crick in his neck that he cannot look backward'; and in Holy State, 319, of the ‘Embassadour,’ he says ‘He is of a proper, at least passable person.’ This is the sense of ‘proper’ in He 11” “By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, be- cause they saw he was a proper child’ (do Tetov to tratólov ; RV ‘goodly’—see l'AIR). J. HASTINGS. PROPHECY AND PROPHETS.–Under this head- ing four subjects fall to be treated : the history of prophecy; the psychology of prophecy; the pro- phetic teaching; and the verification in history of the prophetic ideas of the future. A. TIII, IIISTOIt Y OF PIROPIII'CY. i. The ORIGIN OF PROPIIECY. ii. TIIE, NAME! PROPIAET. iii. HISTORICAL STEPH. 1. The Age of Samuel. 2. The IEarly Monarchy. 3. The Age of the Literary Prophets. 4. The Decline and Expiry of Prophecy. B. T.III PIROPIII.TIC MIND. * i. TIII, IDEA OF THE PROPIIET. ii. INSPIRATION. iii. Tii E FALSE PROPHIETS, * See Deissmann on ſºlos in Dibelstudien, p. 120 f. (Eng. tr. p. 123 f.). - PROPHECY AND PROPHETS PROPHECY AND PROPHETS 107 J, TIII: TEACIIING OF THIE PI'OPIILTS, i. GENERAL TEACIIING. ii. PREDICTIVE PROPHECY. 1. Predictiºn in General. 2. Messianic Prophecy. D. INTERPIEETA TION AND I'ULI'ILMENT OF PROPIIECK", i. PROPIIECY POETICAL AND IDEAL. ii. PitoPIIECY MORAL AND CONTINGENT. iii. PROPHEOY NATIONAL AND IRELATIVE LIKE OT RELIGION. A. TIIE HISTORY OF PROPIIECY.—Hebrew pro- phecy, though the deepest movement of the human spirit and in many ways the most mysterious, has, like other movements of the spirit, a listory. There is the period of its obscure beginnings; the period of its highest purity and loftiest achieve- ments; and the period of its decline and expiry, when its work being accomplished other agencies in the education of mankind took its place. Its expiry can be spoken of only in the sense that it ceased to be a creative power; its results remain an imperishable heritage of the race, and the agencies in Israel that succeeded it, such as scribes and proverbialists or wise men, were only the con- duits and channels that distributed the waters of its great stream over the individuals of the nation. i. ORIGIN OF PROPHECY.—Something to which the general name of prophecy might be given seems to have existed among all peoples. It originated from beliefs or feelings common to men every where, such as (1) that there was a supernatural, a God or gods, on whose will and power the wellbeing and the destiny of men depended ; (2) that these super- natural powers had communion with men and gave them intimations of their will and their purposes; and (3) that these intimations were not given to men indiscriminately, but to certain favoured men, who communicated them to others. Having these beliefs, ordinary men or States desirous of living or acting in accordance with the mind of the deity, and particularly when in º!". in regard to what lay in the future, had recourse to those through whom the deity spoke, and consulted them. The supernatural powers, it was supposed, gave intimation of their will and disposition towards men in two ways: (1) in an external way, by objective signs or omens in the region of nature, as by the flight or cry of birds. These creatures coming from heaven were the bearers of a message from heaven. Other creatures also were the means of significant indications from the deity, for ex- ample, in the way they met a man, or the side, the right or the left, from which they crossed before him.” In all countries the sacrificial victim offered to the gods was held to exhibit signs from them, particularly in the convulsive movements of the }. and entrails of the freshly slain creature (Ezk 21). Less commonly omens were observed outside the animal world, e.g. in the rustling of the leaves of trees (Dodona; cf. Gn 12", Jg 9”, 2 S 5-4). In the East the movements and conjunc- tions of the stars were regarded as prophetic, though in this case the influence on man's destiny may have been supposed to be exerted by the stars themselves, which, however, were often identified with deities. (2) Besides this cyternal or objective revelation, there was an inward revelation given in the mind of man. In this case the deity possessed the man, inspired him, and spoke through him. It is possible, indeed, that the animal omens may have sometimes been regarded as forms assumed by the deity or as possessed by him. And from the curious feelings of antiquity regarding the rapport existing between animals and men, the animals may sometimes have been supposed to come to men not as messengers of the deity, but on their own inpulse, knowing themselves what they told to men (W. R. Smith, RS*443). But this, if * Ahlwardt, Chalef el Ahmar, p. 45ff. true, belongs to a different circle of ideas. Ex. amples of this second kind of revelation are common in the heathen world, as the Pythia in Greece, the Jºãhin in Arabia, the sibyl, and the like. Even in Greece this inward inspiration was considered Something higher than divination by omens, and in ancient times, at least, the Oracle subserved high ethical and national ends. The divine omens were not intelligible to ordinary men, hence they required persons either of special endowment, or of skill acquired from tradition or by practice, to interpret them. Such persons, augurs, soothsayers, diviners, or prognosticators (Is 47), might be called prophets of the deity to men. The Pythia, being wholly overpowered by the deity, uttered her oracles with no consciousness of their meaning. The oracles were often enigmatic, requiring an interpreter. The interpreter was called prophet (ºrpoqmīrms, in which the pro is not temporal). The methods of divination practised in Israel will have more affinity with those usual among the Shemitic peoples than with those of the general heathen world.” The feelings prevalent in the East appear from the fact that a message from the deity might, be brought to one by a person of another nation (Jg 320, 2 K 312|f); from the frequent mention of diviners, as among the Philistines (1 S 62, Is 29), and of localities to which they had given names (Jg 7| 937); from the weight laid on omens (Jg 697 79, 2 S 524), and particularly on dreams (Jg 711th, 1 S 280); and from the use of the oracle by the sacred lot (Jg 827 170 18', Ezk 2121). An exhaustive list of the practices appears to be given in Dt 1810. 11. The passage states that the practices were in use among the aboriginal tribes which Israel dispossessed; but as these tribes had been absorbed into Israel and formed one people with it, the practices no doubt continued to maintain themselves in Israel. The difference might be that they were now performed in the name of J’, and not in that of the native deities. The terms describing the practices are used by Heb, writers rather indiscriminately, but perhaps three distinct forms can be discovered : (1) the oracle gained by certain methods from a god or idol (DDP), (2) interpretation of omens (ºn), and (3) utterances of one possessed or inspired by the deity. (1) The oracle was common, perhaps, to most of the Sheinitic peoples ; at least it appears in Arabia and Babylon, as well as in Israel. Mesha of Moal), too, states that Chemosh gave him) commandments, but the method of receiving them is not indicated (cf. Ezk 2129). Lots (which were usually headless arrows or rods) were shaken and drawn in the presence of the idol, e.g. Hobal at Mecca, and the teraphim (one image) by Nebuchadnezzar (Ezk 21%). The question put by the inquirer usually took the form of an alternative, ‘yes’ or ‘no,” “this' or ‘that,’ though several possibilities might be proposed. In the story of Nebuchadnezzar the alternative was “Rabbath-ammon' or ‘Jerusalem,' and the decision came out ‘Jerusalem.” In method the sacred lot in Israel, Urin, and Tummim, did not differ. This also gave a reply to an alternative proposed. It is possible that LXX of 1 S 1441. 42 suggests the original reading: ‘And Saul said, If the guilt be in me or in Jonathan my son, give Urinn, O Lord God of Israel; but if thou say it is in my people Israel, give Tummim.' The first time Saul and Jonathan were taken and Israel left ; the second time Jonathan was taken and Saul left. The form of the sacred lot is unknown, and in later times its real nature seems to have been forgotten, Nebuchad- mezzar drew the lots before the teraphim, certainly an image. In Israel the ephod was used, and hence the ephod is supposed by many to have been an image of J”. Dphod and teraphin are named together (Jg 175, llos 34), but it remains uncertain whether they were things different though used together, or things of the same class, the two names being cumulative, or the one used as interpretative of the other. In the time of Saul and David the ephod was in common use ; later it fell into desuetude. Hosea, however, mentions it as one of the appliances of religion in his day, and certainly not with approbation (3*), If the root kasam originally referred to this particular kind of divination, its use ceased to be exact. Saul uses the word of divination by the '60 (1 S288), and the canonical prophets call the false prophets kóščinin, diviners, and their oracles gesent, divination (pl. lºésànim), even when these prophets, Shoko (as they thought) by inspiration of J” or by dreams. (2) The root mahash (used in Piel cºnj) appears to be used properly of divina- tion from omens. Joseph divined with a cup, the significant indications being afforded by the play of light in the fluid, or by the bells and movements of the fluid itself, or, as some think, by the behaviour of oil poured into the ºup of water (Gm 44". 10). The word as well as its noun is used of divination by omens, but the different kinds of omen are not discriminated (LV 19%, Nu 2329 241); in an enfeebled sense the word meant to infer from signs or indications generally (Gn 30%, 1 K 2093). (3) Oracles by inspiration or possession by deity were common to the heathen * An excellent account of general heathen manticism is given in IR. Köhler, Der Prophetismºus der 11chröter, w, die Mamtik der (rechen, 1860. The work of P. Scholz, Götzendiemst w. Zauber- wesent bei den alten IIebråerm w. dent benachbarten Völkern, 1877, is less critical. 108 PROPHIECY AND PROPHETS PROPHECY AND PROPHETS and to Israel. And here manticism and prophecy come in con- tact. The two agree in form, and have to be distinguished by other tokens, e.g. by the god in whose name the oracle was given, and perhaps by the fact that in the mantic ecstasy the consciousness was overpowered and lost, while in prophecy there was only exaltation of mind and loss of the consciousness of external things. The other things mentioned in Dt 1810ſ, are of the nature of magic or sorcery, and were always proscribed in the religion of J” (Ex 2218, 1 S 283, 9), though they continued in Israel til very late times, Saul names as legitimate sources of knowledge of the will of the deity, dreams, Urim, and prophets (1 S280). Un- like divination, which seeks to ascertain the mind of the deity, magic was a means of binding superhuman powers (chiefly demonic or chthonian), either to restrain them from injuring oneself, or to constrain them to injure others, and put them under a spell, or to reveal what to mortal man was unknown. The magical means might be—(1) protective, such as amulets (Gn 354, Is 39.19); or (2) both protective and constraining, such as formulas of incantation (Ps 584t, Dt 1811, Is 479. 12); and (3) necromancy. The last had several forms: (a) consulting the '6b, § ºf the yid'òmi, and (c) consulting the dead. The orms (a) and (b) are embraced in (c), though whether they ex- haust (c) is somewhat uncertain (Is S19 294, Lv 2027). Cf. W. R. Smith, Jour, of Philology, vol. xiii. 273 ff., xiv. 113 ff.; and Driver on Dt 1810m. ii. THE NAME PROPHET.— In 1 S 99 it is said, “He that is now called “the prophet” (Nºni mábi’) was beforetime called “the seer'' (rism rô’eh).’ The passage is an annotation, much later in date than the context, and cannot have been written before the name ‘prophet’ had been long current and attached to a succession of men. The radical meaning of the word mābī’ is uncertain. Two terms are used for “seer,” rô'eh and hôzeh (nin), though without difference of sense. The annota- tor's remark might be supposed an inference from the fact that in the ancient record before him Samuel is called ‘the seer.” Still that fact is of importance; and the possibility that there was a time when the word ‘seer’ was in common use may seem supported by the other fact that the word ‘vision' (nin, pin, etc.) connected with ‘seer’ is used all down the literature for ‘prophecy,” the term ‘prophecy” (nébù’ah) connected with ‘prophet’ being a late word (Neh 612, 2 Ch 920 158). º weight may not be due to this consideration, and on the other side may be urged the extraordinary rarity of the word ‘seer,’ though this again may be explained by supposing that all references to early times in which ‘seer’ might have been ex- pected to occur belong to writings which are pos- terior to the time when the word ‘prophet’ }. become the usage.” The author of the annotation 1 S 9” is familiar with ‘prophets’ who were great isolated pº like Elijah and probably the canonical prophets; and he considers the ‘seer’ Samuel to have been quite like one of these. This is certainly true of Samuel, though how far true of other seers of his day, if such existed, may be doubtful. The seer was an isolated personage like the great prophets. Ibut, further, the character- istic of the true “prophet” was that he pursued national religious ends. Samuel did this with more splendid initiative than the greatest of his suc- cessors. He created the nation by giving it a king ; they only sought to preserve it. Ibut the seers of his day, if there was such a class, may have ministered rather to personal and private interests, as Samuel himself seems to have done on some occasions (1 S 9). In l S 31 it is said that ‘ vision' when Samuel was young “was not widely diffused’; but ‘vision' is here used of true lººp. such as the author was familiar with in is own time. History leaves us in complete ignorance in regard to the seers. In fact, the only * Seer’ we know of is Samuel, and his history is told us in a very fragmentary way. The historian gives a beautiful picture of his birth and childhood, narrating how he was dedicated by his mother to the Lord, and how J" spoke to him in Shiloh as He * For example Gn 207 (Abraham), Ex 1520 (Miriam), Nu 1120ſf. (Eldad and Medad), Dt 1815, Jg 4468, 1 S 320, cf. 227. did to the canonical prophets afterwards (1 S 1-3); but the narrative is suddenly broken off, and when we hear of Samuel again he is already an old man, dwelling in Ramah, and known as ‘the seer." We learn from Jer 7” that the house at Shiloh was at some time completely overthrown—no doubt at the hands of the Philistines; and Samuel driven from there took up his abode at Itamah. Though called a priest, the rôle of prophet was that accepted b him, as it is that usually assigned to him (1 S 9”, Jer 15%, Ps 99", Ac 3*); and it was in the exercise of his rôle as prophet—statesman in the kingdom of God—that he interfered in so decisive a manner in the national politics. It is true that the religion of J” did not as a rule create new agencies, but served itself of those already existing, into which it infused its own spirit, which gradually threw off all heathen elements originally belonging to them. There may have been a class of ‘seers’ in the time of the Judges whose methods may not have been greatly unlike those in use among othel Shemitic peoples. But we know nothing of them. Samuel is the only ‘seer' known to history. The meaning of the root and the form N'Dj is uncertain. (1) The form is not likely a pass. ptcp., but more probably, like n’sp harvester and many words of similar form, has active sense. The word itself mabi’ occurs in Arab., but may be a loan- word from IIeb., as it is in other dialects (Noldeke, Gesch. d. Horams, p. 1). (2) The sense of the word is obscure. The root has probably no connexion with 9:1) to bubble atp, as if mäbi’ were one who bubbles up under inspiration (Ges., Kuenen, Prophets, 42, cf. Ps 451). The root maba'a in Arab, means to come forward or into prominence, and causative (conj, ii) to bring forward, specially to do so by speech, to announce ; and in Eth. mababa, means to speak (Dillm. AT Theol. p. 475). The word mäbi' therefore would mean he who announces, or brings a message. The term, however, has not in usage the general sense of announcer or speaker, but always means one who speaks from God, i.e. a prophet, and the Hithp. frequently means to speak in an excited manner, to rave (22ſwoºo...). This gonnota: tion might suggest the question whether the root nābū’ did not originally express some mental emotion, the reflexive forms (Niph. Hithp.) meaning to exhibit or display this emotion, as is the case with so many reflexives, e.g. 7) NJ to grottou, 2n Nnſ] to eachibit grief, 'psnm to show anger. It is usually supposed, however, that the verbal forms are denominatives from mábí'. In this case the original verbal root would not be found in Heb., and the word mäbi' would either be an old noun surviving after the verbal root was lost, or else a new word learned from the Canaanites. The word mäbi' is said (1 S 99) to have become a substitute for rô'eh ‘sedh',' and unfortunately the literature is all later than the time when mºbi' with its derivatives had become the usage. The 70 elders of Nu 11 (according to Wellhausen, Comp.2 102 f., J working on older materials) ‘prophesy' quite after the manner of the ‘prophets' of the days of Samuel (1 S 10) or of Ahab (1 K 22), i.e. their “prophesy- ing' is a joint exercise. . It is possible that .."." this kind may have appeared in the earliest times, though we do not hear of them. Others (e.g. Kuenen, Proph, ch. 15) are inclined to think that the name mábi' is Canaanite, and borrowed by the Hebrews, who applied it to the bands of enthusiasts of Samuel's day because they seemed to resemble the Canaanite ‘prophets.” But the existence of Canaanite, ‘prophets,’ i.e. bands of Dervish-like enthusiasts, is purely conjectural. We do not hear of such ‘prophets’ till 200 years later, and these are not Canaanite, but the priest-prophets of the Tyrian Baal main- tained at the cost of Jezebel (1 K 1810). Wellhausen (Hist. p. 449) remarks: “Among the Canaanites such Nebiim—for so they are styled—had long been familiar.' . It would not be easy to furnish the evidence. Again, the prophetic movement in the days of Samuel was a religious national one, and it is not just probable that the Hebrews would borrow terms from the Canaanites to describe it, particularly as the Canaanites were more than probably in league with the Philistines (1 S 3110). The Can. and Heb. languages must have been virtually identical ; at the same time the root-word appears to exist, in Assyr., e.g. in Nebo the interpreter of the gods, and mabit to announce (Delitzsch, Assyr. II WIB), and the term may have ontered Canaan from 13abylon. The date when the change from ‘seer’ to ‘prophet” took place cannot be ascertained, and the change itself is diſilcult to explain. Possibly as persons of individuality and power arose among the ‘prophets' they took a more independent position like that of ‘80 cr.,’ though the name ‘prophet” continued attached to them. Some personages like Gad bore both names (2 S 2411). The term rò'eh is used chicfly of Samuel, 7 times out of 9 (twice of Hanani, 2 Ch 107-10). The word hôzeh is more common, 2 S 2411, 2 K 1713, Am 712, and often in tho Chronicler, who affects archaic phraseology, e.g. 1 Ch 219 (Gad), 2 Ch 92) 1210 (Iddo), 2 Ch 102 (Jehu), 2 Ch 2030 (Asaph), 1 Ch 255 (Heman), 2 Ch 3515 (Jeduthun). In the plur, both rô'im and hôzim, are used as parallel to ‘prophets,’ Is 2010 (a gloss), 3010, Mic 37, PROPHECY AND PROPHETS PROPHECY AND PROPHETS 109 2 Ch 8318, 19. The seers were so named from having visions, and possibly the priest Amaziah applied the name hôzeh to Amos (712) on account of the visions which he narrated (71ſt). On hózeh (Arab. h42?) cf. Hoffmann, ZA W, 1883, pp. 90–90; and on kahin (=h&zi) Wellhausen, Iteste 2, p. 130 fſ. iii. HISTORICAL STEPS.-1. Time of Samuel.— In the Book of Judges, beyond the reference to Deborah (Jg 4), and a ‘prophet’ in the days of Midianite oppression (67, of. IS 227), nothing is said about prophets. Deborah was a ‘prophetess,’ and ‘judged,’ that is, ruled or governed, Israel. Both terms, ‘prophetess’ and ‘judge,’ imply that Deborah played a political rôle. She was a mother in Israel, and took the leadership in a national crisis. In the times of Samuel men called ‘prophets’ appear to have existed in great numbers. (a) Those called ‘prophets’ in this age formed communities; they were cenobites, though not celibates (2 K 4'). They are first mentioned in connexion with Saul at Gibeah of God, Saul’s home (1 S 10"). When dismissing him Samuel pre- dicted that he would meet a band of prophets coming down from the high §§ with music, and engaged in ‘prophesying’ (1S 10" "). Another company had its home at itamah, where Samuel himself dwelt (1 S 19”). It has usually been sup- posed that the term maioth means ‘dwellings,’ and describes such a prophetic settlement (2 K 61-7, see NAIOTH). In the times of Elijah and Elisha, other localities are mentioned as residences, e.g. Bethel (2 K 2°), Jericho (2 K 2"), and Gilgal (2 K 4*, cf. 2 K 6'). The residenters are called ‘prophets’ and ‘sons of the prophets,’ i.e. members of the pro- phetic Societies (a single member is ben-nābā’, Ann 7*). Between Samuel and Elijah (1 K 20°) no men- tion is made of the ‘sons of the prophets,’ though it is probable that the succession was still main- tained. Amos, a hundred years after Elijah, appears to be acquainted with prophetic societies K7"), and at all times prophets continued to be numerous (1 K 22° 18'). As at the places named as residences there was a ‘high place' or sanctuary, it was probably around these sanctuaries where J" was lº that the prophets settled. In early times the distinction between priest and prophet does not seem to have been sharp. The Arab, káhim was both seer and priest. Samuel was both priest and prophet. Jeremiah and Ezekiel both came out of priestly families. The con- nexion, indeed, of priests and prophets was always close (Is 8*). Those prophets whom Jer. denounces as false act in concert with the temple priesthood. Pashhur, who put Jer. in the stocks, was prophet as well as priest (Jer 20'"); and it was the “priests and prophets’ who arraigned Jer. before the princes for blasphemy against the temple (Jer 26). (b) The multiplication of ‘prophets’ at this epoch indicates a rising spirit of devotion to J", and fervour in His service. Some have supposed that this new fervour and religious elevation were due to the influence of Samuel, and that the origin of the prophetic societies must be traced to him. But all that we have history for is that Samuel was in close relation with the prophetic communities. We see him on some occasions at their head (1 S 19°); but that he did not usually reside among the ‘prophets’ appears from the state- ment that when David fled to him at Tamah the two together then went and dwelt at Naioth (19*). It is evident that the prophets looked up to him and learned from him ; !. it is also º: that he felt that the impulses which moved them were common also to himself, and he was not ashamed to direct them, and share in their prophesyings (cf. Elisha, 2 K 4”). It is probable, therefore, that the rise of the ‘prophets’ was due to something which swept both Samuel and the people into the same stream of national-religious enthusiasm. (c) This can hardly have been anything else than the crisis that had arisen in the nation's fortunes. The people had been subdued by the Philistines, and were threatened with national extinction. And in Israel of this age national and religious were virtually the same thing. The idea of later prophets, that national autonomy might be lost, while the religion of J” remained, had not yet been reached. It was J" that created Israel, and made it a nation; faith in Him was the bond of its national existence, and the hour of the nation's peril awoke a new religious-national fervour. The nation's fortunes and history was from the beginning the great lesson-book in which men read the nature of J" their God, and His disposition towards them (2 S 211ſ. 241ſt). The national disasters were evidence of J’s anger, and they awoke the national conscience. The “pro- phets’ were not individual enthusiasts; they were inspired by common sentiments, and animated each other, and, as a Society, reacted on the sur- rounding population. Their “prophesying' was a kind of public worship at the ; place or sanc- tuary, to which they went up with pipe and song, as continued to be done in after - days (Is 30”). And the songs were not songs without words. They had religious contents, as much as those of the singers who afterwards ‘prophesied with harps’ in the temple (1 Ch 25* *, cf. 2 S 23'). Höwever rude, they would be celebrations of ‘the righteous acts of J", the righteous acts of his rule in Israel’ (Jg 5*). They would be such songs as were after- wards collected in ‘the IBook of the Wars of J"' and in ‘the Book of the Upright’ (Bk. of Jashar). Some of the poetical fragments still to be found in the historical books may well belong to this age. Whether writing was practised by the ‘prophets’ may be uncertain (though cf. 1 Ch 29*); but if they did not write, they prepared by their “prophesy- ing' a language for the literary º who came after them. In Amos, the oldest literary prophet, we find a religious nomenclature already complete ; we find also in him, almost more than in his successors, the prophetic mannerism and technique, such as the plurases ‘oracle of J"' ('' DN)), ‘thus saith J", and much else. It is not too much to suppose that it was in these ‘schools of the prophets’ all down the history that this nomen. clature and technique were formed. (d) The new prophetism was a national-religious movement, though the emphasis lay on the reli- gious aspect of it. Like their great successors, the º hoped that the national restitution would De the shape in which the religious regeneration would verify itself. Nevertheless, the national claimed expression. The monarchy was the crea- tion of prophecy, not merely in the sense that the prophet Samuel, by inspiration of J", gave the people a king. The national direction of pro- . embodied itself in the kingship. The first King of Israel was a prophet as well as the second. When Saul turned to go from Samuel, God gave him another heart, and when he met the prophets the spirit of God came on him and he prophesied. His excitation was not mere contagious º: There was mind under it ; it was the thought awakened by Samuel of his high destiny and of the task before him taking fire from contact with the national - religious enthusiasm of the , prophets. The exclamation of the populace, Is Saul also among the prophets? has been taken as an ex- pression of wonder that a solid yeoman like Saul should join himself to a company of ranting en- thusiasts. This view is wholly improbable. It was not in this way that religious exaltation was looked on in the East. It was just the visible excitation that suggested to the onlooker that the enthusiast was possessed by the deity. Even the insane, just because he had no mastery over IIO PROPHECY AND PROPHETS PROPHECY AND PROPHIETS his mind, which seemed moved by another, was held inspired. A multitude of passages show the popular reverence for the prophets, e.g. 2 K. 41m. Bº. (cf. 6' 9"), particularly 2 K 4* which describes how a person “brought the man of God bread of the first fruits, as people did to the sanctuary of J" (cf. 1 K 12*). Neither can Amos' disclaimer of being a prophet or one of the sons of the prophets mean that “he felt it an insult to be treated as one of them.” Amos (7") merely states a his- torical fact, viz. that he had not been an isolated prophet such as Elijah and others were, nor a member of one of the ‘prophetic schools,” but had been suddenly called #. behind the flock to ‘prophesy to God's people Israel. The respect with which he mentions prophets elsewhere as God’s greatest gift to the people (2' 3"), is sufficient evidence of his feeling..t 2. Early Monarchy. — During the time of the Judges, and the early monarchy the means of ascertaining the will of J" was chiefly the sacred lot and ephod. This was employed by Gideon (Jg 8”) and Micah (Jg 17. 18), by Saul, and by Davic and his priests in the early period of his history (1 S 23%. "). At a later time it is little referred to, the king's advisers being the prophets. Side by side with this there existed seers through whom J" spake. The Arab. kaſhin or seer was also sup- posed to be possessed by a spirit, which spake through him (Wellhausen, Reste”, 134). The seer was absorbed into the class of ‘prophets,’ and the name ‘prophet' remained common to the isolated individual and the member of the community. And from this time forward the will of J" was chiefly asked at the mouth of the prophet (1 K 14*). The early waters of prophetism may have been somewhat turbid, but they gradually ran clear, and became that stream of ethical prophecy to which there is nothing like in the religious history of mankind. J" spake in the mind of man and to his mind; the prophet stood in the council of God. The two ways of ascertaining the will of J" in the age of Samuel are reflected in the two narratives of the election of Saul. Both narra- tives ascribe the institution of the monarchy to the will of J", but in the one (1 S 91–1019 11) his will is declared through prophetic inspiration, in the other (1 S 8. 107m. 12) through j. oracle of the lot. The latter tradition, though further removed from the actual events, is at least true to the his- torical conditions of the period. The true causes of the rupture between Samuel and Saul can scarcely be ascertained. The pro- phetic spirit in Saul never obtained the mastery within him, it was always in conflict with contrary currents in his nature. Latterly the spirit became troubled and obscured, and its place was taken by an evil spirit from God (cf. 1 K 22*). David was a man according to God’s heart, that is, in all things subject to the will of J" (cf. 1 S 15*), and the prophets are found supporting his throne. Special designations are given to some of them suggestive of the offices they performed, e.g. men- tion is made of ‘the prophet Gad, David’s seer' (2 S 24", 1 Ch 219, 2 Ch 29*). These prophets indirectly influenced the government and acted on the affairs of the kingdom as a whole, although through the king (2 S 241 71*. 121m, 1 K 12*). So long as the lyrophets and kings were in accord this may have continued, but when kings arose who were mere national rulers and unprogressive or retrograde * Wellhausen, HiRt. 203. Wehlhausen's remark that “the joint of the story narrated of Saul (1 S 1922ff) can be nothing out Samuel's and David's enjoyment of the disgrace of the naked king' (p. 268), is merely the cynical sally of a modern humourist. # This view of Am 714 is rightly taken by J. C. Matthes, art. ‘The False Prophets,' Mod. Itev., July 1884. See also J. Iłobertson, Darly Relig. of 18,'ael, p. 90. -º-º: in religion,-of course no king of that age was irreligious in the sense of neglecting the tradi- tionalſ religion,-naturally the prophets, at least those annong them who were º progressive, took another side. It might have been well for the peaceable development of the kingdom of J” if the prophets and rulers had always been in harmony, and it might seem a calamity when a dissidence arose between them ; but undoubtedly, though the disagreement was often fruitful of trouble and revolution, it contributed to the inde- pendence of the prophetic order. Prophecy, re- sumed the ‘national element in it, which it had divested itself of and delegated to the monarchy, and stood forth against all classes and functions as the immediately inspired guardian of the kingdom of J" in all its interests. Moses was the type of the true prophet (Hos 12°, Dt 18%). 3. The Canonical Prophets. – Prophets like Nathan, Elijah, and Elisha, following the ex- ample of Samuel, directly interfered in the govern- ment of the State. Nathan determined the suc- cession to the throne (1 K 1990); Elijah denounced the dynasty of Omri, and Elisha set in motion the revolution that overthrew it (2 K 9). The latter prophet was the very embodiment of the national spirit in the Syrian wars, and took the field in i. campaign against Moab (2 K 3"). Elijah and he were the national bulwark—‘the chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof * (2 K 21°). But after Elisha the prophets withdraw from exter- nal national, and party, conflicts. They no more head revolutions. evertheless, they remain statesmen as much as their great predecessors. They could not cease to be politicians as long as the kingdom of J" had the form of a State. They oppose, warn, and counsel kings and State arties according to the exigencies of the time. }. indeed, thinks the monarchy impotent for good, if it has not been from the beginning the source of all evil (13"). But Isaiah, so long as the State was independent, warned Ahaz against involving his kingdom in the struggles of the nations, in the collision of which his country would be crushed (Is 7); and when the dream of independ- ence had passed away he resisted with equal strenuousness the meditated revolt of Hezekiah and the Egyptian party against the Assyrian power (Is 30m, 311"). The same º guided Jer. and Ezk. in the Chaldaean age (Jer 21° 38°, Ezk 17). But the only weapon which the prophets now use is the word of God which is in their mouth. Jer., though set over the nations to pluck up and break down, wields only the word of J", which is like a hammer breaking the rocks in pieces (Jer 19. 19 23*), and which has a self-fulfilling energy (Is 55"). J" hews the people by the prophets, and slays them with the words of His mouth (Hos 6°). But in this age new thoughts, difficult to account for, filled the minds of the prophets. Formerly, J", as God and ruler of His people, rejected dynasties, and by the prophets overthrew them (Hos 13"); now, it is the conviction of all the prophets, both of the north and south, that J" has rejected the nation, that Israel as an independent State is doomed to perish. Side by side with this thought, or as a "...º. of it, another thought appears. The complex motion ‘national- religious’ seems reflected on and analyzed, and the ‘religious' assumes such preponderating weight that the ‘national’ appears of little value. The ideal kingdom of J" is a religious community faith- ful to the Lord. Another thing, closely connected with the two just mentioned, is the lofty spiritual and ethical conception of J" God of Israel reached by the prophets of this age, and, what is but the onverse side of it, their severe judgment on the moral condition of the people. This lofty con- PROPHECY AND PROPHETS PROPHECY AND PROPHETS 111 ception of J" and this pure ideal of what His H.; must be, cannot be an unmediated and inexplicable leap" upward of human religious genius, neither can it be a sudden divine creation. It did not, like Jonah's gourd, grow up in a night. History, unlappily, does not enable us to follow its growth. But it is the perfect efflorescence of a tree whose roots stood in the soil of Israel from the beginning, whose vital evergies had always been moving towards flower, and which burst forth at last in the gorgeous blaze of colour which we see. The wealth of ethical and religious teaching found in the prophets of this age lias led to a reaction against the former idea that prophecy was speciſi- cally prediction, and the view has become preva- lent that the true function of the prophet was to be a teacher of ethical and religious truths. This view is also one-sided. The prophets never cease to be ‘seers’; their face is always turned to the future. They stand in the council of J" (Ann 37, Jer 23*), and it is what He is about to do that they declare to men. Their moral and reli- gious teaching is, so to speak, secondary, and due to the occasion. Their conviction is that the destruction of the nation is inevitable, and they dwell on the nature of J" and on the moral de- clension of the people to impress their conviction on the nation—“prepare to meet thy God, O Israel’ (Am 4*). Or, as their conviction of the inevit- ableness of the nation’s doom does not seem absolute, but is crossed, at least at times, by the possibility or even the hope that it might be averted (Am 5* **, Is 1*, Jer 36”), they impress on the people the mind and life which is acceptable to J"—that which is good, and what the Lord requires of them (Mic G")—that they may repent, and that His judgments may be arrested. Or, when the foreboding of near destruction again tºppresses them, they look beyond the dark and tempestuous night that is gathering to the da that will dawn behind it (Is 81*), for though J" will destroy the sinful kingdom. He will not destroy the house of Jacob (Am 9°), and they dilate on the righteousness and the peace and the joy of that new age (Is 9'−", Hos 218"). The prophets now employ writing, and the short, drastic oracles of former times (1 S 15*, 1 K 11° 21”) give place to discourses of considerable length. By writing they could influence many whom their voice could not reach, and the written word became a perma- nent possession of the godly kernel of the people, .. them in the midst of the darkness when God’s face was hidden, and being when the calamities were overpast a witness that God had still been with them ( }. 810ſ, Ezk 2'). The instances of Deuteronomy and the roll of Jeremiah show that a writing produced a far more powerful impression than the spoken word of the prophet. A strange and interesting phenomenon in the history of prophecy is what is called ‘False? Prophecy. The true prophets, whose word history and God’s providence verified, and to which the religious mind of mankind has set its seal, laid emphasis on the ‘religious’ element in the complex ‘national-religious’ idea. . The unity J” and the nation had to their minds become dis- rupted, and J" now stood opposed to the nation. The “false’ prophets continued to lay the chief emphasis on ... ‘national’ side; hence they might be called nationalistic prophets rather than false, though, of course, their anticipations were often disproved by events. The question whether these prophets were retrograde or only unprogressive, will be answered differently according to the view taken of the development of religion in Israel. There is no reason to suppose that they had per- sonally sunk below the level of their own time. They stand on the same level with the body of -g the people. The charge of the canonical prophets is that the nation as a whole had declined from the purer moral and religious ideal of early times (Hos 2', Is 1*). And this charge is certainly true. For, admitting that the people by entrance upon the Canaanite civilization had attained to a broader and fuller human life, and admitting even that the conception of J", by taking up into it Some of the thoughts connected with the native gods, became enlarged and enriched, mixture with the Canaanites produced a deterioration both in the life and religion of Israel. It is this deteriora- tion that seems to the true prophets so fateful in regard to the destinies of the nation. And it is on this question of the national future that con- flicts arise between the true prophets and the false. It is in this region, too, that another new plenomenon in the history of prophecy appears in this age—the persecution of the prophets. Former prophets, like Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha, were embodiments of the ‘national-religious' spirit, and carried the people with them. The new out- look of the prophets regarding the national des- tinies enraged the populace. The prophets seemed to them madmen; their predictions that J" would destroy His people were incredible; they were traitors, and sought not the welfare of the people, but their hurt (Jer 38%). The prophets probably might have preached as they liked about the nature of J" and the kind of service pleasing to Him, if they had not gone further and drawn inferences as to the destinies of the nation. Jehoiakim showed his indifference to Jeremiah's preaching, or his con- tempt for it, by throwing his book piecemeal into the fire; it was only when at the end of the roll he found the assertion that Nebuch. would come and destroy the land (Jer 36” 25°. 19), that he ordered the prophet's arrest. On another occasion Jer. was Seized and beaten on the suspicion that he was falling away to the Chaldaeans, and flung into a dungeon , because his gloomy anticipations dis- heartened the men of war in the city (38%). And it was because of his prophecy of national disaster (1 K 22) that Ahab ordered Micaiah to be confined on bread and water till he came back (he did not come back (). It was not their religious opinions but their political threats that drew persecution on the º (Am 7*). The persecution was the convulsive effort of the ‘national - religious’ spirit to maintain itself. . No doubt many of the people were impatient of the prophets’ general teaching, or contemptuous of it : they burlesqued their manner (Is 28". "), and ironically invited the interposition of the Lord with which the prophets threatened them (Is 5*, *); they in º . on them (Am 21°, Mic 2"), and told !. to have done with the Lord of hosts in their hearing (Is 30”); but it was mostly when the prophets entered the political region, or when to the general mind they seemed guilty of sacrilege (Am 7” ”, Jer 7*267. 8), that harsher measures were adopted. No doubt the persecution of the prophets by Ahab at the instigation of Jezebel was on account of their opposition to the introduction of the Baal worship. But even this persecution seems to have been transient, for shortly before his death we observe Ahab on the best of terms with the prophets (1 K 22). If the 400 mentioned here are ‘false,” or merely nationalistic, prophets, probably many of them had opposed the Baal cultus if for no higher reason than that J" was the national God. The per- secution by Manasseh, of whom we know so little, would be for similar reasons, because the prophets opposed the Assyrian cults which the king so arlently patronized. 4. The Eapiry of Prophecy. — Many things contributed to the decline and final failure of prophecy. 112 PROPHECY AND PROPHETs PROPHECY AND PROPHETS (a) The F. bore some resemblance to a progressive political party in a State. So long as abuses exist, and privilege leads to injustice and oppression of the weaker classes, such a party is strong. Its power lies in attack. But when abuses have been removed, and the reforms de- manded, have been conceded and placed upon the statute book, the function of the party of progress has ceased. Now, the evils against which the prophets contended had, externally at least, been removed by the reform of Josiah. Deuteronomy received the sanction of the king and government, and became the law of the State. This was a triumph of prophetic teaching on morals and re- ligion; but if it was thus a witness to the power of prophecy in the past, it was virtually a death- blow to it for the future. For by embodying the º issues of the prophetic principles in law, having State authority, it superseded the living prophetic word. No doubt even after Deut. be- came State law Jer, continued to be a prophet. He perceived that the reform was merely external, and he continued to demand something more in- ward—not reform but regeneration. (b) Again, the great prophets from Amos to Jere- miah had traversed the whole region of theology and morals. i.ittle could be added to what they had taught concerning J” and His purposes, concerning man and his destiny. Those who came after them could do little more than combine their principles into new applications and uses. And in point of fact such prophets as Ezekiel and Deutero-Isaiah are almost more theologians than prophets.” (c) Another thing which contributed to the ex- piry of prophecy was the fall of the State. With the destruction of Jerusalem, the nation, the subject of prophecy, ceased to exist. Its destruc- tion was the seal set to the truth of prophecy, to its teaching on God and the people, and its task was done. If in a sense prophecy had destroyed the nation it had saved religion. For by teaching that it was J” who brought ruin on the State it showed that the downfall of the nation was not the defeat but the triumph of J". The gods of the nations, Chemosh, Asshur, and Merodach, perished with the nations of whose spirit they were the em- bodiments, but Jehovah rose the higher over the ruins of Jerusalem. He was seen to be the God of Righteousness, the moral Ruler of the world— Jehovah of Hosts was exalted in judgment, And the Holy God sanctified in righteº (Is 51%). When Israel perished as a nation, and was scattered over every land, the idea of Israel just by being detached from the nation became clearer; the conception of Israel, of its place in the moral history of mankind, took the place of Israel, and the second Isaiah, operating with this conception, —the servant of the Lord, is still a prophet. No doubt with all his brilliancy much of his book is theological deduction from his lofty conception of J", but in one respect he is what all the great pºpº were, an ‘interpreter’ of history, and by ar" the profoundest. He stands at the end of Israel’s history, and looking back he reads its meaning, which is that its sufferings as servant of the Lord lave atoned for its sins as a mere part of mankind. (d) Although at the Restoration the gorgeous anticipations of the second Isaiah had been dis- appointed, the idea of what Israel was, its con- sciousness of itself and its meaning in the religious life of mankind still maintained themselves. The eschatological hope remained indestructible. . This hope had sometimes a national element in it, the * Wollhausen remarks (Reste 2, 137) that with the revelation of the Koran the function of the kūhim or Seer came to an end, and he disappears. idea of a political supremacy of Israel over the other nations, but it was mainly the hope of religious supremacy as the people of God (Is 61"). Israel had become a purely religious idea, its mission was to be the light of the nations—salva- tion was of the Jews. And this great eminence and triumph God would confer upon it by a sudden interposition, when He would plead its cause and ‘ }. it by showing it to be in the right in its time-long plea against the nations—a plea which in other words was the religious history of mankind (Is 50*). And what remained for Israel was to prepare for God’s interposition, and be worthy of it by doing His will. Thus, when Israel was merely a religious community with no national life, prophecy became altogether detached from history . took the form of reflective and theological combinations of former prophecies. Its theme was the eschatological hope, and it occupied itself with searching what, * what manner of time this hope would be realized (Dn 9”, l P 1"). Prophecy becomes Apocalyptic. Apocalyptic con- tinues to share all the great ideas of prophecy : it regards history as the expression of God’s moral rule of the world ; it regards God as purposing and foreseeing all its great movements; and it sup- poses Him to reveal His purposes to His servants rom the beginning. Hence, instead of looking back over history, Apocalyptic plants itself in front of history, turning history into prophecy, and locating iſit great movements in the mind of some ancient seer, Enoch, Moses, Baruch, Daniel, or Ezra. Apocalyptic is thus always pseudepigraphic ; but the date of an Apocalypse can generally be guessed from the fact that up to his own time the author is pretty accurate, having history to rely on, while from his own time on to the end he can only forecast or calculate. In the times when prophecy had virtually ceased there are occasional references to it. The references are of two kinds. Generally they are expressions of sorrow that the people has no more the guidance of the prophet in its perplexities and darkness, and of the hope that a prophet will again arise; but once at least prophecy is spoken of with dislike. In the one case . true prophet is thought of, in the other the misleading false prophecy. See on the one hand Ps 749, 1 Mac 4" ºf 14* , cf. La 2", Pr 2918: on the other hand Zec 131-6 ; cf. La 2* 418. The prophets of the OT may be grouped thus— i. PROPIIETS OF THE ASSYRIAN AGE. Jonah (referred to 2 K 1429). Amos, c. 760–750. Hosea, c. 750–737. Isaiah, 740–700. Micah, c. 724 and later. Zephaniah, c. 627. Nahum, c. 610—608. ii. PROPIIETS OF THE CHALDIEAN PERIOD, Jeremiah, c. 626–586. Habakkuk, c. 605-600. Ezekiel, c. 503–573. - ill. PROPIIETs of Tile, PERSIAN PRRiod. Is 13–14 211-10 34–35?. Dcutero-Isaiah, c. 540. Haggai and Zechariah, 1-8, c. 520, Malachi, C. 400-450. e Probably later, at all events after the Restoration, Joel, Jonah, Obadiah (in present form), Is 24-27, Zec 9–14. B. THE PROPHETIC MIND. — Many questions arise regarding the mind of the prophet which can hardly be answered, but allusion may be made to some of them. i. THE IDEA OF THE PROPHET. - A number of things are said of the prophet which might serve as partial definitions. Such definitions are different at different times, the prophet being regarded from various sides. In inquiring into the prophetic mind, it is the prophet's own idea of .# that is of interest ; but his idea of himself did rot differ from PROPHECY AND PROPHETS PROPHECY AND PROPHETS 113 the people's idea of him, though in his own case the idea was based on his consciousness, in the case of the people on their observation. Both believed that the prophet was one who spoke the word of J". When threatened with death Jer. said to the people, ‘I’or of a truth J" has sent me unto you to speak all these words in your ears’ (Jer 26"); and the people's idea of their prophets, if not of Jer., was the same : ‘the word ji not perish from the prophet” (Jer 1818). Certain names applied to the prophet are sug- gestive of ideas entertained of him. (1) One of the oldest and most common of these designations was man of God. The name is used of Samuel (1 S 9"), of Elijah and Elisha, and of others (1 K 12” 13, Jer 35"), and often of Moses. The name implies close relation to God; the prophet is near to God (Am 37, Jer 23*, *). The Shunammite made a little chamber for Elisha, because he was ‘a holy man of God’ (2 K 4). Holiness is nearness to God; whether in this age it already connoted moral purity (Is 6°) may be uncertain ; the ‘man of God’ at any rate suggested this, for the widow of Sarepta said to Elijah, “What have I to do with thee, thou man of God? art thou come to call my sin to remembrance 2' (1 K 1718). The name ‘man of God’ suggests both the ethical basis of prophecy and the religiousness of the prophet. All the pro- phets pass moral judgments on their contemporaries, e.g. Nathan on David (2S 12) and Elijah on Ahab, and the pages of the literary prophets contain little else than such judgments. And Jeremiah at last goes so far as to say that the mark of a true pro- phet is just that he passes such a moral condemna- tion on his time; this of itself authenticates him (Jer 28°. "). How deeply the moral entered into the prophet's own idea of propllecy is seem in Is 6”, cf. Mic 38. But the motion of religiousness or godliness suggested by the name ‘man of God’ is even more important. The prophet’s ‘call was less appointment to an office as we call it, than to a religious life-task. His prophesying was lifted up into his own personal religious life. The foun- tain of prophecy was communion with God. This is seen in Jer., in whom prophecy and piety melt into one another. (2) A. common designa- tion of the prophet is servant of God or of J". The name is given to prophets in general (2 K 97), to Elijah (1 K 189"), Isaiah (20°), and others (1 K 1418, 2 K 1420), º to Moses. The service is usually public, in the interests of God’s king- dom. The name ‘servant of J"' is given also to Israel. Israel is the great servant of J" — his ministry is to mankind, that of the individual prophets is to the narrower world of Israel itself. And in like manner both Israel and the prophet are called messenger of J "–the one to the nations (Is 42*, *), and the other to Israel (44*). The term ‘messenger' is used mostly in late writings (Hag l”, Mal 3'), but the consciousness of being ‘sent ’ is common to all the prophets– Go and tell this people’ (Is 6", Jer 26"). The prophet feels he has a commission to the people as much as Moses felt he had a commission to Pharaoh. (3) Another name given to the prophet is interpreter. The name, though rare (Is 43”), is descriptive of the position of the prophet in regard to history and God's providence. God speaks in events, and the prophet interprets Him to men. Prophecy arises out of history, keeps pace with it, and interprets it. God is the author of Israel’s history, and His meaning in it, His disposition towards the people as expressed in it, . itself in the prophet's nuind. And as it reflects itself it awakens in him the sense of the people's evil; and being one with them he becomes the conscience, particularly the evil conscience, of the people. Events are never mere occurrences; God animates them; each great VOI. IV.-8 event of history is a theophany, a manifestation of God in His moral operation. The eyes of ordinary men do not perceive this meaning, and when suddenly confronted with some unexpected issue they exclaim, “Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, God of Israel, the Saviour’ (Is 45*). Further, no event is isolated ; each has resulted from something preceding it, and will issue in con- sequences following it. History is a moral current, and at whatever point in it the prophet stands he feels whence it has come and whither it is flowing. Of course, the prophet is not a mere interpreter of history or institutions.” To suppose so would be to give him the second instead of the first place; the mind of man is greater than institutions or history, and it is in it above all that God will reveal Himself. And even the institutions and history are not mere miraculous Divine creations; men concurred in founding the institutions, and they have their part in making the history. Events furnish the occasion of the prophet's intuitions, but they do not set bounds to them. Indeed we often see the prophet’s mind outrunning history, filling the events around him with a profounder meaning than they actually contain. His own mind is full of great issues, great ideals of the future; and eager to see their realization he animates the events occurring in his day with a larger significance than they have, thinking they will issue in the final perfection for which he yearns. If he proves at fault in regard to the time, he rightly divines the moral connexion of the events of his day with the perfection of the end. Other names, such as ‘seer,’ ‘watchman' (Jer 6”, Ezk 3/7), need not be dwelt upon. There are several passages, belonging to different dates, which might be taken as definitions of “pro- phet.” In Am 37 ° it is said, ‘The Lord God doeth nothing without revealing his counsel to his ser- vants the prophets.” Jer. (23*) varies this by saying that the prophet stands “in the council’ of J", and knows His purpose (Job 15°). The passage states two things, viz. that J"reveals His mind and purpose to the prophets, and that He does so º in reference to the future. When great events are about to happen, involving the destinies of the people, the sensibility of the º is quickened and feels their approach, and he stands forth to announce them. Thus Amos and Hosea appear as heralds of the downfall of the kingdom of the North ; Micah and Isaiah, when the storm-cloud of Assyrian invasion was rising on the northern horizon, and Jeremiah when the empire of the East was passing to the Chaldaeans, and the downfall of Judah was migh at hand. Among other passages referring to prophecy on its predictive side, Is 41*.*. (cf. 4578. ") deserves mention. Here predic- tive prophecy is claimed for J." and lsrael and id: to the idols and their peoples, and the power to predict as well as the fact of having truly pre- dicted is proof that J" is God. J" is the first and the last ; He initiates the movements of history, and He brings them to an end. From the beginning He foresees the end. Iłut it is His relation to Israel that causes Him to announce it beforehand. For Israel is His servant, and His purpose can be ful- filled only through the co-operation of men, to whom it must be revealed. The conception of a living God in moral fellowship with men involves in it prophecy having reference to the future. Here again prophecy is lifted up into the sphere of personal religious life. © The passage Dt 18", though not excluding prediction, places prophecy on a broader basis. 1°rophecy is due to two things: (1), to that yearning of the human spirit to know the will of * This seems the idea of v. Hofmann, Weissagwng w lºſiil. dumſ. II4 PROPHECY AND PROPHIETS PROPHECY AND PROPHETS the deity, and to have communion with him, common to men everywhere. This yearning created many kinds of diviners, who by extermi means inferred what was the mind of deity. But it is not in this way, but in one higher and worthier, that the true God satisfies the yearning of His people's_heart (Nu 23°). However pro- fusely signs of Him and of His mind be scattered over nature, there is a more immediate intercourse between Him and men. He speaks to the mind of man directly ; there is a communion of spirit with spirit. J" puts His words in the prophet's mouth, who speaks them in His name (Dt 18*, *). (2) And the reason for employing a prophet as mediator between J" and the people is that the people shrank from hearing the voice of J" speak- ing to them directly. He spoke the ten words in the people's ears at Horeb, but Israel said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, that I die not (18"). An extraordinarily lofty place is assigned here to the prophet : his words are as much the words of J” as if J” spoke them immediately with His own voice (cf. Nu 12°). But these words of Moses, “A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you like unto me,’ contain other points illustrating the idea of ‘prophet.” The term ‘raise up' (cf. Am 2") is used of the judges, and in many ways the prophets were the successors of the judges. The prophet is immediately raised up. The Divine act is reflected in his own consciousness in the crisis named his ‘call.’ His position is a personal one. He is not a member of a caste inheriting an office. . He may be taken from any class: from the priesthood, like Samuel, Jer., and Ezek., and probably others ; from the aristocracy of the capital, like Isaiah ; from the population of the country townships, like Micah and Urijah of IXiriath-jearim (Jer 26); or from those that followed after the flock, like Amos. Women, too, might be prophetesses, as Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah (2 K 22). . The singular ‘a prophet’ may be used collectively of a line of º (Hos 121°), or more probably as there was usually only one great prophet at one time the reference may be to the individual prophet in each age. In the words ‘like unto me' the prophet is put on the same plane with Moses; and so far as the scope of his func- tions extended this is the best definition. It may be said that we really do not know what Moses was like ; and to say that the prophet was ‘like Moses,’ is to explain the unknown by the more un- known...We know at least what Moses was thought to be like in the age of the Deuteronomist and earlier—he was one faithful in all God's house (Nu 12"); and the prophet's oversight was equally broad. Prophecy was not an institution among other insti- tutions, like priesthood and monarchy; it founded the monarchy, and it claimed in the name of J" to correct and instruct priests as well as kings. Tholuck * has delined the prophet as “the bearer of the idea of the theocracy.’ The definition is true in the sense that the prophets do not claim to be originators, they have inherited the prin- ciples which they teach; but it touches the prophet only on his intellectual side. The prophet was more than a teacher, and the theocracy was life as well as truth. The prophet was not only the bearer, he was the embodiment of the idea of the theocracy. This idea, which is that of the com- munion of the living God with mankind, was realized in him and through him in Israel. Though he could be distinguished from Israel he was, in truth, Israel at its highest. The prophets were not persons who stood as mere objective Divine instruments to the people whom they addressed ; they were of the people; the life of * Die Propheten w. ihre Weissagwmgen, p. 12. the people flowing through the general mass only i.i. its flood-tide in them. Every feeling of the people, every movement of life in it, sent its impulse up to them ; every hope and fear was reflected in their hearts. And it was with hearts so filled and minds so quickened and broad that they entered into the communion of God. One other passage may be referred to which expresses very clearly the main element in the idea of prophet. In Ex 7”. J." speaks to Moses, * See, I have made thee God to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet' (P). In Ex 4" (J) a similar statement occurs, “He (Aaron) shall be thy spokesman to the people; he shall be to thee for a mouth, and thou shalt be to him God.” Moses “inspired ' Aaron, and Aaron spoke his words to Pharaoh and the people. So d the prophets, e.g. Is 30° 31', regard themselves as the ‘mouth of J". ii. INSPIRATION.—When Sanmuel dismissed Saul he said to him, ‘Thou shalt meet a band of prophets; and the spirit of the Lord will come mightily upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man’ (1 S 10°. "). The term ‘prophesy” describes the excited demeanour and utterance of the prophets, and the “spirit is regarded as the cause of this. Of course, the prophets did not utter mere sounds, but words with meaning; but it is the personal exaltation of the prophet himself, who has become another man, and not specially the contents of lis utterance, that is ascribed to the ‘spirit.” The man on whom the spirit comes, oftener performs deeds than speaks words. The ‘spirit of the Lord’ came on Samson, and he rent the lion as he would have rent a kid (Jg 14%); it came on Saul, and he slew his oxen and sent the fragments throughout Israel, calling to war with Ammon (1 S 11"); similarly it came on Gideon (Jg 6”), Jephthah (11”), and others, and they went out to war and judged Israel. The spirit of the Lord suddenly carries Ilijah away, one knows not whither (1 K 18”), and men fear that it may cast him upon some mountain or into some valley (2 K 2"); and with ‘the hand of the Lord ' upon him he kept pace with Ahab's chariots (1 K 18"). Probably the conception of God and that of the spirit of God always corre- sponded to one another. In early times God was conceived more as a natural than a spiritual force; His operation, even when He might operate on the ethical side of man's nature, was physical. Hence ‘spirit” connotes suddenness ind violence in the Divine operation. When one is seen performing what is beyond man to do, or what is beyond him- self in his natural condition, both to himself and to the onlooker he appears not himself, he is another man; he is seized and borne onward by a power external to him—the spirit of the Lord is upon him. One under the spirit is always carried away by an impulse, sudden, and often uncon- trollable. Hence the terms descriptive of the spirit's operation suggest suddenness and violence; it “comes upon' (ºy ITT 1 S 10" "), ‘comes mightily upon' (nºs 1 S 10%. 1"), “falls upon (Ezk 11%), ‘ descends and rests on (m) Nu 1.1% "), ‘puts on ’ a man as a garment (Jab Jg 6*, 2 Ch 24”), “fills’ him (Mic 3°), and the like. Similarly it is said that the ‘land of the Lord’ comes upon him (Ezk 19, 2 k 31°), and overpowers him (Is 8"). All these expressions describe the phenomena visible to the onlooker, or º by the prophet. But it is the complex manifestation that they describe; they do not analyze it, nor answer the question, Where amidst these phenomena is the point at which the spirit operates ? It is remarkable that in the literary prophets little reference is made to the spirit, and the references made are rather allusive than formal PROPHECY AND PROPHETS PROPHECY AND PROPHETS 115 *— and direct. Hosea (97) calls the prophet “the man of the spirit”; Isaiah (30” “, cf. Job 26") uses “spirit of J"' as parallel to “mouth of J"'; and Micah (3*) declares himself full of power ‘by the spirit of J" to declare unto Jacob his transgression.” But other prophets, including Amos and Jer., do not express the idea. The explanation of this fact is probably this: in this age the violent excitation usual in early prophecy had almost disappeared ; it was the violent impulse to speak or act that ‘spirit” particularly connoted, and hence refer- ences to spirit are rare. Isaiah on one occasion (8”) speaks of the ‘hand” of J" being upon him, which may refer to some unusual elevation (though cf. Jer 1517), but the ‘power’ which Micah was conscious of was probably moral, though whether internittent or not may be uncertain. Some have supposed that in this age the spirit was regarded as a permanent possession of the prophet, and for that reason not specially alluded to. In Nu 11” the spirit that was upon Moses is spoken of, part of which rested on the elders, and they prophesied. Their prophesying was momentary and under great excitation; but whether the “spirit’ was considered a permanent possession of Moses or not is not clear (cf., v.” with v.”). And the same uncertainty re- mains with regard to the ‘spirit’ that was on Elijah (2 K 2"). In Is 11*. the spirit of J" is said to descend and rest upon the Messiah, giving lim discernment, counsel, and might in rule, as well as the fear of the Lord ; and this spirit would seem a permanent possession, though revealing itself as occasions required. Ibut the failure of the canonical prophets to refer to the spirit is scarcely due to their thinking of it as a permanent power indwelling in them; it is rather due to their not thinking of the spirit specially at all. The cessation of the ecstasy left the prophet his proper self; he was conscious of being an independent individual person, and as such he entered into fellowship with God. He was no more driven or overpowered by an impulse from without, which superseded his proper self; his communion with God was a communion of two moral persons. God, it is true, did not speak to him face to face and externally as He did to Moses, but He spoke no less really to his mind. The nature of the com- munion is clear from the dialogues in Is 6 and Jer 1. In its full perfection it is seen in Jeremiah, who should be taken as the true type of the prophet. At a later time references to the spirit again recur, particularly in Ezekiel. How far the trances of lº. were real, being partly due to a natural constitutional temperament, and how far they are mere literary embodiment of an idea, may be disputed. In the latter case the idea they express would be the one running through all his pro- phecies, the transcendent majesty and power of God, and the nothingness of the ‘child of man,’ who is a mere instrument in the hand of God. In this late age various ideas of the spirit prevail. A prophet like Joel goes back to the early forms of prophecy, and reproduces the ancient idea of the spirit (2* [Heb. 3"]). In other passages the lº º a permanent possession, being like the gift bestowed on one when consecrated to an oſlice (Is 61"); while in others still the spirit seems generalized into the IDivine enlightenment and guidance given to Israel through its leaders and prophets all down its history (Is 59° 63", Hag 2*). ișut amidst some variety of conception certain Faleas of the spirit always remain : the spirit is * Some scholars regard the phrase by the spirit of Jº as an explanatory gloss (Well., Nowack, etc.). The sense of nS is uncertain ; it may mean with, by the aid of, Gn 41, Job 264, or #t may be accus, sign : ‘full of power, even the spirit of J”,” lèWm. f Giesebrecht, Die Berwſsbegabung der alttest. Proph. something external to man, something Divine, something bestowed by God on man. Taking into account what has been said above of the ‘spirit,' it appears that what has been called the prophetic state varied at different times. Two periods can be distinguished, though not separated from one another by any sharp line of demarcation : the early prophetic period, and the period of the literary prophets. (I) In the early period mental excitation was common, though the excitation might be of various degrees; self-con- sciousness was not lost, and memory of what was experienced remained ; the NT rule that “the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets’ was in most cases verified. The revelation in this period often took the form of dream and vision. The OT couples these two together (Nu 129, Jl 2*[Heb. 3"). Dream and vision are not identical, but * differ chiefly in degree—the degree to which the senses are dormant, and the conscious. ness of what is external is lost, and reflective control over the operations of the mind is sus- pended. The prophets, regard their dreams and visions as something objective in the sense that they are caused by God (An 7"). But in attempt. ing to analyze the prophetic mind we must remember that dreaming and seeing a vision are forms of thinking ; the contents of the dream and vision are not objective, as things seen with the bodily eye are objective, they are creations of the mind itself. Perhaps the best idea of the pro- phetic mind in this period or in this condition might be got by reflecting on the plenomena of the dream. Now, it is in this period that the phraseology current all down the prophetic age originated, and it is the plenomena of this period that it ijiº, phraseology as ‘see,’ ‘vision,’ ‘hear,’ ‘the word of the Lord,” and such like. In this early time prophets did ‘see’ and had ‘ visions’; they did “ſhear’ the ‘word of the Lord,” just as one sees persons and things, and hears words audibly in a dream. The terms truly de- scribe the mental experiences of the prophet, and are not mere figures of speech. But in the time of the canonical prophets visions and dreams virtually ceased, though the prophetic language still remained in use. It is quite possible that in some cases the literary prophets still had visions and “heard’ words, but certainly they use the ancient phraseology in a multitude of instances when they had no such experience. Jer, alludes with aversion to the “dreams’ of the false prophets. It is possible that these dreams were in some cases real, being due to the agitations produced by the political crises of the time. If so, it is another evidence that these prophets still occupied a position which the true prophecy had long aban- doned. (2) Perhaps the best idea of the mental state of the prophet in the purest stage of prophecy would be got by considering the condition of the religious mind in earnest devotion or rapt spiritual communion with God. I’ven the earliest prophets intercede with God (Am 7, cf. Ex 32"); and Oehler has drawn attention to the fact that the con- munication of a revelation to them is often called answering’ them—the same expression as is used in regard to prayer (Mic 37, Ilab 2", Jer 23°). The prophets asseverate very strongly that it is the word of God which they speak. But it is doubtful if any psychological conclusions can be drawn from their language. For it is to the contents of their prophecies that they refer ; and though it might seem strange that they do not allude to any mental operations of their own, the analogy of the devout worshipper suggests an ex- planation. A person in earnest prayer to God and communion with Him, though his mind will certainly be profoundly exercised, when light 116 PROPHECY AND PROPHETS PROPHECY AND PROPHETS — dawns on him, or certitude is reached, or conduct becomes plain, will also feel and say with certainty that it was God who gave him the result he reached. It might be rash to say that the experi- ence of such a devout mind is perfectly analogous to that of the prophetic mind, but the analogy is probably the nearest that can be found. It may be said, therefore : (1) that the prophet's mind in revelation was not passive, but in a state of activity. Even the ‘call' to prophesy was not addressed to a mind empty or unoccupied with the interests of the nation. The ‘call ” came to the three great prophets through a vision (Is 6, Jer 1, Ezk 1), but it is recognized that the ‘vision’ contains strictly nothing new ; it is a combination of ideas and thought-images already lying in the mind. Isaiah, for example, had often thought of the Holy One of Israel, the King, previous to his vision ; he had often considered the sinfulness of the people, which he himself shared; and no doubt he had forecast the inevitable fate of the people when J" arose to shake terribly the earth. These thoughts probably occupied his mind at the moment of his call, for it came to him as he worshipped J" in the temple, and beheld His glory (cf. also Jer 1*19). either can the com- pulsion of which the prophets speak be regarded as anything playsical. Even when Amos says, “The Lord God speaks, who can but prophesy %' the constraint is only moral. And similarly when Jer. says, “Thou didst induce (or entice) me, and I was induced * (207), he refers to the conflict in his own mind described in 1°49; and even when he speaks of the word of J" being as a fire in his bones, com- belling him to speak, when, to avoid persecution, e had resolved to be silent, there is nothing more than such moral constraint as was felt by the apostles in the early days of the Church, or by one now with earnest convictions. Again, the allegation, often made, that the prophets did not understand their own oracles, can hardly be sub- stantiated. The passage 1 P 1" says that the prophets ‘searched what time or what manner of time the spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto '; but first, it speaks of the prophets as a body, and of the spirit common to them all. It does not say that any prophet searched his own prophecies. The apostle probably generalizes the instance referred to in Dn 9°, where Daniel searches the prophecies of Jeremiah. Purther, the point to which the search was directed was the time or 'manner of time, nothing else. And this point, if indicated at all, was indicated so obscurely that it had to be inferred from the other contents of the prophecy (cf. Mt. 24*). (2) The kind of operation of the prophetic mind when reaching or perceiving truth was intuition. In the early times of pro- phecy the excitation or comparative ecstasy was common. This elevated condition of the intuitive mind was natural to an Oriental people, and in an early age. It was a thing particularly natural when truth was new ; when convictions regarding God, and man's duty in moments of great per- sonal responsibility or national trial, were for the first time breaking on the human mind. Dut, on the other hand, it is equally natural that as prophecy became more regular and acquired the character of a stable institution, such accom- paniments of revelation in the mind would gradu- ally disappear. And the same effect would follow from the gradual accumulation of religious truths. These were no longer altogether new. As funda- mental verities they had entered into the conscious- ness of the nation. What was new was only the ... of them to the particular crisis in the individual’s life or the nation’s history, or that further expansion of them needful in order to make them applicable. But this was always new. at what point the Divine begins to operate. --- No truth uttered by a prophet has attained the rank of a maxim of reflection or a deduction from prior truths. The prophet never comes before men inferring. His mind operates in another way. The truth reached is always a novelty to him, so that he feels it to be an immediate communication from God. But it is vain to speculate how the Divine mind coalesces with the human, or to ask Some have argued that the operation was dynamical, that is, an intensification of the faculties of the mind, enabling it thus to reach higher truth. Others regard the Divine operation as of the nature of suggestion of truth to the mind. What is to be held, at all events, is that revelation was not the communication of abstract or general religious ideas to the intellect of the prophet. His whole religious mind was engaged. He entered into the fellowship of God, his mind occupied with all his own religious interests and all those of the people of God; and his mind thus operating, he reached the practical truth relevant to the occasion. iii. THE FALSE PROPHETS. — Reference has already been made in the historical sketch to the so-called false prophets, but the phenomenon of false prophecy has points of connexion also with the º mind. A hard-and-fast line of de- marcation between true and false prophecy can hardly be drawn. The fact that prophecy was the embodiment of a religious-national spirit accounts for what is called false prophecy. When the spirit that animated the prophet pursued pre- dominantly national ends, he was a false prophet ; when the ends pursued were religious º ethical the prophet was true, because in the religion of J” th. national was transient, and the ethical abiding. In early times men everywhere felt the nearness of the supernatural ; the Divine, with its mani- festations, was all about them. Those who seemed or who professed themselves to be inspired were accepted as being so (cf. the reception given to Ehud by the king of Moab, Jg 3*). The spirit of the time was not critical ; it was reverent, or, as we might now say, credulous. In the first contlict which we read of between true and false prophecy (1 K 22) the 400 prophets of Ahab were false and Micaiah true, but Micaiah did not consider the pre- tensions to inspiration of his opponent Zedekiah to be false. He was inspired, but it was by a lying spirit from the Lord (I K22*, *). This lying spirit was put by J" in the mouth of the prophets of Ahab that they might entice him to his destruc- tion. The explanation given by Ezekiel (Ezk 13. 14) is similar: J" deceives the pº that He may destroy him and his dupes alike (14"). But J”s deception of the prophets in order to destroy them and those who consult them is in punish- ment of previous evil (1 K 22°, Ezk 14*, 2 S 24'). A profounder conception of the ethical nature of J", and a dislike to regard Him as the author of evil (cf. 2 S 24, with 1 Ch 21'), combined perhaps with a more critical judgment of their contem- poraries, led others to a different explanation. To Jeremiah the false prophet is not inspired by a lying spirit from J", he is not inspired at all. He speaks out of his own heart, and has not been sent (Jer 231%. 21. *, *). Micah goes further and analyzes the prophet's motives: he speaks what men wish to hear (2", cf. Is 3010"), and for interested ends—“When they have something to chew with their teeth they cry, Peace; but whoso putteth not into their mouth, they preach war against him ' (3°). And the priest Amaziah (Am 7”) seems to have formed his idea of the prophets as a whole from this class. There are several kinds of false prophecy of little interest except as casting light on the re- PROPHECY AND PROPHETS PROPHECY AND PROPHETS 117 º condition of the people, e.g. prophecy by other gods than J", a thing perhaps not very preva- lent in the prophetic age; and prophecy as a professional means of gaining a living. There were persons who assumed the hairy mantle and affected prophetic phraseology, ne’ám J", “saith J” (cf. Jer 23* yin'âmſ, ne’ām, Ezk 13%. 7), apparently for the sake of bread (Mic 3°). It was customary to bring, presents to the seers and prophets in ancient times when people consulted d. (I S 98, 1 K 14°, 2 K 8* ; cf. Nu 227), and the practice not unnaturally, led to deterioration in the prophetic class. But in relation to the question of the “pro- phetic mind, whe only ‘false’ .# of interest is that which we see among prophets all professedly and alike prophets of J". Men who alike regarded 3rophetic truth as something revealed by J" in the heart, are found not infrequently to give forth as the word of J" conflicting judgments. They advised contrary steps in a political emergency, or they predicted diverse issues in regard to some enterprise on which they were consulted. Ahab's 400 said, “Go up to Ramoth-gilead, for J’ shall deliver it into the hand of the king’; but Micaiah said, ‘I saw all Israel scattered upon the mountains’ (1 K 22**"). Jer, predicted that the Chaldaean suprem- acy would last 70 years, while Hananiah prophesied that in two years' time the exiles would return, with Jehoiachin at their head (Jer 28). To us now, with our ideas of the prophet, and looking back to him as a great isolated and almost miraculous personage, divinely accredited, two things seem surprising, first, that any one should suppose him- self a true prophet of J" who was not ; and, second, that the people failed to discriminate between the true and the false. As to the first point, it is very difficult to discover on what plane of religious attainment those called false prophets stood, and what kind of consciousness they had. Evidently, they had lofty conceptions of J" in some of His attributes. These were perhaps more His natural attributes, such as His power, than those of His moral being. It is here perhaps that the point of difference lies —J" was not to them absolutely or greatly a moral being, He was a natural force, and His operation in a way magical : they thought His mere presence in the temple guaranteed its inviola- bility. They were Jehovists, but J" was to them greatly a symbol of nationality, and they were fervid nationalists. Such feelings coloured their outlook into the future, making them the optimists that they were, always crying, Peace and Safety Further, in whatever way the true prophet was assured that he spoke the word of J", the evidence was internal. He had the witness in himself. It was a consciousness, something positive, but not negative. The person who wanted it had no con- sciousness of the want. The case is similar to, if not identical with, what is still familiar in religious experience. As to the second point, the people's failure to discriminate between the true and false prophets, it is evident that they had no criterion by which to decide. There was usually nothing in the mere prophecy or prediction on one side or the other to carry conviction. They had to bring the criterion with them in their own minds, i.e. to go back to the principles on which the prophecy was based— He that is of the truth heareth my words. The condition of the people's mind can be observed in Jer 18*. Here we see that the º believed in lº is the word of J", and in their prophets; Put Jeremiah, who contradicted these prophets, they considered a deceiver and no lover of his country. Their state of mind appears even more clearly from Jer 28. Hananiah predicted that the WXile would be over in two years, while Jeremiah said it would last two generations. Naturally, the people gave their voice for Hananiah, and for the moment Jeremiah was put to silence. There were Several things which it has been supposed might have served as external criteria of true prophecy: (1) the prophetic ecstasy ; (2) miracle; and (3) fulfil. ment of the prediction. . But all these things when used as tests to discriminate between one prophet and another were liable to fail. (1) The ecstasy in greater or less degree was a thing natural to an Oriental people; in the early prophetic period it was common; it was, however, no essential element in prophecy. It was no evi. dence that a prophet was true, neither was it any evidence that he was false, though if evidence at all it was rather evidence that he was false, at least in later times, for in the ethical prophecy of the 8th century it rarely appears. Ewald, indeed, has observed that the ecstasy was liable to be a Source of false prophecy, for one subject to such a condition might think himself inspired by J" when he was not. (2) Miracle might certainly be an evidence and test of true, prophecy, e.g., in the conditions pro- posed by Elijah at Carmel ; but such conditions were rarely possible. In the OT miracle means wonder; it is something extraordinary, nothing more. The force of a miracle to us, arising from our notion of Law, would not be felt by a ſiebrew, because he had no notion of natural law. Further, the ancient mind was reverent, or superstitious, and felt itself surrounded by superhuman powers. It was not J" alone or His servants that could work wonders; the magicians in Egypt also did so (Ex 7”. * 87). Again, even when J” empowered one to give a sign or Wonder, the meaning of the wonder might be ambiguous. In Dt 13", a prophet is supposed per- mitted to work a miracle at the same time that he advocates worship of other gods than J"; but the miracle so far from authenticating him as true has quite another purpose : it is to prove the people whether they love J" with all their heart. To one who knows and loves Jº no miracle will authenticate another god. And to all this has to be added the fact that from Amos downwards miracle plays hardly any part in the history of prophecy (though cf. Is 7" 387"), while it was just in the last days of the kingdom of Judah that false prophecy was most prevalent. (3) The test of fulfilment of the prophetic word is proposed in I)t 18”. But this criterion was one which was serviceable less to individuals than to the people, whose life was continuous and extended. As a guide to the conduct of individuals at the moment when the prediction was uttered it could be of little service. Occasionally predictions were made which had reference to the near future, as when Micaiah predicted Ahab's defeat at Ramoth-gilead, or when Jeremiah foretold the death of Hananiah within the year. But usually the prophecies bore upon the destinies of the State, and had reference to a somewhat indefinite future. This peculiarity per- plexed men's minds, and led to the despair or the disparagement of prophecy. They said, ‘The days are prolonged, and every vision faileth’; or if they did not go so far they said of the prophet, ‘The vision that he seeth is for many days to come, and he prophesieth of the times that are far off (Ezk 12*). While, therefore, in the prolonged life of the people the event might ultimately be seen to justify the prophet (Ezk 2'), some more immediate test was necessary for the guidance of the indi- vidual. Such a test is proposed by Jeremiah. The test lies in the relation of the prophecy to the moral condition of the people. The prophet who predicts disaster and judgment needs no further authenti. cation : the nature of his prophecy proves him true; the prophet who prophesies peace, let the event justify him (Jer 28*"). The interesting I18 PROPHECY AND PROPHETS PROPHECY AND PROPHETS thing in all this is that so far as religious certitude was concerned the people of Israel were exactly in the same position as ourselves. Neither the super- natural nor anything else will produce conviction apart from moral conditions of the mind. This is perhaps a truism because the conviction required was not mere intellectual belief, but religious faith in a person and in His word. False prophets are defined to be those by whom J" did not speak, and true prophets those by whom He spoke. The definition is true on both its sides, and there are instances when nothing more can be said. But usually it is possible to go a step further back. The opposite way of stating the point has also a truth in it : J” did not speak by certain prophets because they were false. His speaking or not speaking was not a mere occur- rence, isolated and in no connexion with the previous mind of the . and their religious principles. It is extremely difficult to realize the condition of people's minds at any time in Israel. There were many planes of religious attainment. There were worshippers of other gods than J"; and there were those who combined J" and other gods in their worship (Zeph 1). There were wor- shippers of J" to whom J" was little more than a symbol of their nationality. There were wor- shippers of J" who, in addition to regarding Him as the impersonation of their nationality, ascribed to Him lofty natural attributes, such as power, but who reflected little if at all on the moral aspects of His being. And there were those to whom the moral overshadowed all else, and who regarded J" as the very impersonation of the moral idea. Scholars will dispute how far moral concep- tions of J" prevailed among the people from the first, and also how much moral tºg Was set before them at the beginning. But the great lesson-book in which thoughtful men read was the national history and fortunes. This was written by the finger of God. In the prosperous days after David little advance might be made ; men settled on their lees. But by and by God sent unto them ‘them that pour off’ (Jer 481*). The disasters suffered in the obstinate Syrian wars from Omri on wards awoke the conscience of men, revealing the nature of J", and directing the eye to the national sores; for at all times hº disaster and internal miseries were felt to be due to the displeasure of God (2 S 211", 2418, 1 K 17"). Thus, though history casts little light on its growth, there arose a society educated in the things of God, and it was out of this society that the true prophets were called ; for the idea that the breadth and wealth of religious and moral conceptions in a prophet like Amos were all supplied to him by revelation after his call, will º be maintained. Those who stood on a lower plane were not suited for the purposes of J", and He did not speak by them. They came forward in His name, but it was mainly national impulses that inspired them. There are three lines on which Jeremiah opposes the other prophets: the political, the moral, and the personal. (1) The il. or national prophets desired that Israel should take its place among the nations as one of them ; be a warlike State, ride on horses, build fenced cities, and when in danger seek alliances abroad. Jeremiah and the true prophets instead of all these things recommend quiet con- fidence and trust in J” (Is 7" 177). (2) The national prophets had not a stringent morality. Jeremiah tºlia::ges some of them with being immoral (Jer 23*). But what characterized them all was a superficial judgment of the moral condition of the nation, which was but the counterpart of their inadequate conception of the moral being of J". The condition of society did not strike them as at all desperate. Hence they preached 1’eace, and _h. healed the hurt of the people slightly. On the other hand, the words of Micah, ‘ I am full of power to declare to Jacob his transgressions’ (3°), might be taken as the motto of every true prophet. It is possible, even true, that the demands of the true 3rophets were ideal, that they could not be realized in an earthly community, that it was the spirit of the future yet to be that was reflecting itself in their hearts—a future that even to us is still to be ; and it is not impossible that the people felt this, and passed by their words as impossible of realization (Jer 2*)—a very lovely song of one that hath a pleasant voice (Ezk 33”). (3) With his tendency to introspection Jeremiah analyzes his own mind ; and that naïve feeling of former pro- phets, that they spoke the word of J", is to him a distinct element of consciousness. He knows that he stands in the council of J", and he is certain that the false prophets have not his experience (23*, *). He does not hesitate to go further and assert that those prophets whom he opposes are conscious that they have no true fountain of in- spiration within them. Their prophetic manner, ‘saith J",’ is aftectation (23*), and there is nothing personal in the contents of their oracles, which they steal every one from his neighbour (23°). The prophets of this time speak of their “dreams,’ and it is possible that the crisis in the nation's history agitated then and produced mental ex- citation ; but it is evident that they represented a phase of prophecy which had long been overcome. It is strange that, from the days of Micaiah ben Imlah under Ahab down to the fall of the Judaean State, no change seems to have taken place in the position and principles either of the true prophets or of the false. C. THE TEACIIING OF THE PROPEIETS. —The idea of the ‘prophet,” one who speaks from God (B. i.), leaves a very extended spliere of action to the prophet. The prophet is always a man of his own time, and it is always to the people of his own time that he speaks, not to a generation long after, nor to us. And the things of which he speaks will always be things of importance to the people of his own day, whether they be things belonging to their internal life and conduct, or things aflecting their external fortunes as a people among other peoples. And as he speaks to the mind and con- sciousness of the people before him, he speaks always with a view to influence it. On many, perhaps on all occasions, the most powerful means of exerting an influence on the mind of his time may be what he is able to reveal to it of the future, whether the future be full of mercy or of judg- ment ; but whether he speaks of the present or the future the direct and conscious object of the pro- phet is to influence the people of his own genera- tion. For this purpose the prophet reviews, not only the forces . tendencies operating in his own nation, but all the forces, moral and national, operating in the great world outside (Jer 1"). Influenced partly by the great apologetic use made of the prophecies in the NT, interpreters were for long accustomed to lay almost exclusive stress upon the predictive element in prophecy, so that prophecy and prediction were considered things iºd. The function of the prophet was supposed to be to predict the Messiah and the things of His kingdom ; and the use of the pro- phecies was to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, or more generally to show the supernaturalness of revelation. However legitimate such a use of the prophecies may be, modern interpreters have rightly felt that it failed to take into account a very large part of their contents. The religious and moral teaching of the |. was overlooked. Ilence in modern times a diflerent view has arisen, to the effect that the function of the prophet was PROPHECY AND PROPHETS PROPHECY AND PROPHETS 119 to teach moral and religious truth. But this view is equally one-sided with the other. To us now to whom the apologetic use of prophecy has become kess necessary, the moral teaching of the prophets may seem the most important thing in their pro- phecies. But if any prophetic book be examined, such as Amos or Hos 4–14, or any of the complete prophetic discourses contained in a prophet's book, such as Is 1. 5. 6. 2–4, it will appear that the ethical and religious teaching is always secondary, and that the essential thing in the book or dis- course is the prophet’s outlook into the future. The burden of the teaching of all the great canonical prophets is : (1) that the downfall of the State is imminent ; (2) that it is J" who is destroying it ; and (3) that the nation which shall overthrow it, be it Assyria or Babylon, is the instrument of J", the rod of His anger, raised up !. Him to execute His purpose. And the pro- phet's religious teaching regarding the nature of J", and the duty and sin of the people, is sub- ordinate, and meant to sustain his outlook into the future and awaken the mind of the people to the truth of it (cf. above A. iii. 3). This may be said also of such a NT prophet as John the Baptist, and in a sense even of our Lord. The Baptist’s theme was, The kingdom of heaven is at hand; and his ethical teaching, Repent Bring forth fruits meet for repentance 1 was designed to prepare men for entering into the kingdom. And our Lord’s theme was the same, the coming of the kingdom of God ; and His moral teaching, such as the Sermon on the Mount, was intended to show the nature of the kingdom and the condition of mind necessary to inherit it. Of course, the outlook of the prophets was not bounded by the downfall of the State. Their outlook embraces also that which lies beyond, for the great events transacting around them, 3. all moral interpositions of J", seem to them always to issue in the coming in of the per- fect kingdom of God ; and this final condition of the people is virtually their chief theme. i. GENERAL TEACHING.—In general, the prophets may be characterized as religious idealists, who appealed directly to the spirit in man; who set the truth before men and exhorted them to follow it, not out of constraint, but in freedom of spirit, because it was good, and the will of their God. They never dreamed of legislative compulsion. The law recognized by Amos is the law of right- eousness and humanity written on all men's hearts, whether Jew or heathen ; the law of Hosea is the law of love to Him who had loved the º and called His son out of Egypt. The ºp nets really occupied the Christian position ; they demanded with St. Paul that men’s conduct and life should be the free expression of the spirit within them, a spirit to be formed and guided by the fellowship of God and the thankful remembrance of His redemption wrought for them. Later prophets perceive that man's spirit must be determined by an operation of God, who will write His law on it (Jer 31*), or who will put His own spirit within him as the impulsive principle of his life (Is 32", Ezk 36”). Hence ritual º, no place in the º teaching, that which is moral alone has any meaning. No doubt the prophets assail abuses in ritual worship as well as in social life, and men more pººl than they embody their rinciples in legislative form, for the prophets, instead of being mere expounders of the Law, are indirectly the authors of the Law ; but when this legislation, even though an embodiment of pro- phetic teaching, is elevated by authority into State or ecclesiastical law, however necessary the step might be, it is a descent from the NT position occupied by the prophets. The special teaching of the individual prophets —n is treated under their respective names. Here only two or three general points can be alluded to. (1) The Fº all teach that J" alone is God of Israel, and that He is a moral Being,whose accept- able service is a religious and righteous life (Mic (38), and not mere ritual (Hos 69, Is 110m, Jer 731ſr. , 1 S 15*). Questions have been raised whether in these Fº the prophets follow a law, such as the Deca. ogue, or whether the moral Decalogue be not, in fact, a concentration of their teaching. All classes of the people agreed with the pº that J” was the particular God of Israel, but a theoretical monotheistic, faith cannot have prevailed among the mass of the people. Such a faith, though only informally and indirectly enunciated by then, evidently prevailed among the prophets from Elijah downwards; but how much older the belief may be and how widely it was entertained among the people, the very scanty history scarcely enables us to determine. Perhaps too much stress may be laid on the value, º in early times of simple thought, of an abstract monotheism. What was important was the nature of J", the closeness of relation to Him which conditioned human life, and the worshipper’s feeling that He was his God; whether other beings to be called gods existed, and were served by the nations, was practically of little moment. Even the polytheism of the heathen Sometimes came practically near to monotheism. Worshippers usually devoted themselves to one out of the many gods known in their country; they usually, therefore, thought of him as god alone, and gradually assigned all the distinctive attributes of other deities, i.e. virtually of deity, to him. And one can conceive how particularism or monolatry, the idea that J" was the particular God of Israel and of Israelites, may have had in a rude age an educative and religious influence which an abstract monotheism might not have exerted. To it may be greatly due that extraordinary sense of the presence of J" in the people's history and the individuals life, that personal intimacy with God, characteristic of OT religion. So far as the worship of J" is concerned, it is re- markable that Elijah, though contending against Baal worship, is not said to have assailed the calves. The history of Elijah is a fragment, and it may be precarious to draw conclusions from the historian's silence. . Even Amos does not refer formally to the calves ; he condemns the ritual worship as a whole, and threatens with destruction the seats of calf- worship ; and his condemnation of the whole prob- ably applies to the details; at least it is wholly inept to infer that he saw no evil in the calves. Hosea is the first to condemn them expressly, and in Judah Isaiah in like manner often assails images (Is?” 17°). When the early prophets assail the worship at the high places, it is the nature of the worship that they attack, not the multiplicity of altars. I3ut Jer. and Ezek., along with Deut., go further, and condemn the high places themselves; they are Canaanite and heathen (I)t 12°, Jer 27, Ezk 20°7").” The prophets’ attacks on sacrifice are in opposition to the exaggerated worth assigned to ritual by the people. Their position is not, as is often said, that sacriſice without a righteous life is an abomination to J", but rather this: that sacrifice as a substitute for a righteous life is an abomination. . It is a question of service of J”; and J" desires a righteous life so much more than sacrifice, that. He may be said not to desire sacrifice at all (Hos 6"). (2) Though the prophets use the word “covenant’ little down to the time of Deut. and Jer., the idea they express of the relation of J" and Israel is the same. J” says in Au, 3° ‘You only have I known of all the * In Mic 15 LXX reads “sin of Judah' for “high places of Judah.” I2O PROPHECY AND PROPHIETS PROPHECY AND PROPHIETS families of the earth.” J"'s choice of Israel was a conscious, historical act. With this all the pro- phets agree. No motive is assigned for the choice, and no purpose to be served by Israel thus chosen is referred to. In Amos for all that appears, the choice of Israel is virtually an act of what is called sovereignty. In Hosea the act is regarded as due to J"'s love (11"). This makes the act moral, and explains it, though the love itself is necessarily in- explicable. In Deut, the love is denied to be due to anything in Israel, and seems just explained by itself (l)t 7°). In Isaiah the idea of a purpose had in view in the choice begins to appear. J" is the universal sovereign, and His making of Israel His people was in order that He might be recognized as God and alone exalted (2*). In Isaiah sin is insensibility to J", the King, levity and self- exaltation; and religion is recognition of J" and His benefits, a constant consciousness of Him and trust in Him. While Jer. shares Isaiah’s idea of what true religion is (9°), he speaks of Israel being chosen ‘ that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a glory.” In other words, Israel was chosen that by its character it might reflect moral fame upon its God, that is, make known J" to the world of men, if not by active operations, by showing in its own character the nature of its God. The prophet of Is 40 ft. often expresses the same idea (43° 44*), but he adds to it the conception of an active operation of Israel in making J" known to the nations (Is 42°49'-'60*). This is the highest generalization regarding Israel’s place in the religious history of mankind, and the purpose of J" in its election. (3) The prophets address themselves to the nation; but in appealing to the whole they appeal to each individual, though no doubt specially to those whose conduct is influential in shaping the destiny of the whole. J" chose a nation because His idea of mankind, of which He will be God, is that of a social organism. It is this organism of which He is God. But though the relation might seem to be with the ideal unity, it operated in dis. posing all the parts making up the unity rightly to one another. And in this way each individual felt J" to be his God. It is absurd to argue that the nationalism of OT religion excluded individual religion. But the later prophets feel that a true social organism can be created only out of true individual members, and they begin to construct a whole out of single persons. Many things united to work in this direction. The nation no longer existed, but the individuals remained, and J" and religion remained. Moreover, personal piety, such as was seen most conspicuously in Jer., but was not confined to him, was a great creative force ; the sense of relation to God made powerful men, and the sense of the relation in common united them. teſlexion also did something. Ezekiel saw the practical need of reconstructing a people, and re- cognized this to be his task. He felt himself in a certain way a Pastor with a care of individual souls. And he saw the need of creating independ- ent individual personalities by disentangling them from the national whole and its doom—“All souls are mine, saith J"; as the soul of the father so also the soul of the son.” But, however individualistic the operations of the prophets of this, age were, they never abandon the idea of founding a new social organism. Individualism is but the neces- 'sary stage towards this. J" is God of mankind, not of an inorganic mass of individual men. ii. PrºdicTIVE PROPHECY.—As the prophets are absorbed in the destinies of the kingdom of God, it will be chiefly momenta in its history and de- vglopment and its final condition that will form the subject of their predictions. They will have little occasion to refer to the future of individuals, –& —N or to predict events in their history. There are instances: e.g. Samuel predicted some things that would happen to Saul, which the history declares did happen (1 S 9. 10). Jer, predicted the death of Hananiah within the year, which took place (Jer 28). But most of the predictions relate to the history of the State and its destinies. Micaiah predicted the defeat and death of Ahab at Ikamoth- gilead (1 K 22). Isaiah predicted the failure of the Northern coalition to subdue Jerusalem (Is 7); he also predicted the overthrow in two or three years of Damascus and Northern Israel before the Assy- rians (Is 8. 17). In like manner he predicted the failure of Sennacherib to capture Jerusalem; while, on the other hand, Jer, predicted the failure of the Egyptians to relieve Jerusalem when besieged by Nebuchadnezzar. And in general, apart from de- tails, the main predictions of the prophets regarding Israel and the nations were verified in history (e.g. Am l. 2). The chief predictions of the prophets relate (1) to the imminent downfall of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah ; (2) to what lies beyond this, viz. the restoration of the kingdom of God ; and (3) to the state of the people in their condition of final felicity. To the last belong the Messianic predictions. It is Israel, the kingdom and people of God, that is properly the subject of prophecy, but other nations are involved in its history ; e.g. Assyria is the instrument in the hand of J" in humiliating Israel, and Babylon is the obstacle which has to be removed before its Restoration, and thus these kingdoms and others become also the subject of prophecy. 1. Prediction in general.—There are two ques- tions in connexion with prophetic prediction which have given rise to discussion : first, how are the prophetic anticipations as to the future to be ex- plained ? and second, what is the explanation of the prophet's feeling that the events which he predicts, e.g. the downfall of the State, the coming of the day of the Lord, and the inbringing of the perfect kingdom of God, are inminent 2. As to the first point, it must be obvious that the pro- phetic anticipations or certainties cannot be ex- plained as the conclusions of a shrewd political insight into the condition of the people or the nations at the time. Neither can the anticipa- tions of the nation’s dissolution be the mere essimistic forebodings of a declining and ex- nausted age, for the material and political con- dition of the North in the time of Amos, and of the South in the early days of Isaiah, was not such as to suggest such gloomy outlook. And least of all can it be pretended that the predic- tions are only apparent, being, in fact, Written post eventum. It has been suggested that the human mind, or at any rate some rarely endowed minds, possess a faculty of presentiment or divina- tion, and that it is to this faculty that the pro- phet’s anticipations or certainties in regard to the occurrence of future events are due. Certainly, belief in the possession of such a faculty by peculiarly gifted persons has been prevalent in different ages and among different peoples, but anything like scientific proof of the existence of the faculty has probably never been offered. , t would be remarkable if such a large number oš persons as the prophets of Israel should all e endowed with this extraordinary faculty. And it would be even more strange if a faculty of this kind, the operation of which appears to be blind and unrational, should be found to manifest itself So generally just in the purest º of prophecy, at the time when prophecy had thrown off all naturalistic and physical characteristics and be. come purely ethical. Probably, if any one of the data of this supposed faculty of presentiment were analyzed, it would be found to be the result of a F7 PROPHECY AND PROPHETS PROPHECY AND PROPHETS 121 complex process. There would be, first, a peculiar temperament, suggesting events sad or joyous ; then certain facts presented to the mind, and then the unconscious operation of the mind on these facts, the whole resulting in the presentiment or vaticination. There may be obscure capacities in the mind not yet explored ; and there may be sympathetic rapports of human nature with the greater nature around, and of man's mind with the moral mind of the universe, which give results by unconscious processes; and if there be such faculties and relations, then we may assume that they would also enter into prophecy, for there is nothing common or unclean in the nature of man. In point of fact such presentiments as we can observe to be authentic are chiefly products of the conscience or moral reason; and Jer., as has been said, insists that true prophecy in general is based on moral grounds and consists of moral judgments. And certainly all the prophets, in analyzing their intuitions of the future and laying them before the people, usually present them in the form of a moral syllogism. Thus Mic 3", after enumerating the misdeeds and oppressions of the heads of the house of Israel says, “Therefore on your account shall Zion be plowed like a field.’ And Is 5*, having described the luxuriousness and ungodly levity of his day, says, “Therefore hath hell en- larged her maw.” Everywhere the menacing future is connected with the evil past by there- fore.” Cf. Am l. 2. The other question, How is it that the prophets bring in the consummation and final perfection of the kingdom of God immediately on the back of the great events in the history of the people and the nations taking place in their own day ? may not be susceptible of a single answer. (1) An explanation has been sought in what is called the perspective of prophecy. Just as one looking on a mountainous region sees a hill which appears to rise up close behind another, but when he approaches nearer he finds the second to have receded a great way from it ; so the prophet sees great events close behind one another, though in history and time they are far apart. This is an illustration, but no explanation. The explanation is usually found in the theory of prophetic vision. But in the literary prophets, vision in any strict sense has little place. The prophetic perception, however, was of the nature of intuition, and some- thing of the peculiarity referred to may be due to this. (2) In the period of the canonical prophets it is less events that suggest religious ideas and hopes than ideas already won that explain events. The prophets are not now learning principles, but applying them. Their minds are full of religious ...}}. and certainties, such as the certainty of a reign of righteousness upon the earth ; and Riehm has suggested that it is their eager expectations and earnest longings that make them feel the consummation to be at hand. (3) Another point may be suggested. It is only in general amidst convulsions that rend society that the prophets come forward. These convulsions and revolutions were the operation of J", and His operations had all one end in view, the bringing in of His king- dom, and thus to the prophets these great move- ments seemed the heralds of the full manifestation * The arguments by which Giesebrecht, Berufsbegabwmg, 13 ff., gupports the theory of a ‘faculty of presentiment' have little cogency. This faculty is supposed to reveal itself particularly on the approach of death (Gn 27.49). The contemporaries of most great religious personages have attributed to them a rophetic gift. The answer of John lónox to those who credited #. with such a gift is worth reading : “My assurances are not marvels of Merlin, nor yet the dark sentences of profane pro- Shecy. But, first, the plain truth of God's word, 80cond, the invincible justice of the everlasting God, and third, the ordinary course of His punishments and plagues from the beginning, are my assurances and grounds.' il. p. 277 (Guthrie's ed.). of J". For the movements had all moral signi. ficance : they were a judgment on His people, which would so change them as to lead into the final salvation (Is 2.jr. iii. 30.or. 31*), or they were the judgment of the world, removing the obstacle to the coming of His kingdom (Is 40 ft.); and thus the present and the final were organically connected, the chain was formed of moral links. Further, the prophets appear to entertain and operate with general conceptions. Israel is not merely a people, it is the people of God. Babylon is not only a hostile nation, it is the idolatrous world. . The conflict between them in the age of Cyrus is a conflict of principles, of Jehovism and idolatry, of truth and falsehood, of good and evil. It is not a conflict having great moral significance, it has absolute significance, and is final: ‘Ashamed, confounded, are all of them that are makers of graven images; Israel is saved with an everlasting salvation' (Is 45"). 2. Messianic Prophecy.—The term Messianic is used in a wider and a narrower sense. In the wider sense the term is virtually equivalent to Eschatological, and comprehends all that relates to the consummation and perfection of the kingdom and people of God. In the narrower sense it refers to a personage, the Messiah, who is, not always, but often, a commanding figure in this perfect con- dition of the kingdom. The conception of a final condition of mankind could . have arisen before a general idea of the nature of the human economy had been reached. Insight into the meaning of human history, however, was not attained in Israel by reflection on the life of mankind, but by tº: of the nature of God. God was the real maker of human history. Hence, when so broad a view as that of human life or history as a whole is taken, it is, so to speak, secondary : it is a reflection of the view taken of God, of His Being, and therefore of what the issue will be when He realizes Himself in the history and life of mankind. So soon as the conception of the perfect ethical Being of J" was reached, there ... not but immediately follow the idea also that human history, which was not so much under His providence as His direct opera- tion, would eventuate in a kingdom of righteous- ness which would embrace all mankind. The way, no doubt, in which this is conceived is that this kingdom of righteousness is first realized in Israel, and that through Israel it extends to all mankind —for the nations come to Israel's light (Is 60). But it is the unity of God that suggests to men's minds the unity of mankind ; and the moral being of God that suggests the moral perfection of man- kind. And such ideas hardly prevailed before the prophetic age. The Messianic in the narrower sense is part of the general doctrine of the Eschatology of the kingdom (see ESCIIATOLOGY). The ‘Messianic' in this sense is hardly a distinct thing or hope. The Messiah is not an independent ſigure, unlike all other figures or personages, and higher than they ; on the contrary, He is always some actual histori. cal ſigure idealized. The term means ‘anointed,’ and only two personages received anointing—the king, and possibly the priest ; though no doubt the term “anointed was used more generally in later times (Ps 105"). The OT is occupied with two subjects—Jehovah and the people, and the relation between them. The Eschatological per- fection is the issue of a redemptive movement. Now, the only redeemer of His people is J"—salva: tion belongeth unto the Lord. The Eschatological perfection is always due to . His operation—the perfection consists in His perfect presence among His people, for the idea of salvation is the fellow- ship of God and naen. But, on the other hand 122 PROPHECY AND PROPHETS PROPHECY AND PROPHETS the people are not passive. The goal is set before them, and they strive towards it. J" awakens ideals in their mind, and aspirations after then) ; and in contrast to such ideals the imperfections of the present are felt, and an effort made to overcome them. But it is characteristic of the redemptive operations of J" that He influences the people and leads them forward, through great personages whom He raises up among them. Such persons are different in different ages—judges, prophets, kings, and the like. These He enlightens so that they give the people knowledge, or He endows them by His spirit with kingly attributes, so that they govern the people aright (Is 11* 28° 32'"), and lead them on to the final perfection. But J" always remains the Saviour; and if there be any mediatorial personage it is J" in him, the Divine in him, that saves. Naturally, the most exalted and influential personage is the king; he has the people wholly in his hand; the ideal is that he reigns in righteousness and secures peace (Is 32*). The Messiah is mainly the ideal King. Thus the Eschatological perfection may be supposed reached in two ways: first, J” the only Saviour may come in person to abide among His people for ever. In the earlier prophets His coming is called the day of the Lord—a day of judgment, and eternal salva- tion behind the judgment. What precise concep- tion the prophets formed of the coming of J" may not be easy to determine. But it was not merely a coming in wonderful works, or in the word of His lººp. or in a spiritual influence upon the people's minds, it was something objective and personal. In later prophets, such as Ezek. and the post-exile prophets, it was a coming to His temple; and when He comes Jerusalem is called Jehovah Shammah, “the Lord is there” (Ezk 48*, Hag 27", Mal 3'). Examples of such representations are Is 40” “The Lord cometh with might, his arm ruling for him ; the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together,’ and Ps 102*, *, *. But, secondly, sometimes the mani- festation of J" is not considered immediate and in erson : He is manifested in the Davidic king. The Davidic king may then be called Immanwel, “God with us,’ and El Gibbor, ‘God mighty’ (Is 7.9. 11). In NT both these classes of passages {UTC º in a Messianic sense. To NT writers Christ had approved Himself as God mani- fest in the flesh, and even such passages as were spoken by the OT writer of J" are regarded as fulfilled in Him and spoken of Him, for no dis- tinction was drawn between these two things (e.g. Is 401-11 in Mk 12, Ps 102 in He 110m.). (a) The Monarchy. —J" is represented at all times as Saviour; and this idea is of special im- portance, because it lays the foundation for both the work and person of the Messiah, as the word is ordinarily used. I)uring the monarchy the prominent figure in the salvation of the people or in ruling it when saved by J" is the Davidic king. The true king of Israel is J": Israel is the king- dom of God; and this is a general eschatological idea, suggesting what the kingdom will be when it is fully realized and J" truly reigns (Ps 96–99). But it is the Davidic monarchy that is Messianic in the narrower sense. This unites two lines—the Divine and the human. The Davidic king is the representative of J’; truly to represent Him, J" Himself, the true king, must be in him and manifest Himself through him (Is 9** 11*). But, on the other hand, both David and his rule were suggestive. (1) He was himself a devout worshipper of J", endowed with the spirit of the º and the fear of the Lord (Is 11°). (2) He subdued the peoples and extended the limits of his kingdom till for that age it might be called an empire, suggesting the universality of the kingdom of God (Ps 28 728ſ, Zec 919). (3) His rule was just and the end of his reign peaceful, suggesting the idea of a ruler perfectly righteous, and a reign of peace (2 S ...}. 90-72, Mic 5", l’s 72%. 7, Zee 919). (4) l'inally, he founded a dynasty, which suggested the idea of the perpetuity of the rule of his house over the kingdom of J" (Is 97, Ps 72°). Such points may not have struck men's minds in David's own age, but in later and less happy times, when his reign was idealized, they were noticed, and entered into the conception of the future king and kingdom of J". The promise given by Nathan to David takes up the first and fourth of these points —the close relation between J" and those of David’s house who shall sit upon the throne, and the per- petuity of the rule of his family (2 S 7”). This promise is the basis of all subsequent prophecy regarding the Davidic king. Such passages as Ps 2 take up the promise, ‘I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son,’ while the }. phecies Is 7–11 are founded on the promise, “Thy throne shall be established for ever.’ It was during the Syro-Ephraimitic war (B.C. 735 f.) that the idea of a special future king of 1)avid’s house was expressed by Isaiah. The Northern coalition meditated the deposition of the Davidic dynasty, but the prophet's faith in the promises given to David enabled him to foresee that though his house should share the humiliations of the people and be cut down to the ground, yet out of the root of Jesse a new shoot would arise on whom the spirit of the Lord would rest (Is 11). From this time forward there is a special Messianic hope, that is, the hope of an extraordinary king out of the house of 1)avid. This hope, though in some periods not referred to, continues to prevail to the end of the people’s history. Subsequent prophets repeat, but add little to, Isaiah’s ideas, e.g. Mic 4.5 (though the age of the passages is disputed), Jer 23%. , 309, Ezk 1792-94 3443m. 37*. Prophets brior to Isaiah, as Am 9", Hos 3", do not seem yet to have reached the idea of a special king of David's house; and other prophets before the Exile, Nahum, Zephaniah, and Habakkuk, though some of them . to the final condition of the people and the world, do not allude to an expected future king.” (b) The Eagile. — After the destruction of the monarchy and the abasement of the Davidic house the hope of a great ruler out of that house for a time disappears (e.g. in Is 40 ft.). Th9 general eschatological hope of the * and felicity of the people is even more brilliant than before, but no great personage is referred to as ruler of the saved people. J" Himself is the Saviour and the lº, King, who feeds His flock like a shepherd (Is 40”). And the sure mercies of David-–the privileges and the mission of the Davidic house — are now transferred to the people (Is 55*). Circumstances turned the thoughts of the prophets in other directions. God’s providential treatment of Israel suggested to them new conceptions. They reflected on the meaning of the history of Israel and its sufferings, and on its place in the moral history of mankind. And there arose the great conception of ‘the Servant of the Lord.” The phrase expresses the highest generalization on the meaning of Israel in the religious life of mankind—Israel is the Servant of J" to the nations, to bring to them the know- ledge of God. Scholars do not universally accept this interpretation, but they agree that the ideas expressed by the prophet in regard to the Servant have been more than verified in Christ. Of these ideas the two chief are : ſº that the Servant is the missionary of J" to the nations—he bringeth forth right to the nations, that the salvation of J" may be to the ends of the earth (Is 42°49'" etc.); * The Targum interprets IIos 30 of the Messiah. PROPHECY AND PROPHETS PROPHECY AND PROPHETS 123 and second, by his sufferings he atones for the sins of the members of the people (Is 53, cf. 40°). The Servant is the ‘word ' and spirit of J" incar- nated in the seed of Abraham. This incarnated word will yet redeem all Israel and be the light of the nations. Here again it is the Divine that saves; the word of J", the true knowledge of the true God, implanted once for all in the heart of man- kind in Israel, which will accomplish that whereto it is sent (Is 55%). As Delitzsch remarks, the Servant of the Lord, though strictly not a Mes- sianic figure at all in the narrower sense, contri- butes more elements, and those of the profoundest kind, to the Christological conception realized in our Lord than all other figures together. The ideal of the Davidic king is that of a ruier just and compassionate, whose rule secures righteous- ness and peace and the wellbeing of the poor and meek (Is II”) : whether in Is 91-7 he be the saviour or only ruler of a people saved by J" may be dis- buted. But in connexion with the Servant of the Lord deeper conceptions appear, such as that of atonement for sin through the suffering of the guiltless, and the idea that the highest glory is the reward of him who loses his life for others (Is 53°). In former prophets, who foresee both the rejection and the restoration of the people, the restoration is unmediated by any atonement beyond the people's repentance: God forgives their sins of His mercy and restores them. In Deutero-Isaiah the Servant atones for the sins of the people, and their restoration follows. I'ormer prophets, owing to the people's misconceptions of the meaning of ritual, º the sacrifices; Deut.- Is. combines the sacrificial idea, with the sufferings of the Servant, lifting the idea out of the region of animal life into that of human life. These two figures, the Davidic king and the suffering Servant, supply the chief contents of the idea of the Chris- tian Messiah. It is strange how little impression the conceptions of the prophet of the Exile seem to have made upon those who followed him. While his universalism—the idea that Israel is the mis- sionary of J" to mankind that His salvation may be to the end of the earth—entered into the thought of the people and profoundly influenced it, his conception of atonement through the inno- cent bearing the sins of the guilty hardly if at all reappears. There may be a far-off echo of it per- haps in the Rabbinic idea that the merit of great Saints may avail for others. In the OT period the suffering Servant was never identified with the Davidic king. The idea that the royal Messiah suffers for the sins of his people does not appear. No doubt [mmanuel, who appears amidst the Assyrian desolations, shares the hardships of his generation, living on thick milk and honey like all those left in the land (Is 7); and in Zec 9" Zion's king shares the character of the saved people, being meek and lowly and a prince of peace, but nothing is said of suffering in behalf of others. (c) Post-easile Period. — At the Restoration the general eschatological hope, as it appears in Haggai and Zechariah, was that so soon as the temple was finished J" would return to it in glory ; at His manifestation He would shake all nations, who would turn to Him, and His universal kingdom would come (Hag 2", Zec 11", 2"). Side by side with this hope, however, the more special Mes- sianic hope of a ruler from David’s house also appears (cf. Ezk 34"; *). This ruler appears to be Zerubbabel (Hag 2*). But with the Restoration the priest becomes more prominent. The calami- tous history of the nation sank deep into the popular mind, and seemed to be the seal set to the prophetic teaching regarding the people's sin. And from henceforth the sense of sin in the people's mind was deeper ; and that view of sacri- fice according to which it was a propitiation for sin assumed a larger prominence, and the other idea of it as a gift for God’s acceptance sank pro- portionally. It was really the nation's histor that impressed men with the sense of their sinfuſ. ness rather than the ceremonial enactments of the ritual law. The developed ritual expressed the new conscience of sin, it did not create it. The royal and the priestly now appear united in the final ruler. In Ps. 110 he is a crowned priest. In the passage Zec 6** it is uncertain whether the Branch (the favidic ruler) is to be ‘a priest upon his throne’ or to have a priest associated with him (RVm). But the Davidic king continues to be the Messianic figure of the post-exile period, e.g. in Ps 2. 72—both late passages—Zec 9, and par- ticularly in the Psalms of Solomon (Ps 17. 18, c. 100–50 B.C.). A great part of the l’salter is eschatological in the general sense. The Psalmists’ minds are filled with the eschatological ideas of the 3rophets, now become the faith of the people—the idea of the manifestation of J", the judgment of the world, the redemption of the people of J" and their eternal blessedness, with th. participation of the nations in their salvation; but it is only in a few psalms that the personal Messiah is referred to, e.g. PS 2. 72. 1 10; cf. 89. 132. It is uncertain when the title Messiah began to be given to the expected future king. The term can scarcely have been a proper name or special title for the future king in the time of the Exile, for Deutero-Is, uses it of the Persian king, ‘Thus saith the Lord to his anointed (in ºn messiah), to Cyrus’ (Is 45"). But the name was used quite currently of the expected king or saviour in the age of Christ, for even the woman of Samaria employs it, “I know that Mes- siah cometh’ (Jn 4*). The title has been supposed by some to be given to the expected king in Dn 9”, but more probably it is applied there to some high priest. It was º Ps 2 that suggested the special application of the title to the expected king, ‘The kings of the earth set themselves against the Lord and his Messiah.” The title “Son of God’ seems taken from the same psalm, both being employed in St. Peter's confession, ‘Thou art the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” The psalm is based on Nathan's prophecy, and appears to be a directly Messianic passage, and probably belongs to a late date. The only creative book in post-exile times is Daniel. Chap. 2 is eschato- logical in the general sense, the stone cut out from the mountains that brake in pieces the image being a symbol of the kingdom of God which shall destroy the world-kingdom in its successive his- torical forms. It is less certain whether this general point of view be maintained in ch. 7, or whether the personal Messiah be referred to in the phrase ‘a son of man.” The former interpretation is the more probable, the expression ‘a son (or, child) of man,’ i.e. a man, being used as a symbol of ‘the people of the saints of the Most High ' to whom the kingdom is given. The spirit of man shall animate this kingdom, whereas the kingdoms of the world are animated by the spirit of the wild beast. Very soon, however, the phrase ‘son of man’ was interpreted to mean the Messiah, as appears from the l8k, of Enoch.” The Messianic is usually held to circle round the three great figures—the prophet, priest, and king. But the basis is broader than this : the Messianic age being the time of the perfection of the people of God, any factor that enters into the life of men as an essential element of it may be idealized and * There has been considerable controversy lately over the meaning of the phrase “the son of man' in the Gospels; cf. Wellhausen, Skizzen, vi. 188 ; Schmiedel in I’rotest. Momats. hefte, 1898; Lietzmann, Menschensohn, 1806; 1)ulman, Worte Jesu, p. 191. See L. A. Muirhead in Expos. Times, Nov., Dec. 1899; and art. SoN or MAN. 124 PROPHECY AND PROPHETS PROPHECY AND PROPHETS made prominent. The prophet, or prophecy is typical of the general eschatological state of the people of God, for then J" will pour out His spirit on all flesh (J1 2*, Jer 31*, Is 54*), and the prayer of Moses, ‘Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets l’ shall be answered. . But otherwise the prophet is not directly a Messianie figure (on Dt 18” see above in B. i.); he is the herald of the advent of J" to Zion (Is 40°) or to His temple (Mal 3’). The Servant of the Lord is in a lofty sense a prophetic figure; but he is not a prophet like other prophets with a message for any particular time or circumstances, nor does he give particular teaching or predict particular events. He is the bearer of the whole revelation of the true God, the ‘word ' of God incarnate (Is 49*), and therefore prophet of J" to the world.” The priest or priesthood is also predictive of the general eschatological con- dition of the people, for ‘they shall be a kingdom of priests and an holy nation’ (Ex 19%), the two ideas suggested by priesthood being holiness and privilege to draw near to God (Nu 16"). But even in Zec 38.9 the atoning function of the priest appears still onl typical of J’s own act of forgiveness, who will remove the iniquity of the people in one day. The Servant of the Lord makes himself an offering for sin (Is 53*), but he does not appear to be regarded as a priest. Besides these three great figures, however, there is another who contributes to the erfect ideal realized in Christ, viz. the saint or holy one, that is, the individual righteous man. It is particularly the personal character and ex- perience of this figure, his faith in God, his struggles with adversity and death, his hopes of immortality, that come prominently to the light. It is he who says in Ps 16, ‘I have set the Lord ever before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. For thou wilt not give over my soul to Sheol; nor suffer thine Holy One to see the pit.’ It is he also who speaks in PS 40, “Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not. Then said I, Lo, I am come to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart. I have preached righteousness in the great congregation.” In Ps 22” a speaker says, “I will declare thy name unto my brethren : in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee. For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afllicted, nor hid his face from him.’ The ideas in this passage differ from those in Is 53. The afflic- tions of the sufferer are not borne for others. But he suffers innocently and wrongly ; and the inter- position of J" to deliver him is so signal, and gives such a revelation of what J" is, that they that behold it turn unto Him—all the ends of the earth shall remember, and turn unto the Lord (v.”). Such lofty expectations were scarcely likely to be connected with any individual personage, however outstanding ; more probably the sufferer in the }. is the true people of J" personified, as in eutero-Isaiah. In a sense, great part of the OT is Messianic. l'or it is just the peculiarity of OT that it struck out lofty moral and redemptive ideals, on occasions the most diverse, and in connexion with personages and in circumstances very various. were ultimately combined together to express the being of Him who was the ideal on all sides. But this Messianic of OT was, so to speak, unconscious. The writers had not the future king in their mind. They were speaking of other persons, or they were uttering presentiments, or what seemed to them religious necessities, or projecting forward brilliant spiritual hopes and anticipations. There was a spirit in them broader than the hope of a future person—a spirit as broad as the kingdom of God in —s all its needs, in all its endowments, and in all the possible height of its attainment. The history of the people's mind from the Restoration onward is mainly the history of a reflection on these ideals. They tried these ideals by the conditions of the present, and found that they and the present world were incompatible, and they projected them into the future, and thus the ideals became prophetic. Further, they had received the hope of a great deliverer, and he became a centre around whom the ideals, whether of glory or holiness or even of suffering, could be gathered, and they attached them to him. The woman of Samaria, for ex- i. regards the Messiah as one that “will declare unto us all things.” KINDs of MESSIANIC PASSAGES.—The question put in regard to any passage by historical exegesis is, What did the Heb, writer mean? What personage had he in his mind in the passage? There may thus be several classes of Messianic prophecies. (1) Directly Messianic prophecies. In these the prophet or writer had the expected future Messiah actually present to his own mind. Examples are Is 7. 9. 11, Mlic 4, 5, Jer 230.6 309, Ezk 1722-24 3423it. 3722:28, Zec 38 612 99m., Ps 2.72. 110, and other passages. Is 7 is denied by many to be Messianic (see IMMANUEL), while Is 9. 11, though generally admitted to be Messianic, are held by some to be later than Isaiah (see ISAIAII). In Is 9. 11 it is not taught that the Messiah is God, but that J" is fully present in him. The general eschatological idea was that the presence of J" in person among nen would be their salvation; the prophet gives a particular turn to this general idea, repre- senting that J% shall be present in the Davidic king. The two are not identified, but J" is fully manifested in the Messiah. The passage goes very far; and though the Christian doctrine of incarnation contains a positive conception in it which OT saints did not reach, theology is obliged to limit that positive by negations which seem rather to neutralize it ; and though the phrase ‘became ' man is used, it is affirmed at the same time that the two natures remained distinct, and that the Divine suffered no change and no confusion or composition with the human. (2) Indirectly Messianic passages. These are passages in which the writer had some OT officer or personage in his mind, but spoke of him according to the idea of his office or function or character ; and this ideal is transferred to Christ in the NT, as being actually realized only in Him, or at least in Him first. Examples are what is said of “man” in Ps 8, of Israel as Servant of the Lord in Is 40 ft., Ps 22, of the ‘prophet' in Dt 18, of the saint or holy one in Ps 16.40, and much else. Such E.; are sometimes called typically Messianic, the idea eing that OT personages, such as king, prophet, and the like, were types, that is, designed Fº suggestions, of the Messiah in some of his essential redemptive functions or ex- periences. The exegesis of Calvin gave vogue to this method of interpretation, and applied it to passages to which it is scarcely applicable, e.g. Ps 2, 72. According to this interpretation Ps 2 is supposed spoken of some actual king of Israel; but as its language transcends what was verified in any ordinary king, it had a more proper fulfilment in Christ. PS2, however, could hardly have been spoken of an actual king ; the universalism of its ideas, e.g. “the kings of the earth” who oppose J" and His Anointed, the extent of the IXing's inheritance as the Son of J", viz. ‘the nations’ and ‘the ends of the earth,’ and the final kindling of J”s anger, all mark it out as an eschatological and directly Messianic passage. The same is true of Ps 72. Very confused language is used by interpreters in regard to these so-called typical prophecies (see Eapositor, Nov. 1878). NT does not recognize any class of indirect Messianic prophecies, for God being the speaker in the OT the person in whom the language was fulfilled must be the person of whom it was º So far as the Heb. writer is concerned, he had in his mind either the expected future Messiah, or he had some OT person. In the latter case if his language transcends what could be realized in the on: personage, he spoke ideally, that is, according to the religious idea of the personage or his function or his experience. D. INTERPRETATION AND FULFILMENT. — There are certain peculiarities in the language and thought of the prophets which have to be taken into account in interpreting their writings, and in considering how their predictions or constructions of the future have been or will be fulfilled. These peculiarities so struck early writers on prophecy that they devoted great attention to them, fancy- ing that the prophetic writings were constructed on a particular plan, which had special purposes in view. Hence they speak greatly of what they call the ‘structure’ of prophecy, and lay down elaborate rules for the way in which prophecies relating to a distant future must have been expressed, in order that when fulfilled they might be recognized to have been genuine supernatural predictions.” The * By the time of Deutero-Isaiah the idea of the ‘word” of God had become generalized ; it is the true knowledge of the true God, and this is the torah of the Servant to the nations. These ideals. * e.g. John Davison, Discourses on Prophecy. PROl'HECY AND PROPHETS PROPHECY AND PROPHETS 125 language also, as well as the form, was thought to differ from that of , ordinary literature, symbols being greatly used instead of plain expressions. This artificial way of regarding the prophecies was greatly due to the apologetic or evidential use made of them. But there is nothing in the form of the prophecies so special that it deserves the name of ‘structure’; neither is symbol to any great extent º instead of ordinary lan- guage. The prophets were practical teachers, such as we might expect men of their nation and time to be, and their prophetic addresses are cast in the form that would be most easily understood by their hearers. They were usually men of powerful imagination, and hence their language is poetical and to some extent figurative ; and they were men living under a particular kind of constitution or dispensation, and in certain conditions of the world, and their ideas naturally are clothed in the forms suggested by their OT constitution, and those conditions of the ancient world in which they lived. This OT constitution and these conditions of the ancient world have passed away, but the religious ideas and truths expressed by the prophets still remain and live. Obviously, to interpret the prophets we must read them literally, endeavour- ing to throw ourselves back into their circum- stances and the conditions of the world around them, and into their mind in such conditions: if we fail to do this, and fasten our attention only on their ideas and truths as valid for other times than theirs, we do not interpret but only apply their prophecies. Some points bearing on fulfilment may be briefly alluded to. i. The prophecies are poetical. They are not poetical in so strict a sense as books like Job and the T’salms are : the parallelism is not so exact, and the lines are not so uniform in length. Many parts of the early prophets are no doubt poetical even in form, ºd some modern commentators make great efforts to bring the present text of the prophecies into strictly poetical measure, assuming that it had this form originally; but their opera- tions appear in many cases to be arbitrary. The approximation to poetical form appears less in later Brophets, though the style still remains elevated. Though poetical the prophecies are not allegorical. When Is 2, for example, says that the day of the Lord shall be on all lofty mountains, and on all cedars of Lebanon and oaks of Bashan, these things are to be understood literally, and not allegorized into things human, such as great States, the higher ranks of society, or persons of eminence, Neither are the prophecies written in symbolical language. It has been said, for example, that ‘mountain' in prophecy is a symbol for kingdom, and the like." There is no evidence for this. “Mountain' is a figure for any great obstacle in the way (Is 40° 41', Zec 47) of whatever sort it be, but is no stereotyped symbol for kingdom. A beginning of fixed symbolism is made in Daniel, where ‘horn’ is a symbol for king or kingdom, and the usage is continued in the Apocalypse ; but in Zec l'º ‘horn’ is still merely a figure for any instrument of pushing and overthrow. The pro- phecies are poetical in the sense that they are imaginative and often ideal. Thus, in predicting the destruction of some great city at present full of life, the prophet will draw a picture of desola- tion with al its mournful claracteristics—‘their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; wolves shall cry in their castles, and jackals in the pleasant palaces’ (Is 13*); ‘the pelican and the porcupine shall lodge in the chapiters thereof.” (Zeph_2", Is 34*). Such passages merely express the idea of complete .. the details are not predictions, but part of the expression of the * Fairbairn, Om Prophecy, p. 496. pronounced against you.’ idea. Similarly, in predicting the capture of Babylon by the Medes the prophet gives an ideal icture of the sack of a city—‘their infants shall 9e dashed in pieces, and their wives ravished” (Is 13"). We know that these things did not actually happen, for Cyrus entered Babylon “in peace.” In Some cases it may be difficult to say whether a passage be of this ideal kind, or be merely of the nature of a threat, e.g. Am 7” spoken of Jeroboam, and Jer 22* of Jehoiakim. A margin of un- certainty will remain in connexion with these ideal prophecies. The details given in the pro- phecy form a true and natural picture of such a thing as that predicted, and some of them may be realized, and the question may be put, Are these details thus realized to be regarded as a fulfilment of the prediction, or are they merely due to the nature of the case? Under the belief that in such prophecies the details are merely an expression of the idea, and that the idea exhausts the predic- tion, Dr. Arnold propounded a theory of fulfilment ea, abundanti. For example, the prophecy Zec 99– ‘Behold, thy King j. unto thee; lowly, and riding upon an ass, merely by its details expresses the idea that the Messiah will not be a man of war, but humble and a prince of peace, and would have been fulfilled in Christ's mind and bearing, though none of the external details had been verified ; the fact that Christ entered Jerusalem riding on an ass was a fulfilment eac abundanti, and due to a special providence of God.” . Of course, the special fulfilment in this case may have been intentional on the part of Christ. In that case we must suppose that Christ's consciousness of being the Messiah spoken of was so powerful that it prompted Him to act in the character described. His action was merely. His consciousness expressing itself by an irresistible impulse ; it was not a matter of calculation intended to impress the multitude. ii. Another thing which might modify fulfil- ment was this: the prophecies were designed to influence the conduct of the people; they were moral teaching, of the nature of threats or pro- mises, which might be revoked or fulfilled accord- ing to the demeanour of those to whom they were addressed. Thus Jer 26° says, “The Lord sent me to |.. against this city all the words which ye have heard. . Now therefore amend your ways, and obey the voice of the Lord your God; and the Lord will repent him of the evil which he hath Prophecy was to such an extent moral, and meant to influence men's conduct, that threatenings of evil were rarely absolute. Jonah predicted in what seemed an absolute manner the destruction of Nineveh in forty days; but on the repentance of the people the threatened evil was averted. Jer 18 expressly formulates the moral and contingent character of prophecy, saying, in the words of J", “At wha', time I shall speak concerning a nation, to pluck up and destroy it ; if that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil which I sought to do unto them. And at what instant I speak concerning a nation to build and plant it ; if it do evil in my sight, I will repent of the good wherewith I said, I would benefit them. Now therefore go, spetik to the men of Judah, Belmold, I frame evil against you : return ye now every one from his evil way.’ This moral character of prophecy was well understood in Israel, as appears from the intervention of the elders in behalf of Jeremiah : “Then rose up certain of the elders, and said, Micah the Morash- tite prophesied in the days of Hezekiah, saying, Zion shall be plowed like a field ! I)id Hezekiah and all Judah put him to death 2 Did they not * “Two Sermons on the Interpretation of Prophecy’ in Serinons, vol. i. p. 373, London, 1845, 126 PROPHECY AND PROPHETS PROPHECY AND PROPHEts fear the Lord, and entreat his favour, and the Lord repented him of the evil which he had pronounced against them 2' (Jer 267). The principle was also well understood in the early Church, for Jerome remarks that many of the prophecies were given, ‘not that they should, but that they should not, be fulfilled.” They were threatenings of evil designed to influence conduct and avert the very evils threatened. There were, no doubt, prophecies which were absolute. The promises of God were So ; those that contained statements of His grace, as that the house of David should for ever bear rule in His kingdom, and many others which de- pended on His will alone. Even some of these contained an element of contingency in them, to this extent, that the conduct of men might retard although not invalidate their fulfilment ; while on the other hand threatenings, though long delayed, might eventually be fulfilled because men perse- vered in their evil ways or returned to them. Moreover, another thing is evident: moral threats or promises could be made only to a subject also considered moral. The predictions of the prophets against foreign nations, though often having the form of threats against their capital city or their land, are really not directed against these material things, but against what might be called the national personality, the moral subject which the nation was, with its spirit and influence in the world of the prophet's day. The prophets deal only with moral forces; to them there are no other forces. The world is a moral constitution, and States are moral personalities. Ezekiel conceives them as existing after their disappearance from the world, just as individual persons do after death. It is this national personality that prophecy threatens with destruction ; and when #. for example, came under the power of the Persians, the prophecies against it were fulfilled, although not a brick was thrown down from its walls nor a bar broken in one of its brazen gates. These material things, no doubt, embodied and expressed the spirit of Babylon ; but they were nothing in themselves, and might equally embody and express the wholly different moral personality of the Persians.” In point of fact, the material details of the prophecies against the nations were in many instances not verified. Is 17" says, “Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap'; but Damascus has probably never ceased to be a city. Here again, no doubt, interesting questions have been raised. Micah's prophecy about Jerusalem was eventually fulfilled ; Babylon is at this day a desolation. And Bacon suggested the idea of what he called a “germinant' fulfilment, i.e. one going on through time. At any rate, in the first place the prophetic threat must be held to have been directed against the national personality, and to have been ful- filled in the main in its destruction ; and secondly, in endeavouring to reach a conclusion in regard to the material details, the instances in which they have not been verified must be considered, as well as those in which they seem to have received verification. Apart from the uncertainty incident to such historical investigations, it is to mis- apprehend the nature of prophecy to treat these material details as having great evidential value. Prophecy concerns itself with the world as moral. The evidence of prophecy rather lies in the broad general movement of religious thought which it presents, showing that a divine power had laid |. of the whole mind of man, creating in it lofty religious ideals, quickening its aspirations, giving it an onward and forward look towards a religious perfection, stirring up the heart of the creature to * See remarks on Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre, Ezekiel, p. 100 (Camb Bible). cry, after Him who created it, and long for His perfect revelation upon the earth (Jn 14*). iii. The above remarks refer mainly to prophecies that have already been fulfilled; but the same principles apply to prophecies still awaiting fulfil- ment, i.e. prophecies regarding the final condition of the people of God. The moral and religious element was the essential part of the prophecy, the form in which the principle was to verify itself was secondary. The form was of the nature of an embodiment, a projection or construction, and the materials of which the fabric is reared are those lying to the hand of the prophet in each successive age. . The imagination of the prophet operates largely in these constructions. Still it is chiefly the moral imagination. When, for example, all the evils existing in the prophet's day are banished and every desirable good introduced (Am 9”, JI 3”, Ps 72%), this is not due to the desire for sensuous pleasures, it is rather the expression of the writer’s general view of the universe. The world was to his view a moral constitution, the physical being nothing but a mode of expressing or a medium for transmitting the moral and spiritual ; the miseries of men and all the outward evils of life were the result of moral disorder ; and simultaneously with the disappearance of moral evil physical evil would also cease; and with the perfection of the people of God the external world would be transfigured, and be the perfect minister to the needs of mankind. Thus, while the moral and the spiritual in the pro- phetic constructions of the future are absolute and permanent, the constructions which embody them are perishable and change. Just as some temple of God embodies and expresses spiritual concep- tions, but is constructed out of materials at the architect’s disposal in his own day, which materials decay, and in a later age have to be replaced by materials of that age, leaving, however, the spiritual ideas still visibly embodied ; so the pro- jections of one prophet, constructed out of the state of the world, and of the nations in his day, decay with the changes of the world, and have to be replaced by a later prophet with materials from the world of his day. In 1s 7 ff. the prince of peace is born and grows up amidst the desolations of the Assyrian invasion, and sitting on the throne of David establishes a reign of righteousness and peace without end (Is 97); while in Is 40 ft. the everlasting kingdom of God is introduced by the destruction of 13abylon, the idolatrous world, and the restoration of 1srael, the Servant of the Lord, who shall be the light of the nations (Is 60). The construction of the former is that of a moral poli- tician; the construction of the latter, that of a religious thinker, almost a theologian. Thus prophecy, while maintaining its spiritual princi- ples unchanged from age to age, by substituting one embodiment of these principles for another age after age, seems itself to instruct us how to regard these embodiments or constructions. They are provisional and transient. They sustain the faith and satisfy the religious outlook of their day, but they have no finality. Even the prophets of the NT are probably no more final in their construc- tions than those of the OT, e.g. in the Apocalypse and IRO 11. They rear their fabrics out of the materials of their own day, as the OT prophets did (cf. vol. i. p. 737). Thus, we have to distinguish between Prophecy and Fulfilment. Prophecy is what the prophet in his age and circumstances and dispensation meant; fulfilment is the form in which his great religious conceptions will gain validity in other ages, in different circumstances, and under another dis- pensation. Certain elements, therefore, of the relative, the circumstantial, and the dispensational must be stripped away, and not expected to go PROPHECY AND PROPHETS PROPHET IN NT 127 into fulfilment. Every prophet speaks of the per- fection of the kingdom of God, looks for it, and constructs an ideal of it. We are still looking for it. The fundamental conceptions in these con- structions are always the same, the presence of God with men, righteousness, peace, and the like, — but the fabrics reared by different prophets differ. They differ because each prophet, seeing the perfect future issue out of the movements and conditions of his own time, constructs his ideal of the new world out of the materials lying around him : the state of his people; the conditions of the 'leathen world in his day (Mic 5" ", Is 60'ſ"); such facts as that Israel was the people of God, that the kingdom of God had the form of a State, and that the seat of Jehovah's rule was Zion. These rela- tive elements are not to be called figurative, they are essential parts of the prophet's conceptions, and are all to be understood }. Israel was not a symbol to him meaning the people of God or Church, neither was it to him a type of this. Israel was the people of God. Neither were Moab, Edom, Babylon, or Egypt symbols of the foe of the people of God nor types of the hostile world. Each of them to the prophet was such a foe. But in all cases the names are used literally, though along with their religious connotation. And what the prophet was able to say of the partial and relative of his day may, of course, be º to the universal and absolute now—to the Church of God on the one hand, and the hostile world on the other. With the coming of Christ the national, relative and imperfect stage of religion, as it was in OT, passed away; religion became universal, absolute, and perfect. The Apostolic principles of interpre- tation seem something like th. : (1) They assume that in Christ and Christianity religion has become final and perfect ; the development has reached the end in view. And their arguments from OT are very much the analysis of this general assumption. (2) God is the author of Scripture; the OT is the word of God. (3) The Divine consciousness is one, embracing the end and the beginning alike : in speaking any word God had always the Christian consummation in view. Truth is also one ; when a truth is seen in any aspect it is that truth that is seen. (4) Scripture being the word of God, its whole meaning is religious and spiritual. The circumstances amidst which it was spoken, and the person of whom or to whom, are of no importance. It is the spiritual meaning alone of the words that is the word of God, ifistorical exegesis accepts these principles, and merely adds another. It assumes that the OT writer had in every passage which he wrote a meaning in his own mind, and that he desired to convey this meaning to his contemporaries; and it asks, what did the Hebrew writer mean 2 What would the people of his day understand from his words 2 InTERATURE. –The OTTheologies, particularly Oehler, Schultz, and Dillmann ; John Smith, Select Discow.rses, 1821; John Davison, Discourses on Prophecy 6, 1856; Knobel, Der Pro- phetismus der IIebråer, 1837; Ewald, Die Propheten des alten Iłºwndes, vol. i. '...}}. ed., 1808, trans. 1875); Hofmann, Weiss(tgung wºnd Erfüllung, 1841; Hengstenberg, Christologie des alten Test.” (trans, 1854); Patrick Fairbairn, Prophecy, 1856; Baur, Geschichte der alttest. Weissagwmg, 1860; Bertheau, “Die alttest. Weiss. von Israel's Reichsherrlichkeit" (Jahrbb. f, dewtsche Theologie, 1859–60); Oehler, articles ‘Propheten- thum,’ ‘Weissagung,' and ‘Messias,” in IIerzog, Emcycl. (recast by v. Orelli in Herzog 2); Tholuck, Die Propheten und ihre Weissagwmgen, 1861; G. F. Oehler, Das Verhältniss der alttest. Prophetie zw,' heidmischem. Mamtik, 1861; 1)illnann, Die Pro- pheten des alton Bundes mach ihrer politischem. Wirksamkeit, 1808, and article ‘ Propheten’ in Schenkel's Bibel - Lea icon ; Payne Smith, Prophecy a Preparatio , for Christ (Bamp. Lect.), 1800; Kuenen, De Proſeten em de Profetie onder 187 ael, 1875 (trans. 1877); Castelli, It Messia secondo gli Ebrei, 1874; l)uhm, Die Theologie der Propheten, 1875; Bruston, IIistoire Critique de la Littérature Prophétique, 1881; Breden. kamp, Gesetz whd Propheten, 1881 ; von Orelli, Die alttest. Weissagntºng von der Vollemdung des Gottesreichs, 1882 (trans. under title OT Prophecy of the Consummation of God's I(ing- dom, 1885);... König, Der Offenbarungsbegriff des alten, Test. 1882, (cf. criticism in Riehm and Giesebrecht), and Haupt, problemſ, der altigr. Religionsgeschichte, 1882; W. Robertson Smith, The Prophet& of 18rael, 1882; C. A. Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, 1889; Stanton, The Jewish and Christian Messiah, 1886; Delitzsch, Meggianische Weissagwmgen, 1890 (trans. 1891); Darmesteter, Les Prophètes d’Israël, 1892; Hirkpatrick, Doc. trime of the Prophets, 1892; Driver, Sermons on OT, 1892; Cornill, Der is raelitische Prophetismus, 1894 (trans.3' 1898); Giesebrecht, Beiträge zur Jesſviakritik, 1890, and Die Berufs. begabung der alttest. Propheten, 1897 (cf. Skinner's notice in Crit. Iteview, ix. 34ff.); Schwartzkopff, Die Prophetische Offen- barung, 1890 : Löhr, Der Missionagedanke in alten Test. 1806; F. H. Woods, The Hope oy'Israel, 1896; Wellhausen, Israelitischá wnd Jüdische Geschichte 9, 1897; Volz, Die vorea:ilische Jahwe- prophetie tº der Me88iaş, 1897; Hühn, Die Mess. Weissagnum- gen, 1899; Rud. Kittel, Profetie wrºd Weissagumg, 1899; Richm, Me88iamic Prophecy 3 (containing exhaustive literature), 1900. A. B. DAVIDSON. PROPHETESS ("sºni, trpoqºrts).—The conditions that were necessary to qualify for the prophetic office in the OT sense were not such as to exclude women from the latter (see the preceding article, p. 114", and cf. Ac 2"). The following prophetesses are mentioned in Scripture: Miriam, Ex 15", cf. Nu 12°, (both JE); Deborah, Jg 4"; Huldah, 2 K 224 (=2 Ch 34*); Noadiah, Neh 614 (but cf. LXX, which has the masc. Tº Noaëtq. Tº Tpoq àrm); Anna, Lk 2"... “The prophetess’ of Is, 8% is prob- ably simply ‘the prophet's wife.” Prophecy in the NT sense was, of course, also a gift exercised by women (cf. Ac 21", 1 Co 11”). “The woman Jezebel which calleth herself a prophetess’ (Rev 2"; see vol. ii. p. 656°) may have claimed the gift of pro- phecy in either the OT or the NT sense. See also art. Wom AN. J. A. SELDIE. PROPHET IN NT (Trpoºfirms, -ečeuv, -eta : never Advrts or cognate words except Ac 16% pavrevouévy of the possessed girl at Philippi).-The trpoq àrms in classical Greek is one who speaks for another—the interpreter either of the ecstatic Advtus or of the god himself, so that he is near akin to the émymrås, though with more definite reference to a per- son than to things. Of loci classici may be men- tioned AEsch. Entºm. 19: Alès trpoq àrms éarl Aošías tratpás (so Plato, Itep. 427 C : traitpuos ºrp.), and Plato, T'im. 71 E f., where he contrasts the Tpoqmīrms with the Advtus. The same sense of ‘interpreter’ is found in Philo (e.g. Quis rer. div. 52, De spec. legibus, S), though he ascribes to him the ecstasy assigned by Plato to the pudurus. This blending of the two, which practically merges the Tpopiſtm; in the pudurus, was a current belief even among Chris- tians (Justin, Athenagoras) in spite of 1 Co 14, esp. v.”, till it was partly discredited by Montamist fanaticism ; and in our own time it may be traced in every theory of inspiration which fails to realize the full co-operation of the prophet's understanding: In NT, too, the word Tpoq àrms keeps its general sense of an interpreter of God’s message. 13ut the prediction which most impressed the vulgar (so roundly even Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. 12: # Tpo- q m reta trpáyvoorts Čaruv–in truth it is nearer étriyvoots) was a very small part of the message. Agabus predicted the famine and St. Paul's imprisonment (Ac l 1* 21"), the Apoc. is called a Tpopyreta, and the OT prophets are naturally cited more or ess from the side of prediction. Ibut the prophet's proper work is ratlier (1 Co 4* * *) edification and consolation, revealing the secrets of the inner life and incidentally converting unbelievers, though, strictly speaking, prophecy is the sign (1 Co 14*) for believers. Kºd because the prophet edifies the Church, not only himself, prophecy is a better gift (1 Co 14% ºy than that of tongues, and more earnestly to be coveted, though still but a transi- tory gift (1 Co 13°), not abiding like faith, hope, and love. On the method (scarcely , the only method) of ediſication, we get a hint in Ae 13. where prophets are ministering (Netto ºpyojºſes tº K. —comparé Timothy's appointment, I Ti 1*4") when 128 PROPITIATION PROPITIATION they receive the command to separate Barnabas and Saul. This seems to imply some such position as we find in the Didaché (10), where the prophet (if there be one) is the proper person to ...; the public worship, and the only person free to give thanks in what words he thinks fit. The prophets ranked next to the apostles (1 Co 12*, Eph 4*), and are even coupled with them (Eph 2" 3° àtr. K. Trpop. in this order will be NT rophets) as receivers of revelation and layers of oundations. Prophecy was not an office, but a special gift, coming not from men, but straight from Christ (kal airós £50kev, Eph 4”), and it might come to women too (Ac 21", 1 Co 11"). The pro- phet spoke év trueºuatt (Eph 3°, Apoc, e.g. 1": contrast év čkgrágst of the trances, Ac 10" 227), because the divine Spirit worked in him, 1 P 1", 1 Co 12" ; and he was also trvevuatukós (1 Co 14”, where rvevuarukós at least includes Tpopîrms), be- cause his human spirit was in full activity, and so steadily (Ütroróggerat, 1 Co 14*) controlled the gifts of the Spirit that he was quite able to speak (Ro 12") only in proportion to the faith that was in him. Neglect of this self-restraint is visible at Corinth (1 Co 14*.*, prophets need not all speak together), and may help to account for the early warning in 1 Th 5*. Later on 1 Jn 4' speaks of bevöorpoq’īral, and the woman Jezebel (Rev 2*) implies false prophets in Asia. So also the Didaché (11) is very stringent in its cautions about prophets. Of prophets expressly so called in NT, there are Agabus, the groups at Antioch, Judas and Silas, and the four daughters of Philip. We need not go further ; but the last prophets we read of (Anon. ap. Eus. HE v. 17) are Quadratus and Ammia in Philadelphia, perhaps in Hadrian's time. See, further, Selwyn, The Christian Prophets, 1900. H. M. GWATRIN. PROPITIATION.—This word occurs in AV only three times: Ro 3” as the tr. of IMaariptov (Öv Trpoéðeto è 6eós i Aa or fipt ov,-most probably [see Sanday-Headlam] an adj. masc., “whom God set forth to be propitiatory' [RVm]), and 1 Jn 2°4" as the tr. of i\aop,6s (attös i Aa a pſ. Ös éart repl rôv āpapruđv huôv ; átréateu)\e rôv vlöv attoſ, l\a a plov repl rów &paptuáv huów); to which lèW adds a fourth, He 217 (a merciful and faithful high priest . . . els Tô l'A & a ke a 6 at rās &paprlas roſ, Naoû, “to make pro- pitiation [AV ‘reconciliation’] for the sins of the people'). It will be the object of the present article, firstly, to explain the meaning of the Greek words used, in the light of their usage in the LXX ; and, secondly, to examine the ideas associated with the Heb. words which they repre- sent commonly in the LXX. 1. 'IAaatjptov is in OT the regular rendering of n-B3 (in EV “mercy - seat '), Ex 25" (17) (here INaariptov ćiríðepa), vv.” (**) 317 etc. : 1Xagu5s stands for (a) Dº (EV “atonement’), Lv 25" # huépa roſ. i. (rod ÉÉix. Lv 23* *), Nu 58 6 kptos roſ, i.; (b) nnºn “sin-offering,’ Ezk 44" (so 4519 éºaguós); (c) nº ‘forgiveness,’ Ps 130°, Dn 99 (Theod.); so X. Sir 5" (Heb. nnºb); (d) nºffs “guilt,” An 8” (falsely): , I\áakoplav stands seven times for nº ‘to forgive,’ as 2 K 5*, Ps 25" (for which (\ews civat is more common), and three times for h;2, Ps 65° 78°79", which, however, is far more frequently represented by the (intensive) com- pound éðágkouat (variously construed : see $$ 5, 7–10; and Westcott, Epp. of St. John, pp. 83–85). The use of the term in He 2" in connexion with the high-priest shows that tº. must there be re- garded as the equivalent of £2, not of nº (which is never said of the high-priest, or indeed of any human subject).” IA&akopal is common in classical * The construction, however, with an acc. of the sin, is, as Ritschl rightly remarks (p. 212), not that of the legal (§ 10), but of the non-legal (§ 9; PS 658) LXX usage. Greek, where, however, it is construed regularly with an accus, of the deity (or person) propitiated (as Il. i. 100, 444, 472, uo)\tº 0éov (Máq-Kovro ; Hat. v, 47, 6volmat at Töv l\áokovtat, viii. 112, 6epuatok}\éa xpiuag, l\agápévo): in the LXX, on the contrary, this usage is not found except Gn 32°, Zec 7” (éčix. Tô irpóa wrov), and PrlG” (ét}\, abrów, fig. of wrath), the word (ét}\.), when used of a human subject (§§ 10, 11), being commonly construed absolutely, with trept of the person on whose bellalf the propitiatory act is performed. The difference marks a diſſer- ence between the heathen and the Biblical point of view : though the idea of propitiating God may be indirectly involved in the phrases used in the OT, it is very much less prominent than in the heathen writers; the propitiatory sacrifice, or rite, has indeed generally for its aim the restora- tion of God’s favour, and the ‘forgiveness’ of the worshipper (Lv 4” etc., § 12b), but there is not the same thought of directly appeasing one who is angry, with a personal feeling, against the offender, which is implied when the deity is the direct object of the verb (cf. Cremer, Wörterb.; Westcott, p. 85; Kalisch, Lev. i. 316–318). In other words, the differ- ence corresponds with the fact that the higher Biblical conception of God is more spiritual and less an º than that of heathen writers. 2. The facts that have been quoted make it evident that the Greek terms rendered ‘propitia- tion ’ correspond to the Heb. 793 and derivatives. These words hold an important place in the theo- logical terminology of the OT ; and though they are generally rendered in EV by ‘(make) atone- ment' (or ‘reconcile,’ ‘make reconciliation,’ in Lv 630 81° 16”, Ezk 45* 17, 20 AV ; Dn 924 AV and RV), the idea expressed by the Heb, is certainly rather that of ‘propitiation’ than of “atonement’ (i.e. ‘at-one-ment, setting at one, reconciliation [see Shaks. Itich. III. I. iii. 36]); and hence they will be properly considered under the present heading. It is much to be regretted that the link connecting OT and NT, supplied by. (#3) A&ozopºu, should have been neglected in EV ; and that words which clearly correspond should have been rendered “propitiation' in the NT, but “atonement' in the OT. “Atonement ' is now an unsuitable rendering of kipper, for two reasons. (1) Since AV of 1611 was made, the word has changed its meaning; and whereas it formerly (see Murray) expressed the idea of reconciliation, it now suggests chiefly the idea of making amends or” reparation. Hence in the one passage in AV of NT in which “atonement' occurs (Ro 511, for zozºrozXX22%), the Revisers have done rightly in substituting for it ‘reconciliation' (which, with “reconcile,' is used elsewhere, in AV itself, for º of &AA&goal, Mt. 524, Ro 510, 10, 11 1115, 1 Co 711, 2 Co 518. 18, 10, Col 120. 21, Eph 210). But (2) even in its older sense of ‘reconciliation,’ it does not properly repre- sent kipper; for kipper does not mean to “reconcile,” nor is it ever represented in LXX by compounds of &WA&a'a'a. 3. The root-meaning of nº is Hºly to cover over; for , the Arab. kafara, though not very common, has this meaning in various applica- tions (Lane, Arab. Lea. p. 2620). In Syr, kephar, and esp. the Pael kappar, means to wipe or wipe away, as Pr:3020 to wipe the mouth, to wipe away tears, the stain of sin, etc., hence fig, to disperse, destroy (ºlglere), as darkness Ephr. i. 9, a race or nation, etc. (P. Smith, Thes. Syr. col. 1797–9); and W. R. Smith (0% jölääg f., more briefly, 2380, 381) adopts this as the primary meaning of the Heb. kipper, explaining Gn 3221 (see $ 5) as meaning properly to “wipe clean the face,’ blackened by displeasure, as the Arabs say whiten the face.” The Heb. kipper, however, as a theological term, in any case implies a metaphor, and it does not greatly signify, in explaining it, whether we start from the idea of covering over or from that of wiping out : in either case, the idea which the metaphor is intended to convey is that of rendering null and inoperative. There are analogies in the OT for each explanation ; sin is spoken of, viz. as covered (TP3,-an ordinary, untechnical word for “cover'), Ps 321 (‘ covered in respect of sin"), 852, Neh 397 (Heb. 45) [borrowed from Jer 1829, with kipper (§ 9) changed to kiş8āh); and as wiped (or blotted) out (TTP), Is 4320 4422, Jer 1823 (2 Neh 337 [45]), Ps 511.9b 10914. . (It is difficult not to think that the Arab. and Syr. senses of the root spring ultimatcly from a common origin, e.g. from the idea of wiping over : in both languages, it is remarkable that the word acquires the further derived idea of disown, demºſ, be a dis believer; hence ‘Raſir,” properly an inſidel), -The Arab, ii conj. (kaffara) occurs often in the IXoran of God's effacing, or PROPITIATION PROPITIATION 129 forgiving, sin; and kaffärat (Kor. 549. 91.00) means the capia- tion of a crime, broken vow, etc. (Lane, 2620, 2022 ; Lagarde, I}ildun'ſ der Nonn. 231 ff.); but these words may be borrowed from Judaism (Hirschfeld, Beiträge z. Erklär. d. Kor. p. 90). The Assyr. kuppwrºt, also a ritual term (“siihnen'), seems to mean properly to wipe off'; see Haupt, JBL, 1900, pp. 01, 80, and esp. Zimmern, Beiträge zur l'enntnis der Bab. Itelig. pp. 92, 123, etc. 4. The Heb. kipper is, however, never used in a purely literal sense (like myº), but always * in a figurative or moral application, viz, with the col- lateral idea—which in course of time became the preponderant if not the exclusive idea—of either conciliating an offended person, or screening an offence or an offender. Cf. Oehler, OT Theol. § 127: “Ripper, and the cognate sub- stantives, represent the propitiation (Sühne) as a covering ; the guilt is covered, or, as it were, withdrawn from the sight of the 9erson propitiated, so that the guilty person can now approach him without danger.' Itiehm, in his exposition of the term, uses commonly the expression ‘protecting covering” (schütz- ende Bedeckung), an expression which no doubt reads more into the word than it actually denotes—for, as Schmoller (p. 282 f.) observes, kipper is contegere and obtegere, but not pro- tegere, being never used, for instance, in the ordinary sense of “protecting,'—but which is still a useful and suggestive para- phrase (cf. ib. 235 n., 279, where it is allowed that “protection,” though not denoted directly by kipper, is nevertheless an indirect consequence of it). Schmoller, in his exposition, starts with the idea of covering over (obrucre), in the sense of causing to disappear, making unobserved, inoperative, etc. These explanations, though they start with the idea of ‘cover- ing,' differ little in the end from that which would be reached by starting with the idea of “wiping out '; but it is a question whether some modern writers do not press the idea of “cover’ unduly, and understand it in a too literal sense (cf. §§ 15, 17). 5. Kipper is used in three applications, which it is necessary to distinguish. (la) A human sub- ject is the agent, and the object was originally, it seems, the face of the offended person, though, in actual usage, it is mostly the offended person (or personified agency) himself ; the means is a gift, an entreaty, conciliatory behaviour, etc. The most primary example of this application appears to occur in Gn 32* (*) (J), where Jacob says of Esau, ‘I will cover his face with a present," i.e. conciliate him ((5 éét}\do'opat), the figure being that of a person whose eyes are blinded by a gift so as not to notice something (cf. for the figure, Gn 2010 by nip; ; Ex 23° DIIPP hy, Tſºn ºf ; Job 9% is H93, Tºñº). Hence, ‘face’ being onlitted, kipper acquires the general sense of to conciliate, pro- pitiate, appease : Ex 32” “peradventure I shall make propitiation (TºS) for your sin” (viz. by intercession, v.” ; (5 &X4a apaw Trept), fig. Pr 1614 (of a king's wrath, threatening deatlı) “but a wise man will propitiate it’ (viz. by conciliatory be- haviour; (5 &\do eral), Is 47" (of calamity) ‘ thou shalt mot be able to propitiate it’ (I| Tº ‘to charm it away’; but Grätz, Buhl, Cheyne, Fring ‘to bribe it away,” cf. Pr. 6” Heb.), viz., either by a bribe (Is 1317) or by religious ceremonies. 6. Here may be best explained the subst, kópher, prop. a covering (viz. of an offence), hence a pro- pitiatory gift, but restricted by usage to a gift offered to propitiate or satisfy the avenger-of- blood, and so the satisfatction offered for a life, i.e. a ransom, - the wehrgeld, ‘protection - money,’ rigorously prohibited by Hebrew law in the case of murder, but admitted in certain other cases, and evidently a well-known institution : Ex 21” (JE); 1 S 12” (a bribe to screen a murderer ; so Am 519); Ex 30” P (a half-shekel, to be paid by every one, at the time of a census, as the UFJ h;5, or ‘ransom of his soul (life),” to avert a plague, such as might be apprehended [cf. 2 S.24] under the circumstances: cf. § 11 h.); Nu 35*** P (not to * Except indeed Is 2818, where—unless, with some moderns, nºn) or nºn [from my; cf. 24b] is to be read—it is used of annulling a treaty ((5 &Qix, ; EV ‘be disannulled ')—a sense which may be derived either from the idea of covering over, obliterating (Ges.), or from that of wiping or blotting out (cf. Pesh. "Bin) “be wiped out ’). VOL. IV, -—Q be accepted from a murderer); Pró” (offered in vain for the life of an adulterer; || “bribe”); 13% (‘the ransom of a man's soul (life) is his riches”); 21” (“the wicked is a ransom for the righteous” [see 11°]); Is 43" (Egypt said poetically to be the ‘ransom,’ which J" gives to Cyrus in lieu of Israel: | ‘Seba instead of thee'); Ps 497 (“no man can re- deem [T]5} a brother from death, or give God a ſcópher for him '); ſig. of the discipline of suffering (conceived as delivering from death), Jol, 332; (|| ‘redeem him [read ºn 5) from going down into the pit”), 36* [all]. 7. This use of köpher illustrates 2 S 218. Here David says to the representatives of the murdered Gibeonites, ‘Wherewith shall I make propitiation (n328; (5 &Máo wal) 2' a money köpher is refused (v.”), and the köpher, which (though the word is not actually used) is demanded, and given to J" (v.”; cf. v.” 24*), consists of the lives of Saul's seven sons: comp. also Nu 35” (P), where it is said that blood unjustly shed ‘profanes’ and ‘defiles’ a land, and that a “covering,” or propitiation, can- not then be made for the land (-; 8% ins; ; (5 opk ét}\agółigeral h yń &tró toº aſſuaros), except by the blood of the murderer. 8. There is an analogous group of cases, (lb) in which the verb is in the passive voice, the subject being the iniquity, and the means a purifying rite, a sacrifice, or repentance, the effect of which is that the offence is conceived as hidden, cancelled, or made inoperative : Dt 21” (“and the blood shall be º ” (i.e. annulled) * for them,’ viz. by the symbolical execution of the murderer, vv.". 7; (5.6&txag0%retat atrols), 1 S 3” (“the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be “covered " | ((5 &Xaa- 0%gerat) by sacrifice or min/ºſih for ever’), Is 67 (‘thy sin shall be “covered" +,’ viz. by the coal from the altar touching the prophet's lips; (5 rept- ka.0apteſ : || “thine iniquity shall depart '), 22* (“Surely this iniquity shall not be “covered ” + for you, until ye die’: (5 dºctºgetat), 27" f (through the abandonment of idolatry; (5 dºpaupé0%rera), Pr 16" + (through amendment of life; (5 &Toka- 0alpovrat ; cf. 281*, Ezk 1821. *). : 9. (2) In the second class of cases in which ſcipper is used, the subject is God, the object is either the offender or the offence, the question of means does not here arise, but the motive, in so far as it is indicated, is the free grace of God, repre- sented, however, sometimes as called into activity by a purifying or expiatory rite : the idea of the verb then is that God “covers,’ i.e. treats as covered, overlooks, pardoms, comdomes, the offender or the offence. So (a) the object being the offender, Dt 21* (J", after the symbolical expiatory rite, vv.0. 7, is entreated to “cover” [AV ‘be merciful to,” RV ‘forgive ’; (5 Aews Yevoſī] the people, guilty [implicitly] of an untraced murder), 32” (rather differently : ‘will “cover” his land,’ i.e. cancel or remove the stain of bloodshed attaching to it, by the slaughter of those who have shed it ; (5 &KKa- 0apleſ; AV ‘be merciful unto,” RV “make expiation for’: || “avenge the blood of his servants, and re- quite vengeance to his adversaries'), Ezk 16" (“when I “cover” thee (i.e. act propitiously to- wards thee; (5 &v Tó ét)\ágaotal ué got), with regard to all that thou hast done'), 2 Ch 30" (EV par- don’; (5 &\do 60 Utrép); and (b) the object being the offence, Jer 18* (EV ‘forgive’; (5 60959), Ps 65° S (5 IX&orm ròs doepelas), 78* (‘annulleth iniquity and destroyeth not '; (5 (Nágerat Tais &p.), 79° S * EV ‘forgiven,' which no doubt expresses fairly the general sense, but obliterates the distinctive character of the Heb, word used (cf. § 15, towards the end). # EV purged,' substituting an idea not at all contained in the Heb. l{Vnn “Or, capitted.’ t Comp. for the thought Sir 33.80 (IIeb, nsen nean mpns. 353 (Swete 32 (35) b). § IV ‘purge away' : see the last note but one. I 30 PROPITIATION PROPITIATION: (5 IAérômri rais &p.), Dn 9” (RVm ‘purge away’; Theod, dira)\etypal ràs döuklas [= LXX] kal rod ét}\doragóat d5uktas), — the object in all these cases being either ‘iniquity’ or ‘transgression,” and there being no reference to any propitiatory rite. Cf. (though with a reference to sacrifice) Sir 34” (Swete 31 (34) *). 10. (3) The third class of cases in which kipper is used belongs to the distinctively legal termin- ology (almost entirely Ezk and P: (; nearly always ét}\áakopal trept: EV mostly “to make atonement'; see § 2). Here the subject is the priest, “ the , means usually a sacrifice, though occasionally it is (see Ś l l h-m) some other act or offering, regarded as vindicating the holiness of the community in which Jehovah dwells, and hence as reinstating it in His favour : the object is never the sin, but (as commonly understood) the person (or thing) on whose behalf the propitiation is made, the verb—which is construed mostly with by or Ty?, and only rarely, in some of the cases in which the object is something material (the altar or the sanctuary), with a direct accusative (Lv 16*, *, Ezk 43**45” [(5 §i)\, with accus.])—being inter- reted as signifying properly to cover up (cf. Tº y, and Ty? Iº), or screen, by a nº.3, or covering (propitiatory) gift (so Riehm, 30–32; Dillm.; Schmoller, though undecidedly, p. 284). Wellh. (Compos.2 336), observing the analogy, as regards the subject and the means, with the cases grouped under (1), supposes that the object was originally “Jehovah's face’ (cf. Gn 3220, cited $ 5; and the phrase "" "giºns Hºn, lit. “make sweet the face of J”,' EV ‘beseech,” or ‘entreat the favour of,' Ex 3211, 1 S 1312, 1 K 180 etc.), but that in process of time the object came to be omitted, and the verb was construed abso- lutely, to perform a propitiatory rite (kippwrim): construed with an accus., it would then mean (analogously with h9y, etc., Ges.-I(autzsch, $ 52h) to a flect with a propitiatory rite. So far as the ideas associated with the word are concerned, it is in- different which of these explanations of the construction is adopted. ll. We must next consider of what different sacrifices, or other rites, kappér, in this third class of cases, is predicated. It is predicated, viz., (a) of the ºurnt-offering, LV 14 14” 1624; cf. Ezk 4 * (b) of the guilt-offering (DWs), Lv 516, 1867 77 1418 (see v.v.” "), vv. 31.20 (see vv.2.2) 19:2, Nu 58. (c) of the sin-offering, Ex 29%. 37 3019, Lv 420. 20. 91.3% 5** 6", 8% º 107 1419 16 (14–15 times [on v.” see Kalisch, Dillm., and above, i. 1997.]) 23%, Nu 15°28%. 89 29%, Ezk 43%. 2, 4520, 2 Ch 29%, Nell 1038. (d) of the sin-offering and the burnt-offering to. gether, Lv 5"9" 129t. 8 1431 1516. 20, Nu Gil 812 (cf. v.21b) 15-4t. (e) of blood in general (as containing the “soul,” or life), Ly 17*H (“I have given it to you upon the altar to make propitiation for your souls; for the blood, it maketh propitiation by means of the soul [life]’); cf. 630 816 16-7; also 14”, where the blood of the slain bird (with other ceremonies) “makes propitia- tion’ for the leprous house. (f) of the ‘ran of installation (n's??),” and the bread, offered at the consecration of the high-priest, Ex 29* (see vv. 19-25.82). (g) of the meal- and peace-offering, only in Ezk 45* * (possibly, also, though not probably, of the meal-offering in Lv.14% " : see § 13) Kappér is attributed, further, to (h) §. half-shekel, to be paid by every one at a census, as the kappfºr of his “soul’ (life), Ex. 30” ” (probably [cf. Riehm, 24 f.; I)illm.] as an acknowledgment of member- ship in the theocracy, upon an occasion when the sins and imperfections of indi- * Or sometimes (LV 14 1711, Ex 3015. 10, Nu 3190 35%) the offering ; but the difference is immaterial. viduals would come prominently under Jehovah's notice); cf. § 6. (i) the appointment of the Levites as authorized representatives of the Israelites to perform menial duties about the sanctuary, Nu 8" (lay Israelites, approaching the holy vesºtels, etc., would do so at risk of their lives [cf. 18° 1' " : the Levites, doing it on their behalf, prevent Jehovah's wrath from mani- festing itself in a plague [cf. the same ex- pression in Ex 30°], and are therefore said to “make propitiation' on their behalf). (j) the incense by which Aaron appeased Jeho- vah's anger, and arrested the plague, Nu 1640t. (Heb. 1711t.). tº (k) the punishment of a conspicuous offender, Nu 25° (the occasion on which l’hinellas, interposing with the sword, ‘turned away ’ Jehovah’s ‘wrath’ from the Israelites, and arrested the plague : see v.”). (!) the offering of the spoil taken from the Midianites, Nu 31” (“to make propitiation for our souls before J"'; probably, as in Ex 30” ”, in view of the numbering of the men of war, v.” [where the phrase is the same as in Ex 30”; cf. also v.” with Ex 3010b). (m) the blood of a murderer, making expiation for blood unjustly shed, Nu 35”. All these passages belong to P. 12. The following additional facts with regard to the usage of kipper deserve also to be noted. (a) It is construed with ſº ‘from of the offence (or uncleanness),-RV ‘as concerning,’ ‘because of,’ ‘for,” but more probably (so Riehm, 50 f.; Schmoller, 254 f., 284; cf. Dillm. on Lv 4”) to be understood in the sense of ‘(clearing) from ' (‘shall make propitiation for him from his sin’), Lv 4” 5%. 10 1419 (‘from his uncleanness”), 1518, 30 lo”, “ ”, Nu 611; and with by ‘on account of,’ Lv 4” 5* * 67 l9” (RW ‘as touching,’ ‘concerning,’ ‘for’). (b) It is followed by “and it shall be forgiven him (them),’ in the case of the sin-offering, Lv 4-0. 20.31. 90 jo. 18, Nu 1525. 43 (cf. v.2%); and in the case of the guilt-offering, Lv 51% º 6' 19°. (These are the only passages in the Law, except Nu 30°. * *, in which nº ‘to forgive,’ occurs). (c) It is closely associated (but only where pre- dicated of the sin-offering) with ‘to be clean' (nºp), or ‘to cleanse” (nº), Lv 127 ° 14*. º. 99 16". ", Nu 821, Ezk 434", cf. 2 Ch 30.8; tº with to sanctify, Ex 29*.*.*, Lv 81° 10”, Nu 611; and with ‘to free from sin” (Rºn), Ex 20° (EV, very inadequately, “cleanse’), Lv 8” (EV “puri- fied ' ), 14% º [see v.”] of the leprous house (EV ‘cleanse”), Nu 8” (IRV “purified from sin '), Ezk 4320.* (* cleanse,”—of the altar, as Ex 29*) 45” (see v.19), in all the cases with Rºſſ, of a material object, which the Hebrews regarded as capable of being infected with sin (Schmoller, 222, 261). (d) Cf. kippwrim, ‘propitiation’ (EV “atonement’), used (2) of a sin-offering, Ex 2030 3010, Nu 2011; (6) of a guilt-offering, Nu 58; (y) in the expression ‘day of propitiation (atonement),’ LV 2397. 23 259; (3) “propitiation-money,' of the half-shekel paid at a census, Ex 3010. It is probable also (whatever the ultimate origin ol the term may have been) that the idea of propitiation was felt to attach to kappūreth (EV “mercy-seat'); cf. what is said on this subject in Leviticus (in Haupo's SBOT'), p. 80 f. (e) The object of kipper is usually an individual or the community; but sometimes, it is a material object, -in particular the altar of burnt-offering, (at the time of its consecration) Iºx 29**", Lv 8", Ezk 43*, *, (on the annual Day of Atonement) Lv 16*, *, *; the sanctuary (on the same occasion), Ex 3019 [in v.'" the prep. has probably a local force], Lv 161%. 20. *, Ezk 45-9; a house infected with leprosy, LV 14”; cf. of the goat sent to Azazel, Lv l6" (see I)ill m.). PROPITIATION PROPITIATION 131 13. It does not fall within the scope of the present article to investigate the character or rationale of SACRIFICE, except in so far as this is expressed by the term kappér. Confining ourselves therefore to this, we may draw from the data col- lected in §§ 10–12 the following conclusions with regard to the significance of this term in its legal or ceremonial applications (which are to be care- fully distinguished from the eactra-legal usages, analyzed in §§ 5, 7–9). In the legal terminology it is especially associated with the sin-offering, of which it designates the most distinctive and char- acteristic operation ; it is also frequently, though not so characteristically, predicated of the guilt- offering (the ashām), that differentiated type of sin-offering prescribed for cases in which injury has been done to the rights of another person. To the burnt-offering, offered alone, it is attributed only in Lv 14 1420 16° (cf. Ezk 4515, 17; also Job 17 42°), on the ground, it seems, that, though not a proper propitiatory sacrifice, it was a mark of the worshipper's devotion, and, being offered ‘for his favour (acceptance) before J”’ (Lv 1° lism?), and accepted (9 risºn) accordingly, moved Him to regard him graciously, and to overlook his moral insuffi- ciency; elsewhere it is not attributed to it ex- pressly,” but only (§ 11 d) when it is closely associ- ated with the sin - offering, for the purpose (as seems to be frequently the case) of enhancing the significance of the latter ; and, indeed, Lv 14” 16* (cf. v.v." ") might almost be regarded as falling under this category. Ezekiel (45" ") attributes it to the peace- and meal- offering ; in H, also, it is attributed to the peace- (and burnt-) offerings, in virtue of what is said about the ‘blood” in Lv 17* (cf. v.”); in the system of P it is not attributed directly to either of these, for the meal-offering in Lv 14* * holds such a secondary place that it cannot be treated with any conſidence as participating in the kappará. The kappfirã is specially the function of the blood (see Lv 17" [H]; and cf., in the ritual of the sin-offering, Ex 3019, Lv 4.6% (*) 81° 16't let ", Ezk 43° 45"), on account, as is expressly said in l, v 17”, of its being the seat of the “soul’ or life, the most precious, and also the purest and most immaterial gift that can be offered to God ; the only exception (annong sacrifices) being one that proves the rule, viz. (Lv 5”) the vegetable offering allowed as a substitute for the usual sin-offering, when the latter was beyond the means of the offerer. Hence the later Rabb, dictum (Yômā 5a) D7; Nºs Tº Yºs “there is no kappard except with blood' (cf. He 9”),—which, however, is not true universally (see the cases, § 11 h-in, esp. Ex 30°), but only in so far as sacrifice is concerned. 14. The effect of the kapparā is a purification, sometimes from sin, sometimes (Lv 12. 14. 15, Nu 6) from merely ceremonial defilement, sin being re- garded as a stain, and the deſilement, whether ritual or moral—for in P the two are not clearly distin- guished (see LAW, vol. iii. p. 72"; and cf. Schmoller, 280)—being conceived as either made invisible and inoperative, or else as actually obliterated ; it is regarded as withdrawn from Jehovah's eyes (cf. Ps 51"; and contrast 90°); it no longer comes be- tween Him and man : He neither sees nor inputes it. The aim of the priestly legislation is to main- tain the ideal holiness of the theocratic community (T.AW, ib. p. 70 f.); and the kappard is the primary means by which this is effected. Sometimes cleans- ing (moral or ceremonial) is expressly mentioned as the effect of the rite (see § 12 c ; and note esp. Lv 16” “on this day shall propitiation be made for you to cleans? you ; from all your sins ye shall be clerºn before J"'). As prescribed for the priests (Ex 20°, Lv 97) and Levites (Nu 8”), before admis- sion to their sacred duties, it is a readily intelli- gible rite of preliminary lustration (Riehm, 76 f.; Schmoller, 234 f., 245). Enjoined for a material object, the altar or the sanctuary, its aim is to Secure or maintain its holiness: the altar, prior to its consecration, is regarded as affected by the natural impurity of human workmanship, which has to be removed ; the sanctuary, frequented as it was by a sinful and unclean people, is contami- nated by their sins, and accordingly requires a periodical purification (Riehm, 54–57; Schmoller, 221 f., 242, 262); the leprous house (LV 140°) is con- ceived as tainted by sin (§ 12 c); the ‘scape-goat,’ offered by the sinful people, requires to be purified before it can discharge the solemn functions assigned to it (Riehm, 55; Dillm. ; etc.). On the part of God the effect of the kappārā is more par- ticularly specified,—at least in the sin- and guilt- offering, as forgiveness, conditional, as we may suppose would be understood by the more spiritual Israelites, on the penitence of the offerer, though this is not stated in the laws as distinctly and regularly as might be expected (cf. Lv 5° 16*, Nu 57; Schultz, OT' Theol. ii. 99 f.): it should, how- ever, in this connexion be remembered that kappér was in general possible only for unintentional (or venial) sins “ (above, vol. i. 201° note ; Schultz, i. 382 f., 388 f. , 394 f., ii. 87–89; cf. Ezk 45°9, where ‘erreth’ + sins inadvertently). Sins committed wil- fully, “with a high hand” (Nu 15"), i.e. in a spirit of presumptuous defiance, clallenging God’s anger, lie outside the sphere within which the kappard ordinarily operates; hence, as predicated of the Tegular levitical sacrifices, it is never described as appeasing God (cf. § 2 end), nor is it ever implied that the offerer of such a sacrifice is outside God’s dispensation of grace, or the object of His wrath ; the cases $ 11 j k are exceptional ; at most (§ 11 h i !) it may be said to be a means of averting it (Riehm, 30, 37, 85; A T Theol. 132; cf. Schultz, i. 394). - 15. From what has been said, it will be seen that kipper is a difficult word to represent satis- factorily in English. “Cover'—or “wipe out,' if that view of the original sense of the word be adopted — is too colourless : “make atonement ' (at-one-ment, reconciliation) may express a com- sequence of kipper, but it is not what the word itself denotes. It has always—or almost always— a religious, and mostly a ritual colouring : it is to cover (metaphorically) by a gift, offering, or rite, or (if God be the subject) to treat as covered : the ideas associated with the word are thus to make (or treat) as harmless, non-existent, or inoperative, to ammul (so far as God’s notice or regard is con- cerned), to withdraw from God's sight, with the attached ideas of reinstrating in His favour, free- ing from sin, and restoring to holiness, especially (but not exclusively), when the subject is a human agent, by the species of sacrifice called the ‘sin- offering.’ It is a stronger, more significant syno- nym of Neri to “un-sin,” and nº to “purify or “cleanse.” There appears to be no one English word which combines, or suggests, ideas such as these. Even to “make propitiation' accentuates, some- what unduly a particular side, or aspect, of what is involved in kipper (cf. § 1 end); though the fact that the ideas just indicated were associated with the word in conjunction with a rite, would point rather naturally in the direction of such a mean- ing, which the nearly habitual rendering of the LXX, (ć), Náakouai, shows was felt to attach to the word in the 3rd cent. B.C. Nevertheless, esp. in view of the LXX, and NT Naguês, this is on the whole the best rendering of kimper in its ritual sense, the cases grouped under §§ 8, 9 being represented, for consistency, by deal propitiously * The extra-legal passage, 1 S 314 (§ 8), is not evidence of the "deas associated with kipper in the ceremonial system of P. * See, however, Lv (;27 1920:22, Nu 50.8. 132 PROPITIATION PROSELYTE with, or be propitious to. Whether, in actual usage, there was any consciousness of the primary sense, to “cover,’ is extremely doubtful : in all probability, kipper was felt to express only the derived ideas which have been indicated (cf. Schmoller, 283f.). 16. To return briefly, before concluding, to the use of the term in the NT. The death of Christ is represented in the NT under three main aspects: as a Núrpov, ransoming from the power of sin and spiritual death (see REDEEMER); as a kata)\\ayń, setting “at one,” or reconciling, God and man, and bringing to an end the alienation between them ; and as a propitiation, breaking down the barrier which sin interposes between God and man, and enabling God to enter again into fellowship with him. ‘Propitiation’ is in the OT attached especi- ally to the sin-offering, and to the sacrifice of the blood (or life); and Christ, by the giving up of His sinless life, annuls the power of sin to separate between God and the believer, by a sacrifice an- alogous to those offered by the Jewish priests, but infinitely more efficacious (see, further, ATONE- MENT, MEDIATION, RECONCILIATION). 17. It remains only to notice briefly the different view of kapper which is developed by Ritschl, Rechtfertigung u. Versöhnung", ii. 70-80 (on köpher), 184 – 210. Kappér, fºil argues (p. 198 f.), is attributed to all offerings, but for- giveness (implying the presence of sin) only to the sin- and guilt - offering : it is thus a false generalization to suppose that its purpose is the removal of 3in ; and this conclusion is confirmed by the fact that there are many cases of purely physical uncleanness for which, nevertheless, a sin- offering involving it is prescribed. In fact, kappér has essentially (p. 203) no 1'elation to sin ; the ‘covering’. of persons, spoken of in the priestly law, does not mean the covering of their guilt, but their protection, in order, viz., that—in accord- ance with the principle that “no man can see me and live” (Ex 33-0; cf. Gn 32%, Ex 1921 2010, Dt 5*, Jg 6** 13*, Is 6°)—they may be able to appear before God without risk of their lives; the neces- sity of such ‘protection ’ depends, however, not upon man’s sinfulness, but upon his ‘creatureli- ness’; he needs it, not as sinful, but only as created, and finite. Sin is not the ground of the kappārū, but merely (in the sin- and guilt- offering) its occasion. It follows that, upon Ritschl's view, kipper ought not to be translated ‘make propitiation (or ‘atonement') at all : accordingly, he condemns (p. 199 f.) the render- ing ‘sillnen’ as introducing “only confusion,” and considers (p. 1S6) that the LXX, in rendering (éé)t)\ágicopal, substituted for the Heb. a Greek word which was not really its equivalent. This theory is controverted at length by both Iłiehm (esp. pp. 37 f., 46–8, 51 f. , 57-9, 72–81, 83–6, but also elsewhere) and Schmoller (pp. 266–9, 274– 81); cf. also Schmidt, I’It E * xvi. 365 f. ; and in spite of the ability with which IRitschl writes, it is impossible not to think that it is a one-sided one, depending in some parts upon a combination of elements which are not combined together in the OT, and in others º features and principles which do not really, in the legislation as a whole, possess the prominence and significance which are attached to them. The crucial question undoubtedly is, What does the ſcºppūrā ‘cover’? Ritschl's view that, as it is predicated of the burnt- and peace-offering, in which there is no question of sin, it must cover man’s creatureliness, which cannot subsist in God’s presence without such ‘protection,’ introduces an idea, which is nowhere brought into connexion with sacrifice. To approach God (with sacriſice) is by no means identical with ‘seeing ' Him (in the sense im- plied in the passages quoted); nor is it ever re- oresented as endangering life : the principle of £x 33° etc. is never referred to in the legislation of P; and the cases in which life is represented as endangered are connected not with the omission of a sacrifice, but with some irreverence or irregu- larity in the discharge of sacred offices, or with some other specific act of disrespect towards God (Ex 2895. 48 3020. 21, Lv 895 101ſ. 0.7; 9 1531 16%. 18 229, Nu 415. 10, 20 1710 183. 22.8%; cf. 158819 189). In pref. erence therefore to having recourse to an expla- nation both artiſicial in itself and also with so little support in the usage of the ritual legisla- tion, it seems better to suppose that though the burnt-, peace-, and meal-offerings were not offered eacpressiy, like the sin- and guilt-offerings, for the forgiveness of sin, they nevertheless (in so far as ſcipper is predicated of them) were regarded as ‘covering,” or neutralizing, the offerer's unworthi- mess to appear before God, and so, though in a much less lº than the sin- or the guilt-offering, as effecting kappārā in the sense ordinarily attached to the word, viz. ‘propitiation.’” The great rarity with which kappé, is attributed to any but the sin- and guilt-offerings, and the fact that, where its effects are specified, they are always either the for- giveness of sin or the removal of uncleanness, are additional arguments in support of the ordinary view. It is also to be observed that Ritschl's theory implies that kappér expresses the idea of ‘protection’ far more directly and distinctly than can be deemed probable: “protection,’ as said above (§ 4), may be a secondary and indirect consequence of kappér, but it is not at all the primary and im. mediate sense of it (not even in Dt 32°; Ritschl, p. 72f.). The fact that kipper is used with reference to the removal of physical uncleanness proves, not that it stands in no relation to sin (for Nºm, to ‘free from sin,’ is used in exactly the same connexions, $ 12 c), but that the Hebrews understood the term ‘sin’ in a wider sense than we do, and included in it material, as well as moral, defilements. IITERATURE.—The two very full discussions that have been re- ferred to, Riehm, Der JBegritſ' der Siili me in A T', 1877 (reprinted from SK, 1877, pp. 7–92 : see also his A T Theol. 130-147), and Schmoller, SIY, 1891, Heft 2, pp. 205–288; Schultz, OT". Theol. i. 397–400, and Amer. Jowrm. Of Theol. iv. (1900), 285–91, 30.1-4, 300–13; Dillm. on Lv 490; Wellh. Compos.” 335 f.; Smend, A T Irel.-gesch. 321 ; Nowack, Arch. ii. 220; A. B. Davidson, “Atone” in Extra-ritual Literature,’ 10apos., Aug. 1899, p. 92 fr. Schultz's view of the ritual sense of kipper approximates to that of Ritschl, though he rejects the idea that an ethical motive is never involved in it : he would render the term by ‘consecrate’ (weihem); man is by nature weak, and consequently (physically and morally) unworthy to draw nigh unto God: the priest, by the “covering' rite, draws a veil over the creaturely unworthi- ness of the offerer, and also, if the case requires it, over his sin ; the ‘consecration' (Weihatſmſ), thus provided for him, is, as it were, a ‘wedding-garment,’ enabling him to draw near to the high and holy God without danger. S. R. DRIVER, PROSELYTE (trpoolºvros, from Tpoorépxca Oat ; lit. ‘advena,’ i.e. visitor, new comer). F i. The term ‘proselyte.’—trpoo’i)\vros is the usual LXX rendering of n} [see GER), i.e., originally, * The use of the term Him") tº ‘savour of tranquillizing or contentment,’ of the burnt-, as of the meal- and peace-offerings (Lv 19, 17 29, 10 35 al.), also implies something of the nature of a propitiation (cf. Gn 820ſ.). 4. # The etymology is suggested in such expressions, as $3.w ºf r,6 ºrportxſh roo; tº rooráAvros Ex 1248 (Lv 1933, Nu 914); 8 ºrporsallow arpoo.4xwro; ty ºfty Ex 1240; though more often in such phrases as Dºnà [ml; h;’s] ºn nin other participles are used, viz. rporasízºvo. (Lv 1629 178, 10, 19, 13, Nu 1515, 10, 25, 20 1010, Jos 200), ºrpoor) ºvákoswog (LV 182", cf. Nu 1514), yeyevzº vog (LV 20%), ºrportrop: sv6ºzsvog (Lv 1944); once only ºrporaxvºrs!oyºrs; (lºzk 147 [Aq, l’s ſº 1205), while Ezk 4722 gives roi; ºrporax&tous rot; ropouzouav ºv Aziza tºy. This last is like the rendering of ‘the gēr who is in thy gates’ in Iºx 2010, Dt 5]+ 3 ºrporáXvros 6 ropolzºv v 70ſ. t nå is eleven times translated ºrd rolzog (Gr. 151%. 23", Ex 27” 189, Dt 1421 237. (8), 2 K 113, 1 Ch 2015, Ps 38 (30) 12, 118 (110) 19, Jer 148; cf. Ps 104 (105) 12 m)}); twice 2s1%pos (£x 1219, Is 141), once #ivos (Job 3132). Job 1915 has yeſtoves for Dº. ºréodºxvroſ PROSELYTE PROSELYTE 133 one who takes up his residence in a foreign land, and so puts himself under the protection of a foreign people, as a client ; particularly a foreigner thus residing in Palestine.” The classical equivalent is étrºm)\ms or étm}\örms (advenſt); but the technical name of such a foreign resident was pºéroukos (incola), to which LXX trapoukos [uéroukos occurs Jer 20° only] corresponds. In NT (Mt. 231°, Ac 219 6" 13*) Tpogºvros is commonly understood to mean a foreign convert to the Jewish religion, a proselyte in our sense of the word. It seems to have lost all con- nexion with residence in Palestine, for the prose- lytes referred to in Ac 21° 13" live in foreign lands. When did the word lose the local (political) and gain this final technical (religious) sense ? Its meaning in the LXX is somewhat disputed. Geiger (Urschrift, p. 353 ff.) maintains that it is there strictly equivalent to gér in its original sense, while W. C. Allen (Eagositor, 1894, x. 267– 275) argues that the LXX uses the word con- sistently in the final sense of proselyte. This wide divergence of view is possible because the Hebrew word gör itself becomes almost equivalent to prose- lyte in P. f. The ideal of Judaism is that there shall be no uncircumcised alien in the Holy Land. But it cannot be proved that trpoolºvros connects itself consistently with these OT approaches of gør to its final (Mishnic) sense. It is true that trapotkos stands for gér in several passages where the sense ‘proselyte’ would be especially inappro- priate, as where Israel, or an Israelite, is called a går in a foreign land (Gn 15°, Dt 23, Gn 23, Ex 2% I88), or in God’s land (Ps 391° 11919, 1 Ch 29"), where God is Himself a går (Jer 14*), or where the law for the gēr differs from that for the home-born (Dt 14” contra. Lv 17*). Ibut on the other hand no yºy obvious reason for the render- ing exists in 2 S 1"; and—what is more important —Israelites are elsewhere called Tpogºvrot in Egypt (Ex 22° 23', Lv 1994, Dt 101"), or in God's land (Lv. 25*); the word is closely parallel to Trápotkos (Lv 25* *); circumcision is specially re- quired of a Tpogºvtos before he can eat the Pass- over (Ex 12°); and in two passages where a proselyte proper is meant, the Aramaic word ºyettºpas is used (Ex 12", Is 14").S It is certain that the LXX irpoo ºxvros, even if he is often a circumcised convert, remains always a foreign resident in Palestine. Of an application of the word to a convert to Judaism who still resides in a foreign land there is no trace. This distin- guishes the LXX use from that of the NT. In an interesting mistranslation of Is 54" LXX reads, “I3ellold, proselytes will come to thee through me, and will sojourn with thee, and will flee to thee for refuge.’ ‘ſſ The religious sense blends with the local, but does not displace it. It is therefore impossible to make the word simply equivalent to ‘convert.” The tendency of the LXX to translate gćr by trpoo`Avros is stronger than its sense of this never translates any other root, but is found without Hebrew equivalent in Lv 173, lot 1018, 1218; Is 5415 gives an interesting mistranslation. 'lººr/Avro; occurs only in Joly 2020. * } ºrporáAvro; is distinguished on the one side from the native Israelite (6 octºréx'lov, 6 yx ºptos, oi viol ’Iapo. 4A), and on the other from the foreigner (; &XXórpios, 6 & AAoysvás). The distinction from 6 ºrópouzos is less clear, and does not perfectly correspond to that between gør and toshāb. † So Theodoret : ºrpoonAérous 33 32% Aovº robº iz rāv $0 vöv rooo- 16vtc.; zoº rºw youzºv rowitsio V &raro.{ouávov; ; and Suidas : oi iſ: #Uvöv ºrpoo exaxv06ts; 22 zo, to v6ºzov rollāqzvºrs; rowitsūsallow. i Sce, e.g., Lv 17–10 (II), Nu 16 (P). The principle is, one law for home-born and gérion, 1.x 1210, Nu 914 1515.10, 29.30. § So Schürer, G./ V3 iii. 125 f.; Bertholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten w, d. Judem zu dem. I'remden, 1896, p. 250 ft. The word yetapºzº is used by Justin (Dial. c. 'I'ryph, c. 122 ſynéoo.{q, mp 6t)\\fiv. The word which thus appropriately gave a name to the whole book is found once only in the Heb. text as a title, Ps 145 being called Hºn; a Song of Praise. The regular plural of this word is téhillóth, Ps 22°, this feminine form being distinguished from the masc. têhillim, in that the former points more distinctly to the subject-matter, the latter to the form of the composition. Cf. Baethgen, who distinguishes (Pref. to Comm. p. iii) between cin Butch der Gesänge and eim Gesangbatch. The usual name for a separate psalm is n\piº mizmór, found in the titles of 57 psalms, from the third—probably the first in the earliest collection —onwards. The word by its derivation indicates that which is to be sung to a musical accompani- ment, and in practice it is used only of a religious song. The more general word nº shir, used for secular songs in Is 23" and An 8", is found in combination with anizmór 13 times in the titles: 5 times the order is shir mizºnór, and 8 times this order is reversed. Once (I’s 46) the word shir is used alone, and once it occurs in the form shºr(th (Ps 18). The word corresponding to anizmör in Greek is paxpós, properly a song to the accom: paminent of stringed instruments; and the usual title of the book in the LXX is glºos Waxºſov. But in Cod. Alex. we find pa)\tiptov, which is properly the name of a stringed instrument. 146 PSALMS, BOOK OF PSALMS, BOOK OF adopted as a title of the book; hence Eng. ‘Psalter.’ The usual Greek title is quoted in St. Luke's writings, Lk 20°, Ac 1*. The Syriac name Keshāšā dºmazmāré preserves a manne which is not found in the OT as a plural, and which did not prevail as a collective title in subsequent Jewish usage. The number of the psalms is 150, both according to the MT and the LXX. But the same total is preserved with a different arrangement in detail. Only the first eight psalms and the last three are marked by the same number in the two versions, the Greek combining Ps 9 and 10 in one, also Ps 114 and 115, whilst it divides Ps 116 and Ps 147 each into two parts severally numbered. This may be more clearly shown by the following table :- HEB. LXX Psalms 1–8 1–3 9. 10 9 11-113 10–112 114. 115 113 116 114. 115 117–146 116–145 147 140. 147 148–150 148–150 The arrangement of the Greek is followed in the Vulg, and in some of the older Eng. WSS. In the ixx is found an additional psalm (151) with the following title: ‘This psalm was written by David with his own hand, ti. it is outside the number, composed when he fought in single combat with Goliad.’ It runs as follows:— “I was small among my brethren, And youngest in my father's house, I used to feed my father's sheep. My hands made a harp, My fingers fashioned a psaltery. And who will declare unto my Lord? He is Lord, He it is who heareth. He it was who sent his angel And took me from my father's sheep, And anointed me with the oil of his anointing My brethren were goodly and tall, But the Lord took no pleasure in them. I went forth to meet the Philistine, And he cursed me by his idols. But I drew the sword from beside him ; I beheaded him and removed reproach from the children of Israel.” The psalm has no pretensions to genuineness, $9me of its phrases being obviously adaptations of the language of 1 S, but something is to be learned by comparing and contrasting it with the canonical psalms. Certain apocryphal psalms, drawn from Syrian sources, are given by Wright (PSBA, June 1887), including the above with four other psalms. One of these, in which a poet speaking in the first person is supposed to represent the feelings of the nation when Cyrus gave permission to the exiles to return from Babylon, is quoted at length by Baethgen (Introd. p. xl). The different methods of numbering, indicated above, point to a various arrangement of material which there is good reason for thinking has been much more extensive. Ps 1 and 2 are found together in some copies. In Ac 13° the Western reading preserved in D, 8, and some Lat. MSS known to Origen, describes what we call the second as the first psalm, whilst Justin (Apol. i. 40) quotes the whole of both psalms together as one prophetic utterance. As will be seen below, the distinc- tion between Ps 9 and 10 and between 42 and 43 should never have been made ; the latter two Psalms are found together in several Heb. MSS. These facts, together with others to be men- tioned, prepare us for the phenomenon of com- posite psalms. ii. FORMATION OF THE Coli, ECTION. – The Psalter, as we now have it, is divided into five books, including respectively I’s 1–41, 42–72, 73–89, 90–106, 107–150. These divisions are marked in RV, and have been recognized by the Jews from at least the 2nd cent. of our era ; it is not to be understood, however, that they represent the original lines of demarcation in the formation of the Psalter. The close of each “book’ is marked by a doxology, appended “after the pious fashiou, not uncommon in %. literature, of closing the composition or transcription of a volume with a brief prayer or word ' (W. R. Smith, who adduces º from the Diwan of the Hodalite poets, to show how the limits of an older collection of poems may be marked by the retention of a doxological phrase). This explanation unc ºtionally º: to the three doxologies, 411°, 72* * and 89*; these are clearly separable from the psalms at the end of which they are respectively found. It is not clear that 106°, at the end of Book iv., has precisely the same history ; whilst the fifth book has no closing doxology, Ps 150, which is itself a full ascription of praise, being understood to obviate the necessit for such an addition. The fivefold division is recognized in the Midrash Tehilliºn on Ps 1", which undoubtedly embodies a tradition much earlier than the commentary itself. Jeroume, also, in his Prolg. Galeat, distinguishes between the quinque imcisiones and the untºm volumen of the psalms. The passage from Hippolytus which refers to this subject cannot be urged as certainly genuine. The presence in the LXX version of the doxology at the end of the fourth book, with its liturgical addition, “And let all the people say Amen,' un- questionably points to a fivefold division as more or less clearly marked in at least the 2nd cent. B.C., but it is not probable that this division was made by the final redactor of the Psalter himself setting in their respective places four doxologies to mark the limits of the various collections. On the contrary, evidence is forthcoming to show that the Psalter gradually grew into its |. shape, and several of the stages by which the final result was reached can be distinctly traced. The chief evidence for this gradual compilation of the Psalter is as follows:– a. The existence of duplicate editions of the same psalm. Compare Ps 14 with 53, 40” with 70, 108 with 577-14, and 60°-1°. The collections in which these duplicates Severally occur must at one time have existed separately. b. The use of the names of God in the various books is such that it cannot be considered acci- dental or without significance. The facts in brief are these. In Book i. the name J" occurs 272 times, Elohim, used absolutely, only 15; in 13ook ii. the case is reversed, Elohim being found 164 times, J" only 30 times. The figures in Book iii. are more complex, and it is found necessary to divide it into two parts, so that in Ps 73–83 J” occurs 13 times, Elohim 36, while in 84–89 J" is found 31 times, Elohim only 7 times. In I}ooks iv. and v. J" is used almost alone (339 times); the only exceptions being in Ps 108 (found also in earlier lº and PS 144, which there are other reasons for holding to be composite. That this prevailing use of one or other name is due (at least in part), not to the author but to editorial modification, is made probable by the fact that we have a Jahwistic and an Iºlollistic recension of the same psalm (cf. 14 and 53, also 40” and 70); whilst the repetition of the plurase ‘God, thy God’ in 43' 45' and 507 appears to have arisen from the much more appropriate “J”, thy God.” The phraseology of some ºl. appears to have been drawn directly from certain passages in the Law, with an alteration only in the I)ivine.name used. Cf. Ps 507 with Ex 20°, Ps 7119 with Ex 151 etc. c. Another argument is drawn from the titles and the way in which the psalms are assigned in |- PSALMS, BOOK OF 147 PSALMS, BOOK OF roups to various authors, those in Books i.-iii. laving for the most part some kind of designation, whilst those in Books iv. and v. are generally anonymous. d. The editorial note in Ps 72” “The prayers of David, the Son of Jesse, are ended,” seems to prove conclusively that the compiler of the collection in question knew of no other Davidic psalms, whereas several that are found in later books are ascribed to David. c. The rarity in Books iv. and v. of the musical notes and directions so common in the earlier books points to a difference in the history of their colm- pilation. f. Another argument has been drawn from the general character of the subject - matter in the various collections. It is thus expressed by Kirk- patrick: ‘Speaking broadly and generally, the psalms of the First Division (Bk. i.) are personal, those of the Second (Bks. ii. and iii.) national, those of the Third (Blºs. iv. and v.) liturgical. There are numerous exceptions; but it is in the First Division that personal prayers and thanks- givings are chiefly to be found; in the Second, prayers in special times of national calamity (44. 60. 74, 79. 80. 83.89), and thanksgiving in times of national deliverance (46–48. 75. 76. 65–68); in the Third, psalms of praise and thanksgiving for general use in temple services’ (95–100. 105–107. 111–118, 120–136. 146–150), Introd. pp. xlii, xliii. Is it possible, them, more minutely to trace the stages by which the various sections of the Psalter assumed their present shape 2 It is noteworth that in Bk. i. all the psalms are assigned to David, with the following exceptions: Ps 1 is introductory, and was probably prefixed to the collection as a suitable preface. The absence of a title to Ps 2 seems to point to a separate history, and perhaps accounts for its having been joined in many copies to Ps. 1. Ps 10, which is anonymous, belongs to Ps 9, as is seen by the acrostic arrangement. Ps 33 is assigned to David in the LXX, but it was originally anonymous, and appears to be of dis- tinctly later date than the rest. In Bks. ii. and iii. all the psalms bear titles except Ps 43 (which, as the refrain shows, is part of 42) and 71. They fall, not quite symmetrically, into groups. Eight psalms together (42–49) are assigned to ‘the sons of IKorah,’ and a supplement of a few Korahitic psalms is found in 84.85. 87. One psalm ‘of Asaph * (50) stands alone, followed later by a group of eleven Asaphic psalms 73–83. Ten psalms of David are found together (51–70, all Davidic except 66 and 67); Ps 86, which is also ascribed to David, may be shown to be a mosaic of sentences adopted from other psalms. One psalm (72) is hº to Solomon, one to Heman, and one to Ethan. In I}ks. iv. and v., on the other hand, the rule is that the psalms are anonymous, the only exceptions being that the 90th psalm is ascribed to Moses, the 127th to Solomon, whilst a few additional ones, 17 in all, bear the name of David. The history to which these facts appear to point ...} be sketched somewhat as follows. The earliest collection consisted of Ps 3–41 or the bulk of the Psalms now so numbered, bearing generally the name of I)avid. The significance of that designation will be considered later; enough now to say that it does not necessarily imply that David himself was the author of every psalm—and to these were added Ps 1 and 2 and probably some others. The next in order were Levitical collections Korahite' or ‘Asaphite,’ and these were combined in due course by an ‘Elohistic editor, who added a few ‘J)avidic' and other psalms. A conjecture of Ewald is supported by many moderns, that l’s 51–72 originally stood after P's 41, forming one collection of ‘Davidic' psalms, with the editorial note 72” found naturally at its close. The Leviti- cal psalms would then follow in their order— Korahite 42–49, Asaphite 50. 73–83, Korahitic supplement 84–89. W. R. Smith marks the follow- ing stages in the process of forming the Psalter as it now exists:— a. The formation of the first Davidic collection, with its closing doxology, Ps 1–41. sº The second collection with doxology and subscription, Ps 2. c. The twofold Levitical collection (Ps 42–40. 50 and 73–83). d. Elohistic redaction and combination of b and c. e. Addition to d. of non-Elohistic supplement and doxology, Ps 84–89. (See OT'JC2 201). Without adopting this precise arrangement, which has, however, much to recommend it, it may be assumed that by some such process—probably one not so accurate and precise as modern critics theoretically construct — the psalms in the first three books were gathered and arranged. Ps 90– 150 are viewed by most modern scholars as one division or collection, but certain lines of stratifica- tion may easily be lº in it. One exquisite little group of psalms is found in 120–134, the ‘Songs of Ascents,’ which in all probability at one time existed as a separate “hymn-book.’ Another break is found in the doxology appended to Ps. 106, whatever may have been its precise history. Then Ps 92–100 possess a character of their own, and groups of Hoda, and Hallelujah psalms may be discerned, though it is not likely that these ever existed as separate collections. - No precise rules can be given for the order in which the psalms are found. A certain broad out- line of chronological order is perhaps discernible; sometimes psalms are grouped together which refer to the same subject-matter, e.g. the psalms of the Theophany of which l’s 98 forms a centre. The same musical designation appears to have caused the grouping of the Maschil psalms 42–45. 52–55, whilst those inscribed Michtam are found together in 56–60. Sometimes the occurrence of a word or phrase seems to link one psalm with another, and some writers, of whom Wordsworth, Forbes, and occasionally Delitzsch, may be named as examples, attach much significance to this. But it is un- desirable to build any elaborate theories upon the arrangement of lyrics the present collocation of which must have had a long history. Experience shows how gradual and irregular has been the arrangement of many modern hymn-books, in days when much greater symmetry and more formal arrangement might be looked for than in the Psalter. The dates of these several collections can be de- termined only in the most general way, and even so with a considerable measure of uncertainty. It is perhaps possible to fix a terminuts a quo and ad quem, a superior and inferior limit, to mark the period within which the whole work must haye been carried out. And first, for the superior limit, The earliest collection is that of ‘Davidic' psalms, numbered 1–41. If Ps. 1 and 2 were in- cluded in the collection when it was first made, also 25 and 33, it is tolerably certain that this was not done till after—probably not long after-the return from Captivity. Ps 1 is almost certainly post-exilic. The language of 14'. 'Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion,' does not necessarily imply the Bab. Captivity, and the verse may be a liturgical addition. I’s 25*, which forms an addition to an acrostic arrangement, breathes a similar prayer, and shows that the psalm in its present condition cannot be very early. The subject of Ps 16 does not necessitate a post-exilic date, but if a doctrine of immortality be implied in it, such a date is most probable. Some other psalms in this collection—notably 31 and 39-point I 48 PSALMS, BOOK OF PSALMS, BOOK OF nt least to the period of the later monarchy. The history of Temple-music, moreover, so far as that is ascertainable from the documents before us, hardly seems to admit of the production of such a finished collection of Temple - songs before the Exile. The Chronicler must be understood as describing in 1 Ch 15 and 16 the institutions of his own time, of which David only laid the early foundations. That a guild of Temple-singers ex- isted before the captivity of j. is probable enough, but the collection as a whole—compare the titles to Ps 24 and 28 in the LXX—implies a stage of advancement in Temple psalmody which can hardly have been reached till after the Return. This does not imply, of course, that no previous collection of sacred songs had ever been made. It is possible, though hardly probable, that in the time of Solomon some steps |. been taken in this direction. But we are dealing with the Psalter as it has come down to us, and we should name the period shortly after the Exile as the earliest possible and the most probable date for the formation of the first collection of psalms. The next may very well have taken place in the time of Nehemiah, and the work appears to have been very gradually accomplished during the succeeding centuries by stages which we cannot exactly trace, but some idea of which has been furnished above. What, then, is the inferior limit of date in the carrying out of this work 2 Here a number of arguments have to be examined, the investigation of which is in itself instructive, and the material thus furnished is sufficient to warrant tolerably definite conclusions. a. The bearing of 1 Ch 16 upon the date of the Psalter. The date of the Chronicler may be roughly taken as about B.C. 300. In ch. 16, in the course of an account of the bringing up of the ark to the city of David, the writer puts a psalm into the mouth of David as appropriate to such an occasion Tle psalm is not directly attributed to David as the tr. of v.7 in AV would imply. The ph, aseology only emphasizes the fact that David took especial care concerning the giving of thanks : ‘On that day did David make it his chief work to give thanks unto the Lord by the hands of Asaph and his brethren.’ A psalm follows, how- ever, which consists of 105** 96 and certain verses (***) from Ps 106. Apparently, therefore, the Chronicler had these psalms—possibly a collection containing these psalms—before him when he wrote. V.” seems distinctly to imply that the writer adapted the doxology to his purpose, chang- ing the imperfects into perfects, “And all the people said Amen, and praised the Lord.” If this were the case, the conclusion is clear, that I’s 106 was written, perhaps 13k. iv. formed, somewhere in the 4th cent. D. C. Closer examination shows, liowever, that this is not quite so certain. Cheyne contends (Origin of Ps. p. 457) that vv.44-4" were only liturgical formulæ, not composed solely for use in 1's 106, but freely attached to many psalms. It may be replied that the connexion between 1 Ch 16” and PS 106° as a whole appears too close to be accidental, and we can jº conceive that the psalmist adapted the phraseology of the Chronicler, though lºyle seems to favour this view (Canon of OT, p. 129). It is possible, as Cheyne suggests, that additions were made to the various books after the collections had been provisionally closed, and this possibility must not be summarily ex- cluded. It is possible, again, and for some reasons probable, that vv.” did not form part of the original text of 1 Ch 16. W.7 joins very naturally to v.”, whilst the words of the psalm do not fit in very appropriately with the phraseology of the seventh verse, when its meaning is rightly under- stood. This suggestion, originally made by Reuss, is favoured by Baethgen, and the possibility of its acceptance prevents the argument from being con- clusive. Given both texts as they stand, it seems difficult to resist the conclusion that PS 106, with its doxology complete, was before the Chronicler as he wrote. 6. The evidence afforded by the LXX is much more trustworthy, and rests upon a broader basis. It is true that we cannot be quite certain when the tr. of the Hagiographa was completed. That the whole work was begun and the tr. of the l’ent. executed about B.C. 250 seems tolerably clear; but Cheyne and some others are disposed to bring down the inferior limit for the completion of the tr. of the Hagiographa very late. All Cheyne will admit is that it was finished ‘at any rate before the Christian era.” The evidence of the prologue of Sirach, however, will hardly admit of a i. date for the tr. of the Psalter than B.C. 150. The author of this preface, writing about B.C. 130, thrice mentions ‘the law, the prophets, and the other books’ (or an equivalent expression), and he speaks of his grandfather, Jesus son of Sirach, as having been familiar with these as sacred writings. This indicates a third class of sacred Scriptures, the canon of which was not necessarily complete in the time of Siracides, say B.C. 180. 13ut that the Psalter was included among these can hardly be Questioned, even though it were not in its present form. Iteferences in 1 and 2 Mac, as we shall see, confirm this supposition. 13ut granted that the evidence is not conclusive, and bringing down the date for the tr. of the Psalter even so low as B.C. 100, it is clear that a considerable interval must be allowed for the accomplishment of the various processes passed through between the completion of the latest collection in Heb. and its rendering into Greek. Sanday (Bampt. Lect. on Inspiration, Lect. W. Note A, p. 27 l) marks as many as nine such processes. The number is probably exces- sive; but if the history of the formation of the Psalter has been at all correctly indicated, several stages must separate the composition of, say, one of the psalms in the Elohistic collection and its inclusion in the LXX. The smaller group of Korahite or Asaphic psalms would be collected, then would come the slarger Elohistic collection, the addition of title, the embodiment of the smaller collection in the full Psalter of 150 psalms, the numeration, the formation of titles as found in the Greek,--these are some of the steps which must have been successively taken. Probably not much time needs to be allowed for some of them, some may even have been contemporaneous, but reſlection shows that an interval of, at least, one or two decades must be allowed between the com- pletion of the Heb. Psalter and its tr. into Greek. 'y. A further argument may be drawn from 1 Mac 71", which quotes Ps 79—usually accounted one of the latest in date—with the formula usual in citing Scripture—Karā Toys Nöyous oi's 8-ypayev. For a psalm thus to be recognized and quoted as Scripture, implies the lapse of a considerable in- terval since its composition. Not mach reliance for our purpose can be placed on the statement of 2 Mac 21", which ſº how Nehemiah, found- ing a library, gathered together the books about the kings and prophets, and the books of David (tà roſ, Aavelö) and letters of kings about sacred gifts.” 6. Indirectly, the so-called ‘Psalms of Solomon’ (which see) furnish evidence from another point of view. These psalms possess a distinct character of their own. If they may be placed, as most modern scholars are inclined to place them, about the middle of the 1st cent. B.C., a considerable interval must be allowed as elapsing between their composition and that of the latest canonical books. Even a PSALMS, BOOK OF PSALMS, BOOK OF 149 superficial reader must be struck by the contrast between these ‘psalms of the Pharisees’ and those of the canonical psalter, Kirkpatrick speaks of them as “separated by an impassable gulf.’ This is strong language; but on the two great subjects of the future life and the Messianic hope the contrast is so striking, that if argument from growth and development of thought, is worth anything at all, this is a case in which great reliance must be placed upon it. Passing by other arguments of more question- able value, such as that from the musical titles, which were certainly unintelligible to the Gr. trans- lators, and that from the language of the Chronicler concerning the Levitical guilds of singers, we may perhaps come to the following conclusion :-The }. is a collection of religious poetry chiefly, though not entirely, intended for use in public worship, and very gradually compiled. The ear- liest stage of the final process dates from shortly after the Exile, one step succeeding another through the compass of some three centuries, till the collection was virtually closed in the first half of the 2nd cent. B.C. Ityle represents the pre- vailing view of modern scholars when he says, “The time of its final promulgation in its present form and of its first recognition as part of the people's Scriptures, may well have been that of the great religious revival that accompanied the suc- cess of the Maccabaean revolt, and the downfall of the Hellenizing party among the priests and nobles’ (Canon of OT, p. 127). The exact form of the conclusion reached is somewhat dependent on the decision of questions concerning the date and authorship of individual psalms, a subject in- timately bound up with that just discussed, to which accordingly we now pass. iii. DATE AND AUTHORSHIP. — Care must be taken not to confuse date of compilation and date of composition, and sometimes a distinction must be made between the date of composition of the original psalm and the date to be assigned to it in its present form. Many of these lyrics were handed down orally, and, in particular, some of those that were connected with public worship may have been long current in a narrower circle before they found a place in a smaller or larger collection of psalms. Further, the phenomena of the Psalter, as we have it, prove conclusively that modifications were freely made in existing com- positions, whether to make them suitable for public worship or to adapt them to the new cir- cumstances of a new time. It is not the object of this article to describe the history of lyric poetry amongst the Hebrews. But no intelligent judgment can be formed as to the probable date of these particular sacred songs, without a brief survey of what is known from other sources concerning the history of this form of literary composition in Israel. The history of the people begins with an outburst of song. The deliverance from Egypt at the Red Sea was an event which made a deep impression on the ritual, the literature, and the national life of Israel. It was signalized, according to Ex 15, by a Song ‘which Moses and the children of Israel sang' —a paean not unworthy of the great occasion. It is found as part of the ‘second Elohist’s ’ narrative, doubtless handed down from earlier days, and is fitted into its place by v.". That the whole song in its present form is antique seems hardly likely. Ewald, l)illmann, jº. and Driver agree that VV.” give the ruling strain of the ancient hymn, While the language of vv.” and 7" seems to point to later days, when the early deliverance was triumphantly recalled. The ‘Song of Moses’ in Dt 32 may with some conſidence be assigned to the Bth cent. B.C. It is not Mosaic in its point of view ; v.7" are enough to show that the settlement in Canaan is an event of the far past. Driver would ſix the date about the time of Jeremiah, and some features point in this direction. But it is near enough for the present purpose, if it be assigned generally to the period of the monarchy. The remarkable poem given at length in Jg 5, known as the Song of Deborah, is generally recog- nized as one of the oldest fragments of Heb. literature. Kuenen describes it as contemporaneous with the events it celebrates, and most critics acknowledge the absence of anachronisms and the strong impression of reality which this ode leaves upon them. The date of Hannah's song in 1 S 2 cannot easily be determined. Judged by modern ideas, it seems little suited for the occasion on which it is said to have been uttered, except so far as it sets forth the Divine exaltation of the lowly, or may be considered to º: a prophetic character. That it was composed after the establishment of the monarchy seems clear from v.”. The lament over Saul and Jonathan ascribed to David in 2 S 1 may be taken as genuinely Davidic. It contains nothing inconsistent with the occasion, none of those indications of a later point of view some- times found lurking in a id: clause or allusion, whilst the date of the compilation of the book, so far as can be gathered, would point to an early origin for the elegy. Other indirect evidence as to the handing down of such songs from early times may be drawn from the mention of the “book of Jashar’ and the “teaching of the song to the children of Judah” in v.”. The “last words’ of David, found in 2 S 23, do not stand on quite the same footing, since these later chapters form an appendix to the book which may be much later in date. Other lyrics which have come down to us embedded in prophetic literature — with which psalmody is closely connected—are the thanksgiving of Is 12, the dirge of Hezekiah in Is 38, the prayer of Habakkuk in Hab 3, and that of Jonah in Jon 2. It is impossible to enter into detailed questions of criticism, yet the objective evidence afforded by the dates of these poems, if they could be fixed, would be important, for these would serve as land- marks to judge of compositions when removed from their setting. Is 12 lº belongs to the Yeriod of Hezekiah. The dirge in ch. 38 may well |. of the same date. It was apparently added by the compiler of Is 36–39 to the historical narratives drawn from 2 Kings. Cheyne compares the lan- guage of the dirge with that of Job, and holds it to be exilic, inserted on the principle that psalms in any sense illustrative of historical incidents might be quoted as if actually connected with them. The prayer of Habakkuk is considered by many critics to be a late addition, but there is no valid reason why it should not belong to the 6th cent. B.C. The general character of Jon 2 seems to mark it out as a cento of phrases drawn from earlier psalms. It has none of the freshness and force to be expected in a composition of the time of Jonah the prophet. Sathering this hasty survey to a close, it may be said in a word that the highly elaborated poetical composition entitled ‘The Lamentations,’ though not by Jeremiah, and perhaps not of single author- ship, may—allowing for the slightly varying dates of its diſſerent parts — be with some conſidence placed soon after the Exile, in the course of the (5th cent. B.C. The finished acrostic arrangement, no less than the language and style, points to an advanced stage of poetical composition. See, further, art. Polºrity (IIEBR]...W). If these results are only approximately correct, they furnish valuable data for further investiga- tion. We cannot obtain as much info1 mation 150 PSALMS, BOOK OF PSALMS, BOOK OF concerning the history of music and song in con- nexion with temple-worship. The notes of the Chronicler, written long after the event, though in many cases drawn from original sources, hardly enable us to determine how far the services which were inaugurated by David had developed in the earlier period of the monarchy. Some of the descriptions seem to give a picture of the full organization known to the Chronicler, of which l)avid established merely the rudiments. I)elitzsch laid it down that there were three chief epochs of psalmody in Israel—the time of David, of Jehosha- phat, and of Hezekiah ; but in our records it is difficult to distinguish the stages of growth in the music and worship of the sanctuary. It seems clear, however, that the position discernible after the Exile (Ezr 2+1 and N d 7*) implies considerable previous development, at least under the later monarchy, though its exact degree is doubtful. On the other hand, the outburst of song in the time of the Maccabees, of which many recent critics have much to say, while probable enough, is hypothetical only. The theory is likely enough a priori, and possesses some slight indirect con- firmation from history (cf. 2 Mac 2"), but its historical basis is not strong enough to bear any solid superstructure. The evidence of Jer 33” is by no means unimportant where external evidence is so scanty ; pointing, as it does, to a measure of liturgical development and the use of formulae in worship during the Chaldaean period, which may form a fixed point in dealing with the psalms. Let us next examine the titles so far as these bear on authorship. The facts are these. One psalm is attributed to Moses, 73 to David (in the five books respectively, 37. 18. l. 2. 15), 2 to Solomon, 12 to Asaph, 11 to the sons of Korah, l to Heman, and 1 to Ethan. In fourteen cases the historical circumstances of composition are alluded to (cf. Ps 3. 7, etc.). These cease in the later books. Those that have come down to us are sometimes taken from the historical books, and Sometimes present difficulties, as in the mention of “Cush,’ l’s 7. The LXX contains some additional titles. The following psalms, anonymous in the Heb., are in it ascribed to David, 33. 43. 67. 91. 93–99. 104; PS 138 and 139 are inscribed in cod. A rig Aaveló Zaxaptov, while 146. 147, and 148 have the title Ayyatov Kai Zaxaplov. The historical refer- ences peculiar to this version are often curious or obscure, e.g. Ps 27 trpo toº xpta ()ijval, Ps 29 Šoštov a knvās, I’s 66 ávaarāaews, whilst Ps 76 and 80 are entitled Tpús Tov 'Ago (ptov and Utrép roſ, "Aao uptov, and PS 144 rpós rôv Toxt{6. This version contains also, it may be said in passing, notices of the days on which certain psalms were recited in public, as Ps 92 in the Heb. is spoken of as a Sabbath-psalm. Ps 24 was sung on the first day of the week, 48 on the second, 94 on the fourtli, and 93 on the day before the Sabbath. The anonymous psalms, called “orphans’ in later days, were by the later Jews provided with parents by being attributed to the author named in the nearest previous psalm (see Jerome, Epist. 139 ad Cypriam wºn). In all probability it is on this principle that so many psalms in the first book came to be attributed to David, and in later times Moses was credited with all the psalms 91–100, extending, that is, from the ‘Mosaic ’ 90th Ysalm to the 101st, which bears David’s name. The usage by which the whole Psalter came to be attributed to David, so that the popular name * David was applied to the whole collection in He 47 is easily intelligible, and has been fre- quently paralleled since in the names of ‘Wesley’s’ and other popular hymn-books. The time when these titles were added cannot be exactly determined. Some would be preſixed at the time of the earlier compilations, others when the collections of collections were made. Several of the titles in the LXX show, what one or two psalms in the Heb. exhibit, a combination of in- consistent traditions, both as regards author and occasion. As a whole, the titles represent an early, but far from contemporary tradition, and 8,162 ić, the most part uncritical in character, as may be shown by the following considerations. 1. Some of the psalms assigned to David cannot by any possibility be his. Compare, e.g., the Aramaisms of 103. 122. 139 and 144; but ospecially those of 139, a psalm which must be annongst the latest in the Psalter. Other explanations have been given of these Aramaisms which cannot be considered satisfactory; but if they are supposed to originate in the §§º ICingdom, Davidic authorship is equally set aside. 2. Some psalms ascribed to David are evidently late because of their obvious borrowings from earlier psalms. These are tame in style, lacking the fresh vigour associated with the Davidic period, though often with a plaintive beauty of their own (cf. Ps 86). 3. The acrostic psalms 25. 34 and 37 cannot be David’s. It is conceivable that this artificial style of composition came into use early, but it is not .. Known examples of it are late, and some other features in the acrostic º of the first book--e.g. the condition of the State, the exhortations to patience under oppression, as in Ps 37—make so early a date impossible. 4. The mention of the temple in 57 27* etc. must be considered as an evidence of date. It has been contended (e.g. by Delitzsch, Psalms, vol. i. pp. 160, 161) that ºn might be applied to the Davidic tabernacle; but it is only by a certain straining of language that a word for ‘palace’ could be applied to a tent, even though that tent were the dwelling- place of God. The phrase God’s ‘holy hill,’ more- over, seems to imply that the sanctuary had been established upon Zion for some considerable time (see Driver, LOT." p. 375). The early use of these expressions might, however, perhaps be allowed, if all other features of the psalms in question favoured a Davidic authorship. But this is not the case. The language which º a period of oppression and fear (Ps 9” etc.) requires a good deal of adap- tation before it will fit David’s position, and the same may be said of the descriptions of the kind of foes against which the psalmist had to contend. Traditional interpretation may have accustomed readers to think of David under persecution by Saul, or at the time of Absalom's rebellion, but close examination shows that much of the language is inappropriate in David's mouth. Often there is a superficial resemblance to the circumstances of I)avid’s life, combined with real incompatibility. See, e.g., Ps 20 and 21, which refer to the king, but could not have been written by king David in relation to himself; Ps 55*, *, which might seem to point to Ahithophel, but that so many phrases of the psalm (vv.” ". ", and the phraseology, care- fully considered, of ***) are incompatible with David’s position. Many of the psalms ascribed to David are not the language of a monarch at all, but the plaintive complaints of one who is crushed under a governm ent which he has no power to modify, and from which he cannot escape. Isolated expressions such as are ſound in 51* * may be explained as liturgical additions to an originally Davidic psalm, while 69* might conceivably be understood of David's time ; but some violence is required in each case. And putting together (1) the separate phrases which betray a later date, (2) the kind of trials to which the psalmist is cxposed, (3) the condition of society exhibited, (4) the maturity of theological thought often manifested. PSALMS, BOOK OF PSALMS, BOOK OF 151 wº- it will be seen that a strong case is made out against at least a large number of the psalms attributed in the titles ‘to David.’ Is it to be said, then, that David wrote none of the psalms that have come down to us? Well- hausen's dictum has often been quoted, that ‘the question is not whether the Psalter contains post- exilic, but whether it contains any pre-exilic salms,” and that question is by many answered in the negative. It will be safer to conduct the inquiry upon critical principles cautiously applied. First, little or no reliance is to be placed on the titles as indicative of authorship. For it is not certain that the Triº is to be understood of personal authorship (compare the title ‘of the Sons of Korah,” where the preposition is admittedly not the Lamed awctoris). It is probable that a title originally given to one or two psalms in a book was after- wards affixed se lººd to all in a collection. And the arguments above alleged show that many of the titles must have been affixed in a crude and super- ficial way. But the same cannot be said of the general reputation of David as a psalmist. This must have rested upon a tolerably substantial basis. It has been said that David was noted only as a musician, not as a poet. The passages 1 S 16*, 2 S 1173* 614, and Am 6% are said not to imply more than this. But the Chronicler makes David to have been the founder of psalmody, see 1 Ch 15**, 2 Ch 7°, and compare Ezr 3", Neh 12”. Further, it has already been seen that David was confessedly the author of the elegy of 2 S 1, and the 18th psalm is attributed to him in 2 S 22. It is said that the first of these poems is not of a religious character, but that does not constitute a proof that the writer could not compose a reli- gious poem, and for literary purposes its evidence is valid. David was the writer of verses which, as literature, are parallel with the psalms, whilst early tradition ascribes to him the composition of psalms also. Taking, then, the 18th psalm as a kind of test case, how stands the evidence 2 (a) Easternal Evidence. If the 22nd ch. forms an integral part of 2S, the testimony to Davidic authorship is early and strong. If–as there is reason to suppose— chs. 22 and 23 constitute a later addition to the book, their evidence is greatly weakened. It is not easy to determine whether the text as given in the }. is earlier or later than that found in the history. Baethgen inclines to hold that the psalm gives the earlier form of text, but that the two have been handed down independently. On the other hand, it is much more probable that the brief historical introduction with which Ps 22 opens was taken from the history than vice versá. (3) Internal Jºvidence. The contents of the psalm suit well the early monarchy, and can, in fact, with difficulty be applied to any other period. The vigour and freshness which characterize the style have convinced Ewald and many other critics of the Davidic authorship. The only arguments on the other side have been drawn from v.”, which might very well have come from David's pen, and v.v.". ", which do unquestionably point the other way, though there is nothing in them absolutely incompatible with Davidic authorship. The theory adopted by Cheyne and others who support a much later date is that the Writer, with marvellous ability and success, throws him- self back into the life of the conquering hero of many centuries before, and the poem was ‘con- jºlly ascribed to the idealized David not long Jefore the Exile.” This conclusion appears to spring from the assumed premiss that ‘from the point of view of the history of art, not less than from that of the history of religion, the supposition that we have Davidic psalms presents insuperable difficulties.” The conjunction of intermal and *~ external evidence furnishes a fair, though not conclusive, case in favour of the Davidic author- ship of Ps 18, such as would reasonably be accepted in the case of any similar document in classical literature, and it can be overruled only by con- siderations drawn from a general view of OT religion, such as cannot be discussed here. It is obvious that a decision on the question of the 18th psalm will carry many others with it. If this psalm be not David’s, probably none from his pen has come down to us; if it be, the way is . to examine other psalms for which a similar claim is made, rejecting such as are condemned b internal evidence. The only other psalm of .. mention can be made here is the 110th. Older ex- positors, such as Delitzsch and Ewald, held it to be TXavidic, or of the Davidic age, but the tendency of modern criticism is to assign to it a muc later date. The terseness, vigour, and occasional obscurity of its phraseology favour an early origin, and its occurrence in the fifth book of the Psalter, which tells in favour of a late date, is not absolutely inconsistent with an earlier. Decision upon the point is bound up with the exposition of v.”. If the opening words may be understood in the sense that the Messiah is objectively regarded as the psalmist's Lord, David may be regarded as the speaker. . If, as many hold, this is impossible, the theocratic priest-king must be addressed by the psalmist as his lord, and the Messianic reference can only be indirect and typical, and Davidic author- ship is excluded. It has been attempted to support the first of these theories by the language of 2S23%-" and the prophecy recorded in 2 S 7, but these do not present a close parallel to the kind of Messianic reference proposed. An argument, conclusive to the minds of many, is drawn from our Lord's quota- tion of this psalm as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels. This quotation shows at least that the current Jewish opinion regarded the psalm as Messianic, but it does not exclude—(1) the sup. position that an argumentum ad hominem was intended sufficient for the purpose which Christ, had in view, or (2) the fact that the argument to be drawn from the psalm holds good, if for ‘David’ the general word “psalmist' were substituted. A study of the whole use of OT made by Christ in His teaching shows that the questions of date and authorship with which criticism is chiefly concerned were not before the mind of our lord as He spoke, nor was it His object to pronounce upon them. In general, the conclusion reached upon the subject of Davidic psalms seems to be as follows. It cannot certainly be proved that David wrote any psalms; the probability is that he wrote many; it is not likely that all these were lost; some of those extant which are ascribed to him are appro- priate in his lips; external evidence ascribes the 18th psalm to David, and if it be his, it is probable that others also should be attributed to him ; and in determining the number of these, internal evidence drawn from contents, style, allusions, etc., is the sole criterion. The judgment of critics proceeding upon these lines maturally varies considerably. Baethgen, with some hesitation, admits 3 psalms as I)avidic, Schultz 10, Ewald 17, Delitzsch 44, while l)river (J.OT''' 380) sums up by saying—‘A mon liquet must be our verdict ; it is possible that Ewald's list of Davidic psalms is too large, but it is not clear that none of the psalms contained in it are of David's composition.” The arguments above adduced would lead to the conclusion that from ten to twenty psalms—including 3.4. 7. 8, 15, 18. 23. 24, 32, and perhaps 101 and 110—may have come down to us from bº, pen, but that the number can hardly be greater and may be still less. The 90th psalm cannot have been written by Moses, nor the 72nd 152 PSALMS, BOOK OF PSALMS, BOOK OF and 127th by Solomon. The titles in these cases must be understood as indicative of the subject- matter. The reference of certain psalms to Asaph, Heman, Ethan, and the sons of Korah, is to be understood from the point of view of compilation rather than of authorship. If these psalms were taken from collections associated with the Levitical guilds known by these historical names in the time of the second temple, the titles become easily intelligible. It creates difficulties to press the meaning of the preposition as Lanned auctoris, and to suppose (e.g.) that the family or guild of ‘IS orah were either separately or conjointly authors of psalms. It is quite possible that the free multiplication of the title. Thih is due to the same habit on the part of those who formed the several collections. Compilers would think more of the source from which the psalms were actually derived than of the presumably remote original author, especially in days when personal authorship was not dwelt upon as in a later time. On the general subject of the age of the Psalms, Cheyne hardly allows one to be pre-exilic ; the scattered references to monarchy he applies for the most part to the time of the Maccabaean revival. In this he stands almost alone amongst English critics, though the general tendency of criticism is to assign a continually increasing majority of the psalms to the post-exilic period. Cornill probably represents the prevailing opinion of contemporary scholars when he describes (Einleitung, p. 221) the Psalter as representing a reaction of the old Israelitish pious feeling against the stiffening formalism of the time of Ezra and his successors, a proof that the religious genius of Israel in the 3rd and 4th centuries B.C. had not heen quenched by the growing influence of what was later known as Pharisaism. The historical allusions which are found in some psalms are not for the most part decisive, and these cease to have any weight if the possibility of later impersonation and idealization is freely conceded. H. the language of the psalms as it stands, however, the nearest approach to definiteness on the ground of historical allusions would be found in Ps 46 as applied to the overthrow of Sennacherib, Ps 74 and 79 to the period of the Maccabees. Ps 68, which by earlier critics was assigned to the reign of Jehoshaphat, almost certainly belongs to the º of the Second Temple, and Ps. l 18, which has generally been considered as especially suitable to the return from Captivity, is ...}. y assigned by Cheyne to the Maccabaean period. Ps 45, which most critics place during the monarchy, is under- stood by the same writer of Ptolemy Philadelphus. If historical allusions are not decisive, neither will the evidence of parallel passages avail much. If the dates of Job, of Deut., and of certain chapters of Isaiah could be ſixed, the dates of a few psalms might be approximately determined ; e.g. PS 8 was written before the Book of Job, and i’s 90 after Deuteronomy. The date of Jer. is well known, but a comparison between the language of the psalms and the prophet (cf. Ps 1 with Jer 177 °) makes it difficult to say which can claim the priority. A certain group of psalms, e.g. 69, may with some confidence be assigned to the period of Jeremiah. In only a very few cases can linguistic evidence be considered as decisively characteristic of late date ; I’s 139 is probably the best example of this. The criterion of style is too subjective and too differently estimated by different critics to be re- lied º as evidence of date. Arguments drawn from the stage of theological thought visible in the psalms depend upon the view taken of the history of OT, theology, and opinion can hardly be con- sidered ripe enough on this subject for it to be employed with certainty. The psalms themselves form no inconsiderable portion of the evidence by means of which that history is to be traced out, and it is clear that the vicious circle must be avoided which would conclude that a given psalm “cannot be of early origin because the ideas it con- tains cannot have been promulgated so early.” The state of religious i. and life manifested in the writings of the prophets Amos and Hosea presup- oses a long religious history, the nature of which i. not yet been made sufficiently clear to allow of sweeping dogmatic assumptions. And, apart from a belief in the supernatural, the history of religion shows how frequently the vates, whether bard or prophet, has been before his time in his religious intuitions and aspirations. Certain general conclusions may, however, be given, which will guide us º to the time when the psalms as a whole were composed. A few being probably Davidic, a considerable number, especially in the earlier books, are pre-exilic, but the greater 3roportion of these date after the 8th cent. B.C. The large majority of the psalms may be with confidence assigned to the period during and shortly after the Exile, some few to the 3rd and even the 2nd cent. B.C. i Are any Maccabaean psalms included in the Psalter 2. This much debated question has received very various answers. There is an a priori proba- bility in favour of the existence of such psalms and of their inclusion in the Psalter, if the Canon of OT were not closed too early to admit them. The strong probability is that the Canon was not virtually closed till about B.C. 100, and the Psalter may have been kept open even after the various collections were formed, in the sense that a few later psalms might find their way in after a collec- tion possessed a separate existence. The evidence of Josephus and of 2 Mac may be taken as indirectly confirming the a priori probability that the Mac- cabaean times would furnish a vigorous psalmody. The evidence of the ‘ Psalms of Solomon' shows that the true spirit of psalm-composition existed even later, though the hopes and ideals of the psalmist had altered. º. we examine the extant psalms, however, diſliculties arise. Those which appear most filcely to have sprung from Maccabaean times, such as 44. 74, 79. 83, are found, not in the later, but in the earlier or middle collec- tions. It is possible, but not easy, to understand how a psalm composed B.C. 150 made its way into Book ii. and was labelled, not in the Heb. only, but in the Greek, as a psalm of Asaph. It is urged by some that the language of these psalms may be appropriately understood of earlier desolations than .. of the time of Antiochus. But in Ps 74°, for example, the phrase ºs ºp (though understood by the LXX of feasts) seems distinctly to point to the synagogues of a later period, while 74° connects jº' naturally with 1 Mac 4" 997 14". The argu- ment drawn from the repeated use of pºpſ, on the other hand, has been too much pressed, as if it must necessarily refer to the time when tho IIztsidim became a recognized party, when ‘the company of the Iſasidaeans, mighty men of Israel,’ offered themselves ‘willingly for the law (1 Mac 2*). It by no means follows that all mention of ‘the pious ones’ is to be taken as distinctly Mac- cabaean. The history of opinion displays considerable diversity of opinion on this question. Theodore of Mopsuestia, holding the Davidic origin of the |. generally, taught that David projected himself in the spirit of prophecy into the times of the Maccabees, so that some of the psalms faith- fully picture that period. Calvin attributed I’s 44. 74 and 79 to the period in question ; IIitzig and Olshausen enlarged this short list to embrace the IPSALMS, BOOK OF IPSALMS, BOOK OF 153 reater portion of the Psalter, including all psalms from 73 to 150. Reuss assigned several psalms to a still later period—that of John Hyrcanus, B.C. 135 – 107. di. indicates some twenty-five psalms as Maccabaean, including 20. 21. 33.44. 60. 61. 63. 74. 79. 83. 101. 108. 115–118. 135–138. 145– 150. His criteria of “a uniquely strong church feeling,” an ‘intensity of monotheistic faith,’ and an “ardour of gratitude for some unexampled stepping forth of the Lord J" into history,’ are not susceptible of specific and decisive application to Maccabaean times. The first criterion mentioned by Cheyne—the existence of ‘some fairly distinct º to Maccabaean circumstances'—would be decisive if its occurrence could be clearly proved. But the allusions are held by such critics as Gesenius, Ewald, Dillmann, and º: to be anything but distinct. In our judgment the number of Maccabaean psalms cannot be large, but the bare possibility that a few such psalms were included in the Psalter before the Canon was closed should be left open. If any psalms of the 2nd cent. B.C. are found in our present collection, the internal evidence which would assign 44. 74. 79. 83 to this period may be held to outweigh the unquestionable diſliculties arising from their place in the second and third books. iv. TITLES.—It has been found convenient to dis- cuss such of the titles as bear on the question of authorship already; the present section will there- fore be devoted to an examination of those words or phrases, mostly musical notes, which require ex- planation. For the sake of convenience, they are given in alphabetical order, following the EV. 'Aijeleth hash-Shahar, Ps 22 nºt nº sºy, LXX WTrép Tàs &vrixhakews tºs éa,0uvºs, i.e. ‘concerning the morning aid” (nºn); so Targum, which refers to the Tamid, the perpetual morning sacrifice; Jerome, pro cervo matutino (so Aq.). “Upon 'here signifies ‘set to the tune of ' (IRV), the name of the song being prob “Hind of the Dawn.’ W. R. Smith compares Arabic usage in thus describing melodies; also Ephraem in the Syriac. Baethgen understands the morning to be viewed as ‘the hind in its swiftness.’ ‘Ālāmóth, Ps 46; cf. 1 Ch 15-" ‘psalteries set to Alamoth” (RV), nicºy-by, LXX &rt rôv kpvptov, ‘about the hidden things’ (n\phy), So Targum ; Jerome, after Aq., pro juventottibus. In 1 Ch, LXX transliterates &\alpº,0. Ges. and most moderns derive from ‘almah, ‘damsel,” and render ‘with accompaniment of damsel voices,’ or ‘in soprano.’ 18wethgen llolds that this interpretation is not suitable to PS 46. Itashi understands it of a musical instrument, as modern viola or tenor- violin. Cf. “Double-bass,’ corresponding to Shemi- 'mith, which see. It is a question whether the closing words of Ps 48 'al-muth, which will hardly bear the translation ‘unto death,’ should not be read as 'alámóth and taken as part of the title of the following psalm. *Al-taschith (AV), 'Al-tashheth (IRV), Ps 57. 58. 59.75, nººs, LXX ui, Suaq,0elpms ; Jerome ut mon disperdas. As in RV, this must be understood to mean “set to the tune of, Destroy not.’ l’ossibly these words may form the beginning of an old vintage-song, such as we find described in Is 65°, when the new wine is found in the cluster, “and one saith, Destroy it not, for a blessing is in it ’; but this is mere conjecture (see OTJC * p. 209). Ascents.-See Degrees. Chief Musician, for the.—Pound in 55 psulms, beginning with Ps 4. See also Hab 3". Heb. Usinº, LXX els to téNos (connect with ſis,” “for ever”). Other Gr. VSS, els to vºkos, Jerome Victori ; follow- ing apparently the meaning of a kindred Aram. root. The verb ns) is found in 1 Ch 15” in refer- ence to music, and is rendered “to excel' in AV, ‘to lead ' the singing in RV. In 1 Ch 23" it means ‘to preside over’, the work in question. The meaning of the title, therefore, apparently is that the psalm was to be given to the precentor or leader of the choir, and was intended to be sung in the temple-service. Dedication, A Song at the d. of the house, Ps 30, Heb. nºn n×n-nº, LXX &karáaews.—The order of words in this title suggests that in its present form it combines two several traditions; it is at the same time a psalm lé-David and a song for the dedication of ‘the house.’ It is possible that the two may be combined; not, however, when the site was chosen for the temple (Hengstenberg), for this was not the dedication of a house; nor (prob- ably), at some re-consecration of the palace after Absalom's rebellion and David’s absence. The most probable supposition, if the psalm is to be referred to David’s lifetime, is that of Delitzsch, Who refers it to the house mentioned in 2 S 511, and supposes that about this time the king was re- covering from severe sickness. It is known, how- ever (Sopherim xviii. 2), that this psalm was used by the Jews from an early date at the feast of Húmukkah, the “dedication’ mentioned in 1 Mac 494 and Jn 10”, and Baethgen and many moderns con- sider that this clause of the title was added later as an after-thought. It has been questioned whether this is consistent with the ignorance of its meaning shown by the LXX. The probability is that the clause refers to a liturgical use of the psalm, not to its original composition. Degrees, Songs of, Ps 120. 122–134 nºver. Tº ; in 121 vº; DXX jö. Töv čvagabuſºv, Jeromé canticum graduum, whence AV “degrees,’ RV ‘ascents.’—Grammatically, the form of the title in PS 121 is the more correct, if nº is to be under- stood of an individual psalm. W. R. Smith and Cheyne understand it collectively= nº, properly the title of the whole group, the plural ‘ascents’ indicating that the title of the group has come to be affixed to each psalm separately. The following meanings have been attached to this ambiguous phrase:– 1. The return from Babylon (Ewald). See Ezr 7", in which we read of ‘the going up from Babylon,’ and cf. Ezr 2'. The use of the plur. ‘goings up is explained to refer to more than one journey, under Cyrus and Artaxerxes (Ezr 2 and 8); or to the number of caravans, cf. ol āvagalvovres of Jn 12". It is hardly likely, however, that the plural would be used of the one event which so signalized itself in the memory of the people, and the subject- matter of at least Ps 122 and 134 is unsuitable to this connexion. 2. The going up to the annual festivals in Jeru- salem. The word ma'ailah is not elsewhere used of these journeys, but the cognate wb. Hºy is (Ps 122' al.). The psalms are for the most part suitable in subject for such a purpose, either directly (see 122. 132. 133) or indirectly. Herder, Reuss, W. R. Smith (‘Pilgrimage songs’), and Baethgen may be mentioned as amongst those who favour this ex- planation. - 3. Fifteen steps led from the women's court to the men's court in the temple, and the Talmud (Midd. ii. 5, Sukkah 15b) says that these corresponded to the songs of degrees; not, however, that the psalms were named after the steps, or that the }. sang these particular psalms upon, the steps. This explanation of the name, has, how- ever, been held by some (e.g. Armfield, who has written a monograph upon the subject). * 4. Delitzsch favours the interpretation which finds an allusion to the peculiar style or structure of the psalms, the repetition of a word or phrase, with a gradual ladder-like ascent as to a climax- “a step-like progressive rhythm of thoughts.' Compare the structure of the “triolet' in more 154 PSALMS, BOOK OF PSALMS, BOOK OF recent literature. Against this, however, it may be urged that not aſ these psalms exhibit this structure (see 132); that it is found in some other psalms (e.g. 29); and that nowhere else is this technical use of the word found. 5. In höhern Chor (Luther) to be sung ‘in louder tones’; so R. Sa'adya Gaon, and cf. 2 Ch 201" lé-mnà'lah (diff. word from Hºp), ‘with a loud voice on high ' (AV), ‘an exceeding loud voice’ (IRV). 6. An explanation, first given by Rashi, , has lately been revived by Schiller - Szinessy, which refers the word to the ‘liftings-up ’ or ‘goings-up” of the heart in adoration and trust. See 121* 1231 1301. It will be gathered from the above sketch that no certain meaning can be given to the title of this group of lovely psalms. The second explanation is, on the whole, the most probable. . Gittith, Set to the, Ps 8. 81. 84, Heb. nºnstrºy, LXX ºrép rôv Amvöv, Jerome pro (in) torcularibws (nina).-The Targ. explains of a musical instru- ment which David brought from Gath, or of the form of a wine-press. Generally understood to indicate the name of a tune, possibly set to a vintage - song, a meaning which the LXX and Jerome may possibly have had in view in their renderings. }. understands it to mean ‘the March of the Gittite guard.” Higgaion (i\'ºſ). — This word does not occur in any of the titles, but is found in Ps 9" and is con- veniently considered here. It occurs in connexion with Selah (which see), and the double phrase is rendered by LXX 66% 8tayáNuatos. It is found in the text of Ps. 92°, where Cheyne renders ‘with sounding music upon the harp.’. The root Hin from which the word is probably derived means to emit a deep, murmuring sound, and is used of a lion in Is 31*, of a dove in Is 38", and of a mourner in Is 167. Also in a secondary sense of meditation or device in Ps 1914, La. 3%. Kimchi º: Higgaion from this secondary meaning of the root ; but it is in all probability a musical term derived from the primary meaning, possibly indicating a ‘forte burst of joyous music.’ Jonath-'elem-réhokim, Ps 56 ppm pºs nºw, LXX Utrép too Aaoû roß &trö Tóv àºylwv prepakpup- pºvov, a tr. which supposes that Israel is intended by the word Fiji dove, and D9N is quite misunderstood. Like so many others of these enigmatical phrases, this is in all probability the name of a melody to which the psalm is to be sung. With the reading Dºs the phrase may be interpreted ‘the dove of the distant terebinths’; with present pointing, as in RVm, ‘the silent (love of tº that are afar off.” Mahálath, Ps 53; Mahſilath, lê 'amm.0th, Ps 88, Heb. nºnp-by, or with addition of nºvº, LXX Virép Mae)\é6 (roß &trokpuðval) as pr. name, see Gn 28°, 2 Ch 111°, Jerome pro choro, per chorum (after Aq. Theod. Symm.). Considerable uncertainty attaches to the rendering of this phrase. If it does not indicate the name of a tune (Ibn Ezra), or the sad- ness of the melody to which the psalm was sung (Delitzsch), the cooice lies between understanding anſthåløttſ, as (1) akin to malválah, ‘sickness’ or ‘ calamity’ (Ex 15”), so Targ.; or (2) as a musical instrument (Rashi, Ges., Lowe). Neither etymo- logy nor the probabilities of the case can be said to point decidedly in either direction. Maschil.—Found prefixed to 13 psalms, viz. 32. 42. 44. 45. 52–55. 74, 78. 88. 89. 142. Heb. 9":yp, LXX guvéaews, els gºvertv. Cf. 477 ºwn inpi, ‘make melody in a skilful strain’ (cf. RV m); Targ. ‘with good understanding.” Gesenius renders, ‘a didactic poem,’ which does not fit many of the psalms mentioned above. Delitzsch understands it as indicating a ‘contemplative psalm , (ºwn prop. ‘consider,’ ‘attend to,' cf. Ps. 101* | 1RV m) 1067); Raslui interprets by reference to 2 Ch 30”, the Levites that ‘had good understanding (or were So far as well skilled) [apparently in music] for J". etymology serves us, the title probably indicates a contemplative composition, but in process of time the original meaning probably passed away and it came to mean little more than a poem (cf. trolmud). Michtam, Ps 16 and 56–60 pºp, LXX atmºo- Typaqla. — So Gesenius, who says an: = scribere, DnB = inscribere; the meaning in Eng. would imply a carefully-fashioned, ‘emblazoned ’ psalm ; but this meaning of the root Dni is wholly uncertain. Another suggested derivation connects with DI); and would give the rendering “a golden psalm ’; so Luther. The word is also used in Is 38° of Hezekiah's dirge, but it is not easy to detect any features which the various compositions to which the word is applied possess in common. Muth-labben, Ps 9 in nºn-by, LXX Virép rôv kpuptov toû vioſ, Vulg, pro occultis (Jer. pro morte) filii, Targ. ‘concerning the death of man (who C8,111G forth) between (the armies).” All these trº" show that the phrase was not understood, and the ignorance of the ancients is shared by the moderns. Grammar will not allow of the rendering ‘death of the son,’ i.e. Absalom, even if such a meaning were appropriate. In all probability this is the name of a tune ; but whether it should be rendered “Die for the son’ or (with other pointing) “Death makes white,’ it is impossible to say, and cannot really signify. Nèginoth.-Found in six psalms—4. 6. 54. 55. 67. 76 myºji, and once in 61 nº-ºw, cf. Hab 3", LXX €v påNuois, Jerome in psalmis. The word means unquestionably ‘on stringed instruments’; it is always found after the phrase “For the chief musician,’ and indicates tº: the psalm is to be sung to an accompaniment of stringed music, cf. 1 Ch 15*. Neginath is generally understood as the same word with an old feminine onding (Ges.); or, according to Massoretic punctuation, closely joined with lä-David, it would mean ‘in the Davidic style of stringed music.’ Néhiloth, Ps 5 mºnºs, LXX Virép ràs k\mpovo- 16vons, as if nººn, Jerome pro hareditatibus. Gener- ally understood ass=Dºn, meaning ‘to the accom- paniment of flutes’ or yind-instruments. That flutes were used in worship, is shown by Is 30”. Baethgen objects that the usual word for flute might be expected here, and understands Nelliloth as the name of a tune. e Remembrance, To bring to, Ps 38 and 70 nºº, LXX els ávdplumauv (adding in 70, €ls rô oráčoat ple Kūptov), Jerome in commemorandum, ad recordan- dwm. Is it to be understood, however, that God is to remember the psalmist, or the psalmist to re- member God? Both views have been taken. The Targ., followed by Delitzsch, finds a reference to the Azkarah (āvāºvmaſts) part of the sacrifice of the Minhah, when a portion was thrown upon the fire and the smoke was supposed to bring the worshipper into the Divine remembrance. See LV 247 °, and connect with title in LXX trept gaggårov. But the word is found in 1 Ch 16", when certain Levites W Cl’O appºinted to minister before the ark, and ‘to record ' (AV), ‘celebrate ’ (RV), as well as to thank and praise J"; and perhaps this more general meaning of worshipping, in the Sense of not for- getting the Divine benefits, is the more probable meaning here. Shéminith, Ps 6 and 12 nºn:-by, LXX Strep ràs ôyööms, “upon the octave or the eighth,’ cf. 1 Ch 15*. The phrase either refers to a special kind of stringed instrument with eight strings, or means perhaps ‘in the bass,’ cf. al-'Alā'môth =soprano. “In a lower octave,” the reverse of the modern octave (Lowe). Shiggaion, Ps 7 |\'º, LXX paxpús — pietà qjöäs, Jerome pro iſ/moratione (after Theod. Symm., and see Ps 199% ‘errors ’). —The word is found in the PSALMS, BOOK OF PSALMS, BOOK OF 155 plural in Hab 3". As derived from mir ‘to wander,’ £wald, Delitzsch, and others give the meaning of a ‘dithyrambic song,” one characterized by various feelings or rhythms. Gesenius, with hesitation, renders cantus Suavis. There appears to be nothing either in etymology, tradition, or the character of the two psalms in question to guide modern readers deſinitely to the meaning of this word. Shoshannim, Shushan-Eduth, Ps 45 and 69 by pºv-, Ps 60 mily lºw-by, Ps 80 ‘vºs, LXX Virép Töv d)\\otw6ma'opévaju (Dºty from root Hiw ‘to change’), Jerome pro liliis testimonii.-Rashi understands as an instrument of six strings. Probably the name of a tune (Ibn Ezra, and moderns) “set to the melody of Lilies, or Lilies of the Testimony.’ “Pure as a lily is the Testimony,’ i.e. the Law (Ewald). Song of Loves, Ps 45 nin". Tw, LXX 66%. Utrép roſ, dyatrmro0.—The allegorical interpretation which is suggested by the Gr. is of very early origin, and is based upon the use of language found in Hosea and elsewhere in OT, and recognized by St. Paul in Jºph 5*. The Targ. renders ‘Thy beauty, O King ſº The feminine plural termination must not be understood literally as of king's daughters (Hengstenberg), nor of a marriage-feast, nor in an erotic sense, for the word is a noble one ; but according to the Heb. idiom it corresponds to a neuter abstract, and the phrase would mean “A song of that which is lovely.’ It is to be under- stood, like Canticles, of a pure and holy earthly love which may be understood to symbolize and prepare the way for a higher affection still. To Teach, Ps 60 Tºº, cf. Dt 311”, where Moses is commanded to teach a song to the Israelites, and 2 S 117. 18, where it is said that David ‘bade them teach the children of Judah the song of the bow ’ (the word “bow ’ is onlitted in B of LXX) — a martial song, to be sung at the practice of arms ? These parallels would seem to show that the title lū-lammed means that this psalm, like many others, was to be taught to Israel. v. POETICAL CONSTRUCTION.— Heb. poetry, it is well known, is not constituted by rhyme. Neither, like Anglo-Saxon and other verse, is it marked by regularly recurring assonance, though occasionally this feature is present. Neither, again, is metre an essential feature of Heb. psalmody. It has been questioned among scholars —though only a small minority are prepared to answer in the affirmative—whether metre, imply- ing lines consisting of a fixed number of syllables, is recognizable at all in OT }. as, confessedly, both rhyme and metre are characteristic of Jewish poems of the Middle Ages. But though metre is not discernible in Psalms, it does not follow that rhythm is excluded. The rhythm of thought in the well - known parallelismus membrorum is, of course, an cssential feature, and rhythm of lan- guage matching the thought is readily perceptible, though no rules can be laid down for its determina- tion. There is a rhythm in all the finest prose, not the less impressive for being irregular. In Psalms the rhythm of language more nearly approaches regularity than the rhythm of carefully constructed orose, but it defies analysis and systematization. The prevailing form is the couplet of two corre- sº lines, though the triplet and quatrain are used from time to time. On this subject Driver says: ‘The poetical instincts of the Hebrews appear to have been satisfied by the adoption of lines of ſtpproacimately the same length, which were combined, as a rule, into groups of two, three, or four lines, constituting verses, the verses mark- ing usually more distinct pauses in the progress of thought than the separate lines’ (LOT'" p. 362). (For the details of this subject see IDriver's chapter |...} quoted and art. POETRY). It may, however, 9e briefly said here that the chief attempts to trace Cº. out a more regular metrical system in Psalms than the above remarks allow, are those of J. Ley (Metr. Formen der Heb. Poesie, 1866, and Grundzüge des Rhythmus in der Heb. Poesie, 1875), Gustav Bickell (Carmina VT metrice, 1882, and articles in ZDMG, 1801–1894), and, more recently, H. Grimme (‘Abriss der biblisch-liebräischen Metrik’ in ZDMG, 1896, pp. 529–584, and 1897, pp. 683–712). Ley seeks to establish a metre which depends upon accents, and relies upon alliteration, assonance, and rhyme as subordinate features. Bickell seeks to prove that the measure of the verse is marked by regular alternation of accented and unaccented syllables; but he accomplishes this only by an excessive modification, not to say mutilation, of the text, and by a violent use of unnatural elisions. Grimme's system is described in art. PoETRY, . 6°. C. A. Briggs holds Ley's views in a modified form. He says, “The accent may be used as a principle of measurement to a very large extent in Heb. poetry, but it is not an absolute law; for whilst many poems and strophes are uniform in this respect, the poet breaks away from it and increases or diminishes the number of accents, as well as words, to correspond with the movements of his thought and motion’ (Bibl. Study, p. 263).” This does not greatly differ from the mode of statement adopted by Delitzsch, which is accepted in this article. ‘Heb. poetry is not metrical, i.e. it is not regulated by the laws of quantity and by the number of syllables; strong accents, which give prominence to the logically most important syllables, produce a very great variety of rhythms in the series of syllables that form the stichoi; the ictus of the verse is regulated by the logical movement ; and the rhythm is the purely accentuating rhythm of the oldest kinds of national poetry” (Psalms, vol. i. p. 31, note, Eng. tr.). There is one stage of poetical construction inter- mediate between the unit — couplet, triplet, or quatrain — and the completed lyric. It is the strophe or stanza, whichever name be considered most appropriate for a section of the poem, mark- ing a clearly defined movement in the thought, and consisting of a measured number of lines. Moulton, in his Literary Study of the Bible, uses the term ‘sonnet’ to describe this feature of Heb. poetry, but the accepted connotation of the word makes it generally unsuitable, and it would be uite out of place in the psalms. Sometimes the }. of the strophe is marked by a refrain, or a nearly exact repetition of verse or phrase at more or less regular intervals. Some of the most clearly marked examples of this are, ‘Why art thou cast down, O my soul?’ in 42** 43%; ‘The Lord of hosts is with us” in 467. 11; ‘Turn us again, O Lord of hosts’ in 80%. 7, 19; ‘O that men would praise the Lord for his goodness’ in 1078.*.*.*. In the 136th psalm the refrain, ‘ his mercy endureth for ever’ occurs as the latter half of every verse. Less readily recognized examples may be found in 39” " ‘Surely every man is vanity’; 56** “In God will I praise his word'; 57%. 11 ‘Be thou exalted, O God, above the heavens’; 62%-" ‘My soul, wait thou only upon God’; 99". " ‘Exalt the Lord our God, for he is holy.” In some of these cases, how- ever, the repetition of a phrase is rather the in- dication of a style which meets us markedly in the Songs of Ascents, than the occurrence of a refrain such as marks the close of a strophe. Frequently it is clear that a psalm naturally divides itself into sections, where no refrain or poetical device marks the several pauses. The first three psalms would sufficiently illustrate this, particularly the second, in which the arrange- ment of v v. 1-3, 4-6, 7-0. "-1" commends itself at once. Driver holds that in many cases these sections * Slightly modified in Study of II oly Script. (1899) p. 369 (. | 56 PSALMS, BOOK OF PSALMS, BOOK OF are ‘to be regarded as logical rather than poetical units, and as not properly deserving — even in its modified sense—the name of strophes.’ The construction of Heb. poetry, however, is such that it is always more or less difficult to make the distinction between thought and form ; and as the length of line depends largely upon the movement of thought, so also with the length of what in rose would be called a section, but in the irregu- arly but rhythmically constructed poetry of Israel, may be called a strophe or a stanza. See, further, art. POETRY, p. 7 ff. Several ºn: are acrostic, or alphabetical, in their arrangement. Sometimes successive verses begin with the letters of the Heb. alphabet in order ; sometimes half-verses, or pairs of verses, are thus marked, and in the 119th psalm eight verses are found to each letter. In Ps 9–10 we find two verses to a letter, but the scheme is not complete. . In 9” p takes the place of 5, PS 10 be- gins with 9, and the last four pairs of verses close with p, n, w, n, the intervening verses not being arranged alphabetically, though their number exactly corresponds with the number of letters Dassed over. In Ps 25 one verse is found to each }. though is missing, and an extra verse is added at the end. In Ps 37 two verses occur to each letter (with slight irregularity), in lll and 112 half a verse. In 34 and 145 the single-verse arrangement is found, with slight irregularities, which may be accounted for by a corruption of text. It might be supposed that so artificial an arrangement of matter would form a sure sign of late date, of a ‘silver age ' and fading poetic power, but this hardly appears to be the case. One of the most elaborate and complete instances is found in the ‘Lamentations,’ which is consider- ably earlier than many of the psalms. In Latin poetry the acrostic arrangement is found in early times (see Cicero's reference to Ennius, quoted by IDelitzsch, i. 204); and Hitzig, who º only fourteen Davidic psalms, includes 9 and io amongst them. The alphabetical psalms do not, as a rule, exhibit much poetic fire or vigour in comparison with psalms which are strictly lyrical in char- acter. But this may be due to the subject and the mode of treatment adopted, for single phrases in the 119th psalm might easily be quoted which are full of imaginative fervour and power. If we can- not say with Delitzsch that the acrostic arrange- ment is ‘full of meaning in itself,’ it may be admitted with Driver that it was ‘sometimes adopted by poets as an artificial principle of arrangement, when the subject was one of a general character, that did not lend itself readily to logical development.’ It is needless to say, however, that it is not in their form and construction that we find the true poetry of the psalms, though this is of such a character as to aid in Securing for them the uni- versality which is one of their chief features. The form of Heb. poetry bears rendering into other languages better than the poetical literature of any other nation. But the poetry of the psalms does not lie in their artistic form. The word “artistic,’ indeed, is out of place here. Artiſice hides itself abashed in the presence of deep re- ligious feeling. It is not merely that the pre- dominating tone and spirit of the book is religious; religion has laid its strong uplifting hand upon every string of the psalmist's harp, every touch of the psalmist's fingers. The literary character- istics which charm us in the great poets of the world are indeed present. Lofty imagination marks some of the descriptions—‘Who coverest tlıyself with light as with a garment, who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain.” “He rode upon a cherub and did fly ; yea, he did fly upon the wings ---& of the wind.” Fancy appears in slighter touches, often unnoticed—‘In Salem is his leafy covert, and his (rocky) lair in Zion.” . The varied metaphors of the psalms have furnished religious life with brightness and picturesque variety for more than two thousand years. The terebinth planted by the streams, the hind panting for the water- brooks, the sun going out like a bridegroom from his chamber, the Divine Shepherd tending His flock alike in the pleasant pasture and the Tonely and gloomy ravine,—these familiar images are not more striking than the thousand less noticed pictures, sketched in outline only : the crowned and anointed guest at the banquet of life spread in the very wilderness amongst foes; the harassed and overthrown forces of the enemy scattered over hillside and plain, like the ten thousand flakes ‘when it snoweth in Zalmon '; or Death the shepherd herding among his flock in Sheol those who had arrogantly defied his power—yet the psalmist knows of a mightier Shepherd still, who shall ‘redeem my soul from the power of Sheol, for he will receive me.’ Some of the poetical effect is doubtless peculiar to the Hebrew, the picturesqueness of some of the words, and occasion- ally the variety of its synonyms, or the play of tenses, alternating one with another, like lights and shadows upon the hillside, or the changing colours upon the burnished neck of the dove. But the simplicity of diction which imparts such sublimity to a phrase—‘with thee is the Well- spring of life: in thy light we shall see light'; the depth of human feeling which can be felt like a beating pulse on every page—“Fervently do I love thee, jº, my strength !’—“Deep calleth unto dee at the noise of thy cataracts; all thy waves . billows are gone over me'; the concrete directness with which the most abstract truths of religion are set forth—“In the hand of J" there is a cup, and the wine foameth; surely the dregs thereof, all the wicked of the earth jail drain them out and drink them ’;—‘ He shall cover thee with his pinions, and under his wings shalt thou take refuge’; these words appeal to the heart of the world, and their power is as great for the English- man as for the Israelite. But the reason for this is not chiefly, though it is partly to be found in these poetical characteristics. The Psalter lives in virtue of its unique religious power and beauty, and on its theology something must now be said. vi. RELIGIOUS AND ETHICAL IDEAS. — In the following paragraphs the Psalter will be treated as one whole. Owing to the uncertainty which attaches to the dates of the several psalms, it is impossible to trace out, according to the methods of biblical theology, the growth and development of religious ideas in the psalmists’ minds, if, indeed, any marked growth took place. If the book is entirely post-exilic, the ‘hymn-book of the second temple,’ no decided theological development—except, per- haps, on the subject of the future life—would be expected. If, as we have seen reason to believe, the Psalter contains an anthology of sacred lyrics, extending over many centuries, a progress of thought might be looked for. But the method of the psalmist is not dialectic. He moves, not in the atmosphere of theology, but of religion. And whilst creeds change, litanies remain the same. It would be going too far to say that no variety, no advancement, in moral and religious ideas is dis- cernible, but for the purposes of this brief examina- tion it may be ...! The Psalter is concerned with the deep, elemental ideas of religion-God, man, and the communion of man with God ; joy and trouble, hope and fear, good and evil, their present conflict and future, destiny; the human soul in all its moods and the Divine power and grace in all its aspects, and it is proposed to de PSALMS, BOOK OF PSALMS, BOOK OF 157 scribe a few characteristics only of the way in which these great themes are treated. 1. The leading feature in the doctrine of God— to speak theologically — which distinguishes the salms is the clearness with which the Divine Personality is conceived, and the vividness with which it is depicted. “J” liveth, and blessed be my Rock’ is written on the book, within and without. The chief service which the psalms have rendered to the religion of the world is the preservation of the idea of the living God, without any in pairing of His absolute and inconceivable glory. The thinker elaborates his abstract conceptions of the Divine till they dissolve into thin air; the boor imagines ‘such a one as himself,’ and lowers the Godhead into a ‘magnified and non-natural man- hood. Isaac Taylor says that ‘metaphysic theo- logies, except so far as they take up the very terms and figures of the Heb. Scriptures, have hitherto shown a properly religious aspect in proportion as they have been unintelligible; when intelligible they become—if not atheistic, yet tending in that direction.” No sacred book of anv nation has solved this fundamental problem of all religion, how to preserve at the same time the Inſinity and the Personality of God, as has the Psalter. The psalmist is not afraid of ‘anthropomor- phisms.’ He not only employs forms of speech which seem almost necessary, such as “his eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of men,” but he represents God as thinking upon man, so that the Divine thoughts are greater in number than the sand ; as seated in the leavens with earth for His footstool, as bowing the heavens to come down, whether for judgment or deliverance; as spread- ing His broad wings of defence over His own people, Scattering dismay and destruction among their enemies, and returning again on high in triumph, when He has “led into captivity his captives,’ bringing with Him the spoils of victory. But no reader of the psalms finds his ideas of Divine majesty lowered, or the Divine glory dimmed and shadowed, by these modes of speech. The Rabbi disdains them, the Alexandrian philo- º: explains them away, the hypercritic finds only ‘mythology’ in them ; the wise and devout man knows that nowhere else—except in the words of Jesus of Nazareth – is he brought so directly into the presence of the living God, as inexpres- sibly lofty and pure as He is near and gracious and tender. The “attributes’ of God are not described in the psalms, but God in His varied attributes is made known as in the mirror of the worshipper's soul. Righteousness is pre - eminent, but it is blended with mercy, as if tue pious heart had never conceived of the two asunder. “J”, thy loving- kindness reacheth unto the heavens, thy faithful- ness unto the clouds. Thy righteousness standeth like the mountains of God ; thy judgments are a great deep. How precious is thy loving-kindness (Ps 36). Lº is shown, according to the psalmist's view, by God’s rendering to every man according to his work (62%); yet it is an equally true explanation of the same Tpſ to define it as ‘salvation,’ or expand it into the clause “J” hath dealt bountifully with me’ (13°. "). One of the most striking illustrations of the features upon which we have been dwelling is the attributing to the Most High God of my ‘humility.’ The English word is a bold one to employ in this connexion, but it better expresses the psalmist's thought than ‘condescension.” It is found but once, in 18” ‘thy lowliness hath made me great,” but the same quality is dwelt upon in God’s humbling Himself to regard the heavens and the earth, and it is not far removed from that yearning ‘pity’ with which the Father God pities His ăillº. The word ‘sympathy’ is not found in the Psalter, but that for which the word stands sheds rays across the gloom of dirge-like psalms (39 and 88), and shines like a radiant sun in the glow of such psalms as 27. 40. 103, and 146. And the marvel is that He who bends so low to lift the downcast, the de- graded, and the sinner, is He whose “kingdom ruleth over all,” and for whom the whole Psalter, as well as the 99th psalm, provides the refrain, Holy is He. 2. The manifestation of God in nature—to use a modern phrase—is not, properly speaking, a theme of the psalms. The hº are well known : the 8th and 19th, the 29th and 93rd, the 65th and 104th have taught mankind many lessons. But the pictures of nature come in by the way. For the lº nature is not so much a revelation, as the frame of a picture which contains one. Occasionally the eye wanders to the frame and dwells upon it, but it is only in passing. The picture itself is concerned with the human soul and its relation to the living God. And if the psalms are a wonder of literature because of the unique picture of God which they present, in con- trast with the highest conceptions of which man thus far had shown himself capable, no less remark- able is their portraiture of man. The Heb. psalmist might seem to be a child by the side of the Hindu sage and the Greek philosopher, but neither of these could sound the i. heart as he has done. The complexities, the inconsistencies, the para- doxical contradictions which characterize human life are all here. ‘What is man that thou art mindful of him, or the son of man that thou visitest him 7” The littleness and the greatness of man are there, in a line ; discerned, almost un- consciously to himself, by the poet, because his eye was fixed, not on man but on God. The first and last verses of the 8th psalm give the keynote to its music, and that of the whole Psalter, and man falls into his place, so small in himself, so great in his relation to God. “Nothing is more easy than to take a high view of human nature, alone, or a low view, alone ; there are facts and 8, *: in abundance to account for and justify either. Ibut the view of the Psalms combines them ; man’s littleness and insignificance, in relation to the immense universe about him, and to its infinite and everlasting God; man’s littleness in his rela- tion to time, to his own short passage between its vast before and after, his feebleness, his misery, his sin : on the other side, man’s greatness, as the consummate work of God's hands, thought worthy of His care, His choice, His provident and watch- ful regard ; man’s greatness and responsibility, as capable of knowing God and loving Him, of win- ning His blessing and perishing under His judg- ment; man's greatness even as a sinner able to sink so low, and yet to rise by repentance out of the deepest degradation and most hopeless ruin' (R. W. Church). 3. There may at first sight appear to be an in- consistency between the language of various psalms on the subject of sin. The deepest contrition is portrayed in the 32nd and 51st ; the utmost con- ſidence, sounding perilously like self-righteousness, in the 7th, 18th, and 101st. It may be thought that here is a mark of varying date, Israel's sense of sin deepening as history advanced ; or that the contrast is between the language of men of different temperaments, or the same man in different moods. But the inconsistency is only apparent. The assertion of integrity is relative, not absolute. It is that of the hasid, the “godly' man, who is determined to keep well within the bounds of the covenant which is the charter of national religion, or is conscious of having done so. The same man may bow low in humility before God and confess 158 PSALMS, BOOK OF PSALMS, BOOK OF his sins; just as the nation—for in the opinion of many the ‘church-nation' is the speaker in the “I” of the psalms—may at one moment plead the sacredness of the bond which binds it to J", and at another deplore its own unfaithfulness to covenant- VOW’S. That the ethical view of the psalmist was limited is unquestionable ; he was the child of his own age. Ethics was as yet too little personal, and the individual sense of wrong-doing was, for the most part, neither deep nor poignant. The life of the community—for better, for worse—was more important ; and it is no easy matter sometimes to distinguish between the passages in which the psalmist speaks in his own name and those in Which his personality is merged in the national life. The tendency of modern criticism is to minimize the personal element in the Psalms (see Smend, “Ueber das Ich der Psalmen’ in ZATW, 1888, pp. 49–147; and Cheyne, who says in Origin of Ps. p. 265 : ‘In the psalmists, as such, the indi- vidual consciousness was all but lost in the corporate —the Psalter is a monument of church-conscious- ness’; and notes, pp. 276,277). It is not necessary to recoil to the other extreme in reaction against the excessive individualism of some schools of in- terpreters. There are psalms in which the personal note is unquestionable (3.4. 6, 18. 27, etc.). Others, again, are as clearly national (44. 46. 76); whilst in others the references to trouble or to joy may be such that they might apply equally well to personal or to national experience (31. 86. 118); or the psalm written by an individual for himself might be used in worship by the community. Eminent modern critics (W. R. Smith, Driver, Cheyne) are content to understand the 51st psalm ‘as a prayer for the restoration and sanctification of Israel in the mouth of a prophet of the Exile.” But such a view not merely runs counter to tradi- tional exegesis, but appears to many, including the present writer, to fail to do justice to the language of such a psalm. Deep sense of sin and contrition on account of it, though not very frequently expressed in the psalms, forms an essential part of the religious life therein depicted. Some of the ‘penitential psalms, so-called, may refer to tºuiſ. rather than transgression, but the psalmist's religion cannot be understood if it be resolved into a sense of national humiliation and distress. 4. This is confirmed by the closeness of personal communion with God, which is the characteristic privilege of the devout soul in these poems, and the means by which that fellowship is to be restored, when it has been lost or impaired. The joy is spiritual when the avenue of communion is . ; the sorrow is spiritual when that avenue is closed and darkened ; the means by which the soul may meet again with its God are spiritual also. The Israelite is a member of a community in which sacrifice is a recognized institution ; he does not disparage it, but if he has learned the lessons it has to teach, he knows that alone it is not sufficient. The well-known expressions of the 40th, the 50th, the 51st psalms—‘ #. desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it’; ‘Would I eat the flesh of bulls or drink tire blood of goats 2’-do not stand alone. There is no inconsistency between these psalms and ‘I will go into thy house with burnt-offerings, I will offer bullocks with goats,’ in the 66th. The 51st psalm, as it now stands, contains a recognition of ceremonial sacrifices in vv.” ”, and even if these are not by the same author as v.”, “ the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,' the same temple-congregation could chant ooth alike without thought of contradiction. But the spiritual note is the deeper and the more char: acteristic. The psalmist has learned in the school of the prophet rather than of the priest, his plea is God’s mercy, his hope for that sense of personal intercourse which can be enjoyed only when Divine forgiveness has removed the sense of personal sin, The heaviness and pain before con- fession (32* * 40”) is as deep as his assurance of the readiness of God to forgive is complete and his jo when forgiven rapturous (40** 103*), The 130th is not the only ‘Pauline' psalm, and if its language and that of other psalms expresses the contrition of a community, it can only be said that the mourners for sin of all ages, in the most spiritual religion the world has ever known, have found no language more appropriate to express their peni- tential sorrow and the rapturous joy of forgiveness than is to be found in the psalms. 5. Another characteristic of the “lower level of morality’ which is said to mark the psalms is found in the particularism which belongs to many of them. The national confidence in J" has a reverse side which is not always admirable. The tone which the psalmists, like the prophets, adopt towards other nations than Israel, varies. Sometimes they are simply marked out for judgment and punishment (Ps 2.9. 68). Sometimes, though more rarely, they are represented as in some sense gathered in within the pale now occupied by Israel alone (Ps 22. 67. 87). Sometimes bitter resentment is expressed which sounds personal rather than national—tl.e expression of fierce joy over the destruction of hated enemies, rather than the grave anticipation of righteous judgment upon evil. The Imprecator/ osalms are better understood than they once were. H. who read into them a coarse vindictiveness are now seen to be no less wide of the mark than those who in a mistaken zeal contended that all the utterances of godly men in an inspired Bible must be justifiable by the highest standard. But the solution of a moral difficulty is not found in a timid compromise between extremes. The strong language of Ps 7. 35. 69. 109 and some others is not to ié blamed as an exhibition of a personally revengeful spirit. The law condemns this as well as the gospel ; and in the psalm which contains the strongest language, the Writer disclaims such culpable resentment (109" "). The psalmist, as a member of a covenant a keeping community, was at liberty to identify ii. with the friends of God and to count those who opposed him as God’s enemies also (139**). Not always does he specify the ground of his anger and prayers for their destruction, as in Ps 83, ‘Against thee do they make a covenant . . . O my God, make them like whirling dust, as stubble before the Wind”; but it is legitimate, in at least the majority of passages, to read in that thought when unexpressed. The psalmist would be simply unable to take the purely individualistic standpoint of modern times, which makes language such as we find in the 35th psalm for us unnatural and wrong. It does not therefore follow that the spirit of the imprecatory psalms is justifiable by the standard of the NT. It may indeed be well to consider whether the OT saints, in the vigour and simplicity of their piety, did not cherish a righteous resentment against evil which the more facile and languid moral sense of later generations would have done well to preserve. “O ye that love J", hate evil,” is an exhortation that belongs, not to one age, but to all time. But the point in question is the relation, not to evil deeds, but to evil men. And here it must be clearly recognized that the moral level of the old dispensation is necessarily lower than that of the new. The Christian does not stand in relation to the world as the Jew did to the nations around him. The blessings of the New Covenant are not material as were many of the blessings pro- mised under the Old ; and the curses which are PSALMS, BOOK OF PSALMS, BOOK OF 159 ronounced on those who refuse to inherit a É. diſler correspondingly. The prospect of a future life—to take one point only—alters the whole question of retribution and destiny. With- out any spirit of Pharisaism or consciousness of superior virtue—which would be grossly out of place—the Christian cannot use the language of the imprecatory psalms as it stands, but interprets it in its spirit by reserving his wrath for the evil in himself and others, and striving to blend with it something of his Saviour's yearning compassion for the evil-doer. 6. The problems of life opened up by the ques- tion of evil do not figure largely in the psalms. The suffering of the righteous, the apparent im- punity of the wicked, do not often disturb the psalmist's mind. The moods expressed are those of thankfulness for mercies bestowed, sorrow in trouble, present or impending, prayer for deliver- ance, help, and guidance, not the anxiety of doubt or the half - bitter, half - eager cry of the seeker after truth who would believe, but cannot. The spiritual wrestlings of Job and the incredulous scepticism of Koheleth in his darker hours hardly i. any echo in the Psalter. The psalmist's mental exercises are described as mere transient moods, trying enough while they lasted, but not seriously affecting the foundations of his faith. The 73rd and the 77th psalms are the chief examples of this. The 38th, 88th, and other sorrowful psalms describe trouble of outward life and of inward spirit, but not such as arises from intellectual doubt or the undermining of faith in God. It is interesting to notice the way in which relief comes, when the question has once been raised as to whether the ways of Providence are equal and success precisely proportioned to character. In the 77th psalm the righteous man, who appeared to be forgotten and forsaken by God, falls }. upon history, and recalls the deliverances wrought out for God’s chosen people in the past. He rebukes, therefore, himself for his ‘inſirmity,” and renews his conſidence in the ‘right hand of the Most High.’ Here there is no examination of the ‘problem” at all as such ; the theory that God re- wards the righteous and punishes the wicked, which is so fiercely assailed in Job, is never questioned here. The writer of the 73rd psalm goes deeper. His perplexity arises rather from the prosperity of the {j than the suffering of the righteous, but the problem in both cases is the same. His conclu- sion is emphatically announced at the beginning. ‘Surely (Ts), God is good to Israel and to men of clean heart.” The mode of deliverance is described in vv.”7. In the sanctuary light came. But it came chiefly in the form of an emphatic re-state- ment of the prevailing theory of Providence. The wicked will be punished, all the more over- whelmingly because of delay in judgment. This psalmist holds with the writer of I’s 92 that only the dull and foolish fail to understand that if the workers of iniquity flourish, it is that they shall be destroyed for ever. Another kind of solution may seem to be sug- gested by vv.”. The psalmist finds his own por- tion in the presence and favour of God, and this is so strongly expressed that it might seem as if he had attained, by a sublime reach of faith, the doctrine of im jº. A similar conclusion is sug- gested by Ps 16, in which the same line of thought and religious experience is followed. Ps 17" and 49” are also held to express in briefer phrase the expectation that the righteous will enjoy life in the presence of God Teyond the grave. It is certain that this was not the prevailing view of the writers of the psalms. The whole cast of these devout utterances would have been altered if any such expectation had formed a part of their working creed. The strain of the 6th, 30th, 39th, and 88th psalms is not the language of a passing mood. “In death there is no remembrance of thee; in Sheol who shall give thee thanks º' The ‘dust' cannot praise God ; in the ‘grave,” in darkness,’ in ‘Abaddon,’ in the ‘land of forget- fulness,” God cannot be praised, because He can- not be known by ‘shades,” men who have passed away from the happy light of life. The evidence of silence is equally strong, though not so readily noticed. A blank is found in the creed of the psalmists, as of the OT writers generally, when life beyond the grave is in question. The exceptions, in the psalms above referred to do not invalidate the rule. Translated with severe accuracy and closely restricted to their exact declarations, the passages 73° 17” and 49” do not prove any clear anticipation of a future life. It may be otherwise with 16**, but the more satis- factory way of treating all these passages is to consider them together. Thus ...al. they show us the path by which the faithful servant ºf God was travelling upwards from amidst the twilight of a dispensation in which was no clear revelation of a future life. He could not believe that the pit of corruption or the shadowy half-existence of Sheol was to be the end of all for the friend of God. One who had set J" always before him, and desired none in heaven, or earth in comparison with his God, could not be left in darkness and forgetful. ness, it must be that he should behold God’s face in righteousness and be satisfied with His likeness. One who had God for his portion must have Him for ever. God was his God, and the psalmist anticipated the reasoning of the Saviour, “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.’ Nevertheless, this was but a reach of faith. No revelation had been given, no doctrine could be taught, no complete assurance could be enjoyed. The hope was a bright, reassuring and not decep- tive gleam of Sunshine. But it was a gleam only. It was enjoyed for a moment and the clouds gathered in again. Not the clouds of denial or ãespair, but the impenetrable veil of vapour which hid from the saints of the Old Covenant God’s will concerning the future. It does not follow that the psalmist's religion is of a low and feeble type because this element in it is for the most part missing. Its vigour is shown in the tenacity of his faith without the “comfortable assurance.’ of later days. The Christian, for whom ‘the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come ' is an essential article of creed, may find a fuller meaning in the words of the psalmist than he himself dared to find in them, and wonder the more that he who knew so little believed so much and conquered in so hard a battle upon comparatively slender fare. 7. The hopes of the psalmists, like those of the Drophets, were directed, not to a future life of the individual in heaven, but to the future of the community on earth. The subject of Messianic psalms can be adequately treated only in con- nexion with Messianic prophecy, of which they form a part. See under the articles MESSIAli and PROPHECY. The principles which should deter- mine views of prophecy in general are here con- cerned, and they are better studied on the more extended field and in the more explicit utterances of the prophetical books. The psalms which have usually been termed (in a somewhat conventional sense) ‘Messianic ’ are 2. 8. 16. 45. 72, 89, and 110. The list may vary slightly, but when it is ex- amined it is inevitable that the questions should arise, Why include precisely these and no others : And what is meant by the term Messianic l'or if mention of a personal king ruling on earth is essential, all these psaluns cannot claim the title : 160 PSALMS, BOOK OF PSALMS, BOOK OF and if a larger sense of the term be intended, fºr: have as good a right to be found in the ist. The older exegesis, which made the language of the Psalter generally, and of some psalms in articular, to be the language of Christ Himself, i. for some time been discredited. Delitzsch, who may be taken to represent modern “orthodox * scholarship, finds only one psalm, the 110th, directly Messianic in the sense that it contains prophecy immediately pointing to the person of a coming. Anointed One, who was fully to set up God’s kingdom on earth. All other references, as in the 2nd, 45th, and 72nd psalms, he under- stands primarily of Isr. monarchs, so that the words contain prophecy only in an indirect or typical sense. The tendency of criticism is to deny even this smaller measure of Messianic refer- ence. “All these psalms,’ says Cheyne, referring chiefly to 2. 72, and 110, and in a lesser degree to some others, “are only Messianic in a sense which is psychologically justifiable. They are, as I have shown, neither typically nor in the ordinary sense prophetically Messianic.” The 2nd and 110th j. may claim the designation in the sense that ‘the idealization of historical persons which they present presupposes the belief in an ideal Messianic monarchy, now or at some later time to be granted to Israel’ (Origin of Ps. pp. 339, 340). That is, type and prophecy are alike excluded from the Psalter. The psalmists disregarded history, preferring to ‘idealize’; their David is not the true Javid, their Moses is not the true Moses; and they had no right to find in the monarchs of their own time a type and pledge of future glory, and no power directly to prophesy concerning it. If this be so, the term ‘Messianic’ is hardly worth retaining, and its employment is likely to mislead. Perhaps we may see in these views another instance of extreme reaction against a mistaken exegesis. The time when Ps 45" could be quoted as proof direct of the divinity of Christ has gone by. The hopes and prayers of Ps 72 are under- stood as hopes and prayers in which no direct vision of a King or Messiah was before the mind of the singer. It is even doubted by some of the most truly Christian interpreters whether ‘the oracle of J" unto my lord’ſ in Ps 110' can mean that the speaker was the theocratic king, and his ‘lord ' a greater King yet to come. The “Son’ in Ps 2*, if indeed that word occur at all in the obscure plurase harply (see art. KISS), is no longer understood as the Son of God incarnate, and the “Son’ who is unquestionably mentioned in v.7 is not supposed to be Jesus of Nazareth. But it by no means follows that no psalms are either prophetically or typically Messianic. The exegesis which finds in Ps 45 an epithalamium for some monarch unknown, is bound to confess that here is no ordinary wed- ding-song, and that the writer of it had thoughts which soared not only far above the occasion, but far above those of most of his contemporaries. The beneficent prince of Ps 72 is not a Jehosha- phat or a Jeroboam with a halo round his head, unwarrantably placed there by a court-poet in a dream. In whatever way the details of Ps 110 be understood, the priest-king of no Aaronic type, who was to gather around him an army of ºl. clad not in mail but in holy festal apparel, multi- tudinous and brilliant as the dewdrops born from the womb of the morning, is not a phantom of imagination, suggested by the idealization of Simon the Maccabee. But is it possible at the Same time to preserve the limits of sober exegesis and to believe in the prophetic message of the Psalms? The evangelists and apostles held a view of the Psalter, which they so often quoted, that Cannot be defended if neither by way of prophecy nor of type is Christ contemplated in the l’salms at all. A method of solving the difficulty is sometimes described as the theory of ‘the double sense,” a phrase which seems to imply that the obvious meaning of the words as read refers to con- temporary persons and events, whilst some deep. lying, mystical significance lies behind this, in which reference is made to Christ and the New Covenant. Now words can have but one meaning, though they may have not only a twofold but a manifold application. And it is not by a mystical sleight-of-hand, unintelligible to the plain reader, that a Messianic significance is to be found in the º The first duty of the interpreter is to ind the simple meaning of the words as they stand, as they were intended by the psalmist, and would be understood by his contemporaries. But the reason why this is not the end, as it is the begin- ning of exegesis of the psalms, is that the dispen- sation under which they were written did not stand alone, it was part of an organism, and the writers knew it. The Old Covenant proclaimed its own insufficiency, and pointed continually onwards. Consequently, when inspired writers handled certain themes, they did so in a way that would have been ºi. but for this under- lying consciousness. And often, when they were not themselves consciously glancing forwards, sub- sequent events shed a richer light upon their words, and enabled those who came after to make a much more complete and significant application of the words which they had spoken. hen the glance of the psalmist fell lº upon the future culmination of the kingdom of God upon earth, his words are prophetically Messianic ; when he was chiefly concerned with the º but as part of an organism not yet completed, his words may be styled indirectly or º Messianic. If the statement of Schultz be admitted, “There is positively not one NT idea that cannot be shown to be a healthy and natural product of some OT germ, nor any truly OT idea which did not in- stinctively press towards its NT fulfilment’ (Old Test. Theol. vol. i. p. 52, Eng. tr.)—a position which not many will care to dispute—-the principles |. laid down do but declai.e. that in a growing plant the relation of the parts to the whole is best dis- cerned in the maturity, not in the infancy of the growth. The seed is the prophecy of the plant, stem and buds and flowers, to those who know its nature. And the Ava TXmpa,0ń of NT means that the earlier stage existed in order that the later might reach its ripe and full-orbed development. The question j. certain psalms are rather to be considered directly or indirectly Messianic is one for the exegete. It may, however, be ad- mitted that the number of direct prophecies is, at most, very small, and it may well be that the Psalter contains hardly a single instance. For, though psalmists and prophets had much in common, there were important differences between them. The very attitude of the psalmist makes it unlikely that he will look directly into the future. The 2nd and 110th psalms are those which partake most of this character, and the 2nd psalm in almost any case, the 110th if the theocratic king is not the speaker but the person addressed, can be most ºil y understood as only typically Messianic. But the monarch of Israel was a real type, and could seldom or never be considered as the psalmist considered him, without reference to the substance of which he was but the shadow. Take the idea of ‘sonship,’ for example. The promise was made in 2 S 7 that the king should be a ‘son’ of God : which of them came near to realizing this? And the inspired bard of the Old Covenant uses words concerning the filial character and PSALMS, BOOK OF PSALMS, BOOK OF 16] *— 3romised triumphs of the chosen nation with their ting at their head, which were never actually accomplished till He who was Son indeed was declared to be such by the resurrection from the dead, when it was said to Him, ‘This day have I begotten thee.’ This is no mere historical parallel, for the parallel is not obvious, but it is the full development of the plant which the psalmist spoke of in its germ and early growth. And such a psalm is truly Messianic. But the name must not be confined to psalms in which there is specific mention of a coming personal king. This particular feature of the “age to come ' is not prominent in the Psalter, as it is in the l’salms of Solomon. The Messianic ideas of the OT are many. The kingdom is often spoken of, when there is no mention of the king. The Theo- phany or manifestation of the glory of J" upon the earth is another form which the hope of Israel wore ; and the good time coming is sometimes described as a new and better Covenant which was to take the place of the old. Sometimes this golden age of the future is described in its effect upon nature, the fields and streams and fruits of the earth ; sometimes upon the nations, which either willingly or unwillingly, in submissive alliance or as conquered enemies, are to help to swell the triumph of Israel. Though in all this there may be no mention of a personal Redeemer or Ruler, such language is in a real, perhaps the best sense of the word, ‘Messianic.” The psalms which tell of the coming of J" to earth in beneficent judgment (96– 98) are most truly a part of the Messianic prophecy. Christ Himself showed how unexpected lessons might be learned regarding His Person and work from the passage Ps 118”, and it is needless to adduce the frequent quotations of the 2nd, 16th, and 110th psalms which are found in the sermons and letters of the apostles. I)oubtless the psalmists, like the prophets, were able but feebly to under- stand how their high vaticinations were to be accomplished. Often they had little idea that “not unto themselves but unto us they did minister,’ in their rapt flights of joyful hope. Ibut not the less did they aid in throwing subtle but significant chains of spiritual connexion across from the earlier days to the later, from the Old Covenant to the New ; they aided in the growth of that mar- vellous spiritual organism, the development of that kingdom of God, the full glory of which has not dawned upon the earth even yet : and it is not difficult for the devout Christian, with such thoughts in his mind, to be convinced that he cannot fully understand the Psalter, unless lie hears the voice of one who explains ‘how that all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, concerning ME.’ The Psalms have sometimes been classified according to their subject-matter, but any such arrangement is open to obvious objections. The subdivisions necessarily overlap, and many psalms refuse to be classified. Iſupfeld in his Introduction deals with this subject, and 131eek (6th ed. by Wellhausen, p. 407), also Driver, LOT' 6 p. 308 f. The analysis might run some- what as follows: i. Songs of Praise to Jehovah ; (a) as God of nature, Ps 8, 191-0. 20. 65. 104; (b) in relation to man, as God of Providence, 103. 107. 113. 145, ii. Didactic Psalms, on the moral government of the world, etc., l’s 1. 34. 37. 40. 73. 77 ; and of a more directly ethical character, 15. 241-0 32, 40. 50. iii. National Psalms, including (a) prayers in disaster, e.g. 44, 60, 74, 79. S0, etc., and (b) thanksgivings for deliverance, e.g. 46, 47, 48. (G. G8, 76, etc. iv. l’urely historical l’salms, 78, 81. 105. 106. 114. v. Itoyal Psalms, 2, 18. 20. 21. 45. 72, 101, etc. vi. The more directly per- Somal l’salms aro of very various character : sometimes (a) they contain prayers for forgiveness or recovery from sickness, 3, 4. G. 7, 22; sometimes (b) thanksgiving predominates, as in 30. 40. 116; or (c) the prevailing strain is one of faith or resignation, e.g. 16. 23, 27. 42. I21. 139; or the law is praised, as in 1. 197-14 119, or the house of God, as in 84. 122, 132. Such a classification, however, can hardly be considered to be of use, except in a very general and superficial way. vii. TEXT AND VERSIONS.—The Massoretic text VOL, IV. — I I of the OT, it is now generally admitted, stands in need of frequent emendation. From the 7th cent. A.D. onwards, the Heb. text has been preserved with scrupulous fidelity, passing at times into extreme punctiliousness. But the early origin of this text is unknown, we possess no MSS earlier than the 10th cent. of our era, and the Massoretes represent for us only one line of textual trans: mission. The materials, however, for textual criticism are scanty. In the case of the NT, these are so abundant that conjectural emendation has little or no place in sound criticism. In the OT beyond the Massoretic notes, the only help is to be derived from the ancient versions. Hence scholars have been driven to adopt conjectures, more or less probable, in specially difficult passages; and as the science of textual criticism is still young, no sufficiently complete consensus of opinion has been arrived at with respect to the text in these cases. As regards the Psalms, the chief ancient version to be consulted is, as elsewhere, the LXX. The Psalteris contained in cod. N, IB(except Ps 105”–137%), and A (except 49"—79"). The Greek tr. of the Psalms, though not equal to that of the Pent., is at least up to the general average of the LXX. In places it is quite at fault, but not so frequently as in the Prophets, and in some passages its help is valuable. The frequent difficulty of ascertaining the original reading of the Greek itself is one of the chief drawbacks to its critical use. The Targum of the Psalms is of uncertain date, since it embodies some early tradition, but in its present form cannot date earlier than the 7th or 8th cent. A. D. The Pesh. Syriac version (2nd cent. ”), though in the main agreeing with the Heb., is often of service by the support which it gives to the LXX. . The later Gr, VSS, so far as extant, are not of much critical value, Jerome's version of the Psalms is rendered from the Heb., while that retained in the Vulg., a representative of the Old Lat., was translated from the Greek. Jerome's renderings are sometimes of considerable value, and shed light on the history of the text, when they do not enable us to recom- struct it. The Eng. versions may be briefly men- tioned, though their history is generally familiar. The Pr. Blº, version of the Psalms is taken from the Great Bible (first ed. 1539), which was a revision of Matthew’s Bible, the Psalms in which was the work of Coverdale. Coverdale's tr. was made from the Zürich Bible and the Vulg., and accordingly in it the traces are to be found of LXX readings which have made their way through the Lat., into the Pr. 13k. version. The AV of 1611, which is far more accurate, did not displace the earlier version to which congregations had become accustomed, and which is undoubtedly better fitted for melodious chanting in public worship. The RV of 1885 re- presents a much nearer lº to accuracy of rendering, and is invaluable as an adjunct to AV, though it has not yet displaced it. . Many of the renderings approved by modern scholarship are to be found not in the text, but in the margin, since a two-thirds majority of the Revisers was necessary to effect an alteration. A very useful work has been recently (1898) published iy Driver, entitled the Parallel I’salter, in which the I’r, Bk. Version is given on one page, with a new version by lor. Driver himself opposite. The book contains a valuable Introduction and (; lossaries. The Camb. Univ. l’ress published in 1899. The 1800k of Psalms, containing the Pr. Bk. rersion, thº ( )", and the I: V, in parallel columns. The metrical versions of the Psalms in English alone are exceedingly numerous, but neither Milton, nor lüeble, nor less known poets who have attempted metrical renderings, can be said to have attained any great success. It is beyond the scope of this article to illustrate the need of textual criticism in detail, or its prob- 162 I’SALMS, BOOK OF PSALMS OF SOLOMON able effects. But the following are a few examples of familiar passages in which corruption is probable or has been suspected. Ps 2*, where the word nº with the meaning ‘son’ is not Hebrew. None of the ancient WSS adopt this rendering, and Jerome translates “Adorate pure.” In PS 8° the word mºn can hardly be the correct reading. In 22” the Heb. reads "No, which means ‘like a lion’; the rendering “pierced' is a tr. of Inna; so the LXX, Vulg, and Syriac. Symm., as now appears, fol- lowed the MT. Sometimes a gloss may have crept into the text, as in 49*, where the clause “the upright shall have dominion over them in the morning’ reads like a later insertion. In Ps 48" nibºy, is untranslatable as it stands. In 55° and 77* there is an abruptness in the existing text which points to a probable error. Ps 68 abounds in difficult passages, some of which may be due to textual corruption. The opening of PS 87 is so abrupt that it is thought mutilation must have taken place, or that our psalm is only a fragment. The irregularities in some of the acrostics (e.g. Ps 37) are probably due not to the author, but to confusion in transcription or transmission. The present form of some of the musical notes in the titles is not improbably due to the ignorance of scribes, who blundered in the transmission of archaic and unfamiliar words. It is not intended to assume that in all of these cases corruption has certainly occurred, or to adduce them as more than a few salient illustrations of s large and difficult subject. So long as external evidence remains as . as at present, the un- certo inty which proverbially attends all attempts of ‘subjective' criticism, proposing conjectural emendations, must be expected to continue. viii. The LITERATURE of the subject is portentously large. Even excluding the mass of devotional commentaries and annotations, and limiting attention to exegetical and critical literature only, a detailed history of exposition would run to very great length. The following selection from the works on the Psalms, which the piety and learning of centuries have accumulated, may be of some service. A section of Delitzsch's Introduction is devoted to the subject (vol. i. p. 64, Eng. tr. by Raton). Amongst the Fathers, the most important com- mentaries are those of Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Jerome, and esp. Chrysostom and Augustine. Ignorance of Hebrew on the part of nearly all the early Fathers of the Church, and their un-critical and un-historical methods of exegesis, mar the effect of their devout and often spiritually instructive comments. In the Middle Ages, the Jewish exegetes are more important than the Christian. Amongst these may be named Rashi (11th cent.), Ibn Ezra (12th cent.), and David Kimchi (13th cent.); other later Jewish writers were used by the scholars who helped to prepare the way for the Reformation of the 16th cent. At the time of the Reformation, says Delitzsch, the rose-garden of the Psalter also began to diffuse its odour as in the renewed freshness of a May morning.” The Psalms formed the hymn-book of the Reformed Churches, and it is matter of history how largely the cause of the Reformers was advanced by the hymns of Luther and the trº. of Marot (1543) and Beza (1562). , Luther's notes on some of the psalms (Operationes) exhibit his evangelical insight and spiritual power, but Calvin's Commentary (1557) is more complete as well as more sound and masterly, and may still be consulted with great advantage. In more modern times, Rosenmüller's Scholia. (1798–1804), though only a compilation, rendered excellent service at the time of their publication, and amongst the works of the last half-century the following may be mentioned :-de Wette (1811–56) ; , Hitzig (1803–05); Olshausen in Kwrzſef. Exeg. Handbuch (1853); Hengstenberg (1847, 1852); Hupfeld (1855–62, 2nd ed. by Itiehm, 1867–71, 3rd by Nowack, 1888); Ewald, Dichter d. A B (1839, 1860); Delitzsch (5th ed. 1894); Moll in Lange's Bibelwerk (1809–71); Itcuss (2nd ed. 1890); Grätz, Krit. Romm. (1882); Schultz in Strack's JCommn. (1888, 2nd ed. by Ressler, 1899); Baethgen in Nowack's Hamd-Konm. (1892); Duhm in Marti's Kurzer II and-Commanentar (1899). Ewald, Delitzsch, and Moll have been translated into Jºnglish. Amongst recent Jºng, commentators may be mentioned Perowne (6th ed. 1866); Jennings and Lowe, The Psalmns with Critical Notes (1884); Cheyne, The Book of Psalms (1888), and The Origin of the Psalter, Jºanipton "...º. DeWitt (1891); Maclaren in Iºa:positor's 1}ible (1800–92), and Kirkpatrick in Cambr. Bible (1893-95). Tho scctions on the P8alms in the several Introductions to ()T should not be neglected. The following may be named as representa- tive : Wellhausen-Bleek (6th ed. 1893), Itiehm (ed. Brandt, 1889), Driver (6th ed. 1897), Cornill (3rd and 4th ed. 1896); Strack (5th ed. 1898), König (1893), Wildeboer (Litt. d. A T', 1897). Neale and Littledale have collected in 4 vols, (1800–74) Notes from —º the primitive and , mediaeval writers; and Spurgeon in his Treasury of David has made a similar compilation, chiefly from the Puritans (1870–85). Other books of interest are : Fausset, Horov Psalmica (1886); Forbes, Structural Commºa;ion of Psaling 1888); Binnie, The Psalms, their Origin, Teaching, and Use 1886); Alexander, Witness of Psalms to Christ, º Lect. (3rd ed. 1890); E. G. King, The Psalms in Three Collections, pt. i. 1898; Cheyne, The Christian Use of the Psalms, 1899. Amongst separate articles besides Smend's in ZAT'W, 1888 (see above, p. 1601), or monographs are Baethgen's in SI(, 1880; Giese- brecht in ZAT'W, 1881; G. Beer has written on Individual- w. Gemeindepsalmen (1894); A. Rahlfs, "jy wind ly in den Psalºnen, 1892; Stade, “Die messian. Hoffnung im Psalter’ in Ztschº'. f. Theol. w. Rirche, 1802, p. 309 ft. ; Coblenz, Ueber das betentle Ich in dem Psalmen, 1897; B. Jacob, ‘lāeiträge zu einer leinl. in die Psalmen' in ZAT'W, 1896–97; Wellhausen, “Bemerkungen zu den Psalmen’ in Skizzem w. Vorarbeitem, vi. (1899) 163–187; W. T. Davison, The Prwises of Israel (1893), enlarged ed. 1898. Of critical editions of the Heb. text of the l’salms may be mentioned that in the Baer-Delitzsch series (Leipzig, 1880), and that of Wellhausen in Haupt's SBOT' (1895; Eng. tr. of this text by Furness in PB). The Camb, Univ. Press has published separately, The Psalmns in Greek from vol. iii. of Swete's (, 4' in Greek. W. T. DAVISON. PSALMS OF SOLOMON.—This name was given at an uncertain date (certainly before the 5th, perhaps before the 2nd cent.) to a collection of 18 psalms dating from 1st cent. B.C., and extant in a Greek version of a Hebrew original. i. NAME.--The name of Solomon is not, seem- ingly, attached to these psalms for any very definite reason. They themselves make no pre- tence to Solomonic authorship. Unless the real author's name was Solomon, which is possible, the most likely explanation is that it seemed a natural and obvious name to attach to a collection of psalms which was circulating anonymously. That the book owes its preservation to the selection of this name may be regarded as certain. ii. MANUSCRIPTS.–It is preserved in eight MSS, uniformly in company with the other, sapiential books (Pr, Ec, Ca, Wis, Sir). These eight MSS are —(1) It (Vatican, Gr. 336); (2) H (Copenhagen, Gr. 6); (3) M (Moscow Synod, Gr. N. 147); (4) P (Paris, Gr. 2991 A); (5) V. (Vienna, Gr. Theol. 7); (6.7) at Mt. Athos; (8) in the Bibliotheca Casamatensis at Rome. None of them is older than the 10th cent. It was formerly contained in the Codex Alexandrinus (A, of 5th cent.). There are no ancient versions in other languages. iii. HISTORY..—There is no single clear Patristic quotation from the book as we have it. The Book of Baruch has a section (4"–5) which is derived in large part from one of these psalms (No. 11), but naturally without acknowledgment. The Gnostic book Pistis Sophia and the 4th cent. Latin writer Lactantins both quote certain odes of Solomon, which were very probably an appendix to our book, of Christian origin; but the 18 Greek psalms are nowhere cited. Mention of the book occurs only in lists of apocryphal writings, and in two Byzantine writers of the 12th cent., John Zonaras and Theodore Balsamon. David Hoeschel, librarian at Augsburg, was the first modern who alled attention to the book, and it was first printed after his death, in 1626, by the Jesuit de la Cerda in his Adversaria Sacra. There have been many editions since. The best text, for the formation of which all the known eight MSS have been used, is that of O. von Gebhardt in Teate at. Unters. (1895); text only. The Cambridge University Press has issued a text (1899) based upon Cod. R, with the variants of all the MSS used by Gebhardt. The fullest English edition is that of Tyle and James (1891), containing text, translation, intro- duction, and notes. iv. DATE, CHARACTER, etc.—It is agreed by the large majority of modern scholars that these psalms belong to the period of Pompey's invasion of Palestine and siege of Jerusalem (B.C. 63). The second psalm describes his death in unmistakable terms. PSALMS OF SOLOMON PSYCHOLOGY 163 It is also commonly agreed that the psalms were written (1) in Palestine, (2) in the Hebrew language, (3) by a Pharisee. The first of these three points is assumed on grounds of general probability, sup- ported by the subjects of the psalms, and the fact that they seem intended for synagogal use. The second depends on a large number of linguistic peculiarities, and is demonstrated by the exist- ence of a number of passages which can be best explained as mistranslations of a Hebrew text. In favour of the third the following reasons may be urged —There is a strong polemic element in the psalms; many invectives are directed against a party who are called sinners (&paprw}\ot) or trans- gressors (Tapavogot), while the party to which the psalmist º are the righteous (6tratov) or holy (80 tot). The party of the sinners is in power, and lmas usurped David’s throne and the priestlood. The holy things are polluted, and secret enor- mities are prevalent. The party of the sinners is also rich and prosperous, W. the saints are for the most part poor. All these points are strikingly appropriate to the Hasmonaean rule in its latter days, and to the Sadducean party. On the other hand, the dis- tinctive Pharisaic doctrines and aspirations are maintained and cherished by the psalmist. The ideal of a theocracy, the hope of a Messiah, the expectation of a retribution, and the views ex- pressed about free will, are all of them just such as the Pharisees are known to have held. v. CONTIENTS OF THE PSALMS.— Ps l. Deals shortly with the sin and punishment of Jerusalem. 2. The siege of Jerusalem ; the sins which led to it; the death of the besieger; the justice of God. . A contrast between the righteous and the sinner. A description and denunciation of the ‘men- pleasers” (äv0patrápeokot). God’s mercy to the righteous. The fearlessness of the righteous. A prayer for God's chastening. . The sins of Israel, and their punishment: a prayer for restoration. . God’s justice and man's free will. . The blessedness of afiliction. . The restoration of Israel. This psalm coin- cides largely with Baruch 5, which seems to be derived from it. The deceitful tongue : its deeds and its punishment. . The preservation of the righteous and the destruction of the sinner. . God’s faithfulness to the righteous; the sinner's insecurity. . The deliverance of the righteous; sinner's fall. . Confession of sin ; praise for deliverance ; and prayer for future guidance. . The kingship of God; the overthrow of David’s throne; the kingdom of the Messiah. . God’s love to Israel; anticipations of Messiah’s rule ; praise of God as the Lord of the heavens. This last portion ends abruptly, and seems not connected with the rest of the psalm. It may possibly be a fragment of a 19th psalm. The most important of these psalms are 2, 4.8. ll. 17. 18. vi. MESSIANICTEACHING...—The Messiah of these 1)Salms is ſigured as a king of the seed of David, Who is to appear in God's good time to drive out the Romans (Gentiles) and Sadducees (winners), to testore the dispersed tribes and renew the glories of Verusalem and its temple, and subdue and convert } : l 4 l 5 the l 8 the Gentiles. . He will reign in holiness and justice, not by force of arms. He is anointed (xptor's) king and priest, but he is not divine. The new features in this description are mainly two. (1) Messiah is a person. Excluding Dn 7 as of disputed interpretation, we have this point plainly stated for the first time in the literature of *alestine. The oldest portion of Sib. Orac., which comes from Egypt, has a somewhat similar descrip- tion of a coming king (iii. 652 ft.). (2) The epithet xpatós is here first applied to him. We may see in this presentation of Messiah a result of the brilliant victories of the Maccabees, which had reawakened in the popular mind the hope of , a Jewish monarchy. But this is only part of the truth. A designation of Messiah which appears in these psalms, and elsewhere only in La 4” and Lk 2", is Xpwards Kºptos. A probable view of it is that, as in Lamentations, it is a faulty rendering, and should be x. Kuplov. The interest and importance of these psalms is very considerable. They throw much light on the aims and thoughts of the Pharisees of our Lord's time; they mark an important stage in the de- velopment of the Messianic idea ; and they illus- trate in very many points the diction of the NT and of the LXX. In literary merit they do not stand very high. The longer psalms are the best ; the shorter ones are like centos from the Davidic psalter. Still we gain a favourable impression of the author: while he is a strong and unspar.ng partisan, he is clearly also a pious and humble-minded man. LITERATURE.-A list of editions and notices will be found in Ryle and James's edition ; since the date of that, Gebhardt's as well as the Canb. text have appeared (see above), and also a pamphlet by Frankenberg (Die Datierung der Ps. Sol., Giessen, 1806), and a German version by Prof...Rittel in Kautzsch's Apokr. w. Pseudepigr. d. A T. M. R. JAMES. PSALTERY.—A stringed instrument of music, described in art. MUSIC in vol. iii. p. 459°. The Gr. VáX\etv, to harp, gave paNT is a harper, and paxTjiptov a harp (used in the widest sense). The LXX uses paxTiptov as the tr. of five Heb. words— (1) nº Gn 4h (EV ‘harp'), Ps 49" (EV ‘harp') 81° 1498 (EV “harp’), Ezk 268 (EV ‘harp ’); (2) ºn, or 97, Nell 1227, º 332 578 929 108° 1449 1509, Is 513 (AV ‘viol, RV ‘lute’); (3) njºy Is 38” (EV ‘stringed instruments’); (4) "ºniº, or "Tºpp Dn 3%. 7, 19, 18; (5) "h Job 2112 (EV timbrel”). From paxtºplov was formed Lat. psalterium, from which (through Old Fr. psalterie) came Eng. º: The spelling in Chaucer (following the middle- Eng, pronun.) is Sawtrye, as Milleres Tale, 27– “And al above ther lay a gay Sautrye, On which he made a nightes melodye So swetely, that al the chambre rong.’ Wyclif has a variety of spelling : Sautree, sautrie, sawtree, sawtrye, and psalutrie are all found in the Wycliſite versions. The eccles. Lat. psalterium was both a psaltery and a song sung to the Ysaltery, and then also the book of songs or the }. J. HASTINGS. PSALTIEL.–2 Es 510 (RVm). See PHALTIEL. PSYCHOLOGY..—An initial prejudice on this topic, arising out of an extravagant claim made by some writers on its behalf, has first of all to be removed. To frame a complete and indepen- dent philosophy of man from the Bible is impos- sible. The attempt cannot commend itself to any judicious interpreter. The psychology of the 13ible is largely of a popular character, and not a scien- tific system. Moreover, the 13ible implicitly takes for granted much that men have thought out for themselves on this theme. But the relation 164 PSYCHOLOGY PSYCHOLOGY of the psychology to the content of revelation is very close. It is essential to the other doctrines of Scripture—its directly religious doctrines—that these be expressed in terms of such underlying thoughts on man's nature and constitution as are implied in the Bible itself. For in terms of some conception of man—some psychology more or less systematic—must all religious and theological statements be couched. But the religious teach- ings of the Bible have always suffered injustice when they have been forced (as is so commonly the case) to take shapes derived from systems of thought and theories of man other than those of Scripture. How constantly all through the Chris- tian centuries Christian doctrines have been run into the mould of the prevailing philosophies, is roverbial. In the earliest age of Christian specu- ation Plato and Plotinus shaped almost all Bible interpretation. In the Middle Ages, Aristotle ruled the Scholastic Theology, and his sway extended down to and beyond the Reformation, Leibnitz and Descartes had their age of influence in the 17th and 18th centuries. Kant and Hegel control the forms of thinking of many cultured theologians in our own day. But when we seek to work out a Biblical Theology, when we aim at presenting the result of Scripture exegesis in our statement of revealed doctrine, we are bound to defer to the Scripture way of thinking. We can rid ourselves of the mistake which so long vitiated Theology, only by observing those ideas of Life and of the Soul which the Scripture-writers themselves assume in all their statements. To ascertain the science of human life, if it may be so called, to put to- gether such simple psychology as underlies the writings of Scripture, cannot be an unnecessary task. Theology is not truly biblical, so long as it is controlled by non - biblical philosophy, and such control is inexcusable when it is seen that a view of human nature, available for the purpose, is native to the source from which Theology itself is derived. Two things are assumed here, without further explanation. The one is, that such materials, of this kind, as the Scriptures give, cannot form a complete or independent structure. They cannot be rightly treated except in close connexion with the proper and principal theme of the Bible. They cannot be treated abstractly or separately. They occur in the record of a revelation of Divine dealings with man for his redemption. They must be treated, therefore, in line with the history and development of these deal- ings. The other is, that they are on the whole uniform, that one fairly consecutive and con- nected system of ideas on the topic holds through the whole Bible. The proof of this will come out in the exposition. . It is an OT system of thought. Even among the older apostles in the NT the same order of thought rules. Only in the case of the Pauline writings is there any marked change or advance, consistent enough, however, in its de- velopment of the original ideas. Rothe has said “ that we may appropriately speak of a ‘language of the Holy Ghost.” Cremer, who quotes the remark, expounds it thus: ‘The spirit of the language assumes a form adequate to j. new views which the Spirit of Christ creates and works.’ + Without attention to this element of progress it is impossible to read biblical psychol- ogy aright. This alone explains the transition from terms in the earlier Scriptures that are rather physical than psychical, to those in the later Scriptures that are more deeply charged with spiritual meaning. A progressive religious revelation is intimately connected with the growth * Zatº' Dogmatik, p. 238 (Gotha, 1863), lººr. Wörterbuch der NT' Gracität, Worrede, p. 5 (Gotha, -w of humanity, casts growing light upon the nature and prospects of man, will therefore be increasingly rich in statements and expressions bearing upon the knowledge of man himself, and especially of his inner being. It is in the latest records of such a revelation that the terms expressive of the facts and º of man’s nature should be corre- spondingly enriched, diversified, and distinguish- able in their meaning. It is on this principle that in the sketch which follows so much attention is given to the Pauline anthropology. i. The Bible account of man's origin first claims our attention. What strikes one is the unity and simplicity of the conception. We are warned off, by the primal passage (Gn 2"), from any sharp analysis. “The LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” There are two elements or factors specified from which God formed man—“dust from the ground ’; “breath of the Almighty,’—and the result is a unity. The OT has no definite, single word (unless we except Tº, which occurs 13 times, namely Gn 4718, Jº 148, 9, 1 S 3119, 19 bis, Neh 997, Ps 110%, Ezk 111. *, Nah 39 bis, Dm 10"; see art. BoDY) for the ‘body’ apart from the soul. Indeed the term “soul’ is sometimes used for the corpse (LV 21”, Nu 6' 9". 7, 19 19.”). In this primal passage, there: fore, the expression “man became a living soul’ has a characteristic simplicity. We must not identify “soul’ here with what it means in modern speech, or even in later biblical language. In primitive Scripture usage it means not the ‘im- material rational principle’ of the philosophers, but simply ‘life embodied.’ So that here the unity of the created product is emphatically expressed The sufficient interpretation of the passage is that the Divine inspiration awakes the already kneaded clay into a living human being. Cf. Ezekiel’s vision (ch. 37), where there is, first, the recon- struction of the animal frame—bone, sinews, flesh, skin; and only after this the “breath' comes upon them, and they live. Now, this account of the origin of man is fitted to exclude certain dualistic views of his nature with which the religion of revelation had to con- tend. ‘It directly contradicts the doctrine of the re-existence of the soul” (Schultz, OT' Theology, ii. 252, Clark, Edin. 1892). Whether, indeed, the formation of man’s frame and the inbreathing of his life be taken as successive or simultaneous moments in the process of his creation, the de- scription is exactly fitted to exclude that priority of the soul which was necessary to the transmigra- tion taught by Oriental religions, or, to the pre- existence theory of the Greek schools. There is here no postponement or degradation of the earthly frame in favour of the soul, as if the Soul were the man, and the body were only the prison-house into which he was sent, or the husk in which for a time he was concealed. According to this account, the synthesis of two factors, alike honourable, constitutes the man. That neither the familiar antithesis, soul and body, nor any other pair of expressions by which we commonly render the dual elements in human nature, should occur in this locus classicus, is a fact which helps to ſix attention on the real character of the ºr OT descriptions of man. The fact is not explained merely by the absence of analysis. Rather is it characteristic of these Scriptures to assert the solidarity of man’s constitution—that he is of one piece, and not composed of Separate or independent parts. This assertion is essential to the theology of the Bible—to its discovery of human sin, and of Divine salvation. In a way not per- ceived by many believers in its doctrines, this idea of the unity of man's nature binds into consistency IPSYCHOLOGY PSYCHOLOGY 1.65 * the Scripture account of his Creation, the story of his I’all, the character of Iłedemption, and all the leading features in the working out of his actual recovery, from his IRegeneration to his Resurrection. Later Scriptures suggest a more definite and sepa- rate idea of the body. In Job 4" we have nºn"); ‘houses of clay,’ imitated perhaps in 2 Co 5 # 6trl- 'yelos . . . olicio too akāvows ; also in Dn 7” “grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body’ (nyl, sheath), 2P 1* toº akmudparós plov. In the OT Apocrypha the pre-existence idea is, once at least, suggested, Wis 7” ” “a good soul fell to my lot, and being good . . . came into a body undefiled.’” The NT uses freely the Greek duality, which has become the modern one, ‘Soul and body’; and though the OT ‘flesh and soul” does not occur in the NT, ‘body and spirit” can take its place. Then, in the progress of redemption, it at last appears that the discrepancy between the two is tºº. when the redeemed truegga shall put on arápa Trvevuartków (1 Co 15*), ‘a spiritual body,’ which is by no means the same as a “bodiless spirit ' (see BODY). ii. Let us now pass on to the biblical treatment of sim and salvation, and show how these affect the various elements of human nature as more speciſi- cally distinguished through them, especially the terms “flesh,” “soul,” and ‘spirit.” Flesh.-Besides the more obvious literal mean- ings of this term already discussed in a separate article, it acquires a psychological importance when we ask whether its general OT sense is morally unfavourable, and what is the origin and force of the peculiar meaning it has in St. Paul, as the principle, or a seat of the principle, of sin in man. From the first application of ‘flosh' to fallen man (Gn 6°) there is nothing in the OT which identifies it with the principle of evil. ‘Not a single pas- Sage can be adduced wherein basür is used to denote man's sensuous nature as the seat of an opposition against his spirit and of a bias towards sin’ (Müller, Christian Doct. of Sîn, i. 323). It is true that “flesh” is used for human kind in contrast to higher beings and to God (e.g. Gn 6°, Ps 78°), and, so used, brings out his frailty and finitude. It is true also that “flesh ’ as a constituent of human nature means the perishable, animal, sensuous, and even sensual element of it (e.g. Ec 5", Is 40"); but which of these ideas is prominent in any passage must be learned from its connexion and context. It is further true that in its meaning of ‘natural kinship ’ there is often an implied contrast with something better—“Israel after the flesh” (1 Co 10°). But the conclusive proof that nothing of moral depreciation is necessarily implied in this use of ‘flesh,” is its application to Christ as designat- ing His human in contrast with His Divine nature. “The word was made flesh” (6 Nöyos ordp$ éyévero, Jn 1*). “Who was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit” (1 Ti 31°); ‘made of the seed of David according to the flesh, declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit” (Rol"). Iłut in the Pauline Epistles a specific meaning of the term emerges. In certain well-known passages it denotes the principle which resists the Divine law, as contrasted with the “mind’ consenting to the law that it is good, and which, even in the re- generate, makes war against ‘the spirit.” Here we have a very marked ethical significance given to the term *}. Nor is it the only term of its kind used to denominate the evil principle in man’s nature as now under sin. ‘The old man,’ ‘the body of sin,’ ‘the body of the flesh,’ ‘the law in the \members,” “our members which are upon earth,’ are kindred expressions, more or less closely denoting the same thing, although “the flesh,” in its counter. boise to ‘the mind ’ and to ‘the spirit” respec- tively, is the leading expression (Ro 7* 8", Gal 517). * Compare ib. 915 90&prov w8.0 ràwo. 8×púve Jºvzáv. How is it, then, that this term ‘flesh,” properly denoting the lower, corporeal or physical element in human nature, should come to denote the being of sin in that nature ? Is it because this physical element is the main seat, or the original source of evil in man 2 But, according to St. Taul, it is not in the physical alone that sin has its seat. There are sinful desires of the mind as well as of the flesh (Eph 2*). There is defilement of ‘the spirit” (2 Co 7"). There are works called ‘of the flesh” which have nothing to do with sensuality, e.g. hatreds, variance, ennulation, wraths, factions, divisions, heresies (Gal 5", l. Co 3" "). The apostle calls by the name of ‘ſleshly wisdom,” what was evidently speculative tendency derived from the Greek schools (2 Co 1*). There were heretics at Colossae whose ruling impulse he calls their “fleshly mind,’ though they were extreme ascetics, attached to some form of Gnosticism (Col 218. * * *). It might indeed be maintained that if we assume the physical nature in man to be the source of evil in him, it would be easy to explain how the whole man under that influence should be called ‘the flesh ’ or ‘the body of sin.” But this assumption will not tally with the treatment of man's bodily nature in these writings. Any view implying the inherent evil of matter is radically opposed to the whole Bible plilosophy. It is as opposed to the Scripture account of its beginning in the race, as it is to our experience of its first outbreak in the in- dividual. In Genesis the ſirst sin is represented as the consequence of a primary rebellion against God. The earliest manifestations of evil in chil- dren are selfishness, anger, and self-will. Again, that the corporeal nature is necessarily at strife with the spiritual, is a view which cannot be recon- ciled with the claims made upon ‘the body’ in the Jhristian system. Throughout St. Paul's Epistles, Christians are enjoined ‘to yield their memle s instruments of righteousness unto God’ (Ro 6”), to “present their bodies a living sacrifice’ (Ro 12'), to regard their bodies as ‘members of Christ,’ and as ‘the temple of the Holy Ghost’ (1 Co 61%. 19); that the body is for the Lord, and the Lord for the body (1 Co 6”). Still more in possible is it to reconcile with such a view the Christian revelation concern- ing the future of the redeemed, and the consumma- tion of redemption. If sin were the inevitable outcome of man's possession of a body, redemption ought to culminate in his deliverance from the body, instead of in its change and restoration to a higher form (Ph 3”). To say that the matter of the body is, or contains, the principle of sin, and then to say, as St. Paul does (Ro 8”), that the last result of the Redeemer’s Spirit indwelling in us shall be to quicken these mortal bodies, would be flat self-contradiction. But the view which con- nects sin with the material body is neither Hebrew nor Christian. It is essentially alien to the whole spirit of revelation. No doubt, at a very early period in Christian history, chiefly through the influence of the Greek and some of the Latin Fathers, it obtained such hold of Christian thought that it continues to colour popular modes of Con- ception and speech to the present day. One of the most obvious examples is that men imagine they are uttering a scriptural sentinent when they speak of welcoming death as the liberation of the soul from the body. Yet the idea of St. Paul is exactly the reverse, when he declares that even the re- deemed, who have the first-fruits of the Spirit, groan within themselves waiting for the adoption, i.e. for the redemption of their body (IRo 8*). Two additional reasons why the apostle cannot be held as tracing man’s evil to the corporeal element, may be summed up in the words of Julius Müller : ‘lle denies the presence of evil in Christ who was par- taker of our fleshly nature, and he recognizes its I66 PSYCHOLOGY PSYCHOLOGY Fº in spirits, who are not partakers thereof. s it not, therefore, in the highest degree probable that, according to him, evil does not necessarily pertain to man’s sensuous nature, that sara denotes something different from this?’ (l.c. i. 321). Taking, then, the two meanings of the term ‘flesh,’ we note how in possible it is, in a way of mere ratiocination, to develop the one out of the other. The attempt to get the ethical significance which St. Paul gives to it out of the elementary Hebrew conception of the perishable or earthly part of man, signally fails. It leaves out the clearly biblical account of the change in human nature caused by the Fall. It is quite inadequate to ex- plain how selfishness, wrath, pride, and other non- fleshly sins, bear prominently the name ‘works of the flesh.” To assert, for instance, that satra: from its primary meaning, ‘living material of the body,” came by a natural process of thought and language to mean ‘the principle of sin,’ is to assume human nature to be subject to sin by its »hysical constitution — a view wholly untenable, ecause at variance with the most radical con- ception of the Bible from its earliest to its latest writings. Yet there must be some connexion between the two ideas. Otherwise we fall into niere tautology, and obtain the profound conclusion that ‘ the flesh” is sinful human nature. If ‘the flesh” be nothing else than just this condition of human nature which is to be explained, then the whole of St. Paul's subtle and acute deduction would be ‘nothing but the most Wretched argument in a circle’ (Pfleiderer). Now, it is quite certain the apostle means to posit a principle of sin in man, “the sin that dwelleth in me,’ ‘the law in my members.’ It is further clear that the law or principle of sin is one thing, and that the flesh, or native constitution of man in which it inheres, is another. It is certain that the sacred writer as little develops the principle of sin out of the mere physical flesh, as he identifies the one with the other. It is impossible to deny a very pointed reference to the lower element of human nature in this important key-word of the Pauline theology. , But what misleads is the sup- position that the lower and higher elements in man were conceived of by St. Paul as they were by the Greeks or are by ourselves; that the antithesis, material and immaterial, is at the basis of the dis- tinction. So long as this idea prevails, it will be impossible to get rid of the suspicion that in ‘the flesh” of the Pauline Epistles we have something which connects sin essentially with the material element in man's constitution. Let us get rid of this idea. Substitute for it the proper biblical antitlesis, – earthly and heavenly, natural and Supernatural, that “flesh ’ is what nature evolves (this term being understood, of course, in a theistic sense), “Spirit' what God in His grace bestows, - then we can see how the idea of ‘flesh,” even when ethically intensified to the utmost, is appreciably distinct from the notion of evil ſºil; resident in matter. The great saying of our Lord in Jn 3" is probably the source of apostolic doctrine on the point : “That which is born of the flesh is ſlesh.’ * Flesh' lias become the proper designation of the race as self-evolved and ...}. Human nature as now constituted can produce nothing but its like, and that like is now sinful. “I’lesh,” therefore, may be appropriately used for the prin- ciple of corrupt nature in the individual, for the obvious reason that it is in the course of the flesh, or, of the ordinary production of human nature, that the evil principle invariably originates. Thus the phrase is some explanation of the condition of man’s nature, which it describes. It is no objection to this view, but rather a confirmation of its cor- rectness, that it grounds the Pauline use of Sara, on the underlying doctrine of hereditary corruption. * Flesh ’ is that through which man in his natural state is descended from a sinful race and inherits a sinful mature, and the term is used to denote that nature. On the other hand, “spirit’ is that through which and in which God implants the new Divine life of holiness, and the term therefore is used to denote that life. See FLESH. - Soul and Spirit.—Let us now direct our atten- tion to what is usually considered the cruac of our topic, and which, from the exaggerated use made of it by some writers, has led others to explode or reject biblical psychology altogether. The ques- tion raised is whether the Scripture makes a tenable and consistent distinction between soul and spirit. This is the real question which under- lies #. of the so-called trichotomy of the Bible. Does the l8ible conceive of human nature as three- fold, as made up of body, soul, and spirit 2 The only relevant question is the one above stated. In what sense and to what extent does the Bible recognize a distinction between soul and spirit 2 A large number, probably a majority, of exegetes have been in the habit of concluding that there is no real distinction, that the terms are synony- mous, or at least interchangeable, and that nothing can be asserted beyond a shadowy, poetic distinc- tion which enables the sacred writers to employ them in parallelism. Iłut when we face the facts we are forced to a different conclusion. In the Pauline Epistles it is undoubted that a real dis- tinction is asserted. The natural or unconverted man is said to be soulish, the renewed man spiritual (puxukós, Tveupdatukós, 1 Co 2**; cf. Jude” puxukot, Tveijua whº exovres). Again, St. Paul asserts that the body which all men carry to the grave is soulish, but the body of the resurrection is spiritual (Wuxuków, trueupwatuków, 1 Co 15"); that the first man was made a living soul, the last Adam a quicken- ing spirit (v.”). The distinction of the adjectives is repeated in v.". Now, a fact of this sort emerging in such decisive and culminating passages of St. Paul's writings compels us to reconsider the usage. If we adhere rigidly to the conventional idea that there is no real distinction in the terms ‘Soul’ and ‘spirit” beyond that of parallelism, we must go on to hold St. Paul to have introduced, in important passages of his writings, an arbitrary and baseless antithesis. I'or this we are certainly not prepared, and are thrown back upon the conclusion, which has great and growing probability in its favour, that from OT usage there was real distinction latent in the employment by biblical writers of the terms soul and spirit, which distinction was recognized and emphasized in these leading passages of St. Paul. What the distinction is, it may not be easy to determine with precision. Precision is perhaps not present in the case at all. But there can remain little doubt in the mind of a careful reader of Scripture that a distinction makes itself felt from the first and throughout. Even in the relation of both terms to physical life the dis- tinction is felt. To this both pneuma and psyche, like réal, and nephesh, of which they are the Greek equivalents, originally belong. . Nephesh is, the subject or bearer of life, Titah is the º of life; so that in all OT references to the origin of living beings we can distinguish nephesh as life constituted in the Greature, from attah as life bestowed by the Creator. º No doubt, the ‘life’ indicated by these terms is that of man and the lower animals alike. ‘living soul’ is a living creature in general, or an animated being. It is used in Gn 1** in a wide sense of creatures that have life, and the same expression is used in Gn 2' to denote the result, even in man, of the Divine creative breath. So, PSYCHOLOGY PSYCHOLOGY 167 also, rºah and its kindred term néshámāh are used for the principle of life, in man and brute alike. It is the ‘néshámáh of life’ that makes man a living soul (l.c.). It is the ‘rūah, of life’ that animates all creatures threatened by the Flood (6'7), and all those which entered into the ark (71%). It is the mish math-rūah, of life those had which perished in the waters (7%). These passages prove that no distinction is made between the iłºść in animals generally and in man. But, what is of more in portance, they call attention to a usage which is practically uniform of putting ‘spirit' (rùah or mèshāmāh) for the animating principle, and “soul” or ‘living soul’ (mephesh hayyah) for the animated result. This primary distinction of the two terms, when applied to physical life, has passed over from the Hebrew of the OT to their Greek equivalents in the NT, and suggests a reason for their respective employ- ment, even when the meaning goes i." the merely playsical. If #. thus means the entire being as a constituted life, we can see why it is used in such a connexion as that of Jn 10” “He giveth his life for the sheep’ (psyche, not zöé, nor pneuma). If pnewma is the life-principle, we see the propriety of its use in Jn 19” “He gave up the ghost (pneuma). When we pass from this primary application of the two terms to a higher, in which they refer not to playsical life alone, but also to the life of the mind, both terms denote almost indiflerently the inner nature. For this purpose they are used throughout the OT and generally even in the NT with no sharp distinction, but freely interchanged and combined. As, for in- stance, when each is used alone, ‘Why is thy spirit so sad 2’ ‘Why art thou cast down, my soul ?” (1 K 21", Ps 42"); ‘Jesus was troubled in spirit”; “My soul is exceeding sorrowful” (Jn 13”, Mt. 26*); ‘To destroy both soul (psyche) and body’; ‘The body without the spirit (pneuma) is dead’ (Mt. 10”, Ja, 2*). Or, again, when the two terms occur together, in the manner of other terms of Hebrew poetry, ‘With my soul (nephesh) have I desired thee in the night ; yea, with my spirit (rºtah) within me will I seek thee early ' (Is 26"); ‘My soul (psyche) doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit (pneuma) hath rejoiced in God my Saviour’ (Lk 1". 47); ‘Stand fast in one spirit (pneuma), with one soul (psyche) striving for the faith of the gospel' (Ph 1” RV). These last quoted passages prove it quite impossible to hold that ‘spirit’ can mean exclu- sively or mainly the Godward side of man's inner nature, and “soul’ the rational or earthward. The terms are parallel, or practically equivalent expressions for the inner life as contrasted with the outer or bodily life. The whole usage makes for the ordinary bipartite view of human nature, and not at all for any tripartite theory. No doubt, however, the underlying distinction found in the primary or physical application of the terms gives propriety to their usage all through ; and, when firmly grasped, prepares us to under- Stand the expanded meaning which they receive in the later Scriptures. All through Scripture “spirit’ denotes life as coming from God, “soul’ denotes life as consti- tuted in the man. Consequently, when the indi- vidual life is to be made emphatic, ‘Soul’ is used. ‘Souls’ in Scripture freely denotes persons. My ‘Soul’ is the Ego, the self, and when used like “heart” for the inner man, and even for the feelings, has reference always to special individu- ality. On the other hand, “spirit’—seldom or never used to denote the individual human being in this life—is primarily that imparted power by which the individual lives. It fitly denotes, there. fore, when used as a psychological term, the inner- most of the inner life, the higher aspect of the self or personality. Thus the two terms are used, over the breadth of Scripture, as parallel expressions for the inner life. The inner nature is “soul” according to its special individual life; it is ‘spirit' according to the life - power whence it derives its special character. The double phrase ‘Soul and spirit” presents the man in two aspects as his life is viewed from two different points. So much for the use of the two words in the Scripture at large. But when we come to certain NT ...writings — mainly though not exclusively Pauline—a still more definite meaning has set in. The adjective ‘psychic' or “soulish' has taken a force not perceptible in its root-word. It has become almost equivalent to ‘carnal.” In Ja 3° a wisdom is spoken of which is ‘earthly, soulish (IRV sensual), , devilish.' . Of certain predicted opponents of the gospel, it is said (Jude") that ‘they are soulish (AV and IRV sensual ; lèVm natural or animal), not having the Spirit.” St. Paul terms the unregenerate who cannot discern the things of the spirit of God a “soulish ’ man (1 Co 2*). The body which we wear at present— ‘the body of our humiliation’ (Ph 3*) — is a ‘Soulish ’ body, and shall be sown in the grave as such (1 Co 15*"). The corresponding adjective ‘pneumatic' or ‘spiritual' has now taken on, in the parallel passages, a religious sense, and de- notes what belongs to the pneuma in that sense, viz. that which is derived from the spirit of God— the spirit of the regenerate life. It is plain that if we would not accuse these NT writers—especially St. Paul—of introducing groundless distinctions, we are drawn to admit a real difference of the terms from the first, in the general or wider sense already described.” Spirit.—On a closely similar line of exegetical investigation we explain the Scripture use of this term. . It is an entirely original biblical term for the highest aspect of man’s life. It is almost inseparable from the idea of man’s relation to God, whether in creation or in redemption. All through the OT it is the supreme term for human life. God is spirit, and man has spirit. ‘The spirit, returns to God who gave it ’ (Ec 127). In this way the psychology of the Bible is distinguished from all ethnic systems. In this it stands entirely alone, and is thoroughly consistent with itself from first to last. ‘Spirit” is not so used by Plato, by Philo, by the earlier Stoics, by Plotinus and the Neo-Platonists, nor indeed anywhere out of the circle of Bible thought. It denotes the direct dependence of man upon God. The peculiarly biblical idea is the attribution to man, as the highest in him, of that which is common to man with God. “Spirit is the God-given principle of man's life, physical, mental, and spiritual. Where modern analysis imports a false Śl. into it, is when an attempt is made to represent trueñua as a separable constituent of man’s being, as something which can be wanting, dead, or dormant on the one hand, restored or confirmed on the other. Indeed the whole character of the Bible psychology is mistaken in such attempts to distinguish |. soul, heart, and the like as separate faculties. They are diverse aspects of one indivisible inner life. When we come to the Pauline writings, and those associated with them in the NT, we find that a certain improvement or addition to the force of this term has come in ; yet one completely in harmony with its original meaning. That in man which is ‘spiritual' is, frankly and fully, that which is iº by the spirit of God—by the new spirit of regeneration. “Spirit is more entirely used of the renewed man, though there is still a clear and appreciable distinction maintained * See this discussed in ch. v. of the present writer's Billa Doctrine of Man, lºdin. 1895. 168 PSYCHOLOGY PSYCHOLOGY between the two. , ‘The Spirit itself beareth wit: ness with our spirit that we are the children of God’ (Ro 8"). Yet so almost complete is the identification, that our translators find it difficult —throughout the Epistles—to determine where the term spirit should be distinguished by a capital letter. The advance consists in the fact that, whereas from the first, man’s life is dignified as the direct inbreathing of the Almighty,+mèshāmāh or rúah from God, his new life is now signalized hy a term identical with that bestowed on the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. It is one of the central doctrines of Christianity concerning the theanthropic person of the Son, that, as hea of the new humanity, He becomes a life-giving Trveſpa — a quickening spirit. At every point in the unfolding of the Bible anthropology this doctrine of the pneuma in man will be found distinctive. It forms a central element in the I)ivine Image in which he was created, and at the climax of redemption it is the appropriate designa- tion of the man as renewed in Christ. See SPIRIT. Heart is a term used with much clearness and consistency throughout Scripture, for the inner, the real, the hidden and ruling element in man's nature. Translated into modern language it denotes, in one of its most frequent applications, ‘principles of action.' . It is always sufficiently distinguished from 13eing or Personality. From the first it is said that “every inmagination of the thoughts of man's heart is evil’ (Gn 6°), i.e. his ‘principles of action ’ are gone wrong, but it is never said that the personality is corrupt or de- stroyed. Again, it is the great promise of restora- tion, “a new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you’ (Ezk 36”), i.e. new principles will be implanted ; yet it is not another or a different personality that is given. There is not such a sharp distinction in Bible speech as that which we have introduced into modern language between the head and the heart. There is no marked separation of the rational and intellectual elements in man's nature from the emotional or volitional. Although there is, to some extent, a distinction of this kind between azº and U2), all inward elements of whatever sort may be included under heart : even such as good judgment and clear perception are, at least in the OT, considered as qualities of heart. In the writings of the older apostles the OT idea of “heart’ is still the ruling one. Indeed, in these NT writings the Greek terms for the intellectual life of man are used for the more general O'T' terms “ Heart,’ ‘Soul,” and the like, without any precision whatever. Thus the LXX, on occasion (e.g. 1)t 6°, 13), uses 6,4vota for lèbhābh. St. Mark (12") uses gºverts for nephesh. St. Luke introduces 644 woua along with Kapóta, pv)&#, and laxºs (10”). See HEART. It is plain, however, that in the writings of St. Paul and those allied to him, these Greek expres- sions for the intellectual elements in man have acquired more place, although no very marked precision. In especial, St. Paul has a firm con- ception of MIND (vows) as the highest expression for man's mental or intellectual faculty, as that which in Inan, under grace, is appealed to by the !)ivine law (Ro 7* *), and as that, on the other hand, which is to be distinguished from the aſſlatus or influence upon him of the supernatural (1 Co 14* *). Then there is introduced in these writings a free use of the similar and related terms in which the Greek language was so rich, oriºuea is understanding, \6-yos reason, 6ta\oytop,6s reasoning, voijuata thinkings, pp.5umua minding or disposition, but scarcely any one of these used with strictness or accuracy. See MIND. The one instance in which a Greek term of this character is introduced and adhered to in the NT, is avvetómous or conscience. It is cºnce used by the LXX in the OT (Ec 10°), where it is also introduced by our translators on the margin, but obviously rather with the meaning ‘consciousness’ than ‘conscience.’ The force of it in Wis 17” (“a witness within,' IRV) is more nearly our own. To trace the advance of the term from its literal meaning of “self-consciousness’ to its full ethical import, would take us outside of biblical matter altogether. Its clear and full recognition in pagan literature is significant. Lightfoot speaks in somewhat strong terms of this word as the ‘crowning triumph of ethical nomenclature,’ which ‘if not struck in the mint of the Stoics, at all events became current coin through their influence.’ He cites it as a special instance of ‘the extent to which Stoic philosophy had leavened the moral vocabulary of the civilized world at the time of the Christian era.” Now its use in the NT precisely corresponds to this estimate. It does not occur in the Gospels except in Jn 8", a passage which the best scholarship does not hold to be genuine. It occurs twice in the addresses of St. l'aul recorded in Acts; plentifully in the Epistles of Paul and of Peter and in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in all these places its force is equi- valent to that which it still bears in modern speech. Were we to bring it into line with the older biblical usage, it might be reckoned a function of Trvedu.a. So far as it signifies “self-consciousness’; and of kapāla when regarded as moral approval or disapproval. In confirmation of this it is to be noted that St. John uses kapāla (1 Jn 3*) in a connexion where St. Paul would have used vows or ovvetómats. The use of conscience, however, is so definite and consistent as to force us to the con- clusion that it was introduced into the NT as a full-fledged idea. See CONSCIENCE. The system of thought thus sketched belongs essentially to the OT. It is what Continental writers call a “psychology of the Hebrews.’ In our outline, this fact is rather concealed by the almost disproportionate attention given to the important modifications made on it by the Apostle Paul. Put the system itself is the ruling one, not only throughdut the OT but in the writings of the older apostles in the NT. The Greek terms supplied by the Septuagint are taken up in their OT meanings, and from these the writers seldom or never depart. The leading psychological notions are those attached to the simple terms spirit, Soul, ſlesh, heart. These four are the voces signata of the entire Scripture view of man's nature and con- stitution. They are all grouped round the idea of life, or of a living being. The first two—Soul and spirit—represent in different ways, or, from different points of view, the life itself. The last two–flesh and heart — denote respectively the life-environ- ment and the life-organ,—the former, that in which life inheres; the latter, that through which it acts. So much for their simple and primary meaning. In their secondary meaning they are grouped as follows: spirit, soul, flesh are expressions for man's whºl. nature viewed from different points. They are not three natures. Man's one nature is really expressed by eagh of them, so that each alone may dº the human being. Thus man is flesſ, as an embodied perishable creature. “All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof as the flower of the field’ (Is 40"). Man again is soul, as a living being, an individual responsible creature, “All souls are mine” (Ezk 18°). Once more, man is spirit. More commonly, however, he is said to have or possess “spirit’ as his life - principle. “Heart’ stands outside this triad, because man is never called a “heart,' or men collectively spoken of as “hearts.” “Heart never denotes the personal subject, but always the organ of the personality. |PSYCHOLOGY PTOLEMAIS 169 w— Again, the four terms may be thus grouped : ‘spirit,” “soul,” “heart” may be used to denote, each of them, one side of man's double-sided nature, viz. his inner or higher life. . Over against any one of these may stand ‘flesh”; as representing his nature on its outer or lower side, so that the combination will express in familiar duality the whole of man as ‘flesh and spirit,' ‘flesh and soul,” or ‘flesh and heart.” The two latter combinations are the ruling ones in the OT. Thus “soul’ and ‘flesh ’ occur. “My soul thirsteth for thee, and my flesh longeth for thee” (Ps 63%). “My flesh in my teeth, and my life (soul) in my haml’ (Job 13”). “His flesh hath pain, and his soul mourneth’ (Job 14*). A land entirely stripped of its trees and of its crops is said be “consumed soul and body’ (Is 10° Heb. ‘from the soul and even to the flesh ’). Equally characteristic is the conjunction of ‘flesh” with ‘heart” for the whole human being. Aliens wholly unfit for God’s ser- vice are described as ‘uncircumcised in heart and flesh ’ (Ezk 447."). The man whose whole being is given to pleasure ‘searches in his heart how to cheer his flesh” (Ec 2° RV). “Remove sorrow from tly heart and put away evil from thy flesh” (Ec 1119). The swimmwm bonatºm of human life is when a ‘sound heart is the life of the flesh ’ (Pr 14”), an expression which reminds one of the classic mens sama in corpore samo. This dualism of the OT is clinched in the memorable description of its final form, when ‘the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit to God who gave it’ (Ec 127). The distribution of parts, however, is not in- variably or rigidly dualistic. lºor along with such as those now quoted we have also various trinal phrases, e.g. M. Soul longeth . . . for the courts of the Lord ; my heart and my flesh crieth out unto the living God’ (Ps 84°). “My heart is glad and my glory rejoiceth, my flesh also dwelleth in safety” (Ps 16”). “Mine eye is consumed with grief, yea, my soul and º belly’ (IRV ‘body,’ Ps' 31"). et, dual or trinal though the terms may be, the intention is essentially bipartite, viz. to express in man the inner and the outer, the higher and the lower, the animating and the animated all resting upon the primal contrast of what is earth-derived with what is God-inbreathed. Such is a condensed account of the Bible treat- ment of psychological terms and ideas, which also goes a long way to fix the biblical teaching about Man. At most of the important points, the 13ible view of man's nature coincides Nº. that of human psychology at large. Scripture frankly and fully conſirms the view which places man among the animals, but at their ... It makes man differ in no respect as to the origination of his physical frame, but in two most important particulars it distinguishes man altogether from the animals— in the direct and immediate connexion of his origin with God, and in his survival of death (see artt. ESCHATOLOGY and IłESURRECTION). LITERATURE. — M. F. Roos, I'undamenta Psychologiæ ea: S.S. collectoº (1709); Olshausen, “De Naturay humanay tricho- tomiſ,’ in his Opuscula. Theologica (Berlin, 1834); Böttcher, De inferis . . . e.v IIebra-orum et Grecorum opinionibus Dresden, 1845); J. T. Beck, Umriss der biblischem. Seelenlehre § 1877, Eng, tr., Clark, Edin., 1877); l'ranz Delitzsch, System der biblischen I’sychologie” º 1861, Eng. tr., Clark, Edin. 1867); H. l I. Wendt, Die Begriffe I'leisch und Geist in bibl. Sprachgebrauch º, 1878); Ellicott, ‘The Threefold Nature of Man' in The Destiny of the Creature and other Sermons (London, Parker, 1863); J. B. Heard, The Tri- partite Nature of Man 5 (Clark, Edin. 1882); E. White, Life in Christ, A Study of the Scripture Doctrine on the Nature of Man (London, 12. Stock, 1878); W. P. Dickson, St. Paul's Use of the Terms Flesh and Spirit (Glasgow, 1883); Laidlaw, The Bible Doctrine of Man (revised ed., Clark, Edin, 1895). The reader may consult also the Old Testament Theologies of Oehler and Schultz, and the New Testament Theologies of Bernhard Weiss and Beyschlag ; cf., further, Gifford, Nonans, 49–52; Sanday-Headlam, Itomans, 181; Driver, Sermons on T', 1 ff. J. LAIDLAW. PTOLEMAIS (IIto)\egais) is the NT name of the old Canaanitish stronghold ACCo (which see). It received this name from Ptolemy II. Philadelphus When, after the conquest of Syria and the death of Alexander the Great, it came into his possession. For several hundred years, throughout its inde. pendence during the Wars of the Maccabees, and under the dominion of IRome, when it received the privileges of a Roman city, this title supplanted the original name. At Ptolemais, Jonathan Maccabaeus was treacherously captured (1 Mac 12*); and the Greeks liad built there a splendid temple to Jupiter. It is only once noticed in the NT, in connexion with the missionary journey of St. Paul from Tyre to Caesarea (Ac 217). There was a small band of Christian converts in the place, and it is recorded that the Apostle abode with them one day. Ptolemais was favourably situated as regards both sea and land approaches. On the occasion of the Apostle's visit, we are told that he came by sea, having sailed from the harbour of Tyre, and that he proceeded on foot to Caesarea and from thence to Jerusalem. But there is every likelihood, judg- ing from Ac ll* 12” 15** 18°, that he must have passed several times through the city, by the ancient land-route along the coast that connected Caesarea by means of the rocky pass of the Ladder of Tyre with Antioch. Josephus (Amt. XIV. xv. 1) tells us that Herod landed at Ptolemais on his voyage from Italy to Syria. It may be mentioned that there is another Ptolemais, the capital of Pentapolis in Cyrenaica, of which the celebrated Synesius, the pupil of Hypatia of Alexandria, was bishop early in the 5th century. In the extremely interesting series of his letters which are still extant, there is one addressed to all Christian bishops throughout the World, in which he announces that he had excom- municated, at a Diocesan Synod, Andronicus, the governor of the place, on account of his crimes against the Church. As it was a seaport town, the Jews, who were not a maritime |. took very little interest in the Syrian Ptolemais, and therefore it hardly figures on the pages of Scripture. But in mediaeval times it rose into great fame under the name of Acre, which is closely connected with its original name of Acco, and has obscured all the other names imº or altered at different times by foreigners. Elsewhere in the Holy Land sacred memories almost obliterate secular ones; but here it is the reverse. The civil history of Acre is de- cidedly Western, as is the prominent headland on which it is situated, which pushes itself farther out from the monotonous coast than any other place in Palestine, except Carmel. On this project- ing shoulder of the Holy Land the town occupies so commanding a position that Napoleon called it the Key of Syria. At a distance it presents the appearance of a strongly fortified European town, , but its architectural features inside are thoroughly Oriental in character. At the time of the Crusaders it was the Castella Peregrinorum, the principal landing-place of pilgrims to Jerusalem ; and it was the last º of the Crusaders on the sacred soil. Here was the principal seat of the great knightly orders of St. John of the Temple and the Hospital, who gave it the French name of St. Jean d’Acre. It had a large share in the feudal and ecclesiastical wars of Europe, and in the unhappy political intrigues of the Republics of Venice, Genoa, and l’isa. It has been subjected to numerous sieges, from the days of 13aldwin, the founder of the shortlived dynasty of the Latin sovereigns of the Eastern empire, to those of Napoleon, whose destiny was here first marred by defeat. Saladin, Coeur de Lion, and Sir Sydney Smith performed feats of valour in connexiou 170 PTOLEMY I PTOLEMY III. * * with this fortress. The last siege took place in 1840, when Sir Charles Napier, fighting for the Turks, took the town from the Egyptians under Ibrahim Pasha. Acre never recovered the bombardment of the English fleet ; and it is now a dull, ruinous town of about 10,000 inhabitants. It is the market-place of the Syrian wheat trade; and the bread manu- factured from the rich crops grown on the sur- rounding plain of Acre is proverbially said to be ‘the best in the Holy Land’; thus maintaining still the reputation it had acquired in the days of Israel, when the Patriarch cast the blessing of i. son into its local mould, ‘out of Asher his bread shall be fat.’ The shallow Nahr N'amán, the ancient Belus, which falls into its broad bay, recalls the Greek story of the chance invention of glass on its banks; and the patriarchal promise to the lot of Issachar of ‘the treasures ; in the sands,’ which may have had something to do with the ancient classical tradition. The view from the shattered ramparts is very extensive and beautiful, comprising on the one side the opposite headland of Carmel, reflected in the blue waters of the curved bay, , and on the other the dark green plain along the coast up to the white promontory of the Ladder of Tyre; the distant snow-clad Lebanon range fading northwards in the clouds; while the eastern horizon is closed up by the shadowy hills of Galilee. LITERATURE.-Conder, Tent-Work in Palestime, pp. 188–192; Stanley, SP pp. 264 – 266 ; Bovet, Egypt, Palestime, and Phoenicia, pp. 383–385. HUGII MACMILLAN. PTOLEMY (IIroXea&ſos, a metric alternative for the Ion. troXeplijíos, ‘warlike ’) I., surnamed 20thp, ‘Preserver’ (on account of his defence of the Rhodians in B.C. 306; Paus. i. 8. 6; or by the Confed. of the Cyclades, who claim the credit, according to Inscript. 373 in Michel's Recueil—see Mahafly, Emp. Ptol. 110 f.), was the son of Lagus and Arsinoë, a reputed concubine of Philip of Macedon. He was born about B.C. 367, and upon the death of Alexander (1 Mac 1") he assumed the satrapy of Egypt. For the intricate details of the wars that preceded his assumption of royalty in B.C. 305, see Mahaffy, op. cit. 27–58; Droysen, Hellenismus ; Niese, -Gesch. der Griech. Staaten, pt. i.-by each of whom the original authorities are given. He abdicated in B.C. 285 in favour of his second son, and died two years later, with his dynasty firmly established by his wise and vigorous administration upon the throne of Egypt. in the course of his campaigns he several times trayersed or occupied Palestine. In B.C. 320 (Cless in Pauly, art. ‘Ptolemy’), or more probably eight years later, he took advantage of the Sabbath law to seize Jerusalem on that day (Jos. Amt. XII. i.), but so ingratiated himself with the people that many of them accompanied him to Egypt and settled there (Jos. c. Ap. i. 22; Müller, I'ragm. Hist. Graec. ii. 393). They were employed partly as mer- cenaries; and in Alexandria a kind of citizenship and a special quarter of the city appear to have been assigned them (Jos. Wars, II. xviii. 7). Such migrations to Egypt occurred three or four times during this reign ; and the favour with which the Egyp. rule was regarded in Palestine was largely due to the kindness with which the settlers were treated, and to the comparative avoidance of inter- ference with their religious lº It has been assumed (e.g. by Cheyne) that Is 19° (this pas- sage may allude to the Jewish temple at Heliopolis founded in the time of 12tol. VII.) was written in the time of this king, and he is generally held to be “the king of the south referred to in Dn 11", where the RV m is to be preferred. R. W. MOSS. PTOLEMY II. (afterwards known as pixáðeXpos, ‘brother-loving,’ from the title adopted by his sister and wife, Arsinoë), the youngest son of Soter, succeeded his father in B.C. 285. He con- tinued his father's policy, and, instead of Hellen- izing Egypt, treated the country rather as a private estate to be administered wisely in the interest of its proprietor. On the series of coins which he struck at Tyre the earliest date that occurs is B.C. 266 (Poole, Coins of Ptol. xxix.); and conse- quently his first Syrian war took place at least two or three years earlier. From that time Palestine formed a permanent part of his kingdom, his right to hold it as an inheritance from his father having been unrecognized before. Among the cities which he founded were Philotera to the south of the Lake of Galilee (Polyb. v. 70), Phila- delphia on the site of Rabbah (Jerome, in Ezek. 25), and Ptolemais on the site of Acco (pseudo-Aristeas in Merx, Archiv, i. 274; Droysen, Hellenismus, jii. 2. 305). In these foundations his principal object seems to have been to conciliate the people, and to furnish himself with centres of influence. A second Syrian war soon after B.C. 250 was pro- voked by an attempt on the part of Antiochus II. to annex the country; but of its details nothing is known with certainty, except that Philadelphus lost no part either of his dominions or apparently of his supremacy by sea in the Eastern Mediter- ranean. He died in B.C. 247. The reign of Phila- delphus was a brilliant literary epoch in Alex- andria. At his court, as officials of the Museum and Library which his father founded and he fostered, gathered many of the most eminent. writers, artists, dilettanti, of the period : and thus was provided a place for the fusion of Jewish and Greek ideas, and a means of introducing the latter into Palestine itself. It is not impossible that the story of the origin of the LXX is so far correst, that the Pent. and perhaps also Joshua were trans- lated during his reign and under royal patronage : see SEPTUAGINT. I)n 11" is to be interpreted of Philadelphus; but the latter part of the verse is so vague and even so difficult of translation that there is ground for suspicion that the text is corrupt. it has been 'conjectured that Ps 72 was written soon after the accession of Philadelphus as an expression of the anticipations which his repu- tation warranted, and Ps 45 in honour of his marriage with the daughter of Lysimachus, king of Thrace; but neither conjecture has much sup- port. R. W. MOSS, PTOLEMY III. (first styled Eöepyárms, ‘benefac- tor,’ in a decree of the synod of Canopus in B.C. 238) succeeded his father Philadelphus in B.C. 247. Soon after his accession, to avenge the murder of his sister at Antioch, he engaged in the third Syrian war, during which his conquests led him far into the East, and on his return from which he is alleged to have offered sacrifices in Jerus. (Jos. c. Ap. ii. 5). In B.C. 229 the control of the Jewish taxes was entrusted to Josephus, nephew of Oniaſ; II., according to an account (Jos. Ant. XII. iv. 1-5), for which there is probably some historical basis, and which is an evidence of the mildness and consequent popularity of the Egyp. rule. Of the later history of Euergetes only the scantiest information has been preserved. He appears to have devoted himself principally to the internal development of his kingdom, which was at the height of prosperity in B.C. 222, when he was murdered by his son (Justin, xxix. 1), or more probably died a natural death (Polyb. ii. 71). Dn 117-" is to be interpreted of Euergetes, the middle verse relating to the act by which he won his title—the restoration of the Egyp. idols carried off by Cambyses nearly three centuries before PTOLEMY IV. PTOLEMY WII. 171 This king must not be confounded with the Euergetes of the Prologue to Sirach. The data. of time show that the latter must have been Euergetes II., known also as Physcon, who was admitted by his brother to conjoint sovereignty in D.C. 170, and died in B.C. 117. R. W. MOSS. PTOLEMY IV. (pixotrárop, strictly ‘fond of his father,’ though the title appears to have been given in the belief that he was designated for the throne by his father) succeeded his father Euer- getes in B.C. 222. In the fifth year of his reign he was forced into an expedition to recover Palestine from Antiochus the Great, who was completely defeated in a battle near Itapllia. Dm 11* * is a summary of the campaign. A treaty of peace was made with Antiochus (Polyb. v. 87), and Ptolemy returned homewards. . At Jerus., according to a story in 3 Mac., he attempted to enter the Holy of Holies against the indignant protests of the people, but fell in a fit on its threshold. Renouncing his purpose, he returned to Alexandria, where his rage against the Jews showed itself in an edict commanding them to practise idolatry on pain of degradation from citizenship. So many refused, that in an access of wrath he gave orders for all the Jews in Iºgypt to be collected at Alexandria. to be put to death. The royal design was again thwarted by supernatural occurrences : and a national feast was appointed to commemorate the deliverance. The last statement may be re- garded as authentic, and it is not unlikely that the Jews under this king lost some of their privi- leges, and joined the Egyp. natives in uneasiness and insurrection (Polyb. v. 107, xiv. 12); but sery little reliance can be safely placed on 3 Mac. Of the rest of his reign, which terminated in B.C. 205, little is recorded beyond his extreme licenti- ousness and his Napoleonic love of building. - R. W. MOSS. PTOLEMY Y. ('Etruqavás, “illustrious') had no sooner succeeded his father, Philopator, in B.C. 205, than Antiochus the Great took advantage of the Egyp. king's minority to seize Palestine. Ptolemy's general, Scopas, was sent to recover the country, but was defeated near the sources of the Jordan, and cºmpelled to surrender at Sidon (Jerome, in Dam. 11"). Many of the Jews were led by the concessions of Antiochus (Jos. Amt. XII. iii. 3) to transfer to him their allegiance, and the country passed finally from under the control of Egypt. When the Romans forbade Antiochus to attack Ptolemy, he conciliated both, but re- tained his conquests by betrothing his daughter Cleopatra to the º king (B.C. 198). The marriage was celebrated in B.C. 193, the Syrian princess receiving as her dowry the royal share of the taxes of the conquered provinces, but no right of interference in their government. On the death of Antiochus, 12tolemy decided to invade Syria, but before his preparations were complete was poisoned in B.C. 182, or the early part of the following year. Dn 11” is to be interpreted of these relations between Ptolemy and Anti- ochus; but ll” must refer to a futile attempt to restore the independence of Israel (13evan, in loc.) rather than to a preference for Antiochus by a party amongst the Jews, for in that case the phrases, so far as they are intelligible, are con- trary to fact. R. W. MOSS. PTOLEMY WI. (should be reckoned as VII., as there is evidence of the brief reign of an older brother : for the authorities and the present state of the question, see Mahaffy, Emp. Ptol. 329 f.—surnamed pu)\ophraſp, “lover of his mother’) spent the first seven years of his reign under the Vegency of his mother, Cyprus being meanwhile to Euergetes. under the governorship of Ptolemy Macron (2 Mac 10”), who afterwards transferred his allegiance to Syria. Soon after her death he took the govern- ment into his own hands ; and annongst the envoys who came for the occasion was Apollonius, who was instructed to discover the feelings of the Iºgyp. court towards Syria (2 Mac 4*). In B.C. 173 the king married his sister Cleopatra. Two ears later he was defeated on the borders of 2gypt by Antiochus IV., who overran the country (1 Mac 1*) and got possession of the king. The latter's brother, Euergetes II., was at once raised to the throne by the people of Alexandria, and, When Antiochus retired, reigned conjointly with his brother (B.C. 170). In B.C. 163 Philometor was driven out of Egypt by his brother, but restored soon after by order of the Roman senate, the kingdom being divided and Cyrene assigned From B.C. 154 there was peace between the brothers. About the same time must be dated, the foundation of the temple of Onias, near Heliopolis (Jos. Amt. XIII. iii. 1–3), the cir- cumstances of which are an evidence of the king's popularity amongst and favour to the Jews. To the same conclusion point his employment of Jewish generals (Jos. c. Ap. ii. 5), This relation to the Jew Aristobulus (2 Mac 119), who is iden- tified with the Alexandrian philosopher of the same name by Clemens Alex. (Strom. v. 14. 97) and Eusebius (Prap. Evang. viii. 9), and possibly also the dedication of Ad. Est ll". When Alex- ander Balas was trying to establish his authority over Palestine, he sought alliance with Philometor (1 Mac 10*), whose daughter Cleopatra was given him in marriage about B.C. 150. With a view to take advantage of the rivalry between Balas and Demetrius (1 Mac 11), or more prob- ably in anger at the suspected treason of the former (Jos. Amt. XIII. iv. 6), Ptolemy again invaded Syria, and attached to himself Demetrius by promises of support and of marriage with Cleo- Yatra ; but, after making himself master of Antioch, e retained the crown of Syria for himself. Balas was defeated in battle, and killed in the course of his flight; but Ptolemy was wounded mortally, and only lived to have his enemy's head presented to him, in B.C. 146 (1 Mac 11*; Jos. Amt. XIII. iv. 8). Dn l 1* is to be understood of the Wars between Philometor and Antiochus IV. : IR. W. MOSS. PTOLEMY WII. (more correctly Ix., the young Son of Cleopatra II. having reigned for a few months, assumed the title of Euergetes II., possibly at his coronation at Memphis, but was better known amongst his Greek subjects by the nick- name of Physcon, “fat-paunch *) succeeded to sole rule in B.C. 146 or the following year, and died about thirty years afterwards. Justin and Strabo describe him as tyrannous to his subjects, and as shrinking from no crime; but the papyri (cf. especially Mahaſſy in vol. iv. 192 ſ. of Petrie's Hist. of Egypt) represent him as extending the commercial bounds of Egypt, and as upholding law and order within it. There are indications in two texts from Athribis (cf. also Grenfell's Papyri, i.74 f.) that he protected and was popular amongst his Jewish subjects. If so, the evidence against the theory that 3 Mac. records persecutions during his reign is increased. . In the l’rologue to Sir. the editor of the Gr. version states that he came to lºgypt in the 30th year of Euergetes (B.C. 133, the reckoning being from the commencement of the joint reign of the brothers), and implies that by that time the entire OT had already been trans- lated for the benefit of the Jews in Egypt, prob- ably with special reference to the needs of those resident in the great centre of Leontopolis. The task appears to have been begun in the reign of 172 PUAH PUBLICAN ..º. possibly earlier, and may have been completed shortly before the visit of the writer of the Prologue. - LiterATURE.-Of Ptolemaic literature, a good summary to 1895 is given in Wachsmuth's Einleitung in das Studiwm der alten Geschichte, 579 ft., whilst the articles, especially by Cless and by Wilcken, in the new edition of Pauly's Realencyclopädie, ed. Wissowa, are invaluable. The principal sources are Justin's Epitome; Pausanias, blº. i. ; Jerome, Com. on Dam. ai. ; Plu arch's Life of Cleomnemes; Josephus, Diodorus, l’olybius, and Livy, of which any edition with a good index will furnish a list of the scattered passages referring to the Ptolemies. Careful and ingenious use is made of inscriptions by Mahaffy in his Empire of the Ptolemies, and in his sketch of the Ptolemaic Dynasty in the fourth volume of Petrie's Hist. of #. Amongst the best connected histories are 1)roysen's Geschichte des Hellemismus, and Strack's Dynastic der Ptolemóter. I'or the inscriptions, in addition to the memoirs of the Egypt Ex- ploration Fund, Wilcken's Archiv für Papyrusºforschwing, Mahaffy's Petrie Papyri in 3 vols. of ‘Qunningham Memoirs” of the Royal Irish Academy, Ikevillout's Revue Egyptologique and Mélanges, should be consulted. A great wealth of papyri has accumulated in the British Museum and the Louvre, at Leyden, Turin, Rome, and elsewhere, and these are gradually bein edited in separate memoirs or in one of the Egyptologica periodicals by Grenfell, Hunt, and others; but §§ {l, COIll- }. small proportion relate to the period of the Ptolemies. for further or more general literature reference should be made to the bibliographical note at the close of the article on EGYPT, vol. i. p. 667. R. W. MOSS. PUAH.–4. (Hyle; pová) Ex 11", one of the Hebrew midwives in Egypt. Philo (Quis rerum divin. p. 389 f., ed. 1613) identifies this name with 2, perhaps rightly, and explains, Pová, épubpāv ćppmweveral. 2. (TS-B ; pová) Jg 10", of the tribe of Issachar, father of the minor judge Tola. , Puah is called ‘son of Dodo,” for which LXX and Syr, give the improb- able rendering, ‘son of his [Abimelech's] uncle.” A recension of LXX, represented by 8 minuscles, renders . . . viðv Pová viðv Kapté [Kapmé] trarpaëé\pov aúro), K.T.A.; hence Hollenberg (ZAT'W i. 104 f.) concludes that Puah was the son of Inn (cf. 2 IQ 25*, Jer 40°), and that the name has fallen out of MT. Moore (Judges, p. 273) suggests that Kapué is only a corruption of Issachar; the MT is probably right. 3. In the lists of Issachar, Gn 46”, Nu 26° (nº Puyah), 1 Ch 71 (HSE), Puah appears as the brother, not the father of Tola. Both are probably names of clans rather than of individuals. The meaning of Puah is uncertain. The name 5 º' has been connected with the Arab. 323 fah, a plant yielding a red dye, ‘madder,’ the Rubira tinctorum of Linn. In Talm. TPB is used in this sense, e.g. Shrubb. 89b, Erub. 266. See Löw (Aramäische Pſlanzenmamen, 251). If this be so, the connexion with Tola, “the crimson worm,” is interesting. Lagarde (Mittheil. iii., 1889, 281) takes purch to be a sea-weed = 45kos, and explains that Issachar’s son was so called because he used sea-weed in dyeing ; Issachar dwelt by the sea (Dt 33°). But the rubic, tinct. is not a sea-weed. G. A. COOKE. PUBLICAN (rex®vms, from réXos, “tax’; Lat. publi- canºes).--In the widest sense the word publicanus stands for any one who has business connexions with the State. It is usually employed in a nar- rower and more specific sense for a farmer-general of the revenue—by preference a man of equestrian rank (who was also sometimes designated ‘manceps,’ e.g. Cicero, Div. in Cacilium, 33, and ‘redemptor,” Div. ii. 47). The name was also given to the agents of the farmer of the revenue, whom he employed in collecting the taxes. In Palestine the taxes Went to the imperial treasury (fiscus), not to that of the Senate (arrarium). noter the procurator the Judaean taxes were paid through that official, whose primary function was the superintendence of the revenue. In the territories assigned to the petty kings and tetrarchs, such as that of Herod Antipas, the payment was made to those authori, ties. Even separate cities were allowed to collect their own taxes. An inscription in Greek and Aramaic at Palmyra, giving the custom tariff of a number of articles in the time of Hadrian, shows that the town had a certain authority in deter- mining the details of its own taxation (Schürer, HJP I. ii. 67 ff.). The publican leased the customs of a particular district for a fixed annual sum, gaining what the revenue yielded in excess of that amount, and being required to make good any deficiency. In earlier times even direct taxes ſº been farmed (Jos. Amt. XII. iv. 1, 3, 4, 5). But this was no longer the case in NT days. The publicans of whom we read in the Gospels were engaged in collecting the custom dues on exports (Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, ii. p. 261 ff.), Pliny mentions that merchants from Arabia paid custom dues at Gaza (HN xii. 63–65). In Jericho there was an āpxtrex®vms, possibly himself the farmer of the customs of that important trade centre. Most of the NT publicans could only have been tax- collectors, subordinate to the official who more strictly bore the name ‘publicanus.’ Publicans formed themselves into companies (Societates publi- canorum), each member taking a quarter, or a lesser share, of the collecting and its profits or losses, according to the amount of capital invested. In the time of the Caesars the contract was for five years. * It is evident that such a system as this would be liable to abuse, especially in a neglected and ill-governed province. It is expressly stated in the Palmyra, inscription that the authorities should prevent the lessee of the customs from exacting anything beyond what was required by the law. Differences having arisen, a fixed tariſi for a number of articles appears on the inscription to prevent misunderstandings and undue exactions. The unpopularity of the publican was partly due to his being a servant of the hated Roman govern- ment. This would be the case especially in Judaea. under the procurators. The case of Galilee under Herod Antipas was somewhat different ; and yet the Herods were dependent on and subservient to Rome. I'or a Jew to engage in collecting the revenues that went to support the foreign domina- tion, was regarded as peculiarly mean and un- patriotic. If he grew rich it was on the spoils wrung from his brethren by the oppressor. Conse- quently men who had a due regard for their own gºod name would shrink from accepting the office. This would lead to its falling into the hands of persons of doubtful reputation. Then the farm- ing of the customs was a direct incentive to dis- honesty. In Iłabbinical literature the tax-gatherer is commonly treated as a robber. In NT publicans and sinners are commonly coupled as forming but one class. It would not be fair to accept the popular judgment on this matter as an unprejudiced assertion of the truth. Still, our Lord's gracious treatment of the publicans is no indication that He wished to clear their character from calumny, for He was equally gracious to persons of notori- ously bad character when He saw signs of amend- ment. Levi had been a publican, but he left his §. occupation on becoming a disciple of esus (Lk 5”. *). Zacchaeus declared that he had mended his ways, and was in the practice of making ample recompense for his previous extortions at the time when he met with Jesus (Llº 19°). Our Lord’s ministry was peculiarly acceptable to publicans (Llº 15'). We }. no reference to any men of this class in the apostolic period. Acts and the IEpistles never name the publicans. LITERATURE. –Schürer, HJP I. ii. 17; Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, ii. 261–270, 280–293; Pauly, ſteal-1}ncyc., art. PUBLIUS PURCHIASE 173 ‘Publican'; Leyrer in Herzog's IReal-Encyc., art. ‘Toll'; Herz- feld, Hamdelsgeschichte der Judem, etc. 159 f.; Naquet, “Des impôts indirects chez les, Romains,' etc. (Burgian's Jahrešberichte, xix. 406 ft.); Cagnat, ‘ſtude historique sur les impots indirects Romains,” etc. (ib. xxvi. 245ff.); Vigié, Etudes sur leg impots indirects Iomains; Ldersheim, Jesus the Messiah, i. 515 ft. W. F. Åpºnry. PUBLIUS, or more correctly Poplius (IIów)\tos), the leading man in Malta, when St. Paul was cast on the island by shipwreck. He was both rich and hospitable, and his father was among those who were healed by the apostle (Ac 287: 9). He is described as 6 trpátos (rendered ‘the chief man’ in AV and RV), a title which seems to have been peculiar to Malta, but which has been proved from inscriptions to have had a technical significance there. These inscriptions, however, leave it doubt- ful whether the title indicates the chief magistrate of the island or one with an honorary rani. He may have been the delegate of the praetor...of Sicily, to whose jurisdiction Malta belonged. The name Poplius is the Gr. form of the praenomen Publius, but in this instance it may be the Gr. rendering of the nomen Popilius. Tradition says that he was the first bishop of Malta, and that afterwards he became bishop of Athens. W. MUIR. PUDENS (IIoWöms, but a few cursives give Xtroºms; Pudems).—A Christian at Rome in the time of St. Paul’s last imprisonment there, who sends greeting from him to Timothy (2 Ti 4*). This is all that is certainly known of him, but conjecture has been rife in attempting to identify him with others of the same name. The name is Roman, often borne by Romans of good family, and common in the early Christian centuries. Thus we find— (1) Aulus l’udens, a soldier, the friend of Martial, and husband of a British lady, Claudia (Mart. Epigr. iv. 13; xi. 53). (2) Titus Claudius, Pudens, husband of Claudia Quintilla, whose inscription to a lost child has been found between Rome and Ostia (CIL. vi. 15,066). (3) Pudens, a son of Pudentinus, a Roman who gave the site for a temple which the British king Cogidubnus erected to Neptune (CII, vii. 17). (4) Maevius Pudens, employed by Otho to corrupt Galba’s friends (Tac. Hist. i. 24). (5) Pudens, a Roman knight, killed at the siege of Jerusalem (Jos. BJ VI. ii. 10). (6) Pudens, a Roman senator, said by Roman tradition to have been the host of St. Peter at Rome (Baronius, Amm. Eccl. ad A.D. 44, Martyr. Rom. (td May 19 ; Lipsius, Apocryph. Apostel-leg. ii. 1. 207, 418). (7) Pudens, father of Pudentiana. and Praxedes, c. A. D. 160. The Greek Menaº, appealing to the authority of Dorotheus, regards Pudens as having been one of the seventy disciples, who afterwards accompanied St. Paul on his missionary journeys, and was beheaded under Nero. His memory is honoured with that of Aristarchus and Trophimus in the Greek Church on April 14. The Roman Church tended to identify him with the host of St. Peter (6), who was appar- ently confused with (7) (see Acta Sanctorum for May 19, where the editor distinguishes between the two). English writers have attempted to identify him with (l) and (3). This is possible, but cannot be regarded as proved (cf. art. CLAUDIA). So many of the name were soldiers, that the con- jecture may be hazarded that l’udens was one of the soldiers who had been in charge of St. Paul, perhaps one to whom he had been chained while a prisoner. W. LOCK. PUL (ºp, PoſN, Pová, PaX&x, PaX&s).—The As- syrian Pulu. See TIG LATH-PILESER. PUL.—Is 6619. PULPIT. See I’UT, p. 177*. This term occurs only in Neh 8*|| 1 Es 9* in connexion with the reading of the Law, when Ezra is said to have stood ‘upon a pulpit of wood (ryºnºv, LXX 3%ua $WAwov). The Heb. word º, which is frequent in the sense of ‘tower’ (cf. AVm and RVm at Neh 8), means any elevated structure. Ezra's “pulpit,” like its Latin original, pulpitum, probably corresponded rather to what we should call a ‘platform' or “stage.” J. A. SELBIE. PULSE (n'yū 2érô%m, D'yº) 2érônim, Dn 112.10). —The words in the original do not refer to any special plant, or even order of plants, but only to things sown. The purpose of Daniel and his companions was to be tried on a purely vegetable diet. An Arab., word of similar meaning, but more restricted, is kutniyyeh (pl. katáni), which is defined as ‘grains, with the exception of wheat, barley, raisins, and dates, or as ‘those grains which are cooked, as lentils, māsh (Vigna Nilo- tica), horse beans, beans, and chick peas.” The latter definition would correspond well with the Eng. º which refers to the edible seeds of the order Leguminosa. . It is said that they are called by this name in Arab. from the root katan, ‘to dwell,” because they last well, or because they are necessary to those who dwell in houses. Other authorities define katáni to be khilf, i.e. all sunner vegetables, which would make the exact equivalent of zörö'im and zèr'ömim. ‘Pulse’ in 2 S 17* is not in the Heb. original. The word ‘parched ' ("p = roasted or toºsted) occurs, twice in this verse, once after kemah = ‘meal,” following wheat and barley, and trºl ‘parched corn’, (see WHEAT); and again, after beans and lentils, and trº ‘parched pulse.” . It is customary to roast immature chick peas (Arab. hummus) in the oven, and eat them. The natives are exceedingly fond of them when prepared in this way. The allusion in the above passage is doubtless to grains roasted in the oven or toasted over the fire. See PARCIII.D. G. E. POST. PUNISHMENTS. — See CRIMES AND MICNTS. PUNITES (ºen, B & Povael, A Bovat). —The gen- tilic name from PUVAH, Nu 26*. See PUAH, No. 3. Siegfried-Stade suggest that the Heb. name should perhaps be pointed "J.P. PUNISH- PUNON (ºb, B pelvé, A Buyé, F pudºv).—A station in the journeyings of the children of Israel, men- tioned only in Nu 33* *. The LXX renders it in the same way as PINON, the name of one of the “dukes' of Edom (Gn 36”). Eusebius (s.v. dpupiðv) and Jerome (s.v. ‘Faenon ’) speak of it as formerly a city of the dukes of Edom, and identify it with a place between Petra and Zoar, called pauvøv, where mines were worked (Onomast, ed. Lag. pp. 155 and 2S8). A. T. CHAPMAN. PURAH (nº ‘branch’-nºns Is 10°; ?' wine- press’ = Tºp Is 63”; LXX Papd).-Gideon’s ‘ser- vant,” lit. ‘young man’ (hy, LXX Tatóóptov, Vulg. puter), i.e. armour-bearer, Jg 7" ; cf. 9”, l S 14" ", 2 S 2011. G. A. COOKE. PURCHASE.--To purchase (from Old Fr. pour- chasser, i.e. pont, “for” and chasser ‘to chase ) is to pursue after a thing, hence to acquire. The sense is now narrowed to acquiring by payment. l'or the wider meaning cf. \!. 19tary, p. 42, ‘Mr Andro Melvill . . . with grait diſlicultie pur- chassit leave of the kirk and magistrates of Genev ... and takin jorney calm ham wart '; 18 mox, First Blast (Arber’s reprint, p. 7), “The veritie of God is of that nature, W. at one time or at other, it will pourchace to it selfe audience’; Article XXV I74 PURGE IPURIM “They that receave them unworthyly purchase to themselves damnation.’ This wider meaning is also seen in Ac 20° ‘the clurch of God which he hath purchased with his own blood’ (ºv trepietrovígaro); and in 1 Ti 31° ‘They that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good de- gree' (trepitrovoſivtat, RV ‘gain '). Cf. Ps 84° in metre— * *The swallow also for herself Hath purchased a nest.’ J. HASTINGS, PURGE.-Like Lat. purgare and Fr. purger, the verb to “purge’ was formerly used in the widest sense of to cleanse or purify. Hence Ps 517 ‘Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean,’ referring to the ceremony of dipping a bunch of hyssop (see HYSSOP) in blood . sprinkling the leper or defiled person (Lv 14, Nu 19”); Mt 3% ‘He will throughly purge (RW “cleanse') his floor”; Mk 7" ‘purging aii ments’ (RV ‘making all meats clean,’ i.e. ceremonially, see Swete's note); Jn 15” “Every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it’ (RW “cleanseth it’); He l’ ‘when he had by himself purged our sins” (RV’ ‘made urification of sins'). Cf. the tr. of 1 Jn 3° in Ö. Erasmus' NT, “And every man that hath thys hope in him, purgeth himself, even as he also is pure’; Wyclif's tr. of Ja 48 ‘ye synners clense the hondis, and ye double in Soule purge ye the hertis’; and the Act of Henry VIII. (1543) pro- hibiting Tindale's Translation, , ‘The person or persons being detecte or complained on, shal be admitted to purge and trie his or theyr innocency by other witnesse.’ J. HASTINGS. PURIFICATION.—See UNCLEAN. PURIM (Dºme or pººr, p.).-A Jewish festival of whose origin and institution we have an account in the Book of Esther. There we are informed that the festival had its rise in the resting and rejoicing of the Jews in Persia, after their slaughter of their enemies on 13th Adar, in the 12th year of king Ahasuerus (i.e. Xerxes, B.C. 473). That was the day which Haman, the grand vizier, had chosen by lot (=pur, Est 37) for the extermination of the Jews throughout the Pers. empire. Owing to the fact that in Susa, the conflict was renewed on 14th Adar, the ‘day of feasting and gladness’ in that city fell on the 15th. It was therefore enacted, as we learn from what appears to be an interpolation (9**), by an ordinance of Mordecai, the successor of Haman, confirmed by Esther the queen (who were chiefly instrumental in procuring the deliver- ance), that there should be an annual celebration of the feast in all time coming, among the Jews and their seed, both on 14th and 15th Adar; ‘that they should make them days of feasting and gladness, and of sending portions one to another and gifts to the poor.” N. religious services were enjoined, and the observance seems to have been at first merely of a convivial and charitable nature; but ultimately it was accompanied with the reading of the Bk. of Esther in the synagogue, the whole con- gregation joining enthusiastically in the closing passages id: to Mordecai's triumph, and, at the mention of Haman, hissing, stamping, gesticulating and crying out, ‘Let his name be blotted out ; let the name of the wicked perish,’ while the reader pronounced the names of Haman's ten Sons all in one breath to indicate that they expired at the same moment. This reading of ‘the Megilla,' pre- ceded and followed by a special benediction, com- mencing in each case with the words, “Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, king of the universe,” takes place both on the evening of the 13th of Adar, which is observed as a fast-day (called ‘the Fast of Esther,’ traceable from the 9th cent. ; cf. 9” 4°), £- and on the morning of the 14th, which along with the 15th is devoted to celebrations of a festive and social character, as enjoined in Scrip- ture, but without any prohibition of labour. To the influence of the Blc. of Esther the festival seems to have largely owed its popularity (Buxtorf, Syn. Jud. 24, and Ginsburg in Ritto’s Cycl.). Apart from that book, the following are the only allusions to the subject that have been discovered in ancient literature. Referring to the commemoration of the victory over the Syrian general Nicanor on 13th Adar (B.C. 161), 2 Mac (15"), which was prob- ably written a little before the beginning of the Christian era, mentions that the anniversary fell on the day before ‘Mordecai's day.’ 1 Mac (about a century earlier) is silent on the point, although it mentions (7*) the institution of ‘Nicanor’s day.” Josephus, writing about the close of the 1st cent. A.D., gives an account of the feast (Amt XI. vi. 13), and mentions that in his day it was observed by the Jews throughout the world on the 14th and 15th Adar, which days they called ‘ppovpatovs. In the Meg. Taamith (xii. 31), which existed in the 2nd cent. A.D., these two days are also mentioned as ‘the days of Purim,” when “mourning is for- bidden.” By some “the Feast of the Jews’ (Jn 5*, cf. 4” 6') is identified with Purim ; but the inference is questionable, as the latter never had any special connexion with Jerus., and was not likely, as actually celebrated, to be very attractive to the Saviour (but see Milligan-Moulton on Jn 5'). With regard to the historical origin of Purim, there has been during the last half-century a growing tendency to reject the narrative in the Bk. of Esther, largely owing to the difficulty of finding any Persian word with which the name Pur can be identified. Various theories have been advanced to show that the festival had quite a different origin. 1. According to Reuss(Gesch.A.T., $473), following J.D. Michaelis (Gesch. A T'), it may have grown out of the Nicanor-festival on 13th Adar, the latter losing its historical significance in the course of an eventful century or two, and thus becoming a pre- paratory fast to ‘Mordecai's day,’ whose strong hold upon the popular mind (notwithstanding the misgivings of the Great Synagogue, Meg. Lxx. 4) was due to the popularity of the Blc. of Esther, with which it was sociosely connected. This theory, how- ever, leaves the Purim mystery unsolved, and it is negatived by the fact that even so late as in the Meg. Taamith (xii. 30) the 13th Adar is spoken of as ‘Nicanor's day.” 2. J. Fürst (Kamom AT) and E. Meier (Heb. Wrtb.) trace Purim directly to a Pers. spring-festival (adopted by the Jews in Susa), and suppose the name to be connected with Pers. bahar– spring. Zunz (ZDMG xxvii.) takes a similar view, regarding the Bk. of Esther as designed to invest the festival with a Jewish character when it could no longer be got rid of ; while Meyboom gives the idea a practical form by supposing Haman to be an emblem of winter overcome by the sun § and the moon (Mordecai). 3. Hitzig (Gesch. J&r.) observes that Phur in mod. Arabic = New Year (cf. pårva = the first), and argues for a New Year's festival of Parthian origin which the Blc. of Jesther (after b.c. 238) was designed to commend to the Jewish nation generally, its historical elements, such as they are, being derived from the early Arsacid, not the Achaomenid period. 4. A more remarkable theory is that which was originated by von Hammer in 1827 (Wien. Jahrbuch Lit.), and elabo- rated and developed by Lagarde in his “Purim,' I'im Beitrag zwr Gesch. der Religion (1887), according to which the feast is a Judaic transformation of the old Zoroastrian IFarwardigán (Festival of the Dead), observed on the last ten days cf the year, including ſive intercalary days. Lagarde (while also ascribing an influence to the Accºyáçovice of IIerod. iii. 75), and to a Fest des Umbilatigen) endeavours to make out a linguistic connexion between the Pers. Inanne just mentioned and the yarious phases of the Greek name by which Purim is represented in the Septuagint (viz. ºpovgozí, powpoſo, Çove/accio, ©povºzío), ſinding in these the elements of New-Pers. POrdigan, which he identifles with the poupºly&v, mentioned by the Byz, Menander as a Pers. feast in the 6th cent., and inferring the original Gr. form to have been ºpovăzić = Heb. Purdaia (NTAE), while he explains away the Heb. TB by supposing that the original reading (37) may have been, not Nhn Ye, but Hypº (pharmamah)=Pers. firman (edict). Renan takes a similar view (Livre iv. Hist. du P. d’Isr.), tracing the name to Pers. J'ontrºli (Aram. Powrdai, Heb. Photº- dim- Photrim), and supposes the festival to have acquired its halo of Jewish romance in the time of the Maccabees. The ety- mological argument, however, is very precariotis, popular usage in such a case being little influenced by corruptions of text, PURIM PURITY 175 and the various Gr. readings being too easily accounted for by the errors of Alexandrian copyists to justify us in using them to correct such a good Heb. text, even if the derivation from I'arwardigdºm were better, supported than it is (for objections see Halévy in the IRev. des Etudes Juives, 1887, who derives the LXX forms from the Gr. ºppoupé = guard). 5. Another theory which has been recently advanced with no less confidence is that of Grätz (Momatsschrift Ges. w, Wis8. d. Jud. xxxv. 10–12). He traces Purim to Heb. Tº (parah)=wine-press, supposing the feast to have been due to the adoption by the Jews in Palestine (in the reign of Ptolemy IV. Philopator, B.C. 222–205, through the Hellenizing influence of Joseph the tribute- collector, Jos. Amt. xii. iv.) of the Gr. festival Illſlotyłcz =jar- opening, corresponding to the Vimalia of the Romans, alleging in support of his theory the riotous mirth and the making of resents of wine which characterized that Bacchanalian season. he linguistic argument, however, is seen to be more apparent than real when it is noticed that wine-press suggests, not 8pring (when the Anthesteria were held, of which the Pithoigia formed part), but autwmm, and that the Amthesteria lasted for three days. Moreover, it is scarcely conceivable that such a Gr. institution could have gained in the course of a generation or two such a strong hold on the affections of the Jews as to resist the anti- Hellenic reaction which set in under the Maccabees within half a century afterwards. 6. Still more recently Zimmern (ZATW, 1891) has derived the Feast of Purim from the Bab. Zagmwkw (otherwise Akºtw), an ancient New Year's festival, celebrated with great pomp and mirth in the opening days of Nisan (cf. Est 37). This was remarkable chiefly for an assembly (Assyr. pubru, easily passing into the meaning of feast, cf. zolv? and coena, convivium) of the gods, which was held under the presidency of the Bab. tutelar deity Marduk, Merodach (cf. Mordecai), in a chamber forming part of a larger room (Ubsuginſ = room of the pub?'w) in his temple lº-Sagila, for the purpose of settling the fates of the king and the whole nation for the coming year (cf. the lot of Est 37.924). This celebration represented a similar mythical assembly of the gods, supposed to be held in a mysterious spot in the far East, which, again, had its prototype in a convivial assembly of the gods on the eve of the creation (see art. BABYLONIA, vol. i. §§ at which Marduk was appointed to overcome the rival power Tidmat, and carry out the work of creation. In this connexion Marduk is significantly called ‘the arranger of the pathru of the gods.” In Tidmat Zimmern thinks we may find the original of Hamam (as in Mardwk of Mordecai); and in the story of the Blº. of Esther he sees a Jewish transformation of the Bab. legend (Bel and the Dragon), the change of date from Nisan to Adar being due to the desire to keep it a month oarlier than the solemn Passover. Conſirmation of this theory in a modified form is offered by Jensen (WZKM vi. 47 ff. 200ff. ; see also his communication to Wildeboer, quoted by the latter in his Comm. on “Esther' in Marti's Kurzer IIdcom.m. p. 173), who suggests the identification of Haman with an Elamite god Humba-ba = IIwmhnam (cor- responding to the Bab. Marduk), of Haman's wife Zeresh with Humman’s consort Kiriša, and of Vashti with an Elamite divinity_Wasti, while at the same time pointing out that Esther = Bab. Istan', and that Hadassa in Bab. = bride. He also makes out Istat, to be a cousin of Mardwk, as Esther of Mordecai. With this mythology he connects the Bab. New Year's epic which celebrates, in twelve parts, the changing fortunes of Eabani (Marduk), and he finds in the l8k. of Esther a combina- tion of these and other elements of a more popular character relating to the Iłabylonian conquest of the Iºlamites, the whole being wrought up by Jewish fancy amid Pers. surroundings. Wildeboer, while accepting this theory, combines with it the idea of a festival of the dead (All-Souls'-Day), as suggested by Lagarde above, and applied by Schwally (Leben mach dem. Tode, 42 f.), Hence the feastings and fastings and sending of gifts— repasts and offerings for the dead being a usual accompaniment of such commemorations in Persia and elsewhere; hence, too, the albsence of the name of God from a story intended for such semi-heathenish rites, as its introduction in such a connexion would have given offence to the religious authorities and pre- vented its admission to the synagogue. A different version of the same theory is given by Br. Meissner (ZDMG, 1896). He traces back the Jewish festival through its Persian medium to the festivities referred to by Berosus under the name of 2%zzio, which he identiſles (on doubtful etymological grounds) with the Bab. Zagmuk, as popularly understood and observed. In the celebration of this festival, which was of so merry a character that Istar, the goddess of love, naturally acquired a more prominent place in it than Marduk, it was usual for a slave, arrayed in royal apparel, to rule over the nobles for five days, and something like a reversal of the ordinary, social relations took place. Meissner supposes the Jews to have become acquainted with it in Susa, and to have appreciated it so much in their state of subjection as to per- petuate it in a form that was specially ſitted to glorify their own nation. In the Ea:positor, Aug. 1896, Mr. C. H. W. Johns calls atten- tion to the fact, as brought out by Peiser in the I(eilinschriftliche Bibliol, vol. iv. p. 107, that the Assyr. word puru means ‘term of office,’ ‘turn,' and holds Purim to be derived from Puru, which is free from the ineffaceable guttural in pulºru, as the common designation of the New Year's feast on its secular side §. connexion with the accession of officials), as distinguished rom its Sacred names and associations, with which the Jews tould have no sympathy. According to a conjecture of M. J. de Goeje's, favoured by Kuenen, the story of Esther is derived from the same Persian tradition as the tale of The Thousand and One Nights, which has a similar heroine in Scheherazade. The word Pur has sometimes been supposed to belong to the same root as Pers. p4,'e and Lat. pars, but Halévy traces it to a lost Arann. word TAP, from root ºne = to break in pieces, after the analogy of other Semitic tongues, in which the idea of ‘lot' is closely related to that of fraction, or partition, with which he connects the distribution of gifts at the feast. Another suggestion is that it may have denoted some object (cf. urn, dice, cards) used, in casting JotS,--such as Dieulafoy (Rev. des Et. Jwives, 1888) claims to have dis- covered in the excavations of the Memnonium at Susa, in the shape of a quadrangular prism, bearing different numbers on its four faces, which he thinks may have been used for casting lots, the name pur (like Sanskrit pur ‘fulness,’ Pers. pur ‘full,” Lat. plenus, Fr. plein) having reference to its solid form. But Jensen (quoted by Wildeboer as above) derives the word from Assyr. pilºrſ or bürtt = stone, used in a metaphorical sense analogous to that of ºn and pºpos. In subsequent times the Feast of Purim has often been the means of sustaining the faith of Jewish communities when in imminent danger of destruc- tion at the hands of their enemies, of which we are reminded by the Cairene Purim (Furin al-Miz- Tayim) and the Purim-Vincent, designed to con- memorate the deliverance of the Jews in Cairo and Frankfort in 1524 and 1616. : It may be added that the distinction between “Great Purim ' and ‘Little Purim,” referring to the two celebrations that used to take place in leap- year, in Adar and Ve-Adar respectively, cannot be traced to an earlier period than the 2nd cent. A.D. LITERATURE.—Besides the authorities cited above, see the literature referred to in art. ESTIIBR, and, further, Derenbourg, LIist. de la Pal. 442 ft. ; W. R. Smith, OT'JC2, 184 m. J. A. M'CLYMONT. PURITY. — This word, in subst. form, is not found in AV or RV of OT, and occurs only twice in NT, 1 Ti 41° 5° (àyveta), the RV adding, however, a third instance when it accepts (with N B) Kal Tâs āyvörmtos at 2 Co 11°. The form ‘pureness’ occurs once in NT, 2 Co 6" (āyv%rms), and three times in OT, Job 22°, Is 1*, Pr 22” (Heb. being boy in the two former passages, and tâhón in the last, and the LXX reproduction being nearest to exactness in the Öorias xetpas of Proverbs). In all these instances the use of “purity’ is ethical. This ethical use is one of the functions of all the Heb. and Gr. words constituting the family of purity, though it would be an error to say that any one of these words is never used ceremonially ; even bārar (primarily = ‘ separate ’) is ceremonial in at least one passage, Is 52*. And, of course, there is the literal use also, as, for instance, to describe gold when free from alloy (Ex 25" ct al., tahón', ka0após; cf. Rev 21*). But the Eng. translators have preferred ‘purity’ and its family for the ethical region (though they have never so used “purification,’ and have not restricted “purify"), and have preferred ‘clean’ (though “cleanness’ is almost always ethical) for the double office of ethical and ceremonial. In the Gr. usage there are similar preferences. ‘Ayvös, &yveta, āryvörms, dyvös (Ph 17 only, RV ‘sincerely ’) are in NT exclusively ethical, though not so ex- clusively āyvića, and not at all dyvtapés (Ac 21” only); in LXX &yvös is almost always ethical, though never &yvlºw, &yveta, or āyvio|uðs (Jer 6" is doubtful; Heb. = “rest for your souls,’ LXX ren- dering &yvio wis, which may be intended to mean national purification from idolatry); &yvörms and &yvós do not occur; while Katapºs, tºhór, is in LXX mainly ceremonial, and in NT, as is natural, nearly always ethical ; indeed, in Tit 1" (trévra katapå roſs 176 PURITY PUT ka0apoſs) the idea of ceremonial or Levitical im- º already ignored in the spiritual Psalms (e.g. Ps 119), is overtly surrendered (cf. Mt. 15”, Mk 7”). 'A'yväs and its innmediate correlates are doubtless connected with the more comprehensive family of &ytos, but form at the same time a distinct branch confined to one aspect of holiness, holiness and purity remaining so far distinct throughout OT. "Aytos, kādāsh, “holy,” as separate, as related to God, who is absolutely separate from all evil, is in OT used fundamentally, not of ethical qualities, but of position—the position of God as wntºpproachable in majesty, power, and goodness; the position of men as consºrated to and by God, and therein and thereby summoned to be separate, in God-likeness, from all the defilements of heathenism (Lv 19° 11”); and, finally, the position of material things as related to the service of God or the consecrated position of men. One of the most prominent of the defilements of heathenism was sensuality, and to this the family of dyvös stands especially opposed, both in classical Greek (cf. &yvá with Artemis in Homer, and the use of dyvös in Soph. Antig. 880, and Dem., adv. Near. 59, 78) and in sacred Greek (cf. 4 Mac 187. *, and 2 Coll”, Tit 2"); yet it often takes a wider sweep and covers purity of motive (Ja 4°, 1 P 12°), and of character generally (1 Coll”, Ja 317, 1 Jn 3*, and in LXX Ps 11 (12)” 18 (19)", Pr 209). In NT dyvös and ka9após may perhaps be dis- tinguished (see Westcott on 1 Jo 3°) as predomi- nantly connoting feeling and state respectively, ãºyvös (cf. §§opau) implying a shrinking from pollu- tion, while kaðapós expresses simply the fact of cleanness. Hence the Öyvtſet éavrów in 1 Jn 3° and the &yvla are kapóias in Ja 4° penetrate more deeply towards the root of the matter than the ka0apia are xeſpas of the latter passage, or even than the ka0a- pl{et huās of 1 Jn 17, the ka9aplan huās of 1 Jn 1", and the ka9aptorm Aadu of Tit 2", in proportion as the purification by the man of his external acts, or the purification by the external influence (if we may so speak) of God or Christ, has less to do with internal and personal feeling than the effort of the man upon his inner life. Westcott also dis- tinguishes àyvös and ka0após from dytos, in that the latter is ‘holy absolutely in itself or in idea,” while &yvös and kaffapás ‘admit the thought or the fact of temptation or pollution.” So “a man is dyios in virtue of his divine destination (He 10%) to which he is gradually conformed (He 10”),’ while he is ka9após or dyväs according (we may add) as we regard his state or the internal discipline by which, on the human side, the state is attained. If these distinctions hold, we shall, with Westcott, inter- pret the phrase “even as he is pure’ (dyvös), 1 Jn 3”, not of God (of whom dyvös could not be predicated), but of Christ in the light of the discipline of His human life. Another word, which AV translated ‘pure’ in 2 P 3 (“your pure minds’), and which is very closely allied to dyvös, is elNukp:vñs (-eta or -wa), a word of uncertain etymology (see Lightfoot on Pll 1"), but of no uncertain significance. It is now, in RV, in all five passages where it occurs, rendered by ‘sincere” (or its subst.), that is, un- mived, a sense which it bears in the only place where it is found in LXX, Wis 7”, Wisdom being there spoken of as an “unmingled effluence of the glory of the Almighty.’ Trench (NT Symon.” p. 309) is probably correct in distinguishing elAt- Kpuuſis from kaffap3s, as denoting (the former) freedom from the falsehoods of life and (the latter) freedom from its pollutions. "Ootos, which is associated with words for “purity’ at He 7”, has special reference to piety, i.e. reverence for the acknowledged sanc- tities of law and religion. See CLEAN, HOLINESS, and UNCLEAN. J. MASSIE. PURPLE (ſºns argāmān; Aram. Dºns argéwin (IOn 57 "); Arab. ww.juw&m ; tropºpúpa, purpura).- This dye was extracted from the shel º, Mntrea: trunculus, L., and M. brandaris, L., and some- times from Purpura harmastoma. Large heaps of the shells of these molluscs are found near Tyre, and outside the south gate of Sidon. The dye was known as Tyrian purple. It was extracted from the throat of the animal, each one yielding a single drop. The exact colour is uncertain, as the art of extracting the dye is lost. The fluid is at first white, then, by exposure, becomes green, and finally reddish purple. The purple (Topóvgoûv) robe (tudtvov) of Jn 19° (cf. troppūpav, Mk 1517) is called scarlet (x\apºãa kokkivmu) in Mt 27*. See, further, art. Colou Rs in vol. i. p. 457°. G. E. POST. PURSE.—See BAG. PURTENANCE (an albbrev. of ‘ appurtenance,’ from Lat. (tpºrtinere, through Old Fr. apartemir, apurtematumsc) means properly whatever pertains to, and in its single occurrence in AV (Ex 12") is used for the intestines of the l’assover lamb (I&V ‘invards'). The tr. is from Tindale. Wyclif has ‘entrayls.” Cf. Babces Book, p. 275, ‘ Kºi. roste with ye heed and the portenaunce on lamb and pygges feet, with vinegre and percely theron.’ J. HASTINGS. PURVEYOR, i.e. ‘provider’ (Fr. pourvoyeur, from Old Fr. proveoir or porveoir = Lat. providere), occurs only in To 1" of Tobit, who obtained grace and favour in the eyes of Enemessar and became his purveyor (dyopao Tºffs). The dyopaa’riffs (lit. ‘ buyer') was the slave who had to buy provisions for the house (Xen. Mem. I. v. 2); cf. the Lat. obsomator (I’laut. Mil. III. i. 73; Sen. Ep. 47). J. A. SELDIE. PUT (AV Phut, except in 1 Ch 18, Nah 39).— Name of an African nation ; ple, LXX Poſé in Gn, Cli (A in Ch Poºr, Genes. Cottom. ‘Poſt), in the Prophets Algues (except Nah 3", where the render- ing puyſ appears,” with a false division of the verse); the marginal additions of Q (Marchali- anus) twice explain the name fancifully as a Tóga ; Vulg. Phuth, }. (Ch.), in the l’rophets Libyes, Libya (Ezk 30°–so AV sin Jer and Ezk). In Gn 10", 1 Ch 18, Put is the third son of Ham. In the l’rophets, warriors from Put are principally associated with the armies of Egypt as auxiliaries. Jer 46” “Cush and Put, that handle the shield, and the Ludim, that handle and bend the bow,’ are among ‘the mighty men’ of Egypt. In Ezk 30° we have a similar enumeration of auxiliaries beginning with Cush and Put. In Nah 3" Thebes (No-amon) has Ethiopia and Egypt as “her strength,’ Put and Lubim as her “helpers.’ A distinction seems to be made here between the subjects of the Ethiopian - Egyptian empire and the inde- pendent tribes, living farther off, who appear to have served the Pharaohs only as mercenaries. In Ezk 27" Tyrus is said to have had Persia and Lud and Put in her army. An employment of E. African mercenaries in Tyrus is strange, although it does not present greater difficulties than the connexion with various other remote nations, like Persia (but see below). In Tzk 38", however, the circumstance that in the turmy of the Northern prince Gog from Magog ‘Persia, Cush, and Put 'appear among the various barbarians from Asia Minor, is very surprising. If we do not wish to accuse the prophet of senselessly accumulating here all obscure names of remote nations known * This blunder seems to be one of the rare instances where the Egyptian tongue inſluenced the Alexandrian translators. b) B does not exist in Hebrew, nor does it mean ‘to flee' in the Semitic languages, but Coptic has roºr ‘to run, to flee.’ Some MSS read Poº also in Ezk 27.10; see Field, IIcazapla. PUT PUT 177 sº- to him, it is most natural to assume a corruption of the text, due to a reader's having enlarged it from other passages (from 27%2). A blunder of the scholarly Ezekiel, who displays such a wide knowledge of geography, sºil. in ch. 27, is not very probable. Otherwise, Put would be another country than the one usually designated (see below). The passage must certainly be used with caution. On the other hand, Is 66" seems to come in here : “Pul and Lud, that draw the bow,’ as the most remote nations. The reading Počá for Pul in the LXX (Nº pow0) confirms the evident emendation to Put. These biblical passages are insufficient to deter- mine the situation of the country. However, apart from the difficult and doubtful name Lud, we see the Libyans repeatedly distinguished from Put, e.g. in Gn 10” (see LEHABIM) and Nall 3" (see LUBIM), also in Ezk 30°, where we must read Lºwb instead of Cwb, after the LXX. Therefore the guess of the LXX at the Libyans has little probability. We have rather to look to the east of Africa. The best interpretation of the name, which is now being more and more generally accepted, is the identification with the country Punt (or rather Puent 2) of the Egyptian inscriptions.” . The Per- sian list of tributary countries in Naksh-i-Rustam (Spiegel, Pers. ICeilinschr.” 119) enumerates Kush- iya, Putiya, and Masiya (Babylonian translation Páta, Kāšu, Massú), confirming the view that Put (with assimilation of the m) was the form of the name used by all Semites, and that it signified a part of N. Eastern Africa. The Egyptians pro- nounced tº after n regularly with a sound which the Greeks translated by 6 (cf. poſó with the correct rendering, not of the Hebrew, but of the Egyptian pronunciation), the Semitºs by p. So Pút stands for Pu(n)t, quite regularly. The Egyptian inscriptions mention this country of Punt (later form Pune) very frequently after c. 3000 B.C. According to the latest investigations, it comprised the whole African coast of the Red Sea from the desert E. of Upper Egypt to the modern Somali country. Parts of it, evidently only those in the north (between Souakin and Massoua. ?), were tributary to the great conquering. Pharaohs of the 18th dynasty. Whether the masters of Egypt in prophetic time extended their º SO far South is uncertain. But at all times there was intercourse and commerce between Egypt and the Southern rich parts of Punt both by land, through the Nubian desert, and by water. We have various inscriptions referring to commercial naval expeditions sent by the Pharaohs, especially in the 12th, 18th, and 20th dynasties, of which that in the time of queen Ha't-sheps(0).tt has become most famous by the fine pictures illus- trating it upon the walls of the temple of Deir el-13ahri in Western Thebes. Already in the 5th dynasty king Assa received a member of the African dwarf-tribes from Punt. The treasures of Punt were : slaves, cattle, gold (from a region called 'Amau), ivory, ebony, ostrich- feathers and -eggs, rare live animals (especially monkeys), grey- hounds for humting, gum, and a number of fra- grant substances from various trees or shrubs. The * Due to G. Elyers in his Aegypten wºnd die Bücher Mose's, p. 64, accepted, e.g., by Stade (de Isa. wat. ...}}th.). On the weak attempt at contradiction by Dillmann, see the present writer's 48tem, p. 115. # A great mass of earlier literature on the much discussed situation of this country is antiquated. Formerly scholars tried to identify Punt with Southern Arabia, then (after Mas- }. they located it on, both sides of the Red Sea. The latest iterature will be found in Krall, Das Land 1’unt (“Sitzungs- herichte Akad. Vienna,' cxxi. 1800); Naville, Deir el-Bahari, iii. : W. M. Müller in Mittheil, vorderas. Gesells. iii. 180S, 148 (ºf. A siem whd Europa, ch. 7). Glaser (Mittheil. vorderas. Gesells. iv. etc.) unfortunately uses some very antiquated 50Ull'('C8. VOL. IV. — I 2 incense needed by the Egyptians for the divine worship and for cosmetics formed the most im- Fº product of the country. The parts of *unt producing it were called ‘the incense- terraces’ (or ‘stairs'), apparently situated on the Abyssinian coast (incense in sufficient quan- tity grows only E. of Bāb el-Mandeb), but it would be wrong to limit Punt to these regions. The inhabitants were rude nomadic shepherds, some of them negroes or mixed with negroes, but mostly of the pure Hamitic race, i.e. near relatives of the Egyptians and the other white Africans. Consequently their descendants are the desert tribes called Troglodyta (better Trogodyta) or Ichthyophagi by the Greeks, Bedja by the Arabs in the north, Saho and Afar (Danakil) on the Abyssinian coast.” They can hardly have formed a large contingent of the Egyptian armies, because the desert regions north of Abyssinia were too thinly populated. Only the archers of the region Maza (Matsiya of the Persians, see above), more inland, i.e. nearly in the modern province of Taqa, were as popular as policemen and guards as the Nubas are in modern Egypt; this country of the Mazoyu is frequently separated from Punt. But the prophets, speaking of Put-Punt evidently did not consider the scanty population of this country. To them it represented all Africa east of Egypt and Ethiopia (i.e. the Nubian Nile valley, not modern Ethiopia or Habesh), an endless and mysterious part of the world. The Phoenicians (cf. Ezk 27*) may have extended their commercial connexions to what the Greeks called the “coasts of the aromata,’ after the completion of Necho's canal between the Nile and the Red Sea, ; } before that time the difficulties must have been too great to allow a direct contact. Commentators who wished to follow the trans- lation of the LXX, compared the Coptic name qala.T ‘Libya (especially the western part of the 1)elta), Libyan' (thus knobel and, following him, Dillmann). The hieroglyphic equivalent of Phnicºt has not yet been found, but the word looks like a (plural 7) denominative from a feminine noun ending in -et. This would not at all agree with the t (b) of the Semites, unless an n Tad been assimilated (see above). The Greek translators of the prophets may have thought of this name, nevertheless. See, however, above, the objections from the biblical passages and the confirmation of the reading Pút from the Persian inscription. Some Egyptologists compare the Egyptian ex- pression for ‘foreign warriors,’ which they errone- ously read pet, pite, etc. But the Amarna tablets have shown that this expression “bowmen was podate (singular ‘a troop of bowmen’ pedite(t), derived from pide(t) “bow ’). Consequently neither the Coptic qala.T nor the Semitic Pºtt agrees with these formations. How the com- parison of “a river Phut in Mauretania’ (i.e. Morocco, which was never even known to the Egyptians !) in Josephus (Amt. I. vi. 2) : was seri- ously considered by modern commentators, re- mains a mystery.S W. MAX MüLLER. * If we have a right to compare the tribes more to the south- east, we might speak also of the Gallas. The frequent conn- parison of the Somalis with the 'Punti' is erroneous. The Somalis lived originally only on the eastern coast of modern Somaliland, i.e. at too great a distance. Some writers have tried to find in Punt the original African seat of the Phº- nicians.' But this idea rests only on the accidental similarity of a Latin pronunciation (Punicus, for Phoenicus). , No ethno- logic connexion between those African, say ages and the highly cultured Asiatic nation can be found. The position of the Phoenicians in Gn 10 among the Haumites seems to be due to other reasons than those of ethnology. 4. # See Mittheil. vorderas. Gesells, iii. 152, on the completion of the cana). e f Called Phthºuth Ptol. iv. 1, 3; Fut Plin. v. 1, and known thus also to Jerome. e - § Winckler (Forschungen, i. 513) has raised the question 178 PUTEOLI PYTHON PUTEOLI (IIorloxot, modern Pozzuoli). — The great commercial port of Italy, in what is called now the Bay of Naples, but was at one time called the Simºts }. It was at this port that St. Paul landed on his journey to Rome (Ac 281*). There were already brethren there, and he and St. Luke were entreated to tarry with them seven days. Its name is of doubtful origin, but is attributed either to the putrid smell of the sul- phurous springs close by, or to the wells (pºttei) of the place. Cicero, like St. Paul, landed there when he came from Sicily (pro Planc. 26). It was the resort of trade from all parts, notably from the East, and the corn supplies for the capital were landed here. Josephus speaks of himself as having landed there after being shipwrecked (Vit. 3), an gives its other name of Dicaearchia. . There must have been a Jewish population in the place (cf. Jos. Amt. XVIII. vi. 4), and this may perhaps ac- count for the presence of Christians there. Some of the ruins of the ancient mole, at which the apostle must have landed, are still in existence. H. A. REDPATH. PUTHITES (ºrien, B Metºpeubelu, A 'H'puffetv).— One of the families of Kiriath-jearin, 1 Ch 2*. See GENEALOGY, iv. 38. PUTIEL (bsºle, pouriº).—The father-in-law of Aaron’s son Eleazar, Ex 6” (P). About Putiel we hear nothing more in the OT, and the meaning of the name is uncertain. Gray (HPN 210) classes it amongst the late and artificial names character- istic of the lists of P and the Chronicler. It may be half-Egyptian half-Semitic (= ‘ he whom El gave,’ sce Dillm. -Ityssel, Eagodus, ad loc.), but even if so, it will not bear all the weight of the argument that Hommel (AIl T 293, 295) builds upon it in regard to the early history of Israel and the character of the Priests’ Code. J. A. SELBI.E. PUWAH.—See PUAH. PYGARG (iºn dishön).--Dīshön occurs only once (Dt., 14%). It is the fifth name in the Heb. list. In B of the LXX it comes third in order (tröyapyos), !yahmār and 'akkö being left out, although AF reproduce these by Boëaxos and TpayéAaqos. Iłoth Eng. WSS have adopted ‘pygarg’ for dishön, but A Vm has ‘dishon or bison.’ We have no certain knowledge of the animal intended by dishöm, ex- cept that it is to be inferred, from its position in the list, that it was an antelope. If, of the four antelopes found in the deserts contiguous to Pal., Gazella Dorcas, L., corresponds to zébi, Antilope leucory.c, Pall., to té'0, we may adopt A. Addaac, Licht., for dishön. This species is over 34 feet high at the shoulders, and shaped like the rein- deer. Its horns are º 2% feet long. Its colour is white, with the exception of a black mane, and a tawny colour on the shoulders and back. It is uncertain whether the fourth antelope, Alcephalus bubalis, Pall., is mentioned in Scripture (see UNICORN). G. E. POST. whether the Pułºt-yaman mentioned in the fragmentary annals of Nebuchadnezzar does not conne in here. This “Greek-Putu' is mentioned among remote countries in the midst of the sea, which aided Egypt under Amasis against the Babylonians, and this reminds Winckler of Nah 39. But the necessary addition | (Greek) shows that this country (Winckler supposes Lesbos, suitably to his restoration of the name of the prince, viz. [I’itta]kit(s), or Caria) is to be distinguished from the ordinary Pút of the Bible, the Persians and Babylonians. Perhaps the Put of Ezk 27.10 ſch. 38%] might be explained after Winckler, so that we should have two countries called l’ut—one in Africa, another in the north. PYRAMID.—Simon the Maccabee is said to have erected a magnificent monument to his parents and his (four) brothers at Modein. This consisted partly of seven pyramids (Tupapíðas), six set up one opposite another, with the seventh (intended ... for Simon's own monument) probably standing by itself at one of the ends, 1 Mac 13° (cf. Jos. Amt. XIII. vi. 6). Pyramid-graves are, of course, most familiar to us in Fº ot, but they were not un- common elsewhere. ' º is probably a reference to such graves in Is 14” “all the kings of the earth, all of them, lie in honour, each one in his own house.’ The Bible contains no certain special allusion to the pyramids of Egypt, the reference in Job 3", which has been conjectured, being very doubtful (see Dillm. ad loc.). PYRRHUS (IIMppos : lit. ‘fiery-red').--Amongst the companions of St. Paul who accompanied him on his last journey to Jerusalem from Philippi was Sopater of Beroea, who in the RV is described as ‘son of Pyrrhus' (Ac 20'). The word II (ppov is omitted in TR in accordance with the later authorities, but it is read by all the different classes of older documents (NABDE vulg. boh. Sall. Or.), and must clearly have formed part of the original text. Blass (nd loc.) points out that this is the only case in the N'T in which a patronymic is added after the Greek fashion, and that perhaps it implies that Sopater was of noble irth. A. C. H.I.ADLAM. PYTHON.—The reading trø0ova in Ac 16" is attested by the overwhelming evidence of NABC” D*. The inferior reading trø0wVos, found in C*D” EHLP, is easily explained. The accusative form was not understood. Hence the more intelligil,le construction with the genitive (cf. Lk 4”). The reading trø00va is obviously the right one (so Lachm. Tisch. WH, I8lass) The name II*001, as a Greek term must be con- nected with that of the district II v0% in Phocis, which lay at the foot of Parnassus where the town Delphi was situated. Its º {USS()- ciation with the Delphic oracle over which Apollo presided gave rise to the adjective II*,0tos as an epithet of Apollo. His priestess, was called , IIv0ia. Also the name II*0aov, derived from this local connexion, was bestowed on the serpent whom the god was believed to have slain when he took possession of the IDelphic oracle. Accord- ing to Apollodorus (I. iv. 1) this oracle was formerly in possession of the goddess. Themis, and the mysterious chasm, from which the intoxicating and inspiring exhalations issued, was guarded by this serpent, whom Apollo destroyed. The con- nexion of the serpent with wisdom and sooth- saying is based on demonology (see MAGIC in vol. iii. pp. 209 (footnote), 210). Cf. Gn 3", Mt 10". In the present passage it is clear that what is implied is that the girl was considered to be possessed of a soothsaying demon. . . In the lan- guage of the O'T' she would probably be called a his nºw: (1 S 287). The word n\N, however, is employed by itself to convey this meaning, and is rºodhººd in the LXX by éyyaa Tptpav00s (Lv 19° 20% ºy. The Syriac version on Ac 16" renders p ºn o 2. * * - - * * by Koso: Tºo; ‘soothsaying spirit” (lit. ‘spirit of soothsaying '). See art. SOOTHSAYING ; cf. also Necromancy under SolţCERY. OWEN C. WHITEHOUSE. QOHELETH QUARRY 179 QOHELETH.-See ECCLESIASTES. QUAIL (ºy [Keré ºw] sélàw, in Nu 1.1% plur. Bºw, which inplies a sing. nºw salweh ; pruyo- ſwijrpa, coturnia: ; Arab. Selwa).-A well - known migratory bird, Coturnia, vulgaris, L. . A few individuals remain in Egypt and the Holy Land throughout the year. The migrators arrive in abundance, on their way north towards the be- ginning of March, and again on their way south in November. Some pass through without stop- ping, while others remain to breed. Their arrival is heralded by their peculiar call, especially early in the morning and at sunset. They migrate in vast flocks, crossing the Arab. desert, flying for the most part at night. They also cross the Mediterranean, selecting as their places of passage the narrowest portions, as that between Africa and Malta, Sicily, and the Greek islands, etc. They always fly with the wind. Their bodies are So heavy in comparison with the power of their wings that they cannot cross very long reaches of the sea. Many perish, even in the short pas- sage, and those which arrive safe are excessively fatigued. Quails are twice mentioned in connexion with the Wilderness Journeyings (Ex 16” [P], Nu 11*** [JE), cf. Ps 105"). Those which supplied the Israelites came in spring, while on their way northwards. Tristram has shown that they would aturally follow up the Red Sea to its bifurcation, and cross at the narrowest part into the Sinaitic peninsula. A sea wind would bring them in im- mense numbers into the camp which the Israelites occupied at that time. The miracle consisted in their being directed to the right time and place. Quails, when migrating, begin to arrive at night (Ex 16”), and are found in large numbers in the morning (Nu 11” ”). Their great exhaustion on their arrival makes it easy to believe all that is said in the narrative as to the numbers which the Israelites captured, and the ease with which they were taken. The quail belongs to the order Gallinae, family Phasianida. Its predominant colour is brown, shaded and mottled with rufous and grey, with edgings of black. A buff line extends down over each eye, and another down the centre of the head. Its length is $ inches. Its flesh is succu- lent. It is popularly known in Syria as the firri, an onomatopoetic word, referring to the whirring of its wings as it takes to flight. See, further, Dillm.-Ryssel on Ex 16”. G. E. POST. QUAKE..— To quake (from the same root as “quick” [=alive], “quicken,’ cf. Piers Plowman, º. as hit quyke were ') is to shake, usually with fear (so always in AV, where the transit. sense does not occur). Thus He 12” “Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake’ (lºcq,065s slut Kal &v- Tpogos). George Fox in his Journal says, “Justice Bennet of Derby was the first that called us Quakers, because I bid them tremble at the word of the Lord. This was in the year 1650.’ Fox had used the verb ‘quake,” which probably struck the Justice's ear as odd because already antiquated in this sense. Yet IRV retains it everywhere, and adds Mt. 28' ‘For fear of him the watchers did quake' (for AV ‘shake,” Gr. oetw, which is tr" “quake” in AV and RV at 27"). Amer. It V in- troduces “quake” also at Ps 187. J. HASTINGs. QUALITY is used in Ad. Est 11 heading in the sense Q of rank : ‘The stock and quality of Mardocheus.” Cf. Shaks. Henry V. IV. viii. 95– “The rest are princes, barons, lords, knights, squires, And gentlemen of blood and quality.’ QUARREL.-Like Lat. Querela, from which it comes, through Old Fr. 77tercle,” “quarrel' origin- ally meant a complaint or cause of complaint. Thus Hall, Works, ii.,155, ‘It was thy just quarrell, O Saviour, that whiles one Samaritane returned, nine Israelites were healed, and returned not.’ Then it was used for any cause or case that had to be pursued or defended, as in Golding's Calvin’s Job, 559, ‘Although Job had a just and reasonable quarrell, yet did he farre overshote himself'; and p. 573, “Sometymes we will be ashanned to main- teyne a good quarrell, bycause wee see that men do but make a mocke at it.’ This is the sense in which the word is used in AV : Lv 2625 “I will bring a sword upon you that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant' (IRV ‘execute the venge- ance’); 2 K 5’ ‘See how he seeketh a quarrel against me’ (IRV m “an occasion'); Mk 619 “Herodias had a quarrel against him (AVm “an inward grudge,’ RV “set herself against him,” Gr. eveixev avrº); except in Col 3” “If any man have a quarrel against any,’ where the meaning is rather ‘com- plaint,’ as AV m and IRV; Gr. Mouq j. The verb ‘to quarrel’ occurs in AV Preface in the transit. sense of oppose, object to. Cf. Melvill, Diary, 370, ‘At the quhilk word the King in- terrupts me, and crobbotlie quarrels our meitting, alleaging it was without warrand and seditius.’ The modern intrans, meaning of the verb is found in Sir 31”, and RV introduces it at PrºÓ9. J. HASTINGS. QUARRY.-In 1 K 67 it is said that the temple was built of stone made ready “at the quarry’ (RW ; AV has ‘before it was brought thither,’ It Vm ‘when it was brought away’). The MT, whose, correctness is not above suspicion, is is v;p tº ; LXX \tools àkporºuots &pyois; Vulg. 'de lapidibºts dolatis atque perfect is. The rendering “quarry' or ‘quarrying' #: y; p is probably correct (cf. the use of the root yo) in Hiphil in 1 K 5* ſºng. 17) and Ec 10'), and the meaning is that the huge stones spoken of in 5” (”) were dressed before leaving the quarry (for this practice cf. Benzinger, Heb, Arch. 237). I'or the process of quarrying as carried on by the Egyptians in early times, see Maspero, Dawn of Civilization, , p. 383 f., and passim. It is evident that 1 K 67 breaks the con- nexion, and this verse is probably a later addi- tion (so Benzinger, Kittel, et al.). The statement contained in it gave rise to a variety of fanciful legends tending to the glorification of the temple and its builder (see Benzinger, Comm. ad loc.). The only other occurrence of ‘lºy. in the EV is in Jg 319. ". According to v.", Ehud turned back from ‘the quarries that were by Gilgal,’ and after the assassination of Eglon he “escaped while they tarried, and passed beyond the quarries,’ v, *. AVm and l&V m offer as an alternative rendering ‘graven images’; LXX has Tā y\UTTá; Vulg. in v. 19 reversus de Galgalis, ubi crant idola,’ in v.” ‘Locum idolorum.” The Hebrew is D'ºrº, which is used as plural to ºf, and is employed of images of gods in wood, stone, or metal, Dt 7": * 12°, Is 219 3022, 2 Ch 34%. Moore, who considers that ‘ quarries' is an unwarranted translation, proposes * The spelling has been assimilated to the distinct word “quarrel,' a square-headed crossbow bolt (Low Lat. Quadrellur). 1 S0 QUARTUS QUEEN rendering ‘Scºtlotured stones (probably rude stone images).” They may be the same as the stones which, according to popular tradition, Joshua erected to commemorate the passage of the Jordan (Jos 4*), or, possibly boundary stones, marking the last Moabite outpost (cf. Jg 3*). See, further, 13udde (“IRichter’ in Kurzer Halcom. ad loc.), who thinks the Pésilim probably marked the Jordan ford at Gilgal, and that the ford was known by this name. For Jos 7” (RVm) see SHEBARIM. In Is 51* nº nº (lit. ‘excavation of a pit”) is used ior quarry in a fig. sense : “Look unto the rock whence ye were hewn, and to the hole of the pit (els Tov Bóðvvov toº Aékkov) whence ye were digged.’ On a Rabbinical conceit regarding this passage see PETER (FIRST EPISTLE OF) in vol. iii. p. 795". See, further, art. STONE. J. A. SELBIE. QUARTUS (Kočapros).-Mentioned with Erastus, the treasurer of Corinth, as joining in St. Paul’s greeting to the Church of Rome, Ro 16”. He is commemorated Nov. 3. Later traditions will be found in Acta Sanctorwm, Nov., i. p. 585. A. C. HEADLAM. QUATERNION (rerpáðtov) means a group consist- ing of four persons or things. The Greek word is a tita; Ney, in NT, being found only in Ac 12" Trapačoºs téororoporuv retpaştous otpatwrºv pu)\ágaretv aúrów, Vulg. Quatuor quaternionibus. A Itoman watch consisted, Élyſé. tells us, of four men (vi. 33: Tô Đv\akeſöv čaruv čk retrápav divöpóv), and Vegetius (de Ice Militari, iii. 8) writes: “De singulis centuriis quatermi equites et quaterni pedites ex- cubitum noctibus faciunt.” The same author goes on to explain that the night was divided into four watches of three hours each ; cf. Jerome, Epist. 140. 8 (ed. Wallarsi). It seems that one member of the quaternion watched (while the other three slept) through each watch. It appears from Jn 19° (cf. Ev. Petr. 9) that a retpáðtov was on guard during the Crucifixion, and from Mt. 27" (šxers kovarwötav) perhaps that the same quaternion was on duty at the time of the Resurrection ; but see GUARD, 4. Terpáðtov occurs in Philo (adv. Flaccum, ii. 533. 25, ed. Mangey) with the same colouring as in NT, atparuditmu two róv év roſs rerpaëlous pu)\ákwu, and fairly frequently in late authors in the sense of a quire of a book containing four double leaves, i.e. sixteen pages. The Latin form quatermio is rare, and occurs only once in the ºff. if we may trust Dutripon. The Peshitta of Ac 12” (“sixtcen soldiers’) misses the clear reference to Roman military custom. On this subject cf. Marquardt and Mommsen, Hamdb. der röm. Alterthümer, v. 407 (ed. 1876). W. EMERY BARNES. QUEEN.—1. The usual Heb. term for ‘queen’ in the OT is ºp (in Dn 5" Aram. stat. empli. Rºp); LXX BagiNtaga ; with the verb Tºp ‘to }. queen,” Hiph. “to make queen,” Est 2". ". For nººn see art. QUEEN OF HEAVEN. The other words so trans- inted in AV are-—2. HT1A (lit. ‘mistress,’ cf. Is 24°) 1 K 11” (LXX u(e)tºwv) 151° (hyoupévm), 2 K 101" (5uvao- reſovo'a), 2 Ch 15" (LXX on.), Jer 13° (ol 6vvaateſ. ovres) 29 [Gr. 36]” (8aat)\tora'a) [I'V in the last two passages queen-mother’). 3.97% (9:W = ‘ravish'; cf. Dt 28%, Is 13", Zec 14°) only in Ps 45° (8aat)\tora’a), Nell 2" (tra)\\akſ).” The Aram, form of the word is found in Dn 5*, *. (Theod. in all traXXaká, LXX onn.). 4. Ty (lit. ‘princess,’ cf. AV m) Is 49* (àpxova’at). In NT 3ao i\taga is alone found—Mt 12*, Lk 1181, Ac 827, Rev 187. - - In ordinary cases of synonyms it is well to trace the usage of each word in the original ; but as in this case the same Hebrew word is used to convey more than one meaning of our English “queen,” it will conduce to clearness and also be found more suggestive if the usage of the English word in our Bibles be taken as our guide. This has three meanings: the queen reigning in her own right, the queen as the wife of the reigning king, and the queen as the mother of the reigning king. i. The Queen reigning in her own right. —The general tendency of the Semitic as of the other groups of nations in strictly historical times has been for women to take other than the first place in governing, and this tendency is very conspicuous in the history of Israel. Possibly the general close connexion in Semitic States of the king with the god (see KING, i. 2) made it appear unseemly that a woman should rule ; and though among the Northern Arabians queens seen to have been frequent, as well as in the Southern Arabian king- dom of Sheba (see McCurdy, HPM $ 334), there is no trace in Israel of any official recognition of women as being capable of the chief govern- ment. It is just possible, indeed, that the word Hammolecheth * (i Ch 71°), usually understood as the proper name of a Manassite woman, should be translated ‘the queen’ (so Targ. and many Rabbis, e.g. Kimchi and It. Solomon b. Melek, Vulg.), but corroborative evidence is wholly lacking. The position of Deborah as ‘judge’ (for parallels in Arabian history see W. 18. Smith, Kinship, !. 104,171) was quite abnormal, and presumably due solely to her personal vigour and character. So too Áthaliah, who reigned (n=52) over Judah six years (2 K 11°, 2 Ch 22”), was a mere usurper, and traded on her earlier influence and position. Hence ‘queen’ in this first sense is used only of the non-Israelitish queen of SHEBA (Rhy nº 1 K 101-18, 2 Ch 91-19, Mt 12°, Lk 1191), CANDACE, queen of Ethiopia (Ac 8”), and Babylon personified (Rev 187). ii. The queen as the wife of the reigning king.— Queen in this sense also is hardly found in Israel- itish history. In Egypt (1 K 11") Pharaoh gives Hadad to wife the sister of Tahpenes the queen (nºnin, but the text is very doubtful). In Persia Vashti (Est 1) and Esther (Est 2 and passim) are successively called the queen (Tºp) of Ahasuerus. And again ‘queen’ is used in Neh 2" in reference to the royal consort (93%) of Artaxerxes Longi- manus. In Dn 5*, *, *, however, 9.19 is used of royal wives of lower rank. In Israel, on the contrary, ‘ queen’ in this sense is used only indirectly and in poetry, . So nºn (Baat)\to gal) in Ca 6°. " of wives who enjoyed some higher (perhaps more legal) status than mere concubines (59:h's, Tax\akal). In I’s 45° 73% is used of the one legitimate wife. iii. The queen as the mother of the reigning king (ºr ps 1% 21", 2 K 24”). —Strange as it is to modern ideas that the queen-mother should be the queen par excellence, it is very common in the East (e.g. China in our own time), and perhaps almost the necessary result of polygamy (see FAMILY in vol. i. p. 847"). “Queen’ occurs in this sense in the Bible of a non-Israelite only in J}n 5*, where the mother'(apparently) of Belshazzar is so called (sºp);... but it is used more often of Israelites. In fact the queen-mother appears to have had a regular official status both in the Northern and in the Southern kingdom, which in part accounts for the frequency with which the name of the mother of the king is recorded (see below), and the im- * The reading, however, is not certain, The Peshiſta (which some think to be in Chronicles a Jewish Targum of 3rd cent. A.D.) reads Maacah. # So among the negroes of West Africa the mother has in- comparably more influence than the wife. See Miss M. H. Kingsley, West African Studies, 1890. f Commentators have compared Amastris, the wife of Xerxes and mother of Artaxerxes I. (Herod. vii. 61), and Parysſºtis, the * Possibly in Jg 530 (end) 9: should be read for ºw (SO Ewald, followed by IBertheau, Octli, Renan, Kautzsch. For other proposed cnendations of the text see Moore, ad loc.). wife of Darius and mother of Artaxorxes Mnemon and Cyrus (Xen. Amſtb. I, i. 1), QUEEN OF HEAVEN, THE QUESTION 18] portance attached to some of her actions. The actual term ' queen’ (Tii) is used only of Jezebel (2 K 10” prob.), Maacah (1 K 1518–2 Ch 1519), and Nehushta (Jer 13° 29*). The semi-royal state, however, of Bathsheba, Solomon's mother, is shown in 1 K 2", where Solomon sits on his throne and sets a throne for ‘the king's mother,’ and she sits on his right hand. The importance, too, of Maacah, Asa's ‘mother’ (i.e. probably grand- Imother), who had retained her influence from the reign of Abijah, is shown by the mention of her idolatry, and of Asa's destruction of the monstrous figure that she had made (1 K 15*= 2 Ch 1510). Athaliah has been already mentioned. Nehushta, from Jeremiah’s bitter words in Jer 22”, appears to have used her official position to take an active part against Jeremiah and his policy of submitting to the Chaldaeans. IFrom Jer 13” the queen-mother appears to have worn a grown (Tºy, a répavos) more or less like the king's, but the ‘head tire’ (RV) is a translation of a doubtful reading. In Jg 5”, Ewald, by a slight textual change, renders for the neck of the queen’ (see Moore, in loc.). For the names of the mothers of the kings of Judah see GENEALOGY in vol. ii. p. 126°. In the case of the kings of Israel the inſ, names found are Zeruah the mother of Jeroboam I. (1 ‘K 11*) and Jezebel the mother of Ahaziah (presumably, cf. 1 K 22*) and Joram (prob. 2 K 3%. 13 1018). A. LUKYN WILLIAMs. QUEEN OF HEAVEN, THE.-nºr, nºn mºle- kheth hash-Shāmayim, or in a few MSS ºf npsºn mºle'kheth, etc.; Tú atpatvá roſ, otpavoſ), ‘the host of heaven,” in Jer 7°, but Tim Baot)\too m roſ, otpavoſ), ‘the queen of heaven,” in Jer 44 (Gr. 51] 17, 18, 19. *, except N* in v.” rºm Báa)\; in v.” two late cursives give as the rendering of the Heb. represented by ‘(Then all the men which knew that their wives burned incense) unto other gods,’ 0eois érépous tº g"partô, Toº owp.; with a few exceptions the other LXX MSS have no equivalent for “unto other gods’; Aq., Symm., an. Theod. in 718, and Symm. in 44 [51]* Tà Bao. r. oºp.; reginſe cali, but also in Jerome (Kuenen, Abhamdl. p. 187, Germ. tr.), 'militiae cali ; Syr. (Lee), “for the worship (-,-,-\, o 2) of heaven’ in 7° 44'7' ". *, “for the Queen (AoS$o) of heaven’ in 44"; Targ. nnn): Nºbu) “star(s) of heaven’; according to Jastrow, the planet Venus. 1. reading nºsºm mºle'kheth is set aside by common consent as a late emendation due to the tradition that noºp here was to be interpreted as nanºp. The pointing nºn mºlekheth, is sometimes explained as an intentional variation of malkath, ‘ queen-of,” meant to suggest that a false goddess was not a legitimate queen, just as ham-Melekh, ‘the king,’ when used of a false god, receives the vowels of bosheth, “shame,’ and becomes ham- Molekh. Rut more probably the pointing indicates that nººn was identified with nº sºn “work,’ the silent Aleph having dropped (as sometimes hap- pens, Ges.-Kautzsch "", § 23. 3). Melekheth, thus identified, was taken by the Syriac, also by Kimchi, in the sense of ‘service’ or “worship,” in which it is found in 1 Ch 9” etc.; but it is clearly not the worship, but the object of Worship. It was no doubt intended by the punctu- ators to be taken in the sense of ‘the host of heaven.’ Probably mºlekheth itself was not under- stood to mean ‘host’ directly ; but the punctuators equated the unusual phrase mºlekheth, hash-sh. to the more common phrase gébù hash-sh. (Jer, etc.), being partly influenced by the references in Gn 2*.* to Creation as God’s mºlekhºth. This view was taken by the LXX in Jer 7” (unless the unlikely view be adopted that the LXX here and in 44 [51] * read zébù hash-sh.), and perhaps by the Targ., and was recognized as an alternative by Jerome; cf. above. It has been recently revived by Stade, mainly on the ground that elsewhere Jeremiah speaks of the Jews as worshipping ‘other gods’ or ‘the host (żābū) of heaven,” and that therefore this phrase should denote a group of objects of worship ; cf. also the statement that Manasseh ‘ built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of Jehovah,’ 2 K 215. But most critics, e.g., Budde (Rel, of Isr. p. 162), Cornill (SBOT), Giesebrecht (Jer.), Kautzsch (AT), Kuenen, hold that the original meaning was “queen of heaven,” and the yº, pointing is malkath. The pointing malküth, “kingdom,’ has met with little acceptance. It is pointed out that the phrases “worship of other gods . . . of the host of heaven’ may equal ‘idolatry, star worship,” and are in no way evidence against the existence of a popular and widespread cult of a particular goddess. According to 7” 44 [51]” this goddess was offered ingense and cakes which ‘pourtrayed her, and had been worshipped by the ancestors of the Jews of Jeremiah's time, and by their kings and princes in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem. The Jewish women were specially devoted to this worship. This “queen of heaven’ can scarcely be a col. lective term for the stars, and is usually identified With the moon, or some planet or fixed star; most commonly with the Assyrian Ishtar, the planet Venus (also, however, connected with the moon). ‘Queen, or princess, of heaven’ apparently occurs as a title of É. and she is styled ‘Lady of Heaven,' bilit sam-i-i, in the Amarna Tablets (Winckler, p. 48 f.); and our goddess may be the Atar-samain (Athar-Astarte), worshipped in North Arabia. Cf. the divine title Ba'al Shamayim in Aramaic inscriptions. See ASIITORETH in vol. i. pp. 168°, 169". At Athens cakes in the shape of a 'ull-moon (a.eXàval) were offered to the moon- goddess Artemis ; and in Arabia similar offerings were made to the goddess Al-Uzza, whose star was Venus, and to the sun (Kuenen, 208). St. Isaac of Antioch (d. c. 460) tells us that the Syrian women worshipped the planet Venus from the roofs of their houses, as a means of preserving and in- creasing their beauty. Ishtar seems to have been identical with Ashtoreth ; but probably this wor- ship of the ‘dueen of heaven’ was not the ancient Canaanite cult of Ashtoreth, but a new worship of the goddess with her Assyrian name and rites, due to the political Supremacy of Assyria in the reign of Manasseh. The title Regima Coeli has been given to the Virgin Mary; and at Mukden, the Sacred City of China, there is a temple to the “Queen of Heaven.’ Cf. ASHTORETH. LITERATURE. – See Ashtorºtii in vol. i. p. 168b note *, p. 1090 note * ; and add Gieselorecht, Jeremiah, on 718 ; W. II Bennett, Jeremiah wai, -lii., ch. xv. This article is largely indebted to IXuenen's lºssay. W. H. BENNETT. QUESTION.—The modern sense of ‘interroga- tion' is found in the Synºptiº Gospels in the plurase ‘ask a question,” Mt 22*, *, Mk 12", Lk 2" 20", the Gr. i. always the verb étréporáa, standing alone. In Lk 2" "Tindale has ‘bothe hearynge them and posinge them,” but the meaning is not different, since “pose’ is used in its old sense of interrogate, as in Bacon, Ilist. Henry VII. 119, “She posed him and sifted him, to try whether he were the very Duke of York or no.' Tindale was followed by all the Eng. WSS till the Ithem. and Auth., when “pose' had become antiquated in this sense. The sense of interrogation is found also in l82 QUICK, QUICKEN QUICKSANDS 2 Es 8” “And therefore ask thou no more questions concerning the multitude of them that perish’ (Noli ergo adicere inquirendo). A slightly different meaning is found in 1 Es 6”, “Without further question’ (āvapºptogntſ tws); with which may be compared 1 Co 10” ” “Asking no question for conscience' sake’ (amēēv čvakplvovres Suá ràv avvet- 670-w). The phrase ‘to call in question’ is in AV more than to dispute; it means to accuse, to bring into judgment. Thus Ac 19° “We are in danger to e called in question for this day's uproar’ (Kuvêvy- evouev čºyka)\eta:6at, RV ‘we are in danger to be accused'); 23° ‘Of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question’ (éyò kpivouat ; so 24”). See CALL in vol. i. p. 344", and cf. Winthrop, Hist. of New Eng. i. 172, ‘The governour wrote to some of the assistants about it, and, upon advice with the ministers, it was agreed to call them [the offenders] in question.’ Elsewhere the subst. ‘ question' is used either in the sense of discussion, dispute, or else the subject of discussion, matter of dispute. Thus (1) Discus- sion, dispute (Gr. always fºrmats), Jn 3” “Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying’; 2 Ti 2* “Foolish and unlearned questions avoid.’ Cf. Ac 28” Wyc., “Jewis wenten out fro him, havynge miche questioun, or seking (Purvey, ethir musyng) among hem silf.” Also Shaks. Henry V. I. i. 5– “The scrambling and unquiet time Did push it out of farther question.’ (2) Subject f debate, 1 K 101 || 2 Ch 9, ‘She came to prove him with hard questions” (nirmā, lit. ‘with riddles,’ see lèIDDLI); 1 K 10° || 2 Ch 9” “And Solomon told her all her questions’ (T: , lit. ‘ her matters’); cf. Mk 11” “I will also ask of you one question’ (Éva A6 yov, AVm ‘one thing,’ It Vm ‘Gr. word '). Elsewhere only fºrmua and only in Acts, as Ac 23” “Whom I perceived to be accused of questions of their law.” Cf. Shaks. Hamlet, III. i. 56— “To be, or not to be : that is the question.” The verb ‘to question’ occurs only in the phrase “question with one’ (once “question among them- selves,” Mk 1”), which often meant to lispute, argue with, as Shaks. Merch. of Venice, IV. i. 70, “I pray you, think you question with the Jew’; but in AV it seems never to mean more than ‘inquire of.” Thus Lk 23” “Then he questioned with him in many words (étrmpdºra öé attöv čv \0').ous iravots), but he answered him nothing.’ J. HASTINGS. QUICK, QUICKEN. — Although the adverb “quickly in the sense of speedily is of frequent occurrence in AV, neither “quick’ nor ‘quicken' is ever found with that meaning. In Is 11° and some passages in the Apocr. the meaning of “quick’ is acute or active. Thus Is 11” “And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord' (irºnſ), RV ‘His delight shall be in the fear of the Lord,” RV m as AV, see esp. Delitzsch, in loc.); Wis 7” “Wisdom . . . taught me . . . for in her is an understanding spirit. . . . quick’ (680, Vulg. acutus, RV ‘keen '); 8" ‘I slialſ be found of a quick conceit in judg- ment’ (650s év kptoet, Vulg. acutus in judicio). With these passages cf. Knox, Iſist. 377, ‘Man wondred at the silence of John Knox, for in | these quick reasonings hee opened not his mouth '; Melvill, Diary, 77, ‘Efter ernest prayer, maters war gravlie and cleirlie proponit, overtures made be the wysest, douttes reasonit and discussit be the learnedest and maist quick.’ We still retain this sense slightly modified in ‘ quick-witted,’ of which an example may be quoted from Tindale, Pent. Prologe to Ly (p. 297), “Allegoryes make a man qvick witted and prynte wysdome in him and maketh it to abyde, where bare wordes go but in at the one eare and out at the other.” In Sir 31* the meaning is rather active than acute, “In all thy works be quick’ (ylvov čvrpex.js). * Elsewhere the meaning is living, mostly in direct opposition to dead, as Nu 16” “If . . . they go down quick into the pit,” compared with v.” “They . . . went down alive into the pit ’ (Heb. in both Dºn, AV follows Tindale, RV ‘alive” in both); Ps 55* “Let them go down quick into hell’ (RV ‘alive into the pit”); clearly in the phrase “the quick and the dead,” Ac 10*, 2 Ti 4%, 1 P 4%. Cf. Jn 7*. Wyc., “Flodis of quyke watir schulen flowe of his wombe’; Knox, Works, iii. 232, “Thair upon followit sa cruell persecutioun, under the name of justice, that na small noumber wer burnit quick’; Barlowe, Dialogue, 58, ‘It is enacted throughoute Suytzerland among the Oe- colampadyanes, and in dyvers other places, that whosoever is founde of the Anabaptystes faction, he shall be throwen quycke into the water, and there drowned ’; Tindale, Eajpositions, 189, “As there is no sin in Christ the stock, so can there be none in the quick members, that live and grow in him by faith'; Fuller, Holy State, 9, * He that impoverisheth his children to enrich his widow, destroyes a quick hedge to make a dead one.’ In He 4”, though the same Gr. word (Öv) is used as in the passages quoted above, the meaning is more than merely living, rather alive, almost lively, ‘For the word of God is quick and power- ful' (Rhem. ‘lively and forcible '). And this is nearest of all to the derivation of the word, its base being the Teut. Jewika, “lively,’ cognate with Lat. vivus. Cf. Milton, Areopag. (Hales ed. p. 7), ‘Against defaming it was decreed that none should be traduc’d by name . . . and this course was quick enough, as Cicero writes, to quell both the desperate wits of other Atheists, and the open way of defaming, as the event shew’d.’ To quicken is to give life to, whether physically or spiritually. In OT, it is always the tr. of Hºn º of nºn to live), which also means to preserve life, but when trº. ‘ quicken' in AV #". I\le:UIlS to bless with spiritual life. In NT the Gr. is either two rotéa, or its conpound ovvšworotéaſ (IEph 2%, Col 28, trºl “quickened together with '). In Jn 5* the physical and spiritual meanings are placed side by side, ‘I’or as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them ; even so the Son Quickeneth whom he will.’ J. HASTINGS. QUICKSANDS (Ac277, I&V Syrtis). —The Syrtes, Major and Minor, are situated on the N. coast of Africa, in the wide bay between the headlands of Tunis and Barca. They consist of sandbanks occupying the shores of the Gulfs of Sidra on the coast of Tripoli, and that of Gabes on the coast of Tunis or Carthage. They have been considered a source of danger to mariners from very early times, not only from the shifting of the sands themselves, but owing to the cross currents of the adjoining waters. Thus in the Aºmoid of Virgil (iv. 40 f.) we find them referred to— “Hing Gaetóla) urbes, genus insuperabile bello: Et Numidae infraoni cingunt, et inhospita Syrtis.' In the last voyage of St. Paul on his way to Italy the ship in which he and his companions were sailing was at the mercy of the tempest, and was drifting before the N.I., wind EURAQUILO, after leaving the shelter of the island of Cauda. There was every reason, therefore, to fear that they might be driven on the Syrtis, which was situated to the leeward of their course; but owing (it may QUINTUS MEMMIUS QUIVER 183 be supposed) to the rotatory movement of the wind they were driven into the sea of Adria (Ac 27”).” E. HULL. QUINTUS MEMMIUS.—See MEMMIUs (QUIN- TUs). QUIRINIUS, CENSUS OF. — The statement of St. Luke (2*) as to how the birth of Christ came to take º at Bethlehem rather than at Nazareth, has produced an amount of discussion of which the world is rather weary. We should have had less of this, if apologists had not been ready to admit, and º eager to maintain, that to prove that the evangelist has here made a misstatement, is to imperil, if not demolish, the authority of his Gospel as an inspired writing. Nothing of the kind is at stake. e have no right to assume that inspiration secures infallible chronology ; and St. Luke bases his claim to be heard, not on inspira- tion, but on the excellence of his information and his own careful inquiry (Lk 1"). Yet even well- informed and careful writers sometimes make mistakes, and he may have done so here. There is no serious difficulty about the statement that Augustus ordered that there should be a general census throughout the Roman Empire (2'). t is true that there is no direct evidence, inde- pendent of Luke, of any such decree ; and we know that in some provinces no census was held during the reign of Augustus. Nevertheless there is evidence that periodic enrolments were made in I'gypt (Clas. Rev. Mar. 1893); and a Roman census in Judaea at the time indicated, in consequence of general orders issued by Augustus, is not improb- alble (Suet. Aug. 28, 101, Cal. 16; Tac. A mm. i. 11. 5, 6 ; Plin. Nat. Hist. iii. 2. 17). The real difficulty is about the parentletical remark in v.”. There has been much discussion about the text of v.”, but the right reading is certainly airm d.Troypaqi) Tp(0tm éyéveto ºryepovetſovros tíºs 2uptas Kupmvlov : “This took place as a first enrolment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria.’ + And this remark is made in order to distinguish this census from the one in A. D. 6, 7, when Q. *inly was governor and conducted the census (Ac 5”, Jos. Amt. XVIII. i. 1, ii. 1). Ibut it is hard to see how Q. could be governor when Herod died in B.C. 4. From B.C. 9 to 6 Sentius Saturninus was governor ; it from B.C. 6 to 4 Quinctilius Varus. After that nothing is clear till A.D. 6, when P. Sulpicius Quirinius succeeds and holds the census of Ac 5”. Dergmann, Mommsen, Zumpt, and others have shown that this governorship of Q. was probably not his first, but that he was in office during part of the interval between B.C. 4 and A.D. 6, viz. B.C. 3, 2. Ibut it still remains as in- credible as ever it was that Q. was governor bºfore the death of Herod ; and until that is established we must admit that Luke is at least a year wrong in his chronology. Even Zahn, who denies the later governorship of Q., and asserts that only one census was taken, viz. in B.C. 4 to 2 (to which he refers both Lk 24 and Ac 5"), is obliged to place the census after Herod's death. No help on this point is obtained from the oft-quoted testimony of Justin Martyr, who in three P. places the birth of Christ émi Kupmvlov, and in one of them says that the birth at Bethlehem may be learned €k Tów &troypaſpöv Tów yewouévov ćirl Kupmvlov toº Upetépov čv 'Iovöalg Tptºrov yewouévov ćtrutpátov (Apol. i. 34, 46; * If the wind in this case had been anti-cyclonic (which is probable) the direction would have changed from N.I. to E. and from I... to S. E. and from this to S. and S.W., which would have driven the ship into the sea of Adria. f The name is Quirinius, not Quirinus; see Furneaux on Tac. 4mm. ii. 30. 4; and #ys wovedovros may = ‘was commanding’ an army (but of. the use of the word in Llº 31). f Tertullian (adv. Marcion, iv. 19) says that the census was taken by Saturninus; yet he himself places the birth of Christ U.C. 3 (adv. Jud. S). Dial. 78). But it should be noted that Justin calls Q. trirporos, procurator, not legatus, as he was in A.D. 6. The word which Luke uses is indefinite (#yeaoweiſw), and might be employed of any kind of ruler ; but in the only other place in which he uses it (3') it is of the procurator Pontius Pilate. Until Judaea became a Roman province in A.D. 6 there would be no procurator in the strict sense ; but Q. may have had some military position in Syria even before the death of Herod, and also have been concerned with the census. And this is perhaps Luke's meaning ; he may not be giving a mere date. In any case Christians who were inventing an ex- lanation of the birth at Bethlehem would not be ikely to attribute it to IRoman and heathen causes. The error, if there be one, has probably foundation in fact; and, moreover, is not the result of confusion with the later census A.D. 6, 7, which Luke himself notices Ac 5”. The general result is that if a mistake has not been proved, neither has it been disproved. If the accuracy of Luke in many other details were not so conspicuous, one would say that there probably is some mistake. Ibut the error would not be great, if Q. held some office in Syria, B.C. 3, 2, and helped to complete a census which was begun before the death of Herod. And there is no error, if Christ's birth is to be placed B.C. 6 (vol. i. p. 405), and Q. was in command in Syria, then, which would be the right time for the first of a series of enrolments, of which that in Ac 5” was the second.” IITERATURE. –See the commentaries of Farrar and Godet, ; the Lives of Christ by Andrews, Didon, Edersheim, Keim, and B. Weiss ; the articles “Cyrenius' in Smith, DB2, and ‘Schätzung' in Herzog; the monographs of Zumpt on ‘Das Geburtsjahr Christi,’ 1869 (Bibl. Sacra, 1870), and of Zahn, “Die Syr. Statthalterschaft und d. Schätzung des Quirinius,’ in Newe Kirchl. Ztsft, 1893; and above all, Schürer, HJ P i. ii. 105 fſ., and Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem ż 1898. See also Haverfield in Class. Ičev., July 1900, p. 309. A. PLUMMER. QUIT is both an adj. and a verb. 1. The adj., as Skeat shows, is oldest. It comes from Old Fr. wite (mod. Quitte), which is the Lat. Quietus in its ate sense of free from obligation. This is the meaning of the word in AV, where it occurs : Fx 21” “If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit ' (HF))); 2128, Jos 22° (both p5). Cf. Udall's Erasmus’ Paraph. ii. 279, “But he that sticketh his brother with the darte of a venemous tongue, although he be quitte by mannes lawes from the crime of man- slaughter, yet by the law of the gospel he is giltie of manslaughter’; Jer 25” Cov. “ye shall not go Quyte.’ 2. The verb came from Old Fr. quiter (mod. witter), a derivative of Lat. quietare. In AV it is used only reflexively, quit yourselves like men’ (1 S 4” his, Heb. 5*, sº ºn), " quit you like men' (1 Co 16°, Gr. &vôpt{eate). To “quit oneself” is to discharge one's obligations; on every man lie the obligations of a man. Cf. Milton, Samson Agon. i. 1709– “Samson hath quit himself Like Samson.’ J. HASTINGS. QUIVER represents more than one Heb, word. 1. (;n 274 for ºn tel; [Samar. nºn tClith (?)], a dita; \ey, meaning literally, if a genuine Ileb. word, ‘that which is hung,” either a quirer (LXX [papérpal, pseudo-Jon.) or a sword or knife (Quik, l'esh., Abulwalid). 2. Usually for Tº's 'ashpāh; perhaps a loan-word from Assyr. Špºt it, literal meaning unknown. - The quiver was a very conspicuous part of the equipment of the Eastern warrior ; on the Assyr. * Perhaps the possibility of a slip of the pen, Svenview, for Kovivºrºxiou, like ‘’Barachiah' for “Jehoiada' (MIt º, is just worth mentioning. 184 QUOTATIONS QUOTATIONS reliefs in the British Museum the Assyr. soldier is always an archer, and Elam his foe regularly bears the quiver (Is 22°). The famous mounted archers of the East are perhaps alluded to in Job 39” “the uiver 1 attleth upon him ' (IRV m), i.e. whom the worse, and the terror caused by them is vividly portiayed in Jer 5” “Their quiver is as an open sepulchre”; cf. Jer, 6* “They ride upon horses.’ The LORD | Himself has a quiver in which He hides His chosen instruments (Is 49%). When the moment comes for the execution of His judgments, His arrows fly suddenly to the ſº (Ps 647). There is a parallel for these metaphors in the speech of al-Hajjāj, the Khalifa Abd al-Melik’s governor, to the disaffected inhabitants of Cufa. (A.H. 75); ‘The Prince of the Believers has spread before him the arrows of his quiver, and has tried every one of them by biting its wood. It is my wood that he has found the hardest and the bitterest, and I am the arrow which he shoots against you’ (Stanislas Guyard, “Mohammedan- ism,’ in Encycl. Brit. xvi. 571). Another metaphor in the OT is that a man's home circle (?) is his quiver, and his sons, born while he himself is still young, are his arrows (Ps 127°); cf. La 3°, where, conversely, arrows are called ‘sons of the quiver’ (RV m). 3. In the Pr. Blc. version Ps 11° reads “ º make ready their arrows within the quwer' (nº. 9x 'al yethºr). This translation, though supported by LXX (els papétpav) and Vulg., is wrong. and RV (so Pesh.) have rightly “upon the string.’ 4. Ancient authority is strong for translating D'ºh; shělátim, ‘shields’ (EV) as quivers’ (2 S 87 = 1 Ch 187, 2 K. 1119–2 Ch 239, Ca. 44, Jer 5111, Ezk 27”). The latter rendering suits Jer 51* * fill the quivers,’ but it is more probable that in all these passages D'ºù has the more general meaning, ‘arms, equipment' (cf. Eacpository Times, X. (1898) 43 fl. W. EMERY BARNES. QUOTATIONS.–In OT there are few definite quotations, but the Bible writers freely introduced matter which they found ready to hand. Several books, such as those of the Hexateuch, Jg, l and 2S, etc., are made up, in fact, of previously existing documents (see HEXATEUCH, etc.). Shorter ex- tracts are also frequent, esp. poems, such as the Song of Lamech (Gn 4**), the Blessing of Jacob (Gn 49**), the Song and the Blessing of Moses (Ex 15*, Dt 33”), etc.; or portions of songs, as Jos 10”. In a few instances only is the source men- tioned, as ‘the Bk. of Jashar’ (Jos 1019b, 2 S 118, 1 K 8* LXX), ‘the Blº. of the Wars of J” (Nu 21*). Sometimes they were probably popular songs handed down by oral tradition (Nu 217). Often a writer incorporates the language of an earlier writer, as frequently throughout the Psalms, so much so that certain phrases came to be tradi- tional, such as ‘praise ye J",’ ‘for His mercy endureth for ever.’ It is not always certain whether passages common to two writers are copied from one by the other, or are both taken from one common source, as Is 2°– Mic 4-8, which is evidently foreign to the context of Is (note the minatory tone of 2**), and, if taken by Isaiah from Micah, proves Is 2 to have been written not earlier than Hezekiah's reign (cf. Jer 20° with Mic 3” contextually connected with Mic 4'), and is therefore believed by many to belong to some earlier unknown document. It is also probable that Is 15–16” is derived from an earlier source (see 16”), and such passages suggest the in ...Y whether the insertion of earlier material by biblical writers may not have been much more frequent than is commonly supposed. i. QUOTATIONS FROM OT IN NT.-These are very frequent and very various in character. —— Turpie puts them at 275; but this does not in. clude the very great number of passages incor- porated into the language of NT Writers, esp. in the Apocalypse. A. Quotations are usually from LXX—(a) even though differing more or less considerably from MT (1) in pointing, as Ac 15” [Am 9*] (DJs “man’ for DTS Edom'), He 11” [Gn 47*] (Tºp ‘staff” for Tºp ‘bed'); (2) in reading, as Ac 157 (whº ‘seek’ for whº “possess') (Ac 2* [Ps 16"] agrees with LXX in following Keré Tom ‘Thy holy one’ for Kethibh ºpeſ ‘Thy holy ones’); (3) by a probably inaccurate tr. of words, as Ac 2” [Ps 16"] (6taq,00pá ‘ destruction' for nº “pit”), Ro 10” [Is 65] (épºq’avis éyév$pany ‘I was made manifest' for "nºn, “I was sought”); and of phrases, as He2%"|Ps *. (#Náttwo as a trów i. rt trap' dy'YéAous ‘Thou madest him a little lower than the angels’ for D'Eººp bgm ºr Fl ‘Thou hast made him but little lower than God’); (4) by other differences which cannot easily be accounted for, but are probably due to various readings, as Ro 927. * [Is 10**], where, besides other variations, LXX seems to have read wºº for aw, and nº for jº, and Rº, and in He 10** [Hab 2*, *), where LXX probably read H5°y (with 531 K) for nºw, and mysſ for nº. In He 10° [Ps 407] it was suggested by IKennicott that Bºls (Heb. text) is a corruption of ml is (LXX). If so, it would seem probable that in itself was inserted by error from the following line, and that LXX read mu only ; but the Heb. reading with all its difficulty better suits the context, the contrast being between obedience and sacrifice (cf. 1 S. 15”). (b) Sometimes when the argument depends on LXX as distinct from Heb., as in He 17 [Ps 104*], where Heb. = ‘Who maketh for his messengers winds, for his ministers a flaming fire.” Cf. also Ac 2*, He 27 10%. (c) Generally even by writers conversant with the Heb. as St. Paul and St. John (see I, f, h). (d) To a large extent even when the quotation points to a knowledge of Heb., showing that the writer, even though he had the Héb. before him, or in his mind, still repro- duced in part the familiar language of LXX, as Mt. 218 [Jer 31 (38) 191 (k\av000s kal 65uppºs, LXX KXav0 woj K. 65uppoſ), 12** [Is 42*], where after a quotation, which is an independent tr. of Heb. differing in almost every word from LXX, the last verse agrees exactly with LXX, though the latter follows a different text in all three words (K. Čv [LXX &rl] r. Öv%pati avtoſ éðvm é\truodal “and in his name shall the Gentiles hope” for D's \nºn), 197; “and the isles shall wait for his law'). It is also possible that this may be the insertion of an early editor of Mt, or a various reading of Heb. followed also by LXX (see J, & ; cf. Ro 9"). B. Quotations are occasionally independent translations from the Heb.-(a) because they were so found in the documents which the writer incor- porates, as Llº 117 [Mal 3' and 4" ") (éroup,60 at-T); for LXX &rugxéperat ; ŚruarpéWat—nºn for diroka- ragthorel ; trarépov.–nins for tratpás), 2* (see J, a); (b) for the sake of the argument, as Jn 19” [Zec 12"] (els öv čekévrmgav-nº h;'s ns for &v0 &v karaſpx.jgavro from variant inp"), Ro 9” [Ex 9"), where St. Paul prefers the rendering of ‘nºwn by €£ijyetpá ore ‘did I raise thee up to Ötermpij9ms “ thou wast preserved,” Ro 12” [Dt 32”] (époi ékölkmaſts— DR) * for év huépg ékówkijaeos); (e) Rºy because the writer was better acquainted with the Heb. of the book quoted memoritºr, as Ro 11” etc. (see , h). C. The only quotations in Aramaic or Hebrew- Aramaic are the words on the Cross, Mt. 27", Mk 15” (see I, a (1), (2)), unless we include the words uapāv &0á “our Lord cometh’ (1 Co 16”), probably a well-known Christian salutation. See MARANATIIA. QUOTATIONS QUOTATIONS 185 D. Some few quotations are based upon an Aramaic interpretation of the Hebrew, and suggest the inquiry whether they and others also may not possibly be derived from some intermediate source of the nature of a Targum ; or whether, on the other hand, the interpretation was merely influenced by current Aram. usage. Had an Englishman of to-day to translate Milton’s ‘silly sheep’ into French, he would very probably give the first word its modern meaning. In 1 Co 15% [Is 258] nº ‘for ever’ is translated according to the Aram, meaning of the root els vſkos ‘in victory.” In 1 Co 2" [Is 64% “] n; ºr ‘that waiteth for’ is apparently read as Aram. nano “that loveth” [but see J, a]. It is possible that Mt 2". " should be traced to some sort of Targumic in- fluence, or at any rate some current traditional interpretation, with which the evangelist's readers were familiar. In the first the words, oùapós éAaxiarm seem an intentional emphatic denial of the original words [Mic 5°]. . Bethlehem had by the very fact of Messiah’s birth become by no 7means the least. 'Hyep,60'uv is either from a variant (see J, &), or at any rate a less literal translation. But the substitution of y? 'Iow8a for “land of Ephratah looks like a slip of memory, and suggests that the whole is a bold paraphrase of the evangelist himself (for parallels see G). Mt. 2” is evidently from Is 11" (my) branch’ being from the same root as Națapatos ‘Nazarene’), and suggests a tradi- tional interpretation of the passage in this sense. E. Apart from B, C, and D, variations from LXX are due to (a) slips of memory, (b) errors of transcription, (c) literary corrections, (d) eacegetical alterations. But it is not always easy to determine which, or in case of (c) and (d) to say how far they were intentional. In quotations from memory, and even in those copied, there is a natural tend- £ncy to correct, unconsciously, according to familiar language and familiar ideas. We should probably be right, when quotations are short, in assigning to (a) verbal changes, considerable perhaps in number, but unimportant in their bearing, as Jn 1” [Is 40°] (éroup.40 are T. 660V Kvplov, eú0etas trote ire T. Tplgous T. 0eoû huôv becomes the single phrase ev0övare T. 6óðv Kuptov, which gives the full sense more briefly). Probably BagvXóvos for Aguárkov in Ac 7” [Am 5”] is a slip of memory of either St. Stephen or his reporter, the two captivities being confused (cf. the error about the burial-places of the patriarchs in 7"). We have a striking example of (b) in He 3" [Ps 95°], where év Šokupuaala is read for éðokluagav (LXX), the error being facilitated by év T. trapatrukpaqug above (unless it is an error of a very early copyist). Under (c) we should class corrections of #ºism, and other clumsy con- structions, as Llº 3° [Is 40°], where et,0eiau (665V) is altered so as to agree with 660's added by St. Luke in the next phrase, and # tpaxeta into ai tpaxeſat. In He 8° 10'"[Jer 31*] 6&ga, is omitted so as to give Övöows its proper participial construction (cf. Lk 8”). To this head we might also refer rhetorical expan- sions, such as the insertion of Aéyet 6 6.e0s or the like in Ac 217 7", Ro 12” (in He 10° spurious) 14", l. Co 14*, 2 Co 6'7. To (d) would belong the very frequent changes of person, tense, etc., so as to make the quotation more directly applicable. Thus in 2 Co 698 [2 S 78. ") atrú and atrás become Upºv and juels, and vijv is boldly changed into vious K. 0wyarépas, so that Nathan's words respecting I)avid's son become a promise of God to Christians (cf. Ac 1*). In Lk 23" [Ps 31°] the future trapa- 07.0 ouat naturally becomes the present trapatlºepiat in the mouth of our Lord, and in Mk 14” (Mt. 26") [Zec 137] the imper. Tarāśare becomes the ind. 1st pers, fut, because the action is referred by Christ to God Himself. Sometimes words are added to give a special turn to the quotation, as divöpútrav into a optºv. röv dypov in Mt 2719 [Zec 111°] to refer to the field bought with Judas' money (unless this is a variant of Heb.; see J, a). In He 1097 [Hab 2*] the inser- tion of 6 converts a Hebraism into a Messianic prophecy. Sometimes words are omitted, and so the quotation gets a more general and dogmatic character, as with goû in Ro 17, Gal 311 [Hab 2.] (in He 10” it is transposed). Apparently it” had ºy become a common doctrinal formula. In Gal 3” [Dt 21*] the omission of Örö 9eoſ, makes the statement a general principle, or it may be due to reverence (see Lightfoot, in loc.). Still more frequently words were altered. . In Gal 40 [Gn 2110] the substitution of T. Nev6épas for uov 'Ioadk brings out more forcibly the contrast between bondage and freedom. In 1 Co 3* [Ps 94"] the quotation would be far less applicable without the correction of St. Paul, no doubt, felt the verse to imply that, however wiše men might be, God saw their folly. In Eph 4° [Ps 6818] g\ages . . . Šv div6ptºtrºp is boldly altered into €60ke . . . t. àv6ptºtrous, the latter being probably regarded as an inference from the former, and the statement of V.” clearly depends upon St. Paul’s rendering. With this we might compare Lk 21” (contrast Mk 13”), where the manner of fulfilment of Christ's prophecy has been read, but probably unconsciously, into the prophecy itself. Some- times by abbreviation the words of the original come to be differently applied. Thus in 1 Co 1421 [Is 28**] the words represented by k. obó' otºrws ela'akoúa'ovrat plov are made to refer to ‘other tongues,” etc., instead of to the refusal to listen to the words of kindness spoken by God through the prophet to which the ‘other tongues’ stand in direct contrast. In Ac 3” the phrase karð irávra. 8ora is applied quite differently from its original in Dt 18". In 1 P 31* * [Is 81*, *], by changing aºrów to T. Xptorów, the words are applied to those ad- dressed in the Epistle, but the passage is not cited as a quotation. Even supposing that such changes were to a large extent unconscious, there is enough to show that the writers of NT allowed themselves the greatest freedom in their treatment of the language of OT. I'. Combined Quotations.—These are far commoner than is often realized, and are of various kinds. Frequently we find several passages strung to- gether consecutively, as Ro 3**, where there are six separate quotations so combined ; cf. He 10-14 etc. In Mk 1117 (Mt 2119, Lk 1949) a direct Juotation from Is 567 is followed by an allusion to Jer 7”. So far had they been from fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy, that they were acting in the spirit of Jeremiah’s contemporaries. Still more frequently different quotations are mixed together. Thus in Ro 9", St. Paul, probably quoting from his recollection of the Heb., mixed together the sayings about the stone in Is 8” and in 28", giving the latter, by so doing, a sense contrary to the original; or the mixture may have been intentional. However precious Christ was to those who believed, He ...i. prove to many merely a rock of stumb- ling. For the somewhat similar combination of Is 2810, Ps 118°, and Is 81* in 1 P 2" 7 see H, c. More often the combination suggests that the quotation is made from memory, as Gal 3° from Gn 12° 1818, Ac 325 from Gn 2218 12", Jn 19” from Ex 12" and l’s 34”. The seven words of Jn 6* seem derived from three distinct Sources (Ps 78%, Ex 16° 16'), and Ac 13° from at least four (Ps 89%, l S 1758 131° 2'). Very frequently a mere phrase or even a word is inserted from a similar passage. Thus in Mt 21° in a quotation from Zec 9" the opening words eltrate T. 60-yarpi >udºv are from Is 62". Curiously enough, in the same quotation St. John (12" ") begins with ui, bogoſ, apparently from Is 40" (Heb.). In Lk 4** [Is 186 QUOTATIONS QUOTATIONS s===st 42**] diroo tet)\at Teópavoguévous év &q&ael is º from Is 589 (LXX). In Ac 322, 28 [Dt 1815, 16.1%. 10) #. h . . . $oNo6pev0%a'état ék T. Xaoû is substituted rom Lv. 17”, this and similar phrases being common and easily remembered. In Ac 76. 7 [Gn 1519. 14 dAAorpig is from Ex 249. In Ac 738. 3. [Ex 3%. 7, 8, 10 a revayuoi) is from Ex 22". In Ro 1126, 27 [Is 5929, 21] draw dºwpat rās &uaprlas abrów is slightly altered from is 279. G. Paraphrastic Quotations (see also D and E, d).--In some cases the language of a passage of OT is merely paraphrased to express some new thought, as in Ro 10°, which is based upon Dt 30”. Here the original eis r. Trépay t. 9a)\ágorms is changed to els T. dévoſo ov, to express the contrast between the descent of Christ in the Incarnation, etc., and His Resurrection, and thus to show that the inward revelation spoken of in Deut. was made ossible by Christ and through faith in Him. Sertain quotations are believed to be merely refer- ences to the general tenor of Scripture, as Jn 7”, which some, on the other hand, regard as a para- phrase of such passages as Is 58". Similarly, Eph 5* may possibly be a paraphrase of Is 60). 19.29. Some have supposed Ja 4" to be a paraphrase of some such passage as Wis 6*, *, but most com- mentators take the words as a rhetorical question by St. James (as RV). On Mt 2% º see D. H., Indirect Quotations (see also D).-It is quite possible that quotations, even though avowedly from Scripture, were taken directly from some other source. The possibility of that in 1 Co 29 being from some Aram. document has been already suggested under D. It may here be further noticed that the awkwardness of the construction, unsuited to the context, makes it likely that St. Paul is quoting it as he found it ready to hand, not him- self adapting it from the original. It has been thought by some that Eph 54 may be a quotation from some early Christian document, but the words Ötö Aéyet make this improbable (see G). It is also remarkable that some quotations are made with the same variants by different writers, or by the same Writer twice. (a) In some cases the variant may be looked upon as traditional, as the onission of poſſ [Hab } in Ro 117, Gal 311, and probably the order of the commandments in Mk. 10” (?), Ro 13"—adultery, murder, theft—for adultery, theft, murder of Ex 2018” (LXX), or murder, adultery, theft of Dt 517-19 (LXX) and of both (Hebrew). (b) In other cases the agreement may be a coincidence. Thus Mt 1819, 2 Co 131 abbreviate Dt 19” (LXX) in nearly the same lan- guage. . This possibly had become almost a pro- verb. , (c) The agreement may point to a variant in Heb., as Ro 9” (10”), or in LXX, as Mk 1226, Ac 7” (see J, a, b). (d) In other cases, again, one writer has presumably copied another. Thus Mt and Lk retain many of the peculiarities of the quotations of Mk. It seems likely also that 1 P 2" 7 was influenced by Ro 9°. Both agree (l) in the combination of Is 28% and 814; (2) in the reading löot riffmut (against I,XX), which can hardly be an independent translation of Heb., because, whereas St. Paul’s mixed quotation is from Heb. throughout (see F), St. Peter, except when he agrees with St. Paul, follows LXX. The agreement of Ro 12" and He 10° with MT * for tº of LXX and Sam. Pent., proves that the writer of Helorews, who shows, otherwise no knowledge of Heb., must have copied the quotations either from Itomans or from some intermediate source. There are no variants of LXX. Still more remark- able is the quotation of Pr 10” in 1 P 48 as com- pared with Ja 5”. In 1 P it is evidently a rather tºurious and independent rendering of Heb. (% being translated W. TXà00s); the LXX is quite tlifferent. In James we have obviously a refer- ence to this very translation. If, as is generally believed, James is earlier than 1 P, both quota- tions and reference are derived from some other document. (e) When a writer quotes a passage twice with the same variant, as in Ro 9° 10'), He 89° 101" (omission of 6&aw), the most probable explanation is that he consciously or unconsciously copied his own correction. - . Manner of quotation in different books (or sources) of NT—(a) Synoptic Tradition. (1) In Mk out of 20 quotations (excluding reference in 1219), of which all but one are sayings of our Lord, 16 are either exact, or very slightly altered, quota- tions of LXX. Of the remaining four 1% is prob- ably an early interpolation into Synoptic tradition, not being in the corresponding place in either Mt or Lk, and breaking the obvious connexion between 1%, and 18; Mk 12** [Dt 6+") is the great ypy, which from its frequent use in devotion was prob- ably known to Greek Jews in its Heb. form, and was hence independently translated ; 14” contains words of Christ which, if quoted as in LXX, would have lost all point ; in 15” we have words of Christ in their original Hebrew - Aramaic form. The following translation, though influenced by LXX, aims at greater literalness (sis Tl for tva tt, repeti- tion of pov, non-addition of the curious trpºoxes plot). It seems that the writer, while he had re- ceived and retained a few sayings of our Lord as actually uttered, generally used LXX as a matter of course. (2) Mt reproduces all the Synoptic quotations, except the doubtful Mk 1*, and very nearly as he finds them, but with a slight tendency (perhaps unconscious) to assimilate to LXX, Heb., or Aram., as perhaps in 19” (order of LXX in Dt, of LXX and Heb. in Ex and Dt), 22” (+ elus LXX), 22*7 (év = Heb. 5 for é; ; 6tavola, a LXX transl. of nº for laxVos), 22* (ká09v LXX), 27* (*s (?) Heb. and Aram. for nºs; nº (?) Aram. for Heb. Hº). The following translation is a little less bold, as also the reference to IOt 25" in 22*. (3) Lk out of 19 Synoptic quotations (excluding Mk 1”, which Lk has in quite a different connexion) on its 8 and treats the rest with greater freedom, chiefly for literary reasons, as 3" (where the continuation of the quotation increases the rhetorical effect. See also E, c). I'or the same purpose he abridges in 81° 10” 2017 18” 19". In the last he, so far only, agrees with Mt. In 10” he apparently combines Mk 12* * and Mt. 22", reading é; . . . Kapòlas and €v . . . puxm, etc., and both laxiſ and 6tavotg. 2007 is altered so as to agree exactly with LXX. The word Ká0ov in 20°, though also in Mt, probably comes therefore from the same source. (b) The portions common to Mt and Lk and not to Mk. Quotations are found only in the account of the Temptation (Mt 4". ". 7. 19, Llº 4". 10, 11, 12. 8), and are based in both on LXX. The 1st quotation is exact in Lk, in Mt longer, and part only, that not common with Lk, varies from LXX ; the 2nd is abbreviated in both, but esp. Mt, which omits the whole clause toº 6taqbvXášat o'e—ööoſs goû, Llº retaining the first three words. Both split up the quotation into two parts, Mt adding kai before €irl, Lk kal &rt. The dº is exact in hoth. In the fourth both substitute ºrpookvvågets for poſłm.0%am. The kind of assimilation thus exhibited, in con- nexion with the difference in the order of the temp- tations, suggests that in both the quotations were taken, not from LXX, but from some other com. mon source, probably preserved by oral tradition. (c) Original quotations of Mt. These exhibit con- siderable variety of character, 3 º (27%) is an interpolation from Jn 19°) being derived from LXX, 211" [Ps 8°] exactly, where Heb, ty was inappropriate, or at least ambiguous; 1* [Is 71*] (notice, besides the doubtful trap64uos, év yao Tpt, 'EppavováA so spelt) with several alterations, prob. QUOTATIONS QUOTATIONS 187 ably through fault of memory; 18” (adds träv before pāua) much abridged. The rest are from the Heb., as 2" 8", though often showing the influence of LXX (see A., d), as 218 111° 12** 13” 21"; and often very singularly paraphrased, as 2° 22° 27' 10 (see I); E, d). (d) Quotations of a “Gospel of the Infancy’ (originally Aramaic 2). Lk 2% is, curiously enough, an exact quotation from LXX, though from Lv 5*, not Lv 12°, the passage actually referred to, and is probably an insertion by St. Luke into the earlier translation of an original Aram. document; l' is a paraphrastic reference to Mal 4*" 3", based on Heb, (see B); 2-” depends apparently on a variant of Heb. (see J, a). (e) The Original quotations of Lk, 4* and 23", are both from LXX; the first a combination of Is 61” * 58%, with a slight change of order and construction, the second with necessary alteration of the text. (f) St. John's Gospel. Quotations are harked by brevity and freedom, with a tendency to attach more importance to mystical and hidden meanings than to the literal sense of the words; usually from LXX, as 10°. * 12”, but occasionally from Heb., as 1318 1997 (see B), in both of which differences between LXX and Heb. are very great; but often so unlike either as to make it uncertain which the writer had in his mind, as 12" (lágoua, LXX, but see J, a). On 7* see G. Combined quotations are frequent (see F), as 6* 12** 15” [I’s 35" or 69' and 109°) 1999. There are only 4 quotations common to any of the Synoptists, 1* 817 12" 12" (Mt 27” is spurious); of these the second and third to Mt only. In all there is an independent rendering, and in 12” a different com- bination. (g) The Acts. Quotations are all from LXX, often lite exact, as in the long quota- tions, 2*, 2**; though differing greatly from Heb., as 7” “; sometimes following a different text, as 15%. 17 (see A, a (1)(2)); fººlently abbre- viated, as 130 3%. 23 749 134 1311 1516, 17; sometimes expanded, as 2.7% (for literary effect), and often combined, as 3* 13” etc. (see F). On 7* * see E, a... (h) St. Paul's Epistles. Quotations are usually from LXX, as Ro 997. 28, but knowledge is shown of Heb., as Ro 917 (see B, b) 101° (&paíou) 11" 12". In Ro, and to a less extent in 1 Co, the quotations from Pent. and Ps are very largely exact from LXX ; those from the prophetical and historical books vary cºil; from LXX, are usually free, but often contain elements from Hebrew. . It would seem probable that the former are usually copied from LXX, the rest quoted *memoriter. In Ro, out of 31 quotations from Pent. and Ps, only 9 are not practically exact, and of those 10° is a mere paraphrase, and Ro 9" 12" are intentionally taken from Heb.; out of 22 quotations from hist. and proph. books only 3 are exact. In 1 Co, out of 9 quotations from Pent. and Ps, 4 are exact ; out of 9 from hist. and proph. books, only one. The change of dvěpáray to copów in 3” [Ps 94”], though difficult, is prob- ably intentional (see E, d). The distinction here pointed out is remarkably illustrated in Ro 319-18, where the single quotation from Is (597; 8, 1°r 11° is not in LXX) has 2 in portant variants from LXX, 6&ets (LXX raxtuoſ) and &yvooray (LXX otöaow), suggesting a memoriter quotation, whereas the 5 quotations from Ps are practically exact from 1,XX. In Ro 3", Ee 7” is combined, by probably a slip of memory, with the plurase oč6é Tels from PS 149 or 53° º, LXX has ovk &otiv 8ws évôs). Of the other Hagiographa, Pr 25* * is quoted from LXX exactly in 180 12”, Job 51% from Heb. in 1 Co 3”. lºor the remarkable quotation in l, Co 2" see H. In the other Epistles the quota- tions are too few to make any satisfactory general- 1zations possible. On Eph 4° 5" see E, d, and G, H. (i) }.}}| to the Hebrews. With the excep- tion of 10” (see H), quotations are all from LXX, very numerous and generally exact, suggesting that variations are either intentional alterations, as 8% (10%) 10” (see E, c, d.), or errors of transcrip- tion, as 3" (see E, b). We have, however, most prob- ally memoriter quotations in 9”, where roºro for löoº looks like an unconscious imitation of the words of institution (cf. Mk 14* etc.), and 12”, where ômplov for Krâvos can hardly be regarded as an in- dependent translation of npr.º. (7) St. James. Of six possible quotations, three, 2°2*4", are certainly from LXX, and nearly exact ; 2" may possibly be an independent translation of Heb.; 5* is cer- tainly so, but is probably from some intermediate Source (see H); 4”, if a quotation at all, is from an unknown source (see G). (k) First Ep. of St. Peter. Though quotations are taken partly, but seldom very exactly, from LXX, as 29-319-13 314, 15 (see E, d), the influence of the Heb. is frequently apparent, as 1** [Is 40°] (atrºs for div6pútrov of LXX), 2* [Is 53°] (eupé0m 56Xos for 65Aov), 48 (where LXX is quite different, but see H). 2%. 7 is prob- ably connected, directly or indirectly, with Ro 9°, and proves little (see H). (l) Second Ep. of St. Peter. The only quotation, 2*, is from Heb., nearly every word differing from LXX. (m) The Apocalypse contains no definite quotations, but is full of the thoughts and ideas and even language of OT. This last seems in general to point to Heb. rather than to LXX, as in 1%, where 8aat)\slav, lepsis is evidently a translation of Dº nºnp Ex 19° (LXX has 8agºetov lepārevga), 17 (werá, with Aram. of Dn 7”, for LXX &rt ; of rives attöv Čšekévrmaav, from Zec 12", for div6' àv Katopy gavro, cf. Jn 1997), l” (suggested by Dn, 10") which has no special LXX word. So 114 (cf. Zec 44; 3. 14) 148 [cf. Is 219) 14° [cf. Ji 3"). In 6” we find the phrase träs 600Xos Kal éNeč6epos instead of ovvex5pºevos K. Čykata)\eXetu- Auévos of 1 K 21” (LXX 20%). On the other hand, there are some signs of direct or indirect LXX influ- ence, as in 2" (trapačelow, Gn 2° etc.) 64 (818Xtov, cf. Is 34* LXX) 18° (àauovtov, cf. Is 13°l LXX), etc. J. The bearing of NT quotations on teactual criticism.—(a) hen a quotation agrees with Heb. but has a single word or phrase agreeing with LXX, this may have come, not from LXX itself, but from a various reading of Heb., followed also by LXX. Thus in Jn 12" iáowgat may point to a variant Nºns for Rºn. In Mt 1221 the words K. Ču T. Övögati avtoſ étum éArtodou, agreeing exactly with LXX (though so different from Heb.), whereas all the earlier part of the quotation follows a totally different rendering of Heb., may point to *Tº Sºl \pya; but see A, d. Even where a quotation differs more or less from both LXX and Heb. the difference may have arisen from a various reading of the latter. Thus in Mt. 20 #Yep,60tu is often referred to a reading 'ºbs for '...}s (see D). Ik 2* points to a reading cºn: npºp. ".. for nº-º; “yeſ, 5; Ro 938 [Is 281) (ion) to whiy Nº. 9 pºsºn for ºn, sº Prsºn. Even if the inser- tion of \} is merely a mental error, it shows that St. Paul had the Hebrew in his mind, and therefore got Katatoxvv0%retat, not from LXX Katatoryvy0m, but from cºin", which LXX also reads. Mt. 279. 19 may have been based on a text reading ºn nº Şs, with 590, 168, 251, K2, R, for h,\'n 9s (but see E, d), and possibly * 5275 for " nº. It is important also to notice that Mt does not support the otherwise probable reading of ºn ‘treasury’ for hy, ‘potter.’ 1 Co 2" seems originally due to a difference of text, |Nº Wyºv for syrsi Nº jºy, Dºnºs Tºg i for inºr Dºnºs niyy, and nann, for Hirºº (see I)) (on Mt. 2" see I), and on Mt 12” see A., d). (b) When a quotation follows LXX almost exactly, lut agrees with Heb. in a word or phrase, it raises the suspicion that it follows a Å. reſtding of L.V.Y., as in Ac 13" [Is 49"] (Tébeuka for 6éówka of LXX, and I88 RAAMA RAAMSES, RAMESES onmission of els ötaff; knvºyévovs, which is apparently an interpolation from Is 49°); in Mk 12", Ac 7° omission of elut ; the ultra-Hellenistic speech of t. Stephen is the last place to suspect the influ- ence of Heb. text). The mere fact of a certain number of MSS of LXX agreeing with a quota- tion is of practically no importance, because the were so frequently altered into agreement with NT quotations. e have the most striking ex- ample in Ps 14” (13° LXX), where the whole cento of quotations in Ro 3** has found its way into B and some other MSS of LXX, and hence through the Vulg. into the English Prayer-Book Psalter. (c) It is just possible that quotations may throw light on questions connected with the text of NT itself, as He 3"; see E, b. ii. QUOTATIONS IN NT FROM THE APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL JEWISH LITERATURE.- These are not cited as Scripture, and with the exception of Jude *[[BK. of Enoch i. 9, tr. by R. H. Charles, Oxford] are not directly cited at all ; but there are several references, such as in Lk 1210-20 (cf. Sir 1118, 19) 147-10 (cf. Sir 139. 19), Jn 6* (cf. Sir 2421), Ro 1215 (cf. Sir 7”), He 18 (Wis 7*) 412, 18 (cf. Wis 722-29), Ja 119 (Sir 511). iii. QUOTATIONS FROM PAGAN WRITERS.—These are very few, and not always easily recognized. Thus that of Ac 17* is found both in Åratus, Phaenom. 5, and in the hymn of Cleanthes to Zeus, 5. The quotation in 1 Co 15* is mentioned by Lucian, Aſm. 43, as a saying of Menander from his Thais. The quotation of Tit l” is said by early Christian writers to come from a lost work ºf Epimenides, called trepi xpmauſov, but is now found in the hymn of Callimachus (an Alexandrian poet of 3rd cent. B.C.) to Zeus, 8. In 1 Co 12*7 we have probably a reference to the fable of Menenius Agrippa. But it is very uncertain whether these quotations, etc., point to a wide knowledge of pagan literature on St. Paul's part, or would not father from their proverbial character have been generally known by men of very moderate culture (see Farrar's Life of St. Paul, vol. i. Exc. iii.). LITERATURE.—Turpie, The OT in the New is, in spite of the one-sided aims of the writer and many inaccuracies, a very use- ful book when used with proper reference to good critical editions and commentaries, and has been of great service in writing this article. The quotations of OT, are taken from QT in Greek, edited by H. B. Swete, Cambridge, those ol NT usually from tho revised text of Greek Test., Oxford. See also L. Cappellus, Quaest. de loc, parall. Vet. et Nov. Test. 1650; Surenhusius, n'ºpm ºnBD 8ive 313Xos zoºroºoºyºº, 1713; Roepe, de Vet. Test. Loc, in apost. libr. allegatione, 1827; Tholuck, Das Alt. Test. i. NT3, 1840; Kautzsch, de Vet. Test. loc, a Pawlo allegatis, 1869; C. Taylor, The Gospel in the Law, 1809; Monnet, Les citations de l'anc. test, d. leg &p. de S. Pawl, 1874; Böhl, ATCitate in NT, 1878; Toy, Quotations in the NT, 1884; Vollmer, Die AT' Citate bei Paulus, 1895; Johnson, The Quota- tions of the New Test. from the Old, 1806; Dittmar, Vetw8 Test. in Novo, i. 1899; cf. also Jowett, St. Paul's Epistle88, 1894, vol. i. 185ff.; Swete, Introd. to Old Test. in Greek, 1900, p. 381 ff.; and Thackeray, St. Paul and Comtemp. Jewish Thought, 1900, p. 181 ft.; and for special NT books, Allen, “The OT Quotations in St. Mark’ in Ea:pos. Times, Jan. 1901 (xii. 187), and “The OT Quotations in St. Matthew,’. Expos. Times, March 1901. (xii. 281); Lightfoot, Notes on Jēpistles of St. Paul, pp. 170 ft., 216 f.; Westcott, Hebrews, p. 67 f.; Mayor, James, p. lxix ff. The subject is dealt with in all the Manuals for Bible study. l'. H. WOODS. R RAAMA (rºyº only 1 Ch 19) or RAAMAH (nºwn).- Son of Cush and father of Sheba (Saba) and Dedan (Gn 107, 1 Ch 19), also mentioned by Ezekiel (27*) as a trading community by the side of Sheba. The LXX (in Gn A "Peyyuá; in 1 Ch BA 'Peypad, ; in Ezk B ‘Papić, AQ "Paypad) identified the word with Regma, mentioned as a city by Ptolemy (vi. 7, 14) on the Persian Gulf, which is probably identical with Regma, which Steph. Byz. (ed. Westermann, p. 242) describes as a city or a gulf in the Persian Gulf. This latter form of the word (in most MSS practically indistinguishable from the other) may very well be Greek, meaning “breach.” The above identification is accepted by most authorities, including Glaser (Skizze, ii. 325), who adds, how- ever (p. 252), that the name is spelt in inscriptions with a jim. It is at present impossible to say whether there is any connexion between the place mentioned by the Greek geographers and the tribe mentioned in Genesis or not. Dillmann thinks Raama, may be the "Pappaavºrat of Strabo (XVI. iv. 24), in S. Arabia, N.W. of Chatra motitat (= Hadra- maut ; see HAZARMAVETH). D. S. MARGOLIOUTH, RAAMIAH (nºy’); B Naapuá, A Pee).pºd).-One of the twelve chiefs who returned with Zerubbabel, Neh 77. In the parallel passage, Ezr 2*, the name is Reelaiah (nºn, B 'PeeWetá, A Peexas), and in 1 Es 58 RESAIAs (which see). It is impossible to decide with certainty what was the original read- ing, although nºyn probably represents it more nearly than Toyn. RAAMSES, RAMESES (bºnyl Ex 111; º Gn 4711, Ex 1287; LXX ‘Papegorſ [D om. in Gn 4711]). —- The city of Raamses was, like Pithom, built by the Israelites for the Pharaoh of the Oppression (Ex 111), who has been shown by Dr. Naville's discovery of the site of Pithom to have been Ramses II. of the 19th dynasty (see PITHOM). It was from Raamses or Rameses that the Israelites started when they fled from Egypt ; and as the next stage in their journey was Succoth (Ex 12”), Raamses could not have been far from Pithom. It must also have been in the land of Goshen, as is indeed expressly stated in Gn 47", where Goshen is called proleptically ‘the land of Rameses.’ According to LXX of Gn 46” “the land of Rameses’ [D om.] included also Heroopolis or Pithom. Qosem or Goshen was the capital of the 20th nome of Lower Egypt, and is now represented by Saft el-Henna, at º: western end of the Wady Tumilât, north of Belbès, and a little to the east of Zagazig. The 8th nome, of which Pithom was the capital, adjoined the 20th to the east. We should therefore probably look for the site of Raamses somewhere between Belbös and Tel el- Maskhūta. The latter was identified with Raamses by Lepsius, and the identification was perpetuated for a time in the name of Iłamses given to the place by the French engineers during the construction of the Fresh-water Canal. Dr. Naville's excavations proved, however, that Tel el-Maskhâta is Pithom, and consequently the site of Iłaamses must be sought elsewhere. The city is mentioned in the Egyptian texts. We learn from them that it was built, like Pithom, by Ramses II., from whom it derived its name ; and a letter of the scribe Panbesa, translated by Brugsch (History of Egypt, Eng. tr. ii. pp. 96–98) and Goodwin (IEP, 1st ser. vi. p. 11 ff.), gives a long and glowing description of it. Its canals are said to be ‘rich in fish, its lakes swarm with bird , its meadows are green with vegetables.’ The canal RABBAH RABBAH 189 an the banks of which it stood communicated with the sea, and was called Pa-shet-Hor, ‘the mere of Horus.’ Brugsch at one time wished to identify it with Tanis (Zoan), where there seems to have been a Pi-Ramessu or “temple of Ramses,” erected by Ramses II., but the discovery of the position of Pithom obliged him to change his mind. An un- edited papyrus in the possession of M. Golénischeff, moreover, distinguishes it from Tanis, and places it between Tanis and Zaru (on the eastern frontier) in a list of the towns of the Delta. “The land of Rameses’ seems to have taken its name from the city. LITERATURE.—Jacques de Rougé, Géographie ancienne de la Basse-Egypte, 1891; H. Brugsch, Dictionnaire (*!!!. de l'ancienme Egypte, 1879; Dillmann-Ryssel on Ex 111; Driver in Hogarth's Authority and Archaeology, 1899, p. 55; Ball, Light from the Last, p. 100 f. A. H. SAYCE. RABBAH.—1. (nºn; Jos 13% B 'Apá6, A Pagáá; 2 S 11, 1297. 20 "Paggå0; 1 Ch 201 'Paggāv; Am 114 'Pag|34; Jer 49 [30]* "Pag340; Ezk 25% rºy tróNºv toū ‘Augdu), or more fully Rabbath-bené-Ammon= ‘ Rabbah of the children of Ammon' (i.ey ºn nan; I)t 3" h dkpa Tův vlåv 'Aupºv ; 2 S 12* 1797, Ezk 2120 º viðv 'Appudu, Jer 49 [30]* "Pag|340). The chief and, in fact, the only city of the Ammonites mentioned in the OT. It was situ- ated about 25 miles N.E. of the north end of the Dead Sea, in the fruitful valley which forms the upper course of the Jabbok (62-Zerka), now called the Wädy ‘Ammām (Buhl, GAP 48, 260 f.). Under Ptolemy II. (Philadelphus) the city was rebuilt and called Philadelphia, but the original name seems never to have been completely jost, and is still preserved in the modern 'Ammām. Apart from the isolated notice in Dt 3", where a passing reference is made to it as the site of the bed or sarcophagus of Og king of 13ashan, and the statement in Jos 13” that it lay outside the eastern border of the tribe of Gad on the east of Jordan, no allusion is made in the OT to the capital of the Ammonites until the reign of David. According to the narrative of 2 S 101.-111 1220-91 (which appears in a condensed and less accurate form in 8*, see SAMUEL, BOOKS OF) an embassy was, sent by David to condole with Hanun king of Ammon on the death of his father Nahash. The envoys, however, were grossly insulted by the Ammonite king and his servants, who, in view of the growing power of the Israelite monarch, were inclined, perhaps not unnaturally, to suspect the motives of his embassy. This treatment of the envoys could have but one result, and the Ammon- ites therefore at once summoned to their aid those Southern tribes of the Aramaeans who were their more immediate neighbours on the east of Jordan. Meantime the Israelite army, under the command of Joab, had lost no time in invading the country of the Ammonites. Their intention, doubtless, was to lay siege to Rabbah itself; for though he was aware (2 S 107) of the alliance between the Ammonites and Aramaeans, Joab does not appear to have realized either the strength or the position of the Aramaean force that was opposed to him, until he had actually come within striking distance of the Ammonite capital (ww.8: "). The Aramaeans, however, as we learn from the Chronicler (1 Ch 197), had penetrated as far south as Medeba, and now threatened to cut off his retreat across the Jordan. Thus hemmed in ‘before and behind,” Joab perceived that his only hope of safety lay in assuming the offensive. He therefore divided his army into two, and, having entrusted Abishai With the task of holding the Ammonites in check, himself led ‘all the picked men of Israel’ in an attack on the more powerful Aramaeans. The combined movement was completely successful : the Aramaeans fled discomfited, and their example was soon followed by the Ammonites, who took refuge in Rabbah. Joab, however, did not follow up his advantage, but retired with the army to Jerusalem. In the following year David took the field in person against the Aramaeans, who had reassembled under Shobach, captain of the host of Hadadezer, at Helanı (probably not far from Damascus), and defeated them with great slaughter (vv.”). The way was now clear for the renewal of the war with the Ammonites, and Joab, with the whole army and the ark (11”), was despatched across the Jordan to ravage the land of the Ammonites, and to lay siege to Rabbah (11%). If, as the biblical narrative seems to imply, both the sons of Bathsheba were born during this period, the siege of Iłabbah must have lasted nearly two years. The aim of the besiegers was doubtless to starve out the city, rather than to take it by storm (11**): the actual fighting was É. confined to the occasions on which the eleaguered garrison attempted a sortie. It was by exposing Uriah the Hittite to one of these Sallies that Joab was able to effect David's plan for getting rid of the former (vv. 10-17). The fate of the city was finally sealed by the i. of the spring of water from which the inhabitants derived their water supply (12” reading D'ºù l’y, “spring of waters’ for Dºn Ty ‘city of waters,’ so Klostermann ; but see Cheyne [Expos. Times, Sept. 1898, p. 143 f.], who would read here and in the preceding verse Diºn hºy ‘the city of Milcom’); only in this way can we harmonize Joab's message (y.”) with the phrase “the royal city' (Tziºn ºv) in v.”. By the latter phrase is probably meant the royal castle or citadel, situ- ated at the apex of the lofty triangular plateau, which seems to have formed the site of the ancient Rabbah... “The two sides are bounded by widies which diverge from , the apex, where they are divided by a low neck of land, and thence separ- ating, fall into the valley, of the Jabbok, which forms the base of the triangle” (Oliphant, The Land of Gilead, p. 259 f.). The precipitous char- acter of the wadis—on the one side there is a drop of 300 ft., on the other of 400 ft.—precluded an access to the streams below, save at the (? artificial) depression which separated the citadel from the rest of the city. Hence the capture of the latter virtually placed the city at the mercy of Joab, and assured him of its speedy downfall.” He thereupon despatched messengers to David, bid- ding him collect the rest of his forces, and super- intend the final assault of the city, “lest,” he adds, “I take the city, and my name be called upon it’—in token, namely, of its conquest by him. (See, further, on this passage, vol. i. p. 344"). David at once responded to Joab's appeal, and shortly after his arrival the city was taken, to- gether with much spoil, including the crown of Milcom (LXX), the god of the Ammonites. (For a full discussion of the treatment of the inhabit. ants of Rabbah by David, see Driver, Notes on Samuel, pp. 226–229). From ū. few scattered notices of Rabbah in the writings of the prophets from the 8th cent. onwards, we gather that the city once more re- verted to the possession of the Ammonites. Thus Amos, in his denunciation of Ammon (1*), pro- Dhesies the destruction of the wall and palaces of Rabbah, while similar language is used by Jere- miah (49**) shortly before the siege of Jerusalem, and by Ezekiel (25°). It is noticeable that the * The reading of the Hebrew text “city of waters’ is usually explained as referring to the lower town. But (1) the phrase itself is an unlikely one to be applied to a part of the city, (2) there is no reference elsewhere to a division of the city, and (3) the explanation seems due to the present condition of the ruins of 'Ammān, which date, at earliest, from lºoman times. 190 RABBI, RAIBBONI RAB-MAG latter regards Rabbah as no less important politi- cally than Jerusalem itself (21*[Heb. *]). In the 3rd cent. B.C. Rabbah was still a place of considerable importance. After its capture by Ptolemy Philadelphus (B.C. 285–247) it was called Philadelphia, . the surrounding district Phila- delphene or Arabia, Philadelphensis (Ritter, Die Erdkunde, xv. pt. ii. p. 1154 f.). According to Polybius (v. 71), the city underwent a severe and protracted siege under Antiochus the Great, who succeeded in capturing it only through the agency of a captive. The latter revealed the existence of the subterranean passage by which the garrison of the citadel obtained their water supply: the passage was accordingly blocked up, and the gar- rison forced to surrender. The same authority makes use of the old name Rabbatamama ('Pagpa- rápava), while Stephen of Byzantium states that it was formerly called Amama, and afterwards Astarte. Josephus describes it as the most easterly border-town of Peraea (BJ III. iii. 3), and Strabo especially notes it as one of the localities inhabited by a mixed population. It formed one of the cities of the Decapolis, and in the middle of the 4th cent. Anımianus Marcellinus classes it with Bostra. and Geresa as one of the fortified great cities of Coele-Syria (Ritter, l.c.). Philadelphia, later, became the seat of a Christian bishop, forming one of the nineteen sees of ‘Palaestina tertia” (Reland, Pal. 228). Of the Arabic geographers, Mukaddasi (A.D. 985) describes ‘Ammān as the capital of the Belkä district, lying on the border of the desert. He mentions the castle of Goliath as situated on the hill overhanging the city, and containing the tomb of Uriah, over which is built a mosque. Yākūt (iii. 719), in A. D. 1225, men- tions it as the city of the emperor Dakiyānūs (Decius): he further relates the Moslem legend, according to which ‘Ammān, the founder of the city, was the son of Lot's brother (‘Ammān = “he who is of the uncle’). Abulfeda (A.D. 1321) also assigns the founding of the city to Lot (Guy le Strange, Pal. under the Moslems, p. 391 f.). Coins of the city exist with the head of Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 161-180) and the legend ‘Philadelphia of Hercules of Coele-Syria’; but, save for a few rude stone monuments, nothing remains in the way of archi- tecture ‘which can be referred with any certitude to a pre-Roman period’ (see Survey of E. Pal. pp. 19–64, where a full description is given of the oresent site; see also Baedeker” pp. 170–172; Merrill, East of Jordan, p. 398 f.). 2. (Jos 15" 1777; B >w0m/34, A 'Ape/334; Arebba). A city of Judah, apparently near Kiriath-jearim. J. F. STENNING. RABBI, RABBONI.—From nº, primarily “master’ in contrast with slave (Aboth i. 3.; Sukka ii. 9; et al.), was formed, by the addition of the pro- nominal suffix, 'an (Pag|3t, 'Pagflet WH), ‘my master,’ the use of which as a title of respect by which teachers were addressed occurs first within the last century before the destruction of Jeru- salem. The Mishna contains several instances of this mode of address (Nedarim ix. 5; Itosh hashama ii. 9; Berachoth, ii. 5, 7; et al.). In a similar way was formed Rabboni ('Pag|3out Mk 10”, 'Paggovvi Jn 201", "Papgovvet WH) from 157 or jīan (used of God in Taanith. iii. 8), an Aramaic form of the title used almost exclusively to designate the president of the Sanhedrin, if a descendant of Hillel, from the time of Gamaliel I. (A both i. 17). In later times the title of IRabbi appears to have been conferred officially upon such as were author- ized in Palestine to decide ritual or legal questions (Babat mezia, 86a ; Sanhedrin 13b), the corre- sponding Babylonian title being Itab or Mar; but there is no evidence of its use in this sense before or in the time of Christ. Its suffix, however, quickly lost its specific force º a process of which parallels are afforded in several languages; and in the NT the word occurs simply as a courteous title of address. Rabboni is even more respectful; and in the two passages where it is used of Christ (Mk 10" and Jn 20") the pronominal force may not have entirely disappeared. Neither word occurs in classical use, in the LXX or other Gr. version of the OT, or in the Apocrypha. In the NT the shorter title is applied to Christ in Mt. 2625. 49, Mk 95 1121 145, Jn lºs. 4° 3° 49' 6" 9° 118; to John Baptist in Jn 3% ; whilst in Mt. 237, 8 Christ forbids His disciples to covet or use it. In Jn l’º a parenthesis states its equivalence in meaning with Ötöda kaxe, which is in turn cited in Jn 20% as a synonym of Rabboni. RV m implicitly supports this explana- tion in Mt 23°, where, however, the text reads ka.0mynths, a word whose º meaning of ‘guide’ naturally suggests that of “teacher.’ See, for further details and for literature, Schürer, HJP II. i. 315 ft., and cf. Dalman, Worte Jesu, 267, 272 ft. R. W. MOSS. RABBITH (nºn, with art. ; B Aabetpøv, A 'Pag- 860).—A town of Issachar (Jos 19°), probably the modern Rába, on the south part of the range of Gilboa. See SPVP vol. ii. sheet ix. ; Mühlau in Riehm’s H. PVB 1252; Guérin, Samarie, i. 336; Buhl, GAP 204. C. R. CONDER. RABBONI.—See RABBI. RAB-MAG (15-in; B 'Pagaad,0, S^ "Pa'udr, Nº. *. () Bapdr, A Pagapuák, Q “Pagapudy [in Jer 39 (46)” Q"& "Pogouðy]; Vulg. Rebmag). — The title (as is now generally admitted) of a Babylonian official, apparently Nergal-sharezer, who was present at the taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in the 11th year of Zedekiah king of Judah, together with all the rest of the princes (Jer 39 [Gr. 46]*) and all the chief officers (v.”) of the king of Babylon. Whether the Nergal-sharezer who is here mentioned, and who apparently bears the title, be the Neriglissar of the Greeks, who came to the throne of Babylon in the year B.C. 560 (16 years later), is uncertain, but not by any means in probable. The explanation of the title Rab- mag is a matter of considerable uncertainty. Gesenius explains up as magian, “the name of the priests and wise men among the Medes, Persians, and Babylonians’ [the inclusion of the Babylonians was pardonable before the inscrip- tions were made out]. G. Rawlinson and others have compared the title Rab-mag with the Baby- lonian Rubt? &nga, or, more correctly, Iºtbºl 6m/tº ; but this, apart from its improbability in consequence of the difference of form, cannot be the original of the term, as it is not a title in the true Sense of the word—it simply means ‘the deeply- wise prince.’ Another etymology for the second element is that of Fried. Delitzsch (cf. also Sieg- fried-Stade and Oaf, Heb. Jea.), who suggests that it is the same as the Assyr. mathlºt, “soothsayer’; but the objections to this are the differing double consonant, and the absence of the compound rab- ºnal lºt. The most probable of the proposed origi- nals appears to the present writer and others to be the title a'ab-miſſi (see Pinches in S. A. Smith's J(eilschrift teate Asurbanipals, Heft ii. 1887, p. 67, note to 1. 89; Sayce, HCM p. 456; Winckler, Orient. Jitteraturztg. 1898, p. 40). This word occurs in the text translated by Pinches (K824, edge, 9) in the accusative (malga), and also in the oracles to Esarhaddon (PVAI 61. l. 264) in the phrase alta ºnt libói magi, “thou (art) in the midst of the princes (?),” the two lines which follow being ‘I (the goddess Ištar) in the midst of my flock (?) advance (and) rest.’ A nasalized form, rab mungi, also occurs, T. (; , PIN CHIES. RAB-SARIS RACA 19] RAB-SARIS (pºlynn; B ‘Papels, A "Pagorapets, in 2 K 1847; BA Nagovorapels, N* Nagovoreets, N: * Q Na- Bovorapts, Qing “Pagaapts, in Jer 39 [46]* *; Vulg. Rabsaris, Rabsares).-This, like RAB-MAG, is now generally and rightly held to be a title, and not a name (see RV). 1. An Assyrian officer who went with the Tartan and the Rab-shakell, whilst Senna- cherib was at Lachish, to demand on behalf of his royal master the surrender of Jerusalem, which was at the time besieged by the Assyrian forces (2K 1817). 2. A Babylonian named Sarsechim [?; see art. NERGAL-SHAREZER), who, with ‘all the princes’ of Nebuchadnezzar, was present at the taking of Jerusalem by that king in the 11th year of Zedekiah king of Judah (Jer 39°). 3. A Babylonian named Nebushazban, who, after the taking of the city, gave authority, with other of the princes of Babylon who are mentioned, for the release and return of Jeremiah, thus enabling him to be taken home and to dwell with his own people (Jer 39°). The usual biblical explanation of the word is “chief of the eunuchs,” or, perhaps with greater probability, “chief eunuch,” an explanation that agrees with the information yielded by the other Semitic languages, Arabic and Aramaic having practically the same word with this meaning, and also verbs derived therefrom. The word bºnº, with its plural D'p'nº, is of frequent occurrence in the Hebrew, and not only means ‘a eunuch,” but also ‘courtier’ in general, ‘chamberlain.” In 2 K 25” it indicates an officer who commanded a division of the army, and POTIPHAR, who was certainly a married man, is called the bºnº of Pharaoh in Gn 39'. The Assyro - Babylonian ..º. how- ever, do not furnish us with any word that contains this idea. A pnon", Rabsaris, named Nabā-Šarra- usur, eponym for the year B.C. 683, is named on the tablet 81–2–4. 147 (Berger, Comptes rentlus de l'Acad, des Inscr. et Belles Lettres, 1886, p. 201; CIS tom. i. fasc. 1, pp. 43, 44), but this title is not rendered in the Assyrian text which accompanies the Aramaic inscription. Winckler (in Unters. 2. altor. Gesch. 1889, Exkurs v. p. 138) gave the ex- planation that this word was simply a transcrip- tion of the Assyro-Babylonian rabº-Ša-ráši, a sug- gestion that was afterwards confirmed by the discovery of the title in question on the British Museum tablet 82–7–14, 3570, written Tºtòtt-Sat-ri-6- Św (read -rášw); cf. Academy, June 25, 1892. This expression means ‘chief of the heads' or principal men,” and being apparently not a usual title, we may perhaps ... that it was not often given, and may have been one of great honour. Of its age nothing can be said, the earliest date known is B.C. 683,-and how long it had been in use before then cannot even be guessed. As to the etymology, that is very simple. The first com- ponent part is the common Assyro-Babylonian word 'ab (, meaning, in compounds, “chief,’ equi- valent to the Heb. 5). The second word is the particle Ša, meaning ‘of,’ and the third is résu * head' (the Heb. UNH), seemingly one of the numerous short words of masculine form which were the same in the plural as in the singular. Whether the Heb. Dºn) is derived from Sa-Té8w, without the rab, and obtained the meaning of eunuch from the circumstance that many of those who bore the title Rab - saris had authority over the eunuchs, or whether the Hebrews assimilated this Assyro- 3albylonian title to a word already well known in their language, and common Semitic property, is unknown; but the former would seem to be the more probable. In any case the word as used in 2 K 1817 and Jer 30" lº must be held to represent the Assyro-Babylonian rabū-Sa-rášu, whatever opinion be held with regard to the other passages where it occurs. It is noteworthy that the sibilants are in both cases b, for . the Assyro-Babylonian has 3, affording another proof that the sound tran- scribed by the latter was often not sh, but simply 8, in later times, in Assyria and Babylonia. T. G. PINCHES. RAB-SHAKEH (npyhºl; ‘Papákms, ‘Pago &Kns; Rab- Sacés).-The title of the officer sent by Sennacherib with the Tartan and the Rab-Saris to demand the surrender of Jerusalem, at that time besieged by the Assyrian forces (2 K 1817. 19, 29-28, 87 197, 8, Is 36** ***37* *). He came, with a great army, accompanied by the other dignitaries who are men- tioned, from Lachish, and ‘called to the king.” In response to the summons, the officials of Hezekiah's court º, and the Rab-shakeh pronounced to them a long and insolent message to their royal master, increasing the violence of his tone when requested to speak in Aramaic, and not in Hebrew ‘in the ears of all the people that are on the wall.’ From this it will be seen that this official was one of Some attainments, as, besides his native Assyrian, he must have known Hebrew very well; and the remonstrance of the Jewish representatives of the king who were parleying with him implies that he knew Aramaic also, probably because it was the language of a large section of the Assyrian people, and therefore, in a sense, a second mother-tongue to him. The first opinion of scholars concerning the title Rab-shakeh was that it meant ‘chief of the cupbearers’; * but there must have been con- siderable doubt as to the correctness of this render- ing, as such an official would hardly have been sent on an errand of this kind. When, therefore, the cuneiform inscriptions began to be more thoroughly studied, the suggestion was made that the Itab-shakeh of the passages quoted was the same as the rab-saki of the texts. This word is a compound, consisting of rab, const. case of rabū, ‘chief,’= the Heb. an, and saki, plural of saku, from the Akkad. saga, ‘head,’ the whole meaning ‘chief of the heads,” or ‘captains ' (cf. RAB-SARIs). The list of names of officials printed in JWA I ii. pl. 31, No. 2, mentions the rab-saki between the rab-šumgar or rab segar (“chief of the supply 2”) and the saki or réSö, ‘officers’ or ‘captains.’ In the time of Tºlº the Šutº who was sent to Tyre as rab-saki received tribute from Métenna of that city, from which it may be con- cluded that the Rab-shakeh or Rab-saki was a military officer of high rank, regarded as possess- ing some ability as a diplomat. The Rob-kisir, ‘chief of a force,” also often bore this title (tablet K 1359, col. i. 36, ii. 7, 10, iii. 1, iv. 11). See Schrader, KAT” 319, 320 [COT' ii. 3, 4); Sayce, HCM 441, 442. T. G. PINCHES. RACA occurs Mt 5” only, and in its Greek form is variously spelt—paká (WH, with cod. B), paxá (Tisch. with codd. N*I)). It is the Aramaic, Nººn, a form of jū’ī ‘empty’ (Heb. pºn), the first a in the Greek being due to a Galilaean change. The X in Tischendorf's º; is, like the first x in 'AxeMöapáx (Ac l'", codd, NA), due to the assi- milation in the pronunciation of Koph to the aspirated Kaph (Dalman, Gramm. des Jiid.-Paul. Aramäisch, pp. 66, 138, 304). Raca appears to be a word of contempt, “empty,” so “Worthless,’ in- tellectually rather than morally, like the worthless (pin), empty-headed fellows whom Abimelech at Shechem hired to be his followers, Jg 9"; like the Kevös, Ja 2*, the empty-head, who boasts of a faith which is intellectual only ; or like the “ignorant,’ called by the Rabbis spºn, because, for * Cf. Dn 13, where the “master of his eunuchs' (lºng-in, LXX and Theod. &px1suvoº,0s) seems to have had charge of ‘the seed royal and the nobles,” * See Gesenius (Tregelles' tr.), s.v. Luther's translation is generally, in accordance with this, Erzschenke. 192 RACAL RACHEL example, they could not conceive how God could build the gates of Jerusalem of gems 30 cubits high and 30 cubits broad (Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus, i. 538). Obviously, as rebuked by Christ, it is an advance upon mere angry feeling (ópyºgevos), in proportion as utterance is 3. self- controlled than silence; and, on the other hand, it does not betray so complete a loss of self-control as the word of climax, the more positive uwpé, ‘fool, i.e. godless, good - despising fool, moral reprobate.” ut the precise force of Raca, as compared with that of repressed anger and of ‘fool,’ cannot be estimated apart from the gradations of court or penalty from which Christ draws His analogical illustrations; and these gradations are too readily taken for granted as historical and intelligible, even by some of the foremost commentators in England and in Germany. It is quite commonly assumed (1) that Christ uses kplots for the local or provincial court in a Jewish town or village ; (2) that such a court could try cases of murder; (3) that it could punish the murderer, but only with the sword ; (4) that the Sanhedrin (avvéöptov) alone could inflict ‘the more painful and degrading pun- ishment of stoning’; (5) that yeevva toû trupós was the valley of Hinnom, and that in it the corpses of criminals were burned, the most degrading and most abhorred punishment of all. But, as a matter of fact, there is, outside this passage itself, no trustworthy evidence for any of these assump- tions (see, for instance, GEHENNA, vol. ii. p. 119°). It is true that the Talmud may be quoted for the second assumption (cf. Samhedrin i. 4, as referre to in Schürer, HJP II. i. 154); but this evidence is shaken, first, by the extreme improbability of the statement in the light of the fact that no execution was permitted, even to the Sanhedrin, except by consent of the Procurator (cf. Jn 18”); and secondly, by the important qualification that the Talmud is often purely academic, speaking_of things that ought to be as though they were. The Talmudic passage just cited was not written down till the 2nd cent. A.D., and represents what, in the opinion of the Rabbis, ought to be the pro- cedure, and what would be in an ideal Judah under Rabbinical rule. The same statement is made by Maimonides 1000 years later, when it could not be historically true." Accordingly, it appears im- possible to estimate, with any conſidence, the exact relations of ‘the judgment,’ ‘the council,’ ‘the gehenna of fire,’ in our Lord's picture, and there- fore, so far, the exact relations of the three stages of anger. Two salient points, however, emerge like headlands out of the mist. (l) Christ hands over all anger, even silent anger, to be tried as a murderous act, to be tried (it should be added) on its merits (cf. §voxos Tū Kptoet), and not ipso facto and at once condemned. (2) Christ is no verbal Pharisee. That it is not the utterance of a word, but the spirit of the utterance, that is reprehended, is plain }. the fact that He can use divām tou, a word, like St. James's kevé, practically identical with Itaca, when rebuking the spiritual dulness of two of His immediate followers (Lk 24*). J. MASSIE. RACAL.—Amongst those to whom David is said (1 S 30”) to have sent a share of the spoil after his return to Ziklag, are mentioned “they that were pla’; but probably the last word ought to be corrected, after the LXX (év KapuffWº), toº, ‘in * It seems better to take this word as the voc. of Azapág, one of the LXX translations of măbril, ‘fool' (cf. the practical atheist of Is 329), than as a transliteration of the ptcp. Tº ‘murmuring,” “refractory,’ Nu 2010 (LXX &reſtlers), there being no evidence that the latter was a common Heb, word of opprobrium. (See Fool). # On this particular point the present writer is indebted to a private letter from Dr. Neubauer. Carmel (of Judah, Jos 15”, l S 25°). So Well- hausen, Driver, Budde, Löhr, H. P. Smith, et al. RACE.-See GAMES in vol. ii. p. 108. RACHEL, once (Jer 31* AV) Rahel" (ºr ‘a ewe,” Gn 31* al.; "Paxºx; Rachel).-The younger daughter of Laban, whom Jacob, arriving at Haran (Gnº)**), meets, as she comes to water her father's sheep (v.""), at a well in the open country (V,”). Impressed by her beauty, and deeply in love with her (297-"), Jacob agrees to serve Laban for seven ears, if he may then have her for his wife; but }. at the end of the stipulated time, fraudu- lently substitutes his elder daughter, Leah, and only consents to give him Rachel as well upon his agreeing to serve him seven years more (29*). Leah, though less loved by her husband than Rachel, is blessed with four children; this arouses in her younger sister feelings of discontent and envy, and petulantly reproaching Jacob she bids him take her handmaid, É. as a concubine (cf. 16*), that she may be “built up’—i.e. (16°) obtain a family—from her (30*). Two sons, IDan and Naphtali, are born accordingly to Bilhall : the ex- planations given of their names (30" ") are meant to indicate Rachel’s recognition that God had now, at least in a measure, granted her her due, and that she had won, after her long ‘wrestlings’ with her sister, His favour and blessing. ‘The struggle of these two women for their husband gives us a strange picture of manners and morals, but must not be judged by our standard’ (Payne Smith); at the same time, so far as the temper and attitude of Rachel are concerned, it is only fair to remember that Leah was not the wife of Jacob's choice, but had been forced by fraud into what was really Itachel's own rightful place in his house. Rachel’s anxiety to have a son of her own is, however, evinced before long in her eagerness to obtain some of the youthful Reuben’s mandrakes, or love-apples (30”). At last, the long-delayed hopes are accom- plished, and Joseph is born (30”). Six years later (31*), when Jacob meditates quitting the service of Laban (31*), both wives endorse cordially his reasons for doing so (31***), and accompany him. Racliel, at once unscrupu- lous and superstitious, steals her father's teraphim (31%), hoping, no doubt, that they would bring her and her husband prosperity; 31* describes the ready wit by which she conceals the theft from her indignant father. Rachel is next mentioned on the occasion of Jacob's meeting with his brother Esau (33|-1"), when the superior affection which he still felt for her is shown by the position assigned to her and Joseph (33”" "). Her death, shortly afterwards, at the time of Benjamin's birth, soon after Jacob left Bethel, is recorded in 35" (cf. 487). She and her sister Leah are alluded to in Ru 4" as foundresses of the house of Israel, and types of wedded happiness and prosperity. Like Itebekah (Gn 24), Rachel at first (Gn 29) produces a favourable impression upon the reader: she is attractive, not only in person, but also evidently in manner and address; she stirs Jacob's deepest affections; their long and patient Waiting, followed by a cruel disappointment, enlists our sympathies; but the sequel |. that, like her aunt, she is not exempt from the family failings of acquisitiveness and duplicity. The Isr. tribes are grouped around Leah and Rachel; so it is evident that they both possess a tribal as well as a personal significance. For speculations as to what historical fººts may, from this point of view, be supposed to be represented by then, —e.g. the growth of “Israel' out of elements more or less * As regularly in the ‘Great Bible' (1539–41) and the Geneva Version (1560); Coverdale (1ſ,85) and the “Bishops' Bible' (1508), however, have regularly ‘Rachel.” RADIDAI RAHAB 193 originally distinct—see Ewald, Hist, i. 371–6; Stade, G VI i. 145ff. ; Wellh. Hist. 432; Guthe, G VI (1899), pp. 5 f., 40-42; and cf. BENJAMIN, vol. i. p. 2729, JAGod, vol. ii. p. 538 f. Rachel's grave.—In Gn 35° it is said that Rachel died when there was yet “a distance (?) of land’ (Pºst nºn?) to go to Ephrath ; and in v." (cf. 487) Jacob is said to have buried her “ in the way to Ephrath (that is Beth-lehem),’ and (v.”) to have “set up a pillar' (mazzébāh)—i.e. here, as often in Phoen. (CIS I. i. 44, 46, 57, etc.), a sepul- chral monument—“upon her grave: that is the pillar of Rachel's grave unto this º The locality must consequently have been well known when the narrative (E) was written ; and, in fact, it is mentioned as a well-known spot in 1 S 10°, and also alluded to in Jer 31* (where the prophet poetically innugines Rachel, the mother of Joseph and Ben- jamin, as weeping over the captivity of the last rennants of her nation, as on their way to exile they passed near her tomb; cf. 40').” The spot which, from at least the 4th cent.,t has been shown traditionally as the site of Rachel’s grave, is about four miles S. of Jerusalem and one mile N of J3etll-lehem ; here there is now the Kubbet Rāhāl or “dome of Rachel,’ a stone structure, of com- jaratively modern date, exactly like an ordinary Moslem ‘wely,” or tomb of a holy person, about 23 ft. square, surmounted by a dome, and contain- ing an apparently modern sarcophagus; on the E. an oblong chamber and court have been recently added.: A serious difficulty, however, arises in this con- nexion. In 1 S 10° IRachel's tomb is described quite clearly as being on the “border of Benjamin,’ i.e., obviously, the N. border between Benjamin and Ephraim, not far from $ Bethel (v.”), which was 10 miles N. of Jerusalem ; and a site in the same neighbourhood is strongly favoured by Jer 31*, where Rachel is represented as weeping at (or near) Ramah, 5 miles N. of Jerusalem. || The distance which Pnsn nºni was understood to express is uncertain ; but it can hardly (cf. 2 K. 5") have been as much as 15 or 16 miles. We seem, there- fore, reduced to one of two conclusions : either (knob., Graf, Stade, ZA W, 1883, pp. 5–8.; Riehm, H PVB 9, 1281 f.; Holzinger, al.) Ephrath, though elsewhere identified with Beth-lehem (Rºl lº 4", Mic 59), is here the name of a place near Ramah (in which case the words ‘that is Beth-lehem’ in 35*487 will be an incorrect gloss); or (Nöld., Del., Dillm.) there were two different traditions as to the site of Rachel’s grave—one tradition (1 S 10°, Jer 31*) placing it near Ramah, the other (Gn 35° 48') placing it near Beth-lehem. As lèachel has other- wise no connexion with Judah, while she is con- nected closely with Joseph and l3enjamin, the former alternative is ºp the more probable (Bull, Geogr. 159, does not decide between them). S. R. DRIVER, RADDAI ("Th; B Začğal, B* Zagóat, A "Pabóat).— The fifth son of Jesse, 1 Ch 2". RAG, RAGGED.—The words properly translated “rag’ are (1) D'yº), pieces torn off, from ynº to rend, which is trºl “rags’ in Pr23*, but in 1 K * MD 217ſ is, of course, an application, not an interpretation, of the prophecy, f. See the Itinerary of the Bordeaux Pilgrim, A. p. 833 (in the series of the Pal. Pilgrims' Teat Soc. i. 26 f.), and the pil- grimage of Paula (ib. p. 0, at the end of the vol.) in Jerome's § ad Eustochium (ed. Bened. iv. 2, 674; ed. Wallarsi, i. 002). ...A i See, further, Robinson, BRP i. 218, iii. 273; Băd.2 120 f.; PI'R' Mem., iii. 120 f. (with a view). § The terms of 1 S 102-9 hardly enable us to fix its site more specifically : see an attempt by Schick, ZI) PV iv. (1881) p. 248 f. (= P191'St., 1883, p. 111); abandoned PER'St, 1808, p. 10. | It may he worth observing that, though Jos 1818 (P) makes the N. border of Benjamin pass close to the S. of 13ethel, 1 IX 1517 Seems to imply that the S. border of the N. kingdom was at lèſumah ; see also Jg 45. VOL. IV.-I3 11*, *, 2 K. 2” simply “pieces,’ being preceded by the verb; (2) D'rºn, worn-out clothes, from [nºt] to wear out, trº ‘rotten rags’ in-Jer 38” lº, the onl lace where it occurs; (3) påkos, trº ‘rag ’ in Ad. £st 14%. In Is 64% “All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags” (Bºy Tºº), the word trº “rags” (73%) is simply ‘clothing,’’ ‘a garment’ (‘from the filth clothing of the leper to the holy robes of the i. priest’–0a;f. Heb. Lea.); RV as a polluted gar- ment.’ The specific allusion here is to a vestis menstruis polluta ; cf. Is 30°. The root meaning of the Eng. word “rag’ is neither ‘torn” nor ‘worn, but rough, shaggy (Swed, ragg or rugg, rough hair), whence the adj. ragged was used as we now use ‘rugged” in the sense of jagged, applied to rocks, etc. So in AV Is 2%. ‘the tops of the ragged rocks’; and Sir 32 * “Of a ragged and a smooth way.” Cf. Shaks. Itich. II. V. v. 21— “How these vain weak nails May tear a J.; through the flinty ribs Of this hard world, my ragged prison walls.” And Milton, L'Allegro, 9– “There, under ebon shades and low-browed rocks, As ragged as thy locks.’ tº J. HASTINGS. RAGAU.-See following article. RAGES ('Páyot [N in To 9°. "Páyal] ris Mm6tas).— Now Rai near Teheran. The city, whose ruins occupy a space about 4500 yards long by 3500 broad, gave its name to Media Ragiana, and commanded the approach to the Caspian Gates. The size and thickness of its walls, and the number of towers with which they are flanked, must have made it one of the strongest fortresses of the Persian em- º According to the Vendidad it was colonized by the advancing Aryans after they had left Hyrcania and before they reached Khorassan, and it was there that they were mingled with two other races and so first came into contact with heretics. An old tradition asserted that Zoroaster was born there (see de Harlez, Introduction & l'étude de l'Avesta, Paris, 1882). In the Behistun Inscription Darius calls it Ragá in Media, and states that the Median pretender Frawartish or Phraortes fled to it after his defeat ; he was, however, captured, and after being tortured was sent to Ecbatana to be impaled. At a later date Alexander passed through it in pursuit of Darius Codomannus, eleven days after }. Eclatana. It was rebuilt or enlarged by Seleucus I., who gave it the name of Europus (Strabo, XI. xiii. 6), which was supplanted by that of Arsacia after the Parthian conquest. In the age of Isidorus (§ 7) it was still ‘the greatest city in Media.” In Strabo and Arrian the name appears as Raga: ; Ptolemy (vi. 5) makes it Ragava. - Rages is often mentioned in the Bix. of Tobit. Tobit left there ten talents of silver (14 4"), and Tobias, accompanied by the angel Raphael, started for Rages in quest of this deposit, which was finally recovered by the angel (5° G". 9°). Accord- ing to Jth 1". " Ragau ("Payag, evidently another form of Rages) was the scene of the decisive battle in which Nebuchadnezzar ‘king of the Assyrians’ defeated and slew Arphaxad the Median prince. It is possible that in the story of Arphaxad we have a distorted reminiscence of the overthrow and capture of Frawartish. A. H. SAY.C.E. RAGUEL.—1. The AV form (LXX Payou?)), in Nu 10”, of REUEL. See Holy AI, and JETHRO, 2. The father of Sarah, the wife of Tobias, To 37.17. 18 14*. The name, which is the same as the IHeb. Ičewel, occurs as that of an angel in Enoch xx. 4. RAHAB (HIT), "Pad 3).-The heroine of the ad- 194 RAHAB RAHAB venture of the spies sent by Joshua to ascertain the strength of Jericho and the feeling of the people there. The story of her reception of the two young men, and the clever devices by which she hides them, contrives their escape, and baffles the pursuit ordered by the king of Jericho, is told in Jos 2, assigned by critics to JE (vv.” ” D*), and exhibiting aſ the ense and grace of that narrative, all its power of delineating life and character. A few lively touches bring the whole scene vividly before us, and suggest much that is not told in detail. We see the house on the wall, probably near the gate of the city, and convenient for resort, certainly convenient for escape. On the roof are drying stalks of flax, an indication of the inmate's busy toil, possibly of a particular trade. Here she dwells alone, but she has a father and mother, and brothers and sisters residing in the town. She is a harlot, for the word nºt applied to her (LXX Trépum; Vulg. meretria) refuses to be softened down to “innkeeper’ (Josephus, Chrys., Chald. WS), but she may have combined with this unhappy calling the more honourable occupation of weaving and dyeing. She had evidently been brought into Communication with the outside world, and had heard of events going on beyond the Jordan, which had caused the terror of Israel to fall upon the inhabitants of Canaan. She was convinced that the God of the Hebrews would open a way for His people into Jericho. In this belief she obtained a promise from the spies of protection for herself and family in return for her help. A scarlet line hanging from the window by which they had escaped was to be the sign that the house, with all its inmates for the time, should be spared. The Israelites would be guiltless of the blood of any member of Italiab's family caught outside the house. Joshua kept the agreement to the letter (Jos 617. 9°. *-*), and the narrative states ‘and she dwelt in the midst of Israel unto this day.” “A nation's gratitude long preserves the names of those who by opportune information open for a besieging host the path to victory’ §. who cites a parallel instance soon to follow, Jg 122-28, and illustrates from profane history, III ii. 247, Eng. tr.). In fact the conduct of lèahab was recognized with gratitude and kept long in memory by Jew and Christian alike. Accord- ing to a rabbinical tradition she married Joshua himself, and became the ancestress of seven prophets (ſlightfoot, Hortſ: Heb. ad Mt 15). Christian estimates of her worth are even more remarkable. One NT writer places her in the roll of the heroes of faith (IIe 1191), another quotes her as justiſled by works (Ja 229). Clement of Rome declares she was saved through her faith and her hospitality, and claims for her the gift of prophecy, since the scarlet line foretold redemption by the blood of Christ (ad Cor. i. 12). The same allegorical interpretation is assumed by all ancient ecclesiastical writers (see Jacobson, Pat. Ap., who cites Just. Mur. T'r/ph. cxi.; Iren. iv. 20. 12; Origen, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and Theodoret). None of these writers, any more than the NT, think it necessary to change ‘harlot,” into “innkeeper' with Josephus and Chry- sostom. Irenasus, in his reference to her, recalls how publicans and harlots were admitted into the kingdom of heaven. We know nothing of lier after-conduct, but we may well believe that the faith which an apostle could praise was accompanied by a true conversion. As to kahab's lie to the king, and her betrayal of her own countrymen, all that necd be said is, that while neither can be approved, both may be extenuated by her situation. The most interesting question in connexion with this woman arises from the mention of a Rahab ( Pax48) in the genealogy of Mt 1” “And Salmon begat IBoaz of IRahal)' (RV), which thus makes her an ancestress of our Lord. The patristic age seems to have taken the identification with Rabah of Jericho for granted. Ibut in the 11th cent. Theo- hylact could write, “There are some who think tachab to be that IRahab the larlot who received the s] ics of Joshua, the son of Nave.’ A Dutch professor, G. Outhov, urged difliculties in the wa of identification (in the Biblioth. Brem. hist. philol. Theol. ch. iii. p. 438), and was answered by Wolf (Cur. philol. et crit. in Mt 1"). That the 'Padg of the —— LXX and of Hebrews and James should be "Pax48 in Matthew appears at first improbable. But the latter has the support of Josephus, who always speaks of Rahab as h "Paxá8m. A second objection would be more serious if it rested on the mention of Rahab alone, but it is a chronological difficulty not affected by the question of her identity, and may therefore be dismissed here. . There is no improbability in the marriage of Rallab to Salmon son of Nahshon (Nu 7”, l Ch 21°) (see Alford on Mt 1°). The difficulty arises from the names Boaz, Obed, Jesse being made to bridge the interval between Rahab and David. LITERATURE. —In addition to authorities already cited, see Bengel, Lightfoot, and Olshausen on Mt. 10; Mill, Descent and Parentage of the Saviour; Patrick, Grotius, Hitzig, ICeil, Dillmann, and Steuernagel on Jos 2 and 6 ; Schleusner, Lea. NT', 8.0. 76py”. A. S. AGLEN. RAHAB (257).-A mythological and symbolical term meaning ‘the raging monster,’ ‘the impetuous one,’ which occurs 6 times in OT (RV). As a verb, ann is found twice in Qal: Próð ‘importune thy friend’ (AV “make sure' [Toy remarks that “importune is hardly strong enough; beset, besiege, assail better express the inpetuosity involved in the Heb. term ']; LXX ºrczpoºvvs 769 ©ſaoy orov); Is 36 ‘the child shall behave himself proudly (Cheyne, PB, ‘the boy shall be insolent'; LXX ºrpáczoºs ré rozºiov); and twice in Hiphil: Ca 60 “thine eyes have over- come me' (RVm “make me afraid' [so l8udde, setzen ºnich in Schrecken) ; AVm “have puffed me up'; Duhm, vegem anich auf [so Siegfried-Stade, erregen (geschlechtlich)); LXX &vºršowoºv as ; but it is very doubtful whether these last three renderings are possible; probably ‘confuse’ or ‘perturb’ (Syr. ºOOl }} is the meaning, see Driver, LOTC 440 m.); Ps 1389, “Thou didst encourage me' (Driver, Par. Psalter, “Thou makest me proud’; LXX roxvop/rsis ºs).-The noun Hºh is used in Ps 9010 (only) ‘their pride’ (AV, following Kinnghi, interprets the root here falsely in the sense of “strength' (so in Is 307 and Ps 1388); LXX +3 raiſov «Vrây (by confusion with D7"), and the adjective 357 (in plur.) in Ps 40(+)" [only] ‘the proud’ (LXX Axo~216tarcºs). 1. The first occurrence of nºn we shall examine is Job 919 am ºnly ºnly "EnE \Ps aw:"Nº mºs; LXX B abrós yūp diréatpatrrat 6pyńv, Ütr' attoo €kápºpômoav Kºrm rò Vir' owpavāv; 13W ‘God will not withdraw his anger, the helpers of Rahab [m. ‘or arrogameſ/, see Is 307’] do [m. “ or did?] stoop under him '; AV ‘(If) God will not withdraw his anger, the proud helpers [m. ‘Heb., helpers of pride or strength,’] do stoop under him.' . The meaning distinctly appears to be, ‘God withdraws not his anger, (till it has accomplished its purpose); even the helpers of Italiab bowed [note the perf. *nt W, referring to some definite occasion] under him ; how much less can I (Job) stand before him.’ What now is the allusion ? There can be little doubt that it is to the mythical conflict in which the Creator was said to have vanquished the supposed primeval dragon of the deep. This myth is most familiar to us in the Babylonian Creation-epos, where there is a very detailed account of the victory of Marduk over Tiāmat (cf. tº hôm, Gn 1*) and her eleven ‘ helpers’ (see art. BABY LONIA in vol. i. p. 220" f.; Sayce, HCM 63 ff.; Ball, Light from the East, 2 ft.). From the use of Rahab for the raging Sea monster (who appears, in certain forms of the myth current amongst the Jews, to have been thought of not as finally destroyed, but as imprisoned in the sea, and destined to be slain at last by Jahweh’s sword, Is 271; cf. the Egyptian myth of the defeat of the serpent Apopi) the transition is easy to the appli- sation of the term to the sea itself. So in 2. Job 261°, where, however, the same mythological allusion underlies the two parallel clauses, “He quelleth the sea with his power, and by his understanding he smiteth through Rahab’ (nºn Prº injīān; D F 91, m3; ; LXX B taxiſ, karétravaev Tiju 0áAaaaau, 67tatiºn 6é gorporal rô Kåros); IRV. ‘He stirreth up.. [m. on stilleth’] the sea with his power, and by his under standing he smiteth through Italiab’; AV (Wrongly) RAHAM RAIN 195 “He divideth the sea with his power, and by his understanding lie Smiteth through the proud’ [m. “Heb. pride’). Cf. Ps 74”-19. 3. Very similar is Is 51% ºf nºhn ann nayſºn nºn-hs sº ; LXX B oë at et # épmuojaa 0áNagorav, Ü6wp &GWagov TXà00s; RV ‘art thou (Sc. the arm of the LORD) not it that cut Rahab in pieces, that pierced the dragon ?’; AV ‘art thou not it that hath cut Rahab and wounded the dragon ?’ The reference here appears to be to the destruction of the Egyptians, under the figure of a monster (see SEA MonSTER), at the Red Sea (cf. v.” ‘art thou not it which dried up the sea, the waters of the great deep; that made the depths of the sea, a way for the redeemed to tº ºver ??). 4. One other parallel to this is PS 8919(*) nni)". Hºx ann ºn: ; LXX at érarelvogas &s tpavuartav Vrepā- qavov; AV and RV ‘Thou hast broken l{ahab [m. ‘or Egypt’] in pieces, as one that is slain.” The mean- ing of this clause is interpreted by what follows, ‘Thou hast scattered thine enemies with the arm of thy strength,’ and this again by the preceding verse, “Thou rulest the pride of the sea; when the waves thereof arise, thou stillest them.” There 'may be a veiled allusion to Egypt here, as in Is 51°, but such a conclusion is not necessary. 5. In our next example the epithet Rahab is applied to Egypt, Is 30' insºn jº ny: pº) ºn tº n; Dº nºn nsiº ; LXX Alyºrriot uérata kal kevä dºexffa'ova-tu Üpas' diráyyetNov attois &rt parala h arapé- k\mats juáv airm : RV ‘for Egypt helpeth in vain and to no purpose ; therefore have I called her Rahab that sitteth still' [lit. (Ges. $ 141 c) ‘Rahab, they are a sitting still J. Driver (Isaiah. ”, “Men of the Bible” series, p. 59 m.) takes Itahab as a poetical title expressing ‘the idea of inſlation and pride.’ So Cheyne (Prophecies of Isaiah”, i. p. 17.2) speaks of it as expressing the “boisterousness’ or “arrogance of the Egyptians as a people; he cites Pliny’s description of them as ‘ventosa et insolens natio.’ Isaiah declares that the name Rahab had better be changed to Shébeth (‘sitting still,’ “inaction'); Egypt is a blustering do-nothing, Prompt with high-sounding promises, but utterly incapable of carrying these out. If this passage belongs to Isaiah, and if the MT be correct (but see Cheyne, SBOT', ‘ Isaiah’ ad loc., and Intro. to Is. p. 253; Budde on Job 9”; and Gunkel, Schöp- fung und Chaos, p. 39), it is probable that no mythological allusion underlies the passage, but that nºn simply means “boastfulness’ though with allusion to leathab as a name of Egypt. 6. Either through the influence of this passage, or more probably owing to a conception of Egypt as akin to the mythological sea monster, because lying ensconced amidst its rivers and canals (cf. Ezk 20°), Rahab appears as a designation of Egypt in Ps 87° $37, annºs; LXX up mathgoua, ‘Pađg Kai Bağv\óvos ; AV and RV ‘I will make mention of Rahab (RV m “or Egypt’) and Babylon as those that know me.” Guñkel (Schöpf, u. Chaos, 40) finds an allusion to Rahab also in Ps 40” (!) ‘Happy is the man that maketh the LORI) his trust, and respecteth not the proud (réhélbim).’ LITERATURE.-The Comm. on the above cited Scripture pas- Sages, esp. 1)illmann, Davidson, Budde, and Duhm on Job, l\ill- mann, Delitzsch, and Cheyne on Isaiah, and Delitzsch and Duhm on 1’salms; Cheyne, Job and Solomon, p. 75 f., ‘Isaiah' in SBOT', 102 f., PJS 156 f., 205 f., and his art. “Dragon' in Encyc. Bibl.; Gunkel, Schöpy'ung und Chaos, passim, esp. p. 30ſ. J. A. SELBIE. RAHAM (prºn ; B 'Pápée, A Páept, Luc. ‘Páap). — A descendant of Caleb, 1 Ch 2". RAHEL.—See RACHEL. RAIMENT.—The early subst. ‘arrayment” was often in middle Eng. spelt “araiment,’ and the a dropping oſſ left ‘rainent,’ which is found as early as Piers Plowman. Raiment, being treated as a mere synonym of ‘apparel,’” is used in AV to translate many Heb. and Gr. words, which are often plu. (as rô luória, Mt 17° 27°), Mk 98, Lk 72, 23*, Jn 19” etc.), the word having a collective force. Occasionally, however, it was used in the singular and in the plural : thus, Ezk 92 Cov. “There was one amongst them, that had on him a lynninge rayment’; Ps 1097 Pr. Bla. “He clothed him self with cursyng lyke as with a rayment.” Also Ex 39” Tind. “His sonnes ray- mentes to ministre in ’; Hall, Works, i. 818, “He sends varietie of costly rayments to llis Father.’ See DRESS. J. HASTINGs. RAIN (npp is the usual Heb. term. Prº [in Jl 223 Ps 847 Tºp] ‘the early rain,’ falling Oct.–Nov., is opposed to cºpºp ‘the latter rain,’ from March to April, Dt 11”, Jer 5*, Hos 6°. Dºg, a burst of rain, is sometimes used, e.p. of the heavy winter rains [cf. Driver on Am 47; G. A. Smith, HG III, 64]. The NT terms are Verós and 8poxià [only Mt 7*.*). —In the beautiful Fº s 55* * We have an expression of the blessing accompanying rain in Eastern countries, not so much appreciated in our own humid climes. In l’alestine the fruit- fulness of the soil, the supply of the springs and rivers, the pasturage for the flocks and herds, indeed life itself, is dependent on the fall of the “former and the latter’ rain. The descent of ain is used as an illustration of the blessings following upon the spread of the kingdom of Christ (Ps 72%. 7); while the presence of clouds and wind without rain is likened to a man ‘who boasteth himself of his gifts falsely ’ (Pr 25” RV). Rain in harvest time was regarded as phenomenal and portentous (1 S 1217, Pr 26"). In Palestine nearly the whole of the rainfall of the year occurs in the winter months, or from November to March inclusive ; during the re- maining months the rain is slight and intermittent. In the rainy season the falls are usually heavy, and are accompanied by thunder and lightning, while the wind comes from the W. or S.W. Northerly and easterly winds are generally dry. Snow falls on the tableland of western Palestine and of Moab, and to a greater depth in the Lebanon, but is almost unknown along the seaboard of Philistia. and the plain of Sharon ; on Sunday night, 20th January 1884, snow fell to a depth of 2 ft. and upwards around Jerusalem ; ; this is mentioned only in order to dispel the general belief that snow never falls on the #. City. Conder disputes the view that the seasons in Palestine have changed since OT times.S He says, ‘As regards the seasons and the character and distribution of the water-supply, natural or arti- ficial, there is, apparently, no reason to suppose that any change has occurred ; and with respect to the annual rainfall (as observed for the last ten years ||) it is only necessary to note that, were the old cisterns cleaned and mended, and the beautiful tanks and aqueducts repaired, the ordinary fall would be quite suſlicient for the wants of the inhabitants and for irrigation.'" While this is doubtless true, there can be no question that * As the AV translators varied their language as much as possible, wo find three different renderings of the one word $ort);,& in Ja 22.3 : “in goodly apparel' (iv šollar. Accºrpº), ‘in vile raiment’ (iv fivrogº follºr), and ‘the gay clothing ' (rºy $ortſ; to: Tºv Azºrpa v). RV has ‘clothing' throughout here. # The connexion of the rainfall and direction of the wind is not very well known, though undoubtedly the S.W. wind is the most humid. f Mount Seir, Sinai, etc. 170 (1885). § Tent-Work in Palestine, ch. xxiv. 334. | From 1870–1880. * I b. p. 366. On the other hand, Trist ram appears to consider that the rainfall has diminished since the time of the Crusaders, Land of Israel 9, 310. 196 RAINBOW RAKEM during the ‘Pluvial period,” which extended from the Pliocene down through the Glacial into the commencement of the present or ‘Recent' epoch, the rainfall must have been greater and the climate colder and more humid than at the present day, Snow now falls on the summits of Jebel Mūsa and Jebel Katarina in the Sinaitic peninsula, giving rise to the perennial streams which descend from the former of these mountains.” The following is a table of the rainfall at Jerusalem during 20 years:— TABLE OF THE RAINFALL AT JFRUSALEM FROM 1861 TO 1880. Year. Fall in Inches. Year. Fall in Inches. 1861 27:30 1871 23-57 1862 21 S6 1872 22-26 1863 26°54 1873 22-72 1864 15°51 1874 29°75 1865 18"|19 1S75 27:01 1S(30 18°55 1870 14°41 1867 29°42 1877 26°00 1S6S 29' 10 1878 32'21 1809 18°01 1879 18'04 1S70 13°30 1880 32°11 The above observations, taken by Chaplin, show how extremely variable is the rainfall in this part of Palestine ; it the amount varying between 1339 inches in 1870 and 32'21 inches in 1878; the average for these 20 years is about 20 inches; and the number of days on which rain fell varied from 33 in 1864 to 68 in 1868. The results are not dissimilar to those of the eastern counties of England north of the Thames. These results may be considered as the mean between those of the Lebanon on the north and of the Sinaitic peninsula on the south, the rainfall being greater in the former region than in the latter. Between these two Jerusalem ºpiº, a nearly central position ; and the amount of rain is consequently of an internmediate character. E. HULL. RAINBOW (nºp, rö$ov, ºpts). — No definition is needed of this familiar phenomenon, which Ezekiel describes (1*) as ‘the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain '; and no explanation is called for of the optical laws according to which it is pro- duced. The Scripture references to the rainbow are few, and, with one exception, comparatively unimportant. They allude, as a rule, to its bright- ness, or to the brilliance of its colours. In Ezekiel’s vision (l.c.) it is the glory of God that is likened to the appearance of the rainbow. In Sir 4311’ 12 the beauty of the rainbow is given as a reason for º: God who has made it, and whose hands have stretched it out. In Sir 507 the high priest Simon, the son of Onias, is compared to the rain- bow among other glorious objects. In one of the visions of the Apocalypse (IRev 4”) there is “a rain- bow round about the throne, like an emerald to look upon,' and in another (10') there is an angel with ‘the rainbow upon his head.” The most in portant of the Scripture allusions to the rainbow is that in Gn 9”, where it is intro- duced at the close of the story of the Deluge as a token of the covenant in which God promised that Iſe would never again destroy the world by a flood. The passage as it stands is capable of two interpre- tations. ft ma convey either (a) the unscientific idea that the rainbow was created after the Flood, or (b) the idea that the rainbow, already created, was then appointed to have a new significance as a symbol of mercy. Those who regard the narrative * The elevation of Jebcl Môsa is 7373 feet ; that of Jebel IQatarina 8551 feet. # “On the Fall of Rain at Jerusalem,' by J. Glaisher, PEI'St, Jan. 1894, p. 39. as strictly historical, can of course adopt only the latter of these views. But when we take into account such considerations as those given under l'LOOD (which see), it seems best to regard the whole story of the Deluge, including that of the rainbow, as a piece of Semitic folk-lore, which, under the guidance of Divine inspiration, “assumed a Hebrew complexion, being adapted to the spirit of Hebrew monotheism, andſ made a vehicle for the higher teaching of the Hebrew religion’ (Driver in Hogarth's Authority and Archazology, p. 27). In an early Sumerian hymn the rainbow is said by Sayce (Ea:pos. Times, vii. 308) to be called ‘the arc which draws nigh to man, the bow (qastw) of the deluge,’ and the Čhaldaean account of the Fiod tells how- “Already at the moment of her coming the #. goddess (Istar) Lifted up the mighty bow * which Anu had made according to his wish.’ The significance of the rainbow as a token of God's covenant with men may be variously viewed. n;p and róšov (Sir 43" 507) are the regular words for the bow as a weapon of war, and the rainbow may have been regarded as God’s bow, formerly used in hostility (as in Ps 7”, Hab 39. 14), and now laid aside. Or it may have appeared to be a link between heaven and earth ; or, more probably, its suggestiveness as an emblem of hope may have arisen simply from the contrast between its beauty and brightness and the forbidding gloom of the rain-clouds. In any case, the story of the rainbow is worthy of its place in Scripture. Though poetic rather than literal, it was a beautiful and fitting vehicle for conveying to men in the childhood of the world the truth that God’s mercy glories against judgment, and is the ground of all human hope. Though the Babylonian Flood legend affords the closest parallel to the biblical story of the Deluge and the rainbow, some interesting correspondences may be gathered from the mythology of other nations. In the Iliad we find (a) the simple view of “rainbows that the son of IKronos hath set in the clouds’ (xi. 27), and (b) the conception of Iris as the personified messenger of the gods (iii. 121). In the Lithuanian account of the I'lood the rainbow is sent as a comforter and counsellor to the surviving couple. In the Edda, the rainbow (Asbrú, Bif-röst) is conceived of as a heavenly bridge which is to break at the end of the world. Akin to this, but with a biblical colouring, was the German belief of the Middle Ages, that for a number of years before the day of judgment the rainbow will no longer be SCCI1, “So the rainbow appear The world hath no fear Until thereafter forty year.” The popular tendency to connect Christian and mythological conceptions is seen in the fact that in Zante the rainbow is called ‘the girdle, or bow, of the virgin.” The extravagant theory of Goldziher, that the history of Joseph is a solar myth, is fittingly crowned by the supposition that the “bow ’ of Joseph (Gn 49*) is the rainbow (Mythology among the Hebrews, 169–70). LITERATURE.-Sayce, ‘Archicological Commentary on Genesis,' in Ea:pog. Times, vii. 308, 463; Ryle, ‘Early Narratives of Genesis,' ib. iii. 450; Nicol, Recent Archaeology and the IBible, 71; Dillmann, Gemesis, in loc.; Grimm, Teutonic Mythology, lºng. tr. 580, 731–734; Thorpe, Northern Mythology, i. 11, 12, 81, 201. JAMES PATRICK. RAISIN.—See WINE, and FOOD in vol. ii. p. 32°. RAKEM.—See REKEM. * The word rendered “bow' by Sayce (l.c. 463) is, however, very uncertain, other Assyriologists, as Zimmern (t)), Gunkel, Schöpf, w. Chaos, 427), Jensen (IVosinol. 381; R J D vi. 241), rendering “Geschmeide,” “Intaglio.' Still, this may possibly demote the rainbow (Ball, Light from the East, 40 m.). RAKKATH RAMAH 197 RAKKATH (non; B'Ouadačaké0, the -5aké6 repre- senting npº by confusion of n with 1, and the first part ofthe compound standing for non “Hammath’; A "Pekká0).—A' fenced city’ of Naphtali, Jos 19°. The later Rabbis placed it at or near Tiberias (see Neubauer, Géog. du Talm. 208 f.). C. R. CONDER. RAKKON.—See ME-JARICON. RAM (nº “lofty,” “exalted ').-1. An ancestor of David, IRu 4” ('Appáv), Mt 1* * ('Apáu, hence AV ARAM, as in Lk 399, where RV, following WH 'Appel, has ARNI). In 1 Ch 29 (‘Páu) * (B 'Appáv, A 'Apápa) he is called the brother, but in vv.” (B ‘Páv, A ‘Pág) * (B 'Apág, A. Pápa) the son of Jerahmeel. See GENEALOGY, IV. 5. 2. The name of the family (nºn) to which Elihu belonged, Job 32° (B ‘Páp, A ‘Papad, C'Apág). It is quite uncertain whether Ičam should be taken as a purely fictitious name, coined by the author of dº Elihu speeches, or whether it is that of an unknown Arab (?) tribe. In Gn 22°l Aram is a nephew of BUZ (cf. : Elihu the Buzite’), and some (e.g. Wetzstein, Knobel, Ewald) have supposed that Ram is a contraction for Aram, in support of which 2 Ch 22° is appealed to, where Ramites (nºnſ) is supposed to be shortened from Aramites (nºns, the reading of 2 K 8*); but this seems hardly likely. In the passage just re- ferred to, it is more probable that the initial N has been changed by a scribal error into T, as has happened in several other instances in the OT. Rashi, by a Rabbinical conceit, makes Ram = Abraham. J. A. SELBIE. RAM.–See BATTERING-IRAM, and SHEEP. RAMS' HORNS.—See MUSIC in vol. iii. p. 462". RAMS’ SKINS.–See DYEING. RAMAH (nylº, always with definite art. except in Neh 1198 and Jer 311”).—This word, with its warious modifications and compounds Ram, Ramah, Ramoth, Ramathaim, Arimathaea, is derived from the root ºn ‘to be lofty.’ It appears as a ‘high place’ four times (Ezk 16****). As a proper name it is used of— 1. (B Apam), A ‘Papa) One of the fenced cities of the tribe of Naplmtali (Jos 19°). It is not otherwise mentioned in OT. Robinson (iii. 79) has identified it as Rāmeh, a village on the great route between ‘Akka and I)amascus, and about 8 miles W. S.W. of § The village lies upon the southern lower cultivated slope of the moun- tain whose ridge forms a boundary between Upper and Lower Galilee, but still several hundred feet above the plain. It is a large village, surrounded by extensive olive groves, and has no traces of antiquity within or around. It is mentioned by Eusebius (Omom. 288, 9) and Jerome (ib. 146, 19), Brocardus (c. 6) and Adrichomius (p. 123). 2. ("Papa) One of the cities on the boundary of the tribe of Asher near Tyre (Jos 19°). “And the border turned to Ramah, and to the fenced city of Tyre.’ Robinson (iii. 64) considers there is no Question (and in this he is followed by Guérin, Galilée, ii. 125 f., and SPVP) that Ramah of Asher is represented by the modern village of Rámiſt. It is situated about 12 miles due east of the Ladder of Tyre, as the crow flies. It stands upon an isolated hill, in the midst of a basin with green fields, surrounded by higher hills. The south- western portion of the basin has no outlet, for its waters; which therefore collect in a shallow, marshy lake, which dries up in summer. It is a suall stone village with a few figs and olives: there are cisterns and a large birket for water- supply. There are many sarcophagi about the hillside, some of unusual size. One of the lids measured 7% feet long and 2 feet broad. Robin- son considered the remains generally “a striking monument of antiquity.’ est of Rámvia is a lofty hill called Belát, on which are extensive ruins, and remains of a temple of which ten columns are still standing. There is no trace of lèamah of Asher in any fistoricai records except the bare mention of the name by Eusebius and Jerome. Cf. Buhl, p. 231 n. 3. ("Peppa,6, ‘Papa). 2 K 8* = 2 Ch 22". In this case Ramah is an abbreviation of RAMOTH-GILEAD (which see). 4. (Papia, in Hos 5” rô Viln\4) A city of Benjamin which is possibly (see below) also identical with No. 6, the birthplace and home of Samuel, but for convenience of consideration it is taken separately. It is given in the list of 14 cities and their villages allotted to Benjamin (Jos 18*), the greater number of which have been identified north of Jerusalem. The first three are Gibeom (el-Jib, 5 miles N. N.W. of Jerusalem and 3 miles west of er-R4m), Ramah (er R4 m, 2600 feet, 5 miles due north of Jerusalem and near the main road to north), Beeroth (el- Bireh, 10 miles north of Jerusalem near main road to north). Isaiah (10”) enumerates the posi- tions that will be successively taken up by the king of Assyria, as he approaches Jerusalem after laying up his carriages (i.e. baggage) at Michmash : “They are gone over the pass : they have taken up their lodging at Geba, ; Ramah trembleth ; Gibeah of Saul is fled.” The Levite (Jg 19°), pass- ing Jerusalem with his concubine when the da was far spent, passed on to Gibeah (Tell ...}} 2 miles south of er - Râm), which was short of Ramah. The Palm-tree of Deborah was between Ramah and Bethel in the hill-country of Ephraim (Jg 4°). Beitin (Bethel) is 5 miles N. of er-R&m. From these notices it seems to follow that er. Rám is the modern equivalent of Ramah. The distance from Jerusalem (5 miles as the crow flies) accords with the account of Eusebius and Jerome (Onomast. 287, 1 ; 146, 9: 6 m. N. of Jerusalem) and of Josephus (Amt. VIII. xii. 3). After the separation of the kingdoms, Baasha. king of Israel (1 K 15”) went up against Judah and built (fortified) Ramah, “that he might not suffer any one to go out or come in to Asa king of Judah,” showing that Ramah commanded the high road leading to Jerusalem ; but Asa secured the assistance of 13enhadad king of Syria, who smote the northern cities of Israel, so that Baasha de- sisted from building Itamah, and Asa took away the stones and the timber and built with them Geba, of Benjamin and Mizpah (2 Ch 16**"). From this it would appear that Ramah was more suit- able for defence towards the south than towards the north. After the destruction of Jerusalem, Ramah is mentioned as the place (Jer 40') where the captain of the guard over those who were carried away captive from Jerusalem loosed Jere- miah from his chains. Ramall was very near to Geba, and Gibeah : see Is 10” cited above, and cf. “Blow ye the cornet in Gibeah and the trumpet in Ramah' (Hos 5°); * “The children of Ramah and Geba,” (Ezr 2*, Neh 7” [LXX Apaua). t. It was also the traditional site of Rachel's tomb : “A voice was heard in Itamah . . . Rachel weeping for her children’ (Jer 311”: cf. above, p. 103"). The Ramah of Neh 11* is, in all probability, the same place. Er-R&ºn is a small village in a conspicuous position on the top of a high white hill, with olives: it has a well to the south ; West of the * But, in 1 S 220 “Saul was sitting in Gibeah . . . in Ramah' render ‘in Gibeah . . . on the height' (Keil, Kirkp., etc., RV m), even, indeed, if we should not read, with LXX (iv Bozzo.) and II. P. Smith, “on the high place."—S. R. D. # In l Es 520 we find I(irama (K(t)ipo.º.o.) instead of Ramah. I98 RAMAH RAMAH village is a good birket with a pointed vault ; on the hill are eisterns. At Khān, er-Rám, by the main road, is a quarry; and drafted stones are used up in the village walls (SJVP iii. 155). The height of the village is about 2600 feet. C. WARREN. 5. Ramah of the South (n)} nºn-l; Bage6 (A Iapisó) Kará Alga).-‘Height of the south,’ a city of Simeon (Jos 19°), at its extreme southern limit, apparently another name for BAALATH-BEER, with which it is in apposition in this passage. It appears to be the same as Ramoth of the South (l S 30”, LXX here also has the singular, ‘Papua vörov). The verse is not contained in the pºle list (in the description of Judah), Jos 15* (after v.*); and in the transcript in 1 Ch 4**, though (v.*) baal (= Baalath-beer : LXX Baxar) is men- tioned, the alternative name ‘Ramah of the South' is not given. Nor is it mentioned by Eusebius or Jerome. Its situation is quite un- certain. It has been placed on a low ridge called Kubbet el-Baul, about 35 m. S. of Hebron, on the main route from IHelbron to Petra ; or (Tristram, 13ible Places, 23) at Kurnub, a little further to the S. (see Rob. ii. 197, 198, 202); but either identiſi- cation rests upon slight grounds (cf. Dillm. on Jos 15°; Bull, 184). 6. 1 S 119 2n 717 81 1534 161, 1917t. 22t. 201 25, 288; in 1 S 1", also, Ramathaim,” “the double eminence,’ or ‘the two IRannahs’ (Dºnpºſ : LXX in all the passages quoted (+ 19.”), except 1919. * * 20, has Appabatpu, which it also inserts in 1 S 19 after “his city’: comp. 1 Mac 11* "Papadep, [so MSS; AN corruptly ‘Patapew], Pesh. So ASOS). The birth- place, residence, and burial-place of Samuel (1 S 11 7” 28°). The question of its site is diſlicult ; and there have been many claimants for it. All that we definitely know about it is that it was on an eminence, as its name ‘Ramah' implies, and that it was in the hill-country of Ephraim, not too far either from Shiloh, the sanctuary to which the parents of . Samuel went up yearly to sacrifice (1 S 1), or from Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpah (Neby Samwil), , the places visited by Samuel in his annual circuits as judge (1 S 71%. 17). Although this has been doubted, it is also extremely difficult to avoid identifying it with the unnamed city where Saul found Samuel (1 S 9), and which is spoken of as if it were the seer's habitual residence (vv.". 18). As regards antiquity, Eusebius writes (Onom. 225, 11 ff.): ' Appa.0ep 2etſpa [as LXX]. The city of Elkana and Samuel. It lies near . Diospolis [Jerome, ib. 96, 18, adds, ‘in the district of Timnah’ (in regione Thamnitica)]; thence came Joseph, said in the Gospels to be from Arimathca.” And in 1 Mac 11” Ramathem is mentioned, to- gether with Aphaerema (Ephraim, 5 m. N.E. of Bethel) and Lº. (= Diospolis), as three toparchies which had belonged to Samaria, but were in B.C. 145 transferred to Judaea. These notices would agree with a site Beit-Rima, a village on a hill 13 m. E.N.E. of Lydda (Diospolis), and 2 m. N. of Timnah (Tibneh), proposed originally by Furrer in Schenkel’s J3ibelleavicom (cf. Schürer, i. 183), and adopted by G. A. Smith, HG IIL 254, and Buhl, 170. It is true, Eus. Says “near Diospolis’: but * “Ramathaim-zophim' (bºx D'ºpºlº) is grammatically im. possible. Of course the expression cannot mean ‘the heights of the views” (!), as the reader of Tent-Work (p. 257) is gravely informed. LXX for D'bis has 24to, showing that the final D has arisen by dittography from the following word. Read either a man of Ramathaim, a Zuphito ("Fºx; see 1 S 05) of the hill- country, of Ephraim” (Wellh, Driver, Löhr); or (though this is not the usual way of designating a person's native place in the QT), “a man of the Ramathites (D'nº-p: 1 Ch 2727), a Zuphite,' etc. (Klost., Budde, H. P. Smith). The dual ‘Rama- thaim,'...though by no means unparalleled (cf. Kiriathain, Gedeºthain), is remarkable, in view of the sing. ha-Italnäſ. ºn v. 19 And everywhere else. the word need not be understood too strictly;" and there are other passages in which the “district of Timnah’ is reckoned by him as belonging to the 8ptov Atoa tróNews (219, 84 = Jerome 92, 4; 239, 93–4 = Jerome 107, 12–14: so Timnah itself, 260, 4 = 156, 7). Beit-Rima is 12 m. W. of Shiloh, and 12 m. N.W. of Bethel, on the W. edge of the hill- country of Ephraim.t Another possible site for Ramah would be R4m- alloth, 3 m. S.W. of Bethel, and 12 m. S.W. of Shiloh, now a large Christian village, standing on a high ridge, with rock-cut tombs, and overlooking the whole country towards the W. as far as the sea (BIRP. i. 453 f.; PI'R' Mem., iii. 13). This was suggested by Iºwald (IIist. ii. 421), with the remark that its hº name, ‘the high place of God,” seems still to mark it as a place of ancient sanctity. Rām-allah has not the same §. of tradition that Beit-Rima enjoys; but (if lèamah be the city of Samuel of 1 S9) it seems to agree better with the terms of 1 S 9” “; for Rām-allah, though, if it were Ramathaim, it would be in ‘the hill- country of lºphraim (1 S 1"), might also, as seems to be implied of the city in 1 S 9 (vv.*.*, *), be regarded as being in Benjamin (cf. Jg 4*). Saul would probably, on his route home to Gibeah, pass Nº. near Iłachel’s sepulchre, on the (N.) “border’ of 13enjamin (1 S 10°), somewhere near er-Rām (No. 4), and might also ‘meet naturally men ‘going up to Bethel (v.”), whether his starting-point were Beit-Rima, or Iłóm-allah. Of other, less probable identifications, the follow- ing may be mentioned :— (1) Ranuleh. The traveller of to-day, as he journeys through the Maritime Plain from Joppa to Jerusalem, is assured by his dragoman, when he reaches Iłamleh (12 m. S. E. of Joppa, 2 m. S.W. of Lydda), that this is the Arimathiea of the Gospels. As Iłobinson (BIEP ii. 234–41) shows at length, there is no ground for this identification. Ramleh is no ancient city; it was built by Suleimán, after he had destroyed Lydda, in the 8th cent. A.D. ; and it is first mentioned (acc. to Ičobinson, p. 234) in 870 (under the form Itamula) by the monk Bernard. The name lèamleh signifies sand; and has no etymological connexion what- ever with Itamah, high. Itamleh is also in the Maritime Plain, not, like Itamathaim, in the ‘hill-country’ of Ephraim. (2) Neby Samwil, the commanding and con- º: eminence (2935 ft.) above Gibeon, 4% m. W. of Jerusalem. I’rocopius (c. 560) men- tions a monastery of ‘St. Samuel’ in Palestine (though without indicating its site); and in the Crusaders' time a church of ‘St. Samuel' was built (A.D. 1157) at Neby Samwil, which, with Moslem additions (including a minaret), remains, though partly in a ruined state, to the present day ; close by, and once probably in the nave of the church, is the cenotaph of the prophet, now a Moslem wely (cf. Iłobinson, BIRP. i. 459 f.; SP 214 f.; Tent- Work, 258 f.; PICI' Mem. iii. 12 f., 149– 152, with views). The Itamall of Samuel was identi- fied, at least provisionally, with Neby Samwil by Mr. (afterwards Sir (4.) Grove (in Smith's D13). The tradition connecting the place with Samuel is, however, very late ; and Neby Samwil is much more probably Mizpeh (I&ob. i. 460; IIG IIL 120; Bulil, 167 f.). (3). Other identifications that have been proposed are Sóba, 2n an elevated conical hill, 5 m. W. of Jerusalem (IRobinson, ii, 7–10); the Frankenberg, or Jebel l'urcidis, the ancient, Her- odium, 4 m. S.E. of Bethlehem (Ges. Thes, 1276"); er-Ram, said * Lydda, as IRobinson, Ił1&P ii. 240, observes, though 11 miles from Joppa, is said in Ac 993 to be ‘near ' to it, f Elsewhere, however (140, 25 f.; 288, 11 f.), lºus, and Jerome identify Arimathiea, with a 'Pewqi, or Renfthis, also tv ćpio, Auozaróxfos, -supposed to be the village : { "tantich, 0 m, N. of Lydda. - RAMATHAIM RANGE 199 to be a little N. of Beth-lehem, and E. of the so-called “Rachel's tomb,” but not known to Itob. (ii. 8 m.) or marked on the PEI” º (Bonar, Land of Promise, 114); Ramet el-Khalil, 1 m. N. of Hebron (van de Velde, Syr, and Paºl. ii. 50); and the two beights (‘ Ramathaim”) of 'Alia (2060 ft.) and Bireh (2080 ft.), $ m. W.S.W. of Beth-lehem—the latter m. S. of the former, out without a name on the PIEI' map (Schick, PEI'St, 1898, p. 16.f., with map). But it is incredible that any of these places can have been regarded as being in Ephrain (1 S 11); and, except the ſlrst, they are all connected with the identification of ‘Rachel's sepulchre' in 1 S 102 with the place now shown as “Iłachel's tomb,’ 1 m. N. of Beth-lehem, which (see p. 1930) seems impossible. S. I. DRIVER, RAMATHAIM, RAMATHAIM - ZOPHIM. – See I&AMAH, No. 6. RAMATHITE (ºrpººl; B 8 ex ‘Paj\, A & ‘Papua.0aios). —Shimei the Ramathite was over the vineyards of king David, 1 Ch 27”. Which of the IRamahs enumerated in art. IłAMAH is in view here, must remain uncertain. RAMATH-LEHI.—See LEIII. RAMATH-MIZPEH (ºr nºn; B 'Apagºó karð. Thu Maora mºd, A "Pauð6 . . . Maorqā),—Mentioned in Jos 13° only as one of the limits of the tribe of Gad to the north, Heshbon being the limit to the south. It may be identical with Mizpah (and Mizpeh) of Gilead (see MIZPAH, No. 1). C. WARREN. RAMESES.—See IRAAMSEs. RAMIAH (nºn “Jah is high'; 'Pawtá). —One of the sons of Parosh who had married a foreign wife, Ezr 10°, called in 1 Es 92% HIERMAs. RAMOTH.—1. In Ezr 1020 AV and IRV m read “and Ramoth' (i.e. nipº); B kai Mmutºv, A kal 'Pºud,0) for JEREMOTH (i.e. nipn) of IRV. In 1 Es 9” the name is HIEREMOTH. Jeremoth or IRamoth was one of the sons of Bani who had married a foreign wife. 2. (nips, 13A om.) A Gershonite Levitical city in Issachar, 1 Ch 6*(*), apparently = REMETH of Jos 19° and JARMUTH of Jos 21” (see artt. on these names). 3. lºor ‘Ramoth of the south' (n)} n\pi) see RAMAII, No. 5. 4. For ‘Ramoth in Gilead’ (Dt 49, Jos 20° 21's, 1 Ch 6% (80) see RAMOTH-GILEAD. J. A. SELBIE. RAMOTH-GILEAD.—A prominent city east of the Jordan belonging to the tribe of Gad, and first brought to our notice in the assignment of the Cities of Refuge, I)t 4*, Jos 20°. It was also a Levitical city, Jos 21”. In four passages, the three just mentioned and 1 Ch 6" [Heb."], all referring to this assignment, the form ‘Itamoth in Gilead' (1.2%; non [in Dt 4°, Jos 20°, 1 Ch 6" n\psi]) is used, but elsewhere it is simply lºamoth-gilead ("a nip"). Another early notice of this place belongs to the time of Solomon, and makes it the headquarters of one of the commissariat officers of that king, 1 K 4”. See, also, I&AMA II, No. 3. Although it is mentioned as a well-known city, we have no account, in the 13ible or elsewhere, of its origin. The greater its importance the more conspicuous it would naturally be ; and this we find was the case, in the wars between the Syrian kings of IDamascus and the Hebrews. Of these wars we have the fullest account of those occur- ring between B.C. 900 and B.C. 800, particularly during the reigns of Ahab, Ahaziah, Jehoram, and Jehu, kings of Israel. Although the southern kingdom sometimes acted as an ally, the brunt of these wars fell upon the Northern kingdom, since from its nearer position it was more especially interested in them than the kingdom of Judah. In one of these wars Ahab, king of Israel, was killed, 1 R 22**7, and at a later time his son Jehorani (Joram) was wounded, and was carried to Jezreel, 2 K 8*, *, in the neighbourhood of which he was shortly afterwards murdered by Jehu, who, by the directions of Elisha, had been anointed king of Israel. In Hos 6** there is mentioned a city named Gilead, about whose identity there has been diffi- culty ; but the probability is that Ramoth-gilead || is meant, the first word having been dropped, a thing well known in the history of OT double names. The Babylonian Talmud (Makkoth 96) places the Cities of IRefuge in pairs, so that those on the east of the Jordan are opposite those on the west of that river. Shechem, }. the middle one of the three west of the Jordan, should have Ramoth- gilead nearly opposite it on the east of the Jordan, and this would place its site at Gerasa, the modern Gerash. There is no reason for supposing that the Talmud in this case went out of its way to state something that was contrary to fact, especi- ally at a time when the misstatement could sq readily have cen pointed out. The main route from Shechem to the country east of the Jordan and on to Damascus is by the Damieh ford and Wädy Ajlun. A carriage road with a very easy grade could be made along this valley, and this was the route by which the Rings of Israel went back and forth with their chariots to fight the Syrians. The attempt of Ewald and Conder to locate Ramoth-gilead at Reimum in the Gilead hills has little in its favour. This place has neither water nor ancient ruins, it is not a point where a prominent city would be built, it is not on or near the road from Shechem to the east, and the military operations carried on at lºamoth-gilead could never have taken place here. Nearly the same can be said of cs-Salt, another rival for the site of Iłamoth-gilead. It has no ruins, and only a spring for water-supply, while Gerash has a large living stream running directly through the town. It ought to be stated that both these places were suggested for the site in question before the east Jordan country had been thoroughly explored. It seems now, however, that the results of moderm research should have weight above the casual observations of a former period. The testimony of Eusebius and Jerome, which frequently is of great service in determining topo- graphical questions, is in this case conflicting, for one places Itamoth-gilead 15 miles west, and the other the same distance east of Philadelphia. (1) Itamoth-gilead, if placed at Gerash, where the writer is fully convinced it should be placed, would be suitable for a City of Refuge, because it would be on the main road of that part of the country. (2) I'or the same reason, and, more- over, because it was a central and wealthy city, it would be a suitable station for a commissariat officer. (3) Here chariots could be used freely, which is not true of es-Salt. (4) This identifica- tion confirms Jewish testimony that Ramoth-gilentl was opposite Shechem. (5) It would confirm Jewish tradition that Gerash was identical with Ramoth- gilead. See a full discussion of this question in the writer's East of the Jordan, pp. 284–290. LITERATURE. — Dillmann, Genesis, ii. 269 ; Buhl, GA P 202 (both locate Rammoth-gilead in the ruins of el-Jal'atel, some 6 miles N. of es-Salt); Neubauer, Géog. du Talm, 55, 250 (inclines to identify with es-Salt); Bacdeker, Pal. 287; G. A. Smith, IIG II L 586 ft. (would locate near the Yarmuk, farther north than the usual sites); Merrill, East of the Jordan, 284 ft. ; Tristram, Land of Israel, 477, 552; Oliphant, Land of Gilead, 212; Conder, IIeth and Moab 3, 179 ft., Bible Places, ed. 1897, 394 f.; G. A. Cooke, ap. Driver, Deut. “Addenda," p. xx. SELA II MERRILL. RANGE.--To “range’ is to “set in ranks’ (the words are cognate : lºr. rang, Old Fr. reng, a row, * Possibly also in Jg 1017. t Some MSS of Luc. recension have T&Ayo Act (Gilgal). Nowack, ad loc. See 200 RANSOM RANSOM of German origin), and a “range’ is a “rank’ or ‘row.’ When ranges or ranks of men scoured a Cºuntry they were said to “range the country. That is the only use of the verb in AV, viz. in Pr 28” “As a roaring lion and a ranging bear.” Cf. Barnes, Sonnets, li...— ‘Who, like a rangying lyon, with his pawes Thy little flocke with daily dread adawes'; Golding, Calvin's Job, p. 579, ‘It is a pity to see what man is ; for he is so fraught with evill, that assoone as he hath a litle libertie given him, by and by he raungeth out on the one side or on the other, and will not hold the right way, but gaddeth astray, ye even or ever he thinke it. The subst. signifies: (1) files or rows of soldiers, 2 K 118. 19, 2 Ch 23* (* Have her forth of the ranges,’ Heb, ninjº); (2) the extent of one's rang- ing or roaming, Job 39° ‘The range of the moun- tains is his pasture’ (ºn); and (3) a grate or stove with rows of openings on the top for carrying on several processes at once, Lv 11** ranges for pots’ * * * 8 ** 3. & 3. (Bºº, RV ‘range,” RWm “stewpan’). Cf. Spenser, FQ. II. ix. 29– * It was a vaut ybuilt for great dispence, With many raunges reard along the wall, And one great chimney, whose long tonnell thence The smoke forth threw.” J. HASTINGS. RANSOM is the tr. in OT of the Heb. words nº, from nº ‘to cover,’ hence ‘to propitiate,’ ‘to appease ' (so AV and RV in Ex 30”, Job 33° 36°, Ps 497, Pr 69° 138 2118, Is 43%; and RV alone in Ex 21”, Nu 35°l. 3", 1 S 12°, where AV renders respect- ively ‘sum of money,’ ‘satisfaction,’ and “bribe'); and "TR, from 175 ‘to redeem' (so AV in Ex 21”, RV ‘redemption ).” . The verbal form T} is also occasionally rendered by ‘ransom' instead of b the more usual ‘redeem' (so AV and I&V in Is 3519, Hos 1314, and RV in Ps 6918, Is 5111, Jer 3111), and the same is true in two cases (AW in Is 51", Jer 31*) of the parallel term ‘’s. In NT the word occurs only in Mt 20% = Mk 10" (where it renders the Gr. Aºrpov), and 1 Ti 2" (where it takes the place of the rare word duriNvrpov). In both cases it is used of Christ's gift of Himself for the redemption of men. ‘The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.’ ‘There is . . . one Mediator between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all.’ For the understanding of these NT passages the OT offers us two possible conceptions, correspond- ing in general to the different Heb. equivalents of the Gr. Nūrpov. On the one hand, if regarded as taking the place of some word from the stems T15 or 9x1, it may refer to the money payments re- quired under the law to secure the release of persons from slavery (e.g. Ex 21°, Lv 25**; cf. 1 P 118, 19, Gal 3", and the passages cited under REDEMPTION). On the other hand, if taken as the equivalent of h;3 (lit. “covering,' hence “pro- pitiatory gift '-restricted, however, by usage to a gift offered as a satisfaction for a life; see art. fººds, § 6), it may denote the ransom paid by an oſtender either to man (Ex 21", Nu 3590. 34, Pr 6*) or to God (Ex 30°, Ps 497) in order to save the life which he has forfeited by his wrongdoing.: - * Elsewhere only Ps 498 (AV and RV ‘the redemption of their soul | life]’); cf. Diº p? Nu 349 m (Iſethibh) [all], RV ‘redemp- tion-money.’ # This word stands in the LXX for derivatives of nine in Ex 21909, Lv 1920, Nu 340, 48.40. 51 (cf. v.19) 1815; of 9x1 in Lv 2524. 23. Ol. 52 2731 ; for n;3 in Ex 2130a 3012, Nu 3591. 32, Pr 635 138; and for "To ‘price' in Is 4518. ; The distinction between the Heb. terms is not always main- tained, for tº: "P is virtually = n :3; see Ex 2130, Ps 497, 8, also Job 3321 if (as is probable) hºly 15 is an error for $715. Those exegetes who regard Aūrpov as suggesting MTB or ºnl, interpret Mk 10" after the analogy of 1 P 118, 19, and understand Jesus as teaching that His life is the ransom price by which He redeems His disciples from bondage (so Wendt,[Teaching of Jesus, ii. p. 226 ff.], who thinks of deliverance rom suffering and death ; Beyschlag [NT" Theol. i. p. 153], who thinks of freedom from sin). This view is possible even if we take A&rpov as the tr. of n23 (so Briggs, [Mess. Gosp. p. 111], who cites Is 43” “I have given Egypt as thy ransom,’ where the context makes it clear that the thought is of deliverance from captivity. The nº paid by J” to Cyrus releases Israel; cf. the parallel ‘Seba instead of thee'). In this case we must regard the ransom as paid to the one who holds the prisoners captive. The older interpreters, taking the figure literally, taught that Christ's death was a ransom paid to Satan. Modern exegetes either think of the * as an impersonal power, such as death (Wendt), “sin and evil’ (Briggs), or ‘that ultimate necessity which has made the whole course of things what it has been ' (Sanday, Romans, p. 86), or else, relying on the figurative character of the language, refuse to raise the question at all (cf. Westcott, Hebrews, . 296). p The other interpretation, starting with nº as a propitiatory gift offered in satisfaction for a life, makes God the recipient of the ransom. Thus Ritschl, following Ps 497 and Mk 897, thinks of the life of Jesus as a precious gift, offered to God in order to ransom from death those who were unable to provide a sufficiently valuable nº for themselves (so Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 101 ; Runze, ZWVTh, 1889, p. 148 f.; Cremer, Bib. - Theol. Wörterb. p. 594). In this case the thought is clearly of deliverance from penalty, and the nearest parallel is o be found in Mt. 26*, where Jesus compares His death to a covenant sacrifice, offered for the remission of sins upon the occasion of the establishment of the new covenant between God and the disciples. (Cf. Tit 214, He 912, 1 P 118. 19, where the combina- tion between the ransom and the sacrificial figures is clearly found). The exact meaning will vary according as we associate durl with Nûrpov alone (Cremer), or with the whole clause (IRitschl, Weiss). In the first case the comparison will be between the life of Jesus and that of the many whose place it takes; in the latter it will merely º the fact that, in laying down His life, Jesus takes the place of the disciples in doing that which they ought to do for themselves. Whichever interpretation we take, it is important not to isolate the death of Jesus from the life which precedes it. It is not the death as such which is a ransom, but the death considered as the culmina- tion and completion of a previous career of ministry. This is clearly shown by the preceding context, ‘The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.’ We have here the same combination of suſlering and service which meets us in the OT in the Suffering Servant of Is 53. It is clear, there- fore, that the gift of which our Lord speaks should not be confined to the death on the cross, but in- cludes also His ‘entire Person and service which He gives in ministry’ (Briggs, p. 111 ; so Weiss, Wendt). It is to be noted that while Mk 10" speaks of the life of Christ as given for many, 1 Ti 2" gives the ransom a universal significance: “Christ Jesus . . . who gave himself a ransom for all.’ See, further, under REDEMPTION, SALVATION. LITERATURE.—Ritschl, IRechtf, wmd Wors. ii. pp. 68–88; Runze ŻWTh, 1889, p. 148ff.; Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 74 [Fºng. tr. p. 101), Beyschlag, Newtest. Theol. i. p. 149 [Eng, tr. i. p. 152]; Wendt, Lehre Jesu, ii. p. 509 ft. (Eng. tr. ii. p. 220 ft.); Creme, Bibl.- RAPE RAVEN 201 Theol. Wörterb. 8. Aérpov ; Westcott, Hebrew8, 229 f.; Briggs, Mess. Gosp. p. 110ff. ... For similar ideas annong the later Jews, cf. Weber, Jüdische Theologic, p. 813 ff. W. ADAMS BROWN. RAPE.-See art. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS in vol. i. p. 522°. RAPHA, RAPHAH.—1. In RVm these names are substituted for ‘the giant” in 1 Ch 20". " " (NBTE) and in 2 S 2116, 18. * * (Hºn) respectively. It is there said that certain Philistine champions, slain by David's heroes, were born to the rāphāh in Gath. The word is certainly a common noun, and not a proper name. If used individually, * the iant' is probably the Goliath whom David slew. But more probably the noun is a collective, and denotes the stock of the giants, rather than any one person. The plural of this word, or at least a plural of this stem, is REPHAIM (which see). 2. For Raphah (AV Rapha), a descendant of Saul, l Ch 8”, see REPHAIAH, No. 4. W. J. BEECIIER. RAPHAEL ($857; LXX "Paqaj)\, “El has healed’) 1s not named in the Hebrew Scriptures, and in the LXX only in Tobit. His functions may best be learned from his own words in To 12*, where, combining the different versions, we read, ‘I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who stand and serve before the throne of God’s glory, present- ing the prayers of saints. I brought the memorial of your prayers and tears before the Holy One. When thou didst bury the slain, I was with thee; and now God hath sent me to heal thee.” On this passage we would observe : (1) The ‘seven angels,' of whom Raphael declares himself one, were prob- ably Raphael, Gabriel, Uriel, Michael, j. Hanael, and Kepharel. We read in Rev 8° of ‘the seven angels who stand before God’; and in 14 of ‘the seven spirits who are before the throne’ (but this passage is understood by most expositors to refer to the Holy Spirit, cf. 5"); and ‘which are sent forth into all the earth,’ 5". (2) These seven are the archangels, the princes of the angelic host. They stand near the throne of glory, and were conceived to be the only angels who are permitted to enter within the ladiance. Gabriel describes himself (Llº 1") as one that “stands in the presence of God.” (3) The doctrine of Divine aloofness, which was pushed to extreme lengths in late Judaism, has, here in Tobit, reached thus far, that God does not Himself hear prayer. He was thought, as Epicurus also taught, to be engaged in higher pursuits. Prayers which by their importunity or worth reach heaven, are heard by the angels of the Presence, and are carried to the throne by them, and then they are commis- sioned to execute the answer. There is no clear evidence in Tobit that prayer was presented to the angels; though Cod. B in To 3" almost implies this, where we read, ‘The prayer of both was heard before the glory of the great Raphael.” All the other versions read ‘before the glory of God.” The Book of Tobit does not assign to Raphael any inter- cessory mediation. He is simply a messenger, reporting to the Ineffable mán's prayers and tears, cf. A c 10”, Rev. S". (4) Raphael served holy men as a guſtºdian angel. , When Tobias was in danger of losing his life for burying Jews who had been massacred in Nineveh, Raphael ‘was with him,” lº lim. But the unique feature of the ook of Tobit is that Raphael is said to have assumed a human form, claiming to be a kinsman of Tobit, and travelling as guide with him from Nineveh to Ecbatana. While the wedding festivities of Tobit and Sarah were being celebrated, Raphael went forward to Rages in Media, for the money which Tobias had, years before, deposited with his friend Gabael, and eventually Raphael brought the bridal pair safe home. Before taking his leave Raphaël assures Tobias that when he seemed to them to eat and drink, they were under an illusion, To 1219. (5) The chief claracteristic of Raphael was as a healer of men's maladies. Tobias, the father of Tobit, was afflicted with leucoma in the eyes; and Sarah was possessed by the demon Asmodaeus, who had, on the first night of marriage, slain seven husbands who had been married to Sarah. By the fumes of the heart and liver, of a fish burnt on embers, Raphael instructed Tobit how to expel the demon, and to use the gall of the same fish to cure Tobias’ blindness. In Enoch 10 Raphael and Michael both receive a commission from God to punish the fallen angels, who had married human wives. The reason why Raphael was bidden to cast the angels into cavities, and cover them for ever with rugged stones, was, that he might heal the earth, which had been defiled by the enormities of the ‘watchers.’ Jewish tradition names Raphael as the third of the angels who appeared to Abraham in Gn 18, his duty being to impart to Sarah “strength to conceive seed," cf. He l ſit, Ro 419. The Midrash speaks of a Book of North (see vol. iii. p. 557"), which was one of the earliest treatises on medicine. The origin of this book is said to have been that after the Flood men were afflicted with various diseases, and God sent the angel * to disclose to Noah the use of curative plants and roots (Rönsch, Buch der Jubiläen, 385 f.). Thus was Raphael true to his name, “El has healed.’ J. T. MARSHALL. RAPHAIM (A ‘Paqatv, N. Paqaelv, I8 on.).-An ancestor of Judith, Jth 8*. RAPHON ("Paqºv).-A city in Bashan, ‘beyond the widy’ (Trépav roſ, Xetuáppov), near which Timo- theus sustained a defeat at the hands of Judas Maccabaeus (1 Mac 5”). It is no doubt the Raphama, of Pliny (HN v. 16), but the site has not yet been identified. C. R. CONDER. RAPHU (Rºn ‘healed ”; “Paq,00).-The father of Palti, the spy selected from the tribe of Benjamin, Nu 139. RASSES (BA ‘Pacaels, N. 'Paaga'els, Lat. Cod, corb. and Vulg. Tharsis [=Tarsus], Old Lat. Tyras ct Iºasis, Syr. Thiras (Gn 10°) and Raamses (Ex 1")). —Among the peoples which Holofernes subdued are mentioned “the children of Rasses’ (Jth 2*). Some think the Vulg. Tarsus is original, the Greek a corruption, the Old Lat., and Syr. a union of the two. Fritzsche suggested Rhosos, a moun- tain chain and city south of Amanos, on the Gulf of Issus. Ball adds the possibility of Rosh (Ezk 38% 8 39'). Eastern Asia Minor seems to be the general region which the connexion suggests. F. C. PORTER. RATHUMUS ('Pá0vuos), ‘the story - writer’ or ‘recorder,’ l Es 2'". 17. *, *, is the same as ‘Rehum the chancellor’ of Ezr 48-9. 17. *. The LXX of Ezra, has merely transliterated the Aramaic title; 1 Es has either taken it as a proper name (kal BeéXte000s, *), or trº' it as a title (6 [ºypéqiaov] Tà trpootſtrovta 7), or combined both these render- ings (*). See BEELTETHMUS, CHANCELLOR. RAVEN (any 'drébh, kópaš, corvus, Arab. ghurāb). —Both the Heb. and Arab. roots mean ‘to be black.” The Arab, root also contains the idea of leaving home. From these two meanings the raven has come to be a bird of specially evil onen to the Arabs, who attribute to his presence the worst of presages of death and disaster. They are especially superstitious about the ghurāb el. bém, . they say is m.wrked with white on his 202 RAVEN, RAVIN REBERAH black coat, or has a red beak and legs. What bird is meant by these descriptions is not quite clear. It is probably fabulous. . The raven is the first bird mentioned by name in the Bible (Gn 87). The Heb. implies that the raven went out and stayed, probably feeding on carcasses. The LXX and Vulg. seem to imply that it went out and stayed until the waters were dried up, and then returned. But there would have been no reason for its returning then. The raven was unclean (Lv 11”, Dt 14*). It is in part a carrion bird, and therefore uneatable. Itavens were commanded to feed Elijah, and did so (1 K 17*"). See article ELIJAII in vol. i. p. 688". God is twice said to provide for young ravens (Job 38", Ps 147"). There is nothing especially significant in this. It is implied in the prévious and succeeding verses that God provides for other wild animals. The stories that ravens neglect their young are fabulous. The allusion to the carrion-eating propensities of ravens (Pr 30”) is true to nature. They are always found among the birds and animals which assemble around a carcass in Palestine. They, however, capture and eat lizards, hares, mice, etc. Their black colour is compared with that of the hair of the Shulam- mite's lover (Ca, 5”). They are among the ill- onened creatures which symbolize the desolation of Edom (Is 34”). Ravens are not wholly flesh: eaters. On the contrary, they are very fond of chick peas and other grains, by devouring which they do vast damage to the farmers. The term 'Orébh, as well as Kópaš, is not confined to the raven. It doubtless includes all birds after its kind (Lv ll”). Of these, besides Corvus coraac, L., the raven, there are in Palestine C. affinis, Rüpp., the Fantail Raven ; C. cornia’, L., the Hooded Crow (Arab. 240.h); C. agricola, Trist., the Syrian Rook; C. momedula, L., the Jackdaw (Arab. kák); Garrulus attricapillus, St. H., the Syrian Jay or Garrulous Roller (Arab. ‘akółk); and I’yrrhocoraa: alpinus, Koch, the Alpine Chough. Most of these eat vegetable food as well as animal, including grubs, worms, etc. To all would ºpply the words of Christ (Lk 12*) in regard to God’s provision for them, although they neither sow nor gather into storehouses. G. E. POST. RAVEN, RAYIN.—To “raven’ is to seize with violence, to prey upon with greed or rapacity, and so ‘raven’ or “ravin’ is plunder or prey. The word comes from Lat. rapina plunder, through Old I’r. Tavine, whence also Eng. ‘ravine a mountain gorge, and “rapine plunder. There is no con- nexion with the bird, the raven, whose name is of native origin, Anglo-Sax. Jurefn. The verb occurs in AV in Gn 40” (“ravin,” intrans.), Ezk 22**7 (‘ravening,’ trans.), the Heb. being Tºp to tertr as prey. As a subst. ‘ ravin’ is found in Nall 21% “The lion . . . filled, his holes with prey, and his dens with ravin’ (nºnp); and ‘ravening’ in Lk 11” “Your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness” (àpirayſ, IRV “extortion'). The adj. is either “ravening' (Ps 22°, Mt 71°) or ‘ravenous” (Is 35° 46'4, Ezk 39*). An example of ‘ravin' in the sense of ‘plunder- ing' is Udall, Erasmus' Paraph. i. 17—“Mekenesse obteyneth more of them that geve Wyllyngly and of theyr owne accorde, then violence and ravine can purchase or obtayne by hooke and croke’; and in the sense of ‘plunder,’ ‘booty,’ Spenser, I'Q I. xi. 12–- “His deepe devouring jawes Wide gaped, like the griesly mouth of holl, Through which into his darke abysse all ravin fell.” J. HASTINGS. RAZIZ ('Paſets). — The hero of a narrative in 2 Mac 14*. Nicanor, having been informed against Razis (who is described as ‘an elder of Jerusalem, a lover of his countrymen, and a man of very good report, and one called “father of the Jews” for his goodwill towards them'), sent a band of soldiers to apprehend him. He escaped arrest by committing suicide, the circumstances of which are described in revolting detail in 2 Mac. His conduct is criticised adversely by Augustine (Ep. civ. 6) in opposition to the Donatists, who admired it, as the author of 2 Mac. evidently did. RAZOR (nº ‘knife,” Nu 6, 87, Ps 52%, Is 720, Ezk 5"; Tºp ‘razor,’ Jg 13° 16'7, 1 S 111).-It is not likely that originally there was any distinction between razors and knives, the same word hyº being used in many passages for, both, but a special woºd for razor (nºp, Arab. mºts) is used in the stories of Samson and Samuel. In the above passages the LXX uniformly tr. hyº by $vpóv, and Túp by otömpos except in Jg 16” where B has alompos but A šupėv. In early times razors were probably made of bronze, as other cutting instru- ments were. In Wilkinson's Anc. Egypt. 1878, vol. ii. p. 333 note, it is said of the barber, ‘ his instruments and razors varied at different times, being sometimes in shape of a small short hatchet with recurved handle ; other instruments knife- shaped were also employed.’ Forty years ago a )eculiarly shaped razor, with a straight fixed }. was in use in Syria ; now European razors are universally used. W. CARSLAW. REAIAH (nºs. ‘Jah hath seen’).—1. The eponym of a Calebite family, 1 Ch 4° (B ‘Pačá, A "Peid), probably to be preferred (so Bertheau and Kittel; Gray [HPN 236) is more doubtful) to H.A.RoPII, 1 Ch 2* (Tshº, “the seer,’ 13 Ald, A ‘Apad). 2. The eponym of a Benjamite family, 1 Ch 5" (AV lieain : BA ‘Prixá, Luc. ‘Pata). 3. A Nethinim family name, Ezr 2*7 (B ‘Peñ\, A ‘Pata)=Nell 7" (B Pasó, A 'Paata) = 1 Es 5* JAII:US. REAPING.—See AGRICULTURE. REBA (vin).—One of the five kinglets of Midian who were slain by the Israelites, under Moses, Nu 31° ("Póðox), Jos 13” (B ‘Pöfle, A Pégék). Like his companions, he is called in Numbers a iºn (“king'), but in Joshua, a Nºw; (“prince,’ ‘chieftain'). REBECCA.—The NT and modern spelling (from the Gr. ‘Pegékka) of the name which is spelt in OT REBEKAII. The only occurrence of “Ikebecca’ is in Iło 9" (both AW and IRV). REBEKAH, in Ro 910 ItebecCA (nºn, i.e. Ribhkāh ; in Arab. a cord with loops for tying lambs or kids, from arabatka, to tie or bind fast ; LXX and NT 'Pegekka, Vulg. Rebecca). —Daughter of Bethuel, the son of Nallor and Milcah, and conse- quently great-niece of Abraham (Gn 22*, *); sister of Izaban, and subsequently wife of Isaac. The idyllic story of the circumstances through which Itebekah became Isaac's wife is told by J, in his usual picturesque style, and at the same time with stress on the providence which overruled them (vv.” ” [lit. ‘cause it to meet—i.e. happen success- fully—before me,’ so 27*) 11: 47. *, *, *, *), in (;n 24. In accordance with Eastern custom (MARRIAGE, vol. iii. p. 270), the betrothal is arranged with- out Isaac's own personal intervention : Abraham sends his principal and conſidential servant (v.”) —called in E (15*) Eliezer—to find a wife for his son, not from among the Canaanites around him, but from his own relations in ‘the land of his nativity’: the servant proceeds accordingly to Aram-naharaim, to the ‘city of Nahor’ (i.e. Haran ; cf. LABAN, vol. iii. p. 13"); as he reaches RECAH RECHAB, RECHABITES 203 the well outside the city (v.”), he prays for a sign ly which he may know Isaac's destined bride; and the Jansel who fulfils it proves to be Rebekah. Izallan and Bethuel, satisfied by the evidence of their uncle's prosperity (vv.*.*, *; cf. v.” [RV], v.”), and of Isaac's prospective wealth (v.”), and recognizing in what had happened the hand of Providence (vv.". " end, - “spoken,’ viz. _by the facts), agree to the servant’s proposal; Rebekah herself consents to return with him (v.”), and so she becomes Isaac's wife, consoling him after his mother's death (v.").” Like Sarah, Rachel, and Hannah, Rebekah was at first barren ; and her barrenness ceased only after Isaac's entreaty (25*), according to the chronology of P (25**),—20 years after her marriage. On the oracle, received by her (25*), shortly before the birth of her twin sons, see JACOB, vol. ii. p. 526. The next incident in Rebekah’s life that we read of is on the occasion of Isaac's visit to Gerar (26*"), when, fearing lest her beauty (cf. 24") might attract admirers, and his own life be en- dangered in consequence, he passed her off as his sister (cf. Gn 20 ; and ISAAC, vol. ii. p. 484"). Jacob was Itebekah’s favourite son (25°); and Gn 27 (JIS) tells of the deed of treachery by which the ambitious and designing mother, “sacriſicing husband, elder son, principle, her own soul, for an idolized person,’ secured for him his father's blessing (see more fully, on this narrative, JACOB, vol. ii. p. 527). After this, she prompted Jacob to flee to his uncle Laban, in order to escape Iºsau’s vengeance, vv.”: in the paragraph from P which follows (27*–28"), however, the motive upon which she urges his visit to Haran, is that he may obtain a wife, not, like Esau (cf. 26* * I’), from among the natives of Canaan, but from aniong Laban's daughters (see, further, ibid.). An isolated, and very possibly misplaced, notice (35°) states that Deborah, Rebekal’s nurse, who had accompanied her long before from IIaran (24*), died after Jacob's return to Canaan, and was buried below Bethel. The death of Relekall herself is not specially mentioned ; but in 49” (P) she is said to have been buried in the cave of Machpelah. S. R. DRIVER, REGAH.-In a genealogy contained in 1 Ch 4, the sor 5 of Eshton (v.”) are described as ‘the men of Ivecall ' (Hyn "gºs), a place which is not mentioned elsewhere in the OT, and is quite un- known. The LXX has B "Prixág, A Pnqiá. RECEIPT OF CUSTOM (rex®vtov, IrV ‘place of toll'), Mt 9', Mk 2", Llº 597. See PURLICAN, TAXES, TOLL. For “receipt' in the sense of ‘place for receiving,’ see Mandeville, Travels, l 12, “Men have made a litylle Resceyt, besyde a Pylere of that Chirche, for to resceyve the Offrynges of Pil- grymes’; and Shaks. Macbeth, I. vii. 66– “Momory, the warder of the brain, Shall be a fume, and the receipt of reason A limbeck only.” RECHAB, RECHABITES (nºn, '-' is, Dºnn nº (º), apº 'gºs ; LXX ‘I’mxág [B in 2 S 4". " " ‘Pekxá, in 1 Ch 2" ‘Prixá]; and ‘Apxafletv in B, 'AAxapeiv or Xapagetu in A, ‘Paxaffeiv in Q; Vulg. Rechab, Rechtbila). —I'd/ºhābh is often explained as mean- ing “a rider,’ on camels, i.e. a name for a nomadic tribe. The names nonna (of a man), SNinn (of a god), are found in Aramaic inscriptions (Lidzbarski, Nort/sem. I'pigraph. pp. 246, 369). The biblical Ičkhſtbh may be a contraction for SNinn. 1. Itechab (in Jos. Amt. VII. ii. 1, 6&vvos) ben- IRimmon the 13eerothite, a captain of one of the “bands’ following Iulibosheth. He and Baanah * Which, however, though only according to P, had taken place three to four years previously (1717 231 2520). murdered Ishbosheth, carried the news to David, and were put to death by his orders; 2 S 4” Jº (Budde). Cf. BAANAII, ISHIBOSHETH. 2. 3. Rechab in 1 Ch 2° “Hammath, the father of the house of Rechab,” and Rechab in Neh 3”, ‘Malchijah ben-Itechab,” sometimes reckoned as j. individuals, are to be identiſied with the following— 4. Rechab, Reclabites.—A clan of the Kenites, in later times, probably after the lèeturn from the Captivity, incorporated in the tribe of Judah, i.e. in the restored Jewish community in Palestine, 1 Ch 28.05. The view that the Rechabites were a religious sect, founded by Jehonadab (2 k 1019-23, Jer 35), is improbable; although Dillmann, Oehler, Schultz, etc., speak of him as ‘the founder of the Rechabites.’ It is not likely that the founder of the Rechabites would himself be described as ‘ben-ſtechab'; more- over, 1 Ch 200 speaks of Hammath (AW Hemath) as the ‘father Öf the house of Rechab." This clan is traced back (1 Ch 2*) to Hammath (nºr = “hot spring,’ LXX B Meanjuá, A. Alad.6), a descendant of Hur, the son of Caleb, i.e. a clan of the Calebite branch of the IKenites. The view of Bertheau (in loco), that Ikechab was the actual father and Hammath the grandfather of the Jehomadab of 2 IC 10, etc., is contrary to all analogy. Jos 19° (P) mentions a town IIammath in Naplit ali. As a settlement of Kenites under Heber and Jael existed somewhere in that district in the time of Deborah (Jg 475*), and the IRechab- ites belonged to the Northern Kingdom in the time of Jehu, it is possible that the Rechabites had some connexion with this town before they migrated to Judah. It is clear, however, from Jer 35 that they were a nomad tribe up to the fall of the Southeril IKingdom. Moreover, according to Rittel (SBOT), 1 Ch 2* is part of a late addition to Chronicles. The Rechabites appear in the OT on three occasions. Tirst, in the person of Jehomadab ben-ltechab (i.e. ‘ the Rechabite'), in 2 K 101*. Jehomadab showed his zeal for the exclusive wor- ship of Jehovah by associating himself with Jehu in º, fierce persecution of the devotees of Baal. Josephus reproduces the biblical narrative in Amt. IX. vi. 6, and mentions Jehomadab, but does not say that lie was a Itechabite. The second incident is narrated in Jer 35. Some time after the reign of Jellu, probably about the period of the Fall of Samaria, the Rechabites had migrated to Judah. When Nebuchadrezzar invaded Judah in the reign of Jehoiakim, the Rechabites took refuge in Jeru- salem, probably encamping in some open space within the walls. Jeremiah utilized their presence to provide an object-lesson for his fellow-country- men. Amongst other prohibitions, their clan-laws forbade them to drink wine. The prophet invited the clan under their chief, jºid ben-Jeremiah ben-Habazzinial, to meet him in a chamber attached to the temple, and offered them wine. They refused on the ground that their ‘father’ Jonadab ben- IReclab had forbidden them to drink wine, build houses, sow seed, or plant vineyards, and had com- manded them to live in tents. They stated that they had always obeyed these commands, and had entered Jerusalem only through sheer necessity. Josephus does not reproduce this incident, nor does he anywhere mention the Rechabites. The IRechabites therefore regarded Jonadab much as the Israelites regarded Moses. They traced to him their clan-law. It is not likely, however, that he originated the customs which he made permanently binding. In his time the Rechabites, of whom he was doubtless chief, were a nomad clan pasturing their flocks in the less occupied districts of the Northern Ringdom ; they and their chief were zealous worshippers of Jehovah. In the natural course of events ulley would have followed the example of the Israelites, once their 204 RECHAB, RECHABITES RECONCILIATION fellow-nomads, and settled down as farmers and townsmen. Probably the process was beginning in the time of Jonadab ; but that chief nipped it in the bud, and induced his followers to make their ancient nomadic habits matters of religious obli- gation. He had no leanings to asceticism, and his ordinances were not intended to make his followers ascetics. He forbade wine, but the term “wine’ is to be understood strictly ; there is no prohibition of any other intoxicant. His motives would be two- fold. First, the nomad regards agriculture and city life as meaner, less manly, less spiritual than his own. Jonadab wished to º his clan to the higher life. Moreover, when the Israelites surren- dered nomad life to settle on the land and in towns, they corrupted their worship of Jehovah by com- bining it with the superstitious and immoral rites of the Canaanite baals, to whom, as they thought, they owed their corn and wine and oil, Hos 2°. Recently, under Ahab and Jezebel, the worship of Baal had greatly developed. . The cultivation of corn and of the vine seemed to lead directly to baal-worship; and it would seem to Jonadab that by cutting off his people from any connexion with agriculture he would preserve the purity and sim- plicity of their ancient worship of Jehovah. Probably the Rechabites were still in Jerusalem when the city was taken by Nebuchadrezzar, and some of them shared the Captivity and the Return of the Israelites. Under stress of circumstances, they would be obliged to finally surrender their ancestral customs, so that in Neh 3” we find Malchijah the Rechabite engaged under Nehemiah in rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem. Malchijah is styled ‘ruler of the district of Beth-haccherem,” i.e. of the ‘House of the Vineyard.’ The very obscure verse 1 Ch 2° describes “The families of scribes that dwelt at Jabez’—a town in Judah— ‘the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, the Succathites,’ as ‘Kenites that came of Hammath, the father of the house of Rechab.” This points to the settle- ment of some Rechabites in late post-exilic times at Jabez as ‘scribes.” . The Vulgate regards the words rendered “Tirathites,” etc., as titles of three classes of scribes, ‘canentes atgue resonantes, et in tabernaculis commorantes’’= ‘singers, makers of an echo or of a ringing sound [? chorus], and dwellors in tents,’ but the words are proper names (so LXX), and denote three clans of the men of Jabez. The promise of Jer 35*, that because the Rechabites had kept the laws of Jonadab, “Jonadab ben-Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever,’ might lead some later Rechabites to revert to their ancient clan customs. It would also lead those who lived like other Jews to keep up the memory of their descent from the ancient 1&echabites. Jeremiah does not expressly state that the fulfilment of his promise is dependent on the continued observance of the laws of Jonadab. I3ut, on the other hand, this promise and its im- plied conditions would º lead communities or individuals which observed some or other of these laws to adopt the name ‘Rechabite,’ and to imagine a genealogy connecting them with Rechab. Thus, in modern time, a Total Abstinence Society, whose members live in houses and do not abjure corn or oil, styles itself the ‘Rechabites.’ Probably this is the explanation of the statement of Heges- ippus (ap. Eus. HE ii. 23), that “one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of Rechabim, who are mentioned by Jeremiah the º protested against the murder of James the Just, especially as Epiphanius (IIaer. lxxviii. 14) substitutes Symeon the |. of James for the Rechabite (so I. H. Perowne in Smith's DB). The name had become a term for an ascetic. A similar view explains the fact that travellers — Benjamin of Judaea, 12th cent. ; Wolff, 1829; Pierotti, c. 1860—have found tribes in Syria and Arabia claiming the name Rechabite and professing to observe the laws of Jonadab. These tribes are probably connected with the ancient Rechabites in just º same way as the Total Abstinence Society mentioned above, Moreover, as words for ‘horseman,’ ‘camel-rider,’ in Heb., Aram., and Arab., are derived from the root r}cb, it is easy to see how tribes might be called ‘Rechabites’ without any connexion, real or imaginary, with the Old Testament clan. In Ps 71 (LXX 70) the LXX has the title Tº Aaveló, viðv 'Iwuačá3 (R 'Auvačáp), kal tăv trpiórow alxuaxwrto 66wrov, “To David, of the Bné Jonadab (R Aminadam, i.e. Aminadab) and of those first carried away captive:” This title has Hometimes been adduced as evidence of the existence and im- ortance of the lèechabites in the 3rd or 2nd cont. ut the origin, text, and meaning of the title are too uncertain to warrant any such conclusion. Jonadab may be the cousin of David ; or, as the reading of lè suggests, a scribe's error for some other name. The devotion of the Rechabites to Jehovah is illustrated by the zeal of Jonadab and by the fact that all the names of individual Rechabites known to us include the Divine name Jelmovall, viz. Habazziniah, Jaazaniah, J(eh)onadab, Jeremiah, and Malchijah. It has generally been supposed that the kenites were i,j to adopt the worship of Jehovah through their association with the Israel- ites; and that the zeal of Jonadab, like that of Jehu, was inspired by the teaching of Elijah and Elisha. But recent scholars, e.g. Dudde, have pointed out the close association of Jehovah with Sinai, and of Moses with the Kenites (see JETHRO, HOBAB), and have suggested that the Israelites adopted the worship of Jehovah from the Kenites, and that the Kenites, and therefore the Rechab- ites, were by ancient practice and tradition the most devoted followers of Jehovah in Israel; hence the zeal of Jonadab. It should be noted, however, that the only direct evidence for the connexion of the IRechabites with the Kenites is the very late and obscure passage in Chronicles. As the Rechabite laws are simply the ordinary customs of nomads,-for primitive nomads the regular use of wine was impossible, it is easy to find numerous parallels to them. Probably even the prohibition of wine is not strictly and directly religious, but merely a means for preserving the nomadic life. Hence Mohammed's prohibition of wine and similar laws or taboos (cf. It S 484 f.) are not real parallels. Of others commonly cited is the statement of Diodorus Siculus (xix. 93, c. 8 B.C.), that the Nabataean Arabs forbade sowing seed, planting fruit-trees, using or building houses, under pain of death. Cf., further, JEHONADAB, JERF- MIAH, ICENITES, TIRATHITES, SHIMEATHITES, SUC- CATHITIES. 5. In Jg 119 the LXX has for “because they had chariots (reſcheb/v) of iron,’ ‘because IRechab com- manded them”; an obvious mistake. LITERATURE.—W. H. Bennett, Jeremiah acaci.-lii. p. 44 fr; Budde, Itel. of 18r. to the Jº'aile, p. 10 ſt. (for connexion of J’ with the Kenites); Dillmann, OT". Theol. p. 172; Oehler, OT Theol., Eng. tr. ii. 105; I. H. Perowne, art. ‘Rechabites' in Smith's DI3 (views of Patristic and other commentators, travellers' tales of ‘Rechabites’ in Syria and Arabia); Schultz OT' Theol., Eng. tr. i. 91, 163; Sniend, Alttest. Ratiftongesch.Ş 93 f.; IS 484 f. W. H. BENNETT. RECONCILIATION (karaXXayº). — The general doctrine of the ATONEMENT has been dealt with under that title (vol. i. p. 197), and the biblical phraseology under PROPITIATION (p. 128). The present art. is concerned with the reconciliation made by Christ between God and men ; and the question specially to be investigated is, whether it is subjective only, our reconciliation to God, or RECONCILIATION RECONCILIATION 205 wº- ºbjective also, God’s reconciliation to us. The Gr. word occurs four times in NT, Ro 511 11” and 2 Co 518, 19, and in all these places it is used objectively to describe the new relation between God and humanity brought about by the work of Christ (see Cremer, Bibl.-Theol. Lea. s.v.). This is, perhaps, most clearly seen in Iło 5” 6t' of v0w rºv kata)\\ayhy éAá8opley, “through whom we have now received the reconciliation.” The reconciliation must have been already an accomplished fact before it could be received, i.e. before faith or feeling could have anything to do with it. So in Roll” the kar. kóguov is plainly the favourable attitude of God towards the world through His turning away from Israel. In 2 Co 518; 19 the 6takovla răs karaX- Xayńs and the Aóryos rās kara)\\ayńs are the means appointed by God to bring men to a knowledge of what He has done for them in Christ. And what is that ? What is ‘the word of reconciliation'? It is “that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.” That this refers to an objective matter of fact, not a subjective state of feeling, is plain from the exhortation based on it: ‘Be ye reconciled to God.” Besides, how was God in Christ reconciling the world to Himself? By ‘not imputing unto men their trespasses.” But this was only the negative side of it. The positive is reserved to clinch the argument at the close : ‘I’or God made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in hini’ (2 Co 5*). But if this is the meaning of the reconciliation in the two most important of the passages that bear on it, the doing on God’s part of all that needed to be done to make it right for Him to receive us back into favour, -the re- conciliation cannot have respect to us alone, nor can the whole purpose of the work of Christ be exhausted in the moral effect it has upon us as a pathetic display of the love of God. Moreover, according to Ro 3*, the primary object of the work of Christ was not to display the love, but the right- eousness of God. That righteousness had been obscured by the forbearance of God in the past, and might still further be obscured in the future by His forgiving men on the ground of their faith in Jesus. They had been tempted, and might again be tempted, to doubt the reality of His wrath against sin, unless it were made clear that in forgiving it to men God had dealt seriously with it in the propitiatory work of Christ. 1. The Need of Reconciliation on the part of God. —The subject has already so far been discussed, and passages have been cited both from OT and NT ascribing anger, wrath, indignation, jealousy, and even hate to God (see art. ANGER OF GOD in vol. i. p. 97 ff.). But something may be added to what is there said of the reluctance theologians have long shown to take such passages seriously. In their recoil from the extreme anthropomorphism of fiery writers like Tertullian, they have, from Origen downwards, often rushed to the opposite extreme, and conceived of God not only as a Being ‘without parts,’ but also “without passions.” But anthroponnorphism has at the heart of it a truth of Fº worth, for man was made in the image of }od (Gn 1"), and therefore, spiritually considered, their natures are essentially akin. As we appreci- ate and apply this truth in Christology, we make it easier to see the possibility of an Incarnation. If the Divine and the human natures were dis- parate, it is hard to see how there could be a union of God and man; but if they are essentially akin, the difficulty is at least sensibly relieved. But if this help is available for Christology, it is available for Theology also. For then, what Edward White calls ‘the Buddhism of the West,’ according to which God is conceived as a 13eing of passionless repose, sublimely raised above all the fluctuations of feeling to which we are subject, gives place to a truer conception of God, more human and therefore more divine. (See the Ex- cursus on the “Sensibility of God’ in Ed. White's Life in Christ, p. 255, and Bushnell's Sermon on ‘the Power of God in Self-Sacrifice’ in The New Life). We are here concerned, however, not with the Divine sensibility in general, but with that par. ticular form of it implied in the anger or wrath of God. What is meant by that ? Our answer to the question will turn in F. on the view we take of the way in which God governs the world, and in part on the view we take of our own nature in comparison with God's. If we think that God administers a law above and apart from Himself, as a judge administers the law of his country, we must interpret all that Scripture says of His anger or wrath in some non-natural sense, for these are emotions which, even if he had them, a judge would not betray. The more perfect he is as a judge, the more carefully will º suppress them. is decisions will tell us nothing of his personal feelings, but only of his determination to tººd the law of the land. Now this is just how the great majority of theologians, from Origen and Augustine down to our own day, have dealt with the language of Scripture about the anger of God. They have taken it in a thoroughly non-natural sense, as if it told us nothing of the personal feeling of God, but only of His judicial determination to punish and put down wickedness (see Simon, Redemption of Man, pp. 223–229). But this is not how the Scrip- tures speak, and therefore we may be sure it is not the view they take of God’s relation to the world. They give free vent to God’s personal feel- ings regarding the character and conduct of men, from which we may safely infer that they did not regard Him primarily as our Judge, but as our Father, the Father of our spirits, and our Judge in virtue of His Fatherhood; for as every father is head over his own house, so is God Head over all (1 P 17). In other words, His relations to us are ersonal, and His government direct. There is no aw over and above Him, or between Him and us. The law He upholds is that of His own life, and therefore of ours, for our life is but our finite share in His. Hence His Divine displeasure, when we do anything to disturb it. It is Him and not merely ourselves we grieve, when we fall out of right relations to Him; and against Him we chiefly offend, even when we do wrong to others. ‘Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in thy sight' (Ps 51*). The nearest human analogue we have to the moral government of God is that of the family, and the best clue we have to the feeling of God when we deliberately do wrong is the bitter disappointment of a father who has loved and lived for his children, when they have rebelled against him, until the filial bond between them is strained almost to the breaking. And the Divine Rather feels it the more, because, though we may cease in spirit to be His children, He cannot cease to be our Father. He cannot consent to stand in any lower relation to us, and can only express His astonishment that we should behave as we have done. “Hear, () heavens, and give ear, O earth, for the Lord hath spoken : I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me’ (Is 1*). That is what sin means to God. Is it any wonder that He should hate it, and º with His rebellious children as He does: ‘Oh, do not this 'abominable thing which I hate” (Jor 44"). But even pathos like that will be lost on us, unless we further see what the l’atherhood of God involves, namely, that Ilis nature and ours are essentially akin, so that, allowance being made for our moral imperfection, from our own experience we may 206 RECONCILIATION RECONCILIATION safely infer His. If man was made in the image of God, a good man must be a good guide to right thoughts about God. "if a good man may be angry, so may God. A good man’s anger will never be mere blind rage, nor mere personal resentment, but as moral indignation it may rise to any height ; and the better he is, the higher it will rise, in the presence of deliberate wrong-doing. And that }. so, it were surely strange to conclude that if he were altogether perfect, his anger would entirely disappear. There would disappear from it only what łiºd it before—the smoke, but not the flame ; as we see in the one perfect Man of the whole race—the Man, Christ Jesus. Was He never angry 2 Did not He look round on His enemies ‘with anger, being grieved for the hard- ness of their hearts'? (Mk 3"). And can we con- ceive Him denouncing the hypocrites of His day in cold, unimpassioned language 2 Is not His indict- ment against them instinct with moral indignation, the fire of which we feel as we read it still ? We cannot doubt the reality of . His anger. Why, then, should we doubt the reality of God's? Was not God in Christ denouncing the Pllarisees, as well as reconciling the world to Himself? And does not the one fact go far to determine how the other should be understood 2 2. The Possibility of Reconciliation on the part of God.—But many demur to a mutual recon- ciliation, not only because they doubt the reality of God's anger, and see no need of reconciliation on the part of God, but also because they doubt its possibility, for reconciliation implies a change of feeling, and there can be no change in God. This, however, is confusion of thought. It is to misunderstand the nature of God's unchangeable- ness. God is not a Imere mechanical force, but a living, moral mind. It is His character that is unchangeable, not His feelings, nor His actions. These anust change with the changing character and conduct of His creatures, just because He clangeth not. In any relevant sense of the word, it is not He that changes, but we. If we obey not, He albideth faithful. He cannot deny Hini- self, and therefore He must deny us, when we defy Him. In fact this apparent change in God proves His real unchangeableness, just as an apparent unchangeableness would prove a real change. (See Dorner on ‘the Divine Immutability’ in System of Christian Doctrine, i. 244 fº., iv. 80). 1. But both the need and the possibility of recon- ciliation on the Divine side seem to many forbidden from another point of view. There seems no room for it in the Christian conception of God. God is Love, and love is incapable of anger or hostility. But if God is love, love must be more than a mere emotion. It is a character, and a character is made up of likes and dislikes, attractions and re- pulsions, according to its affinity for, or aversion to, the character and conduct of those with whom it comes in contact. In other words, God is a person, not a force. He can, and does, discrimin- ate between the righteous and the wicked. ‘The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous . . . the face of the Lord is against them that do evil' (Ps 34* *). That does not mean that He does not love even them that do evil, but it does mean that His love is capable of hostility. How, indeed, can God love us for our good without showing His hostility to what would do us harm 2 When a river is dammed back by some obstruction thrown in its way, it chafes against it, and poetically we Ray it is angry. Ibut it is not mere lºy to say that when the Divine love is held back by our sin, so that it can no longer flow forth to bless us as it would, it chafes against the obstacle, and cannot bear to be balked of its benign purpose concerning us. Love is goodness in earnest to make others good, and when it cannot have its way it is grieved, when it is deliberately thwarted it is angry, and, as Coleridge says— “To be wroth with one you love Doth work like madness in the brain.” It is here that Simon (Redemption of Man, p. 216 ft.), who has done so much to define and defend the reality of God's anger, has lost his way. According to him, ‘love and wrath are mutually exclusive’; that is, they cannot both be felt for one and the Sanhe person at one and the same time, though they may both be felt by one and the same person towards different persons. ‘A father may become angry with one of his children, and, to that extent, cease loving him, without therefore ceasing to love the rest. At the moment of intensest indignation with the one he may turn with tenderness to the rest. Not other- wise with God.” It is true, he adds that a man who is angry because his love has been repelled, “will also, even whilst angry, carefully search for means of vanquishing the indiffer- ence, and converting the contemptuous aversion into loving regard. This is what a loving being, a loving God, can do, but it is misleading to ascribe it to love' (ib. p. 20.1). But surely, as Scott Lidgett has pointed out (The Spiritual Principle of the Atonement, p. 250 f.), it is contrary to the most familiar experience of life to say that loye must either be requited or withdrawn. Life is full of unrequited and even outraged love that has never been withdrawn. Witness the way in which a mother will cling to a reprobate son, and for all the wrong he has done her never give him up while she lives. Nor is the love that will not let him go love in general, but distinctively her love for him. How could her love for her other children supply the energy required to seek reconciliation with him from whom, by the supposition, it has been withdrawn? It is a moral impossibility. Simon's mistake is due to his making too much of love as a mere emotion, forgetting that in its deepest and divinest sense it is a character, a moral determination of the whole being towards another. As a character, love may survive the mere enjoyment of its own satisfaction. Satis- faction may give place to dissatisfaction and the severest dis- pleasure. These may be the only emotions proper to it for the time being, but it cannot enjoy, these, cannot even endure them, and, in its own interest as well as that of its object, it will seek their removal, and, if possible, out of its own resources provide a propitiation. That is precisely what God has done for us. “Herein is love, not that we love God, but that God loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 Jn 416). 2. But this brings us, in the second place, to what seems to many the greatest difliculty of all. That God should both require and provide pro- pitiation seems to besa contradiction, and from the fact that God did provide it they infer that He did not require it—that is, did not need to be pro- pitiated. It was provided by but not for Him. God did not, and could not, propitiate Himself. So W. R. Dale puts it. ‘God Himself provided the ransom ; He could not pay it to Himself ' (Atome- ment, p. 357). To whom, then, or to what, was it paid 2 To the eternal law of righteousness, says Dale, as if there could be any such law above or apart from God, or as if propitiation had anything to do with impersonal law, or could be made at all outside personal relations. The diſliculty is due to the assumption that God both provided and offered the propitiation—an assumption very commonly made, and made decisive of the whole matter. Thus W. N. Clarke says: “If we wish to hold a doctrine that is real, we must choose between the two directions for the action in the work of Christ ; we cannot combine them. There may be action that takes effect on God to inſlu- ence Him, but we may be sure that it originates somewhere else than in God Himself; and there may be action that originates in God, but we may be sure that it takes effect upon some other. God does not influence Himself. If we choose or judge between these two directions, there can be no doubt as to the result. In the work of Christ, was God the actor, or was God acted upon 7 For we are at war with reality if we attempt to affirm both. We cannot hesitate about our answer. God was the Actor’ (Present-Day Papers, 1900, vol. iii. p. 238). But God was not the Actor in the whole transaction. God provided the propitiation, but He did not offer it to Himself. Christ offered it, acting not as God's representative, but as ontºrs. (See Crenner on 1X&orked:0at). God gave humanity in Him the means of making propitiation, but God RECORD RED HEIFER 207 *—- did not propitiate Himself. Nor is there any difficulty here but such as meets us everywhere in the spiritual life. It is only the supreme example of a universal spiritual law. Thus, e.g., God both requires and gives repentance—or rather power to repent, for of course He does not repent for us. And so with every other grace, as the very word implies. The grace is in us, but it is of God. God worketh in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure. He neither wills nor acts for us, but enables us to will and act in the line of His own good pleasure. So in the work of reconciliation. God made it possible to humanity by the gift of Christ, but Christ as the Head and Representative of the race, actually accomplished it. The prin- ciple underlying it is identical with the principle which underlies our whole religious life, and finds instinctive expression in the language' of prayer, wherein we virtually ask God to fulfil His own law in us, to fulfil in us all the good pleasure of His goodness and the work of faith with power. (See, especially, Simon, Redemption of Man, ch. ix.). If this is a paradox, it is a paradox inherent in our very existence, as finite creatures, who have yet a certain moral independence over against God ; and on its religious side it has never been better expressed than in Augustine's words: “Da quod jubes, et jube quod vis’ (Conf. x. 20). LITERATURE.-Cremer, JBibl.-Theol. Lea:., articles on x&to:X- A&arao, zoºto:XAozyż, ixc, oxo wo., ixocorpoés; Trench, Symonymns on the same; Thom in Iºapos. Times, iv. 335 f.; Sanday-Headlam, Iłomans, 129 f.; Sartorius, Divine Love (Eng. tr.), 128 ff. ; Lechler, Apost. and Post-Apost. Times, ii. 30 ft., 141 ff. ; BP, lºwing in Pres.-Day Papers, iii.; Gracey, Sim and Salvation, 238 ft. ; T. Binney, Sermons, ii. 51 ff. ; Simon, The IRedemption of Man, ch. v., and Reconciliation by Incarnation (1898); Scott Lidgett, The Spiritual Principle of the A tonement, ch. v. ; and c:) the lºng. word, Iºapos. Times, v. 532 ft. A. ADAMSON. RECORD.—To record a thing is to call it to phind (Lat. recordare, i.e. re and cor the heart, through Old Fr. recorder). This prinitive mean- ing, “call to mind' or “meditate on is found, e.g., in Erasmus, Crede, 47, ‘After that thou shalte have dylygently recorded these thynges, and called them well to remembraunce, then have recourse hether agayne unto me '; Tindale, Jºrpositions, 110, ‘Therefore care day by day and hour by hour earnestly to keep the covenant of the Lord th God, and to recorde therein day and night.” X similar meaning, ‘bear in mind,” is common in Wyclif. Thus Gn 19” “Whan forsothe God had subvertid the citees of that regioun, he recordide of Abraham' (1388 “he hadde mynde of Abraham'); Pr 317 ‘Of ther sorewe recorde thei no more’ (1388 “Thenke thei no more on her sorewe”). We may call a thing to mind either by speak- ing about it or by writing it down. The former meaning is now obsolete, but AV has preserved one example : 1 Ch 16” “He appointed certain of the Levites to minister before the ark of the Lord, and to record, and to thank and praise the Lord God of Israel’ (Heb. hºpin, lit. ‘to cause to remember,’ IRV ‘to celebrate’; the AV trº is as old as Wyclif; the 1388 version gives “have mynde of the Werkis of the Lord'). The phrase ‘ call to record ' means ‘cause to testify,’ 1) tº 30” “I call heaven and earth to record this day against you’ (Dº nºtyn), 31*; and ‘take to record' has the same meaning : Is 8” “(And) I will take unto me faithful witnesses to record '('. Tº sº); Ac 204" “Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men’ (uaprº- poſta, Üpºv, which is incorrectly taken by AV, after Tindale, in the classical sense of ‘call one to Witness’ [which would need Upas], but rightly by RV, as by Wyclif, in the sense, known only to very late Greek, of “testify”). The subst. ‘record ' is used in AV, usually in the sense of witness, whether the person who witnesses — (uáprus, 2 Co., 1*, Ph 1°), or the testimony itself (uaprupla, Jn 1” 8”. 14, 19”, l Jn 510. 11, 3 Jn 12). In the same Sense is used the phrase ‘bear record,” a frequent tr. of paprupéa ‘to give testimony.” J. HASTINGS. RECORDER, THE (nºn, lit. ‘the remem. brancer’; LXX &ri Tôv Útropºv'muárov, (6) &vauluv}- a kov, Ütropºpºvija Kwu, (6) Utropiumplato'ypáſpos).—An officer of high rank in the Israelite kingdom. His func- tions are nowhere precisely defined, but the in- portance of his office is shown by the fact that he is mentioned along with the commander-in-chief, the chief secretary, and other leading officials at the courts of David and Solomon (2S 2024 810– 1 Ch 18”, l K 4”). In the reign of Hezekiah he appears as the king's representative together with the prefect of the palace and the chief secretary (2 K 18*, *" = Is 36* *), while the holder of the same office under Josiah formed 'one of the commission appointed to superintend the repairing of the temple (2 Ch 34°). The ‘recorder’ is often supposed to have been a historiographer, but Benzinger (Arch. 310), Nowack (i. 308), Kittel (on 1 K 4°), et al., argue plausibly that his duty was to remind the king of important business by preparing matters for his consideration and laying them before him. Under David and Solomon the office was filled by Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud; under Hezekiah, by Joah the son of Asaph ; and under Josiah, by Joah the son of Joahaz. J. F. STENNING. RECOVER. — The verb ‘to recover ? (Old Fr. Tecovrer, Lat. Tecuperare) is still in use transitively in the sense of regaining something that has been lost, whether persons (Is 11", Jerſ 41*), territory (as 2 S 8°, 2 K 14*, 1 Mac 10°), or other possessions (as Hos 2', 1 Mac 2*); also of regaining health (Jer 8*), strength (2 Ch 1349, Ps 3918), sight (Lk 418). But it is no longer used with the person to be restored to health as direct object, as it is in AV, 2 K 59.0. 7. 11, Is 381° 39', Jth 147. Cf. Shaks. Jwl. Cres. I. i. 28, ‘ I am indeed, sir, a surgeon to old shoes; when they are in great danger I recover them ’; Defoe, Crusoe, 520, “Our men in the Pinnace followed their orders, and took up three men ; one of which was just drowning, and it was a good while before we could recover him.’ The intrans, use is also found in AV, to which RW adds Jn 11” “The disciples therefore said unto him, Lord, if he is fallen asleep, he will recover,’ for AW ‘lle shall do well’; l{Vm ‘he shall be saved' (Gr. ow0}o'erat, Vulg. Salvus crit). J. HASTINGS. RED.—See Colourts in vol. i. p. 457°. RED DRAGON.—See REVELATION (BOOK OF). RED HEIFER.—Of the numerous forms of cere- monial uncleanness which occupy so important a place in the priestly legislation, that arising from contact with, and even proximity to, a dead body was regarded as the most grievous, requiring a specially eſticacious medium of lustration for its removal. To provide such a medium is the object of the unique enactment of Nu 19—unique in its title (see below), in its provisions, and, one is tempted to add, in the amount of discussion to which it has given rise. The precise relation to each other of the two sections of this chapter is not easy to determine. According to Wellh. (Comp. d. }. 176, approved by Kuenen, Iſca. 96) vv. 14% form an appendix to vv.)^3, giving more precise instruction regarding the application to particular cases of the general Torah embodied in the latter. The more elaborate and peculiar title of the first section, however—viz. Hºmº nºt ‘the statute of the law (Tórah), Nu 192 312 only—and other indications rather suggest that this section, vv. 1-13, is the younger of the two," and be- * According to the authors of the Qaford Hergéewch (1900), vv. 14tſ are derived from a corpus of priestly toróth or decisions 208 RED HEIFER RED HEITER longs to the secondary strata of P (Pº). Neither section, it should be noted, presents that historical setting which is characteristic of the legal ordinances of the main stock of P. Such a setting, however, was supplied by later Jewish tradition: The rite of the red heifer, according to Josephus, was instituted by Moses on the death of Miriam (see Nu 201, the chapter im- mediately following its institution in the Hebrew text), and the ashes of the first victim were used to purify the people at the expiry of the thirty days of mourning (Amt. lv. iv. 6). i. The preparation of the ashes of the red heifer. ii. The purpose and manner of their application. iii. The origin and significance of the rite. iv. The red heifer as a type of Christ. i. The procedure to be followed in the preparation of the ashes is laid down in outline in vv. 1-19. De- tailed instructions—a few of the more inmportant of which are noted in the sequel—will be found in the special treatise of the Mishna devoted to the sub- ject (see Literature at end of art.). The ashes are to be those of a victim with special qualifications of sex, colour, and condition, the ultimate grounds for which have formed the subject of endless de- bate among Jewish and Christian scholars. The sacrificial victims were predominantly males, in the case of the sin-offerings for the congregation, a he-goat (LV 9°) or a young bullock (4°); here, as in the ancient and allied rite by which the land was purified from the defilement of an untraced murder (Dt 21*), a heifer or young cow was pre- scribed. According to a widely supported view (Bähr, Kurtz, Keil, Edersheim, etc.), the femalesex, as the immediate source of new life, was chosen in order to furnish a more suggestive contrast in a rite associated with death. This and similar ex- planations, however, seem to us to introduce a train of thought much too advanced for ceremonies bearing such evident marks of a great antiquity (see iii. below) as do those of Nu 19 and Dt 21. We ought rather, in these cases, to see in the choice of the female sex the desire to offer the most precious and therefore the most efficacious victim, the females, as the breeders of the herd, being the more valuable in the estination of a pastoral people —a view reflected in the composition of Jacob’s pre- Sent ſo Esau (Gn 32*; cf. Dillm.-Ryssel, Ea.-Lw.” 429). The age, by Rabbinic prescription, might range from two to five years (Parah i. 1); the colour must be red (nºs, cf. Zec 1% of horses), or rather reddish brown. + The heifer, further, had to be without spot or blennish of any kind, “upon which never came yoke' (v.”), rightly paraphrased by Josephus as ‘a heifer that had never been used to the plough or to husbandry’ (Amt. IV. iv. 6; cf. Dt 21°, and the epithets (lºvyes, injuges, applied to sacrificial victims by classical writers). The cost was defrayed from the half-shekel temple tax (Shekál. iv. 2). Not the high priest, who dared not risk the con- tagion of uncleanness, but his representative, Eleazar, had to bring the victim forth ‘without the camp’ (v.”)—that is, in actual practice, from the temple hill, by the so-called Red Heifer bridge, 8,OIOSS º, Kidron to the Mount of Olives. A rite So Sacrosanct, and therefore entailing ceremonial defilement on the place and persons concerned, had to be performed at a distance from the sanctuary (cf. the barren valley of IDt 21*). At a spot secure from possible contamination by graves, the heifer was slain by a second person in the presence of the priest, who, dipping his finger in the warm blood, sprinkled thereof seven times in the direction of —hence the signature Pi—codifical independently of the main stock of P (Pk). See op. cit. ii. 218 f., and cf. i. 152 f., and art. NUMBER8. * For other explanations of the comparative sacredness of the cow, see W. R. Smith, I&S, 280, 2 287, and reff. there. # The later Jewish authorities by a false exegesis, which took těninăh, “physically perfect,' as a qualification of the preceding tºº ‘perfectly, red,' considered the presence of even two hairs of another colour as disqualifying (Parah ii. 5; cf. Rashi and other commentators, in loc.). the sanctuary, i.e. the temple. A pyre having been previously constructed of various fragrant woods,” the complete carcass of the heifer—“her skin, and her flesh, and her blood, with her dung’ (y.")—was burned thereon. At a certain stage (see Parah iii. 10) an interesting part of the ceremony took place. This was the casting, by the directing priest, of ‘cedar wood (TN), and hyssop, and scarlet’ into the midst of the burning mass. Ac- cording to later authorities, these items consisted of a thin piece of so-called ‘ cedar’—in reality a piece of the fragrant wood of the Juniperus Phoem- icer (see CEDAR) or J. Owycedrus (Löw, Arann. I’ſlanzen namen, p. 57)—a cubit in length, a bunch of aromatic hyssop or wild marjoram, and a strip of woollen cloth dyed scarlet, which bound the juniper and hyssop together (Parah iii. 10, 11, with commentaries; Mainionides, de Vacca Rufa). When the whole pyre was reduced to ashes, these were collected by a third clean person—the two previous participants having been rendered unclean, in modern phrase “taboo' (see below, iii.), by contact with the sacrosanct victim, and de- posited by him “without the camp in a clean place’ (v."). The ashes (not of the red heifer alone, be it noted, but these mixed with the ashes of the frag- rant woods) were now ready to be used as the law prescribed. All the three º in the cere- mony were unclean (or taboo) till sundown, after which time, having bathed their persons and washed their clothes, they were again ceremonially clean (vv.7: 8.4%)—that is, they were again admitted to the society of their fellows, and to participation in the cultus. ii. The purpose of the ashes prepared as above is expressly declared to be ‘for, (the preparation of) a water of separation’ (Ti, p. v."; RV m ‘a water of impurity’). The meaning of these words was early misunderstood. The LXX, followed by all the chief ancient versions, connecting Tº middāh with the Aramaic form of the Heb. m) ‘to sprinkle,' rendered the phrase by Jówp pavriguoi, ‘water of sprinkling,” Jerome's aquat aspersionis, Luther's Sprengwasser. In reality the verb TJ (see Is 66") denoted in the technical language of the priests “to exclude from the cultus,’ in post-biblical Hebrew “to excommunicate'; hence the substantive middéïh denotes ‘that which excludes from the cultus,’ ‘l. viz. ceremonial uncleanness or impurity. M6 middóſ (lit. ‘water of exclusion') accordingly signifies water for removing the 7tncleanness which is the cause of this exclusion ; in other Words, as suggested by RV m, ‘water [for the removal] of inpurity.’ The mode of preparation was of the simplest : ‘for the unclean they shall take of the ashes of the burning of the sin-offering, and running water shall be put thereto in a vessel’ (v.” RV). This simple procedure was later elaborated with the most ingenious detail, if we are to believe the statements of the Mishna, to which the student is referred (Parah iii. 2–5). A clean person—accord- ing to Parah xii. 10, an adult male, not a female, though the latter might hold the vessel—took a bunch of hyssop, dipped it in the ‘water of im- urity,” and sprinkled the house in which a death |. taken place, and all the persons and utensils therein, except such of the latter as were provided with lids, or were otherwise closed against the contagion of uncleanness (v.”). The same lustra. tion was required in the case of uncleanness con: * Four are named in Parah iii. 8: TN and Jºs (Assyr. Grimw, “cedar'), two species of juniper (probably), whº ‘cypress,' and º, Ibn Ezra appears to be the first to grasp the true connexion between the verb and the substantive. See his comm, in loc, IRashi kept to the traditional view "T" 'pº “for water of sprinkling.” The commentaries of both exegetes are found in j. ordinary Rabbinic Bibles. RED HEIFER RED HEIFER 209 I- tracted by every one who had occasion to touch a dead body, whether the person had died a natural or a violent death, id by every one who had touched even a bone of the human body or a grave v.19). ( By a separate, enactment (Nu 31*; note esp. nº ngr. v.”), which likewise bears every indica- tion of belonging to the latest stratum of the priestly legislation, the ‘water of impurity” had to be employed on the return from a campaign for the cleansing of the soldiers and their captives (3119), including their clothes and impedimenta (v.20). The spoil, also, of precious and useful metals taken from the enemy, after a preliminary purification by being passed through the fire, had to be finally purified by the application of the ‘water of impurity’ (v.”). In the case of unclean persons the sprinkling was performed on the third and seventh days following that on which the uncleanness had been contracted. On the seventh day “at even or sundown, after having bathed their persons and washed their clothes, they were once more clean. The ban of exclusion from the cultus was finally removed, and the persons affected resumed their place in the holy community of J". iii. Origin &nd significance of the rite.—Although the chapter before us may, or rather must, have assumed its present form at a comparatively late period, the essential part of the ceremony of lus- tration may be conſidently affirmed to be of extreme antiquity, for the mystery attaching to the beginning and the end of life, and to the blood as the vehicle of life, has impressed mankind from the earliest days. In all forms of primitive religious thought a dead body is conceived as a source of real, if undefined, danger to all in proximity to it. Itself in the highest degree unclean, in modern phrase taboo, it becomes an active source of uncleanness, and renders taboo everyone and everything about it. These death taboos, as they may be called, were in full force among the ancient Hebrews, as among the other nations of antiquity, and the means used to remove the taboo were to a large extent identical. Primarily, as Robertson Smith has pointed out, ‘purification, means the application to the person of some medium which removes a taboo, and enables a person to mingle freely in the ordinary life of his fellows’ (RS1 405). The most widely distributed medium is, of course, water, but for aggravated cases of uncleanness this medium was supposed to acquire increased potency through the addition of ashes (see the refſ, to ancient writers quoted by Bâlîr, Symbolik, ii. 495, and Knobel in Dillmann's commentary, in loc.). Here, then, we have the origin of the essential part of the Hebrew rite. Closely connected with this circle of ideas is the universal belief of primitive man that sickness and death are caused by harmful and malevolent Spirits whose anger he has incurred (cf. DEMON, vol. i. p. 590"). An interesting survival of this primitive mode of thought may, we venture to think, be found in the ritual of the red heifer. Much laboured ingenuity has been expended in finding suitable symbolical meanings for each of the ‘ cedar wood, hyssop, and scarlet” which were added to the burning pyre. According to some, cedar, hastily assumed to be the majestic cedar of Lebanon, is the symbol of pride, as hyssop of humility; according to others, cedar, the incor- ruptible wood, was chosen “as typical of eternity of life, hyssop of purification from the power of death, and Scarlet thread to show the intensity of life in the red heifer.’ The true explanation, it seems to us, is to be found in the primitive concep- tion referred to above. We have here a meaning- VOL. IV.-I4 less survival, of which innumerable parallels will occur to students of comparative religion, from the time when the fragrant woods, such as juniper and cypress and the aromatic plants of the mint family, were supposed to act as a protection against the harmful unseen powers that were the cause of death * and hovered about the dead. The scarlet cloth is to be explained, either by the fact that a special healing virtue was assigned in antiquity to the scarlet dye (Delitzsch,+ art. “Sprengwasser’ in Riehm's HWB d. bibl. Alterthums”), or by the universally prevalent idea of red, the colour of the sacred blood, as the taboo colour par eaccellence (Jevons, Introd. to Hist. of Religion, 67 ff. ; Trum- bull, The Blood Covenant, 236 f.).; The line of thought along which we have sought to explain this confessedly difficult part of the ritual, to the exclusion of the advanced symbolical interpreta- tion hitherto current, finds further justification in the use of a sprinkler, consisting of a bunch of hyssop, tied to a handle of juniper, wood by a similar strip of Scarlet cloth, in sprinkling a house, as well as a person, that was to be declared free from the plague of leprosy (Lv 14*). : While we have thus endeavoured to trace the origin of the ritual of the red heifer to its source in an atmosphere of primitive religious thought common to the Hebrews of the pre-Mosaic age with other races on a similar plane of develop- ment, it must not be forgotten that the rite received a higher and fuller interpretation in being admitted into the circle of the priestly legislation of the post-exilic age. Uncleanness and sin, sin and death, are now associated ideas (for the whole subject, see art. UNCLEANNESS). The red heifer has become a sin-offering (vv.” ”) of a unique kind; part of the blood is ºl. towards the dwelling- place of J", from whose worship those “unclean from the dead are temporarily excluded, the rest is burned with the victim to heighten the expiatory efficacy of the ashes. The rite in all its details becomes a powerful object-lesson, teaching the eternal truth that a holy God can be served on y by a holy people. It is no longer possible to ascertain the extent to which the ‘water of impurity’ was actually used as a medium of lustration by the mass of the Jewish people. lºven such sober investi- gator's as 1)elitzsch and Dillmann have pointed out the diſſi- culties in the way of an extended application of the ritual of Nu 19 in a thickly peopled country. Again, what are we to make of the statement (Parah iii. 5) that only seven or nine red heifers were slain in all—the first by. Moses, the second by Ezra, and the rest later? The probability is that, like many other of the more stringent requirements of the Levitical code, the observance was conſimed to the more ardent legalists in Jerusalem. Jewish tradition represents this and other rites regarding uncleanness as ceasing to be observed about fifty years after the destruction of the temple (Hamburger, Real- encycl. d. Judenth wins, i. 874). The red heifer, it may be remarked finally, has given her name to the second chapter of the Koran, “the surah of , the heifer,’ in which, however, Mohammed in his usual fashion has confused the two heifers of Nu 10 and Dt 21 (see swr. ii. 63 ſt.). iv. The red heifer as a type of Christ.—It was natural that the early Church should see in the expiatory rite of Nu 19 a preſiguring of the atomng work of our Lord. The first to give literary ex- #. to this idea, which has received such detailed elaboration at the hands of successive generations of typologists, is the author of the * In comparatively recent times in our own country, a juniper tree planted before a house was regarded as a preventive of the blague. k # belitzsch is apparently the only writer who has sought to assign other than a purely symbolical significance to these three elements. See, besides the above article, his commentary on He 918, and of. Nowack, Arch. ii. 289, note 1, • # If we could be sure that the red colour of the heifer was as old as the practice of burning for the sºle of the ashes, the choice Wººd probably have to be explained by the same associa- tion of ideas. The oxen sacrificed by the Ancient Egyptians had also to be red, a single black or white hair disqualifying an animal for the sacrifice (Plutarch, Isis et Osiris, 31.3. Herod. ii. 8s, cited by Frazer, Golden Bough, i. 306, 2nd ed., 1900, ii. 312). 210 RED HORSE REDEEMER, REDEMPTION Epistle to the Hebrews in the familiar passage 9”. In the Epistle of Barnabas we find a whole chapter (ch. 8) devoted to this subject, in the course of which the writer shows an intimate acquaintance with contemporary Jewish practice as reflected in the Mishna (see esp. Parah iii. 2, 3). “The calf is Jesus,’ the juniper wood is His cross, while the scarlet wool, the hyssop, and other details receive a more or less appropriate interpretation. LiterATURE.-The comm. on Nu 10, esp. Dillmann ; the treatise Parah (Lat. tr. with commentaries in Surenhusius' Mishna, vol. vi., English in Barclay's Talmud, p. 300 f.), which forms the basis of Maimonides' treatise Tºni n)iºn, colited with Lat. tr. and notes by A. C. Zeller, de Vacca Ruja, 1711; Spencer, de legg. Heb. rit. ii. 15, ‘de Vitula rufa,' etc.; Bühr, Symbolik des Mosaischen Cultus, 1839, i. 493–512; IXurtz in SIV, 1840, º 329 f.; ledersheim, The Temple, etc. p. 304 ft. ; works on Biblical archaeology, esp. Haneberg, Keil (i. 385 f.), and Nowack (ii. 2S8 f.); art. jº." by Delitzsch in Riehm's 11 JVI; d. bibl. Alterthums 2, and “Reinigungen’ by I(ónig in PIRE'2. A. R. S. KENNEDY. RED HORSE.—See REVELATION (BOOK OF), p. 239. RED SEA (ºp-n: Ex 1019 and often ; also bin Ex 14°bis. ", Is 5110 bis 631 etc.; Dºngº-Dº Is 1116; LXX # épwépá 6&\aga'a, with the equivalent amongst Latin geographers Mare Iºtabrum, also Mare Erythraeum).-The origin of the name ‘Red Sea.” is uncertain, though several reasons for it have been assigned, such as the colour of the corals which cover its floor or line its shores; the tinge of the Edomite and Arabian mountains which border its coasts, and the light of an Eastern sky reflected on its waters. Dean Stanley considers that the name as applied to the Gulfs of Suez and Akabah is comparatively modern, as it was used to designate the waters of the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf before it was applied to the arm which extends northwards of the Strait of Bab-el- Mandeb;" and in the former application it is used by Berosus and Herodotus. The Hebrew name Yºm Stºph (see art. SUPH) appears to have been used from very early times. The origin of the name is not of much importance, since the name itself is in universal use. The IRed Sea is one of the most remarkable of oceanic gulfs on the globe, owing to the fact that it receives the waters of no river, while the evapo- ration from its surface is necessarily enormous. It must, therefore, be fed by the influx of water from the Indian Ocean through the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb ; but as such a condition of supply would long ere this have resulted in the conversion of the whole basin into a mass of solid rock-salt, it is inferred that an outward current flows into the Indian Ocean beneath the surface inward current. The length of the Red Sea from the Straits to *he head of the Gulf of Suez is about 1350 miles, and the extreme breadth in lat. 19° N. 20.5 miles. Towards its northern end it lifurcates into two narrow gulfs—those of Suez and Akaball (AElanitic Gulf), between which rises the mountainous region of Sinai. The waters are clear and of a deep blue colour ; and, as might be expected, are more saline than those of the ocean in the proportion of 4 to 3-5; the relative densities being 1:030 and 1:026 at a temperature of 60° Fahrenheit. The waters of the Ited Sea are crowded with living forms, and their high temperature (where not deep), combined with extreme purity, being favourable to polyp life, coral reefs abound, either lining the shores or rising as islands above the surface. The navigable channel from Suez to the Straits lies nearly in the centre of the basin, and in lat. 21° N., where the greatest depth is found, the bed descends to a depth of 1200 fathoms. That the bed of the IRed Sea is becoming shallower by the gradual rise of the land, admits of the clearest proof. Raised beaches containing shells and corals now living in the water are found at various levels up to many feet above the present surface : as, for example, along the cliffs of Nummulite limestone above Cairo and other parts of Lower Egypt, as well as along the shores of the Gulf of Suez and Akabah. The most remarkable of these beaches is that which is found at a level of 220 ft., and was first recognized by Oscar Fraes. Still more recently, and probably within the human and pre-historic period, the waters of the Red Sea stretched up the Isthmus of Suez into the great Bitter Lake, as the floor of the canal when being cut in 1867 laid open beds of rock-salt and strato, with recent j. and corals.” At the close of the Eocene period the whole surface of Egypt was under the waters of the ocean, and the Ited Sea and Mediterranean waters were continuous. The fauna of the Red Sea and of the Mediterranean are now highly dissimilar : that of the former partaking of the character of the Indian Ocean : that of the latter, of the Atlantic. This process of differentiation has been naturally proceeding from the time when the two seas were disconnected by the uprising of the land in Miocene and Pliocene times, and the formation of the Isthmus of Suez. T The biblical history of the Red Sea is chiefly connected with the Exodus (which see); but we have an interesting reference to it later in the time of Solomon and Hiram, Jing of Tyre, illustrating the essentially different habits of the Israelites and Phoenicians. These latter, from the time they settled on the coast of Syria, became a maritime nation, extending their trade and founding colonies all round the Medi- terranean, while inland their extent of territory was extremely limited. The Israelites, on the other hand, were not a seafaring people ; and con- sequently, when Solomon had extended his rule over Edom, and as far south as the Alºlamitic Gulf, and was desirous of having a fleet, to navigate the waters of the IRed Sea, and to trade with Ophir for gold and other commodities; and when |. (Aila of Strabo) and Ezion-geber were fortified, and the latter made a seaport town, his own subjects being ignorant of nautical affairs, he was obliged to have recourse to the assistance of Hiram, with whom he had preserved friendly relations. This appeal was not made in vain, and Hiram sent his servants, “shipmen that had knowledge of the sea,’ to man the fleet in the trade with Ophir (1 K 9%. 27). After this event the IRed Sea drops out of biblical history ; Elath was for a time lost to the kingdom of Israel on the revolt of Edom against Joram (2 K 8”), and, though regained by Azariah (14*), it finally passed into the hands of the Syrians (Kethibh) or the Edomites (Keré) in the reign of Ahaz (16"). Some ruins on an island at the head of the gulf are supposed to mark the site of this once important Seaport. E. HULL. REDEEMER, REDEMPTION.—With two excep- tions (AV in Ps 136” [p]?, lit. to break or tear away, * Stanley, Sinai and Palestine 5, 5 (note). f Rawlinson, Ancient Monarchies, i. 109. , Sayce (IICMI 255 ft.) maintains that Yam, Sutph as used by IIeb. writors means only the Gulf of Algabah, and that its application in Ex 154, 22 to the ‘sca,’ which the Israelites crossed on leaving Jºgypt, rests upon a mistake. This view, which the present writer is persuaded is cntirely erroneous, was adopted by Sayce in order to support his theory that Mount Sinai lay amongst the I'domite mountains east of the Gulf of Akabah. See, further, art. SINAI. * The writer considers that this was the condition of the Isthmus at the time of the Exodus. Such a view, borne out by observation, renders the account of this event intelligible, but does not necessitate the inforence that the waters of the Red Sea and the Mediterranean were at that time connected. # For an account of the raised beaches of the Red Sea coast and of Lower Egypt, see IIull, “On the l’hysical Geology Cf Arabia. Petraea,' PEI' Mem. 69 ft. (1886). REDEEMER, REDEMPTION REDEEMER, REDEMPTION 211 * ... • , -º- a • ** ** - ºr a common Aram. word for rescue, deliver, in Heb. also La 5°], RW ‘delivered”; and AV and RV in Neh 5° [n:I to buy, so º ‘redeem ’ is the tr. in OT of the Heb. 777 and 78, with their derivatives. MTB (better, for distinction from ºxi, rendered “to ransom') is used of the money payments re- juired under the Law for the redemption of the irstborn (so Nu 3.0-40 1810ſ. ; cf. Ex 1318. 19, Lv 27”), or for the release of persons from slavery (so Ex 218, Lv 25”); and 9xx ‘to redeem' (in a łº sense), of the recovery of property which had passed into other hands (so Lv 25*, Itu 4*), or of commuta- tion of a vow (Lv 2719. 1", 19. 29) or a tithe (Lv. 27*). In the Prophets and the Psalms both ºx; and nº are used figuratively, with the general mean- ing ‘deliver,’ of the saving activity of God, as shown in the history of Israel (so Is 29*[His] 48” 52", Ps 77* [all ºnl) and in the experience of indi- vidual Israelites (1’s 34” [TTE]). Cremer (Wörterb. p. 596) finds, in the use of these words rather than others which might have been chosen, a suggestion of the property relation conceived to exist between J" and Israel. Cf. Ps 74° ‘Itemenber thy con- gregation, which thou hast purchased of old, which thou hast redeemed (ºsa) to be the tribe of thine inheritance'; so Dt 92", 2 S 7”, 1 Ch 17% (all nºis), Is 52% (ºnl). [A similar idea appears in the NT trepitroveſ00at (Ac 90°), reptiroimats (Eph 1”, l P 2"), and dyopſića (1 Co 6” and often); but these words correspond in the LXX to Triº, nº p, and HR, never to ºni or TTP). In the great majority of cases, however, the idea of a money payment falls altogether into the background, and the words are used in the purely general sense of ‘Save,’ ‘deliver.’ To “ransom ' or ‘redeem ’ means to deliver from any calamity or misfortune, however that deliverance may be brought about. More specifically, redemption is thought of as deliverance from adversity (2 S 4", I K 14, Ps 25* [all n-15]), oppression and violence (Ps 72% [ºn]]), captivity (Zee 108-10 [His], Ps 107** [ºn]]), or death (Ps 4916 ſnip], 103", Hos 1314 [both ºnli, Job 5” [nip]). It is specially associated with the deliverance from Egypt (Dt 78 13° 248, Mic 6" [all His]), and with the (idealized) deliverance from Babylon (Is 35" 62* 63* [all ºnly). In a single instance only is it used of redemption from sin (Ps 130° [The]). The noun “redeemer’ is the tr. in OT of the part. $8% (70'él, properly one who asserts a claim or has the right of ‘redemption,” esp. one who vindicates the right of a murdered man, i.e. the ‘avenger of blood,” hence the next-of-kim, Nu 5*, Ru 2* al., 1 K 16”), and is applied in our VSS, in a figura- tive sense, to God only. It is a favourite term of Deutero-Isaiah, who often speaks of J" as the Gó'êl of Israel (so 4.11+ 431' 44%. 3, 47" 4817 497. * 54%. 8 50° 601 03"), and magnifies the freeness and the greatness of His deliverance. Cf. Is 52” “Ye were sold for nought, and ye shall be redeemed without money ’; Is 547 ° “ lºor a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee. In overſlowing wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment ; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy upon thee, saith J" thy redeemer.' Outside of Isaiah, the term gó'êl is not applied to God except in I’s 19" 78”, Job 19°, Pr 2311, Jer 50%. In the last three cases it is used in the special sense of advocate or vindicator. J" is here represented as doing for the oppressed what the human g6'êl would do, if he were living. So in the familiar pºsage Job 1990 “I know that my redeemer liveth,’ the true rendering should be, ‘I know that my vindicator liveth” (so IRV m), i.e. the one who will see that I have justice after I am gone. See, further, art. GOEL, and A. lx. David- Son's note on Job 19°. In NT the words for ‘redeem ’ are dyopéčw Dnd Avrpoſpat, with their derivatives. The former means lit. ‘to buy,” “to purchase,’ by which terms it is uniformly rendered in RV (1 Co 6” 7*, 2 P 2", Rev 5" 14* *[all]) and AV in all passages except Rev. 5" 14* *. This is akin to the figurative use of Fijp “buy’ or ‘purchase,” in the OT, of the deliver- ance of Israel from bondage, Ex 15", Is 11", Ps 74° (cf. 78”), though Hyp is not represented in the LXX of these passages by dyopaśw. In the compound form é$a'yopów, “to buy from or out of,” it acquires the technical meaning “redeem,’ and is so used twice by St. Paul (Gal 3° 4") of Christ's deliverance of those who were under the curse of the law. ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. For it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.’ Here Christ's shameful death on the cross is regarded as the ransom price paid for the deliverance of those who were }. prisoners under the law and subject to its curse. Cf. Rev 5", where the redeemed are said to be purchased unto God (not from God) with the blood of the Lamb. The more common NT word is, however, Avrpoo- pat (from AWTpov, “a ransom'), with its derivatives, Avrporás, Aërpagus, dToxºrpworts. These follow the usage of the OT 9s) and TTP, being sometimes used in the technical sense of ‘ransom ' (e.g. l P 1*, *), but more frequently in the purely general sense of “deliver.” Thus \ºrpworts is used in Luke of the Messianic deliverance from misfortune and sorrow. So Lk 1" 2", cf. 24”. More particularl of the salvation to be wrought at the Parousia, }. 21” (ätroA&rpagus, cf. Ro 8° the redemption of the body; Eph 1” the redemption of God's own possession. In Eph 4” the plurase ‘day of re- H." is used as a synonym for Parousia). In other passages which follow the thought of Ps 130°, the reference is clearly to redemption from sin. So in Eph 17, Col. 1", redemption is associated with forgiveness. In Ro 3” it is con- nected with justiſication. In Tit 2" Christ is said to have given Himself for us ‘that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto him- self a people for his own possession, zealous of good works.’ In this narrower sense redemption is frequently connected with the death of Christ. Thus He 9” speaks of ‘a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant.” Cf. Eph 17 ‘redemption through his blood”; Ro 3* * * redemption . . . through faith in his blood,” and esp. 1 P 118 ° ‘Knowing that ye were redeemed, not with cor- ruptible things, as with silver or gold, from your vain manner of life handed down from your fathers; but with precious blood, as of a lamb without blennish and without spot, even the blood of Christ.’ Here the technical meaning of Aurpoſual reappears. The blood of Christ is represented as the ransom price (A&rpov, cf. Mk 10”) by which Christians are redeemed from their former sinful life. Observe that in 1 P 118. 19, as in Tit 2" and He 91", the thought is not primarily of deliverance from punishment, but of º: from sin. See, further, under RANSOM. The term ‘redeemer’ (Avrparis) is found in NT only in Ac 7”, where it is used of Moses (so l{V in , AV and RV tr. ‘ deliverer’). In the LXX \vtpwrijs stands for 9s; in l’s 18 (19)* 77 (78)” [all]. For a fuller discussion of the biblical idea of redemption, see SALVATION, SAVIOUR. LITERATURE.—Cremer, Bib.-Theol. Wörterb., S. †º IRitschl, Rechtſ. wºnd Vers. ii. p. 222 ſº. ; Beyschlag, Newtest. Theo'. i. p. 380 (Eng. tr. i. p. 305 f.); Stevens, . Pauline Theol. (1892) p. 227 ft.; Orr, Christian Wiene of God and the World (1893), p. 388 ft.; Hort, 1 Peter (1898), p. 78 ft.; Briggs, lessiah of A postles, } 47 if., and Study of 11oly Scripture, 1899, p. 647 ff.; Abbott, Ephesians and Colossians, pp. 11 – 13 ; Westeott, IIebrews, pp. 295, 206; Sanday–l I eatlam, Romans, p. 86; Driver on Dt 78 195 and Par. Psalt. 453 f. W. ADAMS BROWN. 212 REED REED REED.—There is as much uncertainty in regard to the signification of the Heb. words used to designate the various sorts of aquatic and marsh plants, grouped under the above general term, as there is about the English term itself. Two of these, ’āhū and siph, have already been discussed under FLAG. There remain the foll, four :— 1, jois, join 'agmón. This word seems to be derived from DJs 'agam, the same as the Arab. ’ajam, denoting “a troubled or muddy pool' (Is 14” Cºpis), such as reeds and rushes grow in, and thence a reed from such a pool (Jer, 5.1°, RVm ‘marshes, Heb. pools’). 'Agmón is trº in Job 41° AV “hook,” RW ‘rope’; Job 41* AV ‘ caldron,” RV “burning rushes’; Is 58° ‘bulrush,’ RV “rush.’ The word is used metaphorically for the lowly, and tra “rush” (Is 91° 1919). The LXX kpikos = ‘ring,” div6paś=“coal,’ ukpós = ‘small,” TéNos = ‘end,’ give us no clue to the signification of 'agmöm. Ünfortunately, there is nothing in the etymology which is any more helpful. The expression “bow down his head like a bulrush ’ (Is 58°) would ex- clude the true rushes, which are stiff, erect plants. There are several rush-like plants to which it would well apply, as the Twig Rush, Cladium 7mariscºts, L. ; Cyperets long?ts, of the Scirpi, all of the order Cyperaceae; the Common Reed, Phragmites communis, L., of the Graminea: ; the Flowering Rush, Butomus wºmbel- !atus, L., of the Alismaceae ; and the Bur Reed, Sparganium ramosum, Huds., of the Typhaceae. The expression ‘canst thou put an 'agmón (AV “hook,” RV ‘rope’) into his nose ?” (Job 41*) may be explained as referring to the ring which is passed through the nostrils of bulls to leathem. This is usually of iron. Sometimes it is of tough, twisted withes. It may be that it was sometimes made of rushes. But this also gives no light as to the par- ticular kind. . The tr" “rush’ is admissible only if we take it in its widest and most general sense. 2. Rºº gåme'. The Heb, root signifies “to swallow or imbibe.” Góme’ occurs in connexion with its marshy place of growth (Job 8”, LXX trótrupos, AV and IRV “rush,’ RVm papyrus’). The ark in which Moses was placed was made of göme’ (Ex 2"). The LXX says only 0.3ts = ‘wicker basket,” without mentioning the material of which it was made; AV and RV ‘bulrushes,” RVm ‘papyrus.” What were the ‘ vessels of gåme”? d 18”, AV ‘bulrushes,” RV “papyrus’). That boats for sea voyages were made of papyrus is improbable. But the passage does not require that. The allusion in the expression ‘sea' is doubtless to the Nile, the greater branches of which, as well as the main stream, are called by the Arabs ballr = “sea.” The Blue Nile is el- bahr el-azrak, and the White Nile el-balºr el- ablad, while the united stream is called ballr en-Nil far more frequently than mahr (river) en- Nil. This being understood, the vessels must be considered as boats or skiffs or canoes. The LXX seems to have another text, and gives étrio roMás 843Xtvas = “letters on parchment.” We have pro- fane testimony as to the use of papyrus, which is here generic for sedges, etc., for boats (Plin. Nat. Hist. xiii. 22; Theophrast. Hist. Pl. iv. 8), sails, mats, cloths, coverlets, and ropes. Góme’ is mentioned in one other passage along with Kāneh (Is 357, LXX &\os = ‘a swamp,’ AV and RV “rushes’). If we adopt “rush ’ as the generic expression to represent 'aff mon, it would be better to take ‘Sedge’ as an equivalent generic expression for göme'. This will include the papyrus, Cyperts Papyrus, L., the babir or bardi of the Arabs; C. alepecuroides, IRoth., a species growing to the height of a man or taller, in the marshes of Egypt and the Hôleh, and used in making mats, etc.; the Club l'ush, or Bulrush, Scirpus maritimus, L., ., and a number which grows as large as the last, and is used for similar purposes; S. mucronatus, L.; S. lacustris, L.; and S. littoralis, L.; and the Twig Rush, Cladium mariscus, L., which has been mentioned under 'agmón. The papyrus is the largest and finest of all. It grows from creeping root stocks, which produce tufts of sterile, linear leaves at the surface of the mud or water. The culms are 10 to 15 ft. high, and 2 to 3 in, thick at the base, which is enclosed in inbricated, brown sheaths. These are leafless, or end in a broad, lanceolate limb. The culm is triquetrous above, and ends in an unbel 8 to 15 in. broad, subtended by an involucre of numerous lanceolate leaves. The spikelets are only a third of an incli long, of a pale fawn colour. This noble sedge is the orna- ment of the Hūleh swamps, and the finest of the Cyperaceae of Bible lands, perhaps of the whole world. It used to be common in Lower Egypt, but has now disappeared. 3. "JR kāmeh. This is undoubtedly the equi- valent, neither more nor less general, of the Eng. ‘reed.” Both are generic for all tall grasses, and more or less for grass-like plants. The word &ána in Arabic came to signify a spear, from the long reed which constitutes its handle. Such reeds grow in great profusion in the cane brakes of the Lower lºuphrates and Upper Nile. Egypt and the Holy Land are pre-eminently lands of tall grasses and canes. Among the most notable of the Granvimcac of the Holy Land are Arundo Donaa’, L., called in Arabic kasab farisi = the Persian Reed. This noble grass often attains a height of 15 to 20 ft. Its silky * Swaying gracefully to and fro in the wind, may well have been the ‘reed shaken by the wind” (Mt 117). Immense brakes of this cane are found on the borders of the streams about the Dead Sea, in the Jordan Valley, Håleh, and along the irrigation canals and rivers throughout the land. Another noble grass is Saccharum AEgyptiacum, Willd., called in Arabic ghazzár. It resembles the Pampas Grass of the Argentina in the beauty of its silky anicles, which are often borne on stalks 10 to 15 ft. high. Others are Panicum turgidum, Forsk. ; Erianthus Ravennae, L., the Woolly Beard Grass; Ammophila &ramaria, L. ; Phragmites communis, the true Reed, known in Arabic as ghāl, and bits ; Eraffrostis cynosuroides, Roem. et Schultz, the famous Halfa, from which Wady Halfa in Nubia derives its name. This latter attains a height of 6 to 10 ft., and has a beautiful panicle. It forms dense brakes in marshy regions, from the latitude of Jaffa and Ghôr es-Sáfieſ to Egypt and the Upper Nile. IC&nch is trº by various words—(1) “IReed’ (e.g. 1 K 14"). The allusion to the ‘bruised reed' (2 k 18*) shows a keen insight into the facts of nature. The grasses have hollow stems. A slight force is sufficient to crush them in, and then their elasticity and strength are gone. Yet even such, by God's help, may be saved from fracture (Is 42°, Mt 12*). The reed is spoken of as growing in marshes (Job 40”). The ‘wild beast of the reeds” (Ps 6890 AVn and IRV) is lº. either the crocodile or (cf. Job 40") the hippopotamus ; in either case it is a symbolical designation of Egypt (cf. Ezk 29', l’s 74”). See Driver, Parallel Psalter, p. 190, n. 7. The stronger kinds of reeds, such as Arundo Domnac, L., were used for walking staſis (Ezk 29% 7, Is 36"). This sort was, and still is, used for measuring, purposes (Ezk 40%." etc. [cf. Rev 11' 21*]. This one was 6 cubits and 6 palms long. The Gr. KáNapos was also a measure of 63 cubits). (2) ‘Stalk (of grain)” (Gn 41* *). (3) “Bone” (Job 31*), from the fact of this being a tube like the hollow stems of grasses. (4) ‘I3eam of a balance,’ thence the balance itself (Is 46"), probably because the cross beams of REED GRASS REFUGE, CITIES OF 213 *=- balances were sometimes made of reeds. (5) The ‘branches of a lampstand,’ probably because these were tubular (Ex 25* *). Possibly these tubes carried oil, as in the case of the seven pipes (n\py p) of the lampstand in Zechariah's vision (Zec 44, 12t.). (6) “Cane' (Is 43*), IRVm ‘ calamus.” The fuller form is a ten ngº kāmeh hattöbh, “sweet cane” (Jer 6” RVm ‘ calamus).” (7) “Calamus’ (Ca 4”, Ezk 2719). The fuller form is Dyarny) Káněh-bósem = “sweet calamus’ (Ex 30°). Calamus is not in- digenous in Syria and Palestine. This is noted in Jer 6”, where it is said that it comes “from a far country.’ Pliny (Nat. Hist. xii. 48), says, ‘Scented calamus, º which grows in Arabia, is common both in India, and Syria, that which grows in the last country being superior to all the rest. At a distance of 150 stadia from the Mediterranean, between Mount Libanus and another mountain of no note (and not, as some have supposed, Anti- libanus), there is a valley of moderate size, situate in the vicinity of a lake, the marshy swamps of which are dried up every summer. At a distance of 30 stadia from this lake grow the sweet-scented calamus and the rush.” This indication of locality would probably refer to the Lake of Hems, and the swamps of the Upper Orontes. But no modern botanist has detected Acomºus Calamus there. Nor have we been able to identify ‘scented calamus’ with any of the reeds or rushes which grow there. The º of Jeremiah’s language seems to for- bid the idea that he spoke of any indigenous plant. 4, niny 'dröth (Is 197) is trº in AV ‘paper reeds,' RW more properly ‘meadows,’ see art. MEADow in vol. ii. p. 307 note f ; LXX XX&pós. There is no authority for identifying this with the papyrus. G. E. Post. REED GRASS (Gn 412: 18). — RV for Sris, AV ‘meadow.” The same word is tr" in Job 8” “flag,” RV m ‘reed grass.’ See FLAG 1. REELAIAH.—See RAAMIAII. REELIAS (A "PeeXtas, B BopóNetos or -elas, AV Reelius), 1 Es 58, corresponds in position to Bigvai in Ezr 2*, Neh 77; but the form of the name is nearer to Reelaiah (A Pee)\las) in the same verse of Ezra, or IRaamiah in that of Nehemiah. REFINER, REFINING.—1. The verb pp. in Qal is used in Job 28% of gold, and in 36” of rain (see Dillm. ad loc.); in Piel it is used in 1 Ch 28.8 of gold, in 29" (cf. I’s 12") of silver; and in Pual of settled wine, Is 25%. , 2. The most usual word for “refine’ is Ty. The only occurrence in AV of “refiner’ is Mal 33, 8 (Typ). Ty occurs both in a literal, Ps 66", Jer *, Zec 13", and in a metaphorical sense, l’s 26°, Is 1” 4819, Dm 1190 (cf. Driver, Par. Psalt. 458 f.). 3. trupoffo 6at Row 11° 318 (IRV ‘be reſined ’); cf. 1 P 17, with Hort's note. & The ancient Egyptians, as described by Wilkin- son, purified gold by putting it into earthen crucibles with lead, salt, a little tin, and barley bran, Sealing the crucibles with clay, and then exposing them to the heat of a furnace for five days and nights. Refining silver by cupellation is a very old process. The silver mixed with lead is put into a crucible made of bone earth, and placed in a reverberatory furnace. As the oxide of }. forms, it is blown off by bellows, and towards the end of the process the thin covering of oxide becomes iridescent and soon disappears, and the pure bright surface of the silver flashes out. This process of reſining silver is re- ferred to in Jer 6". The reference in Mal 3 is to the purifying influence of affliction on the people of God; their sinful impurities gradually disappear, and at last the Divine image is reflected from the soul, as the face of the refiner from the surface of the purified silver. W. CARSLAW. REFRAIN.—The verb ‘to refrain' is now used only intransitively, to abstain from. This use is found twice in AV, Ec 3’ ‘A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing'; and A.e 5% ‘Refrain from these men.” But the primitive meaning of “refrain’ is to curb or restrain (Old Fr. refremer, Lat. refremare, from re back, and frenum a bridle, a curb), and this is the usual meaning of the word in AV. So Udall, Erasmus Paraph. i. 97, “Jesus refreyned them, saying, Why be ye grieved with this woman 2'; Ex 32* Tind. “And the Lorde refrayned him selfe from that evell, which he sayde he wolde do unto his people’; Ja, 1* Wyc. ‘If ony man gessith hym iłł to be relegious and refreyneth not his tunge’ (AW ‘bridleth not '); Elyot, Governowr, ii. 215, ‘Injurie apparaunt and with powar inforced eyther may be with lyke powar resisted, or with wise.dome eschued, or with entreatie refrained.’ J. HASTINGS. REFUGE, CITIES OF (bºpp ºny, ºn ny, or, more fully ºn bºpp my ; LXX (al) rôNets (rºv) puya- 6evrmptov, or the cities are said to be puyačevräpa. or els puya óevriptov ; a fuller description (Jos 21**) is h tróXts toū ſpvyaôevrmptov (h) too qovečvavros ; Vulg. civitates confugii, civitates (urbes) ad confugiemdum, wrbes fugitivorum (in fugitivorum attacilia or prae- sidia, ad fugitivorum subsidia).—Names and #. tion.—The names and location of these cities are given with great definiteness, and their distribution was such as would best accommodate the entire country. There were three on the west of the Jordan —Hebron in the mountains of Judah, Shechem in Mount Ephraim, Kedesh in Mount Naphtali; and three on the east of the river—Bezer in the plain belonging to Iteuben, IRamoth in Gilead belonging to Gad, Golan in Bashan belonging to Manasseh (Jos 207 °). See under each of these names. There is every reason to believe that the earl Jewish tradition (Neubauer, Géog. du Talmud, p. 55), which placed these cities in pairs nearly opposite each other on the east and on the west of the Jordan, is correct, so that Bezer should be found near Dhiban, Ramoth in Gilead at Gerasa,—the modern Jerash with which it has been identified (East of the Jordan, pp. 284–290), and Golan, not yet located with certainty, about due east from Kedesh. For greater convenience there seems to have been a provision (Dt 19°) that the principal roads to these cities should be kept open, and the inference is, although this is not stated, that they were likewise properly marked. The distance to be travelled ...] hardly have exceeded 30 miles at most, and was easily passed over in a day. Origin and purpose.—In the state of society then existing, the appointment of such places of refuge was wise and wholly in the line of justice. If a man took the life of another, he himself must be slain by the nearest relative. . No other law was known ; justice could be satisfied in no other way. It was seen, however, that if this law were carried out hastily in every case, men might suffer death who were really innocent. , Hence a trial must be had, and meantime asylums provided where alleged criminals would be safe until their case could be properly adjudged. . The plan did not result, as might be yº, in giving these places a bad character by ſilling them with mur. derers. On the contrary, these six cities were of the highest rank in every Way : º were all Levitical cities—Shechem and Hebron being royal cities, and Hebron in addition a Y. city. Each city, according to the (ideal *) legislation of * There is also a doubtful example in Sir 4% ‘Refrain not to speak, when there is occasion to do good." (Gr. Azº xoJavaºs x, yov, RV ‘Refrain not speech'): cf. Job 299 • Princes refrained talking.’ REFUSE REGENERATION P, was to have a suburb of a little more than half a mile in extent in every direction, so that the refugees might not be absolutely confined within the city's walls (Nu 35°). This privilege of asylum was evidently not de- signed for wilful murderers. A wilful murderer was to be put to death at once, and these cities were for those who had taken life unintentionally (*): ny: Dt 4”, Jos 20°. "[Dº), nijya Nu 35u. ”, Jos 208. 9 [all P]). That there was to be a strict trial (Nu 35*, *) is sufficient proof that some persons who had committed wilful murder availed them- selves of this possible chance of escaping with their lives (Nu 35°). The trial took place where the accused had lived or was well known, and not necessarily in the place where he had sought refuge; and this is shown by the fact that, if proved innocent of wilful murder, the authorities were to see him safely back to the city of refuge after the trial was over. The law of murder and of unintentional killing is fully stated in Nu 35*. After being taken back to the city of refuge to which he had fled at first, the offender was bound to remain there until the death of the then reign- ing “high priest’ (an expression which is taken by many to imply that the passage in its present form reflects the usage or the theory of a late age in Israel’s history), after which he was free to return to his own home. During that period, however, if accidentally or otherwise he passed beyond the suburb limits of the city of refuge, the avenger of blood might slay him. No payment of money was ever allowed to interfere with the strict fulfilment of this penalty (Nu 35°). Besides these regularly appointed cities of refuge, the temple at Jerusalem, or possibly the altar (see ALTAR) alone, enjoyed a similar prerogative, as is shown by the cases of Adonijah and Joab (1 K 1" 11-8; cf. Ex 2112m). As a ground of their action, we must presuppose a well - understood custom or sentiment, which gave to the altar the right of asylum in cases of life and death.* It is a curious fact that in the later history of the Hebrews very little is said to show how gener- ally homicides availed themselves of the refuge thus afforded. It may have been such a matter of course that nothing was ever said about it. The provision so carefully made by the Hebrews to shield those who had committed to intentional wrong had its counterpart among the Greeks and Romans, and may be looked upon as one of the most humane features of ancient civilization, where, in the general administration of affairs, cruelty and injustice, as we regard them, were frequently conspicuous. See, further, art. GoI.L. - S. MERRILL. REFUSE,--The verb ‘to refuse' frequently has in AV its earlier meaning of ‘reject,” especially as wnfit for use, which is still retained in the subst. ‘refuse.” Thus Ps l l 8” “The stone which the builders refused (IRV ‘rejected '+), is become the head stone of the corner'; Is 8° ‘I’orasmuch as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah that go softly.” So Knox, Works, iii. 210, “He that refuseth not himself, and takis not up his croce, and followis * As to the relation of Dt 441ſt to 101ſt, and on the whole tubject, see Driver, Deut. 233. f The Gr. of the Sept. is & reboxſworow, the Lat. of the Vulg. reprobatverumt ; Wyc. translates ‘repreveden," Cov. and Gen. ‘refused,' Douay, ‘rejected,' Bish. ..." refused.’ The passage is quoted in Mt. 2142, Ml 1219, Llº 2017 where the Gr. is always & rºboziºagy, and the Vulg. reprobaverumt; Wyc. has ‘repre- yeden' in Mt and Llº, but ‘dispisid" in Mk ; Tind. has always ‘refused’ or ‘did refuse,” Rhem, and AV ‘rejected.” The passage is also quoted in Ac 411 and 1 P 24, but with less verbal exact- ness, . Thus Ac 4|| Gr. 8:oulls, aſsºs, Vulg. qui reprobatus est, Wyc. ‘which was reproved,” Tind. ‘cast a syde,’ 18hem. ‘rejécted,’ I}ish., “Set nought,’ AV and RV “set at nought '; 1 P 24 (;r. &robºozºo.7% vov, Vulg. reprobatum, Wyc. * reproved,” Tind. disalowed ' (sº Gov., Cran., Gen., Bish., AW), Rhem. ‘repro- batcd,' IRV ‘rejected.’ me, is not worthie of me’; p. 317, ‘Peter was per- mitted once to sincke, and thryse most shamefully to refuse and denye his Maister’; Tindale, Pent. Prologe to Exodus, ‘an abjecte and a castawaye, a despised and a refused person’; Expos. 101, “None of them, that refuseth not all that he possesseth, can be my disciple’; Mt. 24” Tind. “Then two shalloe in the feldes, the one shalbe receaved, and the other shalbe refused.’ The origin of the word is difficult to trace. Trench (I'mglish Past and Present, 306) says un- reservedly, ‘To refuse is recusare, while yet it has derived the fof its second syllable from refutare ; it is a medley of the two"; and perhaps he is right. J. HASTINGS. REGEM (nyl; B ‘Páyeu, A ‘Péyép).-The eponym - of a Calebite f REGEM-MELECH (ºp DJ, ; B'Appealeep [A 'Appe- orea'ép, N° " 'Appearép, Q 'Appearečj & Baat)\ews).--One of a deputation sent to consult the priests about the propriety of continuing to observe the fast of the fifth month in commemoration of the destruction of the temple by the Chaldaeans, Zec 7°. The text of this passage is dubious, especially as concerns the words Bethel (AW ‘llouse of God’) and SHAREZER (which See). REGENERATION.—In the NT this subject is uniformly regarded in its concrete or experimental aspect : hence the abstract idea hardly occurs. here it does, the term traXavºyévéoria (So Tisch. WH, tra)\vyy. TR) alone is employed. This word is not found in LXX, but it has a history in Classical and Hellenistic Greek, being used mainly in the figurative sense of complete removation (āvakatvalais, cf. Ito . 12*, Tit 3"). It is this idea of restoration to pristine state that meets us in the nearest equivalent to the term found in LXX, Útropew& éas tráAuv Yévopal, Job 14*. But in pre- Christian usage it is not the individual so much as the world, or a nation, that is generally the subject of the entire change of condition denoted by traXavyéveola. Thus Basil (Hom. iii. in Howadan.) says that the Stoics àtreipovs q,00pås köopov K. Taxty- Tyevso-tas elodyev (cf. Philo, de Incorr. mutandi, 3. 14. 17; de Maindo, 15), what M. Aurel. (xi. 1) calls # reptobuki, tr. rôv ŠNov. Similarly, Philo calls Noah and his sons, tra)\ty). Yep,6ves K. Čevrépas āpxmyéral reptočov (Vit. Moys. ii. 12; cf. 1 Clent. ix. 4). National restoration is a sense found in Jos. (Amt. XI. iii. 9, h &váktmaus K. tra)\ty). Tăs Tarpláos); and this, in the fuller sense of the Messianic renewal of Palestine (and of the whole world, or dependent thereon, dirokaráo Tagus Távtwu), seems to reappear in Mt 19°, one of the two NT occur: rences of traXtvy. (cf. Dalm. 145). I’ven in Classical usage, however, the term does sometimes refer to the lot of the individual, denoting restoration to life in a literal or a figurative sense. Plutarch uses it several times in the former sense, i.e. in relation to the transmigration of Souls (de E tº carm. ii. 4. 4, §rt Xpóvrat Koivots al buxal adºplaguw ev ra's tra)\ty-yevéolais); and Agrippa is quoted by Philo (Leg. ad Gaium, 41) as addressing the em- peror Gaius as follows: row . . . reducata tº 6éet Świrupſa as Kaſſátrep & Taxty-yeverlas āuiyetpas. In more figurative wise Cicero (ad Att. vi. 6) calls his restoration to his lost life of dignity and honour Jane tra X, yºy, nośtram; and Olympiodorns, spenk- ing of memory, says, Taxi) Y. Tis Yvºredºs éo Tuv fi &váuvmats. Hence, on the whole, Traxtºy Y. in non- biblical usage seems to denote a restoration of a lost state of well-being, amounting to re-creation or renovation. If we could be surer of the Rabbinic use (esp. in relation to proselytes) of such an idea in the ; amily, 1 Ch 2". REGENERATION REGENERATION 215 time of Christ, we should probably get further it was conceived were highly objective. Things light on the exact connotation of Traxtury. and kindred expressions as they emerge in the NT. Among the latter the following are prominent : &valcalvadorus (Ro 12°, and esp. Tit 3"), with the verb &vakalvoſo.6at (Col. 3", 2 Co 4") and its synonym &vavedja:0at (Eph 4*); ávayevvāv (1 P 19.”) [which does not occur elsewhere in extant Greek litera- ture uninfluenced by the NT itself, though the Philomean tract, de Incorr. mundi, 3, has &vayév- vmous as a synonym for the Stoic tra)\vyyevsota of the world, and Porphyry has āvayevvmtikós (Ep. ad Ameb. 24)]; 'yevum.0%uat diva,0ev (Jn 3” 7, cf. yewv. 'yºpov dºv or öet/repov, V.4); Kalvi) kriots in the con- crete sense (2 Co 5", Gal 6", Eph 21° 4*), and its practical equivalents, katvös div0patros (Eph. 2”.4”), véos, div6p. (Col 319); Tékva 9600 yewé00at (Jn 1”), 'yevum.0%val ék T. 0600 (Jn passiºn), €k T. Trvevuaros, or é; Vöatos k. Tvetuatos (Jn 3". " "); and, finally, ºyevväu (Tuva) Suá too stayy., used of the preacher of the Word (1 Co 4", cf. Gal 4”). A single passage from an early Christian Father may be subjoined, as showing the influence of the NT upon his language, and also the relation of the biblical idea of Regeneration to certain other cognate ideas. Clement of Alex., speaking of the restora- tion of a sinful woman, writes (Strom. ii. ad fin. p. 424); # 6é Aeravojoaqa, olov divayevvmteto a karū. Thu &Truarpophy too 3tov, traXty'yevéotav čxet {wns, te0umkulas pºév tís Tröpums rās Taxatas, els 8tov Šē tape.N0000ms a 50ts Tās Katë, Thy perávouav Yevvmdetains. It has sometimes been thought that the idea of religious regeneration in this life was one ‘in the air’ in the 1st cent. ; and the phrase in alternwm, rematus tatrobolio, in connexion with Mithraic worship, has been cited as evidence. But Hort thinks it, as well as the traXty-yevéola of the Her- metic writings, to be dependent on Christian usage. Nor can the fact that Osiris was addressed as one who ‘giveth birth unto men and women a second time,’ be cited to the contrary : for this clearly refers to renewed life beyond the grave, not to spiritual regeneration in this life. . The origin of this latter notion and phraseology is rather to be sought in the OT and its Rabbinic developments. The phrase “new creation,” adopted by St. Paul, occurs repeatedly in the Midrashim with various applications (see Dalm. Worte Jesu, 146), and a roselyte is compared to a new born child in the Talmud (Jebamoth 62a ; see Wünsche, Erläntt. der Evangg. 506); cf. Hort, First Ep. of Peter, p. 33. The present article will deal with the following points:— “Regeneration' characteristic of the NT. A. Old Test. Adumbrations. i. In (a) national, (b) personal religion. ii. In the case of Proselytes. B. New Test. Presentation. i. In the Synoptics. ii. In St. James. iii. In St. Peter (relation to Baptism). jº iv. In Epistle to Hebrews. v. In St. Paul. vi. In St. John. C. Counccted Summary. Literature. l r The idea of Regeneration belongs to the NT rather than the OT. Indeed, some would confine it, in any proper personal sense, to the former exclusively. But this would be to confuse the implicit and explicit forms of the doctrine and experience, and to break the genuine continuity of biblical religion. This continuity, along with progressive development of form, it must be our care to trace between OT and NT, as well as between the several types of presentation in the NT itself. * A. Old TEST, ADUMBRATIONS.—i. OT religion being originally a matter of the nation rather than the individual, all the forms under which to be done or avoided are prominent ; and all as tending to avoid rupture of the normal relation or covenant between the people and J". At first little stress is laid on the state of the inner life, on ethical as contrasted with ritual purity. But when, under the influence of the prophets of the 8th cent, and later, the ethical element in religion came fully to light, the old idea of religion, as a dutiful relation between man and God, became charged with new spiritual meaning, and aſſorded the deepest and most adequate motion of piety imaginable. For it went below the level of mere deeds, to the attitude of soul of which they were as the fruit. - (a) The stages in the process may be traced as follows. As the older notion of salvation or well- being had been largely that of external national prosperity, taken as the expression of the favour of J”; so the chief means of its purification and deepening was national adversity. This turned attention, first to the moral conditions of the favour of the Holy One of Israel, and then to the intrinsic blessedness of righteousness itself, apart even from its normal external concomitants of peace and prosperity. At the same time, the break-up of national welfare caused the individual to attain to a new consciousness of his personal relations to J", and so to a more spiritual piety. These changes, as they affected both Israel and the individual Israelite, reached their crisis in the experiences of the Exile. During and after it the spiritual harvest, the first-fruits of which are to be seen even in the pre-exilic prophets, was gathered in by the sifted Church-nation. Chief among the new ideas acquired were (1) the thought of sin as a besetting power, ever apt to mar the normal relations between J" and His people; (2) the idea that a profound change of temper or attitude in Israel as a whole was needful ; (3) the conviction that an evil so inherent as the stiff- neckedness and uncircumcision of heart discovered in Israel could be met only by Divine and super- natural agency, working upon the very springs of conduct (cf. Dt 10° 30'"). In fact, the vision of a renovation of feeling and will as needful to Israel, of national regeneration as the pre-requisite and the essential blessing of the longed-for Messi- anic age, began to possess the better minds follow- ing in the wake of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Yet even in those great prophets the bestowal of the regenerate heart is thought of largely as a special intervention to meet an exceptional need, as it were at a stroke ; and its primary reference is collective rather than personal. Ephraim is over- heard acknowledging the effect of the Divine dis- cipline as salutary, and adding, ‘Turn thou me, and I will turn' (Jer 31*): and then the prophet looks forward to the bright day of national restora- tion, when the covenant shall become “a new covenant,’ as being divinely inscribed on the heart or inner life of the people (31*). Then ‘they shall be my people, and I will be their God: and I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for ever’ (32* 247). Similarly Ezekiel: “And I will sprinkle clean Water upon you, and ye shall be clean : from all your filthi- ness and from all your idols will I cleanse you, A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you : and I will take away the stomy lieart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes’ (3625-27 illº). Here we get, as never before, the idea of a new responsiveness of heart divinely produced—the essenge of regeneration. 13ut the regeneration is still viewed as national rather than individual (cf. the prophecy of the Valley of Dry 216 REGENERATION REGENERATION Bones, Ezk 37*-*), though the effects on the in- dividuals composing the nation are often clearly present to mind (Jer 31*, Is, 54* 60*). And, above all, it is felt to be still future (contrast Ezk 18”), a blessing of the Messianic age. (b) But while this is true of OT religion as a whole, even after the Exile, there are traces of individual piety going far beyond it, and virtually anticipating the NT experience of regeneration. Transferring the idea of religion, as a dutiful relation between Israel and its God, from the nation to the individual conscience, this deeper piety gave the holiness loved of J" a most vital meaning. It saw in ‘walking humbly with one's God,” the inmost secret of ‘doing justly and loving mercy.” All sprang from the ‘contrite and humble spirit’ indwelt of the Holy One of Israel (Is, 57* 66”). “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ a spirit broken by the sense that it was “truth in the inward parts’ that could alone satisfy the Holy One (Ps 51.7 °). And along with this begins to appear the sense of a nature radically prone to sin, and so in need of more radical aid from the Searcher of hearts before covenant obedience could become possible (Ps 51", Job 14* “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean 2 Not one’). There arises a cry for the “mercy’ and “loving- kindness’ of God, to draw the heart to Himself, and so create the very state of spirit with which He could commune. “A clean heart,” “a right' (steadfast) or ‘free (willing) spirit' — on which turned ‘the joy of thy salvation'—are all traced to the presence of God’s ‘holy Spirit” at work on the soul (Ps 511 19-14). Here we have the high- water mark of piety on OT lines, or rather piety under OT forms, but already outgrowing its limits. For with the emergence of the ideas of religion as primarily a state of the heart, of the radical tendency to sin native to frail human nature, and of the grace of God, in renewing and quickening power, as alone adequate to man's need,—with this the old national religion is transcended, and a new covenant becomes indispensable. Here, then, the experience, not to say the doctrine, of regenera- tion is already virtually present : it lacks only the objective basis furnished by the revelation in Christ, to give it that steady and assured quality which is the prerogative of NT ‘faith.” ii. As israel's slowness to realize the idea of regeneration was in part due to its overshadowing sense of a specially favoured relation to J” attach- ing to Abraham's seed, as such ; so we may suppose that the accession to exilic and post-exilic Israel of a growing number of those who had no such natural advantage, must have stimulated reflexion on the subjective conditions of fitness for com- munion with J". It may be true that the sense in which proselytes were first spoken of as ‘born to or in Messianic Zion (Is 49*. 44", Ps 87°) was mainly that of formal adhesion to the sacred people. Yet the patent greatness of the change of belief and conduct involved in the adhesion, must have tended to develop thought upon the spiritual and ethical senses in which a man might become a ‘new’ man, as it were by birth out of one world into another. Such reflexion would further be fostered by the rites through which the change of condition was achieved, particularly the ablution or baptism by which proselytes were admitted to *..." And all this would easily coalesce in devout minds with the promise in Ezk 36* touching the sprinkling of Israel itself with clean water, and the new heart associated there- with, as marking the piety of the great age that was to come. When, then, John the Baptist appeared, to usher in the fulfilment of Mal 3", there must have been a widespread feeling that his baptism meant a radical change of heart even in Israel (cf. Jn 1"). Still, the Diviner side of Ezekiel's prophecy, the baptism with the Holy Spirit, waited upon the coming of the Mightier One, Messiah Himself (Mt 3!!, Lk 3", Jn 19° 3”). And it was the deeper experience of the Holy Spirit, in specifically Christian form, that brought regeneration to light as implicit in the contrite heart and spirit, and placed it, the Divine side of the fact of true repentance, in the centre of NT teaching (cf. Jn 3**). B. NEW TEST. PRESENTATION.—i. The Synop- tics. – In Jesus' own public teaching the idea appears only in implicit forms, chiefly that of a radical repentance or change of heart (uerávota) towards God and towards sin—the great condition, in the prophets also, of restoration to Divine fellow- ship. But in that teaching there are also hints that the change is more complete than anything hitherto realized, in keeping with the advance in the revelation conditioning it. Man must choose between two lives, a lower and a higher : to find or save the one, he must be ready to lose the other. And it is implied in the parable of the Prodigal Son that the spiritual life of Sonship is in fact ‘dead” or null (Lk 15*) in every ji. estranged by sin and selfhood. . It is needful that even honest disciples ‘turn and become as little children’ in order truly to enter the Kingdom, in which it is the crown of blessedness to be genuine children of the heavenly Father (Mt 18° 5”). The parable of the Sower implies that the specific life of the Kingdom arises in the human heart by the sinking in of the gospel, and its producing, as it were, a new root of personality ; and it is inti- mated, though only in private to chosen disciples, that true “faith’ is dependent on a Divine factor at work behind the human (Mt 16"). This latter case suggests that the merely implicit form in which the profound truth of regeneration occurs in Christ's ordinary preaching is due, partly at least, to its jº. as adjusted to the needs of the poor and simple, in contrast to theo- logians like Nicodemus. ii. St. James.—The exact sense of the words (1*), ‘ of set purpose he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be first-fruits, as it were, of his creatures’ (BovXm0eis &Trekúmo'ev huàs \0 yºp &\m0elas, els rô elval huàs &trap)(ju Tuva Tóv attoº Kruopºćrwy), has been much debated. St. James is addressing the Israel of God, conceived much in the way in which an ancient prophet thought of the true Israel within Israel. He thinks of all “Israelites indeed,’ though he has in mind chiefl those who already believe in Jesus as Messiah (cf. Jn 1473*); for both alike have in principle one religion, that of ‘doers of the word’ (the revealed will of God), of such as visit the fatherless and widows, and keep unspotted from the world (1**"). To his eye, then, this people of loving obedience is what Israel’s God had meant Israel to be (Is 43*), ‘My people, my chosen, the people which I formed for myself (LXX, Öv Treptetrolmgápmv), that they might set forth my praise.” . So, of those who fear J" and regard His name it is said (Mal 37), “And they shall be to me . . . in the day which I make, for a special possession' (égoural got . . . els reputrolmow). This is very much the idea on which St. Peter dwells so lovingly, of “a people for God’s own possession,’ quickened into new life through the word of the living God (1 P 1° 2')— though he has professed Christians alone in view. Like ideas occur also in Eph l'".”, but decisively universalized as to the scope of “God’s own posses. sion' (cf. 2 Th 2*, ºil). if we read & Trapy fiv instead of &m' &px?s, with BFG & P minn. f. v.g. syr. hl., al.); while the notion of God's saints being first, fruits, as it were, of His full and final possession of His creatures in general, appears quite explicitly REGENERATION REGENERATION 217 in Ro 819-29. There creation is represented as awaiting ‘the revealing of the sons of God’ (‘the Regeneration,’ in the collective sense of Mt 19°), who, as already having ‘the first-fruits of the Spirit,’ may themselves, be styled God's first-fruits (cf. Rev 14* 21"). Thus spiritual Israel, now in pro- cess of rallying to Messiah Jesus, seemed to St. James ‘the first-fruits’ of God’s final reign. As for ‘the word of truth' to which this Israel owed its being, it was the revealed will of God active in conscience (= ‘the inbred word,’ 1*, or simply “the word,’ 1% = God’s ‘law,’ known as spirit and not as letter, ‘perfect law, that of liberty,’ “royal law,’ 12" 28-1° 41'= ‘the truth,” in an ethico-religious sense, 31* 51°, cf. Jn 8*. 1717). It was the sort of ‘word” that meets us in the Sermon on the Mount, the final practical issue of OT revelation for the conscience (cf. ‘the word of truth' in Ps 119°; also v.” “the sum of thy word is truth'). Yet it is not to be confined to the specifically Christian gospel : it denotes, rather, the element common to that and the law as it lived in the unsophisticated consciences of Jews like those who meet us in Lk –2. St. James has in mind, then, not individual regeneration, but rather the collective being of a People devoted to the Divine Will, and of which believers on Jesus Messiah were the typical members—a People which thus could be styled ‘ first - fruits, as it were, of God's creatures.’ “ His argument is that God cannot stultify Himself by tempting to evil. He is the author of good, and changeth not. And since it was with full intention that He brought forth + or constituted the godly community gathering to the name of Jesus Messiah, He must not be thought of as the author of seductive temptations. The emphasis still falls, as in pre-Christian references to regene- ration, on the collective quickening traceable to the Divine initiative, rather than on the individual —-though this latter is implied in the exhortation to “receive the inborn word (épºqurov \öyov, cf. Wis 12" &Aquros ?) Kakla abrów), which is able to save your souls.” Accordingly, such rudiments of our dºctrine as occur in James, represent a stage mid- way between typical OT and typical NT statements on the subject. iii. St. Peter.—The Petrine doctrine stands be- tween that of St. James on the one hand, and that of St. Paul on the other. The OT associa- tions of collective blessing (cf. his reference to ‘seasons of recovery’ or “restoration,’ &váWvěts, &Tokaráaragus, in Ac 3". " ") are still prominent in the language chosen (1 P 2"); while yet the idea of ‘regeneration,’ and that of individuals, by the Divine “seed' or ‘word of God, is firmly i. (1* cf. ", cf. parable of the Sower). The disciple seems possessed by his Master's teaching as to the child-spirit and the Divine fatherhood (2° 117). The Divine parentage involved in the new life is appealed to as a reason for love of the brethren (1*): being regarded as a congenital law of their new being—an idea, which recurs in 2 P 1", where renewed human nature is set forth as ‘in a true sense not God-like merely, but derivatively IDivine' (Hort, cf. 1 Jn 3"). ‘The word’ by which this comes about is clearly that of the gospel (11’ 1"); and, answering to this, * Jer 29 “Israel (is) holiness unto the LORD, the first-fruits of y his increase'—&px?, yºvzºrov cºroú, which parallels & ropx},y tu voz Tów cºroſ, zºria Accºrov : and for the personal Sense of 2 riorwoºroº, cf. Sir 8010ſ, where 6 Aozós arov is described in the next line as r& 2&T. O'Lºo. Toz ord U. # The idea occurs elsewhere, e.g. Sir 3617 (derived from Dt. 82% º, Ex 4*)' Igogº èv Towroyova, awo.o.o.o.º. In Ja 118 the verb &Tax%ars, is used to mark an antithesis to the thought of 110, where this metaphor was employed of sin as parent of death. , t Of, Barn, , i. 2, otºro, $%:vrov 7%; bapt&s rvivºcºrixás x&ply *A*%ts, and ix. 0, olºs, 3 rºw wºvzov baptºv rif bloc)4x's abroſ Uživos iv Žaly. — the definite act of confession in baptism is thought of as objectively sealing the salvation thus wrought (see BAPTISM in vol. i. p. 244"). Water, says he, doth now, in antitype to Noah's preservation, play its part in salvation, as Christian baptism—“not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the appeal toward God of a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” man's surety at God's right hand (1 P 3”). The sense of this passage, and particularly the meaning here given to the word étrepòrmwa, seems fixed by Ro 10”, He 10”. “For with the heart man trustfully believeth unto (the attaining of) Righteousness (i.e. Justification=Sal- vation in God's sight, implicité); but with the mouth man maketh confession unto (the attaining of) Salvation' (i.e. formal possession of salvation, explicité). ‘Salvation,’ in this context (Ro 10”), refers to objective membership of the Messianic Community or Church, the proper unit or subject of the New Covenant. Into this Body of the Christ, St. Paul says elsewhere (1 Co 12°), Chris- tians are through baptism incorporated ‘by one Spirit.’ ‘The Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father,’ seals, often by objective manifes- tations, the sincerity of the believer's confession. Similarly He 10”, “Let us draw near (as favoured worshippers) with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled (by blood, 9”) from an evil conscience, and the body washed with pure water.” Thus every obscure element in I’ 318: * is elucidated. Christ, though “put to death in (the sphere of) flesh,’ was “quickened in (the sphere of) spirit’—and so became for others a quickening spirit” (Trveſ ua ſworotočv, 1 Co 15"). Baptism, then, as the consummation of the be- liever's appropriation of Christ, means no mere bodily cleansing (like Levitical ablutions), but the appeal of a cleansed conscience (see 1* with 318; cf. He 913t.), directed in ‘full assurance of faith’ to God (cf. Eph 3” irporaywyńv év retrotóñget). It corresponds to the ‘living hope” due to Christ's resurrection, spoken of in l’ (cf. Col 2*)... “The promise of the eternal inheritance’ (He 9”), for which worshipful appeal is made to God’s covenant ſidelity in the Mediator, was conceived to be re- ceived ‘in earnest’ in the manifestation of Holy Spirit power (Ac 2*)—‘anointing’ or ‘sealing’ the believer unto the day of perfected redemption (2 Co lºit, Eph 11° 48'). Thus ‘baptism,’ as a living experi- ence, could be alluded to in Tit 3" as a formaï wash. ing of regeneration and renovation (in virtue) of Holy Spirit, ‘poured forth richly' at the solemn crisis of confession, where “Salvation,’ as an objec- tive state, took full effect (&orwarev huàs Suá Xoutpoſſ traXu'yevéolas Kal &vakawv&orews tru. Gylov). Baptism was a rite for the Church or sacred community as such, and for the individual in relation to it and its privileges; ‘by the washing of water’, were its members, as “cleansed ' ' by means of the word (cf. Jn 15°), formally admitted to the sphere of consecrated life resting on Christ's sacrifice (Eph 526, Ro 108t.). St. Peter seems also, by the time he wrote 1 P, to have caught in his own way St. Paul's deep, mystical thought in Ro 6", where identity with Christ's ‘resurrection life, on the part of the regenerate, is made to grow out of spiritual union with Him in His death to sin (consummated in His crucifixion, see 1 P 2*). Por 1 P 4' " " con- tains the essential idea of spiritual quickening through judgment in the flesh. And this process is extended by him, alone among NT writers, even to certain souls in Hades, namely, those suddenly cut off in the days of Noah--a fate conceived (as it seems) to have given them less than the normal probation of mankind, and that in an age of but dim light (1 P 3”. 4"; see, further, art. PETER, FIRST EPISTLE OF, in vol. iii. p. 795). 218 RICGENERATION REGENERATION iv. The Epistle to the Hebrews.-Though this Epistle contains, as we saw, much bearing on the new consciousness, yet it has no formal doctrine of “regeneration’ as the deepest aspect of the Messianic blessing. True, it uses metaphors of life developing from infancy to maturity (5**, with its allusions to “milk” and ‘solid food '); but there is no stress on the image involved. The categories of thought are mainly of an OT character—apart from the writer's own ‘Alexandrine’ strain (see below, C, ad fin. ; cf. ‘ those once illumined,’ ‘llaving tasted God’s word as good,' 6"). Hence we get a parallel to Ja 118 in the “congregation of the firstborn (who are) enrolled in heaven.’ Hence also the central place of repentance, as marking the be- ginning of the new relation to God—“repentance’ as the negative side of the change represented on its positive side by “faith’ (6" "). ‘ltepentance,” however, is taken by this writer in a deep and inward sense, in which it amounts to a ‘new leart” wherein the Divine Law is by Divine grace made inherent, according to Jeremiah’s great prophecy of the New Covenant (9". 10*). v. St. Paul.—The Pauline doctrine of Regenera- tion contains the essence of its author's unique experience of Jesus the Christ, as effecting at once revolution and renovation in his inner life. The difficulty here is to prevent this central aspect of Paulinism from involving us in an exposition of that system as a whole. We shall try, however, to indicate its place in the organism of St. Paul's soteriology as allusively as possible. Beyond all question, “faith was to him the very soil or subjective condition of that new good which came through the gospel. Faith was such recep- tivity as enabled God to give ‘his ineffable gift.” to the soul. As such, it answers to ‘the good ground,’ the ‘honest and good heart,’ as the state of soul adapted to ‘the word of God,” in Christ's parable. But St. Paul, viewing things in a more subjective way, proceeds to illumine the inner factors and stages of the great process from the standpoint of personal appropriation, as one who was himself tº: conscious soil in which it had come about. The good of which such ‘faith’ or vital trust is receptive in Christ, is variously set forth by St. Paul as the righteousness of a recti- fied relation to God, including forgiveness of sins (see JUSTIFICATION); cleansing or consecration (sanctification in principle : see SANCTIFICATION); participation in the Divine life, as the life of the Clirist, or Spirit-life; and hence realized sonship to God, as embracing all else. So arranged; the series passes from the more objective to the more subjec- tive aspects of the one simple yet complex fact, which, rooted at the heart of St. Paul’s experience, had made a new man of him. And the most adequate conception of it is that which represents the new relation to God in its most inward, vital, and causal aspect—the birth of a new manhood or personality within the old individual, Saul. It is this which ever emerges in St. Paul's most spontaneous and personal utterances. Such are the great out- bursts in Gal 2* and 2 Co 5”—passages familiar, yet in virtue of their experimental depth so little “known in the biblical sense. “I have been cruci- fied with Christ ; yet I live ; (and yet) no longer I, but Christ liveth in me : and that (life) which I now live in the flesh, I live in faith, (the faith) which is in the Son of God.’ And again : ‘He died for all, that they who live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again. . . . Wherefore if any man is in Christ, (he is) a new creature (kawvil Kría ts): the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new.” In these and like passages St. Paul speaks as a prophet, not as a schoolman. He affirms: he has no thought of what he may seem implicitly to deny. The life in him was above all new ; and it was of Divine initiation or grace. But that did not mean that there was no psychological continuity between the old Saul and § faculties, and the new Paul and his : nor did it exclude the responsible co-operation of his own volition throughout. The affirmations are experi- mental and unembarrassed by reflective tº: tions of verbal consistency. We may see, more- over, from other passages that what is here in the background was not overlooked by St. Paul, but entered into the body of his thought, coming out in turn as occasion arose. Thus when he speaks of “a new creature’ (Gal 6", 2 Co 517), or says, “the old things are passed away ; behold, they are become new,’ he simply means that his experience had utterly changed in colour and perspective. No factors had been eliminated but the resultant was new ; and this by the operation of a new factor determining all afresh and in a new syn- thesis. The new factor was the quickening grace of God in the Christ, the Spirit of Christ, the (Holy) Spirit, or most fully “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus.’ This, by overcoming ‘the law of sin and death,” naturally at work, had pro- duced a new spiritual life in him, and so made him a “new man’ in Christ Jesus. The way by which this lºad come about is laid bare in Ro 7, a chapter of deep psychological and also autobiographic sig- nificance. From it we gather that even in his un- regenerate state, while the law of sin operative in ‘the flesh”—the sensuous and self-willed side of his nature — actually swayed his will, he was already conscious of another and deeper element in his being, protesting against the flesh and sympathizing with the claims of God’s law. This ‘inner man” (à éow div6poros, 7°– 6 vojs, 7”. *=Tö Trvedpa toû &v0pútrov, 1 Co 2"; cf. Ro 8"), however, has only a latent or potential existence so long as it is overridden by “the flesh –“ the law of the unind,” by the law or principle active in the fleshly members (7°). The spirit is as good as dead in the man Saul as a moral personality, being outside the centre of volition as long as ‘the flesh ’ is there enthroned in power ; and so it is generally ignored in St. Paul's references to ‘the natural man,’ who is called summarily ‘dead in trespasses and sins,” because morally ‘alienated from the life of God’ (Eph 2): " 4*): But when the life of God succeeds in quickening this half-inanimate spiritual faculty with a kindred passion for the righteousness of God, then it springs to life (Ro 8") and gains control of the will : a new personality arises from the new union of the will and the ligher element dependent on and alkin to the Divine : the man lives anew with a fresh type of moral life—that being dominant which before was subject, and vice vers&. With this psychological reversal may be compared the earlier change from the rudimentary ‘life’ of irresponsible innocence to the ‘death' of a divided heart, wherein the lower elements hold sway (Ro 7”). Now, however, the man is con- scious of the issues at stake and the forces of both kinds at work in and upon him : and the whole deliverance has a vividness and finality propor- tionate to his prior sense of the death in bondage to sin (7%). As this experience of renovation came to St. Paul under the, forms of the life, death, and resur- rection of Jesus the Christ, so regeneration is set forth in terms of the same. The ‘new man' or ‘new creature’ is so “in Christ'; and Christ is in him. Hence ‘the Spirit of God’ or “Holy Spirit,” the quickener of the new life (1 Co 6' 12"), can also be called ‘the Spirit of Christ’ (IRo 8") or ‘the Spirit of his Son' (Gal 4"). Hence also the specific condition of the ‘new man,’ in contrast to the ‘old’ (Col. 3", Iºpli 4*), is that of sonship and installa REGENERATION REGENERATION 219 sma ºsmº" tion into sonship (vloffeola, Ro 8**) after the like- ness of Christ's. Still this regenerate or filial life is not complete at the time when it is given, coincidently with the self-committal of faith. It has a course of growth to go through, analogous to that of natural life. It begins with spiritual immaturity and proceeds to maturity of will and insight. The ‘babe’ (vätrios) in Christ is one who perceives only the broadest outlines of the Father's ways and will, and may still be confused by the films of his old fleshly blindness; whereas the full-grown or “per- fect” man (réNetos) is one to whom experience has brought enlightenment and discrimination of con- science (Ph 1” 3**): he is actually and not only potentially ‘spiritual’ (truevuartkós). And each stage has its own spiritual nutriment, its “milk? or its ‘solid food’ (1 Co 3*). (vi.) St. John.-The term ‘regeneration’ does not actually occur in St. John's writings, though it does virtually in one passage of his Gospel (3*"), in the phrase yevvmbival diva,0ev, which is best rendered ‘born anew ' (cf. v.” 6eirepov ela eX0eſu . . . kal yeuvm.0%vat). This shade of thought, while proper to the context, and while probably appro- priated by St. John as the root of his own thinking on the matter, is not the one most characteristic of his own doctrine. It is not so much the fact of a new beginning in the Christian life, as the in- horent nature of that life as drie to its Divine origin, that occupies this apostle's mind. His favourite emphasis is seen in the phrase ‘to be begotten of God’ (yevvmbival ék Toà, 0eoſ). , God Himself is the veritable Father of the Christian believer, the kindred fontal source of his new life, with its inherent Divine virtue (tò yeyevvmpuévov čk ro) 0eoſ). This virtue manifests itself in certain vital functions, wonderful and Divine by reason of their distinctness from the average conduct of human nature, as St. John saw it about him, radically determined by the world of sense, that source of seductive pleasures and ambitions. The world, so regarded, stood at the rival pole of being to the Father; so that ‘to be of the world’ and ‘to be of God’ were mutually exclusive states or spirits, by which the soul might be possessed and jºi (1 Jn 2"). Such birth from God is conceived by St. John as a single initial fact, carrying in itself abiding issues of a like nature. This is expressed by the use of perfects, like yeyévvmtat, 6 yeyevvmuévos (1 Jn 2* 3° 47 5* * **, cf. Jn 3%. 8), as distinct from aorists (ó 'yevvºj6eis ék roſ, 0eoſ, describes Christ in immediate contrast to the believer, 6 yeyevvmuévos ék row 0éoù, 1 Jn 5*). The rarer cases in which the aorist occurs, are those which simply contemplate re- generation as the decisive fact constitutive of spiritual sonship in the believer (Jn 1%, cf. 3". " "). The main passage in question is Jn 1* : “But as many as received him (the Logos), to them gave he prerogative to become children of God (éðakev attois &#ovortav rékva 9600 yewéo Oat), even to them that were believers on his name (roſs truo Tetovolv els K.T.A.); who were born, not of blood of human parents, nor of fleshly volition, nor of a human father's volition, but of God’ (ot owk &# alp14twv obóē ěk 0e)\juatos gapkös otöé ék 0e).jpatos duépôs d\N ék 6eoſ, ºyevv)0mgav). This is, in form and in context, an absolutely general statement ; so much so, that it seems impossible to refer it primarily to belief in Jesus the Christ at all, but rather to the uni- versal approach of the Logos to the human Soul, prior even to the Incarnation (see 11” for a similar thought). This is a most important aspect of the Johannine doctrine of regeneration : it not only fits in with the universality of his thought, but also confirms with his authority what is urged below, namely, that ‘regeneration’ may properly be Pºiº of the experience of saints under the Old Covenant. Yet the language in which St. John states this very truth of the wider regenera- tion, effected wherever the Logos is welcomed by the soul, is significantly coloured by his habitual speech in terms of the final manifestation of the Logos in Jesus the . Christ (“believers on his name '). As a rule, then, regeneration is, to St. John, actually conditioned by personal trust in Jesus, or, more specifically, in Him as the Christ, the Son of God (1* 20°, 1 Jn 5'). Further, it is assumed to take formal or consummated effect (as in the case of Jesus' own Messiahship) in the experience of baptism. Just as he says, “This is he who came under the condition of water (6t' V8aros) . . . even Jesus Christ’ (1 Jn 5")—words' used in close con- nexion with the Spirit as Messiah’s endowment and witness (v.V.", cf. Jn 3*); so baptism is to him the normal condition under which believers come to rank as ‘children of God,” in virtue of a manifest sealing by Holy Spirit power. As the Father had ‘sealed' the Son (Jn 6”) with the Spirit's witness, in response to His obedience of self-conse- cration at the Baptism (1 Jn 5*"), so, apparently, St. John thought of the Messianic gift of the Spirit, usually manifest at baptisms in the Apos. tolic Age, as definitively ‘sealing’ (cf. above, (iv.)) the believer's confession of personal trust and consecration by “an unction from the Holy One’ (i.e. Christ, 1 Jn 2*, *).” Such a reading of his Master's mind, as expressed by the reference to water in the words to Nicodemus, may be implied by St. John's return to the topic of baptism a few verses later on (3**), and certainly corresponded to the experience of the Apostolic Age—though hardly to that of later times. Naturally, the con- junction has no relation to the baptism of infants, where the essential element of belief on Christ's name is lacking. IBut, in relation to the conditions contemplated by the apostle, the definite line drawn by baptism between the filial status of Christian believers and what went before, is of great moment for his thought as to regeneration. It does not, indeed, annul his recognition of children of God awaiting the gospel to gather them into Christ's one flock (Jn 11” Yva kai Tà Tékva row 6600 rà èteokopiſtopºva avva-yá'ym els ēv), and so of a deep dualism of moral state among mankind at large, a predisposition to accept or to reject the Light deſinitively revealed in Christ, according to the attitude to God implicit in each of two types of conduct (3**). But all this, taken along with the absolute form in which the tests of kinship to God are set forth in his Epistles (‘ every one that doeth righteousness,’ ‘ that loveth,’ 1 Jn 2* 4", cf. 3 Jn "), suggests that St. John distinguished be- tween a virtual, though latent, and an explicit or conscious sonship. The latter was the specific blessing brought by the gospel of Christ, the assurance or knowledge of Divine sonship, after which even the best of men had before sought in vain. In this respect the revelation in Christ was crucial. As Light, in an absolute moral sense, He brought all to a crisis or decision (kplots), forcing all hearts to reveal their in most allinities—whether for ‘the world’ and self, or for God and His righteousness and love. Implicit regeneration, where it already exists, thus passes into explicit regeneration. 'The more definite and psychologically mature character of the NT experience of Regeneration, as compared with that of the godly under the OT, is hinted in the words, ‘ I came that they may have Life, and have it in abundance’ (10", cf. 4"). * As has been well said, ‘the disciples are in a true sense Christ's in virtue of the life of “the Christ''' (Westcott, The Epistles of St. John, xlv). 220 REGENERATION REGENERATION wº- It connects itself also with the Johannine emphasis on the specifically new presence of the Spirit with the Christian as such, Here two passages in the Gospel are crucial. Commenting on Christ's words, * He that believeth on me . . . out of his belly shall flow ri, ers of living water,’ St. John adds: “But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believed on him were to receive—for (the) Spirit was not yet (given), because Jesus was not yet glorified’ (7*). Then, in the great Farewell Dis- course (Jn 14") he records his Master’s promise that He would give the disciples ‘another #. 2 or Paraclete, to supply what would be lacking of conscious support through the removal of His own bodily presence. This implies something fresh to their experience, and yet Jesus adds : ‘Ye (already) have (experimental) knowledge of him, for at your side he abideth and in you he is ' (was's yuvºokere aúró, úrt trap' waiv uévet kal év Úſtív early). Here the contrast is a religious rather than a metaphysical or theological * one : it is a matter of the disciples’ consciousness rather than of the Spirit's real pre- sence. They had implicit experience of His action, in their very experience of oneness of heart with their Master: in a little while this was to blossom out into recognition of His presence and support as the very ground of their assurance of abiding º union with their glorified Lord and a share in His sonship. This is the thought which St. Paul grasped so firmly and expresses in the words, “the Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit that we are children of God’ (Ro 8", cf. *). But it is also what St. John has in mind in saying that “not yet was the Spirit,” i.e. the Spirit-consciousness of full sonship which marked Christians after Pentecost (7°, cf. Ac 19°). St. John's doctrine of salvation, then, centres in IRegeneration. In it man's true or ideal destiny is realized through the initiative of the heavenly Father or the Spirit, responded to by the moral receptivity of obedience in the human heart or will potential sonship becomes actual in a Life of communion that is at once human and Divine (10”). Every man has the potency of two dia- metrically opposed personalities in him, by his natural birth. The one has, as it were, the start of the other, realizing itself along the line of sensuous, egoistic tendency—the line of least re- sistance morally. It is thus ‘of the earth (3*), “of the world’ (1519 1714, 19, 1 Jn 210.4%), “from below (8*), the spliere of ‘the ruler of this world’ (1499). Those, then, in whom it reigns are morally ‘children of the devil” (1 Jn 38. 19, cf. J in 84*). The other personality or character, on the contrary, owes its origin and vitality to God and that spiritual order of His which gradually dawns upon our ken with the emergence of reason and conscience. Thus it is, when produced in a man by Divine grace (6*)—though not without the co- operation of human volition (3* 549 844)—a life Ç }. heaven’ (3”), “not of the world’ (1519 1714. 18), ‘ from above (like the Son himself, 8”), “ of God’ (1 Jn 3° 5' 18) or ‘of the Father’ (1 Jn 210). To save one of these lives is to lose the other (12”): the life of the one means the death of the other (as in the Synoptics). C. CONNECTED SUMMARY. —Regeneration is the final form in which biblical religion conceives that profound spiritual change whereby sinful man comes into real and abiding communion with God. Accordingly, one must recognize in regeneration the virtual synonym of various other soteriological terms, such as Repentance, Conversion, Justifica- tion, or Forgivenesis, and even Consecration or * The usual reading to rºu, instead of fortſv (BD” 1. 22.00. 251. 254 it plor syr. cur. pesh. go 'Tat arab, Lcif), is probably due to failure to see this, and the consequent attempt to harmonize the statement with the future (3&ors) above. Sanctification in that radical sense which consti- tutes the believer as such ‘a saint.” But as ‘regeneration’ sets forth the change in question in a specially inward or vital way, it hardly emerges as an explicit doctrine in the OT, and does so but gradually even in the NT. We have seen that in Christ's own ordinary preaching, as given in the Synoptics, regeneration is set forth in purely religious and ethical fashion, in terms of the will rather than in a manner more abstract. This popular aspect of the matter meets us again in early Judaeo-Christianity, before highly trained minds like St. Paul and the writer to “Hebrews’ had brought the categories of Rabbinic and Hel- lenistic psychology to bear on the data of Christian experience. Repentance, not regeneration, stands in the forefront of the early preaching in Acts, as also of that under which “the Hebrews’ had be- lieved (He 6" "); and thereby men were qualified for entrance into the Messianic community in baptism, in which they received the ‘seal’ of the Spirit's manifested gifts. The more inward and secret operation of the Spirit, implied in penitence and trust, had not as yet received due notice. This side of things, indeed, was largely hidden from those whose outlook and conception of Sal- vation were still primaril y eschatological. Hence St. Paul’s unique experience of the º as power of God in the soul, and as an essentially resent Salvation, marks an epoch in the NT octrine of Regeneration. His deeply self-reveal- ing consciousness of sin gave him to see, traced within, the process by which new moral energy was received, and to realize the Divine quickening involved in man's experience of repentance an faith. He saw that human nature embraced two principles, opposed in tendency to each other, and competing for the control of man's settled personal will. In actual human nature the lower or sensu- ous (Wuxuków) and self-centred principle, called ‘the flesh ’ (ordpå), had the upper hand and determined the quality of man’s moral life : and the outcome was ‘death towards God and His righteousness. But in Jesus Christ, who was a ‘second ’ or new type of manhood, of heavenly origin (6 6etrepos div0pwtros é owpavo0), and ‘spiritual” in contrast to the ‘sensuous’ or ‘earthy’ type of Adamic man- hood (1 Co 15**7), a new basis was laid for humanity. To believers this Saviour became “a quickening spirit' (Trvedaa Kwotrotoſiv), turning the scale decisively against ‘the flesh,’ and setting free, as if by a resurrection, the enthralled higher nature (vows or rvedua), before as good as dead, by filling it with Divine energy or life (Trvedua &ytov) akin to His own, in virtue of which He rose vic- torious over death. A man so vivified by the Spirit of God, and after the likeness of Christ, was in very deed a new moral being (katvi, ktſats), a son of God, by Divine re-creative action and adoption. The Spirit replaced the flesh as prime determinant of will and conduct ; and there with ‘the old man,’ the moral state of the individual by nature, gave way to ‘the new man,’ the state in which the human will is in harmony with the Divine in principle, and normally so in practice likewise. “Cleaving to the Lord,’ the soul ‘is one spirit” with Him (1 Co 6”), animated by one and j. same life that is in Christ, the Head of the new humanity, a life that is essentially of God and Divine. This deeper idea of Salvation seems certainly to have left its trace on St. Peter's later thought, to judge by 1 P. Possibly also it affected the form in which St. John himself interpreted the new Life which had been manifested, first among the original disciples, and then in them. Yet, there were elements in St. John’s doctrine proper to his own experience, both of his Master's º: and REGENERATION REHOB 221 wº- of the Light and Life in himself and others. He shared with St. Paul the idea of moral dualism as rooted in a dualism of elements in human nature. On the one hand man was related to ‘the world’ of sense and of self (the flesh), on the other he was alcin to God, as sensitive to His word and so potentially His ‘child’ in deed and in truth. St. Paul thought most of the new experience in itself, speaking of the regenerate man as a “new (moral) creature,’, or as a ‘son’ in respect of definite status and privileges in relation to God through faith in Christ and by virtue of the Spirit (2 Co. 517, Gal 3* 4-7, Ro 814-17. *). Thus it is a question of a new status or condition into which a man is brought by a definite act, Adoption (vloôeala), by which the transition is made from the opposite states of serfdom, wretchedness, aliena- tion, death (Gal 3* * 7, Ito 7%. 8%. 14): so that the full effect of , such adoption waits upon man's emancipation from ‘the bondage of corruption’ in • the redemption of our body’ (Ro 8***). St. John, on the other hand, thought rather of the intrinsic nature of the "eternaliife' quickened in believers, of the wonder and glory of its origin in God—the Divine nature germinating as “seed' in the human soul, and by a new birth begetting a new personality. Thus it is his writings which present the most classic statement of the doctrine of Regeneration, as ‘that work of the Holy Spirit in a man by which a new life of holy love, like the life of God, is initiated.’ Aside from this main line of development stand St. James and the writer ‘to Hebrews.’ The former thinks of the origin of the higher life in the soul in terms of the Wisdom literature of the OT and of writers like Philo.” “The word of truth,’ ‘the inborn word,” or ‘the wisdom from above,’ is the medium of God’s creative action on the soul, by “the Spirit which he hath caused to dwell in us” (118. * 317 4"). To the latter, men are essentially ‘spirits,” placed by “the Father of spirits’ in the body, to be disciplined and puri- fied with a view to conscious sonship, and so to the “glory’ of the spiritual and real world of which the visible is but the poor shadow (12” “” 219 12"-8). Hence the work of grace is set forth as moral enlightenment and purification of the con- science (6' 10° 91° 10°), believers being ‘those who have been illumined.” The vital and dynamic aspects are not, indeed, absent (5*–6"); , but the renewal effected in the fundamental change of heart which the NT everywhere recognizes in Repentance (6"), is to him a matter of divinely- given insight into the realities of the moral and spiritual world, and a corresponding obedience. The Christian ‘tastes the word of God to be good,' and as he feeds upon the oracles of God he gains an ever more refined perception of shades of moral and spiritual truth (64.5"). This, the writer's own emphasis (as distinct from his readers’ type of thought), is Iſellenistic and ‘Alexandrine,’ ºil. largely paralleled in the so-called Epistle of Bar- nabas, as well as in 1 Clement and a good deal of 2nd cent. Christian literature. But differently as the NT writers do, in some respects, conceive the great experience whereby the moral centre of gravity in a man’s life changes from self to God, they are unanimous on one car- dinal point. And that is the constant relation of the ‘word of God,” made vital to the conscience and heart, as the means, and of faith as the con- dition of the change. LITERATURE.--The special literature of this subject is rather scanty. Considerable sections on it exist in the larger works * Philo represents God and the Logos as sowing in the womb of the soul the seed of virtues, and so making it preg- nant and bear : e.g. Leg. allog. iii. 51, 31&rºrt: Y&p rött tº &vz; ; orpºwtizos x, yºvy; tıxos ray zoºdy Aéro; 3206s. on biblical theology (e.g. Weiss and Holtzmann in particular), as also in Systems of Dogmatic (e.g. Rothe, Thomasius, Martensen, Dorner). But attempts, at a strictly historical and genetić account of the biblical doctrine, on the basis of an adequate literary criticism, are singularly few : J. Köstlin's art. “Wieder- geburt,’ in Pl:E2 xvii. 75 ft., seems the best available, but is no longer sufficient., The Angus Lecture on ‘Regeneration' (1897), so far as it deals with the biblical material, is quite uncritical and conventional. Much matter bearing on our doctrine is to be found in studies of the doctrine of the several NT writers, often under other, but kindred, headings, e.g. Adoption, Conversion, Faith, Justification, IRepentance, Son- ship. As examples may be cited, J. B. Mayor, Epistle of James, appended Comment on ‘Regeneration,’ pp. 186–189; A. B. Bruce, St. Paul's Conception of Christianity, chs, x.—xiii., and esp. ch. xvii., “The Christian Life’ (though it unduly minimizes St. Paul's recognition of growth in the new life); Westcott, Epistles of St. John, added Note on ‘Children of God,” p. 122 ff. J. W. BARTLET. REGISTER.—See GENEALOGY, vol. ii. p. 121. REHABIAH (nºrm and nºnrn ‘Jah is wide’). —The eponym of a Levitical family, said to be descended from Eliezer, one of the sons of Moses, 1 Ch 237 24” (LXX Paaguá) 26* (B 'Paglas, A 'Paağias). REHOB (nini and anº).—1. (B 'Pad 3 [2 S"Poč8], A "Potęg) A town at the northern end of the valley of the Jordan, most probably the same as BETH- REHOB (which see), º which the exact site is un- known. In P's narrative of the spies Rehob is mentioned (Nu 13*) as the most northerly limit of their explorations, and is further deſined as “at the entering in of Hamath,’ i.e. at the entrance of the great depression between the mountains of Lebanon and Hermon, which connects Palestine and Coele- Syria. P's phrase, therefore, ‘from the wilder- ness of Zin unto Ikehol),' is merely a variation of the more usual formula ‘from Dan to Beersheba.’ With this agrees the notice in Jg 18*, where the new settlement of the Danites at Laish (or Leshem, Jos 1947) is described as situated ‘in the valley that lieth by Beth-rellob.” In the reign of David the valley of Beth-rehob (2 S 10"), or Rehob (v.9) was the seat of a petty Aramaean kingdom (cf. 1 S 14", LXX Lag.), like the neighbouring Beth-maacah or Abel of Beth-maacah. Robinson (BRP” iii. p. 371) identified the town with the ruins of Hurwin in the valley of Huleh ; but this site is too far south. More probable is the view of Bulil (GAP p. 240), who suggests that it corresponded to the later Pancas (Băniãs). It is true that many Writers have identified this town with the ancient 1)an (Reland, Palaestima, p. 918 f.; Thomson, Land and Book, ii. 547; and recently G. A. Smith, HGHL pp. 473, 480f.); but, in view of the explicit statement of Eusebius (OS* 275. 33, 249. 32, cf. Jerome, ib. 136. 11) that Dan was four miles distant from Paneas, we should probably identify Dan with the modern Tel el-Kāqi (kadi = ‘judge’ = Dam). 2. (B ‘Pad 3, A "Poč9) A town belonging to the tribe of Asher, the exact site of which is unknown. It was presumably near to great Zidon (Jos 19°), and was afterwards assigned, together with its suburbs, to the Gershonite Levites (Jos 21”, l Ch 675). It is therefore to be distinguished from— 3. (B 'Paat, A 'Padºg), which is also mentioned as belonging to Asher, and was apparently near the seacoast (Jos 19°). According to Jg 1° Rehob was one of the cities which were still retained by their Canaanite inhabitants. Very }. it is the city referred to in the Egyptian lists cited by Müller (Asien w. Europa, p. 153). Litiºn ATURE.—Thomson, Land and Book, ii. 547; Robinson, BR P2 iii. p. 371; SWP i. p. 130ſ. ; Baedeker”, p. 265 f.; G. A. Smith, IIGH L, l.c.; Buhl, GAP pp. 65 f., 112 f. , 237–240; Stanley, Sinai and Palestime, p. 400; Moore, Judges, p. 389 f. and p. 51 f. 4. ("Pad 3) The father of Hadadezer, king of Zobah (2 S 88. 1%). 222 REHOBO AM REHOBOAM 5. (N. "Poê8, A Podg, B on.) One of those who sealed the covenant (Neh 10*). J. F. STENNING. REHOBOAM (byntſ “the }.}} is enlarged,” or perhaps “Amis wide, cf. Rehabiah [see Gray, HPN 52, note 1, 59 f.]; ‘Pogoda, Roboam).-The narrative of this reign is contained in 1 Kll*–12* 14***, 2 Ch 991-12. ‘Āmple in foolishness (nºns ann) and lack- ing understanding, Rehoboam by [his º let loose [the peo]ple’ (Sir 47”, Cowley and Neubauer's translation). Such is the judgment of the son of Sirach, as he pauses in his ‘praise of famous men’ for the inevitable notice of º collapse of Israel as a world power, and the frustration of the proud hopes of Solomon that had found expression in the name he had bestowed on his heir. The Christian historian, who recognizes that the function of the chosen race was to be the custodian of the oracles of God and source, according to the flesh, of the Saviour of the world, can easily perceive that this praeparatio Evangelić was, humanly speaking, ren: dered possible only by that checking of the material development of the nation of Israel which resulted from the disruption of Solomon's empire. But to the Jewish patriot the maiming of }. country’s life must always have seemed an unmixed evil. The apparent innediate cause – Rehoboam's fatuous. insolence—was merely the pretext for the revolu- tion that took place on his accession. As is the case in every other turning-point of history, the true cause of the issue must be sought for beneath the surface, in social and religious forces which had been at work long before. There was, in the first place, the political ques- tion. It was the normal condition of things that Ephraim should envy, Judah, and Judah vex Ephraim. From the time of the earliest settle- ment in Canaan the North and the South had stood apart. The Bk. of Judges exhibits the northern tribes welded together by common resistance to the various oppressors. Judah never joins them, even when the attack comes from the South. It may have been that co-operation was difficult owing to the line of Canaanitish fortresses, such as Jebus, Gezer, and Ekron, that extended across the country from east to west. It may have been that the spirit of nationality was weaker in Judah and Simeon as a consequence of their greater laxity with regard to intermarriage with and adoption of native families; if indeed we should not rather regard it as a cause of this laxity. Be that as it may, we find the distinction between Israel and Judah noted in the first army raised by Saul (1 S 118), and immediately after Saul's death an open breach occurred. David laboured hard to break down this antagonism. His transference of the seat of government from the purely Judahite Hebron to Jerusalem was a compromise with the northern tribes. Yet in his reign Israel twice rebelled. David's policy was continued by his successor ; Solomon’s division of the land for com- missariat purposes (1 K 47") was evidently an attempt to obliterate the old tribal boundaries. That this attempt was in some degree successful may be inferred łº, the fact that the boundary between the dominions of Rehoboam and Jeroboam so ran as to include in the southern kingdom a portion of Benjamin, and the greater part of the southern settlement of Dan. A succession of monarchs of the commanding personality of David or Solomon might have completed the unification of the tribes, but Solomon presumed too much on his personal prestige. The odious levy of forced labour, and that, too, for the adornment of an upstart capital, and the ceaseless exactions for the supply of the royal table (LXX 1 K 12*P), had long rankled in the hearts of the proud Ephraimites. Add to this that the character of Solomon's suc- cessor, as one “not fit to be a rulernor to be a prince’ (LXX 1 K 12*), must have been well known for many years. Everything, indeed, indicates that all preparations had been made for a revolution the moment Solomon should dig. The Ephraimite Jero- boam, supported by a prophet's nomination and the favour of his tribe, was biding his time in Egypt, and treated there not as a runaway official, but as an exiled prince (LXX 2 K 12*). The temper of the northern tribes was further shown in their de- termination to appoint Rehoboam independently, if at all, and in their selection of Shechem, the chief sanctuary of Ephraim, as the place of as- sembly, thus ignoring the recent centralization of civil and religious administration at Jerusalem. This political movement was supported by a religious agitation in which two elements, ecclesi- astical and prophetical, may be discerned : on the part of the priests of the high places jealousy of the exclusive claims of the mew ºl. at Jeru- salem, and on the part of the prophets a nobler zeal for Jehovah, ºut. forth by the lax eclecticism of Solomon in his later years. As we see from the attitude of Nathan, the prophets had not cordially approved of the building of the temple, and they now probably thought that there was more chance of the national worship being preserved in its purity in the north. Iłehoboami’s subsequent con- duct, indeed, quite justified these alarms. He added to his father's innovations by sanctioning the erection of pillars of Iłaal and the worst abomi- nations of heathenism (1 K 14**), such as did not find a place in the northern kingdom until the reign of Ahab fifty years later. The Chronicler’s account of Jeroboam’s expulsion of priests and Levites, and of the rallying of the j. Israelites round Rehoboam (2 Ch 11”), is quite unsupported by Kings, which (127) merely states that Rehoboam's subjects included some residents of northern extraction. The special animus of the revolting tribes against the temple at Jerusalem possibly underlay their parting taunt, ‘Now see to thine own house, David.’ Josephus (Amt. VIII. viii. 3) understood it thus, “We only leave to Rehoboam the temple which his father built.’, Ahijah and Shemaiah were right. “It was a thing brought about of the LORD’; the pure monotheism of which Israel was privileged to be the exponent would have bećn sapped and destroyed by foreign cults, if the later Solomonic policy had received no check. In after times this was forgotten; and the later prophets, thinking solely of the political consequences of the disruption, refer to it as a supreme calamity (Is 77, Zec ll"). The most important event in this reign is the invasion of Palestine by Shishak. This was one of the direct consequences of the division of the nation. Sesonchis, as Manetho calls him, the first monarch of the 22nd dynasty, reversed the policy of his predecessor Psusennes, and displayed un- friendliness towards Solomon by sheltering his adversaries Hadad and Jeroboam. Notwithstand- ing the fact that Shemaiah had forbidden the employment of the huge army (reduced in LXX, B, to i20,000 men) which Rehoboam had mustered by the following year (LXX 1 K 12*) in order to recover the kingdom he had lost, yet “there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continu- ally’ (1 K 14*). In , all probability. Jeroboam, harassed by these border forays, called in the aid of his former protector. The fifteen towns which Kelioboam is said to have fortified (2 Ch 11" ") are, with two exceptions, south of Jerusalem, as though an attack might be expected from that quarter. The invasion took place in Iłehoboam’s fifth year, and the prophetical historian justly sees in this humiliating calamity the scourge of God for the continued and aggravated national apostasy. The REHOBOAM REHOBOTH-IR 223 statement of the Chronicler (2 Ch 1117) that Reho- boam’s defection did not occur until his fourth year, and the story of his subsequent repentance (12"), are obviously designed to bear out the theory of the original orthodoxy of the kingdom of Judah (see Abijah's speech, 2 Ch 13"), as well as to heighten the moral and dramatic effect of the story. Jerusalem does not seem to have stood a siege. Itesistance was hopeless. Shishak (herein acting treacherously, according to Josephus) utterly denuded the temple and royal palace of their trea- sures, including the famous golden shields of Solomon's guard, to which the LXX (2 S 87, 1 K 14*) adds the golden shields taken by David from Hadadezer. Dean Stanley well points out that there is a grave irony in the historian's account (1 K 4*) of how the elaborate ceremony which had been observed with regard to the golden shields was continued in the case of their brazen substi- tutes. We learn from the Chronicler (2 Cli 12°) both the number of Shishak's host, to which Josephus adds 400,000 infantry, and also the nationalities of whicli it was composed—Libyans, Sukkiim (=troglodytes, LXX and Vulg.), and Ethi- opians. Ewald (Hſ iv. 45) conjectures that Edom º. joined in the invasion (see Jl 3"). There may still be seen on the south wall of the temple of Amon at Karnak an inscription—now partially defaced—which deals with this expedition. It gives the list of towns subjugated by Shishak. Some difficulty has been caused by the inclusion in this list not only of places in the South, such as Shocoh, Gaza, Keilah, and perhaps Jerusalem, but also of many towns of Israel as far north as Megiddo. This does not contradict the biblical narrative, which conſines itself to the invasion of Judah ; but it seems scarcely reconcilable with the hypothesis that Shishak invaded Palestine as Jéroboam's ally. However, Maspero (Journal of the Transac- tions of the Victoria Institute of Great Britain, vol. xxvii. p. 63) points out that “the king of Israel in imploring the aid of Shishak against his rival had thereby made himself vassal to Egypt. This would suffice to make his towns figure at IQarnak among the cities subjected in the course of the campaign.’ This is a more likely solution of the difficulty than Rawlinson's supposition (Speaker's Com. in loc.), that these were Canaanite or Levitical towns which had taken Iłelhoboam’s side. The names on this list are engraved on cartouches, over which appear the heads of men of various types, representing the inhabitants of each town. Considerable interest was formerly excited by one of these names, which Maspero transliterates Jaoud-ha-maluk or Jud- ham-melek. This was rendered by Rosellini ‘ king of Judah” (!), and the inference was a tempting one, that in the annexed figure we had a veritable portrait of Rehoboam himself. , 13ut Brugsch (Geogr. Ins. I. ii. p. 62), followed by Maspero, in- terprets it as the name of a village in Dan, Jehud, now el-Yeh (diyeh, near Jafla. “The name bears the sign for “ º not for “person.”’’ See, further, Struggle of the Nations, 774. Some minor matters remain to be discussed. From Kings we learn the name of lèchoboam’s chief wife only, MAACAii. 13ut the Chronicler gives details about his domestic affairs, noting the name of a second wife, MAILALATII, and perhaps of a third, A Blu Ali., who is mother of Mahalath according to the RV, but another wife of Rehoboam according to AW and RV m. Josephus reduces the number of his concubines to thirty. . The rise in Judah of the power of the queen-mother is prob- ably to be attributed to Rehoboam's uxoriousness. , His con- duct towards his sons, which is praised by the Chronicler, may have rendered the accession of Abijah easier, but was not wise in the best sense of the term. According to the MT of 1 K 1421 and 2 Ch 1213 Rehoboam was 41 years of age at his accession, and reigned 17 years, Iſe would then have been born before Solomon came to the throne. Rawlinson would read, with some MSS, 21 in this passage, on the ground, perhaps, that the insolence of Rehoboam to the Jsraelites is more like the conduct of a petulant youth than of a man of mature age. More weight must be given to the second Greek account, which in 1 K 1234a, says that Rehoboam was 16 years of age at his accession, and that he reigned 12 years. The Statement of Abijah (2 Ch 137) that Rehoboam was young and tender-hearted” (ijºn, i.e. “fainthearted,” see Dt 208) at the time of the rebellion must not be pressed. There is one other important chronological difference between the second Greek account and our present Hebrew text. In the latter, Jeroboam, even if he took no personal share in the negotiations with l'ehoboam (1 K 1220), certainly left Egypt immediately after Solomon's death ; whereas in LXX ’i K 12* the marriage of Jeroboam to Shishak's sister-in-law, and the birth of his son Abijah, occur in Egypt after Rehoboam's accession. But this whole story is in a very confused condition, and is antecedently less probable than that preserved in the common text. See JEltobOAM ; and cf. Swete, Int, to OT in Gr. 248 f. . N. J. D. WHITE. REHOBOTH.—1. The name given by Isaac to a well of which he was allowed by Abimelech's herd- men to take peaceable possession. This was after two previous wells dug by Isaac's servants had led to strife, and the name of the third was called Röhöböth (nian “wide spaces,’ LXX Eöpuxopia) because, said Isaac, ‘now the Lord hath made room (hirlwibh) for us,’ Gn 26*(J). Palmer (Desert of the Eaxodus, 383) describes a very ancient well on the north-east side of the Wädy es-Sadi (eight hours south of Beersheba), which he is inclined to identify with the Rehoboth of this passage. The name lèuhaibeh still lingers in the neighbourhood, being applied to a widy close by. The objections of Tobinson (BISP” i. 197) to this identification are strangely pointless. It is not improbable (cf. König and Sayce in Expos. Times, xi. [1900] pp. 239, 377) that the Rehoboth of Gn 26* is also the Ratbūtī or Rubitte of the Tel el-Amarna letters (Winckler, Nos. 183 and 239; Petrie, 256 and 260), although Sayce (in Early Israel, 289) and Petrie (Syria and Egypt from the Toll cl:Amarna Letters, 180) prefer to make Rubitti = Itabbah of Jos 15°, and Hommel (A HT'934 f.) identifies it with Ririath- arba (Hebron), which he supposes to have been called Itobºt 6t, ‘the four quarters.’ 2. In the list of kings of Edom contained in Gn 36” one of the names is Shaul ‘from Reho- both of the River’ (nº), mannp v.97; LXX [A ; 13 is defective here] &R 'Pow8&6 ràs trapó, trotapºv, and so A in the parallel passage 1 Ch 148, B om.). The situation of this lèehoboth is quite uncertain. It is not even clear whether it should be sought in Edom or elsewhere. The Notitia Dignitatºtm (c. 29) makes it Edomite, and Eusebius and Jerome (in the Onomasticom) locate it in Gebalene, i.e. Idumaea; but the analogy of other OT passages where “the l&iver’ (nºn) is spoken of absolutely, would lead us to think of the Euphrates, in which event IRehoboth might be IRahaba on the western bank of that stream, somewhat to the south of the Chaboras. Winckler (Gesch. i. 192) would (doubt- fully) place it between l'alestine and Egypt, under- standing the nº here to be the Wºdy cl-'Arish, the ‘River (ºn, wädy) of lºgypt’ of Nu 34° etc. The name lèëhöböth, owing to its meaning, would be likely to be very widely diſlused (see Knobel on Gn 36”, and cf. W. Max Müller, Asien ºt. Jºhtropat, 134). J. A. SELBIE. REHOBOTH-IR (ºy nhim, AV ‘the city Roho- both,” AVn the streets of the city’; LXX A h ‘Pow8&s tróXts, 1)". "Pow800 T., E Powbot T.; Vulg. platea cipitatis).--One of the four cities built by Asshur (RV by Nimrod) in Assyria, the others being Nineveh (regarded as the later capital), IResen (Rés-áni, Sayce), and Calah, now Nimroud (Gn 1011). There has been much discussion as to the identity of this site, and Assyrian literature has not furnished us with any geographical city- name with which it could be identified. Indeed it is hardly likely that we should come across it there, except under a different form, for neither of the component parts of the name is really As- 224 REHUM REKEM syrian, Rêhöböth, as Delitzsch has shown, being rébitu, ‘broad, open spaces,’ whilst 'ir would be represented by the common word álu, ‘city.” It has been objected that the Heb, scribe would not have translated rébitu, but would have transcribed it, just as he has transcribed Resen, without the guttural ; for the Assyrians as a rule pronounced neither the soft guttural 7-, nor the y. This, however, cannot be regarded as conclusive, for the Heb, scribe has, to all appearance, translated, and not transcribed, the Assyrian 4!w in the word 'ir, “city.” It would therefore seem that we must not transcribe, but translate, the Heb. Réhébóth-'ir, and this, in Assyrian, would be rébct &li, “the broad spaces (squares) of the city,’ and regard the ex- pression, with Delitzsch, as referring to the name of Nineveh, which immediately precedes,. Delitzsch compares the Heb. expression with the rébit Ninwa, ‘broad place of Nineveh,” in Esarhaddon 1. 23, and the probability is that he is right in his identifica- tion. Through this part of the city, probably a suburb, Esarhaddon caused the heads of the kings of Kundi and Sidon to be carried in procession with singing, etc.; and, as he thus specially mcntions it, it must have been a sufficiently important place. It is apparently this same place of which Sargon, #. grandfather, speaks in his Cylinder Inscription, l. 44, in connexion with the peopling of Magganubba : “The city, Magganubba, which lay like a pillar at the foot of the mountain Musri, above the springs and the broad place of Nineveh (rébit Niná). This text would therefore seem to make Magganubba, the old name of Dúrsargina or Khorsabad, and the rébit Nina must have lain be- tween that city and Nineveh, but much nearer to the latter. If the places referred to are named in the order in which they actually occurred, their relative positions would {e (1) the mountain Musri, (2) the city Magganubba, (3) the springs, (4) the rébit Nind, (5) Nină or Nineveh itself. LITERATURE.—Delitzsch, Paradies, p. 261 : Schrader, COT'i. p. 101; Riehm, Handwijrterbuch; and the Calwer Bibelleaikom, 8.?). T. G. PINCHES. REHUM (Dºnn).—1. One of the twelve heads of the Jewish community who are said to have re- turned with Zerubbabel, Ezr 2° (B om., A 'Ipéoù). In the parallel passage Neh 7" the name appears, perhaps by a copyist's error, as NEHUM (LXX Naowu); in 1 Es 58 it is ROIMUS (LXX"Póelp.os). 2. ‘The chancellor,” who, along with Shimshai the scribe and others, wrote a letter to king Artaxerxes, which had the effect of stopping for the time the rebuilding of Jerusalem, Ezr 48 %. 17. *. In 1 Es 2" he is called RATHUMUS. The title for CHANCELLOR (Dyjºya, lit. ‘lord of judgment’), being misunder- stood by the LXX, appears in the latter passage as a proper name ('Páðupos Kal BeéAtebplos); See BEELTETHMUs. In Ezr 48 B has “Paol), Bačatapév, in v.” 'Paoyu Báax, and in v.” 'Paoyu 8axyáu, while A has uniformly 'Peoûu' flaa\tdu, ; 3. A Levite who helped to repair the wall, Neh 3” (B Bagot,0, NA 'Paoûp). 4. One of those who sealed the cove- nant, Neh 10* (*) ('Paoyu). 5. (BRT). The eponym of a priestly family which returned with Zerubbabel, Neh 12” (BA om., Nº. " ("8) ‘Peowu). The name Drin in this last instance is not improbably a textual error for Dºn HARIM, cf. v.”. J. A. SELBIE. REI (Heb. wn, probably – ‘the LORD is a friend’; Pesh. o Sº [sic, 2 and 5 being confounded]; LXX B "I'mat, A Pngel ; Vulg. Rei, Rhei).-Accord- ing to the MT of 1 K 18 this is the name of one of the influential supporters of Solomon at the critical moment when Adonijah was preparing to dispute the succession to the throne. It is im- possible to be quite certain that the reading is correct, but the balance of evidence is in its favour. Lucian’s Xapalas kal ol étatpot atroſ, ol Uvres 6vvarol rests on a different division of the Hebrew letters, not a different text—'An iºn instead of ’ān) "yº. Jos. Amt. VII. xiv. 4, has 6 Aaovičov plxos, thus making Shimei into the ‘friend,’ the royal official of 2 S 15” 16%, and, with Lucian, getting rid of Rei altogether. But if Josephus is supposed to be following a Heb. original pretty, closely, that original would here be mººn whor ºn Tyn, and it is not easy to believe that the much longer form of the M'l', nº n;N bºrn yºl, has grown out of this. Klostermann’s conjectural enendation, nº Yºn) (Die Bücher Sam. w. Kön. p. 263), scarcely commends itself (see Benzinger, ad loc.), nor is there sufficient support for Winckler's (Gesch. ii. 247) identification of Rei with 'Ira, or, as he would spell it, Ya'ir of 2 S 202°. As to the pair of names, Shimei and Rei, Ewald (Gesch. iii. p. 266, note), thought that they might belong to the two brothers of David, Shammah and Raddai, who are mentioned 1 S 16° 17”, 1 Ch 2". But the double alteration of Tºº into 'yº) and "Th into 'yn is somewhat unlikely. Perhaps one may add that the LXX "Pnal seems to have originated in a mistaken reading of x for y. ssuming that Rei must stand in the text, it is fairly certain that the man thus designated was an officer of the royal guard. The important part played by these troops in determining the suc- cession to the throne, as well as the mention of the gibbórim in mediately after Shimei and Ikei, points in this direction. J. TAYLOR. REINS. — This name for the kidneys is now obsolete, though IRV retains it in all its 18 * occurrences in AV. It comes from Lat. Temes the kidneys, through Old Fr. reins, while “kidneys’ is of Scand. origin. The word was always used with some freedom. Thus Cov. translates Ezk 297 ‘Yff they leaned upon the, thou brakest, and hurtdest the reynes of their backes’; and in AV it is once used for the loins (Is 11°). This indefiniteness and not any sense of its becoming antiquated must have led the AV translators to use the word only figuratively, to express those feelings or emotions which were understood by the Hebrews to have their seat in the kidneys. Only in the marg. of Lv 224 is the literal use found. The lit. sense is common enough in writers of the day wind later. Thus Bacon, Jºssays, p. 205, ‘Dowling is good for the Stone and Beines’; and Milton, P.L. vi. 346-- ‘For Spirits, that live throughout Vital in every part—not, as frail Man, In entrails, heart or head, liver or reins— Cannot but by annihilating die.’ “When,’ says Driver (Par. Psalter, 454), “it is said of God that he trieth (or seeth) the “hearts and reins” (Ps 79, Jer 11° 1719 201*), it is implied that He is cognizant of man’s emotions and affections, not less than of his thoughts.’ See KIDNEYS. J. HASTINGS. REKEM (ppm).-1. One of the five kinglets of Midian who were slain by the Israelites, under Moses, Nu 318 (BA 'Pókopº), Jos 13” (13 'P680k, A "Pókou). Like his companions, he is called in Numbers Tºp (“king’), but in Joshua Rºy (‘prince,’ ‘chief- tain’). 2. Eponym of a Calebite family, 1 Ch 2* (B'Pékou, A "Pókou)" (LXX follows a diſlerent read- ing, B having "Iek\áv and AIepkadu, a repetition of the name in the preceding clause, which appears in Heb. as Yorkë'âm : see JORKEAM). 3. The eponym of a clan of Machir, 1 Ch 7" (AV and RV Rakem, but this is simply the pausal form, Dººl, of the Heb. * To the 15 in the Concordances nad 2 Es 534, Wis 10, 1 Mac 224, which we have found in the Apocrypha. A new Concord. to the Apocr. is much needed. , Cruden gives only one of those three. The S.P.C.K. Concord. is a reprint of Cruden. RELIGION REPENT, REPENTANCE 225 name; LXX_om.). 4. A city of Benjamin, men- . tioned with Irpeel and Taralah, Jos 1847 (B Naków, Ol' º om., A Pékep). The site has not been identified. RELIGION.—For the religion of Israel, see GOD, ISRAEL. of ‘the Jews' religion” (à 'Iovóaiapós) in 2 Mac 8, 1498 (nearer the beginning of this verse the same word is trº. “Judaism'), as well as in Gal 119. 14, but the thought is rather of the outward forms than the inner spirit. We read also in 2 Mac 6% of going to a ‘strange religion' (els &\\opu)\top,6v). where in AV, the word is used generally of the outward manifestation of religious life, the Gr. words being &yvela (1 Mac 14” marg.), Aarpeta. (1 Mac 1+ 2*, *), and 0pmaketa (Ja 12, 27). This sense of the outward capression attached strongl to the word throughout the time of the É. translations of the Bible from Wyclif to AV (though Tind. has “devocion' in Ja 1%. 27). See Trench's remarks in Study of Words, p. 9 f., Eng- lish Past and Present, p. 249 f., and Select Glos- sary, p. 183 f.; and cf. Elyot, Governow', ii. 191, “He therfore nat onely increased within the citie Temples, alters, ceremonyes, preestes, and Sondry religions, but also . . . he brought all the people of Rome to suche a devocion, or (as I mought Saye) a Supersticion, that . . . they by the space of xlii yeres (so longe reigned Numa), gave them selfe all as it were to an observaunce of religyon ’; and Latimer, Sermons, 392, “For religion, pure religion, I say, standeth not in wearing of a monk’s cowl, but in righteousness, justice, and well doing.’ J. HASTINGS. REMALIAH (nºpºl; 'Pouexias). — The father of king PEKAH, 2 K. 15.5m. 16%. , 2 Ch 28%, Is 71*. 89. He appears to have been of humble origin, hence the disparaging allusion to Pekah as ‘the son of Remaliah” in Is 74 (cf. 1 S 1011 ‘the son of Išish'; 2027. 90 22.8 25192 S 20 the son of Jesse’; 1 S 2214 ‘thou son of Ahitub’). REMETH (nº); B 'Péuuas, A Pagá0).—A town of Issachar, near En-gammim, Jos 19%; called in 1 Ch 6*(*) RAMOTH, and in Jos 21” (possibly by a wrong vocalization) JARMUTII. It appears to be the pres- ent village Rómeh, on a hill to the south of the plain of Dothan. See SWP vol. ii. sheet viii. C. R. CONDER. REMISSION.—See Forgiven Ess. REMPHAN.—See REPHAN. RENDING OF GARMENTS.–See MoURNING. REPENT, REPENTANCE (pril, aw, usravoeiv, #Truo Tpéºeuv, MetapéNeo-0at ; Dril, perávota, ćirto Tpopº).- The usual meaning of DIII (? from an onomatopoetic root signifying to pant or groan) is to change one's mind or purpose out of pity for those whom one's actions have affected, or because the results of an action have not fulfilled expectation. In this sense repentance is attributed not only to man, but to God (Gm 69, Ex 32"). With reference to sin, DIII is found only in Jer 8" and Job 42%. The idea of repentance from sin is in other cases ex- pressed by the verb nº “to turn.” Though the change in the direction of the will is here in the foreground, a change in inner disposition is always presupposed. The turning from sin is emphatically a matter of conduct, but it is also a matter of the heart (Jl 2%), and it has as its elements enlighten- ment (Jer 31*), contrition (Ps 51*), longing for God’s forgiveness, and trust in God (Hos 14*). In their direct appeals to the people, the prophets naturally think of repentance in a purely ethical VOL. IV.-I5 new spirit (Ezk 18%). | of experience quickly leads to the discovery that the will is not the only, or even the main, factor It is referred to in AV under the name Else- way as a function of the will Ezekiel even calls upon them to make themselves a new heart and a But reflexion on the facts in the case. Behind the will lie the spiritual forces that move it to action, and behind these again, God. Moreover, the new life, which is the Fº side of repentance, cannot be called into eing by the mere fiat of the will. The spiritual facts and forces, in and through which God is working, thus advance into the foreground, and the prophets are led from the causality of the will to the causality of God, from the ethical to the religious standpoint. God Hinmself creates the new heart (Ps 51", Ezk 36”); His law converts the Soul (Ps 197); His people turn when He turns them (Jer 31*). In despair of a generation bound by the tradition and habit of evil, Jeremiah looks into the future for some new manifestation of Divine power, which shall effect a radical change in the inner disposition of the people (Jer 31*). Beyond a genuine repentance the prophets know of no other condition attaching to God’s forgive- mess and favour (Dt 30'ſ, Jer i78, Ps 32%). And the idea of repentance is set up in its moral purity, everything merely external and statutory being stripped away. In primitive Hebrew religion the offender brought a gift to God to appease Him; he fasted, rent his garments, and by an attitude of mourning and humiliation sought to make his prayer for pardon impressive and effectual. But of all this the prophets and psalmists will hear nothing. God does not desire such things (Hos 5° 69, Is lºſſ, Jer G20 71ſt, 1412, Ps 5010). The sacri- ficial forms with which atonement was associ- ated are ignored as worthless or condemned as noxious (Am 5*, Mic 6", Jer 7°10, Ps 40% 5110). The sacrifice pleasing to God is that of a broken and contrite heart (Ps 51*). No attempt is made by the prophets to take the sacrificial system into the service of a purer faith, whether by a process of moral reinterpretation, or by going back on an original but forgotten meaning. In process of time the system was to some extent ethicised ; but its atonement (which presupposed repentance in the transgressor) was ... only for sims of inadvertence (Nu 15" "). The place of repentance as condition of forgiveness is not due to any idea. of its meritorious character. The idea of merit— which never attaches itself to a genuine moral act, but always to some external form or accompani- ment—is foreign to the spirit of the OT. If God forgives, it is because it is His nature and pre- rogative to do so (Is 43*); and that He will not reject the prayer of the penitent is accepted as ºt to the moral sense. In the later Judaism the idea of repentance is not indeed lost sight of, but, in Pharasaic circles at least, external acts of penitence, such as fast- ing, have usurped the place of the inner spirit, and to these acts the idea of merit has attached itself. In the preaching of the Baptist it again emerges in its pristine moral purity, as the one condition of escape from approaching judgment (Mt 38.). There are two words in the NT which convey the idea of repentance, werduoetu and étriotpé@ew, though, as we shall see, the idea appears also under other forms of expression. These words derive their moral content not from Greek but from Jewish and Christian thought, nothing analogous to the biblical conception of repentance and con- version being known to the Greeks. If respect be had to their literal meaning, the first presents repentance in its negative aspect, as a change of mind, a turning from sin ; the second, in its . tive aspect, as a turning to God. Both have, how. GIONWINGIJSI&I LNGIdSISI 96% &IO GIIWA ‘WIWHJSI&I opºuts tº trutſ, loung. ‘SAoſta oſquitº Jo tuoq8Ks & uooq oAuu Kuuſ qi quuq ol (Isºod oºmb sſ qi (Iduo'ſ] : out Aut popps-dooq's u to utioquid tº loſſo q1 oxiºuſ pludA quuq souootſ. It sºutsip oolio qu Kutu ow os ‘Āollux of tutu ut, sojouop Kollu.A loſ post olotſ pioA Aoi to II oil.J., 'tuoſusilloſ Iliott KhIſtooſ V-‘(p2d2.10 §ºod pq, ‘aj9pºppi, Nor/CI, ‘aolap/C/C agl ºr ‘aoaply, 401 ) “mj90ſhod, s?Vioxi : śād Lás,t) .IO GITYIA “INIVIHEIH **ISIII.O31.1%I ‘ſ’ ‘AA jzgi 'd ‘86SI ‘AAI, WZ uſ KIITAuoS osm oos : , lituut () qstºſ Jo Sltosop put sumſ oil, quinuſ on quinouſ III]s otoA squºi pio, oil quitº, snsortiºns (0% 'd ‘jºgſ ‘10AIICI Aq polonb) (ITIUIS “I AA , 'sºuth; qottºxo, Läs,U put , s1soil; , Lösº uo.o.wqoq uoix outloo a sosoddns ('J #9 ‘opoſ, Tuap (77% waſ)0'ſ) KIITAlſos 'tuoqs outs out) utoly olt; OM) ouſ I, ‘onſtigopuſ to opuſſop ‘uuou uotutuoo tº go Xuºu.As Átuuſpio ouſ, Sutſ ‘squuſ; Jo osuos ouſ, UU (tº 197/dg. oxuſ ‘put ‘turnſd out uſ Kuo posu SI S1souş Jo oströs out uſ atº, pydºr plow quitº Jo osuos Tºlmdod oiſ) uſ 's]souš, plow usiläug out go quoſua ſubo out, ÁLittou otoll duſoq (or +10% of ISI or I6 si6 si6 (d. ‘ol S8 sq ‘dºg (ſoſ') pºop out) Jo p(IOAA ou), Jo Squ'u)|Qulluſ oul odouop on posm osſu SI ult,797/('9, p.10A ou.I. ‘J.NVIO oos ‘ºttº,29/dg., ouſ, go qunooot! uſe top put ‘topy urons ou? utoly ºuTutout syū, Jo uoſº Aſtop oth to I "Squuſ;, p.10A (ISILºu'ſ ino on quéIt'Ajubo Kiſugutºsqus ‘oq Kūlū ostro out st opuſopſiſ io onſuljop “unou uoululoo tº KIQoI (18 s plow out, osſo otou AKIOASI Sºuthſgutſu'ſ sq; Jo 10100 -votio oil, utiouſ poutºu os 5uſoq ‘āsūloo go ‘uoſio.I oun “outbu quitº Jo uoſdol u onotus Aoû] ‘SI quuq , turbudoyſ odouis Kou(), quuſ, KIloſ Iºs sſ quouloquqs ouli, "oloſ).Ug out" quoting A opuſſop ‘outtu Iodotd. tº si q quuq soºtionuſ xuqu Ks out" of I u%) uſ ('').It qxou oos) Koſſu.A tiguàtoo & Jo outsu (Goſuduijoof; out, su posu si aſ 'unou 100.14squ 5utpuodso.I.Too ou" go to spun Jo lotſ, ſo [u,luld qoo.II p out, st; ulº,297/dº, pub ‘umouſ ojo.1ouoo tº su pºſtly, plujo.1 on “10A0AAoû ‘p.IOA oth Jo Osu out, upw plooot uſ otout SI qI 'It Ind oup, sº uſ?, pºſdø. Toſu.A. Jo ºp/dg., oAſſoofpt, oilſ]ue; otſ, 5uguſtoj ‘ouTuu iodoid tº sº...?"/dp, plušo.1 Aug|N “ournsofa, I go sodood quuſ; Kitto ouſ og IIosop on Aolqol I uſ posm ploA oli,L-' (ſcrg3 XI 3 's GU SOſ ‘oz tº QCI] also bod, “m}30% od ‘sslap/-/. LéS.C.) WIYIHd GIYI ‘(pipºp.T.) og MoM ‘II*A out, Iſodo1 on podiouſ otA Osotſ, Jo ou() "g (prodp.I, V “ſpºodſ, gL) IIVIIIVºI 16S uſ poſ[to ‘(proºp.J.) gró (IO I ‘Int;S Jo quºpu 90sop V ºf (pipºpod, V. ‘pdoºbod, gL) aſ HO I ‘IbuIOUSSI Jo qu'upuoſosop V ºg ‘(probod,) trip (IO I ‘IIoS ‘qIN OT uoſº Ipod xo oil, UO quoA on AA sonſuootuſS 00g outſ, Jo SJoſuo out, Jo ou() “g (proſpodſ, V ‘Ypºnd, I) tºg UOI ‘Āšoluouai; TuAo.1 out up pouolºuout optiºpuſ V 'p- ‘(1997/dogſ go "poſuouſ Sull Ugſ’, Lé'L) HWIWHdKIH ‘orſ. IO I ‘ĀIſurug onſulſo.I ¥ is -Udºſ ut; go uſuodo ouT-‘(lºpdſ, tigu) HWHIGIH *IIg ‘gaz, AW, TFT “Kurº) oos : Suoſº ouſtoy ontºſ Jo SSuto U on sºuoloq outbu ou L, 103 (IO I ‘stodoo Moqtr3 go ÁIIurug tº go tu Kuodo ou L-(+ng lig O.J., go 'IGIVH.IVºI go ‘Y” obod, XXT : , poſtou Sull ISI, Lé84) ISIWHICHM ‘NV to IOW. "AA ‘U 90 “d (006I)'ſ ‘ºſoſoswoss? Aſ iſ, N. 'ſ 'tºporºz up % $3 miapusaugis aroºs”, “...to ‘opol A : Ionºtonio.4 ſoon-qa. lotuo.10 : 00mm/5) pun assng toº waſ wavyas,toor 700'ſ, wansom.ow 970ſ ‘quoljoſs : Ultitutz]IoII putſ ‘Āuſuos Moq “ssIoM Ka ſilio!001/J, LAT uo : puous puu Z4IlluoS Kq ſilio!007/L LO uo SylloM-'IłIſlVºl{LLI'I ‘(SI uſ I ‘scG ºutſ uſ) poſſ) on UIS utory 5upulmº oAI100 up soliduſ ‘Uloueij uſ LN out uſ st; ‘olouſ UIoſt A ‘ūquy Jo Gopp out) uſ uoissolid Xo spuſ) ‘toAoAoû ‘opps [bottºo put uuuuuu où,I, 'Aou out, on oyſ I plo ouq tuoly wo"??sww.t? Áuu to ‘It’Aouot otou II's sopnºoxo qtuq KuA tº uſ posoddo out, “[unqūds out, put Álusolſ out ‘I’d.Inquu - todus ouſ, put [Jinquu on J. (38 uſ) to Aod oaſuolo S. poſſ) Jo qon suoluons.Kui put quopu oostit.14 tº go |Inso.1 on 1 st; no splitºs ojji Aou oth put ‘juſti.in) Jo S$900,10ſ tº St. ooutºut)do, Jo oſqşū1940 u.it [[o 8) (tout -9ſo ItoſioſotioAsd osota, In, A lotinoiſon stuoddhisp Alſolº oloiſ IIIAA out, Jo Kº It’snºo olſ.I., (66. Uſ") utop -juſXI out" onuſ oou'u.Iquo Jo uoſº ſpuoo oth St, onoa plºd oſqdou KS oſſ, Jo oouſſi otſ, sox{t}] [[oſu A ‘II].III Aout out) Jo tudoſ on topun SIGoddt, Juq ‘quos (tº ‘IoAoAoû ‘qou si tropy out.I, ºuſtiopold 8,1814, ſug| où" (UIO.IJ uoAo poddo.Ip 5uſ Abū ‘sºuth IIAA ouſ uttu (ſo ſº 911) uſ Umooo oouo qou soop , quodo.[, p.10AA oil,L 'uoisso.Iſlzo on soutoo “oouoi.Iod xo quit! uſ quottiolo Itoſ18AUI uſu').Ioo tº In! A tot!!ošon ‘uois.to Atloo Jo oouoſiodzo ouſ, up qsſ.It|O Jo oot"Id out ‘unſuſ Jo topſ 8,911sodt, où) on quoquoo sq; so AI3 osſe Moſul AA ‘IIolº, -doouoo pulmogold sitſ] uſ 'poMo.Insop oidou I.I.I sh; uſ sſ (IIs : uoſºtsio Auoo put XIIu.A Aou 8 stuoſºvo.Io Aou SIt!!! Jo qLuso, ouſ.I., (ziz, Ioſ) “taſ) oyſ) qLIIdS 911) uſ oj II Aou tº onuſ tug II unt A posit; I put ‘UIsſºduct uſ 48ſ, IO TITIA pot.Illq si 19A0IIoq out,L ‘Aou out) Jo uo 5uſiquel tº put utºut pſo own jo jo 5uſ]]nd tº su Jo “181,1110 (IqAA uoſqoo.I.Luso.I put (Iqtop tº Su oilso ſh; où 01 it iſnood toutitru tº uſ poqilosop si oouopiod No SIUſ) puts ‘lot, ut, Su utuq oduopiodzo ut, Su Olouſ bolopºsuoo spooutºuado.I solºsſdº ouſ Imtid outſ, UI ‘quoultºso,I, AAoN ou? III posiº, qou si “oqo ‘swo.todo -00 70717),tſ, “.1277/44?).todºnsul 40 to????qvuºſoap?!? &m/.(?? Su Suoiºdootloo (Ions Ol osſil ºut AI3 ‘Ioqt( IIoIlluſ) out! posioloxo (IoIUIAA “sopis OAAq out, go uoſquí9.1 ouſ, Jo UIoſqold out,L ‘Āq Itsuuo ouſ AICI OUT on polygunploqus 5uſoq Iſump! Ampuſ ouſ, Jo Aqi A11ou Igoſtino out, “(ya!? -?swy.(? 07s.taawoo titory potismālūqsip st; subſioloolſ, Jo pay??swp.t?wº offs.toawoo oil) “100.03%?d Lollº) uous to A -Uloo Jo quqq Oluſ sossed ooutºuadol go topſ ouſ, osuo 1944 ul out uſ (gig ov) qot, ut, utú) tou?”.I. oolio -IIod No ug—KhIA!ºog out AICI go qusol tº Su qſ Shuo.11 UoſtIAA quuq oAbū oA osn jº UQſAA opis Áq opis quot : osuos [uoruno sq; up SIGoddu KIQuonborg qsoul ooutº -quodol “ostſ KIU'ood V out uſ puu “show uſ Soudoods on Olsodiu out) uſ (ogſ, XIII) ([]I*J Jo topſ lopſ A oul odojoq pullo.13>Iouq ou) Oqui SII by Kūjutp.logou ooutºuado I Alons!!I put 10000.Itsuo subu Iota uq(A obuopuodso.IIoo up poululloqop og Oq osuods -0.1 out, Jo tutoy It'ſ nomind out 5uſ Auoſ ‘ajussoul st H uſ /????ſ Iountil so. Inbol ofI ‘Ioulºſ ÁIuoAuouſ out, go oAoi out) jutſuo'Aoi puts ‘pot) Jo Uuopištipſ ouq Jo Ssousnooquisit out? §uſqqux'ſ "duoua.IIllb -0. Itºuaultipunj ou? So 3uttioboº sih uſ stuodde qſ quuq ppus og qoutſuo q ‘ooutºuadal on II*o ouq unIA KIJsſumu si H U Ušoq qsſillo tú not!)IV ‘āuſúou SAoux qsºluo squouſu edutooot, IbuIoqxo doujo Jo jugs by JO (r.18L SIT) UOIntrutuopu Oo oosſibli. I oul go quits ouq Su uorºboljuqsn'ſ qi (111A soil.tto Ájujutd. su oduo, out, up uſualſ ind out, go qi,IIds oùn puu : (ºgſ XII) uos Tsoi g Jo KuoAoool out to Ao ooioſo, quct qouliuo Touqu I ou J, QIIIds on Illuoo put otgumu tº go ssouoquitdoiddu Igiou ou tuouſ pub ‘ounquu UAo spºt u10.1; oouo qu SAOIIoj quoquod out, Sqdoooº poº) quuſ.I., (19 I XIT) oats put, Moos Ol quo ouo:3 put ulnqoli SIU poºdromutº Sºul ‘poopuſ ‘eAot osou A ‘Iount I out go ouoolow pub ssoudaſ; -Ioy out, Jo polmsst sº lions quoquod on 11 out go ornºopil e SAVoIp suseſ “uoS Idänpoid out go oſquited out uſ 'poº) on us utoq àuguinſ, sº quuſ, Inos où jo sons tonourguo Iſu olu ‘ssoustlooquidit toy qsiſtſ, puu Joãuntſ ‘ssouxloout ‘uſs Ioy Aottos ‘JIIIds Jo AntôAodſ ‘ooutºuado, on 11 tº uſ squoulolo go oAndJuosop so uox10) og Kutu sopnººgagſ Inoj qsily out, "squity sq; put oo.14 out go only out, Aq polybil -sulſ sp. polyubo.1 odultuo ouq go toº obtuuo Igoſpel put toutſ; ou.I. (gT SIT) IIb ol Qud ‘uſs quºtiduly jo Khūnâ osoul ol ÁIolour qou put, ‘ I ampIAIpuſ ou? on qug ‘uorºbu ou on LO out uſ Su qou “posso.(ppt! sy qI (KSI qIN) uoſhisodsp Aou ou? uoſºſ.puoo sh; so satynboſ ūopulaw up uoſquiliontud “utopišupſ ouſ, Jo SSouTuou ou? oAſqotu sq Su Sull [[uo out.I., (zip QIN) ooubquodot on IIuo tº Uſq.A. Álºsſuyul SIII ubåoq qspillo '5uTugou go quoquoo outs out, uantu ‘IeAe IREPHAN REPHIDIM 227 valley. Different opinions have been held con- cerning it, but really the evidence all bears in one direction. The northern extremity of the vale of Rephaim was just over the western ridge of the upper purt of the ravine of the son of Hin- nom (Jos 15** 18"). Josephus (Amt. VII. xii. 4) says that it was ‘the valley which extends to the city of Bethlehem, which is twenty furlongs from Jerusalem.” It is puzzling to know how he measures his twenty furlongs; but that Bethlehem had strategic, relations with the vale of Rephaim is confirmed by 2 S 231°, 1 Ch 11.1%. This is not in contradiction with the statement that David, getting to the rear of the Philistines when they were encamped in the vale of IRephaim, ‘smote them from Geba, until thou come to Gezer’ (2S 5*, 1 Ch 14"); for the effect of his strategic movement might be to compel them to move from their camp and attack him ; or, while encamped to the south- west of Jerusalem, they might have had outposts as far north as Geba, or Gibeon. But the sacred writer evidently thought of the vale of Replaim as somewhat extensive, for he twice says that the Philistines spread themselves there (2 S 5*, *, 1 Ch 149.1%). Hence the locality referred to is probably the system of small valleys which supply the Southern affluent of the §. Rābīn, a stream which flows into the Mediterranean some distance South of Joppa. One branch of this affluent starts near Jerusalent and another near Bethlehem, the two uniting about three miles south-west of Jerusalem. The vale of Rephaim may well be these two, with their tributaries. It was natural that invading Philistine armies should march up the valley of the Nahr Rábín to attack Jerusalem. The name doubtless indicates that this region had been occupied especially by réphéâ'öm, at some period before Joshua's conquests. Its celebrity is mainly connected with events that occurred soon after David had been made king of all Israel in Jerusalem. In two successive campaigns the Philistines attacked him here, and were defeated (2 S 517-21, 1 Ch 148-12 and 2 S 524-25, 1 Ch 1419-10). The first of these two campaigns was of the most desperate character (2 S 2319-17, 1 Ch 1119-19). See G. A. Smith, HGHL p. 218. W. J. BFI.CIII.R. REPHAN (LXX BA ‘Pat’ſpáv, Q 'Pepáv, in Am 5*; W H 'Popºd, variants ‘Peuqāu, Pépºqāv [AV Ičemphan], "Pauſpáv, Peqiáv, in Ac 7*).—This word replaces the lº of the Heb. text, and there is much difference of opinion as to the reason of this change. Influenced by the fact that the LXX tr. was made at Alexandria, in Egypt, some have contended that the translators substituted for the word Chintºn (apparently pronounced by them, more correctly, ſewan), the meaning of which was prob- ably obscure to them, an Egyptian equivalent term, viz. 'epa -[n-meterw], a title of the god Set, identified with Saturn ; but this, besides being a hardly probable hypothesis itself, is also unlikely on account of the etymological diſliculties in- volved. The general opinion at present is, that lèephan is simply a mistake for, or an alteration of, the Kewan (Chium) of the Heb. text, K having been replaced by JR, and ph. (h) substituted for ), With the sound of v, sharpened to something resembling f. There is no doubt that this is the best of all the explanations proposed, for IGewan would seem to be nothing else but the Semitic-Rabylonian Kaawamu, for an older Kaya- wamºt, “the planet Saturn.' That a 13albylonian etymology is to be sought rather than any other, may be regarded as indicated by the fact that SICCUTII in the ſirst part of the verse is apparently from the Akkad. Sakkut or Sak-uś, the latter being one of the non-Semitic names of Saturn, translated by Kaawanº in Babylonian. In addition to this, Saturn was also called Salam, Salme, as ‘the dark Star,’ a name which regalls the expression bypºs, ‘your images,’ which, in the Heb., immediately follows Chºwn (= Kaawanu = Rephan), and would furnish a parallel to the translation of pºp (‘your king’) after Siccuth, by “Moloch’ in the j}: As has been already shown (see NIMROD, NISROCH, etc.), the Hebrew scribes were accustomed to distort the names of heathen deities, apparently to show their contempt for them, and there is but little doubt that this has been done in the present case. No name resembling Rephan or Rémphan as the pronunciation of the ideographs for Saturn has as yet been found in Akkadian or Semitic- Babylonian. - LITERATURE.-Schrader in SK, 1874, pp. 324–335, and in Riehm's II WB ; I)elitzsch in the Calwer Bibelleaicón, under ‘Chiun,' and in Assyr. II WB 5699 (end of art. ‘Salmu'); and the Comm. on Amos and Acts. T. G. PINCHES. t REPHIDIM (bººl and pººl; LXX"Papióely, Eus. Paſhtëtu ; Vulg. Raphidim).--A station between the wilderness of Sin" and the wilderness of Sinai (cf. Ex 17" with 19°). The same order is given in the itinerary of Nu 33; but two additional stations are there given, Dophkah and Alush (vv.**), between Sin and Rephidim. These are the only passages in which the name occurs, and from them it appears that Tephidim is outside the wilderness of Sinai, and that the people, when encamped there, have not yet reached the mount of God. The events recorded in connexion with this place are : (1) the people strive (a^n) with Moses and “tempt (i.e. prove, HD)) the LORD because there is no water to drink (Ex 171-7); (2) the defeat of Amalek (vv.**); (3) the visit of Jethro when he counsels Moses about appointing judges (Ex 18). The first two are expressly, the third may be by inference (cf. 19°), assigned to Rephidim. Now, in the account of the first event, the Smitten rock is described as being in Horeb (“I will stand before thee upon the rock in Horeb,” Ex 17"). Also in 18° Jethro comes to Moses ‘where he was encannped at the mount of God.’ According to internal evidence in both these narratives, the people are already at Horeb the mount of God, and the difficulty of harmonizing these statements with those introduced with reference to the situation of Itephidim is apparent. The first of these events has been discussed in the art. MERIBAH, where the similarity between it and another event (Nu 20°) assigned to a period after leaving Sinai is pointed out. In the account of the third event, the description of the persons º on Jethro’s advice, to assist Moses in judging the people, resembles that in Dt 1" (note especially the verbal coincidences of Ex 18” with Dt 1"). In Deuteronomy the appointment is said to have been made at the departure from Sinai– at which time the reference to ordinances and laws (Ex 18”) would be appropriate, and it has been suggested that Ex 18 was at one time read in connexion with Nu 10” (see Driver on T)t 1, at p. 15 of Intern. Crit. Comm., and Dillmann on EX iS). These remarks illustrate what has been said in art. ExoDUS AND JOURNEY TO CANAAN, Vol. i. p. 804" and 805". * - * * The foe which Israel encounters in Tephidim is Amalek, a tribe which is generally described in Scripture as dwelling on the southern border of Palestine though occasionally found further north (see AMALEK). Supposing that the Israelites on leaving Egypt went castwards, they would pass by the territory which is ordinarily assigned to Amalek, whéreas if they made the detour to the south, involved in visiting the traditional Sinai, the Amalekites must have wandered much farther 228 REPROBATE REPROOF, REPROVE to the south. A question here arises similar to that suggested by the mention of Midian, in con- nexion with Sinai, and considerably strengthens the argument in the note on the art. MIDIAN. Comparing that note with what is here said, it follows that the acceptance of the traditional site of Sinai involves two º of migration (one for Annalek as well as one for Midian), while the site there suggested for Sinai assigns a uniform geo- graphical position for both. See also art. PARAN. A. T. CHAPMAN. REPROBATE. — The word “reprobate” occurs only once in AV of OT, viz. Jer 6” (RV ‘refuse”). It there represents the Heb. bsº, and is used in connexion with the figure of smelting or refining metal. People who are incurably bad, from whom no discipline, however severe, can smelt out the badness, are compared to base metal which can only be thrown away. The assonance of the Heb. (bsº "? . . . psº) is preserved in LXX (äpyūptov diroče- ôokupuaapiévov . . . 8tt & Teóoklpagev attoºs köptos), but lost in Vulg. (argentum reprobum . . . quia projecit). It is from the Vulg. that the rendering “reprobate’ comes, the Greek equivalent of which is found in a similar passage in Is 1*, describing the degeneracy of i.f. Tô &pyūptov Upºv d66kupov = ‘your silver is not proof,’ cannot stand the test (AV ‘is become dross,’ which exactly reproduces Heb.). In this place Vulg. also gives argentum tuum versum est ºn scoriam. In both cases people are regarded as ‘reprobate,” or unable to pass muster in God’s judgment, not in virtue of an eternal degree of reprobation, but as having reached a last and hope- less degree of moral debasement. It is the same with the use of 3.56xpos in NT. This is usually rendered ‘reprobate,’ and is always passive. The most instructive instance is perhaps Ro 1* “As they did not think fit on trial made (oëk éðoklpacau) to keep God in their knowledge, God gave them up to a reprobate mind” (els votiv ć6ókupov). This means a mind of which God can by no means approve, one which can only be rejected when it comes into judgment. The marg. of AV (“void of judgment') brings out in accordance with the con- text why the veos is 360kpºos : the mind which God rejects is one whose moral instincts are perverted, and which does not serve the purpose of a moral intelligence any longer; but this is not what the term ā6ókup,0s itself expresses. It might be thought that there was here a more active relation of God to the state in question than is found in Isaiah and Jeremiah, but that is doubtful. There is no doom- ing of men ab initio to reprobation ; under God’s government, and in the carrying out of His sentence on sin, evil works itself out to this hopeless end. The simple passive sense of the word is apparent also in |. three instances in 2 Co 13%-7. The test of true Christianity is that Christ is in men; those who can stand this are 66kupol (‘approved ’); those who cannot are &ööktpot (‘reprobate”). Here the test is to be applied by Christians to themselves; in 1 Co 9” (where AV renders &ööktuos ‘castaway’ and RV ‘ rejected ') the final judgment by God is in view ; St. Paul subjects himself to the severest discipline that he may not at the last day be unable to stand trial. It would have been an advantage for some reasons to keep the rendering “reprobate’ here also. The relations in which one is &öökipos, or the trials which he cannot stand, may be variously conceived. Thus in 2 Ti 3° we have ‘reprobate concerning the faith.” The men who are thus characterized are described also as Kareq,0appévot Tov voúv. This expression unites in itself what we dis- tinguish as ethical and intellectual elements. The men in question are men whose moral sense is per- verted, and whose minds are clouded with specula- tions of their own ; when they are jº into relation to ‘the faith’ (which in the Pastoral Epp. — includes something like the Christian creed as well as the Christian religion) they are döökup.ot—cannot stand the trial. Similarly in Tit 1)" when certain persons are described as trpès Tráv ćpyov dyadov &öökuot the meaning is : put them to the test of any good work (as distinct from ſine profession) and they can only be rejected. The same sense results from the only other passage in NT, He 6°. The soil which receives every care from God and man, and yet produces only thorns and briars, is àöökup.os. It is rejected as useless for cultivation. Taken together, these passages support the idea that men may sink into a condition in which even God despairs of them—a condition in which He can do nothing but reprobate or reject them. But they do not support the conception of an eternal decree of reprobation in which the destiny of man is related solely to the will of God. No one who claims to hold this view will ever admit that another can state it without caricature, but it may be given in Calvin's words (Inst. III. xxii. 11) : “Si non possumus rationem assignare cur suos miseri- cordia dignetur, nisi quoniam ita illi placet, neque etiam in aliis reprobandis aliud habebimus qualm ejus volunta tem.” Apart from the speculative objection that if salvation and reprobation are related in exactly the same way to the will of God there is no difference between them, all the distinctions of the human world being lost in the identity of the Divine, it is obvious that this presents a conception of reprobation remote from that suggested by Scripture. Nor can it be said that the Calvinistic doctrine of reprobation is a necessary inference from the true doctrine of elec- tion. The true doctrine of election is experimental. It expresses the truth (which every Christian knows to be true) that it is God who saves, and that when He saves it is not by accident, or to reward human merit, but in virtue of His being what He is—a God who is eternally and unchange- ably Redeemer. But while the Christian can say out of his experience that God in His infinite love has come to him, and made sure to him a redeem- ing mercy that is older than the world, faithful and eternal as God Himself, no one can say out of his experience that God has come to him and made sure to him that in that love he has neither part nor lot. In other words, election has an experi- mental basis, but reprobation has not. It is true that men are saved because God saves them—true to experience as to Scripture; but it is not true to experience that men are lost because God ignores or rejects them. The form in which the truth is 5ut may be inadequate even in the case of election; }. in the case of what is called reprobation there is no verifiable truth at all. For older theological opinion on this subject see Calvin, Inst. III. chs. xxi.—xxiii.; Hill, Lectures in Divinity, iii. 41 f.; Hodge, Systematic Theology, ii. 320 f. See also ELECTION, PREDESTINATION. J. DENNEY. REPROOF, REPROVE.-The verb (from Lat. reprobare through Old Fr. reprover) means—1. To disapprove of, reject, as in l’s 118” Wyc., (1388) ‘The stoon which the bilderis repreueden’; Mk 89, Tind. “And he beganne to teache them, how that the sonne of man must suffre many thinges, and shuld be reproved of the elders, and of the hye prestes and scribes.” There is no example of this meaning in AV. 2. To disprove, refute, as Shaks. Venus, 787— “What have you urged that I cannot reprove? and II IIenry VI, III. i. 40– * Reprove my allegation, if you can ; Or else conclude my words eſfectual.” Of this meaning there are probably some examples in AV, as Job 6” “How forcible are right Words ! REPTILE RESEN 229 *— g- but what doth your arguing reprove 2’ Is 37* “It may be the Lord thy God will hear the words of Rabshakeh . . . and will reprove the words which the Lord thy God hath heard,’ though in these and other like places º Heb. Leac. takes the mean- ing to be simply ‘rebuke.’ 3. To convict, as Jer. Taylor, Great Exemplar, Pref. p. 14, ‘God hath never been deſicient, but hath to all men that believe him given sufficient to confirm them ; to those few that believed not, sufficient to reprove them.’ So in AV, Jn 16° ‘He will reprove the world of sin” (Wyc. ‘repreuve,” Tind. ' rebuke,’ Gen. “reprove,’ Gen. marg. ‘convince,’ AVm ‘convince,’ l{V ‘convict”); cf. Jn 84% Wyc. “Who of you schal repreuve me of synne?’ (Tind. ‘ can rebuke,” AV ‘convinceth,’ RV ‘convicteth’); 2 Ti 4” “Reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long- suffering and doctrine.’ 4. To chide, rebuke, the mod, meaning, as Pr0° ‘Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.” Reproof is used mostly in the sense of rebuke, but there is a possible example of conviction in 2 Ti 318 (' pºſitiºn. for doctrine, for reproof [Tpós &\eyuðv], for correction, for instruction in right- eousness’); and a probable example of disproof, pefutation in Ps 38" (“Thus I was as a man that heareth not, and in whose mouth are no reproofs’; IłV m “arguments’). J. HASTINGS. REPTILE.—See NATURAL HISTORY in vol. iii. p. 492". REQUIRE.-Sometimes in AV as in mod. Eng- lish to “require’ is to demand, as 1 S 21° “The king’s business required haste’: cf. Mk 57 Tind. “I requyre the in the name of God that thou torment me not.’ This is especially the case in the freq. phrase of requiring one, or one's blood, at another's hand; cf. Ibar 6” Cov. “Though a man make a vow unto them [the idols] and kepe it not, they will not requyre it.’ But the sense of demand does not lie, as now, in the verb itself, but in the context. To require (from Lat. 7:equirere through Old Fr. requerir) is first to seek after, and then to request or entreat. It may be used to translate a verb of demanding, as Driver (Par. Psalter, 480) suggests that in Ps 40° 51° it may perhaps correspond to Münster's postulavi , and earigis,” but of all the Heb. and Gr. words it is used to tr. in AV there is none that means more than seek after or ask. That it means no more than ask or entreat in some places is evident, as Ezr 8” “I was ashamed to require of the king a band of soldiers’ (IRV ‘ask’). Cf. Tindale, Earpos. 151, “He giveth abundantly unto them that require it [mercy] with a faithful heart.” Cov. after rendering “Gedeon sayde unto them, One thinge I desyre of you, every man geve me the earinge that he hath spoyled ' (Jg 8”), adds, “And the golden earynges which he requyred' (8”). Cf. Berners, Froissan't, ch. ix. “Then the queen was greatly abashed, and required him all weeping of his good counsel,” and Chapman, Odysseys, XX. 215– ‘For she required His wants, and will'd him all things he desired.” Knox frequently speaks of requiring a thing humbly, as IIist. 199, “We required your High- nesse in most humble manner’; so Calderwood, Hist. 145, ‘I protest and most humbly require,’ and Psalms in Metre, l’s 143– “O hear my prayer, Lord, And unto my desire To bow thine ear accord, I humbly thee require'; * Only once is ca;igere used in Vulg. (Gn 3139) to express * require at the hand of,’ clsewhere Quaerºre or requirere nearly always. - and the end of A Dialog betweene Christ and a Sønner, by William Hunnis— ‘Simmer-Through this sweet grace thy mercie, Lord, We humblie doo require. Christ–By mercie mine I you'forgive, And grant this your desire.” J. HASTINGs. REREWARD.—The ‘rereward,’ i.e. rearguard, was the last of the three main divisions of an army, the ‘vanguard' (= avant-ward) or ‘fore- front' being the first. The word comes from Old Fr. are rewarde, i.e. arere (mod. arrière) ‘behind.” (from Lat, ad-retro) and warde, a variety of Old Fr. garde (which came from Old High Ger. warten to watch over). TV retains the word in all its occurrences (Nu 10”, Jos 69. 19, 1 S 299, Is 5212 58%) but spells it ‘rearward.’ It is always spelt ‘rere. Ward’ (sometimes with a hyphen) in AV, and it is always a substantive. Cf. Hakluyt, Voyages, ii. 20, ‘Because . . . it was bootlesse for them to assnile the forefront of our battell . . . they determined to set upon our rereward.’ Berners (Froissart, p. 376, Globe ed.) uses ‘rearband’ in the same sense: “The Bishop of Durham with the rearband came to Newcastle and supped.” J. HASTINGS. RESAIAS ("Pºmoralas, AV Reesaias), 1 Es 53, corre- sponds to Reelaiah, Ezr 2*, or IRaamiah, Nell 77. DGGAIA has apparently been read as DGCAI.A. RESEN (pn; AD Aárep, E. Adoev ; Vulg. Tºesen). —The last of the four cities built by Asshur (IRV by Nimrod), between Nineveh and Calah (the modern Nimroud), and further described in Gn 1019 as ‘the great city’ (RV). Various conjectures have been made as to the position of this settle- ment. The Byzantine authors and Ptolemy iden- tified it with lthesina or Rhesaina on the Khabour, probably the Arab. Ras el-Ain — an impossible identification, this site being 200 miles W. of the two cities between which ltesen is said to have lain. A better identification is that of Bochart, which makes Resen to be the Larissa of Xenophon (A^ab. iii. 4), though whether, as he argues, “larissa’ be an adaptation of “Laresen,’ i.e. ‘Tesen's (ruins),' is a matter of doubt. It is worthy of note that Xenophon describes Larissa, like Resen in Gn 10”, as ‘a great city.’ The identification of the name, however, and that of the site, are two different things. On the one hand, there is the possibility, maintained by some, that Larissa may be Nimroud (Calah), and, on the other, the probability that the ruins described by Xenophon—and the city Resen—may be repre- sented by the remains known as Selamieh, an ancient site situated about three miles N. of Nimroud, and between that city and the mounds of Nineveh (Kouyunjik). These remains have the advantage of being situated in the tract where, according to Gn 10”, Resen really lay. As Sayce has pointed out, the name of Iłesen occurs, under the form Rēš-ēni, in a list of 18 cities or small towns from which Sennacherib dug canals com- municating with the river Khouser or Khosr, in order to supply them with drinking-Water. Whether this be the Besen of Genesis or not is uncertain, -im all probability it was a compara- tively unimportant place, and situated too far north. Moreover, such a name as Rös-Öni, ‘foun- tain-head,” must have been far from rare in ancient Assyria, as is Ras el-'ain in countries where Arabic is spoken at the present day. The Greek forms are apparently corrupt, and due to the likeness between h and T. - I,ITERATURE.—Bochart, Geograph. Sacr. iv. 23; Delitzsch Paradies 261; Schrader, COT i. S3; Sayce in the Academy for 1st May 1880. T. G. PINCues. 230 RESH RESTORATION TESH (n).—The twentieth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and as such employed in the 119th Psalm to designate the 20th part, each verse of which begins with this letter. It is transliterated in this Dictionary by r. RESHEPH (Tºn; BXápaq, A. Págeq.).—The eponym of an Ephraimite family, 1 Ch 7”. RESPECT OF PERSONS.—See ACCEPT, vol. i. p. 21. REST.-In the Scriptures rest is ascribed to God, and also to man in a variety of aspects; and the underlying conception in each case is the necessary relation of the rest of man to that of God. 1. At the close of His creative activity God rested, it is said, from all His work which He had made (Gn 2° nº [see SABBATH, ad imit.], usually rendered in LXX by karatravelv, but sometimes by &vatravelv). This implies the twofold thought that creation, with all that the creative process involved, was com- pleted once for all, and that God was satisfied with the work at that stage accomplished. But this assertion of rest on the part of God contains no denial of subsequent action, no theory as to such action, and is consistent with ceaseless activity (Jn 5", cf. Th. Aquin. Summ. Theol. Qu. 73. 2). The apparent silence or inactivity (bpy) on the part of God in presence of the impiety of men is the rest of One who is watchful and will strike at the fitting time (Is 184). 2, The rest (ºl, Hºp) promised by J" the cove- nant-God to the people of Israel is the rest of a settled dwelling-place. But the rest of the people in this case is coincident with the rest of God; for with the permanent settlement of the ark by a man of rest (1 Ch 22") God is represented as enter- ing into His rest and the people into theirs, which is also His (2 Ch 6*, Ps. 1328. 14). Into this rest Some did not enter because of disobedience (Ps 951, He 46). 3. In addition to this national rest, a rest of a more spiritual and individual character is spoken of . To Moses the promise of the Divine presence with a settled abode as a goal is the guarantee of rest (Ex 33"). Jeremiah offers it (vianp) to his countrymen on condition of their walking in the eternal paths (Jer 6"), in harmony with the will of God given of old (cf. Is 281*, where we find T.J. Tºp || TH)2). Those who do so are by a kindred word described as the quiet or restful ones (Ps 35°). Because obedience to the will of God is the secret of rest, it cannot be possessed by the un- righteous, whose normal condition is a restlessness like that of the waves of the sea (Is 57°). 4. To men worn out with worrying toils and struggling under burdens too heavy for them (the immediate reference being probably to the Pharisaic burdens), Christ promised rest (Mt 11*). It is His own rest that He offers to those who with a meek and lowly heart recognize the will of His Father as the law of the inner life, and take His yoke upon themselves. It is not a rest from toil but in toil (Jn 5"), not the rest of inactivity but of the har- monious working of all faculties and affections—of will, heart, imagination, conscience—because each has found in God the ideal sphere for its satisfac- tion and development. 5. The teaching of Scripture as to future rest is most explicitly set forth in He 4'-' and Tev 1418. Taking up the creative rest of God (nay) along with the rest referred to in Ps 95" (nºn) (both words being rendered in LXX karatraúsiv), the author of the Ep. to the Hebrews argues thus: God rested at the Greation of the world, and subsequently promised to Israel the rest of a settled "abode. That something more than an external rest was, however, implied, is proved by the fact that at a later period He swore that they should not entel into His rest. As that promise still held good and was yet unfulfilled, a Sabbath rest (a.a68attapés) to the people of God remained (He 4"), which had been unappropriated or only partially appropriated % the past. Into that rest believers now enter (He 4°); but because it is the very rest of God IIim- self (He 4"), its full fruition is yet to come. The rest of the blessed dead is not merely the rest of the grave (Job 3**7), it is a rest from toils (ék Töv Kötrov, IRev 14*), but not from work, a rest only ‘ from sorrow and trouble and hard service’ (Is 14°). In all these forms of rest God and man are indis- solubly related. The rest of God the Creator is set forth as the condition and type of the rest of man. The rest of J" is one with that of His people. The rest offered to men by Christ is His own rest, which is also that of His Father. The blessed rest of man is rest in God, with God, nay, the very rest of God. See, also, SABBATH, p 317. LITERATURE. —Späth in Schenkel's Bib. - Lea. vol. v. 118; Cremer, Bib.-Theol. Lea:.4 820–828; Trench, NT Symonyms 12, 140, 147; A. B. Davidson, IIebrews, 97-101. JOHN PATRICK. RESTITUTION.—See CRIMES and next article. RESTORATION in RV corresponds to “restitu- tion’ in AV, as rendering of the noun apokatastasis, which occurs but once in the NT, Ac 391 &trokatá- a Tagus Töv Trávrov. The times spoken of by the prophets are here described as times of restoration, when Christ shall reign over a kingdom in which none of the consequences of sin will any longer appear. The same word in its verbal form occurs in Mt. 17” and in the LXX of Mal 4% of the moral restoration or spiritual revolution inaugurated or attempted by John the Iłaptist. This restoration was a foreshadowing of the true apokatºstasis, which is to be realized in the case of all who will recognize the authority of the Messiah and become members of His kingdom. The word palingemesiſt (traXtvºyeveala) is used by our Lord, Mt 19°, in precisely the same sense of the restoration of the whole creation. The subject of the new genesis comes under the influence of the transforming power of the Holy Spirit by which he is renewed day by day. See Trench, Synonyms of the NT'", p. 65. The word is also used by Josephus, Amt. XI. iii. 9, of the restoration of the country of the Jews under Zerubbabel. It became a favourite term in later Jewish Apocalyptic writings, and was no doubt in common use in the Jewish Apocalypses current in the time of our Lord. That the word should be employed in the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and not in the writings of the other evangelists is natural enough, so that there is no need of the hypothesis of interpolation, nor yet of the assumption of any particular Jewish- Christian sources. The º of Caiaphas (Jn ll”) supposes the offer of the Saviour's salvation to all,—it may be in another state of existence to those who have not had it here, — but noſ. necessarily its acceptance by all. Among the words of Jesus which seem to favour the restora- tionist view may be mentioned Jn 12”, where, however, the lifting up, like that of Jul 3", eſſeſ ts a drawing, which secures salvation only for those who look or believe. It has been maintained, e.g. by Pſleiderer (Paulinism, i. 274–276), that the idea of a restitution in the Sense of a literal restoration of all things is taught by St. Paul in Ro 11” and 1 Co 15°. 13ut in these lº. St. Paul simply insists upon this, that only believers shall share in that perfected kingdom of God in which God is all in º It might, of course, be argued, if the general scope of Divine revelation would allow of it, that the believers who shall share in tha )se RESURRECTION RESURRECTION 231 blessings will at last be found to embrace all mankind. But it cannot be said that these pas- sages contribute any evidence for or against that view. See Weiss, Biblical Theology of NT", ii. 73. Such biblical passages were understood by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, even by Chrysostom (see Homily on 1 Co 15°) and other Fathers, by Erigema, most of the mystics and theosophists, as they have been in modern times by Schleiermacher, Erskine of Lin- lathem, Maurice, IFarrar, etc., not as teaching absolutely the final salvation of all men, but as ointing to the ultimate restoration of all as at east a possibility. In the Pastoral Epistles there are three ver interesting passages, 1 Ti 2",4", Tit 2", in which God’s saving will is described as universal. This, however, is the will of God concerning men who are themselves possessors of a will, which may resist and reject as well as accept what the gracious will of God has designed for them. The same explanation must be given of Eph 1” ”, Col 1”, which represent the gathering into one and reconciling of all as the purpose and good pleasure of God. This Divine plan is realized only in Christ, and applies therefore only to those who are in Christ. What is taken into account here is only God’s purpose, and not what is actually realized in the world of human freedom. The whole scope of Scripture shows that the realization of the Divine will regarding man is conditioned by man's volun- tary acceptance of the terms proposed. The universal purpose of God is well described b Martensen as “an dirokarágraq is a parte ante’ which has its development as an dirokardo Tagus a parte post, under condition of man's free will, only when the possibility of eternal condemnation has been confessed. He would regard the opposition of biblical passages, on the one hand seemingly universalist, on the other hand seemingly in favour of etermal retribution, as an antinomy like that of freedom and predestination. It is now generally admitted by the best exegetes of all schools that the doctrine of the restoration of all cannot be supported by NT texts. The ablest and most candid advocates of this theory seek to ground their position on what they regard as necessary conclusions as to the mature and character of God, or on psychological and ethical doctrines of the constitution and destiny of man. LITERATURE.—Jukes, The Second Death and the Itestitution of all Things, Ilondon (1869), 1888; Martensen, Christiam Dog- matics, Edin. 1866, pp. 474–484; Farrar, 12termal Hope, London, 1878, Mercy and Judgment, London, 1881 ; Pusey, What is of It'aith as to Everlasting Punishment? London, 1880; Cox, Salvator Mundi : Is Christ the Saviour of all Mlen & London, 1877 ; Row, I'uture Iletribution, London, 1887; Maurice, Theological Essays, London, 1854; Fyfe, The Iſereafter, 12(lin. 1800; Salmond, The Christian Doctrine of Immortality, Edin. 1895, 4th ed. 1901; Beet, The Last Things, London, 1897. J. MACPIIERSON. RESURRECTION. – Introductory. — The NT subst. &váo Tagus from which, through Vulg., we obtain the term “resurrection,” gives, so far as its strict sense goes, an incomplete account of the I}iblical doctrine. The essential idea is restoration of life in its fulness to a person whose existence has mot been absolutely cut off, but so mutilated and attenuated as to be unworthy to be described as life. The name “resurrection given to this act of God is drawn from the fact which immediately struck the eye in cases where renewal of life took blace. The rising up of the body (êvéorm, 2 IV 13” ,XX) is taken as the symbol of the whole fact. 13ut the essential matter is the renewal of life, hence in Rabbinic nºnſ (revival) is more frequent than Tºph (resurrection). See 13uxtorf, s.v., who says that some distinguished the former as the proper word to be used of the resurrection of the righteous. Delitzsch in his Hebrew NT frequently renders áváo Tagus by nºrth. in Jn, 5* and elsewhere. In LXX cf. Koom otnots (only in Ezr 9°. ") used of revival of the nation. The development of the Biblical doctrine of resurrection starts from a previous belief that death was not the end of existence but was the end of life, a distinction which it is difficult for modern thought to apprehend. This was itself the result of the fusion of two opposing beliefs, as has been ably shown by Charles (Eschatology, chs. i.—iii.). On the one side there were survivals of ©, F.". belief, common to the Hebrews with other nations, according to which the dead were not mere shades, but stiff active and powerful. On the other side was the teaching of Gn 27, that the soul was but the result of the indwelling of the Divine Spirit in the earthly body; leading logically to the conclusion that the withdrawal of the spirit at death must involve the break up of the exist- ence of the individual. Dut this latter conclusion was not generally adopted, and with certain excep- tions (Ec 3**) the soul was believed to persist or subsist after the breath of life had been withdrawn. The question before us, therefore, is not that of the immortality of the soul, which in some form or other is the starting-point, not the subject, of the present inquiry. The advances made by the two beoples, Hebrew and Greek, in the doctrine of a future life show a strong contrast. The Greek advance, represented in Biblical literature by the I}k, of Wisdom only, was due mainly, though not entirely, in the limited circle affected by it, to the consciousness of intellectual vigour and the diffi- culty of conceiving intellectual activity arrested and annihilated, as in the belief of the Homeric age it undoubtedly was. In the Hebrew advance, it was the development of religious vigour and experience which made men feel that existence in Sheol, as generally understood, could not be their final lot. Again, to the Greek it appeared that the body was in some respects a hindrance to the intellectual life, and that the serenity needed for reflexion was disturbed by bodily passions; hence the resumption of the body presented no attrac- tions. The Hebrew, from |. less intellectual joint of view, felt nothing of this, and was there- }. able to retain his instinctive perception that the body was essential to the life of man, and to require that, if life was to be restored, the body should be restored also. The history of the doc- trine of the resurrection in the OT is that of a slow hesitating development. In the NT there is undoubtedly development, but the doctrine is not merely developed within human thought, but re- vealed to it from without by a fact which assured it—the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In the present article that event will not be dealt with in its historical aspect, nor with regard to its place in Christology and in Christian evidences (see art. JESUS CHRIST), but only in its relation to the doctrine of the resurrection of mankind. The order of treatment will therefore be ~(i.) the ex pectation of resurrection as developed in the QT and Apocrypha; (ii.) the effect on this expectation of (A) the teaching, (IB) the resurrection of Jesus; (iii.) the place thenceforward assigned to the doctrine in apostolic teaching. i. TIII, EXPECTATION OF RESURINECTION AS DISYELOPED IN THE OT AND A POCRYPHA. — Martha's words, “I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection in the last day (Jn I lº'), set before us the general belief of the Jews (excluding Sadducees) in the time of Christ.” But how had this belief been arrived at . Its development in O'T * The disciples' inability to understand ‘what the rising again from the dead should mean' (Mk 9") does not controver, the statement above. It arose from their unwillingness to conceive a suffering Messiah, and so to expect lis (leath, which was the necessary preliminary to IIis rising again. Cf. the use of ºwotroteiv 232 TESURRECTION EESURRECTION has been so often and so fully dealt with (e.g. Schultz, OT Theology, II, ch. xxii.; Salmond, Chr. Doct. Immortality, bk. ii.), that only an outline will be necessary. A. OLD TESTAMENT.—1. Stages of development.— (a) The religious life of the individual #. W8,S subordinate to that of the nation. It is in the sphere of national life that, we first find those religious conceptions which ultimately come to be appropriated by the individual, e.g. Justification (see Is 45*). This holds good of the expectation of resurrection, and Hos 6* may be taken as a typical passage. Ezk 37 belongs to the same class. One prophecy of national resurrection is of a special and peculiar character, viz. Is 53*. While granting that the Servant of the LORD is primarily Israel idealized, we have here the prolongation of life after death described in so individual a way, that when once the thought is admitted that the Servant is 8. Person representing the nation, the prophecy becomes a prophecy of individual resurrection. It will be observed that in Hosea and Ezekiel it is a figurative resurrection, namely, the recovery of national life, which is spoken . and not a literal one, and the whole conception depends on the nation being considered as a person capable of life and death. But it thus becomes clear that the notion of literal resurrection as a º thing was a very early one, inasmuch as the literal con- ception of an event, must precede its figurative application. The miracles of Elijah and Elisha (I K 17, 2 K 4), even for those who refuse to accept them as facts, testify to the notion of resurrection being in men's minds. , (b) The second stage of thought, later in logical if not in chronological order, is a transitional one. In it the notions of indi- vidual and national resurrection appear side by side—Is 26". Compared with 26*, this verse must be understood as a prayer for the resurrection of individuals. See Dillmann, ad loc. (c) In Dn 12” the resurrection of individuals stands out alone and clear. The passage probably refers to the faithful and the apostates of Maccabaean times (cf. 11*), and resurrection is predicted for both classes, without, however, any implication of resurrection for Gentiles. The form of expression and its connexion with a time of trouble and de- liverance seem to show dependence on Is 26%. The passage likewise introduces for the first time the resurrection of sinful Israelites with a view to retribution. 2. By the side of these stages of thought shown in prophetic utterances we must place the reflexions of psalmists and wise men. . They will best be con- sidered under the head of lives of thought, in which the doctrine of resurrection was developed. In every case it must be borne in mind that it is not the renewal of an existence which has been cut off, nor merely the restoration of a body which is aspired to, but the deliverance of an existent per- sonality from Sheol, and its re-endowment with life in all its powers and activities. (a) Communion with God. Of this the psalmists were conscious, yet before them lay Sheol with the entire cessation, according to the popular belief, of any such relation to Him (Ps 6° 30'). Some of them surmount the barrier. Such a communion must partake of the mature of Him who admits it, and therefore be eternal. Two of the pººl. which express most strongly the delight of fellowship with God, viz. 16 and 17, are those in which the hope of life after death reaches its least ambiguous expression (16° 17") — least ambiguous, because here and every- where in similar passages in the Psalms it may possibly be temporary, preservation from literal and physical death which is intended, as is certainly the case in Ps 68%. But very widely in the Psalter there exists the feeling that life means more than the continuance of the soul in the body. And this fact should be taken into account in interpreting all Psalm passages in which life and death are referred to. (b) Need of retribution. Under this head we must consider not only the Psalms but also the Prophets and Job. It makes itself felt in various ways. (1) In connexion with Messianic hopes. The more vivid and glorious these become, the more needful is it that the dead Israelites should not be thought to be debarred from par- taking in their fulfilment. The idea of the dis- persed who are alive being gathered to partake in the great restoration is abundantly expressed (Is 60 and elsewhere); and it is only a step further to gather them from the underworld for the same purpose. That is indeed the connexion of the prayer and promise in Is 26” and Dn 12°, already cited. The thought comes out much more clearly in Eth. Enoch 51 ; and when the doctrine of a tem. porary Messianic reign on earth grows into shape, the resurrection of the righteous to share in it is usually placed at its beginning. Hence arises, the expectation of two distinct resurrectiona, which § be examined below. (2) IBesides retribution of blessing for the righteous, retribution for the wicked came also to be felt as a necessity. For the Psalmist it had been enough to pray for venge- ance on them in this life, or to think of them as shut up for ever in Sheol (Ps 49"); and for the Prophets it was enough to expect a ‘day of the LORD,' in which they would receive their punish- ment here, and be swept away. But in Dn 12° resurrection for unfaithful Israelites with a view to their punishment appears for the first time, and it is obvious that from this starting-point an expectation of resurrection and judgment for mankind generally would naturally proceed. , (c) There is another aspect of retribution, which does not look at reward or punishment, but rather at the reversal of mistaken human judgments. There must be a higher tribunal to appeal to, and to reach it man must be bº out of Sheol. Further, the dealings of God Himself require a justification which He cannot fail to give. This is in the main the line of expectation in Job. The sufferer is dying with an unjust condemnation upon him, and with no sign of regard from God. ii. Shºgi he wiiſ still be ºut off from God. He rises to the thought, and throws out the wish (141*), that there may be release from Sheol, and later on is assured that ‘ his redeemer (gö'êl) lives,” and that he himself will see God (19*). All this implies, ſirst of all, literal death, and then restoration to life after death, i.e. resurrection in the proper sense of the word." These three tendencies of thought which were at work in the mind of Israel during and after the Exile seem to spring naturally out of the previous OT religion, and not to require any extraneous influence to account for the shape which they took. No doubt, such a passage as Yasmſ, lx. 11, 12 is sufficient proof of a clear and lofty doctrine of resurrection in Persian religious thought. But at the most such belief, among their foreign rulers did no more than , stimulate the home-born expectation of resurrection in the breast of Israel. B. A POCRYPIIA. — The variations which the * It must be confessed that both the text and the oxegesis of this passage are still involved in considerable obscurity. See the Connon., especially those of Dillmann, A. B. Davidson, and Duhm. # “In order that our minds may be delighted and our Souls the best, let our bodies be glorified as well, and let them, () Muzºla, go likewise openly (to Heaven) as the best world of the Swints devoted to Ahura, and accompanied by Agha Wahista, who is righteousness the best and most beautiful, ſºld may Wº See thee and may we approaching come round about thee, and attain to entire companionship with thee."—Sacred Bks. 0ſ the East, vol. xxxi. p. 312. - RESURRECTION RESURRECTION 233 doctrine of resurrection underwent in the inter- Testamental period are various and complicated. Their inconsistencies may be gathered from the brief summary of them in art. ESCIIATOLOGY, vol. i. p. 748" : for a full account of their phases, Charles, Eschatology (Jowett Lecture), chs. v.-viii., should of course be studied. . . See especially an admirable summary in Book of Enoch, ed. Charles, ch. 51, note. Three of the deutero-canonical books require a row words, viz. Sirach, Wisdom, 2 Maccabees, as representatives of widely divergent views. The earliest of these (Sirach) is on the lines of Ecclesi- astes, not rising beyond the old popular conception of Sheol. The immortality of man is distinctly denied in Sir 17”. The contrary statement in 1919 is omitted in BNAC (followed by IłV). It is found, however, in the Complutensian text, and in the very iº MS, Ho 248. Apparently, the only immortality expected is (1) that of the nation, and (2) for the individual a good name, 37*. The three passages which appear to imply a better hope (46” 48° 49") are capable of being other- wise interpreted ; cf. Schwally, Das Leben mach dem. Tode, § 40.-In direct opposition to Siracli is Wisdom, see Wis 2° 3". Iłut the expectation of immortality in this book is probably drawn from Greek philosophy much more than from Psalms or Prophets. belief in the pre-existence of souls is held to be involved in it (Wis 8”), and resurrection of the body is nowhere contemplated.” —On the other hand, 2 Mac. expresses the assurance of such a resurrection not only as an opinion, but as the motive and support o º The persecutor can mutilate the body, but God will restore it intact (2 Mac 79 1114. 90 1449). And 12* shows that the author had a Sadducean denial of resurrection confronting him, such as is implied by the silence of 1 Mac. in regard to everything relating to a future life. Thus we have in these three books severally (1) the ancient view of Sheol as the end of man, (2) the expectation of immortality for the soul alone, (3) belief in the resurrection of the body. It may be added that in 2 Mac. for the first time &vágraqis occurs in the Gr. Bible in the sense of “resurrection ’ (but cf. Ps 65 title).-2 Es. need not be discussed here, as it is entirely post- Christian. For the pseudepigraphic literature the reader has already been referred to ESCHATOLOGY. ii. EFFECT OF THE TEACHING AND RIESURREC- TION OF JISUS ON THE EXPECTATION OF RESUR- RECTION IN ISRAEL.--In the first place there may be room for doubt as to the precise character of this expectation. May 2 Mac. be taken as the expression of it 2 Was it regarded as a return to life under previous physical conditions in order to partake in a Messianic kingdom º the present earth subjugated and renewed 2 It is to this that a survey of OT prophecy seems to lead, and it is this which seems to be in the minds of the apostles So far as we can judge by their utterances in the Gospels. It has indeed been shown by Charles (Eschatology, Jowett Lect. p. 238) that such a view is more properly characteristic of the 2nd cent. B.C. than of the 1st. The portions of Eth. Enoch which belong to the 1st cent. B.C. declare that the Messianic kingdom is of only ". duration, and that the goal of the risen righteous is not this transitory kingdom, but heaven itself (op. cit. p. 201 ff.). Yet the literature of a period is not decisive as to popular belief, and the ex- pectation of the kingdom of God in the Gospels * Teichmann (Die Pawlinischen Worstellungen von Awſerstell: *thiſ und Gericht) endeavours to show that in 2 Co 5 St. Paul has abandoned his early Judaic belief in a literal resurrection, under the influence of Iſellenic thought, and especially of the Book of Wisdom, cf. 915. See pp. 11–75 for the whole argument, which, though ingeniously worked out, is nevertheless uncon- Vincing. appears to be more in harmony with the earlier eschatology. Even if “the doctrine of the resur- rection current among the cultured Pharisees in the century preceding the Christian era was of a truly spiritual nature,’ it had not laid hold of the mass of the people. The character of the resur- rection belief to be gathered from the Mishna (for which see Weber, Jüd. Theol.” pp. 369,370) is prob. ably better evidence of Jewish popular opinion in the time of Christ than any portion of Eth. ºnoch, though it seems too much to say with Weber, that Enoch cannot in any case serve as authority for the exhibition of Jewish theology (op. cit. p. xv). Assuming, then, that the popular conception of resurrection was return to life under previous physical conditions in order to partici- ate in aºi kingdom, we have to observe F. this would be affected by the teaching and resurrection of Jesus. A. TEACIIING OF JESUS. — In the Synoptics the resurrection is taken for granted. There the discourses of Jesus seldom if ever communi- cate doctrine. Doctrine is presupposed. The dis- courses are practical, and it is in connexion with conduct, and judgment upon conduct, that the resurrection comes before us. However, a new view of life and death is inplied in Mt 9” “the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth,’ and to enforce this teaching may have been in part the object of the three miracles of raising the dead. There is another more important exception to the absence of direct teaching, the answer to the Sadducees (Mt 22%-8%, Mk 1218-27, Lk 2027-88), which was evi. dently felt by those who recorded it to be of the highest importance. As an answer to the difficulty raised by the Sadducees, the words of the Lord are in a measure confirmatory, of Eth. Enoch, 5.1% (‘they, i.e. the righteous, will all become angels in heaven’). But the Lord goes on to attack the osition of His adversaries, and to prove, not indeed that there will be a resurrection, but that the conditions of it exist. The souls of the jatriarchs are still truly alive, because acknow- i. by God Himself (Ex 3") to be in relation to Him ; cf. Lk 104 °. 7°. Their resurrection in the body is indeed a further step, but follows inevitably from the love of God (see Swete on Mk 12%). The narrative of Luke extends the thought of this relation of man to God from the souls of the patriarchs to all men, and to this striking utter- ance St. Paul probably refers in Iło 147 °.—In the Fourth Gospel the treatment of the doctrine of resurrection is different. There it forms part of Christ’s doctrinal system, both as to the spiritual revival which is its necessary condition (Jn 5* *), and as to His own share in effecting it (5* * 690. 40. 44 °). In this latter particular we may com: pare the expectation of Eth. , Enoch, which had connected the resurrection with the coming of the Son of Man (Eth. Enoch 51° 61"). This claim of Christ is concentrated in the words, “I am the resurrection and the life,’ Jn 11”. In Martha's words and Christ's reply the old and the new doctrines meet, and the old is taken up and trans- formed into the new, losing nothing and gaining much. A serious difficulty, however, arises on this teaching. If resurrection is presented (Jn 6") as the necessary ultimate result of believing on the Son of God, the resurrection of unbelievers must, it is evident, stand on some other footing. To deny it altogether would be to fall into the fallacy of arguing from denial of the antecedent to denial of the consequent. But it must glearly be different in character. What is the difference The question will recur below in considering St Paul’s presentation of the doctrine in Ro 8". A resurrection of the wicked is plainly presupposed in Christ's teaching as to the Judgment, Mt. 25*. #9% NOIJ.OGISISIſlSGISI |NOIJOGISISIſ) SGISI •ol outſ uſ unſup quitº SAoqs 1s.III on of USSud 10110ſ Bū) uſ ag-zig I of) I uſ XIIuſoodso qud ‘ing II, I ‘g Oſ) a ‘off III, I uſ Soop ouſ tollſ AA ‘ouſ.1000p oſſ) Jo Ostlos Iu.Ion II ouſ, OSIt, oz Isu (Illito ol Int, I qş Ioſ A.It'ssooou Á[o]n Iosqu Olojo.toul Su A q I siz, I.L aſ ‘Āptºo. It qsud SuA uoy)09.I.Unsol out) ºutſ, suqoiſtſ. I put, suojutout KH Jo Huſtlogo) out on IIoIstºodo oA iſ quâţiu ‘quoulo[d -uloo Sqſ quot|1|A put ouoſº pools qi JI ‘ojūmāuu'ſ Uons AOUI oos on Astro SI qI ‘rig Udºſ , oolin uodu ouſtis IIuus qşI.IIIſ) put, ‘puop ou', ulo.1ſ osſ.It put; “sodoos quuſ, noiſ, ox{t}AAV, ‘utu Kū [businduq on 1 put:1stopun on ott, o.º. 4th Iq uoſqoot.Inso. It!oſqs/ſuſ out on ootlotojot uſ s aſ puv ‘uosuoost, sIII on Honoon -Insol s{H puo Koq \sſ.Itſ) [I]IAA Uloſun º: otſ] Soili'uo ojussºſ poulºu-QSui otſ,I, “jºz, Idºl ‘tgara IOO 9Aull oA ‘(0) pollojo, Kpuo.IIb) g +9 on I sopisoq ‘osuos [boy]SKut out, Jo sold tutºxo SV ‘oſqquduoo ÁIn 14 St. uopºloo.I.Imsø, Jo SAAoſ A Idoſqs.Aut oth put [m.Ion II on 1 Unoq Jo uoſququoso.1(I tuoſo ouſ, OAO oA quuſ, Int, I “S Oq si qL ‘osuos [tºo]II ot!" Jo ool; (d ouſ, pod.Insn “oAoqu poqilosop ‘uoſqoo.I.Unsol go ostros Iboy's Kuſ où) ºutſ) “[[g Jo SU) ‘ūnuſ;100 qu KIAuoteddu sºw qI ‘uoſloo.I.Inso I go uoſºsomb ouq uo ÁIInj sloquo Int, I jS ‘(II]uidoº)) Sosso.Ippu ou (IoIIIA soulo.Int(O oul Jo Moo.(f) AIlouſºsp qsoul out on soilsidºſ sitſ II]oq uſ oouo II ‘tuouſ) duoult, utoly polludop Int, I puts ‘poxlo'otti outos uouſ I, ‘rºll ov “ptop ou" tuo.1; uſt posit; I ou quuq uſ, splow ot" on out to ou Iſlum ‘quotiëno,III) utili IIqAA Sojoq S ontº poi:1.190 Int?...I qS ‘suouſly qu osanoosip sitſ uſ 'uoſqoo.I.Insol Jo quuq tuolj uoſº (ſoonoo quo.toUp KII'd]91 a ‘uoſº.15pusubiq Jo KūAA Aq qdooxo Apoſt out, uſ oouoqsixo poAoûo.I tº Jo qoodsold out poptºosip Attu.togum put “[nos où" Jo AqLuq.lotuluſ oſqissod outſ, U11A poultoouo) ÁIdul Is Su A quinouſ, optidosoſ (II (ojou get 'd “ſiſtſ/?,toºtlºttſ “7000 tº/O ‘puouſl:S) softons/ſtu ou? uſ quintº uoſhuqi.[10. Jo ouſtº oop out Ka poolroupſ -up onqºl quo KIAuotºdda; put ouiju A StºA qooſqus ouiſ, uo quiánotſ, oſtratioſ I it indod ‘oot. Id sq puſ; uuo p.10T out, Jo uomooltuso.1 out, Uſoſt|A UI Joiſoq snoſ Aoid out si otollſ, pun: ‘oud Aou tº otou si uomool -Imsot Jo topſ outſ, quo soAIostuouſ, toy uoſqoolinso.I Ápûo.[It hood.No on Auotu on ‘uosi.I s/ smsoſ quun uoAyş oq qshtu SSouq A qtl11 “Jaspnſ (II sº “KIolour qou sy *I toouou Iuloid (Iso.1) tº soutnssm uoſqoo.I.Inso.1 out, go out 1000p out ºutſ, solſ|uot) on 1 od su.Inq Inu. I '4S uot A SI TI '900ſ I Kioa onudi.Inuod SAoldo II put soilsidºl onlount O outſ, sonsidºl ouTInºd out, tuouſ AIo.[1]uo 1soul It, polo.WSut od on put: “[upoods quot ‘ouo Iuliouo; tı qou KIIuot SI 3utt[otion of Ionsode on St uoſºsomb ou? ºngſ (a .19 oyſ) tusſuouTuou go oopa put uoſºphstodns ou" to usſupnſ Jo 95upuoq oun uo.IJ “oji I Aoti ouſ, Oluſ usûdeq Āq polloquo uouſ UAo.13 uou M pull qſ (Iou A SSoulsory ou', qsol seq uoſqoo.I.Insol ſuo InsAttl out, put: “ušnouq quºtoduſ out od O1 poigodolu Suti uomoolinsol [utonſ out Uſolutio ouſ, Jo Soñº Iolº top qugſ (org ov ‘u tºo loš lº) , oyſ stuſ], StºA juſtiogold Iſotſ, Jo Jooſqus où1 put, ‘(otl II, z) qqānou on quânold Su M. Ultop ‘qşūlūſ) (IJIA uosſ I Aptrolſ, otoM Kolſ.I., "oby quo -sold Kpeoiſe um (10007210 looj) juſtioxtojab Jo qoodso Sqſ up uoſlootinso.1 ouſ opulu ‘ūqtop to Ao Udumpiq plnoo of ILSIUQ Aoti Jo qsitu O Jo UOslo, I ou? III tuouſ] ologoq olduvuxo oilà (IATA ‘qūUdS outſ, Jo qJ13 oun put QSIlliſ) Jo splow out Kol tuouſ, on polluduſ ojit Aou où.) Jo osuos out ‘put; (I toujo out uO (z) (aſ ov) uoſqoo.I.Insor out) on su jujutobon solºsode out on poºnq1.114t ÁIssoid Xo sº [odso; outloº uopºsoddo upoo -nppuS 5uolds ouſ, qo K “posso.Ippo Koun uouſA osotiq Joy put; SOAIostuouſ, toy worqoollusot go UoſquqoadXo eul O.Inseou outlos uſ poposuodns ‘rºg qJN Su sāupſus tions uloly 5uisitº “outdogſ usuo IIoun up 5upuloo puooos ouſ, Jo uoſºtiloodNo oil) solºsode out ol, (I) ‘q p tºol oA UIoſt|A uſ KuA out uloly KIQuo.IoIII poiju orſoqsode ouq go uout on Josh poquosold oupinoop Qū1 Sqoodso.1 oaq uſ 'uo su peo KIIoluquu SNiguel §uſpooo.Id outſ, spun oli-'on IHovqJ, oſmolso.IV NI CIVICI (IIIL IO NOILOGI*I*IſhsQIYI SIHL IO SINITILOOOſ SIIII, O.I. CIGINOISSV II.I.IV3.31&III.L GIovºid 3 HI, III '60I ołI ‘uoſqualºs Ioj K.It'ssooou Sºuſtin Kuo out, oit, “uo() oo.I.Insol s{II uſ goſſoq put ‘pio'I st; snsoſ. Jo Iloissojuoſ) “Inooo KIIºnqou qou soop splow go (IoIQuuſquod SIII) ([julouq ‘(ºf ov jo) uorºoo.I.Insol où, Jo loſsoi; out, St. A poliopold solºsode ou? (Iou A Iodsojouſ.I, untop SIH ſo oogºods out uo ‘poziſtol split: A\tongu St.A st; ‘put oyſ put 5uſqocoq SIH uo oout!)(loool; out AIGI Jo Itos [uuſ; oiſ, qos put ‘(rl oyſ) pot) Jo uoS oſſ, oſt on uſ H (anajde) poſt ſoop (IoIIIA QºIQ 89A qI 'uoſqoo.Ltuso.I s/II go puno.15 out, lio ooutº dooot popuuutop 1st IIIO siisoſ go [odso:5 on J, ‘quoiſ KIOA oil] on qūjuolin suoji Iſot Jo puno.15xiouq où" triouſ uoſºoo...Inso.I. Jo ouſ.thoop oth quino.Iq 41 (8) “ootions[No go osuud Aou Atonatio up onuſ A.1% uo qugou qi qu"I) powouts u011oo.I.Inso.1 sqs.IIIO 'suoſh!puoo snoſ Aold Sqſ topun oyſ quosold spun Jo It?Aotion tº sº uomool.Insol poqo.Id.loqui put ÁII*.iouo; oIſlood on 1 quuſ, oſqugold si qu ‘pou Igoſ put snopnºs oil) juotuu putſ oAbū Koul (sopm????vuºs) udougſ “IQGI Jo Suoſº oppold Kºjo ouſ, oouonguſ IoAoquu.A. ‘cl dº I go i odou quuſ) poiſtutuo puu posſut qI (3) ‘(sooon ppes otil) quiuouſ, Jo loouſos [gi]tion Uuſ up Aq poqson uoo otojolou! puts ‘ºuts...It'A olunditos Ád poquodd ns KIQoop.toduſ odou g uooſt put uouſ III, q'GUA Jo uouſ poinsst, qI (I)—osolſ, olo A uoſqool -Insal SIHI Jo Sqooljo out? “d n uns OI, Josqi Ioy oxIods puts ‘guoppao St.A. ootionaliſp out, uo issuſ on pull ploſſ oilº Toſu.A. Apoq uosi.I siRI Jo Anjºuapp put Áliſt:0.1 out? stºw qi poopuſ "old Issoduſ st SIU), Kºs Iojuoſ ou utio oA olot(A UILuo.I tº uſ out ow puu ‘oouonsixo Jo otouds quosold out! Jo Alupunoq où, Ssolo oou() “I uo juſpuodop quoting A pooj ăuțXIul Jo JoAod oil, oatſ 30u pinous Apoq G iſons Áu Auosuo I ou SI olot(1 ‘Āpoq oliº Jo uoſloo.I.Insol od olouſ, JI ‘pooy ºupſ";4 Kot ouop oſt qson p[noo “[11A qIuop suosiod out on A0IA tº 111A “SItſ,I, off I qLN ‘go tuoqu'uqd tº hou Sºw Ags Kouſh you.A quitº, soldſto -sp out oouſ Auoo Oq SpA quoulou out, Jo osod.Ind ouq Soseo osot(ſ) uſ qugſ (tr.0I ov “ºutria, XII) pooj poarooo..I put, Ioy poxists of I hutſ, poš In oq qušjul q ‘Āpoq uosi.I s/H. Jo LoqouTutto out uſ uoſº.Ionſu spun qsuſº SV (rIz, riſ)3 uſ ‘zig I XIIN) uoſº Iuffooo.I topuſ"I to Kulop on Sosuo outos uſ [I5mouo StºA (IoIIIAA oouololyſp uſun too g (ITIAA 10A put ottius out, su.A qI ‘(refa, put offz, NIT Jo) soot, Id quuqsip put, quo.IoIPIp up (UAtoluſ quo.13 ou qu quosold aq puu (or 0.3 uſ) sloop bosoſo put (FSø qIN Aq poſ[duſ) oluondos posopo u II; no.III. SSud pinoo of 'suoſqpuoo [eployeui Snoſ Aoid ulouſ posuoſo I SAGAA ouos up seA uosit |ptuſ of I Hoſt(A Mºſ A Apoſt out', qeuq Igoſo SpA q ‘Ilosſ, pull of I Ubu A qugſ agoa, XIT uſ qi poxinqo.I Á[[º]uoppouſ putI opſ ‘uoos oAull oA St, *ušnouſ, ‘s&I qIN uſ uorºqood xo outs out? On 3 (IITſogoq SIH poquipoultuooou put[ JIostuſ II ptorſ out puv ‘AAo(A .tuludod out UIUjuoo on poteodde pull puop out, UIo.ſy Sãuisſºl 5uſpooo..Id OAq oud pug sitſ.J., 'suolº ſpuoo snopaold sq IIb on qooſqns Ápoq ū ūq;A ‘snitzur I go quitº su (Ions oyſ on utmºol u Kot polliſing uaoq oAut p(noA ‘(‘V I) oaoqu populuſqso ÁIlúšII uooq Sout q1 JI ‘uolºuqood xo (ISIAAoſ' ot.I., Suso'ſ go uoſqool -Insot out Aq poonpold out 11oop out, up ejuuuſo ouſ, Su A 5untſovoq ſeqJoA go qusol Kut, uniqq quououſ Joquo.13 JO—'A'orlogºſºſſms& T.IO &IN.INI,IOOCI IIII, NO LOGICICICI SLI (INV ‘SDSGIſ JIO NOILOQºI?IDSGIQI '91 ‘Jouqng Sqſ so qspruſo uroly Spoooo..[d q sosuo Uloq uſ tiduouſ, ‘pox{opas out, Jo 5uſsil out go quuſ, uloly quolo; -jſp od IIIA (snoplopap agdw84 x; }) poop ... uo.1] suooqūšit oug Jo uorºoo...Insal out, go ‘N’Gods on OS ‘uoſºsuuo outſ, (oxinſ uo "unuoO 24.0 ºnt.topuſ) soqou slotutumidſ oos odoúA ‘agoz, rifl XII uſ poſtduſ SI Uſoſu A ‘oqup uſ qou gº olnquu (II quotalJIp suolº, -oo.I.Insol OAq, Jo out 11oop out up oſt Oq Suoos uoſº, -mlos ou.I. 'Kºlnoſiſ ºp ouſ, Jo pII 5uſºloid go pouqour Åtvia!giu up sº (118°d ‘ſidomoſoſosq 'soliuto) solºſio ouos Aq posodoid su SosióA osotti go uoisſoxo oilſ, ºr sag uſ uſ pour[I]t KIJourºsºp ‘JoAootout ‘SI qI i NOILOGISISIſ) SQIYI g33. NOIJOGISISIſ) SGI'H' uonºudst ut lous go uomuald No louno Kuo ou.I. ‘II* loſ uſu'), oo sº uſoſuw uomooltuso, quitº AIolºttl su.w of uţujºu of pollsop ou ºutlaw quilº osodilns oA JI (“uit: )]u Kutu } suuou, Kut Kol J, nº ll.I ‘spio AA squu, I qS uptºld No on pull o't pluo'A\ q poobuſ ūV ºg up ‘sos ojily sloplopap on osu,tud . bun put 'suoy shoplopap on quotambo duſoq sostitut own touloy oun : louno oth uo agdwaa 401 sloplopap tº puu ‘opps duo out) uo agdwoa. Nº smoplopap ‘aºdwad N. l. shoplopaps? (, uoo.Whod KIullu) sousſuju () sip (ng (IJ uo) loo) jujyſ “uoulipinſ out) º uoſ) oo.Ltuso.I puloubi, oud to Aoo Kuu uoissoid:No toºl loſt|A “puo ot), put , sºsiluſ) out quuſ, Koul, Sosultid out) uoowºoq uomouſ sſp tº ool on Suloos olotl) tº crg I of) I up ‘umāy ºut All outſ, Jo , olundu.t, où quoAo puooos out, sº soonpolluſ upſt(A\ ‘(p.11912) uouſ), on OAI)^*lo.Ltoo si plow SIULI, , qs.IIſ, p.10AA out) tuolſ pollojuſ od qou qsutu sluſ, usuouſ) ‘uoſhoo.I.Unsol [ulouds Kuni o) oouotojo.1 nou, IA opuſ Jo uoxiods sy situ O up pºop out) Jo uomoolinsot ou", otoli.M. ‘off, U.I., I ul quâuouſ) outs outſ, oos on II by KIooltos unio ow on to stun unIAA orfa ow (II Int, I QS Kol powo IIoj od on put: “ung uſ Kol potti.IIIuoo od On Suloos uoſ) out)sſ p sittſ, poxioſ A out) Jo quill utoly one.It?dos Su Jo quinoul od on sº uoſqoolinsol IIoTIn quuq quot “posſut od IIIA snooqū51.1 oun Kuo quuſ quinº, qşūlūſ) quuſ, qou ‘sſ UAGUp od on toſsmouoo otl, , 'poº) Jo Suos, (tuouſ, Jo Iſu) su Jo uoxiods out, , puop out) utoq uoſqoo.I.Inso.I, out] put plow quiU) uſeqqu on Kuklo A polullooot out, qullq Kou() of Oz, XIT UI put; ‘poxioſ A oun go quuſ, put snoolušII out) Jo uomool -Inso.1 oun uooAqoquoſqou!ºsp u on uoAI3 uoſº outs oulos Squiliod oautſ ow rif I XIT III souquor) oun on sp.tº Alongu puts ‘soq Iſotts I postol A on popuoqxo Su.w uonºloodNo out ºutſ, soo.15op Áq Kuo St. A qi putt “solilots.ISI snooqūšII to Iloiloo.I.Iusot Jo odou oul out to qs.III out 11oop out, Jo sojuqs Ioſ II'uo ouq on sºuroloq uoſquqoodNo sitſ, quuſ, LO topun uoos Ápûo.[[g oAgui o AA — swoº?09.t.tºso.º. oom? oſſ, (g) + ‘ouo KIII).Ito ut; toy 11 of uſeqoxa on poſſpool od plnous Kpoq poſſiloš tº '. poqsa Au, Kpuo.IIT Imos tº quuq oſqu A lootloouſ Aloins sº I LN uſ pop 1000.1 peop out) 5uisitºl Jo solobulu out, Jo Aoya ul Khºnoluſp smoptos tº quosold p(now oºgºs oºſpoultogui ub up joiſoq Jo Int, I “S Kq, quouluopugqu posoddus out, quitº uoſº, -tuopºsuoo Átuquotitoiddns tº st; poppo on p[mous qI ‘ĀIIuliouoã SIsojoxo sloporuluos uo put ‘z03—003 ‘dd ‘ty??tourittoo -puppy s.topollutioS uſ g ooz uo Onou pouloghop tº uo postd Koš.It'ſ old squotundre Suutºutuoſo I, ontºs poppoquosip tº uſ eſsnored ou" olojoq plorſ outſ; tıqlaw od on Sqood xo oil quitº opniouoo ologo.toUI) o AA 'rig Uſ, I uſ pºop outſ, tuo,IJ uoſqoo.I.Inso: Jo Josuſ iſ Joy uoſqbqoodNo onguſſop spu Jo oogy uſ bossoid of ÁIp.Ibiſ uto sºul qugſ (gºt ud jo) Jºsuº opnlouſ oº unsoq uſu:30 setſ Int, I qS tuouſA 5uould ‘āuluo() out, qu oAſſu od Iſºu's oilA osottº on Kuo Stojøt yºg H.I uſ poquosop ofttutio out quit, poſtdot 90 Atul QI. (goºg (IºI) juſtuo() puoods out, Ulum Inooo qou Soop K.Ioli; Jo Kpoq out, onuſ uoſquiſiutiuſ Jo Kpoq où, Jo ojutſuo out qtl11 Ivoſo Áſlooptod qi soxſutu où ‘(p;I (Idſ) UAbop go osuo uſ 1st IU[O uq(A\ KIoqºſpouſ -Uuſ ºutſoq Jo uoſºnoodzo ourbs out sossó.Idzo ou TIOIUA uſ oU)SIdºl tou]oug uſ ‘Toy (osuo out AIp.Igú SI (IoIIIA ‘Aoſ A & U2ns on oſquo;[ddo od uoſqool -Insot, uſion ou', poopu, Ji) ootid oxidº uouq p(noA uo.109.11nsol sitſ quilº, ÁIdun (sg) Apod out so Agoſ où Su toos sº pIOT out, uq(AA Suſoq go uomºqoodxo SIU soop ‘uſºu ‘IoM 'uoſqmpossip anottaya dupuloo Splo"I out, qu poiâuguo od Io “qqoop Kq poAIossip od ÁIIdol IIIA osnou Aſtúrûo, syſt ıounou A off st; aroj {{I}s Int, I QS. IIoſu A qqnop out, ssoidza os put ‘oolog Iuuoſºſ.puoo K110111s Sº uſeqat Kuuſ qud "Ioaouou A, bolopual od ‘sosto ouſos uſ St. ‘otou qou poou app Joy ‘lon\ploy app Aq poAold q1 sp. IoM 'odoq Spit jo Águſt 1100 ouſ, Sossoid Xo ÁTuo (topuſw “(aproxi) āşuoq quosold out go osm spli Áa poAóid qou sp. spun ºng “Hypop spli uodn ÁIoqºpouluiy Apoq uophoöIIñsor ou? polood xo Int, I q.S quitº KIdun o' foll uooq Sou ig o() a (q) "suoissoudNo go oogollo sitſ pooutºn]] uſ oAttſ putt Int, I “S 0) usvoux uooq oAbū IIoA KIOA Kutu ‘spio A S,0s.Itſ) Jo quouloquºs oju.Inootruſ KIQUud u tläuouſ) [u ‘Uloſul AA “sº I XIIA (I) IAA Sootiopſou!oo Tuq.IoA oAtºll rºt'AA quuſ, poatosqo od on tou],tn) sº q puy 'populiosip oolio qu Buſoq quouTIA puſtu Soſsoda ouq on Jos)] poluosold AIoquijop oa'ull qou plmoo Álotus qi Kºt poluutſuu ol on Inos ou" on quâuo.Iq Ápoq pollidoid Kisno Aold tº Jo uoſ) ou ou I, duo Ao olquqilosopuſ Klûiot at Jo 5uptuods uſ old UAVoIIu sy unsuſ, otolu ou si Kouoqssuoouſ ouſ qugſ gloo I uſ St. A poºl toulio oil) Jo uomºuc)]ot to uomoolinso.1 ouq UTIAA quoys (suoo Kiloſ.[]s qou si uom UAA uoussold xo ut: .*uoAuouſ uo.U. SI unju Auoſº ||Quli Tuo, Su poſſilosop SI Kpoq uoſqool,luso.1 outſ, ag OO a UI (79) “bouqu'uxo oq Aoti qsuul (loſt|A 1st Uluoo u ‘g OO z [[]]A poqşu,1] -uoo K15uolls put , osſuo Idutoo g, Su toº.I.A outgs ouq Kq poqi.losop si GI of) I ‘uoſquqood xo sitſ Jo quud ultoſ uouſ, ou plp qi quil, Joo.[d ou SI SIU[] quot ‘g I oſ) I Jo juſtlottom out uſ quouTuloid os SI (IoIIIA ošutuo, où.) Jo ‘ssoul,I, I uſ 5uſtlºou SKūs out quqq on.In sº qI ‘(07/08ºpm/° 7/00) ºpy ÁIoland SI SSoul.I., I uſ Aoi A s, Int, I "S quiU) ("Ayo do) utlºuilloſo.I, Kol poi.In sº qI. —g ſos?? /??) Auoys?swoo Guºſovo, s/n70.1 %S s] (z) "[mos out, Jo Khrºuapſ smonuſuoo & Jo IIoſqdoouoo old puolºg osſe Soſquoil]Ip quuſ) º oq Jou snu qi ‘Āpººl où) up Knºuopſ Jo uoſºt Atosold out, Jo topſ oth 5utpuonnº Soyºluoſi, Ip out.) 5uſ topisuoo UT 1, § II “woº?00.t,tºms -90ſ ſo ſadsoº) qqoolso AA oos : (g 'X II ‘stºdyou?...I op (O) , )so tº AIt's amb oſquit, g Jo uoſºsośāns suoš I.I.O on KIIpua.I st; onlub JIOS)] º ošūššt:(l otſ,I, ‘Stoquouſ Sqſ IIG uſ poonpoldo.1 od smuſ, IIIAA Apoſt Touloy out" quuſ) put, ‘poºooHoo od IIIA unuop Jo out!) oilº qu Kpoq (otti.Ioy out" poºnqqsuoo UoTIAA 1000 tºut ou" |titlq ‘Āſourgu ‘Up.Intſ) oſſottº) out, uſ Iulouai; St. A sp.In Auo Sqsidoſody oun uoly Topu A out 11oop out, Jo Aaj A quuſ, KIdut AIIIussooou spioA S.Intº, I “S Op ION (, uoſqool.Inso I, ‘qū ‘ºup?sr ‘70’ſ ‘solińu II : 69g 'd :''/007/7, pºſ' ‘todo AA go) podolo Aop oſ IIIA Apod Aou ou? (IoIIIA Jo quo Kpoq peop out uſ poos ū olo AA q St. SI KII'uo.I. olouq quuq poAoiſoq toº IIAA out, qatū ĀIduiſ qou soop qI ‘Āſosolo ool possoid od qou qsntu loſuſ.A uoſº Iqsn]U up oAgú oA uſejº otou put { quºtal quotAA out put poos out Jo quuſ)—ptºwtop qušnold sº Käoſaut, tougout .# Jo I , , uoſqoo.I.Unso.1 out qt, poAJooo.1 Apod [unqūds où1 put: ‘IIlºop qu poußisol Ápoq It inquu out) uooAqoq oloul ST Khruuſ)uoo q'eli.A., “sſ ouſ,U10op outſ, Jo Xu.Io oùJ, "Shuound tº so poomppe qoli otº puts ‘poſſ) Jo Soo.Inoso.1 outſºsn'glú Xouſ outſ, Jo solduºxo (q) ‘suo'ſ] -binsniſt reſudod () se poptºo.1 od on one (m-gº"AA) poqºotput sº Apoq 0 (Ions go ÁqIIqssod out, Uſoſ (IAA Aq softoſuut, oùJ, (ASI gig J I Jo) polygºs †. oq on popoou quot “sſ.IUIO uosſ I oug Jo SIodsor) out, uſ uoA is qunoooº oui tºº oduopiodsolioo Iſny uſ SI SIULL oue.Idins SI (IoIUIAA (origgal) q1..Uds out, quot (lºxaſ) Inos ouſ, Io;uo ou sº q ūoſt|A uſ Kqtuuos -Iod tº go ubåto ouq od oº pond opt; sº uſoſuſ.A Kpoq tº ‘Āſolutºu ‘Apoq (agxixaſ) [binºgu tº tuoſy poſtsynā -u (1stp So (a)»nlorinsall) lºnquids o go quuq sp. g[ OO I Oq OAO oA (IoIUIAA quinouſ. It drouſ.Id out.I., (I) : Suoſqoo.I.Insa.I OMAq Jo ouſtº!oop tº opulouſ qi sooCI (g) : JIoSq, UAIA quoqssuoo juſtiobo) sit SI (3) & QSITUIO Jo juſt(ogo, ouſ, puo Koq old qooſqus .# uo IntdI ‘qS go ºuTuogo) ou" Soop ‘II’d qu Ji ‘Shoods -0.1 quu A uſ (I)—KIoAISSooons (111A qLºop od qsnut UOIUAA “so AIosuouſ, quoso.Id IIIAA Suoſqsomb oo.IU[] ‘ouſ.1400p ouTInt?...I out, go uoſº buſuluxo Ioudlity (II , , ot:100 Kolū op Ápoq Jo Joutſoul qaqa uſqAA put, ‘posſe.1 p.mop ou? ott, AOH,-Käuo Ins_os qloy “usſ Aoſ’ utt[] [boy]].to put, oùqns ououſ ‘qūānot!” Stoo.IE) Ioſu A sop|[noſiſſp oqq Sqoout 9tſ u0ULL popuop sº qsſ IIIO uſ out oth A osolſ, Jo uoſloo.IIuso.1 out, Jſ pouſequTuul od outlºo qotſ, put, ‘p o', Ig|A sº qsſ IIIO go uoſqoo.I.Insol ou? osn'good ‘[odso:3 out on [0]IA si peop out, go uomooltus' *— * --d 236 RESURRECTION REU º is that he had given up belief in a resurrection of the wicked. On the whole, it appears that there must be some distinctive character in the resurrec- tion to life, both as to causation and nature, which has not yet been brought out adequately in theology. Thus we are led to return to the difficulty stated above (ii. A) as arising from the teaching of the Lord in Jn 5 and 6. Christ's promise to raise His hearers in the last day is conditioned by belief on the Son (Jn 6"), and their resurrection is represented as an act of grace extended to them by Christ (Jn 5* 6**), although it is also said that “all who are in the tombs shall hear his voice and shall conne forth (5*). Now St. Paul's teaching distinctly, follows the same line: “He that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies through (or because of) his Spirit which dwelleth in you’ (Ro 8”), which limits this Divine operation to those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells. 1 Co 15* is a fuller statement of the same thought. The body there spoken of is spiritual, i.e. a fit organ for the º a description which cannot refer to any but the saved. 1 Co 15” has been quoted on the other side as proving that all (both righteous and wicked) shall be made alive in Christ. But “all” probably means all who are already in relation to Christ as believers. See Meyer, Kommentar”, ed. Heinrici, on the verse. It must be acknowledged that the line of teaching in the above passages makes strongly at first sight for a resurrection of the righteous only, and, in short, for the doctrine of conditional immortality. But inasmuch as this view can be carried through only º of very rough dealing with the text of the NT in several passages, e.g. Jn 5*, it may be concluded that while * life' (Jn 6") and its equivalent, the indwelling Spirit (Ro 8”), are both the cause and the earnest of resurrection for believers, they are nevertheless not indispensable to such a resurrection as is involved in the presentation of the rest of man- kind in an embodied state before their Judge. (4) From the doctrine of two resurrections, in whatever form it be accepted, arises the ques- tion, Will there be an interval between them, and if so what occurs in it 2 1 Co 15**, arguing from Ps 110°, seems to imply that there is an interval during which Christ subdues all His enemies. A much more definite statement occurs in l8ev 20"", where the interval is a thousand years—‘the rest of the dead lived not till the thousand years should be finished.” In this passage the first resurrection is placed at the beginning of the millennium, and at the end of it follows not a second resurrection but the ‘second death.’ It is beyond the scope of this article to show that in the first three centuries belief in a millennial reign of Christ on earth was generally accepted in the Church. See esp. Justin, Dial. lxxx. 1; Iren. v. 33 ff. The interpretation given by Augustine * to Rev. 20' is that the first resurrection is the spiritual awakening which began to work in mankind after the coming of Christ, i.e. the resurrection in its mystical aspect ; and that the millennium of Iłev 20 is the period from that awakening onwards. He supports this explanation of the reign of the Saints by the con- stant use in NT of ‘kingdom’ as equivalent to the Church militant. This is hardly satisfactory as an exposition of the passage in question. It is rather an exposition of passages in the Prophets and the sayings of Christ, which underlie Rev. 20; and as such it has real value. The history of the * “De hoc ergo regno militia), in quo adhuc cum hoste con- fligitur, et aliquando repugnatur pugnantibus vitiis, aliquando et cedentibus imperatur, donec veniatur ad illum pacatissimum regnum, ubi sine hoste regnabitur ; et de h(tc primna resurrec- tione que munc est, liber iste (sg. Apoc.) sic loquitur.'—Aug. de ('iv, Dei, xx. 9; and see also wi.-X., which are full of interest throughout. Church has been a history of the subjugation of the world to Christ, slow but progressive. Such a view, however, if adopted in reference to Rev 20, would contradict the identification of ‘the first resurrection' with ‘the resurrection of the just,” which must, so far as we can see, be taken in other passages to mean a literal resurrection. The interpretation of IRev 20 is beset with difficulties and contradictions, which are well stated by Milligan, Lectures on Apoc., Lect. vi. The sugges- tion of a considerable interval of time between the resurrection of the just and that of the unjust has therefore no secure basis. The significant contribution of the Apocalypse is the clearness with which the resurrection of the wicked for judgment appears in it, which can hardly be dis- missed on the ground that the book is ultra- Judaic. See, further, art. MILLENNIUM. There remains to be dealt with in a few words what is probably the latest book in the Canon (1 Jn 3%). St. John first disclaims knowledge of the nature and conditions of our future state, and then in three words, Öpouot atrº €0.6peda (‘we shall be like him '), gives the substance of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. Our resurrection will be on the pattern, so to speak, of His. Not only does His resurrection answer all doubts as to the possibility of resurrection for us, but it also answers sufficiently the questions in which those doubts express themselves, namely, as to ‘how’ and ‘wherewith.” In one respect the parallel between His resurrection and ours appears to fail. But a little reflexion will show that the difference involved in the reaninnation of a body not yet decayed, as was the case in His resurrec- tion, and the clothing of the soul with a body which has to be reconstituted, is of no great weight, inasmuch as the change which passed on the Lord’s human body at resurrection must have been of so fundamental a character, that although outward identity was preserved, yet the natural body had given place to something wholly different. The extenuation of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the dead into a natural or conſcrped immortality of the soul to avoid perplexities arising from the limitation of our knowledge, evacuates the force of St. Paul's teaching as to the ideal sanctity of the human body, e.g. 1 Co 6*, and sacrifices the moral value of a sense of its high destiny. Again, it breaks up the Pauline Con- ception of man as body, soul, and spirit, all capable of being preserved entire without blame (1 Th 5”). Even if we hesitate to accept St. Paul's psycho- logy, we must confess that the only self which we know is a self constituted of body as well as soul. St. Paul's expression of Christian hope is not deliverance from the body, but redemption of the body. The redemption of the body is the last stage in the great process of adoption (vio9eola) by which we are made ‘sons of God’ (Ito 8*). Litiºn ATURE.-W. R. Alger, Critical IIistory of the Doctrine of a ſºutware Life, with Bibliography by Jºzra Abbott (the latter also pub. separately); Schultz, ()T' Theology (Eng. tr.), vol. ii. pp. 382–398; i3eyschlag, NT" Theology (ſºng, tr.); Schürer, II.JP $29, ‘Messianic Iſope’; Schwally, Das Leben match demn Tode ; Teichmann, J)ie Paulinischem, Vorstellungen von Auſº- 8tehwng und Gericht ; Cheyne, Origin of the Psalter, Lect. viii. part iſ. ; Commentaries on 1 and 2 Co, especially Meyer's Konnmentar, ed. Heinrici, Schmiedel's II and-Commenlar, and Klöpper's Second Corinthians; articles in IIerzog, P.I.I.'”, by Kübel, and in Hauck, PIK Iº, by Schaeder ; articles on ESCIIAT- oLogy in present work; Westcott, The Gospel of the lèesurrection; Sir G. G. Stokes, Immortality of the Soul (a short pamphlet). By far the most important modern works are Salmond's Chºistian Doctrine of Immortality; and, on different lines, Charles' Iºschat- ology, IIebrew, Jewish, and Christian, with which should be read the same author's IBook of Iºnoch. Sce also Thackeray's Itelation of St. Paul to Contemp. Jewish Thought, ch. v. (published after the foregoing art, was in type). Fuller accounts of the literature will bo found at the cnd of the three articles on 108CHATOI,00Y. IE. R. IBEIRN A RI). REU (lyn; LXX and NT'Payaſ, hence AV in Ll; NGI9ſſ](IºI 186 SGILINGIKIſ). IłI ‘NSIKIſ)...ISI 'ssol: o so somito Ka poinluo (Ionjo , Soutuu toilio oAu}), sº tions osm gou pp sonſuoquoil of quuq Quuou To) tº ou', ‘s]soś5us tiuniulu.(I su ‘sduillod "osſo odou A -Kuu to otou pouonuouſ you out soutuu Aou ou') but ‘soutuu quopout out, out uoAlī osoul quil) os : [uu:I put odo N spot unloloſ Jo soutuu ou? sono Iloilº oq oAuº so]]uoquoyſ out) quu? Sn IIo" O, buºuſ houtnuo longiw oilſ, woot-pung Jo quuſ.tua u &Iuo sy woout-pop)-(70ſ—toºju to ouojoq toºl]]o souvuu quotaliſp Kq polluo 5uloq soºo osolſ, Jo out? ou sp. odou I, pur) go quil, uſ oavlovo uſe uooq oAviſ on sittoos uoquouſ Jo Kaoquo, ou, º os : sophio onluoquoy oun Jo Unos Qū) 01 ovu ‘ūdgūuvud 5uipóoold oth uſ pur) on uo A13 ‘too.IV put uoqJOI ºutsouls utouyuos out, oº, lotuou quo ‘uou.IV ou', pub Moqquſ oun uooAqoq KuAppu Tuoqu hotºsp tº uſ oil sopjū osotiſ, "pop[inq Kouº (IoIIIA solº ſo ou? 04ull ... sountu loſſo oats puu : Touqus puu (połubilo àuſoq souvuu Iſoqq) uoolu-Tutºſ ‘oqoN ‘tuyuujuuuſyſ ‘ûoſuo ISI ‘uoqūsoil quud sonſuoquo'I ou I, , (SIſ) sº lºg n N (1) : A\opluo, ou, Jo Shunooot, uſulu ow', oautſ ow ‘soouologo.I lougui sopisogi—’soyºo ſo a/qv.J. puu doſſ ‘‘III (IVF) ſo : Ngitiſh&I*I IO ARIOLIXI?ISIJ, IHL III ‘('p (IV) oos) tuqu quo.15 tº Jo uorºooto ouſ, unpav ponooutloo squopſouſ snoºtba out) puu ‘Utºpio § oul, ssolou u.Inqol outſ, up puu ‘qso AA ou'l Jo soll -uo() oun up sootſ,14 launo oth unſaw uorºu.todo-oo uſ ‘outºsoſu, I utonsul go uoſºuduooo ouſ uſ pu%) u}{A poquyoossu Su A uoquoyſ — ‘LSSIſhöNOO GIH, I, II '013 ll N ‘ûoouns put pur) popniouſ osſo put ‘opis unnos où" uo SuM Ulotu A ‘Utoquoyſ go duito, ouſ popuouſ tioquoyſ ‘ssou.topUIAA outſ, up 5uſuolºgul Jo Joplo otſ uſ 'stol ogl orz uſ oot"Id Hºmoſ 9tſ) qud ‘493 oz gl mN uſ oot (d. 1s.III out) sold nooo uoquo?I (103 nN) 08 LºgF pulooos oth qu puts ‘susuoo qs.II) out) qu (Itz, tº I m N) 00g'95 polloquinu uoquoy[ ]buq Sn SIO) Oslº q (661 d) Tuzi ISI on St. Aoy A lºſſuls tº InoAgg oq suiods of I , "poſiod Kut, qu quo.I.Imo ÁIIºnqog souveu, u'uuº Iountil ‘J Jo tou]ng outſ, Kol poquoio ÁIquqolduſ qou “suoyºutuitoſ [upoiſºn.It opuliott, old Uloſt|A souluu Jo qos tº go ouo St. [IllopoulS] In ſuppu US plujo.1 on pour[ouſ sº (16I ‘d AV-III) Kö.1%) uguuqongſ ‘(ºg I n N) Inooúz-uoq untu tuºus sp. Ads Oºſuoquoyſ où) puts ‘(SIOI or 1 biz, q} in N) Inopolls-Uod InzIII SI uoquoyſ Jo aoulid ou', ‘snpox. I ot(q \tº “put lulu () puts ‘IIolzo H. ‘ulſe, I ‘ūdout: Hoſt; uoqmoyl Jo Suºſo Io Suos ou', ‘(gg (IO I ‘993 n N ‘rig XSI ‘q99 UE)) '040 ‘J (II ‘supox'ſ où1 otojoq S.II*II'd Jo ontºs out" ſo obuoosţuſual g aq Kutu put ‘suoſqipuoo [boy]][od to Iuoyudu,13oo3 UAAoux Kut, UQIAA oo.15u qou soop quouſojuts.I.10 stu.I. “IbuICI put ‘umudo'Z ‘I’duoussi ‘ūt; pnſ ‘IAaT ‘uoolu IS (IJIA podno.13 sº uoquo&I ‘quo'ſ Jo uos, tº SV *oqi.14 Iopuloid sº Shuji I quopout; Sly qJosse on uoqnoºI Jo qduoqqº ut, Jo oouðosſuytual tº oAgú Autu o AA (GIſ ‘9I n N) sosoſ.W. qsuſºe UIu.IIq V put ugliºm (I sponſo onſuoquoyſ où" Jo UOIIIoqo.1 outſ, go oaſqul.Ibu ouq uſ 'qsonbuo() oùl 191jg to otojoq Squo Ao on logo.1 Suoſºpp'o.14 osotiq JoligoûAA ouTulelop on of Tissoduſ SI q osſ Alouqo : Supox"I ou? ologoq Squaao Oq od qsnu oouologo.I où) ‘uaxiuſ, SI Ao(A 1044 uſ otin JI ‘IIdqudo N pub uu(I ‘soºtſ,14 quulſa out, Jo SqušII out, poſſussu KuA autos uſ q to : SAolloy sq Āq pouopu Udº KAIIdiouſ Iºnxos Xu tº paupulo.1 od II, ouſ, Iotſºlºſ ‘poqold -100uſ AISnoj.It A SI quopiouſ qsoouſ ot.I., "[ossgut, IN put untiludgI on poſiod 1640ſ a qu possed liopu.A ‘Āuoulošou ou', pokoſuo put od] tº IngloAod Ašou où stºw uoquoyſ soluſ, KLIGo uſ 'o', ; qossbugW put uſt.IIIdºl on poliogsugun SpA qušputiquid out, quitº pub ‘ūgūIIgſ II). A qsoouſ poqqutuiod ou quuq ‘ūgorf jo uos 2\ſq ‘uioqqs.III ouq Suw uoqnoyI quuq quouoqoqs où, Aq KIIgońoſuouoš payeopuſ sº sodiuq louqo otta 04 uoqno?I go uoſºſo.1 out,L-xxios III XIIvºſ I ‘(alouſ poquodal “opm.1 g so ‘Jou ST (IoIIIA “soq I) ow" out on uouuoo Stoºgouſ go quouſquo.14 ouſ, Joy CIVO ‘qnouănoiuq “JO)—'olo Ul'U Aq "[ppm/° Ioy poºnqūSqug uood Sull woqmoºr Izlę * ‘100moºr ‘woqma'ſ Jo “olo “soaſº Aſtop ‘NGIgnqu IO NIHOITIHO ‘SILINGIgſ)3XI ‘(9qſa I.) NGIgſlag "J.J.GINNSI&I ‘H 'AA ‘oloſ).Uu qxou oos to AI]t'.I.Ibu Tuuosiod Jo UIIoy oth uſ qsuo Kiols!"I [mid].I.) Sº Suo;ºppº.14 oAIquild out) put ‘oqi.14 out) go to soout, suoul Ku -odo ouſ, KIoloui su popuujot uoqJo SI uoquo;[ 'uosuo.1 out, Su uoAIſ, si qsoouſ SIU puu ‘ig uſ.) I uſ uoquoyſ Jo poluºs ÁIssoid Xosſ studſ, tossuuºu IN put urb.IudgI on uootuſ.S put uoqno'ſ tuo, J polloy -subt) su/A qui; Ilú).uq out) quuſ) solduſ AIAuoluq -du GSP uk) 13 liſ) I “oqo “I = 0 .30p ‘cºgg ‘uloq -qs.III sqoot'ſ put uos s. Uſuo'I SI uoquo"I “..I uſ 'uſutſuo:I go Khojus ouſ, Ioj Sośpold St, Suos sitſ 5uſ Iolko Su put ºur tº 16 “slot(10.1Q touqo SIU (u0,1] uţū oAge on qduloqqu [myssooollstun uu äuptutu su ‘udosoſ Jo Kuols ouſ, up ATuo stuoddº uoqmoyl ‘I uſ ‘qsoouſ Jo qou out] log pooullottop sº put ‘u tools.III oth sº uoqnoyſ ‘sputºs q sº qxo) out] uſ ‘.jø65 UK) ‘(XLIOAA stuſ uſ ſº Ka poqtºod.[Oouſ KIQUIssod) qoobſ Jo 3uissoſºl outſ, UI (AOIoq Jo quot ‘sſppV) Jouquy sºul oº uoissooons suoqmoy I go quopiouſ ontºul -Iqāoſ tº su. A put ‘Uluop sqootſ’ longo poot, Id Sow oposido SIUſ) ſº Jo oaſquitºu Iuuſjido out, up Sduu -Iodſ ‘rºgg “outguouoo u Su qoot'ſ ol oatsá Lotlogy[ UIou AA III:3 - OAuls ouſ ‘Utsuſligſ UTIA SOII puts ft()3 ‘Iou Ioy Sox{t}.Iputºut spuſ) ou : gp63 u :) “uboT Jo uos ouq put, º ſ’ go uloqqs.III outſ, sº uoquoy[ ‘ſ’ UI “fall “go ‘dd Wor/T ‘Ku.IF) : ‘a’s ‘w.towS ‘utowo “op.Itºurſ ‘JO (uloqqs.II) su uoy) sod suoqnoyſ onou) p.IOM ou" soil.topun , quo.13, Lt. Joo.1 out, ‘pollojold sº jumpuo.I loAouloſ UA ‘qūlū oſqışşod Suloos qi put (198 ‘d ‘ptstudzppſI) suoſºdiuosuſ optºute.IV uſ outru Iodoid t; so sinooo LE-sq unloy ou.I. ."puolu on , ‘97.94 u10.1) "poſuo KIA.Iód ‘jid G ‘sto]] but spuoul oilAA Joſuo g, ‘qū,”). “It’.IV uo.1ſ oA:top on Stojold qug ‘uvº-U.t up ſqdA3&I ou? (IqAA uopoutloo U Sq8935ms (JOgſS ‘agóź, U+) u0) [I'ugſ : , JIOM , ‘79Q.. 'Q'u.TV (IqAA qſ Shooutloo puts ‘ſoqmagſ dubbo.1 outſ, slogo.id (ºrga uş) uo) utiºuTIICT poij tº go outsu out, so ‘(Ious V put pu%) unpºw) qº uox10" oAguſ ouos Su ‘qou pub “IGI IO Iogſ [Åq log potbol Åq uoos, ‘79-Q-77,24 JO 700-7,9, Sg q upg|Idxo pluoA out ‘puol St 704704T JI ‘oud.IAuiſed tº Jo (sº 179qmºr u.Ioy out) uſ) outbu ou? Sº uorºd IIosuſ upoſity V ut; up punoy ‘700,731 outbu Jodoid oſqt.IV oth Jo Ulloy pououiniuo.11s u q uſ soos put ‘uoquo&I 5upgo.1 out stojold (69 I ‘d ‘oſjpt??ogſ) uo.5uqoogſ 'old'uqold out, suoſ).U.A.I.Iop osoul go ouoN ‘70ſ 'o'; 'poſſ) Jo uojSSuduloo ouſ) on 5uſplooot! Jouſ Oq pouoddgu peu q I, ‘qubouſ pto A outſ, quuq soquqs ('o'7) Smudosoſ (ywºº/Q19%.2ſ.), our oao IIIAA oRI, Jo Osſe KIQUSSod put, “(yſtwoºq 19.1).t), SS0.14sip Kuu uodn pox{ool Uqtu o H, Jo uoſºsodius 0 qi uſ spuſ) ‘p.IOAA out, Jo u1.loy out, uodn 5uſ KöId ‘zgóz, II+) , "Uos tº plotlogI, = outlºu out, soxiºu juſtiods LIN : Upg|100 -un ontmb sº Ajoloui Kºo oli,L–'(\lºgnod, ‘Y”gnod, SSW ‘.19 ouſos put Suoſs.IoA 'uqGI pub qu.IV uſ [zgóź U+) uO uuouſiliq os] Altoſſus put ºf £oCTY [oor I] “IAS ‘sovlgºod, ‘olo ‘l 'xp: ‘I ºwy Soſ quo [righod, rt08 u%) uſ [] 49aod, XXI : LNit!) NEIGIſlää 'IIITIS 'V ºf ‘oo? pp ‘sºsonto!) uſ[ICI oos qmd : poſſ a go ourou ovº noºp soxſetu (gz, ‘wy...tv/ſ App?S 49p (989)) Zoſ\I ([30I 'ſ JOO) LII c. I, WXI ‘Iope.IU[OS : II 88z. ‘soºppapor “IOSZTIIoCI oos) split Muo ‘II JosóIId-U1815II, jo ouſtº ouſ, uoly Suopºdſ.IOS -up upſiASSW oilº uſ pouoguouſ uongo “gluo(Kqugſ 'S uſ ongºſ, ugºuiety out, Jo Stotſo (P63 ‘883 ºn tP. '60049 ‘Io:5uolds oos) aſquity up suggºunout I'dulugu.S ouſ, up pow//jnºr Jo Muſq., outos : SII:51ſ, où, Jo sootnos ou'l Q'o pupºſſu W so.Inqooſuoo ('I', 'juq ‘893 ‘ſ “As?II) pſbAQI : 8poſ\ up Soſºyaſ unſ/W Aqquopſ sq poqso:35ms u0A9 Sºu uoluogſ uoA upg|looum SI outºu oug Jo uoſº bolſtuffIs [goińotoutſºo oliſ, 068 XIT ‘azl u0 i ‘iz-stLI up ‘āoiod go uos out,L-(nuiju I ge6 238 REUBEN, REUBENITES REUBEN, REUBENITES names, but substituted others unconnected with the worship of false gods. This list may indicate the eographical relations of Gad and Reuben at Some ś. period of the Israelite monarchy. , (b) Jos 13, P (using earlier sources?). The northern boundary of Reuben is a line drawn about E.N.E. eastwards from the northern end of the Dead Sea, or due E. from some point on the Jordan a little farther north. The line passed a little north of Heshbon. The W. boundary is the Dead Sea and the Jordan, the S. boundary is the Arnon, the E. boundary is not defined. As far as they have been identified, the cities assigned to Reuben else- where in P (Jos 20. 21) and in 1 Ch 6 fall in this district. The statements of P may not rest upon any actual knowledge of historical geography, but state a theory as to the legitimate claims of Reuben. (c) In 1 Ch 58. 1% the Chronicler (so Rittel, SBOT) tells us that a Reubenite clan Joel (so apparently) occupied Aroer, as far as Nebo and Baal-meon ; but also mentions a Gadite clan Joel. If these statements rest on ancient tradition, we have a trace of the confusion arising as carried captive by Tiglath-pileser. On the other hand, they are kept quite separate in the Blessing of Jacob (Gn 49) and the Blessing of Moses Öt 33); and the latter document shows us that Gad was flourishing when Reuben had been reduced to insignificance. Probably Gad and Reuben were associated at the Conquest, and through the proximity of their territories; but, after the Conquest, the prevailing tendency to lapse from national unity to tribal isolation loosened the ties between the two eastern tribes, till Reuben was overwhelmed by some catastrophe, and its remnants became absorbed in Gad. Apparently, at and immediately after the Con- uest, Reuben was still an important tribe. In the Song of Deborah it is referred to before Gad, and at greater length— - “By the watercourses of Reuben There were great resolves of heart. Why satest thou among the sheepfolds, To hear the pipings for the flocks? At the watercourses of Reuben There were great searchings of heart. Gilead abode beyond Jordan’ (Jg 510-17).” TABLE OF CITIES ASSIGNED TO REUBEN. Assigned to Reuben. Gad. Moab. Itemarks sº. 13%. Jos 208. gº. 1 Ch 58. IS .1% Jer 48. | Stone. Aroer . tº § a = 1 Ch * Nu 3234 & º a ‘from.” 678. 79 Ashdoth-pisgah b . * b RV "slopes of Pisgah.' Bamoth-baal . * * % 0 o Beth IBual. 13eth-baal-neon * d * it d Ezk 259 d % o * d T3a al-moon. Beth-jeshinioth + Ezk 259 o Beth-neon. Reth-peor . . * Bezer . tº º * {...} º # f 3. f Bozrah. Dibon . * {{ Nu 3234 º + º 3345.46 Elealeh . . . . * * * Heshbon ſe º % º JOS 2.08 * * 2130 Jah(a)Z(ah) . © 4. {} {} * * g | g Taken from Israel. Kedemoth . e * © "a Kiriathaim . ſº * * {} + Medeba. . * º * Jº # g Mephaath . . * Q 4% Nebo g º * º * * g Sibnah . tº e * + * * Zereth-shahar g ºt from the close association of the two tribes : clans and territories were reckoned sometimes to the one, sometimes to the other. The district assigned to Reuben is described under MOAB. iv. HISTORY AFTER TIIIE CONQUEST.—It is diffi- cult to determine how far Reuben had a history separate from that of Gad. In Nu 32 and in the narratives in Joshua, Reuben and Gad are con- stantly associated, and, as we have seen, were somewhat intermingled in their territorial settle- ments. This relationship probably arose out of the arrangements made during the period of the Conquest, and were not due to any previous special connexion between the two tribes; Reuben is a ‘son’ of Leah, Gad of Zilpah, Rachel’s slave. P’s usual grouping (Nu 2" etc.) – Reuben, Simeon, Gad—in the history of the Exodus is a reflexion of later conditions. Iteuben and Gad [Gilead] are mentioned consecutively in the Song of Deborah as having both held aloof from the war against Sisera. The two tribes are also associated in 2 K 10° as ‘smitten' by Hazael, and in 1 Ch 5* | Thus, at this time, Reuben was still much occu- pied with flocks and herds, perhaps altogether a astoral, semi-nomadic people ; and was too little interested in its western kinsfolk to join the muster against Sisera. In Jg 20, 21 (RPx on JE) the eastern tribes take part in the war against Benjamin. The T3]essing of Jacob, a document of the early monarchy (B.C. 1000–850), opens by referring to Teulen; thus, according to MT- “IReuben, thou art my ſirstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength ; & The pre-eminence of dignity, and the pre-eminence of power. Uncontained as water, thou shalt not have the pre-eminence; Because thou wontest up to thy father's bed : Then defiledst thou it : he went up to my couch.' The sense is obscure, and the text doubtful; but the lines seem to suggest that at this time Reuben was still powerful ; but in bad odour with the * Moore (PIB) emends the text and translates— “Great were the dissensions in the divisions of Reuben. Why didst thou remain amid ash-heaps, Listening to pipings at sheepfolds? Gilead sat still beyond Jordan.’ REUBEN, REUBENITES REVELATION, BOOK OF 239 tº sº- other tribes, possibly on account of lax sexual morality (Dillmann), or for political reasons, or because the tribe had in some way violated some Israelite tradition as to religious observances. Jos 22 may be based on some such reminiscences. Another view is that these lines are an explana- tion, after the event, of the ruin of the tribe ; but, if this were the case, we should expect some more definite and circumstantial reference to the calamity. In 1 Ch 50t. 18-2°, according to Kittel (SBOT), art of the material added iy the Chronicler to his sources, we read that, in the time of Saul, the Reubenites had much cattle, and in conjunction with Gad and Eastern Manasseh possessed them- selves of the cattle and conquered the territory of the Hagrites, and ‘dwelt in their stead till the Captivity” (see HAGRITES). The same stratum of Chronicles (so Kittel) makes the following state- ments as to the Reubenites in the reign of David. In 1 Ch 12* 87 amongst the Israelites who came to David at Hebron to make him king were 120,000 from the Eastern tribes; and, according to 1 Ch 26*, David appointed 2700 Levites of Hebron as ecclesiastical and civil officials over these tribes; and 1 Ch 27.1% states that the chief of the IReuben- ites in his reign was Eliezer ben-Zichri. No doubt the Reubenites often engaged, with varying suc- cess, in border warfare with the neighbouring tribes; and tradition may have preserved re- miniscences of a victory over the Hagrites. The statistics are probably obtained by the Chronicler’s familiar conjectural reconstruction of history. Rittel, however, considers that the statement of 1 Ch 114°, that among David’s mighty men was the Iteubenite chief Adina ben-Shiza, with thirty fol- lowers, is derived from some ancient Source no longer extant. According to an ancient source preserved in 1 is 47-19, Solomon divided the country into twelve districts, three of which lay east of Jordan. The southernmost is described as ‘the land of Gad (so Benzinger with LXX [B]; MT has ‘Gilead '), the country of Sihon’; * Reuben, in common with the majority of the tribes, is not mentioned. . At the disruption Iłeuben fell to the Northern kingdom, 1 K. 1191. In the Blessing of Moses (Dt 33), a document composed in the Northern kingdom under either Jeroboam I. or II., Reuben is still mentioned first ; perhaps, however, only through the influence of the earlier Blessing of Jacob. The verse runs— “Lot Reuben live, and not die; Yet let his men be few ' (RV), t This verse implies that IReuben had become alto- gether insignificant. So, too, the Moabite Stone mentions most of the Reubenite cities as occupied or conquered by Moab; it speaks of the Gadites, but does not name Reuben. Hence before the time of Mesha (a younger contemporary of Ahab), l{euben had long lost the country to the east of the Dead Sea, if it ever held it, and was merged in Gad. When or how IReuben lost its power and prosperity we do not know ; the change may have }. gradual. On the one hand, Reuben was the outpost of Israel towards the S.E. deserts, it was exposed to hostile neighbours on both its southern and eastern frontiers, and constantly bore the brunt of the predatory habits of the 13eda win ; on the other, it was largely isolated from the other tribes geographically, and, according to the ‘Plossings,’ had alienated their sympathies. Iteuben may have suſlered through the weakening * “Og,' etc., is a late gloss. The last clause of v.19 is obviously corrupt both in MT and LXX ; 13enzinger emends “A prefect- general was appointed over all the prefects.' # Improbable renderings are : “And let mot his men' (RVm), and ‘May he not die, or his men become few ' (Dillm.). See, further, on this passage, art. SIMEON (Tribe). of the power of Israel in the latter part of the reign of Solomon, and at the time of the dis- ruption. The Chronicler (1 Ch 5%. 22.2%) associates the Reubenites with Gad and E. Manasseh, as occu- pying E. Palestine, till the two and a half tribes were carried captive by Tiglath - pileser, and mentions Beerah ben-Baal of the clan Joel as chief of the Reubenites at that time. No doubt a remnant of Reuben remained amongst the Gadites up to this captivity. Certain indications suggest that other Reubenite clans took refuge in Judah, and became merged in that tribe. Two of the clans of Reuben as given in P and Chron. bear the same names as two clans of Judah, viz. Hezron and Carmi,” Gn 46%. 12, 1 Ch 4'; and 12 also mentions (Jos 15° 1817) the stone of Bohan the Reubenite as a landmark on the bound- ary between Judah and Benjamin. Ezk 48". * makes provision for Reuben in the restored Israel; and Reuben is one of the twelve tribes enumerated in Rev 7”. 13esides GAD, cf. MOAB. W. H. BENNETT. REUEL (ºyn; LXX ‘PayováA). — 1. A son of Esau by Basemath, Gn 36' 1", 18. 17, 1 Ch 198: 87. 2. Ex 2", Nu 10” (AV in the latter Raguel). See HOBAB and JETHRO. 3. The father of Eliasaph, the prince of Gad, Nu 2", called (probably by mistaking n for 1) DEUEL in 14* 74° 37 10%. The Fº has everywhere "PayováX. 4. A Benjamite, 1 Ch 98. REUMAH (nºn-l; A [B is wanting here] "Pempá, . D 'Pemud).-The concubine of Nahor, Abraham's brother, Gn 22*. REVELATION.—See BIBLE. REVELATION, BOOK OF.— i. Introduction. 1. Title. 2. Canolicity. 3. History of Interpretation. ii. The Nature of Apocalyptical Writings. 1. Daniel : (a) occasion and message; (b) underlying faith; (c) source and authority of the message; (d) plan of the book. 2. Characteristics of Apocalypses in comparison with Prophecy: (a) situation and message; (b) dualistic theology; (c) element of prediction ; (d) pseud- onymous authorship; (e) literary material and form ; (f) literary composition and history ; (g) apocalyptical dogmas. 8. Inferences as to Methods of Interpretation. 4. Book of Iðev. as an Apocalypse : (a) likeness to Jewish Apocalypses; (b) unlikeness ; (c) remain- ing questions, iii. Contents and Composition of Revelation. 1. Contents. 2. Plan: (a) introduction ; (b) plan of chs. 1–3; (c) plan of chs. 4–22; (d) experiences of the seer, (1) place and movement, (2) leavenly scenes, (3) form of inspiration, 3. Sources: (a) Old Testament (chs, 18, 21–225 112:20); (b) Jewish apocalyptical tradition (chs. 4. 111-18 12. 13. 17). iv. IIistorical Situation. v. Teachings of Revelation. 1. Predictions: (a) general ; (b) details, (1) fall of Rome, (2) saving of the faithful, (3) fall of Satan, (4) the thousand years. * 2. Religious Ideas (Theology): (a) God ; (b) Christ's person and work; (c) the Christian life. vi. Relation of Itev. to other NT Books. 1. St. Paul. 2. Synoptic Gospels. 3. Gospel and Epistles of St. John. Conclusion. i. INTRODUCTION.—l. Title.—The first word of the Book of Revelation gives the current title not only to this book, but to the class of literature to which it belongs. The word “apocalypse' does not occur again in Rev., and does not here signif a literary product. The title which the kook * Unless we read Chelubai in 1 Ch 41. 240 REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF suggests is rather ‘the words (or the book) of the prophecy of John’ (1*227. 19. 18, 19). Certainly the title “Apocalypse of John’ (NC, etc.) inplies a different use of the word “Apocalypse” from that which the NT attests. The . is introduced not as the Apocalypse of John, but as “an apoca- lypse of Jesus Christ.” God is the ultinate author of the revelation. He gave it to Christ, and Christ, through His angel, to His servant John, who therefore testifies to that which is ultimately ‘the word of God,” and more immediately ‘the testimony of Jesus Christ,’ though it can also be called ‘whatsoever things he saw (1*, cf. 11, 19). The phrase “apocalypse of Jesus Christ’ here means, not a revelation of Him (i.e. the Parousia, as in 1 Co 17, 2 Th 17, 1 P 17, 1941*), nor a revela- tion concerning Him, but a revelation by Him concerning the future (cf. Gal lºº. 1", where the revelation is by Christ, but also concerning Him —a self-revelation). 2. Canonicity.—There is probably no trace of Rev. in the Apostolic Fathers (Zalin, Gesch. d. NT I(anons, i. 954 f.). Ign. ad Eph. xv. 3 does not necessarily imply Rev 21*; still less does ad Phil. vi. 1 require Rev 3”. Papias is the first to attest, not the apostolicity, but the credibility of Rev., according to Andreas, bishop of Caesarea (Cappa- docia), who in his commentary cites two remarks of Papias on Rev. 127. Their source, however, is unknown, and Euseb. does not directly mention any reference to Rev. by Papias (HE III. xxxix.). He does, however, say that Papias based his chiliasm on apostolic statements, j, he took literally, instead of figuratively as he should have done. It is true that when Irenaeus appeals in favour of the reading 666 (13°) to presbyters who had seen Jolin (Har. V. xxx. 1 ; Euseb. HE V. viii. 5), we naturally think of Polycarp or Papias as his authority. Iłut this is not a matter about which Iren. would naturally remember what, as a boy, he had heard the aged Polycarp say ; and if he had been able to appeal to Fº he would have done so by name. It is probably tradition rather than recollection on which he rests. Justin (Dial. lxxxi. 15) is the first to declare that Rev. is by ‘John, one of the apostles of Christ' (cf. Euseb. IV. xviii. 8). Melito, bishop of Sardis (170), wrote a lost work on the “Rev. of John’ (Euseb. IV. xxvi. 2). This is important, since Sardis is one of the seven Churches. Theophilus cited Rev. (Euseb. IV. xxiv. 1), and so did A. (Euseb. V. xviii.). Irenaeus was a defender of the apostolic authorship of the Gospel, Epistles, and Rev. of John (for Rev. see Har. IV. xx. 11, V. xxxv.2, ‘John the Lord's disciple,’ elsewhere simply ‘John,’ I. xxvi. 3, IV, xiv. 2, etc., or without name). Iren. took his high estimation of the book with him to the West. It was regarded as “sacred Scripture’ } the Churches in Lyons and Vienne in A.D. 177 (Euseb. V. i. 10, 58; Zalin i. 201, 203 f.). Tertullian cites Iłev. frequently, and attests its recognition in Africa, as by “the Apostle John’ (c. Marcion. iii. 14, 25). Clement of Alex, cites it and other apoca- lypses also, and puts value upon them. So also does Origen, in spite of his opposition to chiliasm, which he escapes by iº interpretation. For the Itoman Church, the eschatology of Hermas, is significant for its independence of Iłevelation. The book stands, however, in the Muratorian Canon without suspicion (‘John, too, in the Apocalypse, although he writes only to seven Churches, yet addresses all '); and after the elaborate defence of it by Hippolytus against Caius, its canonicity remained established for the Western Church. But though hardly any other book in the NT is So well attested in the 2nd cent., there were already those who denied its anthority, and its place in the .*. —sm Canon of the Eastern Church was long uncertain. The objections appear to have rested on dogmatic grounds, though they required to be maintained by a denial of the apostolic authorship of the book. arcion, as was inevitable, rejected the book because of its strongly Jewish character (Tert. c. Marcion. iv. 5). On the other hand, the Mon- tanists, with their high appreciation of the new Christian prophecy and the strongly eschatological type of their Christianity, held the book in high esteem ; and it was in opposition to them that the well-known, long-remaining antipathy of the Eastern Church to Rev. was ... Epiphanius (Haer. li. 83) tells of a sect which rejected John'g Gospel and Rev., and ascribed both to Cerinthus. He calls them A logi, which suggests that the reason for their criticism was the Logos Christology, in which the Gospel, the First Epistle, and Rev. agree. The sect would then be anti-Gnostic, as the choice of Cerinthus for the author would indicate. lºpiph, says they supported their view by the fact that there was no Christian Church at Thyatira [Rev 218], where this sect had its seat. They are further described as being averse to the sensuous and ex- travagant form of the apocalyptical language, the significance of angels, etc. 4. Irenaeus (III. xi. 9) describes a certain sect which rejected John's Gospel on account of its doctrine of the Paraclete, and not only contended against false prophets, but would exclude prophecy from the Church altogether. Since this ground for the rejection of the Gospel would be even more conclusive against Rey, and since Epiph. himself says that the Aloft opposed the Spirit and denied its gifts, Zahn (i. 223-227, 237–262, ii. 907–073) concluded that this was the same sect that lepiph. called Alogi, and that it was an anti-Montanist, rather than an anti-Gnostic, movement. Now Epiph, probably got his information about the Alogi from Hippolytus (c. 100–235 A.D. at Rome), who knew a sect which rejected both books because of the support which the Gospel, in its doctrine of the Spirit, and Rev. in its pro- phetic character, gave to Montanism. Against these Hippolytus wrote in defence of the Gospel and Revelation. He also wrote another book against Caius, a presbyter of Rome, in defenco of Revelation. This Caius, in a controversial writing againſt Proclus the Montanist (Euseb. II. xxv. 6, III. xxviii. xxxi, 4, WI. xx. 3), had evidently rejected Rev., ascribing it, as the Alogi did, to Corinthus. The citation in Eusebius (111. xxviii. 2) reads: ‘Cerinthus, through revelations professing to have been written by a great º brings before us marvels which he falsely claims were shown to him through angels, asserting that after the resurrection there would be an earthly kingdom of Christ, and that nen dwelling in Jerusalem will again be subject to desires and pleasures. And being an enemy to the Scripture8 of God, he said that a period of a thousand years would be spent in nuptial festivities.’ The long dispute as to whether this referred to our Rev. must be regarded as ended by the publica- tion, by J. Gwynn (Hermathema, vi. 397-418), of fragments of the reply of IIippolytus to Caius, from which it is evident that Caius, who was not one of the Alogi (not a heretic), argued in detail against the harmony of Rev. with the rest, of the NT, using some of the arguments of the Alogi, and in all probability ascribing it, and not some other apocalypse, to Cerinthus (so Zahn, Bousset, Holtzmann, etc., against Gwynn). Zahn dates the writing of Caius against Proclus about A.D. 210, and the reply of Hippolytus in defense of Rev, about 215. It is evident that Caius did not question the Gospel of John. After this, no Western Church writer seriously questioned Rev. (though see Jerome's position, below). In the East, Dionysius of Alexandria (A. D. 255), a pupil of Origen, wrote a temperate and scholarly criticism (Euseb. VII. xxv.), in which he argues that Rev. is not by John the apostle. He reviews previous criticisms, evidently among others that of Caius, mentioning the hypothesis that Cerinthus was its author. He does not 1 eject the book out and out, since others valued it, but cannot himself understand it ; and proves, by an elaborate com: parison as to literary character, language, and composition, that it is not by the author of the Gospel and the First Epistle of John. It is indeed by some holy and inspired man whose name was John. There were many of that name (e.g. John Mark), and it is said, he adds, that there are two monuments in Ephesus, each bearing the name of John. The ground of the rejection of its aposto- licity by Dionysius was º in part a sense of its difference from John's Gospel, in part the Hellenist's aversion to sensuous º and to the chiliasm which made room for such hopes. º Iºusebius, who gives the argument of IDionysius at some length, evidently sympathized with his view, though his own judgment wavers. He in- REVELATION, BOOK OF FEVELATION, BOOK OF 24] clines to ascribe Rev. to the Presbyter John of whom Papias wrote (Euseb. III. xxxix. : ‘It is probably the second [John], if one is not willing to admit §a. it is the first, that saw the Apocalypse'). His doubt as to the place of the book, whether among the Homologoumena (accepted) or among the Notha (rejected), is expressed in III. xxv. 4. He emphasizes the rejection of the book by good churchmen, and does not mention the almost certain use of it by Papias, or the elaborate defence of it by Hippolytus. Yet he cites many words in its favour. After Euseb. the opposition to Rev. was for a time general in the Syro-Palestinian Church. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. iv. 33–36) does not name it mong canonical books; nor does it appear in the Canon 60 of the Synod of Laodicea (c. 360?), nor in Canon 85 of Apost. Const. viii. (Zahn, ii. 177 ff., 197 ff., 191 ff.); nor is it in the list of Gregory of Nazianzus (ib. 216 f.), nor in the so-called Symopsis of Chrysostom (ib. 230). Neither Chrysostom nor Theodore of Mopsuestia mentions the book, and Theodoret does not accept it. It does not appear in the Chronography of Nicephorus, or in the List of 60 books (ib. 298, 290 f.). The Nestorian and Jacobite Churches did not receive it (Bousset, p. 25). The question as to the origin and significance of this attitude of the Syro-Palestinian Church leads back to the striking fact that Rev. (with 2 and 3 Jn, 2 P, ſº did not originally stand in the Syriac NT (Peshitta). . It has been supposed that it was still Yº; in the Philoxenian version, but Gwynn argues that the version he edited belonged to that translation (The Apoca- lypse of St. John in Syriac, 1897). Was the book, then, wanting in the Canon of the Syrian Church from the beginning 7 An affirmative answer is made doubtful by the apparent references to Rev. in Ephraem. It is not certain, however, that Ephraem used Rev., the question being involved in questions of text and of authenticity (see Bousset, 21–23). Gwynn § C-cv) believes that the book was excluded “by ignorance rather than of set purpose’ from the Peshitta, Canon, and remained unknown to Syriac-speaking Christians for º four centuries, except to the few who could read it in Greek, among whom he reckons Ephraem. Even after translation into Syriac, the book never became familiarly known in any of the Syrian Churches. Their religious thought and rich liturgical literature remained practi- cally uninfluenced by it, Bousset thinks the dominance of another type of cschatology, the Apocalypse of Antichrist, helped to effect the exclusion of Revelation. The Greek Church yielded only slowly to the decision of the Western, and admitted the book into its Canon. In Egypt, where the opposition first developed in orthodox circles, it was sooner overcome. Athanasius, and others after him, re- cognized the book. The first Eastern connmentary, that of Andreas, belongs to the 5th cent., and the next, that of Arethas, to the 9th. Each begins with a defence against doubts as to the canonicity of the book. In the West, after the elaborate defence of Hippolytus, Jerome alone shows the influence of Eastern doubts. The Eastern Church, he says, receives Hebrews; the Western, Revelation. He inclined to accept it (Ep. ad Dardanum, 129), but elsewhere (in Psalin. 149) he puts it in a middle class between canonical and º: This suggestion did not bear fruit until Carlstadt (1520), at the beginning of the Reformation, made a threefold division of NT books, corresponding to that of the OT in Hebrew, and º in the third, least authoritative, class (with the OT “Hagiographa'), 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, James, Hebrews, Revelation. Of these seven, which are ‘of third and lowest authority,’ Itev. stands last, on the verge of being apocryphal. I,uther at first (Preface in Translation of NT, 1522) expressed a strong aversion to the book, declaring that to him it had every mark of being neither apostolic nor prophetic... * spoke clearly, without ſlgure or vision, of Christ and IIis deeds; and no prophet in the OT, to say nothing of the NT, deals so entirely with visions and figures. It is comparable only with 4 lºzra (2 lºstlvas), and he cannot see that it was the work of the Holy Spirit. More- over, he does not like the commands and threats which the writer VOL. IV.-16 makes about his book (2218, 19), and the promise of blessedness to those who keep what is written in it (18 227), when no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it, and there aré many nobler books to be kept. Moreover, many l’athers re- jected the book; and though Jerome says it is above all praise, and has as many mysteries in it as it has words, yet he cannot prove this. ... ‘Finally, every one thinks of it whatever his spirit imparts. My spirit cannot adapt itself to the book, and a sufficient reason why I do not esteem it highly is that Christ is neither taught nor recognized in it, which is what an apostle ought before all things to do. Later (1534), Luther finds a possi- bility of Christian usefulness in it, and gives its message in words well worth quoting : ‘Briefly [Rev. teaches that] our holiness is in heaven where Christ is, and not in the world before our eyes, as some paltry ware in the market. Therefore let offence, factions, heresy, and wickedness be and do what they may ; if only the Word of God remains pure with us, and we hold it dear and precious, we need not doubt that Christ is near and with us, even if matters go hardest : as we see in this Book that through and above all plagues, beasts, evil angels, Christ is still near and with His saints, and at last overthrows them' (translation of Westcott, Canon, 1880, p. 483). He still thought it a hidden, dumb prophecy, unless interpreted, and upon the interpretation no certainty had been reached after many efforts. His own interpretation of , the book as anti-Papist may have led him to a more favourable opinion of it. But he remained doubtful about its apostolicity (Preface to Revelation in the edition of 1545), and printed it, with Hebrews, James, Jude, as an appendix to his New Testament, not numbered in the index. The other three doubtful books, 2 and 3 John and 2 Peter, it was not so natural to separate from 1 John and 1 Peter. In this way these four books were printed in Luther's Bible as late as the 17th cent. So also in Tindale's New Testament. “In general the standpoint of the Reformation is marked by a return to the Canon of Eusebius, and consequently by a lower valuation of Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James, Jude, and Revelation' (Holtzmann, Einleitwmg, p. 157). Zwingli regarded Rev. as ‘not a Biblical book’; and even Calvin, with his high view of inspiration, does not comment on 2 and 3 John and Revelation. Only gradually was the effort to maintain such a deutero-canonical class of books in the NT given up, as the dogmatic displaced the freer and more his- torical attitude toward the Bible. In general it may be said that Rev. has main- tained its place in the Canon, in spite of doubts and assaults, not because of its extravagant claims to inspiration and authority, not because of its visionary form, and not because of its eschat- ology, but rather in spite of all these, which were marks, also of the many apocalypses, Jewish and Christian, that the Church rejected.” Nor can it be said that belief in its apostolic authorship kept the book in the NT, for this was very early denied, and could as easily be set aside, as, for example, that of , the Apocalypse of I’eter, which the Church rejected. The real reason, for the sake of which apostolic authorship was maintained, was the consciousness that, on the whole, the religious faith and feeling of the book predominate over its apocalyptical form, and give to apocalyptical language, which the majority cannot understand or accept in its literal sense, practically the value of figure for the emotional expression of Christian faith and hope. It is really as Christian poetry, rather than as the disclosure of mysteries of the unseen world and of the future, that the book has been valued, and, because valued, preserved and canonized by the Christian Church. A book, however, which has been canonized because of its general contents, and the spirit behind its form, will inevitably e used by many for its details literally taken. So used, Ikev. has often had a harmful influence, setting thought upon useless tasks, and stimulating self-centred and morbid hopes and fears. If one puts over against this the wonderful ministry of comfort and strength in times of trial which the book has rendered, he may find justification both for the doubts and for the final decision of the Church regarding its canonicity. 3. History of Interpretation.—The history of the interpretation of IRev. is an interesting chapter in * Christianity has been in certain sects and at certain times apocalyptical in temper, but not on the whole. ... Many apo- calypses were treasured as sacred by sects and at times, which were left aside by the Church as a whole and in the end. 242 REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF Church history; * but it is an inseparable part of a much larger chapter which it would be quite im- ossible to write here. Harnack (Hist. of Dogma, i. 129 ft., 167 ff.) describes the two contrasted, though not mutually exclusive, conceptions of Christianity, the eschatological and the spiritual, the relations of which make one of the chief themes in the history of Christian thought. The earlier eschatological view gave way, especially under the influence of Greek thought, to the spiritual conception of Salvation. Chiliasm, of which Rev. was the one clear and authoritative source, ‘is found wherever the gospel is not yet Hellenized.” It is evident that where Hellenistic views prevailed Rev. must be either rejected or spiritually interpreted. Among chiliasts, besides Cerinthus, the heretic, are Papias, Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian—the early defenders of the authority of Revelation. Origen, on the other hand, could receive the book and yet oppose a chiliastic conception of Christianity. The Eastern Church in general, as we have seen, followed the easier method of rejecting or neglecting the book. In the West, Victorinus (c. 803) commented on the book in a chiliastic (i.e. literal) sense ; but a greater influence was exerted by the Commentary of Tyconius (before 389), whose interpreta- tion is spiritualistic. Through him “the Latin Church finally broke with all chiliastic inclinations and all realistic eschat- ology' (Bousset, 63). The ‘thousand years’ denote the present period of the Church between the First and the Second Coming of Christ. IIe was followed by Augustine (de civitate Dei, xx. 7–17) and Jerome. The possession of world-rulership by the Church took away the ground for chiliastic hopes, and re- moved both the circumstances and the temper out of which Iłev. came. There was, however, a revival of the prophetic spirit in the Middle Ages, in re- action against ecclesiasticism and the secular spirit. From the protesting order of the Franciscans, who attempted to recover the character and spirit of apostolic Christianity, canne a chiliastic interpretation of Rev. about A.D. 1200, by Joachim of Floris. In Commentaries on Jeremiah and Isaiah under his name the end of the world was ſixed at 1240 (Rev. 113 120) and then at 1290. The woman (Rev 17) was already inter- preted of the Romish Church by these pre-Reformation reformers, and this, together with a like application of the beasts of ch. 13 to Rome and the Pope, inevitably became a standing feature of Protestant commentators from Luther onwards; with ex- ceptions, such as Grotius (1044) and Hammond (1653–1659). Over against this enticing but flagrant misuse of the book, Catholic scholars in part sought for other historical applications of these figures (Turks, Mohammed, etc.); but in part made a beginning of a more correct method of interpretation by seeking in events of the author's own time, in the Jews and the IRoman empire, for the clue to his predictions. So especially Alcazar (1614), a Spanish Jesuit of Antwerp, who maintained that Rey 1-11 was aimed against Judaism, chs. 12 f. against Rome. This correct effort to interpret Rev. in the light of the events of its own time was carried forward by Grotius, Hammond, Clericus (1098), Wetstein (1752) and others, at first with too much reference to Judaism and the fall of Jerusalem, but finally with a growing recognition of Rome as the object of the book's denunciations (Semler (1769, etc.), Corrodi (1780), Eichhorn (1791)). The reference to Nero, in the wounded head (ch. 13), which had been found already by Victorinus (303), and again in a Jesuit commentary (Juan Mariana), was introduced into Protestant exegesis by Corrodi. This so-called contem- porary-historical (by some called ‘proºterist’) method of inter- pretation (i.e. by reference to historical events of the writer's own time) was most fully carried to completion in the great works of Lücke (Versuch einer vollständigen Jºinleit wºng in die Offenbarung, 1832, 2nd ed., 1852), Bleek (Vorleswngen über die A pok. 1862), and Ewald (Comm. in Iatin, 1828, Die Johann. i. ſº 1862). So also Volkmar (1862), Düsterdieck (Meyer, S59–87). In general these writers date the book before 70 (Rev 111-13); regard it as written chiefly against Rome; and find in it a pre- * See Lücke, Einl, in die Offenbarumg2, 1853; Holtzmann, II and-Commentar, iv. p. 280 if...; Bousset, Kommentar, pp. 51–141. # To Lücke was especially due the recognition of the fact that Rev. is not an isolated book, but is one of a class, that it belongs in kind to the Jewish apocalypses, and is to be inter- preted as they are. The fact that Daniel contains allusions to the Greek empire and to Antiochus Epiphanes was a strong º for accepting the apparent references in Rev. to Rome and N gro. diction of the return of Nero. The interpretation of the number 606 as Nero Coesar seems to have been made independently by several scholars (Fritzsche, Benary, Hitzig, Reuss, Ewald (?)). With this understanding and dating of Rev., Baur affirmed its apostolicity, and made it a monument of the original Jewish ristianity. - Against this method conservative theologians still attempted either new interpretations of the book as a summary of Church history (the ‘Church- historical' or ‘continuously historical' method, Hengstenberg, Ebrard, etc.), or a reference of its predictions to events still future, the end of the world (the endgeschichtliche, “futurist’ method, Kliefoth, Zahn). A method which is in some sense intermediate between these is one that sees in Rev. not definite events in Church history, but symbolic representations of good and evil prin- ciples, their conflict and the coming victory of the good (Auberlen's reichsgeschichtliche Methode). A similar standpoint is occupied by Milligan (Commentari on the Apocalypse ; The Rev. of St. John, Baird Lectures, 1886; Discwssions on the Apocalypse, 1803; The Bk. of Rev. [lºx- positor's Bible], 1899. The Apoc. embraces the whole period from the First to the Second Coming of the Lord. It sets before us within this period the action of great principles and not special incidents. We must 1nterpret in a spiritual and universal sense that language of the Apoc. which appears at first sight to be material and local). So also Benson (The Apocalypse, 1900) maintains that Rev. unveils Jesus Christ as present in this world, and His enemies, Satan and his agents, who are all principles not persons or historical characters, “the principles which maintain the self-deceiving half of human nature in its death struggles with a livine Wisdom which slowly vanquishes it’ (p. 170). It is, of course, true that beneath every book there are certain fundamental beliefs and hopes capable of being generalized and taken out of all historical relations. It is true also, as we shall see, that the allusions, for example, to Nero are not so clear as we should expect of one who set out to describe him in symbol. But the principles which these writers look for are still less clearly symbolized, and it is a fundamental mistake to pro- ceed upon the assumption that such principles are everywhere intended, and also that the teachings of Rev. must agree with all other teachings of the NT and with the judgment of the Christian con- sciousness. The history of the book in the Canon might well have kept others from the bondage of this assumption, as it kept Luther and the early Reformers. But the assumption is no longer possible for those who approach 13iblical study in a historical spirit. For such, the effort to find in the book allusions to events of its author's time is natural, and this method is destined to general acceptance. Of late, however, a growing convic- tion has arisen that this contemporary-historical method is not sufficient by itself to solve all the problems of the book. The first question to arise concerned the unity of the book. As prophetic books like Isaiah and Zechariah and apocalypses such as IEnoch are composite, it was natural to raise the question with reference to Rev., and to remove iy". analysis the unevenness in structure and the wanj. of harmony, both in historical references and in doctrinal views, that had troubled interpreters. Theories of composite origin have been advanced in two general forms : (1) The book is in its present form a unity, but its author, made use of various documentary or traditional sources, of Jewish or Christian origin, incorporating them in his work. (2) The present book is the result of one or more revisions of an older Jewish or Christian apocalypse, or more than one. Weizsäcker, who gave the impulse to this effort at literary criticism, held the former of these two views : * “We have in * The history of these efforts has been told by Holtzmann, Jahrb. ſ. Prot. Theol. 1801 ; Barton, AJT'h, 1898; A. Meyer in Theol. It wºndschaw, 1897; and in fuller detail by I&nuch, Dia Offenban"wng deg Johannes, 1894, and Bousset, ſomnºn. p. 127 ff. REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF 243 this writing, which is as certainly pseudonymous as are all apocalypses, a compilation, which in its origin is already a compilation; and in its various strata, which certainly reach far back, it testifies in itself alone to an extensive practice of (Christian) prophecy' (Theol. Lit. -Zeitung, 1882). The first efforts after detail were, however, made on the basis of the second theory.—Wölter, a pupil of Weizsäcker, in a series of works (Die Entstehwng der Apok. 1882, 1885; Das Problem der Apok. 1893), attempted to construct a primitive apocalypse of A.D. 65-66, which the author revised after Nero's death. Three or four other revisers added to the work, to the last of whom the letters are due. Wölter argues on the basis of (1) want of formal and material connexión, (2) reference to different his- torical situations, (3) doctrinal differences, especially as to Christology. . Some of his observations are just, but his solu- tion of the difficulties is arbitrary and unconvincing.--Wischer (Die Offenbarwmg Johannis, eine jūdische Apokalypse in christ- licher Dearbeitwmg, 1886) put forth a simpler and more attractive hypothesis, which, appearing with Harnack's hearty approval, won many adherents. He believed Rev 41–225 to be a Jewish apocalypse set in a Christian framework (1–3. 220-21) with a }. Christian revision (59-1479-17 1211 139. 10 14.1-5. 12, 13 153 1615 1714 199. 10.13b 2010 210b-8 and all references to the Lamb). His starting-point is Biblico-theological, the presence in the book of Jewish by the side of Christian ideas. Harnack (Nachwort) admits that this does not in itself involve Jewish authorship, but regards that hypothesis as necessary in this case. Weyland (Omwerkings em compilatie - hypothesem toegepa.8t op de Apocalypse van Johannes, 1888) elaborated Vischer's theory by supposing two Jewish sources. The oldest (n) con- tained (omitting slight and obvious Christian words or phrases) 10. 111-13 12. 13. 146-11 1524 10. (part, esp. 13. 14) 1911-2120. 211-8, i.e. the little book, Jerusalem, and the two witnesses, §:e appearance of the dragon and beasts and their final overthrow, the last judgment and the new world. The later source (N) contained 110.1237; 19 4, 51.7 6, 71.8.0:17 (part) 8.9. 1114-18 143.9 155 1617b, 20 1414-2017. 18. 191-0 210-27.221-11, i.e. the seven seals and trumpets, the fall of Babylon (Rome), and the new Jerusalem. These were united by a Christian redactor who added (besides occasional j 11-9. 18, 20 2. 3. 141-5 161-17a. 107-10 227a. 12, 13.16-22. Weizsäcker in his Apostolic Age rejected these and similar efforts at analysis, and held to his original suggestion that the book is a unity; but its author has made use of various older materials, apocalyptical visions, fragmentary in character, and has introduced these in such a way as often to interrupt his plan. Such pieces are 71-8. 0-17 111-13 121-11, 12-1713. 17. Sabatier (1èev. de Théol. et de Phil. 1887, and Les origines litteraire et la composition de l'apoc. de St. Jeam, 1888) defends a similar view. The Christian writer introduced foreign oracles into his work, viz.: 111-13 121–1318 140-20 1613-10 171–192 (1824?) 1911–2010 219–225. sº similar is the view of Schoen (L'origine de l'Apoc. 1887). This vicw of the composition of Rev., which does justice both to its general unity of plan and style and to the breaks in its plan and the contrasts in its thought, and does not attempt the impossible task of reconstructing complete lost books, has gained the adherence of an increasing number of competent critics. It is the view of Jülicher (Einleitung in d. NT, 1894). It is also the view of Gunkel and of Bousset, though these two scholars have carried the problem of the interpretation of Rev. on to a new phase. On the other hand sº (Offenb. Johannis, 1889), who had reached his main conclusions in- dependently before the appearance of Völter's work, attempts an elaborate analysis in which every verse and word is ascribed to its source. The basis of our present book is held by Spitta to be a primitive Christian apocalypse, containing the letters and the Seals (11-0, U-19 2–3. [omitting the conclusion of each letter, 27, etc.] 4–6. Sl 70-17 1990. 10 228, 10-13. 16-18, 200,21). He believes that this was written by John Mark, about 60 A.D. To this a later Christian added two older Jewish apocalypses; one is from the time of Caligula (133. 14 refers to an illness from which he recovered ; (;16 (1318) = l'6 io; Kocio-op), occasioned by his effort to erect his image in the temple (130.8; 12 t). It contains (a) 71-8829, (b) 86–921, @ (910) 101-7, (d) 11(16) 19 121-17 1218–1318 141-11 1618-20, (c) 1911–211, bit. Gil. The other Jewish source is put back to the time of Pompey (Israel's first conflict with Rome, and the danger of the temple). It is composed of (6) 10lb. 2a, 81.9b-11, (b) 111.13, 15, 17, 18, (c) iſ 14, 20 1524, (d) 155–1612, 17.21, (e) 171.5. Gu 181–198, (f) 210-2284. 15. All other purts are from the hand of the reviser. Spitta's work contains much that is of great value, but scholars generally agree that such minute analysis is impossible, that the book has a greater unity than this theory admits, and that in particular to ascribe the seven seals, trumpets, and bowls to three diſlerent hands is to over- look one of the unmistakable characteristics of the final writer. Yet Briggs (Messiah of Apostles, 1895, chs, 9–15) goes even further in this direc- tion. His analysis but not his view as to author- ship [epistles, seals, bowls, and probably trumpets being attributed by Briggs to one duthor, the Apostle John (pp. 303, 369)] is followed by Barton (AJTh, 1898). It is not to be concluded that the many laborious and ingenious efforts at literary analysis have been without value, even though they have led to no agreeing result. There has been increasing agreement as to certain general points. The book, though probably the work of one writer, is not the original product of one mind or one occasion. It contains sections which appear to be foreign to the rest, and may well be of Jewish origin, though the line between Jewish and Jewish-Christian is one impossible to determine. 7-8 11” 12. 13. 17 quite certainly belong to this category, and there are other sections which may have been taken by the writer in practically finished form from apocalyptical tradition (e.g. 18. 20. 219–22%). This result, however, important as are its bearings on the interpretation of the book, since it relieves us of the necessity of finding one type of religious thought or one historical situation in all parts, by no means solves all or even the more important problems of historical exegesis. Gunkel (Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit. Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung itber Gen. 1 und Apoc. Joh. 13 (1895)) sharply formulated one of these outstanding problems— that concerning the ultimate origin, the first meaning, and subsequent history of that tradi- tional material from which apocalyptical writers drew. He criticized both the methods in which critical scholars had treated the book—that which looks everywhere for figurative references to his- torical events of the writer's time, and that which devotes itself to literary analysis as an end. Ac- knowledging that some of the apocalyptical figures are allegories of current events (1)n 7.8, Enoch 85 ft., 4 Ezr 11 f., Ikev 13. 17), and also that criticism must separate some sections from their setting, he yet urges that tradition largely ſixes the form of the figures, and that the apocalyptical writer uses them not with freedom, but with reverence; not creating them as a poetical embodiment of well- known persons and events, but seeking in them for the clue to the mystery of the present and future. The history of tradition is therefore more important than the history of literary composition. Tradition is, in fact, the real author of an apoca- lypse, and it is this fact that gives the writer his deep conviction of the truth of his predictions. Except where it is expressly indicated, it is not to be assumed that references to historical perso:is and events are hidden behind the apocalyptical imagery. With reference to most of such images (e.g. 91-ll 918-21 | lú-13 1618. 14. 1ſ; 69-11 (cf. 4 Ezr 45) 11. 3 61-8 16. 613-17), Gunkel declares the contem- porary - historical method bankrupt. Even in ch. 13, where the ſirst beast is the ſtonian empire, and in ch. 17, where the woman is the city (Rome), many details are not to be explained historically. Here Gunkel carries his opposition to the ruling method so far as to deny the almost universal opinion of critics that Nero is indicated by the beast and its number (pp. 210 if., 336 ſl.). Of Gunkel’s speciſic argument, which is to illustrate and vindicate his method, viz. that Rev 12 is ulti- mately an otherwise lost Babylonian myth of the birth of Marduk, the conqueror of the IDragon, more will be said below. Other elements taken from Babylonian mythology Gunkel found, especi- ally in chs. 13 and 17, but also in the seven angels, stars, candlesticks, eyes (p. 294 ft.), the twenty-four 244 REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF elders (302 f ), Harmagedon (263 ff.), the number 3% (266 ft.), the number 666 (374 ft.). Bousset adopted Gunkel's method in Der Antichrist in der Ueberligferung des Judentwms, des mewen Testaments wºnd der newen Kirche (1895), and attempted to show that an essentially fixed apocalypse of Antichrist, originating in Judaism, can be traced from the New Test, down through the Middle Ages; and that this tradition is essentially independent of Rev., though Rev. at certain points shows dependence upon it. In his Ro'itisch-ea:egetische I(ommentar (Meyer, 1890), Bousset, on the question of composition, follows the method of Weizsäcker, regarding the book as a unity, but seeing in many sections apocalyptical fragments introduced by the writer from existing tradition, in part Jewish in origin. In several of these § ments Bousset finds parts of the Antichrist-tradition (71-8 111-13 1311-17 1414-20); others also may well be of Jewish origin (131-10 18 17 [with which should probably go also 1612-21 and 18), 219–220), while 12 is of foreign but apparently not of Jewish origin. Bousset's treatment of various matters of detail will be men- tioned in the course of this article. Holtzmann (Einleitung in d. NT3, 1892; Hand-Commentar? 1893) recognizes indications of a double historical background º after the death of Nero, and in the reign of Domitian), but oes not go beyond the recognition of two or more streams in the book, and holds chiefly to the contemporary - historical method of interpretation, though now recognizing also the importance of tradition as a source of the writer's material (Lehrbuch der newtest. Theol. i. 463-476). The relative value of the three methods of interpretation last discussed—the contemporary- historical, the literary-critical, and the tradition- historical—is still a matter of debate (see Well- hausen, Skizzen ºt. Vorarbeiten, vi. 1899, pp. 215– 249, and Gunkel, Zeitschr. f. wissenschl. Theol. 1899). Each in a measure limits or controls the application of the other, and the right of each, within its bounds, may fairly be said to be estab- lished. . Yet they do not, taken together, wholly cover the ground. On two general lines, much work remains to be done. One is the psychological study of apocalyptical writing, the other is the historical relations of the Christianity of Rev.,- esp the relation of its eschatology to that of Jesus and to that of St. Paul, and the relation of its Chilstology and Soteriology to the Pauline and the prinitive apostolic. Gunkel at first put for- ward his tradition - historical method as also a psychological explanation of the apocalypse. The writer's belief in the truth and inviolable sanctity of his mysterious message could arise only from actual vision (which the nature of the material and the tendency of the modern mind exclude), or from the real antiquity of the material, before which the writer himself stood with awe. But Gunkel himself is now inclined to allow the actu- ality of visionary experiences (as psychologists recognize them) in connexion with the writing of º (see the Introduction to his translation of 4 Ezra in Kautzsch's Pseudepigraphen d. AT, 1900, and Preface to the 2nd ed. of his Wirkungen des Heiligen Geistes, 1900). The most significant effort in this direction, and the occasion of Gunkel's modification of his former position, is Weinel’s Wirkungen des Geistes und der Geister, 1899. On the other hand, the question so vital to an understanding of the beginnings of Christianity, whether the Christology and Soteriology of Rev. are Pauline, anti-Pauline, or independent of Paul- inism, remains quite unanswered; as does the other still more vital question whether the eschatology of Rev. (given as the dictation of Jesus, 11 2210) is based on that of the Gospels, and ultimately on the teaching of Jesus, or is the source of the eschat- ology which the Gospels wrongly ascribe to Him. The final problem of the interpreter is, of course, to get back as fully as possible into the mind of the writer. Two main paths are now open that lead toward this result in the case of Revelation. (1) The study of apocalyptical literature in general; (2) the study of i. contents, plan, sources (so far as known), historical situation, and teachings of the book itself. These two paths will be pur- sued in the following discussion. Two other paths invite exploration—(1) the psychological study of trance and ecstatic conditions and plenomena in religious history, (2) the origin and relations of the apocalyptical and the spiritual types of Christian thought in the 1st cent. These two paths must be opened by further research, in the latter case most of all in the Gospels, before results can be sum- marized in an article like the present. In following the two main paths just indicated, the following presuppositions will be in part assumed as a result of the history of criticism, in art, it is hoped, proved by the discussion — (1) Rev. is an apocalypse among others, and is to be viewed and interpreted as such. , (2) Rome is that embodiment of evil against which the book is chiefly directed, whose overthrow it immediately predicts. (3) The book makes use of apocalyptical materials from various (often probably from Jewish) sources, so that the question as to the place of a given section in the writer's plan, its meaning in his use of it, is to be kept distinct from the ques- tion of its original meaning and use, and the interpreter at many points has a twofold task. (4) It may not infrequently happen that the Writer receives from tradition details which have no meaning at all for him, but which he retains as parts of the picture. , The traditional meaning is in such cases the only one for which we need to search ; and often we can only say that it belongs to tradition, since the clue to its meaning is lost. (5) In such cases, and in various others, the possi- bility is open that the writer uses such material for its poetic value, and not because of a reverence which prevents his altering it. ii. THE NATURE OF APOCALYPTICAL WRITINGS. —The Book of Rev. calls itself a prophecy, and its author classes himself annong prophets ; but the book is called by us an apocalypse, and we have applied this title to certain other Jewish books, and some Christian adaptations and imitations of them, which we distinguish somewhat sharply from prophecy. Our interpretation and estima- tion ofRev. is deeply affected by this classification. What, then, is the apocalypse in its distinction from prophecy 2. We cannot avoid some preliminary discussion of this question (though see, further, APOCRYPHA i., APÖCALYPTIC LITERATURE, PRO- PHECY), as it bears on the nature of our book and the way in which it should be used. . There are still some who class Rev. with the prophetic rather than with the apocalyptical writings of Israel (e.g. Zahn), and there are some who class it with apoca- lypses, but regard the apocalyptic as a higher form of inspiration than the prophetic (see Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics, 1898, pp. 11, 12). Since such views strongly affect interpretation, it is essential to understand the historical relation of the two forms of writing and the place of Iłev. in relation to them. - The transition from prophecy to apocalypse was effected in the OT itself. It was not a sudden but a gradual transition, nor is the contrast at the end an absolute one. The change is usually traced to Ezekiel for its beginning. I)aniel is the oldest book which has complete apocalyptical form ; and it remains the classical example and type of this kind of writing. Yet anticipations of certain marks of this literature can be found in earlier prophets, especially in Isaiah, (e.g. Vision of God, cli. 6; description of Day of J", ch. 2; perhaps the inviolability of Jerusalem), and genuinely pº plactic traits are not wanting in Daniel (cf. 9 -10), or even in other apocalypses from 13k. of Enoch to 4 Ezra. The character of the Iłook of Daniel deserves somewhat close attention because of its fundamental significance and many special points of contact with 1&evelation. REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF 245 twº- 1. Bºok of Daniel.-(a) Occasion and message.— The Bk. of Daniel º: during the religious persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes. Its aim was the encouragement of patient endurance and fidelity amid persecution. It taught this lesson in part by stories (histories) illustrating the safe- keeping by God of those who resist the tempta- tions and endure the violence of the world-power in its hostility to God; in part by predictions of the approaching end of the power now threatening and afflicting the people of God. Antiochus shall die by a judgment of God (825 920, 27 1127.4%) after about 34 years (814 927 127. 11.12), and the Greek world- empire shall be overthrown (294, 35.44. 45 711.20). This is to be º not by human effort, but by God directly (234.44. 45 825 70ſ. 22, 26), or through Gabriel and Michael, who contend with the gods of heathen nations (1018–111 121). After this a time of trouble shall follow, testing the Jewish people, includ- ing some of the dead, and dividing the good from the wicked 121-4. 10). Then shall be established the kingdom of God, which is the world-kingdom of Israel, and is to endure for ever. (b) Underlying faith.-The general foundation on which this message rests, the underlying doc- trine of the book, is monotheism, the faith that all power is God’s ; that ‘the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will” (417. * * 5*), and that times and seasons are in His hand, fixed by His purpose. This faith requires the inference that God’s rule must and at last shall be recognized by all kings and nations, and that He must, in the end, take His kingdom to Himself (2*), and rule it through His own people (718. 14. º. *). But the very fact that the realization of God’s rule is future reveals the dual- istic element which stands over against mono- theism in the theology of the book. The contrast between the present and the future, between this age and the age to come, reaches beyond the visible into the invisible world, and is connected with contrast and conflict there, finds there, indeed, its explanation. The seer who would understand the present perverse and intolerable course of history, with heathen nations at the head and Israel at the tail, must not only have the veil lifted that hides the future developments of God’s fixed plan, but must see behind the scenes those actions in the angelic world by which man’s history may be influenced, in some sense, and for a time, even against God’s plan. (c) Source and authority of the message.—Whence did the writer gain his certainty of the near approach of the fall of the existing world-empire, and the realization of the kingship of God, and of the beings and actions in the angel-world which explain present evils and are to effect their end ? The predictive parts of Daniel (chs. 7–12) could well be described, like Rev 1", as ‘revelations of God through his angel Gabriel to his servant Daniel.” Gabriel’s communications are in part in the form of interpretations of dream-visions (chs. 7, 8, cf. 2), but once he interprets an OT prediction after Daniel has studied it and prayed over it (ch. 9), and once Gabriel appears to Daniel after a three weeks’ fast, and declares to him directly (not through figure) mysteries of the spirit-world and of the future (chs. 10–12). The visions are described as real experiences, time and place being given, and the deep emotions of the seer described (715, 28 815-18, 97.9% º 107-10. 16-19). The experiences seem to lie in the region of sleep or on its borderland (71. *S* 10"). Their subjective reality seems to be in a measure confirmed by the intense seriousness which characterizes the book, and the writer's evident belief in the value and Divine origin of his message. But, on the other hand, the book is unquestion- albly pseudonymous, and the visions contain, in the form of Gabriel’s disclosures about the future, much that was to the author really, and of course w —us consciously, history. Is this consistent with the impression that the writer is describing really visionary, ecstatic experiences, or does it compel us to assume that the vision is throughout a literary form The problem is really a psychological one, How are we to explain the form of the book, that of visions and angelic interpretations, so as to explain both the fact that these consist largely in history disguised as prediction, and the fact of the writer's emotion and conviction as to their contents? It is evident that this form served the writer's practical purpose, for it showed that the bresent insupportable condition of his people was oreknown and determined by God, and it gave a ground for belief in the truth of predictions of really future events. Iłut the emotion and con- viction of the writer seem inconsistent with his use of a purely artistic, not to say artful, form of composition. We are undoubtedly helped towards a solution of the problem by the fact, whose significance we owe to Givnkel, that the predictions of the apoca- lypse are not novelties, but rest in part on tradi- tion. The foresight of Daniel comes to the writer, at least in part, through the study of the older Brophets. The interpretation of the 70 weeks of er 25* 29" is certainly of central significance in the book (ch. 9). But it is probabie also that symbolical figures such as those of chs. 7 and 8 (cf. 2) were not invented de movo by the author, but came to him from the past, and were regarded by him as mysterious types and forecasts of human listory, in which he could find the future the more surely because he could find in them the past. The pseudonymous form becomes both less offensive to us and more intelligible if we suppose that the writer was actually searching in ancient prophecies, and in apocalyptical traditions to him no less ancient, for previsions of the actual course of post-exilic Jewish history, in order that he might the more firmly believe and the mole surely convince others that the present crisis is not a break in the plan of God, but a necessary stage in its unfolding, and that the promised deliverance is near. It is possible also in this case to suppose that the interpretation came in connexion with deep º experiences. (d) Plan of the composition. — Daniel is char- acterized by an unmistakable unity of tone and general teaching ; but unity in plan and in detail is not obvious, and various efforts to prove com- posite authorship have been made. In fact the |. is made up of ten quite distinct pieces, largely independent of each other (divided according to chapters, except the 10th, which includes chs. 10–12). IDistinct apocalypses could easily be made of chs. 2. 7.8, 9. 10–12. It is, however, the prevailing and probable view that the book, as we haye it, comes from one author; that the enemy of God and I lis people is everywhere Antiochus, and the hope every- where that of his speedy overthrow and the ruler- ship of Israel over the nations. The book, then, has no chronological sequence throughout ; it does, however, describe the present distress and the coming deliverance on the whole with increasing definiteness and detail in the successive figures. Ch. 7 is more explicit than ch. 2, while ch. 8 describes the Greek empire unmistakably, and clas. 10–12 give almost a §ºt history (though still in vision form) of Antiochus IV. This plan is accounted for as serving well the admonitory aim of the Writer, which the stories also evidently serve. His plan is to give a clearer and fuller disclosure of the future as the book proceeds, but to enforce con- stantly in varied forms the lesson of the reality of God’s rule and the safety of patient and enduring trust, in Him amid present troubles. There is no anxiety about exact consistency throughout. The 246 REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF overthrow of the Greek kingdom is at first the deed of God alone, but in the last vision Michael is the deliverer. At first the consummation seems to follow directly upon the fall of Antiochus, but in ch. 12 a period of trial for Israel intervenes before its glory. The stories teach a present de- liverance for the faithful, but at the end martyrdom and a deliverance only after death come into view. 2. Characteristics of Apocalypses in comparison with Prophecy.—On the basis of this description of Daniel we may attempt a brief discussion of the characteristics of apocalyptical literature in general in comparison with OT prophecy. (a) Situation, and message.—in the case of the apocalypse the situation is always one in which the righteous are in trouble, because of the rule of a foreign power, and usually also because in the Jewish community itself those who have power and prosperity are the wicked, not the righteous. The message is that deliverance is soon to come, and for this men are to wait in patience and trust. The pre-exilic prophets, on the contrary, spoke in times of national prosperity and confidence of a coming day of J", which would be a day of judg- ment on Israel at the hand of a foreign power. The message was one of repentance and righteous- ness that the threatened judgment might be averted, the sentence recalled. The prophets pre- dicted primarily judgment, not deliverance; the prediction was conditional, not fixed ; and the Practical inference was repentance, not patience. The change of message belonged in part to the change of situation which the Exile itself effected. (b) The dualistic theology.—Bousset rightly calls 4 Ezr 7” “The Most High has made not one world, but two,’ the inner principle of the apocalypse. The sharp contrast in which the kingdom of this world, which is the kingdom of Satan, is set over against the kingdom of God, can be partly explained as a result of tendencies within Judaism ; but it seems probable that the Persian dualistic religion must be taken into account in order to explain this strange departure from the otherwise strongly marked monotheism of Judaism (see esp. Stave, Evnfluss des Parsismus auf den. Judentwin, 1898). In contrast to this dualistic tendency the older prophets were far more consistently, even if less theoretically and consciously, monotheistic, for they believed in the actual rule of the God of right- eousness in present world-history as well as in the coming age, in the visible and not only in the invisible realm. They therefore saw evidence of the nearness and reality of God’s rule in the presence and growth of the power of good ; while the tendency of the apocalypse was to see in the growing power of evil the evidence that God’s intervention, His reversal of human history, was at hand. (c) The element of prediction.—Unfulfilled pro- phecy is the foundation upon which the whole struc- ture of the apocalypse was built. This was both the problem and the reliance of Jewish faith and hope. What was spoken must be literally accom- lished. Of conditional prediction the apocalypse nows nothing. The prophets’ predictions of judg- ment had been fift. by the Exile, but their º with reference to the return from exile Jad never been fulfilled by the actual return ; hence it must be that these hopes of the renewed land, the united tribes, the royal power and glory of Israel, were still to be realized. What the pro- phecies really, meant, in view of their apparent contradiction by events, when and how their ful- filment was to come about, it was the task of the apocalyptic scribe to discover. Ezekiel took a de- cided step towards apocalypse when, on the basis of the words of Zephaniah and Jeremiah concerning the Scythians, he predicted the final assault of Gog and his wild hosts upon Jerusalem and their over- throw, and thus established one of the fixed elements in apocalyptical dogma (Ezk 387 39°). Haggai and Zechariah still looked for a human explanation of the failure of the hopes, and found it in the delay in rebuilding the temple ; Malachi, in imperfect offerings and withheld tithes. But in Daniel the reason is found no longer in the fault of man but in the plan of God. The 70 years are 70 weeks of years, and the un- alterable time for the end is only just now draw- ing near. 4 Ezra reinterprets the fourth beast of Dn 7 to prove that Rome also was included in the predestined course of history before the end could come (12” 1%). Only in the Bk. of Jonah do we have a protest against the dominant apocalyptic by a surviving prophetic spirit. Here the prediction is of judgment, its aim to produce repentance, and the result the success of the preaching, with the failure of the prediction. Yet even a book written in part to prove that prediction is ethical in aim and conditional in result could be used by Jews as if its predictions were magical and inviolable (To 14**, I8). The fault of the prophet Jonah, which the book uncovers and rebukes, was the fault of Judaism and its apocalypses. The ISk, of Jonah is a true utterance of the spirit of prophecy in unavailing protest against the narrowness, the jealousy, and the revenge that inspire much of the apocalyptic writing. Prophecy is fulfilled by every evidence in history of the rule of a righteous and merciful God, whether anticipated or not, whether for the benefit of Jews or of Gentiles. Apocalypse sees the hand of God and the vindication and glory of the seer only in a literal correspondence between redictions and events, and only in the fall of a Nineveh and the glory of Zion and Israel. (d) Pseudonymous awuthorship. — It corresponds perfectly to the contrast just described that pro- phecy should be a personal and direct form of speech, the apocalypse a pseudepigraphic and mysterious form of writing. The prophet stood before his people and spoke in his own person. The authority of his speech was in no small measure that of his personality. He spoke first and wrote afterwards, but wrote as he spoke, in the first person. When, in the Exile and after it, prophets followed who repeated what others had º or gave expression to the common faith, and had no peculiar message, their names were unim- portant, and many of them wrote anonymously (Is 40–66, Malachi, Zec 9–14, etc.). Daniel is the first example of that pseudonymous prophetic writing which characterizes the whole apocalyp- tical group. It embodies the Jewish worship of prediction. Yet the moral earnestness and religious elevation of books like Daniel and 4 Ezra, make it difficult for us to regard then as fictions, and cer- tain considerations may help us to understand how this form of writing could be used by such men, although we must at best put their work far below the simplicity and openness of genuine prophecy. The fact that the apocalyptical writer was a serious' student of ancient prophecies, whose sacredness he reverenced, and whose secrets he believed he could in a measure expound, suggests that he did not regard his thoughts as his own. The fixed and really ancient character of such apocalyptical tra- ditions as those of the dragon of the deep, makes conceivable such a writer's evident faith in his pre- dictions, which would be psychologically incredible if the visions were pure works of the imagination. IFurthermore, and this is an observation of great importance,—no apocalypse gives the im º, of entire unity and harmony. Not only the writer's own studies of O'I' prophets, not only his own in- terpretations of apocalyptical imagery, but those of others before him are at his command, and furnish REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF 247 the materials of his book. Not only traditions, but writings form his sources. These materials may already have connected themselves with Enoch, or Moses, or some other great name. So that one may venture to say that the pseudonymity of these books has some basis in actuality. The hiding or sealing of the book until the end (Dn 12** 84% (104*), Assump. Mos. I**) belongs to the pseudepi- graphic form, accounting for the appearance of the book so long after the time of its assumed origin. Yet this may also express the actual fact of the ancient character of the writer's sources. The writers could not have put forth this material altogether in their own names, for it is not as a whoſe their invention. They are largely compilers and commentators, and have a deep reverence for their sources. Yet this observation, which we owe to Gunkel, must be modified in view of those figures which are unmistakably and even explicitly con- structed for the }. of setting forth in alle- gorical form the history of the past, especially of the recent past, as foreseen by the supposed ancient author. Dn 7 contains, no doubt, traditional material of the sort just described, but it has been freely re-shaped so as to contain the history of four successive world-empires. If the original form of the tradition contained only one dragon of the deep, how can we be sure that the description of the one like a man was not part of the writer's elaboration of his material, rather than, as Gunkel affirms, part of the tradition itself? And if so, his belief in the forecast it contains preceded his use of the tradition and determined his use of it. (e) Literary material and form. — The apoca- lypse is characterized by the use of striking figures, not only strange and unnatural, but evidently mysterious in character, seen in dreams and visions, interpreted by angels, and yielding secrets of the future course of history. Although prophecy is full of figurative forms of speech, freely fashioned, or poetically and rhetorically applied, yet these figures have neither the strange unearthly character nor the mysterious value of the distinctively apocalyptical symbols. These latter, at least in part, go back to primitive mythological formations. This connexion is quite unmistakable in Zech., where a mass of this material suddenly meets us. The four winds, messengers and agents of God, and the seven planets, His eyes, which run to and fro through the whole earth, are still clearly to be perceived as the underlying foundation of figures which the pro- phet applies to the historical situation, and to the two men, Joshua and Zerubbabel, on whom he fixes his high hopes (28-116-84*. 109-14). Yet Zech. uses such material as poetry, while in 1)aniel it has value as mystery, containing, for one who could interpret it, the secrets of the future. The vision and its interpretation by an angel comes therefore to be of supreme value, and revelation is conceived of in this half-sensible and wholly supernaturalistic way. Ezekiel here also leads the way. His vision of God is more sensible than Isaiah's, and his inspiration more external and Supernaturalistic than Jeremiah's (cf. Ezk 1 with Is 6, and Ezk 2. 3 with Jer 1). (f) Literary composition and history. — After Daniel, the Jewish apocalypses appear to be in no case proper unities. Most of them have been adapted by revision to use in later and changed con- ditions, and all of them, including Daniel, appear to be based in their first writing on older materials which they embody, without serious effort to build them into a harmonious structure. The Bk. of Enoch is a compilation of Enoch literature, having indeed a certain rough plan as it now stands, but without real unity. Even chs. 1–36 contain three distinct descriptions of the Messianic consummation (chs. 5. 10. 25), which, in connexion with the description of Sheol (ch. 22), form any- thing but a continuous and consistent picture. Almost all forms of the Jewish hope are contained in this book; that in which the Messiah occupies the central place, that in which he is subordinate, and that in which he is wholly absent ; that in which the scene and character are purely earthly, that in which they are properly heavenly (angelic); that in which the heavenly precedes the earthly and finally descends to earth (37–70), and that in which the heavenly follows after the earthly in chronological succession (91**7) — the chiliastic Scheme. In general the apocalypses are not char- acterized by a thoroughgoing unity of scheme, nor even by a consistent unity of teaching, and cannot be understood except by the recognition of inde- pendent sources, and also, in some cases, editorial revision. Here we have especially to do with the additions of Christian hands, since through them alone these books, after Daniel, have reached us. In some cases this Christian revision has gone but a little way (Enoch, Assump. Mos., Apoc, Bar); while in some cases the Jewish apocalypse is found in a radical Christian revision (Asc. of Isaiah, Test. XII. Patriarchs). The questions as to literary analysis and the presence of a considerable Christian element are still very variously answered, especially in the case of Enoch 37–70 (71) and 4 Ezra. (g) Apocalyptical dogmas.--The religious teach- ings of the prophets, individual and distinct as they are, can be summarized only in some such statement of their moral and religious principles as Mic 6" (“to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God’), in con- nexion with such a formulation of their preach- ing of repentance in view of the threatened judgment as Zech. gives (1*7* connecting v." with v."). But in the apocalypses not principles so much as details become fixed in dogmas. Daniel’s general scheme for the future is unchanged : a coming Day of J", which is near at hand, and comes when evil is at its height ; the overthrow of the world-kingdom, the sitting of the Jewish people, and the possession by the righteous of ſº over the nations and lasting blessedness. To this were added, from Ezekiel, a final assault of the outstanding heathen upon Zion, in which they are gloriously and finally vanquished; from various prophecies, the expectation of the return of the ten tribes and the gathering of the dis- ersed Jews; and details regarding the renewed i. and city, such as Deutero-Isaiah, Ezekiel, Haggai, and others suggested. Within this general scheme some important differences were possible. The Messiah is sometimes conceived of as God's agent in establishing his kingdom on earth (e.g. Ps-Sol 17, Enoch 37–70), sometimes as king after the kingdom has been set up by God, e.g. Enoch 90, 4 Ezr 728, Apoc. Bar 29; and sometimes all is done by God alone, and there is no king beside him (e.g. Daniel, Enoch 1–36, Assump. Mos. 10). The place of the individual in this eschatological scheme is differently estimated. Sometimes, and in general one may say in earlier times, nations are the chief actors, and it is the problem of Israel that events are to solve. Increasingly the individual claimed consideration, and the suggestions of 1)n 122, 3, 18 were followed and elaborated. An eschatology of the individual was developed in connexion with the national, and gradually threatened to subordinate the national to itself. At first it was enough that the righteous dead should arise to have the part they deserved in the glory of the nation. But at some time the effort to claim for the individual a more than eartlıly and temporary future, and perhaps also the effort to ascribe to the coming age a more than earthly glory, produced a strain and at last a break in the traditional hope. There came to be two consummations, the earthly, the world-rule of Israel, the Messianic kingdom, which would come to an end and be fol. lowed by the heavenly and eternal. Of this break of the one hope into two our earliest, record is in the Apocalypse of Ten Weeks in Enoch 931-10 0112-17. Cf. 4 lºzr 728t, Apoc, Bar 403, Secrets of Enoch 33, and see MILLENNIUM. In connexion with this scheme, the lot of the soul after death became a subject of apocalyptical research and vision by the side of the lot of Israel and Zion (4 Ezra). 248 REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF *— The idea that the visible and human world was to be under- stood by the invisible and angelic that lay about and beneath and above it, led the apocalyptical writers not only to a de- veloped angelology, in part Persian in origin, but also to researches in the mysteries of nature, especially in reference, to the movements of the planets, most of all those of the moon, such as are elaborated in Enoch 72-79. 82.412-943. 44. 59.69. But while some apocalypses are concerned with such specula- tions, others move back in the opposite direction to an almost rophetic, earnestness of moral denunciation and exhortation; e.g. Enoch 91–104), § (3) Inferences as to Methods of Inte From this brief study of the nature of the apoca- lypse certain inferences follow as to the method of interpretation. (*) Not futurist.”—The apocalypse has to do with the present and the immediate, not the remote future. Its predictions are to be under- stood as referring to actual or imminent historical factors and events. (b) Contemporary-historical.—Some of the figures of the apocalypse are invented or freely adapted in order to represent historical persons, nations, and events. These are to be º in accord- ance with their origin by the events which they describe. From them we may hope to get the clearest light upon the date of the writing. (c) Tradition-historical.--Some of the figures are borrowed from the OT or from older apocalypses or traditions. In such cases the interpreter must distinguish between the original meaning of the figure and the present author’s purpose in using it. He may have used it because in the main it lent itself to his application, but he may have referred not to change it, either from artistic instinct or from reverence. It is a mistake, then, to assume that every detail had a meaning to him, and to insist on finding it. Perhaps some features of the picture were as much a mystery to the writer of our book as they are to us. Some- times we can guess quite plausibly what the original meaning was, although we cannot tell whether the writer of our book gave it a meaning or not. (d) Literary-critical.-The unity of an apoca- lypse cannot be assumed. The ancient material just alluded to may be introduced almost entire from some unknown source. Later readers might weave together distinct oracles, especially if they passed under the same name ; and editorial com- ments or changes are always possible in the effort to adapt an apocalypse to the changed conditions or the changed ...}. of a later time. Literary criticism must, however, be held in check by the fact that a writer often himself used ancient tra- ditional materials only partly harmonious with his own time and teaching, and fitted them but in- perfectly into his plan. (e) Poetical.—The underlying religious faith and the immediate practical aim of an apocalyptical writer (to encourage faith amid trial, to recall apostates, to guard readers against the influence of foreign thought and life, etc.), must not be lost sight of in the study of the mysteries of the unseen or future world which he would unveil. The ques- tion is always to be asked how far the strange accounts of the unseen world and of coming events were of literal, and how far of figurative or poetic value to the writer himself. There was something of the poet in the apocalyptical seer. He was seldom: simply a scribe and a literalist. The greater the variety and the less the outward consistency of his visions, the less probably were they regarded by him as literally true. In con- nexion with this the question must arise as to the psychical experience of the apocalyptical writer, the possibility of some actual visionary experi- ences among the many which must be regarded as fictitious, a mere literary form. Thus Gunkel believes that such genuine experiences lie behind certainty which form the main retation.— | some of the visions in 4 Ezra (2 Esdras), more in the first three visions (chs. 34–997) and less in the last three (11–14). - 4. Rev. as an Apocalypse.--We may now notice certain points of likeness and of unlikeness which a general comparison of IRev. with the Jewish apocalypse suggests, and certain points of un- problems in the following discussion. - - (a) Likeness of Rev. to Jewish apocalypses.--The Bk. of Rev. is written to encourage faith and en- durance amid trials and persecution. These trials are at least chiefly due to the rule of Rome, though within the Christian communities directly addressed there are false as well as true members. The message of the book is one of repentance only in the case of indifferent or wavering believers (2** 3° 44 [and Jews, 11192]). It is not a message of repentance for those whose sin is chiefly denounced (949. 91 169. 11 2211), but of deliverance and reward for those who endure a little longer; and of judg- ment and destruction for the evil power and its adherents. The situation and message are those of apocalypse, and not those of prophecy. Apocalyptical, also, is the contrast between the present and the coming age ; the conviction that evil must increase, and that its violence is a sign of the nearness of the end ; the belief that evil has its source and strength in the world of spirits, and that angelic conflicts and triumphs precede or accompany those among men. Rev. contains an abundance of that striking and highly wrought imagery which characterizes an apocalypse. These images are in part borrowed from Zech. and Daniel and other OT writers; in É. presumably, from the storehouse of apoca- yptical traditions. That they are not used simply as poetical ornament, but have for the writer in part a mysterious value, is at all events a natural first impression. The facts that the book is so largely made up of such imagery, and that it is put in the form of vision, and is interpreted to the seer by angels, make up the most obvious resemblance between this book and the Jewish apocalypses. The literary materials and form are largely apocalyptical. That this resemblance is not merely formal but deep-going, is suggested by the extraordinary claims with which the book is sent out (1** 22*, *). In its supernaturalistic con- ception of inspiration the book is apocalyptical rather than prophetic (1* 4” etc.). In its scheme of the future, the contents of its prediction, the book haſ an obvious likeness to the Jewish books of this class: the coming of the day of the Lord Christ, when evil is at it: height; the overthrow of the world - kingdom, Rome; the sifting of the Christian people ; the earthly Messianic age, in which the saints (Chris- tian martyrs) will possess the kingdom and reign with Christ ; the final assault and overthrow of the powers of evil, the Gog of Ezekiel’s predic- tion; the general resurrection and judgment, and the new heaven and earth with individual and eternal awards : this is simply the Jewish schemo in its Messianic and chiliastic form, with Jesus as the Messiah, and His servants as the Saints and heirs. Over against such likenesses in form and substance no difference can be sufficient to sever the relationship between our book, and other apocalypses. Lücke was the first fully to estab- lish the relationship. Zahn (Iðinleitung in d. NT, ii. 1899) is the last--one is tempted to say, will be the last—real scholar to deny it. He º at least teach us to be on our guard against false inſer- ences from this undeniable literary relationship. (b) Unlikeness of Iłev. and Jewish apocal/pses. —Rev. is a Christian apocalypse. What and how great unlikenesses does this involve : Two general REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF 249 wº- considerations would lead us in opposite directions with reference to this question. The Christian religion as the Baptist prepared the way for it, as Christ founded it, and as St. Paul preached it, was undoubtedly in essential respects a return to pro- phecy, not only from the law, but also from the national and sensuous hopes of Judaism. The Baptist and Jesus announced not the fall of Rome, but the fall of Jerusalem, just as Amos and Hosea announced the approaching fall of Samaria, and Micah and Jeremiah that of Jerusalem ; and for the same reason, in the same way, with the same motive, the call to repentance and righteousness. Jesus was a prophet in His belief in this world as God’s world, and in good as already the ruling power in it, and also in the directness and persona authority of His words, the immediateness and inwardness of His relation to God, His eye for the supernatural in spiritual and not in magical mani- festations. We should certainly hope that the new Christian prophecy would be º prophetic in character, and not apocalyptical. łº. on the other hand, we know that the early Christian Church found itself fully at home in Jewish apocalypses. It was the Jews who threw away their apocalypses, Christians who preserved them almost without change, applying to the second coming of the Messiah what Jews had imagined of His first coming. . How early this happened the NT and even the Gospels give evidence. We can- not, therefore, assume that the Christian apoca- lypse is essentially unlike the Jewish. The Chris- tian element may be an entirely superficial one, the mere identiſication of the coming Messiah with Jesus, and of the redeemed with the Christian Clurch. Looking at the book itself, the most obvious un- likeness to the Jewish apocalypse, after the identi- lications just named, is the letters to the seven Churches. To be sure, they are introduced by a highly coloured Christophany, based on Zech. and Daniel, and are given in the form of a direct communication of the exalted Christ through the Spirit. Yet they have to do with actual, concrete conditions; they praise and blame, encourage and warly, with close discrimination and intense moral earnestness, so that we feel the prophetic spirit behind the partly apocalyptical form. Their warnings are aimed, not at foreign powers, but at the Christian communities; and the judgment they predict, though not itself conditional, is lº. the basis of a teaching of repentance. These are not like the letters of St. Paul, but they are far less like the Epistle of Baruch to the nine and a half tribes (Apoc. 13ar 78–87).” (c) Remaining questions as to the relation of Ičev. to the apocalypses.—Certain points remain at which the question of likeness or unlikeness be- tween Rev. and Jewish apocalypses cannot be answered by a general view, but only, if at all, by closer study. (1) Pseudonymity.—The Jewish apocalypses are all pseudonymous, and contain accounts, in direct or ſigurative form, of the past course of history, in the form of predictions by the assumed author. ‘Who can compare the name John [11. 4. 9228] with Enoch or Moses, or even with I)aniel, IBaruch, and Ezra,” The authors of those books dated themselves centuries back, veiled then)- Belves in the sacred names of the remote past, and turned to a credulous public of their time without even pretending any personal relation to it whatever. Here, on the contrary, a man speaks to seven Churches of the province of Asia and gives them . book, who is most accurately acquainted with their present conditions ; and he speaks to them under the name, John, which was borne there about A. D. 70-100 by the most conspicuous ecclesiastical personality; and this he does accord- ing to tradition about A. D. 95, so in the lifetime of the famous * Cf. the possible companion letter to the two and a half bribes in Bar 11.3 SU-4°9. John of Ephesus, or according to any conceivable hypothesis in, the lifetime of the personal pupils of this John' (Zahn, Dinleit. ii. p. 584 f.). This is Zahn's chief objection to classing Rev. with the apocalypses, to the very essence of which, ho says, belongs pseudonymity. “The representation of the development of world-history under the form of an ante-dated prediction, if it is present at all in Rev., is a wholly subordinate eſ. in it.” With this sentence Zahn makes his position in- Secure. A certain amount of antedated prediction, or at least of history in the form of vision, can hardly be excluded from the picture of the Roman empire in Iłev 13 and 17; but pseudonymity has such visions for its most characteristic product and one of its reasons for being. Even as a subordi- nate element in the book, comparable to the place of chs. 11. 12 in the Apoc. of Ezra, such visions suggest the possibility of pseudonymous author- ship, which in the case of a Christian apocalypse might well choose an apostolic name. Weizsäcker therefore thinks we should start from the fact ‘that among all similar writings of Jewish and ancient Christian origin, we know not a single one which bears the name of its own author.” Even Hermas is hardly a unity, and professes a greater than its actual age. This does not make it impossible that John wrote under his own name. “But a strong presupposition always re- mains that the general practice of this art-form is followed in this case alſº (Apostolic Age, ii. p. 174). t The question of pseudonymity, and the connected question whether and how far Rev. contains history in the form of vision, remains open at this pre- liminary stage of our discussion. (2) Composite character.—So also must the ques- tion of composite character be regarded as opened, and not closed, by a general comparison of Rev. with the Jewish apocalypses. Does Rev. share this common characteristic of the apocalypse 2 The book has often been praised for its architectural construction, but there are various indications of seams or breaks in its struc- ture, and neither in the historical situation which it reflects (before or after 70; soon after Nero or under Domitian) nor in the type of religious thought which it represents (Jewish or Pauline [universalistic] Christianity ; primitive Jewish, or developed [Hellenistic] Christology) is unity of in pression easily gained. The course of recent investigation abundantly vindicates the proposi- tion that the question of likeness or unlikeness between Rev. and the apocalypses in the matter of unity and sources is at present an open one. (3) Nature of vision.—A third uncertainty con- cerns the question of the nature of the visions, the narrative of which makes up the book. All apocalypses are composed largely of accounts of visions and their interpretation by angels. The question, how far this is a literary (artistic) form, and how far really ecstatic experiences were con- nected with their authorship, is one that should not be answered too conſidently and sweepingly even with reference to the Jewish apocalypses. Zahn accepts the visions of IRev. as actual ex- periences literally described, while he regards the visions of other apocalypses as artistic fictions. The difference is to him that between true and false prophecy. Others, the majority, judge the vision to be everywhere, at least in this age, a literary form, ..Y. for evidence especially to the many repetitions or imitations of OT and other traditional materials which they contain, and to the many visions which simply embody history in allegorical form, to account for which real vision is a wholly unnecessary supposition. 250 REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF * Recent investigation, however, showing the large dependence of the visionary upon memory, does not allow us to say with confidence of the abund- ance of OT allusions in Rev., “This is literary art, and not the way in which living vision in the spirit expresses itself” (Weizsäcker). hree important questions, them, are opened b the general comparison of Rev. with Jewish apocalypses : Is it pseudonymous? Is it a literar º or is it composite : Are its visions actual, or a literary form ? The questions converge in the effort to recover the author's personality, and the method and purpose or spirit of his work, the self-consciousness of the man. Weizsäcker, to whom the recent course of criticism is directly due, gives his answer to our questions in this sum- mary fashion: ‘The Apoc. of John was not written by the apostle. . It is also not the record of a revelation or a vision which the author experienced on a day. It is, further, not the work of a homo- geneous conception (Apostolic Age, ii. 174). iii. CONTENTS AND COMPOSITION OF REVELA- TION.—l. Contents of the Book. The Book of Rev. reads briefly as follows:–An introduction, giving title, author, address, and subject (11-8), is followed by the appearance of Christ to John at Patmos, and the charge to write to the seven Churches (1920), to each of which a letter is dictated by Christ (or His angel-spirit), in which the Church is raised or blamed with reference to past trials and heathen influences, and in view of a greater trial soon to come in con- nexion with the approaching coming of Christ (2.3). The seer then sees heaven opened, and, being summoned up thither, he sees and describes the throne of God, and the twenty-four elders, seven spirits, and four living beings, who praise God the creator (4). He sees the sealed book in God's hand, and the Lamb as if slain with seven horns and seven eyes (the spirits of God) ap- pears amid the praises of the highest angels and of all creation, as the one who alone can open the seven seals (5). He opens six seals. The first four introduce four horsemen who seem to be agents of judgment (war, famine, pestilence). The fifth reveals the prayers of martyred souls for vengeance; the sixth an earthquake, which brings destruction to nature and terror to n:en (6). Before the destructive powers (winds) are loosed, 12,000 from each of Israel's twelve tribes are sealed (71-8), and John sees a countless multitude of all nations who have passed through the great tribulation, in heavenly blessedness (79-17). The seventh seal brings silence in heaven (81). Then ‘the seven angels’ appear (§3), and, after the prayers of the saints have again been offered before God (84.0), six of the angels sound their trumpets. The first four bring forth earthquake and volcanic phenomena with destructive effect upon a third of earth, sea, rivers, and heaven (8G-12). The remaining three are to be three woes (818). The fifth (first woe) brings demonic locust-beings from the abyss, under their king Apollyon, who torment unsealed men five months (91-12). The sixth brings armies of cavalry from the Euphrates, destroying one-third of men (918-21). Before this second woe is declared to be past [in 1114), the seer receives a new commission and message, a little book which he eats (10); and it is revealed to him that Jerusalem, except the temple and inner court, will be trodden by the Gentiles 42 months, and that ‘the two witnesses' will prophesy during that time, and then be killed, and after 3} days raised to heaven (111-14). The * eventh trumpet (third woe) sounds, and heavenly voices announce the establishment of the kingdom of God and Christ (1119-18). Storm and earthquake follow the opening of God's heavenly temple (1119). The seer then beholds the unavailing effort of the dragon Satan to destroy the Messiah at His birth; the dragon's fall from heaven, and his persecution of the woman who bore the child, and of her other seed (121-17). Out of the sea. comes a beast with ten horns and seven heads, whom the dragon equips with his own authority. He wars against the saints and is worshipped by all other men (131-10). This worship is furthered and enforced by another beast out of the earth with miraculous Jowers, who stamps men with the number of the beast, 666 § Over against these evil powers the Lamb is seen with the 144,000 undefiled on Mt. Zion (141-5). Angels announce the eternal gospel of the worship of God in view of judgment to come, the fall of Babylon, the punishment of the worshippers of the beast, the blessedness of martyrs (146.18). One like a son of man [Messiah or angel 7) reaps the carth with his sickle, and another ſº gathers the grapes into the winepress of God's wrath (1414-20). Seven angels, after the heavenly praises of the redeemed are heard, pour out Seven bowls containing the seven last plagues, the sixth of which brings remote nations to the last war at Har-Magedon, and the seventh an earthquake which destroys cities, divides Babylon, destroys nature (15. 16). The city is then seen as a woman seated on a scarlet beast, at last, wasted and destroyed by the beast, and its 10 horns (171-18). Angels utter prophetic woes over Babylon, announcing its fall because of its persecution of prophets and saints (18). After heavenly rejoicings over the city's fall, and the readiness of the Lamb's bride (101-10), the Messiah appears as warrior and king, the two beasts are cast into the lake of fire, and their followers destroyed (1911-21). Satan is bound, while Christ and the risen martyrs reign 1000 years. , Satan is loosed, and brings remote peoples to a final war against Jerusalem. They are destroyed, and he is cast into the lake of fire (201-10). The general resurrec- tion and judgment follow (2011-19). The new heaven and earth the new Jerusalem, and final blessedness in it, are described (211–225). The conclusion consists of attestations and admoni- ºries the Divine authorship and sanctity of the book 2 - tº 2. Plan of the Book. —(a) Introductory.—There are two main methods by which plan and order are discovered in the visions of 41–22". The recapitulation method (from Tyconius and Augus- time to recent times) finds no progress in the suc- cessive sevens (seals, trumpets, and bowls) which form the main structure of this section, but repe- tition under varying forms. ... The seals bring already the last judgment (6*17) and the fina blessedness (79-17). mong more recent critics, however, the view prevails that the seventh in each series is developed in the new series of seven that follows. The seventh seal contains the re- mainder of the book, and is unfolded in seven trum- pets, of which the seventh includes all that follows to the end (107), but is unfolded in the seven bowls (Lücke, Bleek, Ewald, etc.). In this scheme ch. 7 appears as an interlude between the sixth and seventh seals, and 10–11” as a similar insertion between the sixth and seventh trumpets. The bowls are not interrupted in the same way, but before and after them are visions which give the same impression of standing outside of the writer’s ruling scheme (12–14. 17–19"). Holtzmann represents the structure of the book in the following scheme (Comm. p. 295):— 11-8 Introduction. 19–322 The Seven Letters. 41-5.14 Heavenly scene of the visions. 61-17 Six seals. 71-17 The sealed and the blessed. 81-5 The coming forth of the trumpets out of the 7th seal. 80–921 Six trumpets. 101–1114 Destiny of Jerusalem. 1115-10 Seventh trumpet. 121-145 The great visions of the three chief foes and the Messiah- -R kingdom. - 140-20 Return to the earlier connexion. 151–161 Transition to the bowls. 162-21 Seven bowls. 171-1910 The great Babylon. 1911–2010 Final catastrophes. 211–225 The new Jerusalem. 220-21 Conclusion. It is to be noticed that the sections at the right contain most of the material which Weizsäcker and others regard as of earlier origin, and that of which Jewish authorship can be most plausibly affirmed. The supposition that they were inserted by the writer, and that he was not able to bring them into the sevenfold scheme which he chose, is a natural one. Holtzmann, however, says that if this was the case, these sections have at all events been assimilated to the rest in style, and connected with it by various references, so that the lines of separation do not remain sharply deſined. By the side of this we may well place in bare outline the analysis of Zahn (Jºinſ. ii. 587 ff.), which, as he believes, demonstrates the unity of the book ‘in spite of all lack of literary art.’ Introd. (11-0). I'irst Vision, 110–322 (Letters). Second Vision, 4l-S1 (Seals), with two º (a) 71-8, (b) 79-17, before the seventh. Third Vision, 82-1118 (Trumpets), with two Episodes, (a) 101-11, (b) 111-14, before the seventh. It'ourth Vision, 1110–1420. 1"iſth Vision, 151–1617 (Bowls). , Sirth Vision, 171-1824 (Judg- ment on Babylon), 1618:21 introduces it, and 101-8, 9-10 conciudes it and introduces the Seventh Vision, 1011–218 (Judgment and Awards). Jºighth Vision, 219–225 (or lo) (a description not of the new heaven and carth of 211-8, but of the world during the 1000 years' reign of Christ, 204-0). Conclusion, 220 (or 10)-21. REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF 251 (b) Plan of chs. 1–3.−The construction of these chapters gives the greatest evidence of conscious and careful literary art, and no doubt may fairly bredispose the reader to look for art throughout. The introductory verses (1*) contain a remarkably complete statement of the source, character, and contents of the entire book, and prepare us to re- cognize such summary, anticipatory introductions elsewhere. The ultimate author of the revelation is God, who gave it to Christ, who sent an angel to signify it to John. It can therefore be called ‘the word of God,” “the testimony of Jesus,’ or ‘the things which John saw.” Its contents are ‘the things which must happen quickly’; that is, it is a prediction, but of the immediate not the remote future. Its readers aré God’s servants, who are blessed if they hear and keep what is written. More expressly ‘the seven Churches in Asia’ are addressed, and in saluting them the author com- pletely sums up his theology. . It is in some sense trinitarian (vv.*"), and the kingly exaltation of Christ through resurrection, the saving effect of His death, and the destination. He made possible for believers, are described. The central message of the book, the coming of Christ, and that in its judicial aspect, is expressly announced, perhaps by God, who, at all events, as the real author of the revelation, adds in the first person His attestation. It is not, indeed, impossible to divide this intro- duction into independent parts (1–3, 4–6, 7.8), and suppose them to have introduced separate apoca- lypses (cf. Spitta, Briggs). But it can hardly be denied that the whole is admirably adapted to in- troduce the book. The vision of Christ (19**) brings before us the {. and kingly One, who lives amid His Jhurches and possesses or rules them. The letters are introduced by descriptions of Christ which are in most cases borrowed from the vision, and close with promises ‘to him that overcometh,’ which in most cases anticipate the fuller descriptions of chs. 19–22. The selection of descriptive features from the vision of Christ in several cases fits the special message of the letter; and this is sometimes, but not so often and clearly, the case with the selection of the reward. (1) The description, 2% (from 1" lº), is referred to in 2°. The reward, 27° (cf. 22°), has no obvious relation to the letter. (2) The descrip- tion, 28 (from 1979. 18"), ſits both the message, 2*, and the reward, 2* (cf. 20"). (3) The description, 212 (from 119°), is referred to in 21°. The reward, 27° (only in part, if at all, parallel to 22", cf. 19°), may possibly stand in contrast to the eating of things sacrificed to idols (2*). (4) The description, 2* (from 1", 1", but “Son of God’ is here only), pre- pares for 2*. The reward, 2** (in part parallel to 20", cf. 12° 191° 22'"), could relate to the letter if Jezebel's teaching included submission to Itome. (5) The description, 3 (from 1", cf. 2' 1"), has no special relation to the letter. The reward, 3" (cf. 6* 7ub. 19 178 2012. 15 2127, Mt 10*), is connected with v." and perhaps v.". (6) The description, 3’ (not from the vision, cf. Is 22” [cf. 1*]), is used in v.*. The reward, 314 (cf. 14, 22° 21° 1' 1919, 19), has no obvious connexion with the letter (Bousset compares v.” with v.7"). (7) The description, 3" (not from the vision, cf. 1", Col 1*, Jn 1"), may prepare for the severity of the letter (cf. v.”). The reward, 3% (cf. 20-0 10 220ſ. 510 22"), connects with v.” (cf. Lk 2220. 90). That the writer is working as an artist is evident, and a reason may have determined his choice of titles and promises where it is no longer evident. The last title is perhaps the highest, and the last reward also represents a climax. The first reward suggests Eden; the second, the Fall; the third, the Wilderness; the fourth, the lºingdom ; but though the intention to represent the fulfilment of successive stages of OT history is wholly conceiv- able, the evidence for it is not convincing.” No evident reason for the changed position of the sentence, “He that hath an ear,” etc., in the last four letters, is manifest. Of the historical condi- tions described in the letters something will be said further on. But, in spite of unmistakable references to local conditions, each letter is a message of the spirit to ‘the Churches.’ They were not sent separately or meant to be read º but have each a representative and all together a complete character, which the number seven itself suggests. Chs, 1–3 show not only a conscious artistic pur- pose, but in more details than can here be noted and still more in total effect they show a high order of poetic instinct and skill. (c) Plan of chs. 4–22. –The choice of three series of sevens in the representation of the coming woes and judgment shows the same mind that addressed the Churches as seven. To assign these sevens to different sources (Spitta, Briggs), is to miss one of the most evident marks of unity in the book. It is more likely, e.g., that the author made seven seals out of an original four (see below) than that he found his sevens ready made. But what is to be said of the two twofold interludes inserted between the sixth and seventh seals and trumpets (71-8. U-17 10. 111-18)? The first two of these visions not only interrupt the plan, but are apparently inharmonious with each other. In one (7°) a definite number of Jews are sealed before the coming of evil, in order to be kept from it ; in the other (7'-3") a countless number from all nations have already come through trials and death to heavenly blessedness. The first could well be of Jewish origin (based on Ezk 9*), and describe the literal safe-keeping of Jews in the troubles of the last days. Did our writer believe that Jews would play a distinct rôle in the end? This is possible (cf. St. Paul in Ito 9–11), but it is more probable that he adopts a Jewish apocalyptical fragment applying it to the Christian community, and understanding it not in a literal sense. This would account for the fact that the four winds (7") are never loosed. We have not a whole but a part (9* is related, but different). We have indeed an allusion to the sealing (9", cf. 14') as if to prevent our supposing the section a later insertion. Dut there the sealed can only be all true Christians, as in 14* the 144,000 are. If Rev 7-8 applies a Jewish oracle to the Christian community, the deliverance it assumes may well be no more literal than the rest, and its meaning in the author's in- tention may be wholly like the meaning of 7”. Not deliverance from death, but deliverance through death, is, in fact, the promise of the book. These two visions, then, contrasted as they are, and of different origin, may have meant the same thing to the author. They are assurances of escape and salvation, inserted here, after the beginning of evils but before their culmination, to serve the practical purpose of encouragement. The second one seems to describe by anticipation nothing less than the final heavenly blessedness, for no such host had as yet passed through trial (martyrdom 2) to heaven, and 6* seems to prevent the supposition that those who had already died were in possession of their final glory. Our inference in regard to ch. 7 is, then, that the writer introduces foreign (in | art Jewish) frag- ments into his book, apparently interrupting his plan, but not without a purpose. . He is writing even more to encourage true Christians than to * Trench (Epistles to the Seven Churches, N.Y. 1862, p. 287 f.), who proceeds with a new series, thus: fifth, individual's lot at the 1)ay of Judgment ; sixth, in companionship with the re- deemed ; seventh, in communion with God. 252 REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF warn apostates, and so will not let assurance and romise wait until its proper place, when jº. lverance, setting light over against dark in his picture, as run its course, but will anticipate de though dark must predominate. Turning to the second pair of insertions, we notice that ch. 10 seems to describe nothing less than a new beginning of the prophet’s activity, a new commission and inspiration. It seems meant to explain the new and strange mature of the oracles that follow. Perhaps 10°. * may serve to explain the writer’s departure from the plan of developing the seventh of one series of judgments in the form of a new series of seven. Instead of the seven thunders which he heard, he is charged to write the contents of the little book of prophecies over many peoples. Yet this apparent change of plan is not a real break in the order, since it is still affirmed that the seventh angel’s trumpet will bring the end (107). The second section, 11”, is still preliminary, as 11” (cf. 9°) clearly indicates. Its strange character is evident. Yet it may well have been meant to serve the same purpose as 7".", and indeed it falls into two similar parts. 11”, like 7”, assures Christians, the true worshippers in the true temple of God, that they will escape from the evils of the last days. Undoubtedly in their origin these verses referred to the real temple and to Jewish worshippers. This must have been a Jewish oracle uttered some time before A.D. 70. But our author can have used it only as a figure, precisely like the sealing of the 144,000. Its unprepared and fragmentary character are explicable if it was to the writer symbol, not reality. Not otherwise must we judge 11*. In our writer's plan it must mean that those who do not in the outward sense escape the evil, but because of their testimony and work against the power of evil suffer and die, will nevertheless rise in glory and be avenged upon their enemies (not unlike 7”). Of course this does not explain the origin of the section. It is full of unexplained allusions, and is clearly part of a larger whole. Its Jewish origin is unmistakable. Bousset regards it as a part of the apocalyptical tradition of Antichrist. It suggests an elaboration of the expectation of the return of IElijah for a work of protest and reform (Mal 4". ", Mt. 17” ll”), and the similar liope of the return of Moses based on I)t 1819. 18 (Mt 17°). But since our writer intro- duces it, not as an incident in the direct develop- ment of the drama, but in an interlude and for its general message of encouragement in faithful testimony unto death, it is natural to raise the question whether he took the details literally, and expected the two prophets and especially the conversion of the majority of the Jewish people after a partial judgment upon them (v.”). How, indeed, could a Christian, in view of the '. diction of Christ, even before A. D. 70, have taken literally either the expectation that the temple would be exempt from desecration by the heathen, or that only a tenth of the city would fall ? Still less possible would the literal sense of the oracle be º 70. It is true that a Christian hand has touched the narrative (v.” end), but it is not prob- able that the resurrection of the two witnesses is shaped after that of Christ (v.”). In its strongly Jewish character, its evident date (before 70), much earlier than the book as a whole, its unpre- pared insertion, apparently only for its general thought of faithful testimony, martyrdom, and heavenly reward, the section is very instructive regarding the literary manner of the author (see below, iii. 3). The seventh trumpet must be the third woe (11%), and it must bring the consummation (107). Its contents cannot therefore be given in 11”, the theme of chs. 12–20 (see 12*). —s but must include the rest of the book. The third woe cannot be less than the last conflict with the powers of evil and their overthrow, which forms In 1115-18 We have, therefore, an anticipation in a heavenly chorus of the consummation which is not yet fully come (as in 15* 191-7); 12–20. The general plan of chs. 1119–22° is clear. After an introductory anticipation of the kingdom of God and the Wrath and destruction that must precede its coming (11” ”), Satan, the real power of evil, , is introduced, and his present peculiar aggressiveness is explained in such a way as to make it a ground of special hope, not of discouragement. He has been cast down from heaven, and knows that his time on earth is short (ch, 12). . The chief agents of Satan in his perse- cution of Christians—lkome, the empire and the religion—are then introduced (ch. 13). Defore judg- ment against the evil powers begins, the author, according to his custom, inserts various antici. patory passages: a vision of the blessedness of the saints with Christ (vv.”); a review of the entire teaching of the book (vv.”): its gospel, the sole worship of God in view of judgment to come ; its prediction, the fall of lºome, and the eternal punishment of those who yield to Roman life and cultus; the supreme Christian duty, patience, endurance in Christian life and faith, and the promises of heavenly blessedness for martyrs; then a general vision of judgment in two acts, the reaping of grain and the gathering of grapes (vy.'”). The seven bowls are introduced as finishing the wrath of God (15', cf. “it is done,’ Yé-yovev, 16"). They lead up to the destruction of Rome. But for this great event the writer has larger resources of description at his command. The vision of the woman seated on the dragon shows that it is her own evil demon that will turn against the city, and with its ten horns, which are ten kings, destroy her (ch. 17). Her fall will fulfil the language of prophecy against Babylon and Tyre (ch. 18). It will be finally eflected—the end having been once more anticipated in heavenly praises (191-19)—at Christ's coming and by Him (1911–9]). Then, the beasts having been destroyed, Satan's own judgment must come, a preliminary binding and a final destruction (ch. 20). Then at last the consummation so often anticipated will be an actuality (21–22%). Although the writer connects ch. 17 and 210ſ. with one of the angels of the bowls, yet it must be evident that we are not to judge this section (12–22%) as consisting of the seven bowls (develop- ing the seventh trumpet), and some introductory and concluding sections; for the prelude and post- lude would in this case far overbalance the piece itself both in length and in interest and power, On the other hand, the theme of 12–22" being the fall of Rome, the present Satanic power, and with it the deliverance and blessedness of faithful Christians, it is clear that chs. 12. 13 and 17–22" form the solid framework of the structure. Ch. 19 brings the beasts of ch. 13 to judgment ; cli. 2) brings the Satan of ch. 12 to an end ; 21–22° brings to actuality the anticipation of 11”. To set aside the passages put in the right - hand column in Holtzmann's scheme for the sake of carrying out the plan of developing the seventh of each series by a new series of seven, would sacrifice the most important parts of the section, in which order and movement are most evident. We must conclude that the writer, in the second half of his book, renounced that plan as not adequate for his ma . terial, as ch. 10 may have been meant to suggest. The seven bowls, in fact, form the least origina: and impressive part of this section, being de- a superscription for chs. REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF 253 wº- pendent on the seven trumpets and inferior to them in effectiveness (see below). The seven bowls do not furnish the plan of this section. But we may fairly ask whether we are to give to the sevens quite such significance in the earlier part of the book as is commonly done. If both the seventh seal and the seventh trumpet include all that follows in the book (as also the seventh bowl is simply more fully described in chs. 17–19), then we should not divide by sevens, since this would cut off the announcement of the seventh from its development. The seventh should open, not end, a new section, and the separation of the seventh from the sixth by passages of vital importance (not mere interludes in character) seems to indicate this intention on the part of the writer. Chs. 7 and 10 seem most evidently to mark transitions. Some such outline as this may therefore with reserve be suggested— I. Preliminary judgments (4–9). 1. Visions of the actors (4–6).- a. God (4); b, Christ (5); c. Destructive powers (6). 2. Promises of deliverance out of coming evils (7). 8. The judgments (one-third, without producing re- pentance, 8.0). t II. Final judgments (10–22). 1. The prophet's new commission (10). 2. Vision of deliverance for true worshippers of God, and esp. for martyrs (111-14). 8. Prelude, summarizing the action (1115-19). 4. Visions of the actors (12. 13 [14]-07). — 4. Satan (12); b. Roman empire and emperor- sº (13); [c. The Lamb and His followers 141-5)]. - . Promises and warnings (14 [or 140-20). . The judgments (15-20). — a. Upon the earth, leading up to the fall of the city, }. (15, 10. 171–1824 [191-10?]); b. Upon the demon-beasts of the Roman empire and religion and their followers (1911-21); c. Upon Satan and all that belongs to him Ç). 7. The new world and city (211.8 210–225(9?]).” Titles or superscriptions quite frequently summarize the con- tonts of fºllº; visions:–11-8 sums up the whole book, 82 is a title, and 89-6 an anticipation of the effect of the trumpets (80ſ. ), and the bowls are similarly introduced (151.24). 1115-18 is a summary title of chs. 12–22; 182. 3 summarizes 184-24; 101-10 sungmarizes 1911–2221 ; 211-8 summarizes 219–220 (211, 2=9:21, 8.4 =22-225, 5-8-226-21). : Yet though we find evidence of a general order in the book which the artistic structure of chs. 1–3 prepares us to look for, we must take account of various departures from any strict order, if we would understand the spirit of the writer. Though the interruption of the sevens by chs. 7 and 10–11” is not due to a want of plan, yet here and in various ºpºly voices, visions, and comments (e.g. 1114-1814-3 15%-4 191-10 12") we ſind evidences of the practical impulse to encourage and admonish, rather than artistic reflexion. In the failure to observe strict chromological sequence the book is in- deed only like Daniel and other apocalypses. There is here as in Daniel a progress towards greater concreteness and detail. In 6**7 the final day of God’s wrath seems already come. It is described again in 14*-*. The fall of Rome is announced in 148 as if accomplished; more fully described in 16”; still predicted in 171"; announced in 18*, predicted still in 18*. Again the letters seem to assume that though trials have been endured, martyrdom is almost wholly future (2”); but in 5” many souls of martyrs are seen, and 7" inplies a multi- tude, as 20” also does. (d) Eaſperiences of the seer. —We have already met with evidence that the author used some ancient materials for their general thought, and not in a literal sense. Before passing to a more detailed study of his use of material, it is import- ant to ask whether he gives a consistent picture of his own experiences. - * It is evident that 171 and 210 are meant to mark the begin- nings of parallel sections, and it is possible that the likewise parallel 1010 and 220 are meant to mark their close. (1) The position and movements of the seer.— He is on earth in 19ſt. ; in 41 he is summoned up into heaven where he may be conceived as remaining through ch. 9 (cf. 6% 81.2 etc.), though earth is not out of his sight (0.12ſ. 71 etc.). That he is literally in heaven is clearly implied in 54f. 7.13ſ. But in 101, without a break (‘and I saw'), he appears to be on earth (so 1049). Earth appears to be the scene of the action in 111-13, but in 1115 voices in heaven are heard, and in v.19 the temple in heaven is seen to be open. In 12 the Seer seems to be in heaven (?), but in 13 and Rºy in 141-18 he is on earth. If we read to ré0xy in 1218 (13), we have a definite reference to the Seer's position, comparable to 19. But the judgment scene 1414-20 suggests heaven. Again chs. 15, 16 give a heavenly scene. In 173 an angel carries John away in the spirit into a wilderness to see the woman (Rome), and in 2110 to a mountain to see Jerusalem descending out of heaven. 18l. 4 indicate that the seer is on earth. In 191,10 he seems to be in heaven, but in v.ll on earth again (for he sees heaven open, as in 41); so also in 201 212, and probably in 2110ſ. There is so little law in these movements, and So little care to make the connexion clear, that one might infer that our writer leaves such refer- ences as they stood in his different sources; but this would mean that the vision was to him a form, not a reality. (2) The heavenly scenes.— The scenery in heaven is not clearly described. Ch. 4 pictures a throne of God, with 24 elders on thrones around it, seven lamps before it which are the seven spirits of God, before it a glassy Sea, and, in the midst of it and around it, four ſiving creatures. IIere in the midst of the throne stood the Lamb (ch. 5), whose seven eyes are the seven spirits of God, of which the seven lamps were already a symbol. . About the throne, and the elders and living beings are myriads of angels (511 711). Here also are the multitudes who have come out of great tribulation (7°47). Of them, however, it is said not only that they are before the throne of God, but that they serve Hinn in His temple, 312 has prepared us for the conception of a temple in heaven, and in 69 we have suddenly been made aware of ‘the altar,' beneath which are the souls of martyrs. Now the trumpets are sounded by “the seven angels which stand before God,' 82 (cf. 14.0). These did not appear in the scene just drawn, unless they are the same as ‘the seven spirits,’ as 14 might indicate. The altar is mentioned again, and, perhaps in distinction from it, “the golden altar which is before the throne,’ the altar of incense (89-5). From the horns of this ‘golden altar which is before God’ comes, the voice which directs the angel of the sixth trumpet (918f). The seventh trumpet reveals the original scene (the throne and elders and living beings, 1110-18); but then we read, “there was opened the temple of God that is in heaven,' and in it the ark of IIis covenant was seen (1119). After this the 24 elders appear onl in 141-5 and 1918, two somewhat similar passages, though 1524 may have the same setting (cf. 40). One of the four living creatures is mentioned in 157 in connexion with the temple; but more often the temple scenery stands by itself. Out of the temple comes the angel who summons the reaper (1415) and the angel who is to gather the grapes (1417), whom another angel from the altar directs (1418). Out of the temple conne the seven angels, having the seven last plagues, and the temple is filled with smoke from the glory of God, so that it could not be entered, although open (150-8). A great voice from the temple commands them (161); ‘the altar’ affirms the justice of the judgment (167), and the final, “It is done,' comes “out of the temple and from the throne,’ uniting the two (1617). It is not easy to unite in one picture the concep- tion of God as sitting on a throne surrounded by His court, and of His dwelling, in heaven as on earth, in the temple's holiest place, from which His voice or messengers issue forth. Since the scenery of the throne is that of the seals, and the temple scenery that of the bowls, it is natural to think of this unharmonized element as due to sources. The author has mixed the scenes somewhat (157 could be an insertion, as the angels came out of the temple already having seven plagues, yy.”"); but he does not harmonize them, or paint a heaven that can be imagined. The new Jerusalem must also have been in heaven (3* 21*), though the seer beholds it only as it descends to earth (21"). The description of the new heaven and earth resolves itself into the description of a º and in this there is no temple (21*), but the throne remains the final seat of God (20". " 21° 22'-"). If the writer had wished to paint a clear, consistent picture, he could easily have done so. The infer- ence that he took his descriptions as they were, and valued them as poetical not literal accounts, is surely a natural one. 254 REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF . (3) Form of inspiration.—The same freedom and disregard of formal consistency is evident in the representation of the way in which the seer re- ceived his revelations. There is no set way, no fixed medium. The first verses seem explicit, yet leave us uncertain whether we are to conceive of the writer as receiving Christ's revelation through angel (11) or by vision (‘all the things that he saw,’ 12, cf. 119). The letters are given by Christ in the first person. Yet they are introduced by a description of Christ in the third erson, and the expression ‘hear what the spirit saith to the Xhurches' suggests that the letters are dictated to John by an angel-spirit in the name of Christ. The voice which John hears at first (110ſ) must be the voice of Christ Himself (cf. 119). The Same voice summons John into the open heaven (41). He is there “in the spirit” (42, as in 119). But it does not appear to be Christ Himself who shows him what is to come. Christ appears as an actor in the drama of the future, not as the seer's interpreter. Not till 1610 is His voice heard again, and then not till 227(?). In 171 one of the seven angels of the bowls summons John and carries him away in the spirit into a wilderness to see the judgment upon Rome. This is the sort of angel guidance that 11 would lead us to expect, but which we look for thus far in vain. This angel fulfils his function as interpreter (177-18); but then we hear another angel announcing Babylon's fall (181-3); another voice from heaven pronouncing the prophetic denuncia- tion over her (184-20); and still another angel predicting the fall by deed and word (1821-24). Then are heard various voices from heaven (191-8); and only then, in 199.10 (‘and he says to me’), does the original angel-guide speak again. He then rejects John's impulse to worship him (cf. Asc. Isaiah 721 S4, 5) with the words, “I am a fellow-servant of thee and thy brothers who have the testinony of Jesus; worship God: for the testi- mony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy’ (1911). The last clause is often struck out as a gloss by critics (Bousset, Hilgen- feld, etc.), but this is venturesome. “The spirit of prophecy’ should mean the spirit from God which inspires the prophet; that is, in this case, the angel himself (cf. 220). So he would say, ‘I am only one of you who have the testimony of Jesus; indeed this testimony constitutes my very being.” The angel-spirit of prophecy is simply the personified testimony of Jesus, the word of Jesus Himself. As a messenger this angel is on an equality with John,--because his message is wholly and simply the message of Christ. There follow visions of the first and of the final judgments (1911–2013), and an introductory º vision of the consummation (211-8), in which are heard the words of God Himself (vv.5-8); and then “one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls” (not the same one as before?) carried John in the spirit to a mountain to see the new Jeru- Salem. It is this angel who measured the city and showed John the details of the vision (2115-17 221), so that when 220 begins ‘and he said to me,’ it can be only the angel that speaks #. of the ‘spirits of the ºp". '); but in v.7 his words become Christ's words, ‘behold, I come quickly.” No wonder John would again worship him, but again he classes himself with the prophets. As a person he is only a revealer, a voice; but his words are those of Christ. So when he speaks again (2210ſ::) his words again become Christ's words (vv. 12ff). Now it is to be observed that the seven angels of the bowls (ch. 15), two (?) of whom are the imparters of these last prophecies of the book, naturally lead us back to ‘the seven angels which stand before God,” to whom the trumpets are given (82), and these again to the seven lamps burning before the throne, which are the seven spirits of God (40), from whom (14), as from God and Christ, ohn's message comes. When now Christ is described as “he that hath the seven spirits of God’ (31), and is pictured as the Lamb with seven eyes ‘which are the seven spirits of God sent, forth into all the earth’ (56), we have certainly significant indications of what the writer meant by calling his book an “apocalypse of Jesus Christ,’ and of his idea of the inspiration of a Christian prophet. Angels, however realistically described, are hardly more than a means of expressing the fact that the writer was somehow conscious of having a message from Christ for the Churches. Any further interpretation of his conscious- ness must be deferred until we have studied the sources and relationships of his materials. Any set and consistent form of representing his experiences, however, the author seems purposely to avoid. Apart from 171ſ. 219tſ we have no indication of a special interpreting angel, taking the part of Gabriel in the Bk, of Daniel. The speakers in the book are very many. The underlying faith in the king- ship of God and of Christ, and its ultimate triumph, are expressed in heavenly choruses, led by the twenty-four § and the four cherubim, but joined in by multitudes of angels and of glorified men (48.11 59-14 79.12 1115-18 1210 142. 3 152-4 101.7 (8). One of the elders, instructs John in 56 and 71817. Often it is simply ‘a voice from heaven' that he hears (104.8 1413 184213, cf. 1617), or from the horns of the altar (0.13ſ.), or from the altar itself (167). He records words of God, 18 (7?) 215-8 1617 (?); of Christ, 111.19, 20 2. 3. 1613 227, 12ſ. ; of the spirit, 1413 2217. There are beatitudes uttered by Christ (1616.227. 14), by a voice from heaven (1413), by the angel-guide (199), by John (13). Sometimes he seems to interrupt the story of what he had seen with a direct word of his own to the reader (27, etc. 139. 101318 1412, cf. 179?). Among the other voices that are heard are those of the souls of martyrs (º): of various angels undefined (72 140, 8, 9, 15, 18 1917 etc.); of the angel of the waters’ (160ſ.); an eagle (813); the rod (71.11). At the beginning and at the end the book is declared to be from Christ Himself, His testimony (11.2 2210). The part which the angels perform might almost be º: as pictorial, since the writer reduces the significance of these beings, who are the uniform actors and speakers in the Jewish apocalypses, to that of messengers of Christ. He is the primary and final actor in the book (opens the Seals, ch. 5 f., and executes the judgment, 1911ſt), and He is the real speaker. Here also, as in the case of the place and move- ments of the seer and the heavenly scenery, a variety of sources might explain the diversity of the representation, but we must also suppose the author to be relatively indifferent to formal con- sistency. He must, one is forced to think, have taken the external language of º: in a figurative or poetic way. The only other hypothesis would seem to be that of composite origin (as held by Völter, Spitta, etc.); but the effort to bring con- sistency out of the book by analysis and the recon- struction of sources out of which it was gradually and unskilfully put together, fails to do justice to the unity of style and even of plan which the book has been found to exhibit. oreover, this effort has been made by many able men, and, according to the prevailing opinion of scholars, has failed. In order, however, to test the possibility of a free, more or less poetic, use of traditional apoca- lyptical material, we must examine our author's use of tradition at various points more closely. 3. Sources.—(a) Old Testament.—Although Rev. contains no direct citations from the OT, it is full of OT language from the beginning to the end. An impression of its dependence on OT phrase- ology may be gained from the text of Westcott and Hort, or from that of Nestle, in which such allusions or reminiscences are º in a distinct type. In the corresponding list of references in WH’s Appendix, pp. 184–188, out of the total number of 404 verses in the book about 265 verses contain OT language, and about 550 references are made to OT passages.” The material is still more fully gathered by Hühn (Die alttest. Citate und Ičeminiscenzen an NT, 1900). Nothing is more important for the understanding of our author's mental and literary processes than a close study of his use of OT language. The bearing of such study upon the interpreta- tion of our book can here only be suggested by illustrations. One of the simplest cases is the prophetic denunciation of the fall of Babylon (Rome) in ch. 18. It is composed almost wholly of material taken from the prophetic WOCS OVQI. Babylon (Is 13. 14, Jer, 50. 51), Tyre (Is 23, Ezk 26–28), and, in a slight degree, Edom (Is 34). Even the admonition that might seem to have direct reference to the historicaſ situation, ‘Come forth, my people, out of her,” etc. (18"), is directly borrowed from prophetic utterances (Jer 51% 9: * 50°, Is 48° 52'), and has there rather than here its historical explanation. . . Yet the chapter does not make the impression of being a laborious piece of patchwork. It has a unity of its own and a high degree of impressiveness, and seems to be the work of one whose mind is filled with the language of prophecy, and who draws abundantly, and of course consciously, from his storehouse, and yet writes with freedom and from a strong inner im- pulse of his own, and elaborates with his own con- ceptions the themes which the º words contain. So he makes out of the old a product in a real sense new, a poetical whole. But what shall we say of his putting this product into the * The allusions agree in part with the Heb., in part with the LXX. WII mark 33 references as distinctly from Heb. (and Chald.), 15 as from LXX ; 5 are marked IIeb. and LXX, viz, 4 references to Ex 1910 (4.85114) 1. and one to Zec 81 (12"). Schürer (3 iii. 323) cites 020 100 137 204 as citations from Daniel, which follow Theodotion more closely than LXX. See Bludau, “Die Apokalypse und Theodotions Daniel-Uebersetzung,” in Theol. Quartalschrift, 1897, pp. 1–26. Salmon (Introd. to the NT', p. 602 f.) argues that the citations in Rev. Show a nearer relationship to Theod. than to LXX, referring to 920 105 127 137 100 204. 11; on the other side, 114 1910. Cf. Swete, Imtrod. p. 48 f. REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF 255 m- mouth of angels? It is easier to attribute such a literary composition to a poet than to a voice from heaven. Even the action of the angel in 18” rests on the symbolic act of Jeremiah (51". "). And if our writer says that he hears and sees these things, must we not judge the nature of his vision by its contents? A literal voice from heaven this certainly cannot be, and we seem shut up to two possibilities regarding it : either the angels and the voice from heaven belong wholly to the poetry of the piece, its literary form, or they express the writer's own interpretation of the strong impulse, as if from without, under which he wrote. Another instructive illustration of the author’s use of the OT is to be found in his description of the new Jerusalem, 21–22°. This is largely taken from the anticipations of the prophets of the Exile, Ezekiel and Deutero-Isaiah, with reference to the return and the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Features are added from other sources. Here, as in ch. 18, the impression is not that of mere clipping and piecing, but rather that of the work of a mind full of the Messianic language of the prophets, writing out of a genuine and deep religious and poetic emotion, with a dependence on the OT which is free, not slavish, and yet with very little real inventive- ness. Yet this also is shown to the seer by an angel, who seems to be in general the speaker (see 21” ô XaXáv, 22%); and an action of his is described 21” which is taken from Ezekiel (40*). In this case, more clearly than in ch. 18, we may suspect a cer- tain limitation of the author’s imagination by his Sources, which is not inconsistent with a large measure of freedom in the use of them. He has mastered the OT material of this sort, and can use it effectively, but cannot go much beyond it. How otherwise can Wre explain the emphatically Jewish picture of a future which was certainly to this writer universal in scope; the presence still of thoroughly earthly features in a consummation which must surely, in the writer's view, be heavenly; the appearance still of nations and kings and their wealth after heaven and earth have passed away ? He has little but the old familiar national and earthly language at command for the description of that which heaven contains for Christian hope. He can describe the Christian heaven only in Jewish language. Put though bound in language he is not bound in thought. He knows no more impressive and expressive language (nor do we); but the language is poetry to him, it is figurative, not literal, chosen for its poetic worth and emotional effect, which belonged to it, indeed, partly because it was old and familiar. It must of course be re- cognized that the most powerful imagination comes quickly to an end if it attempts to leave the earth in its descriptions of heaven. Iteligious faith and hope cannot do better than take the language which the greater souls have created, which genera- tions have shaped, which age has hallowed, and use it not for its literal but for its emotional and poetic worth, to symbolize and suggest inexpressible realities. Jewish literature furnishes other similar collec- tions of OT Messianic imagery (To 13, etc.); and the possibility that some earlier (Jewish) mind had already shaped the material in 21"–22°, and that our author, in 21***, introduces and summarizes this Section, and adds his own concluding sentences (22%), is to be considered. A still more striking illustration of our author's dependence on OT language, yet his freedom in the use of it, both in combination and in application, is his description of Christ in 1*. Almost all of it is taken from Daniel, but it unites in a most surprising way features from the descriptions of the one like a son of man, and of the Ancient of I)ays, in Dn 7, with still more from the angel (Gabriel) in Dn 10. The seven golden candlesticks and the seven stars are without parallel in Daniel. Something can be said, however, as to their source and use. The former was of course a familiar OT symbol (Ex 25°7'37*) which Zech. (4°) uses in an unearthly sense, explaining that the seven lamps are the seven eyes of J", which run to and fro through the whole earth (4” following v."). He sees by the candlestick two olive-trees (49), and evidently interprets their two branches as signify- ing Zerubbabel and Joshua, so that the two trees are the Davidic and the Aaronic houses. These two men, Zech. would say, have the eyes of the Lord upon them in favour and blessing. But this is a free application by the prophet to the historical present and to his practical purpose of a symbol which originally, no doubt, pictured the seven planets and the way in which their light was con- stantly replenished by the oil from ever-growing trees. . It was a mythological symbol (Gunkel, Schöpfung, pp. 122 – 131), which Zech. used as poetry, not interpreting all of the symbol (4”), and perhaps adding a feature for the sake of the interpretation (41%). Now in Iłev 1" the writer chooses to identify the seven lanps with the seven churches among which Christ is and moves. But in 4” he sees seven lamps burning before the throne of God, which are, he explains, the seven spirits of God, affirmed in 1° to be before God’s throne (cf. 8”); and even in the letters (3') Christ is described as the one who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars, so that this interpreta- tion of the lamps was in his mind by the side of the other. When, still further, we read that the Lamb has “seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent forth into all the earth' (5"), with evident allusion to Zec 4”, we are able to realize how far from a slavish literalness and formal con- sistency our author's use of OT ſigures is. Finally, Zech.'s figure reappears in ll”, where the two wit- Il CSSCS 8,1°C .. to be “the two olive-trees and the two candlesticks [what two 2] standing before the Lord of the earth,’ a free identification for a purpose, similar in kind to that of Zech. himself, this time certainly made not by our author, but by SOIll (2 SOUll'C.C. Qur writer cares much for OT prophetic language, and cannot easily add much to it, but he applies it freely to new uses. Note esp. that we have in Rev. no such anxious effort to interpret an OT predic- tion, assuming the necessity of its literal fulfil- ment, as Dn 9 contains. The relation of 114 to Zec 4, and of 20° to Ezk 38 f., is wholly different. Other illustrations could readily be given,_such as the relation of ch. 4 to Is 6 and Ezk l,—but enough has been presented to justify the following }resuppositions with reference to passages in our i. which contain innagery not derived from the OT-(1) that such imagery, if it is at all elaborate, is not the author's free invention, but is borrowed from some literary or oral prophetic traditions; (2) that the writer does not feel bound to leave it as it is, but is free to combine and interpret it to suit his own purpose, so that the interpreter must distinguish º between the present use of the symbols and their original use. If this distinction is necessary in 21–22° and 19°, it will be no less necessary in 11** 12. 13, etc. (b) Jewish apocalyptical traditions.—The line that separates uncanonical from OT material in Rev. is not a sharp one. It would indeed be natural that Jewish apocalyptical traditions should consist largely of expositions and elaborations of OT material. The picture of the throne of God (ch. 4) is unquestionably based upon that of Ezk 1. 10 and Is 6 (cf. also the probably older passages, Ex 24", 1 R 22"). The four living creatures, cheru- bim, are taken directly from Ezekiel, and, in spite 256 REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF of differences, need no other explanation. It is of course not to be assumed that they have no history before and after Ezekiel (cf. the four pres- ences in Enoch 40 and Apoc, Bar 51* 21", and the four angels in Enoch 87% 8 88% 90*). For the seven lamps which are the seven spirits of God we have already found points of connexion in the OT, but we need to adduce such passages as To 12”, Enoch 90°, in order to realize how fixed an element in apocalyptical imaginations these seven spirits (or angels, archangels) were. The use of the article in Rev. 1" 4” 8* is itself proof of the familiarity of the conception. That foreign speculations, Persian or Babylonian, lie behind it is probable (see Cheyne, OP 281 ff., 323 ft., 334 ft. ; Gunkel, Schöp- fung, 294-302, and Archiv f. Religionswissensch. 1898, 294-300; Stave, Parsismus, 216–219). It is therefore a natural inference that the twenty-four elders, clothed in white, sitting on thrones and crowned, come from tradition, and are not an invention of the author. They represent probably not the Christian Church, twelve tribes and twelve apostles (though 21" may indicate the writer's desire tº aid the Christian to the Jewish twelve), but the glory and power, especially the reigning or judicial power of God, His heavenly court. They are associated, as are the seven spirits and the four cherubim, with God and His throne, not with the creation (see Gunkel, Schöpfwng, 302–308). Is 24” gives probable evidence of the antiquity of the conception (cf. Is 63%, LXX). With the general description of God's throne should be compared, e.g., Enoch 14. 71, Secrets of Enoch 29. 22. We have already found reasons for regarding 11” as a Jewish oracle (or two fragments of a Jewish apocalypse), used by our author in a sense wholly different from its original literal meaning. It is a most convincing illustration of our author's union of dependence on traditional forms of ex- pression, and independence of the traditional use and meaning of such forms. The great sign in heaven which ch. 12 presents can be accounted for only in a very slight degree on the basis of the OT. Yet nowhere is the writer's dependence upon traditional material more certain. Assuming that he did not invent these figures, it is not difficult to understand what he meant to say by the use of them. The chapter contains a picture, in some sense an explanation, of Satan's present power in the world, and his fierce hostility to the Christian Church ; and at the same time the assurance that his power is soon to end. Christ escaped his hands, and is with God. Satan has already been cast down from his old place in heaven, and no longer brings accusations against the saints before God; and, though he is now all the more determined in his assaults upon Christ's brethren on earth, his reign is doomed to a speedy end. This application of the figure, however, by no means explains its origin. Many of its details can be fitted to this use only by violence, if at all, and could not have been devised for the purpose. What then was the source, and of what sort was the writer's use of this material 2 Gunkel’s book must be regarded as little short of epoch-making in its significance for the inter- pretation of this chapter, even though serious doubt be felt regarding certain of his conclusions. He offers convincing proof of the long and wide- spread influence in Hebrew literature of the I3aby- lonian myth of creation—the victory of Mijº, the god of light (the sun), over the chaos-beast Tiānlat, the dragon of the deep He traces the transition from a cosmological to an eschatological use of the conception, on the principle, which ex- plains many features of the Jewish hope, that God will make the last things as the first (Barn. 6*); and the interpretation of the dragon as a historical instead of a natural power. In this way the myth becomes a poetic expression of the expectation that the hostility of the world - ruling nation against Israel will come to a supreme manifesta- tion ; that then J" will intervene directly, or through the angel Michael, and again, as at the beginning, the dragon will be bound or slain (cf. Is 51% "27*). “The beast that comes up out of the abyss’ (Rev 1.17), is this well-known ſigure in Jewish eschatology. It could be regarded as a Symbol, or representative of the hated nation, as in Dn 7 it becomes four beasts, to describe the four successive masters and enemies of the Jewish Ilation, and as in Rev. 13, it is the Roman empire; or it could be more distinctly and personally con- ceived, as in Rev 12, as the Satan who gives the hostile kingdom its evil power. It could also be conceived of as a man in whom evil reaches its heiglut (Antichrist, perhaps Rev 11"). Gunkel is not contented, however, with this general and probable identification of the dragon of ch. 12. He proceeds to defend two much more dubious positions. I'irst, that our chapter rests ultimately upon, and follows closely, a part of the Babylonian myth of which we have no other remaining record— the account of the birth of Marduk, his escape from the dragon who knows him to be his destined destroyer, and the dragon's fierce persecution of his goddess-mother during the period of the boy's growth to maturity, “the three and a half times,” from the winter solstice to the spring equinox [?]. Second, that in contrast to the free poetic use of such material in the earlier rophetic and poetic books of the OT, we find in the apoca- ypses an increasing tendency to look upon these ancient and mysterious ſlgures with awe, and to believe that they really contained, and could reveal to one who had wisdom, the ex- lanation of present evil and the secrets of its coming end. This reverence for apocalyptical traditions explains, Gunkel contended, what nothing else but literal vision could explain, the confident belief of these writers in their own predictions. He finds, therefore, in such sources as these not only an illus- tration of the literary method of the seer, but an explanation of his self-consciousness, a psychological account of apocalyptical writings. Both of these positions of Gunkel are insecure, and from the second one he has himself in part withdrawn. The freedom with which we have found our author combining and modifying OT materials renders it hazardous to attempt to reconstruct his sources when they are unknown, and also pre- vents the assumption that he looked upon such materials with awe and derived from them his revelation. It is not probable that the material in Rev. 12 stands in its original form and order. Gunkel himself recognized that v." and vv.7* offer two variants. Wellhausen, (Skizzem und Vorarbeiten 6 Heft, p. 215 ft.) regards "" and 7” as doub- lets, and would distinguish two actions in the original story which are here confused. 1. In heaven, the dragon wars with the angels, or with the sun, moon, and Zodiac (ww.” ". "), is conquered and cast down to earth with his angel host (v.V.” ". *). 2. On earth, he makes war with the Woman who bears the son (" is already an earthly scene), the son is snatched up to heaven (*), the woman flees into the wilderness, the dragon pursues her there, but must leave her ("= **"), and turns against those of her seed who did not escape with her. There must then have followed an account of the overthrow of the dragon by the rescued Messiah after His growth to maturity. Something like this, Wellhausen thinks, was a Jewish alºoca- lypse of the siege of Jerusalem. It described how the remnant (the woman) had escaped out of the city and been rescued through great dangers; how the Itomans (dragon) had turned against those who remained in Jerusalem, who are to be destroyed (Rev 11" " is, however, a fragment of the some time which anticipates the rescue of those, the Zealots, who occupied the temple itself during the siege). The fall of the IRoman power itself must follow at the hand of the Messiah, who has been born, according to prophecy, in 1’alestine, but was translated at once to leaven, so that He will come as a heavenly being, according to the more trans- cendental Messianic hope of late Judaism. So Wellh. offers a literary-critical and contemporary. REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF 257 historical explanation of ch, 12 in opposition to Gunkel’s tradition-historical explanation. We may regard Wellhausen’s analysis as plaus- ible, for the war in heaven and the casting of the dragon down to earth must originally have pre- ceded his persecution of the woman (vv.* and,” suggest this order). But Gunkel is surely right in denying that the figure is the pure invention of the Jewish writer, whom he as well as Wellh. accepts. Its history goes further back, and its . connexion with a sun - myth is highly probable. It is a striking fact that Greek myth- ology in its story of the birth of Apollo, and the attempt of the dragon Pytho to kill his mother (Dieterich, Abraacas, p. 117 ff.), and also the Egyptian story of the birth of Horus (Bousset, p. 410 f.), contain striking points of likeness to Rev 12, so that Gunkel’s resort to a postulated Baby- lonian story may not be necessary. In all of these sun-myths, however, the flight of the woman is before the birth of the child, and for its rescue from the dragon. The questions left open by these recent discus- sions of the chapter are many, and the hypothesis of a Jewish Messianic use of a heathen sun-myth, and then a Christian adaptation of the Jewish form, leaves room for much diversity of opinion in detail; yet it is a wholly credible hypothesis, and the actual history of the tradition here em- bodied is probably more rather than less complex than the tº. Heathen may well be the description of the woman (v.1) and of the dragon (vv.3.4a), his effort to engulf the woman, her wings, and the wilderness to which she flies (*10). Jewish (certainly not Christian) may be the idea of the birth and immediate translation of the Messiah, to God (v.0),” so also the office of Michael (7), and perhaps a change of order by which the woman's flight is made to follow the birth of the child. The Hebrew language, according to Wellh, and Gunkel, lies behind the Greek of the chapter. Christian is v. 11, and, more- over, so plainly out of keeping with the rest, as almost to prove that the Christian writer is using material already shaped (cf. Vischer). The verse contains the message of our writer, and is one of his characteristic anticipatory sayings. Christian may also be the change of order by which Christ's birth and ascen- Sion are made to precede the casting of the dragon out of heaven (cf. Jn 1231 1480 1611. 83, 1 Jn 38, Col 21b). This gives Christ an earlier and higher part in the drama than the Jews ascribed to their Messiah. In answer to the question as to the writer's use of this uncanonical material, we are bound to con- clude that it was as free and poetical as his use of OT conceptions. W.” gives us, the clue. The victory of Christian faith over the world through martyrdom is the counterpart on earth, the inter- pretation for man, of the victory of Michael over the dragon in heaven. The place of Michael here, where we should expect only the direct deed of Christ, shows both the extent of the writer's depend- ence on tradition and the confidence with which he finds a Christian meaning behind unchanged Jewish forms. Are we not to see, then, in ch. 12 any reference to historical factors and events 2 Wellhausen’s exact determination of the history here symbolized is far from convincing, and, moreover, it fails to explain many features in the picture. It need not, however, be doubted that the dragon was, at some point in the genesis of the chapter, regarded as a symbol of the Roman empire. His seven crowned heads and ten horns mean world-rulership, and his persecution of the woman's seed is the same persecution with which our whole book deals. So far, indeed, even Gunkel allows the presence of contemporary history in ch. 12. The case is a more complex one in chs, 13 and 17, but the difference is one of proportion and degree. Traditional elements are here in abundance, and beyond dispute, yet the reference to 180me is more * Bousset omits the Jewish link in the chain because this feature has no parallel in the Jewish Messianic hope. VOL. IV.-I? — specific and detailed. Gunkel admits the latter element here (as in Dn 7. 8, Enoch 85–90, 4 Ezr ll. 12, Apoc. Bar 53 ff.), but restricts it within narrow limits, and will by no means allow that these figures were freely invented allegories, every feature of which can be explained as a reference to contemporary history. He differs from the ruling critical opinion most radically in his refusal to recognize any allusion to Nero. Two questions must be kept º: distinct in the study of these chapters: (1) the question how much is due to apocalyptical tradition, and how much is re-shaped or invented for the sake of the application of the traditional figures to Rome; and (2) the question whether this application is made by the writer of our book, or was already present in the-possibly Jewish—sources from which he drew. The seven heads and ten horns appear in each case (12° 13' 17"). The Roman world-empire was meant by all. Yet the differences are so great that one must conclude that more or less independ- ent traditions lie behind the three chapters, even if they are ultimately traced to one root. The seven heads and ten Koº. sum up the outfit of the four beasts in Dn 7, though they do not need that explanation. We can well suppose the numbers to have been symbolic at first, but the effort to apply them to individual kings, and so to estimate the nearness of the end, was inevitable. There is evidence in the chapters of different efforts of that kind. In 12° it is the seven heads that are kings, in 13 it is the ten horns, but in 13° the smitten head must mean a king. The latter is commonly interpreted (by Victorinus, and by modern scholars from Eich- horn, Lücke, Bleek, downto Holtzmann and Bousset) of Nero's death, which ended the Julian dynasty, and seemed likely for a time to bring the empire to an end in anarchy. Gunkel thinks the Hebrew original read ‘the first liead,” hence Julius Caesar, whose death threatened the empire, but issued in its greater power (cf. Dn 8° on Alexander's death). In 17*.* the seven heads are the seven kings of Rome, and the writer feels bound by that number even when he needs to add an eighth. The ten horns, on the other hand, are apparently allied kings. The evidence of later adaptations or interpretations of given figures is often clear. The seven mountains of 1790 is so clearly such an addition for the sake of the identification of the woman with the city Rome, that one is the more inclined to find in vv. 15 and 18 also allegorical interpretations, and to question whether the woman was originally invented as a figure of Rome. She is now, of course, the city Rome (ww.b. 6), and may have been created in that sense; but even if so, not, we may be almost certain, by our author. The second beast in 13”, is evidently now the prophet or priest (priesthood) of Roman emperor- worship (cf. 16” 19” 201"). But here also older traditions are to be supposed. Dousset regards this as a Jewish figure of Antichrist (Komon. Excursus on ch. 13, Antichrist, p. 121), and a Jewish apocalyptical writer may very well have interpreted as Antichrist the religion of emperor- worship, and put this by the side of the lº who stood for the empire itself as its helper in evil. None of the many attempts to find a delimite person in the second beast (Vespasian, Simon Magus, Paul ', etc.) have made any approach to success. The personal interpretation of the first beast, however, as signifying Nero, has become almost a fixed assumption of critics. Gunkel's attack upon this . of the contemporatºry-historical method has not changed the prevailing opinion (see Bousset, Holtzmann, etc.). It has, however, served to empha- size the fact that if the beast from the abyss is i. by some one made a symbol of Nero, yet the beast was not first invented for this use, and it is not certain by whom, whether by our author or by a source, the identification was made. The opinion. 258, REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF indeed, does not go beyond probability. In view of the embodiment of the supernatural power of evil in Antiochus Epiphanes in Daniel, it is not possible to settle the question by a general appeal to ‘con- gruity, analogy, proportion,’ and a sarcastic thrust at the famous critics who have ‘placed T. Claudius Nero along with Christ, Satan, Death, Hades, the Church, and other powers and principles which constitute the Dramatis Persona of the Apocalypse' (Benson, p. 159). Dut it must be said that the evidence is of a wholly different sort from that which Daniel furnishes, with its detailed history of Antiochus (clis. 8. 11), and is not such as we should expect if the writer had set out to indicate his belief that Nero would return from the grave, and be the demonic power of evil in the last assault of evil against good. On the origin and history of the belief in Nero's return the fullest investigation is that of Zahn (Zeitsch. f. kirchl. PVissensch, u. I. Lebºn, 1885–86). See also Bousset, Komm. p. 475 ft., and Charles, Ascension of Isaiah, pp. li-lxxv. The chief evidence that Rev. refers to this ex- pectation is in ch. 17. The return of one of the seven kings as an eighth, who is nevertheless also the beast himself (v.”), suggests this more or less current expectation. In the ten kings of v.” it is possible to ſind the Parthian kings, with whom it was believed that Nero would return against IRome. And the idea that the city Rome would be de- stroyed by the very beast that represents her empire, in league with outside kings (vv. 19. 17), is difficult to explain at all apart from the Nero myth, which would perfectly explain it. If Nero be found here it is natural to infer that v.8 describes in general terms his death, return, and final de- struction. Yet this formula (“was, and is not ; and is about to come up out of the abyss, and to go into perdition') so fully sums up the general apocalyp- tical theory of the power of evil (the history of the chaos-dragon, Gunkel), and seems shaped so clearly in contrast to the formula which sums up the nature of God (“who was, and who is, and who is to come”), that the reference to Nero may be, if present at all, secondary. The verse in which our author's hand is most clearly seen (v.”) so inter- rupts this Nero story with an anticipation of 1910ſ. (for how are the ten kings to be overcome by the Lamb and His followers before they assist the beast in the destruction of Rome') as to suggest that Nero was not in his mind, but here, as in 12”, only the Christian conflict with evil. So also the in- terpretation of the slain and healed head in 13° is uncertain, and even the number 666 gives no secure support to this historical reference. The Greek solution of this riddle, AATEINOX, ‘(THE) LATIN,” which is as old as Irenaeus, though not adopted by him, is still held by many; but the Hebrew ºn) npp NERO CAESAR, - which in a Latin spelling TDD in) would yield 616, an early variant, — has far the larger number of advocates. Yet "pºp is the proper spelling of Caesar, which would nake 676. And when in answer to this objection it is said that an apocalyptical writer would prefer 666 to 676, because of its symmetry, and because it corresponds to the number of the name Jesus (IH2OT2=888), it is natural to ask whether 666 Imight not have been chosen at first outright for its symbolic meaning, to signify the one who per- sistently falls short of holiness or perfection (seven), as Jesus goes beyond it in the fulness of His char. acter and power (so Milligan, Baird Lecture, p. 328; Briggs, Messiah of the Apostles, p. 324). Šo the number 3}, the length of the reign of evil (Dn 7* 12", Itev 11”. “.. " 12", 1" 13%) needs no other ex- planation than the symbolism of the broken seven; the power of evil will be cut off in the midst and come to an untimely cnd. If, however, the number is to be interpreted by gematria, another view claims serious attention. Zahn (Zeit. f. kirchl, Wissensch. w. k. Leben, 1885, p. 568 ft.) argued that Irenaeus opposed the reading 616 because those who held it did so for the sake of applying it to Caligula (TAIOX KAIXAP=616)—an interpretation which Iren. re- jected. Holtzmann (Stade's Geschichte, ii. 388 ft.), Spitta, and Erbes independently (as Zahn predicted) came to the conclusion that this was, in fact, the original reading and meaning of the number, and that ch. 13 is part of a Jewish oracle of Caligula's time. In fact no ruler since Antiochus Epiphanes so filled the rôle of Antichrist in the Jewish mind as he who attempted to have his image erected in the temple. To him 13+", and to the priesthood of his worship vv." ", would admirably apply. More. over, he recovered from what seemed a fatal illness at the beginning of his reign. Bousset does not wholly reject the hypothesis that a Caligula apoca- lypse underlies this chapter (Komm. pp. 433–5). Other interpretations of the number 666 must here be passed by, though Gunkel's ‘the chaos of old may be mentioned. The number does not prove, and can hardly be said to give substantial support to the identification of the beast with Nero. Beyond the unmistakable general reference to Iłome, it is hard to find history in our author's visions; and this reference had certainly been given already to the figure of the beast, and in all proba- bility by Jews. Events during the last half of the century must have led Jewish apocalyptical writers to many more expressions of their hatred of Iłome and visions of its overthrow than have sur- vived. Indeed, Pompey is already called the dragon in Ps-Sol 2" (see Assump. Mos., 4 Ezra, Apoc. Bar). Our author and the Christian communities for which he writes have reason to share the Jewish hatred of Rome, and enter into the inheritance of various Jewish expressions of it. Our author has, as it were, eaten the book of past prophecies against peoples and nations before he utters his own. The ancient language has, "as we have seen, often the value of poetry to him ; but it is impossible, though we might wish it, to refer the polemic against Rome only to sources used by our author, or to resolve it into a figure of the war against evil in general. iv. HISTORICAL SITUATION.—We have already seen that the date of separate oracles in our book cannot be assumed to be the date of the book as a whole. 111-1% is from some time before 70, but is not literally used by our author. The figurative application of this oracle to the safe keeping of the true people of God would be more natural after the event of 70 had disproved its literal sense. Ch. 13 may have been shaped in Caligula's reign, or soon after Nero's death. 17” must have been written under the sixth emperor of IRome, i.e. Nero, count- ing from Julius Caesar, or his successor, counting from Augustus, but Nero's successor might be regarded as Galba, or as Vespasian. That one more emperor is expected only shows that the number seven is fixed ; and that he is to reign a short time could be inferred from the nearness of the end, and does not require the knowledge on the writer's part that the reign of Titus was in fact short. Iłut if v.” comes from Vespasian's reign (and so is consistent with 11”), must not v.” have been added by some later hand 2 The writer, it would seem, already lives under the eighth emperor (Domitian), and adds this verse in order to adjust what was written under Vespasian (v.”) to his own time by so adding an eighth as not to overpass the fixed number, seven. On the basis of this verse Harnack (Chronologie, p. 245 f.) confidently dates the book under Domitian. Yet it is possible that the writer of v.19, under Vespasian, expected the return of Nero, one of the seven, as an eighth, who, coming back after death out of the alyss, could be regarded as the very demon spirit of Rome, the REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF 259 beast itself. But even if, in this way, with Bousset, we date ch. 17 as a whole under Wes- pasian, this also may be the date only of a source. Though historical allusions do not ſix the date, Yet, taken in connexion with other indications of age, the date ascribed to the book by Irenaeus (v. xxx. 3), “near the end of the reign of Domitian,’ §.e. about A.D. 93–96, is to be preferred to that which was for some time the ruling view of critics, A.D. 66–69 (Lücke, Bleek, etc.). It is not in Sections clearly dependent upon apocalyptical tradition, but in those more original, and especially in the letters, that we should conſidently expect to find indications of the author's own time. In spite of the ideal and typical significance of the seven Churches, actual conditions unquestionably meet us here. Persecution past and future forms the background of the letters. The writer was (not is) in the little island of Patmos “on account of the word of God and on account of the testimony of Jesus,’ i.e. probably not in order to receive his revelation (cf. 1°), †: because of his Christian reaching (cf. 6”), that is, in banishment (see 1*). ut the banishment of a conspicuous Christian seems to disclose a definite movement against Christianity in Asia Minor on the part of irome such as we do not know of before Domitian. There are persecutions already past (Ephesus, 2"; Pergamum, 2*, had its martyr; Philadelphia, 38: 10"; in Smyrna and Philadelphia at the hands or at the instigation of Jews, 2" 3"); yet this past per- secution could be that under Nero. A renewed and greater trial, of world-wide scope (3"), is soon to come. At present the IRoman world tempts rather than compels Christians to adopt a heathen manner of life and heathen worship. (Is this present uiescence in the writer's mind when he says that the beast “was, and is not ; and is about to come up out of the abyss, and go into perdition’ (17°) 2) Imprisonment and death are anticipated for the faithful, and for this the letters, indeed the whole book, will prepare them. Its theme is the glory and reward of martyrdom. The heretical teach- ings which are condemned in Pergamum (the teach- ing of Balaam) and in Thyatira (that of Jezebel) result in heathen ways of living rather than in doctrinal errors, though they seem to have based their worldliness on some sort of gnosis (2*). It is uncertain whether ‘Nicolaitan’ was the proper name of this sect (possibly derived from the NICOLAS of Ac 6°) or only the Gr. name for Balaamites (so Schürer, who appeals to the vikm of Jos. Amt. IV. vi. 6). Schürer argues with much force that JEZEBEL was the priestess of the Chaldean Sibyl, Sambethe, who had a sanctuary at Thyatira (Theol. Abhandl. C. von Weizsäcker gewidmet, 1892, pp. 37–58). To this hypothesis it has been objected (Bousset, Zahn) that the impression is given that she is directly under the discipline of Christ (vv.”), that the church is at fault for allowing her (v.”), and that the spliere of her activity is the Christian community (ww.” ”), so that a false Chris- tian prophetess rather than a heathen is indicated. The wife of the bishop (Zahn) she surely need not be. Satan's throne in PERG AMUM (2*) may refer to the worship of Asklepios there, whose symbol was the serpent, or to the fact that here emperor- Worship was first introduced, with temple and priesthood. The latter would better ex ºn the martyrdom of ANTIPAS (unless he were §. by a mob), and would better fit the figure of the Second beast (13”) Caesar-worship was Rome's Worst deed, and resistance to it was that overcoming even to death which our book urges by entreaty, threat, and promise (15° 16'ſ. 19 170 1920, 201-9). Although the effort to force emperor-worship upon Jews goes back to Caligula (A.D. 39–40), the total impression is that of a late, not an early time. To the actual destruction of Jerusalem there is no reference. The condition of the churches (forgetful. ness, indifference, worldliness) points to a relatively late time. . It seems necessary to suppose that St. Paul's position as founder and unquestioned leader of the church in Ephesus is a thing entirely past. That church has had a new founding (Weizsäcker). If 17* expresses the belief in the return of Nero from hell, this is a late form of the belief in his return, after the possibility of his being alive had passed. v. TEACHINGS OF THE BOOK.—1. Predictions.— The question what the author of Rev. intended to Say about the future (and it was to reveal future things that he wrote, 1' 4" etc.) is complicated by the difficulty of distinguishing between the meaning of his sources and his meaning in the use of them, and the related difficulty of distinguishing between figure and reality in his use of language. That all is literal our discussion thus far makes it impossible to admit. Are we prepared, with the spiritual interpreters of all ages, to say that all is figure (as now Milligan, Benson, etc.)? Or shall we say, ‘Rev. is not a poem, an allegory, but the figurative alternates with that which is to be taken very earnestly and literally ; the latter much predominates’ (Jülicher, Eiml. 172)? Our review of the writer's use of OT and other materials must rather incline us to put the predominance on the other side. (a) General.-The undoubtedly real elements in our writer's prediction are the speedy coming of God (1° 14' 21") in judgment, with or in the coining of Christ as judge and ruler of the world (17227. *). This coming Christ will divide true from false Christians, and reward each according to his deeds (2* 22°). Through Him also God will judge and destroy the tempting and oppressive power of evil dominant in the world, the lèoman empire (19**), and Satan himself, whose authority Rome pos- sesses, whose spirit Rome embodies (ch. 20). All who belong to her shall perish with her. Those who hold fast the faith during the present tribula- tions and the greater ones soon to come, and who endure in patience and faith even to death itself, shall be rewarded with special glory and power, and especially close association with Christ and His royalty (6* 14'-' 20"). But the destination to be with Christ and God in blessed and eternal near- ness and fellowship is at last for all the faithful alike (27. 11. 17, 26-28 35. 12. 21 (cf. 20) 510 790. 1419 21–225, 14). (b) Details. – Turning to details, we have to attempt to draw the line between figure and reality, especially in reference to the fall of the power of evil, and the events that lead up to it, the saving of the faithful and the heavenly or angelic background of the action. (1) The fall of Rome.—In the first half of the book six seals and six trumpets bring forth the preliminary powers and acts of the Divine judgment over evil. But neither in their special character nor in their sequence do they make the impression of describing literal events. The ſlrst four seals introduce horsemen who are derived, one can hardly doubt, from Zec 18-11 Gl-8, and so ultimately from the four winds, well ſitted to serve as destructive messengers of God. They are summoned forth by the four living creatures,” who were originally the four winds driving the storm-cloud, God's chariot (lºzk 14 etc.). In 71 the four winds are destructive forces, and since in 914. 15 four angels are loosed which then appear as hosts of cavalry (cf. 208), we may infer that the four winds sym- bolized the nations that are to execute the l)ivine judgment in some final war (cf. the use of the winds as symbols of Israel's dispersion, Ezk 510 1214 1721, Zec 26 714). Of the four seals, however, two introduce warriors (Romans and Parthians?), and two famine and pestilence. A fourfold enumeration of the plagues which God will send upon II is people in the last days is found in the Prophets (Jer 152, 3, Ezk 1421, cf. 512, 17), and quoted in Rev. 68b, H * It is less natural to suppose that John is addressed, for he is already there, and needs only to look. # It is tempting to suppose that this originally ended the description of the four horsemen, and explained that to each of them was given a fourth of the earth to destroy (cf. Ezk 512). 260 REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF The fifth seal discloses the prayers of the martyrs for vengeance, which are a real agent of judgment in the Hebrew view (see below). The sixth is an earthquake. Earthquake and volcanic phenomena furnish the imagery of the first four trumpets, and, in part, of the fifth and sixth. J. T. Bent (“What St. John saw on Patmos, Nineteenth Cen- tury, 1888, pp. 813–821) argues that 612-1787-121627.17-21 describe actual phenomena, seen at the eruptions of the island volcano, Santorin, within sight of Patmos; and that 91", 17. § are poetic amplifications of the same theme. Much in Bent's article is fanciful, yet the imagery, esp. of Rev 8, fits Santorin well (see Rouqué, Santorin et ses éruptions, 1879, º: pp. 22–31, 38 ft.). Nothing could be more like the pit of the abyss than the crater of this volcano, and nothing better fitted to suggest demonic agency than the smoke darkening sun and air, the sulphurous vapours which killed the fish in the sea, and blinded ...? even killed men, the masses of molten rock cast up and falling into the sea like a great mountain or the star Wormwood, the reddening of the sea, the rise and disappearance of islands (see also B. K. Emerson, Bulletin of the Geol. Socic: / of America, March 1900). But Santorin is 80 miles from Patmos. Only the highest points of the island Thera, and the smoke of the erup- tions, could have been seen. Bent refers for details to reports of º: Eruptions took place in B.C. 197 and A.D. 46 (Rouqué, . 3–9). *\ºnt must be taken of OT parallels. Hühn finds the follow- ing parallels with the Egyptian plagues:—(1) Ex 717-21, cf. Rev 88-il 163.5 ; (2) Ex 727-82, cf. Rev 1618; (6) Ex 08:11, cf. Rev 162; (7) Ex 01820, cf. Rev 87 1119 1621; (8) Ex 104-15, cf. Rev 93-11; (9) Ex 1021-23, cf. Rev 812 91.2 1610. Prophetic Fº like Is 2, An 88.9, Jl 22-10. 30.31 315, 10, Is 1310, 13 344. 9. 10 etc., are to be adduced ; and poetic descriptions of the coming of God, in which the imagery of storm (Ex 1910tt) is connected with that of earthquake and volcano, Jg 54.0, Ps'187-15 etc. Was earthquake more than a symbol in our writer's eschat- ology 2 Was it the literal power that was to overthrow Rome, and even destroy the present world (cf. 614 with 211)? The fifth trumpet begins with volcanic imagery (91. 2) and passes on to locusts, which at the end seem to symbolize warriors (99.11). The sixth trumpet begins with armies of horsemen, but the powers by which the horses kill men are the volcanic powers of fire and smoke and brimstone (918-21). The bowls lead more directly to the fall of Rome. Following the same order as to place as the trumpets (1. earth; 2. Sea ; 3. rivers; 4. sun ; 5, under-world (?); 6. Euphrates), with fewer volcanic features in the first ſive, and a somewhat closer relation to the Egyptian plagues, they lead up in the sixth to an invasion of distant kings, and in the Seventh to an earthqual:e again, in which Rome's fall seems to be involved (1619). Ch. 17 seems clearly to ascribe Itome's fall to an assault of kings. But when, in 1911ſt, the beasts are over- thrown in an attack, with the kings of the earth as allies, upon Christ and His army, we are ready to ask whether both earth- quake and invasion were not figure, while this is actuality. Again, the final attempt of Satan is made by means of armies of distant nations, whom he brings against Zion, but they are destroyed, not by arms, but by fire from heaven (207-10). It is to be remembered that both earthquake and the in- vasion of barbarian hordes were very real dangers, and the most terrible that always threatened the Mediterranean civi- lizations. A seer could well look for a literal overthrow of Rome from either source, especially as prophetic eschatology had already made free use of both, * that with the same blending of the two that is found here (see, e.g., Zeph 116-18, Jl 21-11, Hag 221. 22, Is 13(10. 13) 34 (4.9. 10), and could easily enlarge either into a world-embracing catastrophe. Yet either or both would also serve admirably as ſigure for events and forces supernatural (demonic and angelic) in character. And the more freely our author passes from one to the other, and ... blends the two, the more probable is it that he means neither. (2) The saving of the faithful.—Here also details are difficult to adjust in a literal scheme, and the acceptance of a largely poetical form of representation is almost, inevitable. Twice the “souls' of the martyred dead are spoken of (60.20%), and here only in the NT do we read of the “souls’ of the dead. Once they are seen in heaven (?, see Spitta, pp. 89, 296ff.) beneath the altar, where the blood of a sacrifice would be (Ex 2012, Lv 47 etc.), in which the soul was seated according to Heb, notions (LV 1711). They are praying for vengeance, and are given a white robe, and bidden to rest a little longer, since their number is not yet full. Does the writer think of the souls of martyrs as literally in this location, or does he thus vividly picture the reality and eſticacy of their prayers for vengeance, pictured otherwise in 68 and 83.5% (cf. 4 Ezr 490). Cf. the cry of the uncovered blood of the slain to God for vengeance (Gn 410, Ezk 247ſ., Job 1018); also the effective prayers of the oppressed (Ex 2223ſ., Dt 90 2419, Sir 35.13ſ., Ja 54); sometimes angels are the bearers of such prayers (Zec 112, To 1212. 15). See esp. Enoch 9. 152 225 403 471.2 97% B 999 1049. When they are seen again it is said that they lived and reigned with Christ for the 1000 years. As 8owls, then, they were not truly living, but this life is due to a resurrection (20:1:0). On the other hand, in 79-17 the martyrs—or perhaps rather all who have kept the faith amid tribulation (v. 14)—appear in their white robes in heaven, joining with angels in the worship of God, in a glory and blessedness which can be nothing ſess than final. And yet the description of the consummation in 21–225, 14, 15 has not, this setting (the heavenly throne of God, the elders, and living beings and angels), but is simply earthly (after the OT) in its features. In the former passage the Saints are with God, in this -us God descends to be with men (218.22ſ.). We note also that there are still ‘the kings of the earth' who can bring their treasures to the new Jerusalem (2124-20); and though there shall not enter into it anything unclean (2127 = Is 521 etc.), yet outside of the city gates are the wicked º whose part, however, according to 218, is in the lake of fire, the second death. The earthly features of the new Jerusalem in the new earth are especially strange in a chiliastic eschatology. We should expect the 1000-years' reign of Christ and the martyrs to fulfil the earthly Messianic hopes of prophecy, and the final consulunia- tion should be heavenly. Zahn actually holds, accordingly, that 219–220 (10) is a description not of the final blessedness, but of the condition of the world during the 1000-years' reign. There is, in fact, no escape, from this violent, conclusion, no way of harmonizing this picture with that of 70:17, and with the condition of things implied in 1919-21 2011-15 211, except by taking it throughout as poetry. It is in form an almost purely Jewish description of what is to our author a Christian and heavenly consummation. It has always been used as poetry by Christians, and, so used, has proved inspiring, The hope of this writer has often been declared to be narrowly Jewish-Christian, and Vischer and others have felt that the only way in which justice can be done to the evident univer- sality and spirituality of some parts of the book is by separat- ing it into independent parts. Undoubtedly, the Jewish lan- É. is due to Jewish writers. E.g. 71-8 suggests that Jewish Jhristians form the nucleus of the new community, and retain a sort of separateness and primacy, while the multitudes from other nations are added to them. So in 111-18 Judaism appears to be only chastened for its sins; but the great majority repent and are saved. And, finally, the new Jerusalem remains Jewish (2112). Its gates are for the tribes of Israel who enter into the city, while believing nations walk by its light, bring gifts to it, but do not dwell within its walls; are healed by the leaves of its trees of life, but do not eat their fruit (2124–222).” But in spite of the writer's high valuation of the name ‘Jew’ (2939), and in spite of a certain parallel for such a doctrine of the eschatological primacy of Jews in the expectations of St. Paul (Ro 11), it appears quite certain to the present writer that Rev. knows no such distinction ; that in 71-8 and 111-13 it is no longer Judaism, but Christianity, the true “Jews’ and heirs to Israel's promises, to whom the writer applies undoubtedly Jewish oracles, and that the Jewish language in chs. 21. 23, wholly borrowed, as it is, ſrom the OT, is used as poetry to picture the heavenly blessedness of Christians. (3) The fall of Satan,—In chs, 12–20 the distinction be- tween fact and figure in our writer's predictions is involved especially in the question how he conceived of the angelic and demonic beings whose deeds and fortunes form the background of the action. Here we read of the birth and ascension of Christ ; , Satan and his angels cast out of heaven by Michael and his hosts; the persecution of Christians by Satan through the beasts who represent Rome's empire and cultus; the fall of Rome introduced by last plagues (15. 16), described in symbol (17), and in prophetic language (18); the overthrow of the two beasts and their followers by Christ; the binding of Satan; the 1000-years' reign of Christ and risen martyrs; the loosing of Satan, who with a great army (Gog and Magog) assails the id: city and is destroyed ; the general resurrection and judgment, when Death and Hades, with condemned men, are cast into the lake of fire, where the beasts and Satan are. In this outlook one thing which must be taken literally is the fall of Rome. Even if Jews in large part shaped the various oracles against the godless city, our writer could not have put chs. 17, 18 into his book, if he had not meant to say what is there so unmistakably said, nor can 13, 148 1619 have any other meaning. But the judgment upon Rome, which forms the concrete historical contents of chs, 12–20, is set in a frame, or double frame, of deeds in the angelic world. Chs. 12 and 20 form the outside setting, or, shall we say, the underlying stratum, the real cause and end of evil. The fall of Satan from heaven, his last assaults upon men (Christians), his imprison- ment in the abyss, his release and last onslaught and final over- throw, are the events that ultimately explain the evil of the present, and bring evil to its absolute encl. Chs. I5 and 1911-21 form the inner framework about the historical reality or the upper stratum, just below the surface of observed facts. The two beasts are not identical with the Roman empire and emperor-worship, but are the representatives of these in the Spirit-world ; they are not an abstract symbol of Rome, but a concrete (personal) embodiment of Rome. They are demonio beings, pictures of the evil spirit-power of lèome. This is }. the correct view of the beasts in Dn 7 also, since °rofessor N. Schmidt (JI}L, 1900, part i.) has made probable the identification of the ‘one like a man' with the angel prince of Israel, the Michael, who is described as gaining Israel's victory over the angel representatives of the nations (chs. 10–12). That the beasts are angelic beings is suggested by the demons that come out of their months (1913. 14), and by the diſference between their punishment and that of the armies that ſight for them (1920, 21). Iłut though distinct from Rome the beasts are not apart from it. We mistake the Jewish idea of the angelic counterpart if we give it independent significance. The benst's W.". is I&ome's power, and Rome's fall is the fall of the beast, ſet the two are not one, and it is possible that the writor used the figure of ch. 17 to express his belief that IRome was to fall at the hand of its own evil genius, by the fruits of its own Bin. It was the woman sitting on the beast, against whom the * Baur, Iloltzmann, et,5. REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF .261 r— peast itself would at last turn in hatred. The demonic nature of the beast is here quite clear. The actual Satanic power in the writer's experience was Rome, and his hope was for its fall ; but though it was the agent and embodiment of Satan’s natred and power against God's people, yet its fall will bring bnly the binding, not the destruction, of Satan. He has other resources, and will be given an opportunity to make one more effort before the end comes. he arrangement of material compels us to regard the threefold judgment upon Satan, one past (connected with Christ's birth and ascension), two future, a preliminary binding connected with the fall of Rome, and a final destruction, as expressing realities in the author's mind no less than the fall of Rome itself, to which he gives a definite lace in this larger drama of the Christian conquest of evil. É. reality need not mean materiality. Caution is needed in interpreting the angelology of our book. We have already observed how little actuality, apart from Christ, has the angel who speaks for him (e.g. 220ſ.). In the letters we have messages from Christ to the Churches, but in form they come from the angel who represents Christ, through John, to the angels who represent the Churches. In spite of the difficulty of supposing that John and his writing must mediate between two angels, it remains probable that the angel of the Church is a real angel, conceived not as ruling over the Church, not as its heavenly guardian, but as its heavenly counterpart, personating its actual character, and hence worthy of praise and blame, not different from the Church itself ideally of abstractly conceived. John's writing of the message of the Christ-angel is, of course, for the sake of the actual Church, which is really addressed (note the use of the second person singular). It can be spoken of as a writing to the angel, in accordance with the heavenly setting of the vision, only because the angel is the heavenly presence and personal representation of the actual Church in its actual character. Against the contrary arguments of Zahn and others it remains that “angel’ is used throughout the book in the literal sense, and that no human official could be so completely identified with the Church. The intervention of John's book between two angels does not prove that they were not angels, but reveals the sense in which our writer ascribes reality to them. In order rightly to estimate the significance of the angelic and demonic framework or background of our writer's pre- dictions we should study its history, for it is no free invention or original insight of his. This eschatology, with its union of earthly (political) and unearthly (angelic) beings and events has far-reaching roots, and one would need a far more complete re- view than can here be attempted of the angelology, demonology, and eschatology of the OT and of Judaism in order to view it in the right light. In this picture are blended many elements from originally independent sources of which the history can only imperfectly be traced. Gunkel has done a very great service in his study of the history of the Babylonian myth of the creation of the world by the slaying or binding of the chaos beast, the dragon of the deep, by the god of light. He has shown how in the OT certainly (Is 510ſ. 271, Dn 7, etc.), and not improbably in Babylonia, this cosmological myth became eschatological, the last things were to be like the flrst, the dragon was to rise in a new conflict against God and be again overcome before the new creation. He has also shown how this myth, though retaining features of its original sense, the conception of creation as the binding and confining of the ocean (cf. Pr. Man 3, ‘who has bound the sea by the word of thy'commandment ; who hast shut up the deep and sealed it by thy terrible and glorious name,’ with Rev 9 208), became, especially in its eschatological use, a figure of the world- kingdom that oppressed the people of God. Its future assault would be literally by war, not by tempest (see the union in Dn 71). It is evident how perfect an expression of this final form of the dragon-myth is contained in i. words, “the beast that thou sawest was, and is not ; and is about to come up out of the abyss, and to go into perdition' (Rev 178). But this leads us over to an idea not Babylonian in origin, that the gods of the nations are angels (demons) (Dt 419 328 LXX, Sir 1714), and that these angels of the nations are responsible for their sins against Israel. Daniel contains this idea in a developed form. The beasts which in ch. 7 suggest the chaos dragon in his late eschatological and political form, give place in chs. 10–12 to angel princes of the nations whom Israel's prince, Michael, is to overthrow. So also in the late apocalypse, Is 24–27, the Baby- lonian dragon of the deep (here three monsters probably stand for three nations) is to º slain by God in the last judgment (271); but before this (or parallel to it) is the punishing of the angelic counterparts of earthly kings, and, very significantly, their imprisonment for a time in the pit before their final º (242). 22). That the coming day of J” includes a eavenly judgment over these spiritual powers of the world- kingdoms, is seen also in Is 344, 5, PS 82. 58 (?). Both in Is 2421, cf. 19, 20, and in 344, 5 carthquake phenomena are the manifest sign of this judgment upon angel beings. That Persian eschat- ology influenced Jewish at this point is quite beyond serious uestion. (Sec esp. Stave, Parsismvus, p. 145ff.). There we ind the conception of a struggle between good and evil spirit owers, becoming especially severe at the end when the Satanic eader, Angra Mainyu, assails the abode of Ahura Mazda, the good god. He is overthrown, either by the god himself or by the Parsee Messiah, Soshyos, and is held in imprisonment for a time before he is destroyed. The resurrection and the creation of the new heaven and earth are additional elements in the Parsee eschatology parallel to the Jewish. The idea of the fall of Satan from heaven through an ambitious attempt to be like God is used poetically in application to the fall of Babylon in IS 141*10, with evident allusion to a myth describing the failure of the morning star to mount the eastern sky. See also Secrets of Enoch 294, 5, and cf. Enoch 684. 5. The Bk. of Daniel introduces a further element, the essential embodiment of the denomic power of evil in a man (Antiochus IV.). This human, not simply national, incarnation of the ower of Satan may have had an important history in Jewish hought before it comes to light in the early Christian ex- pectation of Antichrist (2 Th 23-12, 1 Jn 218, A13. 16, etc.; cf. Apoc., Bar 40l. 2). Bousset (Der Antichrist, 1895) has made probable the Jewish origin of this conception as an outgrowth or, modification of the Babylonian dragon myth, probably originating with Daniel. Another line of development connects itself with Gn 61-3, and is found in combination with some of those already traced in Enoch 1–36, 83–90. The points of contact with Rev. here are close enough to deserve a more careful scrutiny. The Book of lºnoch (ch. 6 f.) contains an account—probably the blending of two accounts—of the fall of angels from heaven, on the basis of Gn 61-3, and of the binding of their leader (Azazel or Semjaza) by one of the four archangels in darkness beneath rocks or under the hills of the earth, with his associates. At the last judgment they are to be taken thence and east into the abyss of fire (104-0. 9:18). If they had not been bound, man would have perished from the earth (107). But though the greater owers of evil are chained, lesser powers, the evil spirits, half uman, proceeding from their sons, the giants, continue, and to them disease and all sorts of evil are ascribed. In the dream vision of chs. 83-90 the same conception is found. Here we read of the fall of a star from heaven and then of other stars (86l. 8), and of the violent deeds of their sons. Then one of the four great angels binds in an abyss the first star that fell, and his followers likewise (88.1. 8). This is before the Flood. During the whole º of human history these fallen angels lie boun in the earth ; but the evils under which Israel groaned are due to the misdeeds of the ‘seventy shepherds.” These are angel representatives of the kingdoms to which the Jews were in sub- jection from the Exile onwards (8959ſt.), who transgress their com- mission as chasteners of Israel. At the last judgment the stars that first fell are brought before God, then the seventy shep- herds, and all are cast into the same abyss of fire (90*125, so 1004). Into a like abyss, but not the same one, apostate Israelites were cast (9020). Then the old house (Jerusalem) was taken away, and the new house was brought and erected by God (97.37:20). Certain points of likeness between this apocalypse and Rev. are evident : the two sorts of angelic powers of evil, Satan and his angels accounting for the evil of the world in general, and angels of the nations explaining the particular and present sufferings of the Jews. But the binding of Satan in the abyss is at the beginning of human history, not at the beginnin of the Messianic reign. The idea that evil angels are .# under the earth may well have been an inference from the phenomena of earthquake and volcano, cf. e.g. Enoch 674ff. The same conception, depending on Enoch, though with varia- tions, is found in later parts of 12noch (301, 2a 541-0 67–60), in Bk. of Jub., ch. 5, Secrets of Enoch 187 (cf. chs. 7. 18. 20), Jude 6, 2 P 24. In Enoch 1811–2110 the fallen and imprisoned angels are seven stars that transgressed the commandment of God by not rising at the appointed time ; and though ch. 19 declares them to be the angels of Gn 61-8, one suspects a different origin, namely, in planets or meteors. The possibility of Greek influence on the eschatology of Enoch is not to he denied (I)ieterich, Nekyia, 1803). º; the eschatology of Rev 12–22 with these earlier OT and Jewish conceptions, we are struck most of all by the free union of elements of an originally diverse origin. Ch. 12 stands nearest to the Babylonian myth, even though one hesitate fo adopt Gunkel's bold reconstruction. The dragon is a water beast (v.19). He is cast out of heaven with his host by Michael, in a war which can have been nothing but an effort to dispossess God. But his fall here follows the birth and ascension of Messiah ; and by this change of order which appears to have been due to our John himself, what was a history of the world became a history of Christianity, and the fundamental victory over evil, upon which hope rests, was not that effected by God at creation, but that achieved by Christ through His resurrec- tion. In 91-11 the allusions to the demonic powers, with Apollyon at their head, who are confined in the abyss, seem to rest on a wholly different conception, The Satan of chs, 12 and 20 is certainly more than a repre- sentative of Rome, and these two chapters must be intended to put the present evil power and its coming fall into relation to an ultimate principle of evil, which l{ome only for a time em- bodies. Through the birth and ascension of Christ, a victory has been achieved over the power of evil in heaven. After Rome's fall, there still remains a final victory to be achieved over the power of evil in the world. So much we may safely say the writer intends in a literal sense. (4) The thousand years.—This leads to the question of the significance to him of the 1000-years' reign of Christ and the martyrs. It is a part of the last conflict against evil. While Satan is bound in the abyss, Christ and II is saints reign over the world, subduing the remaining powers of evil. It is true that in Jewish apocalypses the idea of a temporary earthly reign of Messiah (or of Israel) arose in the effort to conceive of the final consummation in more transcendental, heavenly terms, and yet provide for the literal fulfilment of the national, earthly hopes of Israel. In Enoch 01 Messiah does not appear, but an earthly Messianic age is followed after a flnal judgment by a consumma- tion of heavenly character. In 4 Ezr 7 Mlessiah has to do only with the earthly kingdom, not with the heavenly which follows it after 400 years. But in l8ev. the 1000 years has no such significanee. Our writer does not need it for the literal fulfilment of the 262 REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF earthly and national features of the prophetic hope, for he uses these freely in a figurative sense of the new heaven and earth (21, 22). He does not need it in order to give Messiah His rights, for the Lamb is still on the throne in the final consummation (2129, 28 221, 8). Holtzmann, indeed, declares that the idea that this 1000-years' reign is a period of peace and rest is the only roper enrichnent of Biblical theology in our book, since in St. Paul the interval between the coming of Christ and the consummation is a period of the progressive conquest of evil (1 Co 1520.28). But where in Rev. is the suggestion that peace and rest characterize the 1000 years? It is laere also a reigning of Christ, and the reward of martyrs is a share in His power. St. Paul expresses the common expectation of the Christian's part in this reign of Christ in 1 Co 62.3. There is every reason to suppose that judging and ruling characterize the 1000 years in Revelation. The difference between this first resurrection and the second is not the diſference between a preliminary earthly and a final heavenly rest. I'or the final consummation, as we have seen, is described by our author in thoroughly earthly (Messianic) terms poetically taken. It is the difference between ower and blessedness. In other words, the 1000-years' reign i. corresponds closely to the Jewish expectation of the time when the sword of justice and vengeance should be in the hands of the righteous (Enoch 91129019.84, cf. 953. 7961 9812 994.0 9916–1003 385, Dn 722). In Rev 220, 27.321 the rule of those who overcome is promised ; but is this more literally meant than the other promises (27, 17 etc.)? In 16510 it seems to be said that Christians are already a kingdom and priests reigning on the earth. The brief episodal treatment of the 1000 years in 204-8 as part of the account of Satan's overthrow, prevents our giving it the significance in the writer's mind that has often been given to it. The possibility cannot be wholly excluded that it stands here because it stood in some account of Satan's overthrow, which our author adopted, as he did so much else, for its general meaning, not for its detail. We shall perhaps be better able to estimate its meaning to him as we turn from his predictions to his religious conceptions. It is certain that the overcoming with which John is most concerned is first Christ's overcoming of sin through His death and exaltation, then the Christian overcoming of the evil life and false worship of the world and its hatred and persecutions, by patience and faith even unto death. And this 3..."; is so referred to in the midst of the description of Satan's fall from heaven (1211), and of the fall of Rome (1714), that we wonder after all at the end whether this is the reality and those the figure; whether, not of course originally but to our writer,-the one who inserted such verses as these, this did not express their real meaning. It is certain that he believed chiefly in the triumphant vindication of Christian faith, both in the case of individuals who endured unto death, and of the world which was now in the power of evil. The conviction that death could only bring the faithful soul to its God, and that the future could only see God and Christ manifestly enthroned over the universe, our author held with all the intensity of his being, and expressed in all the variety of form with which the literature of hope furnished him, without too much anxiety about formal consistency. That Christ's conquest of evil involved the fall of Rome, but that the fall of Rome was not the end of evil itself, but the beginning and guarantee of its end, we may also regard as secure. 2. Jºeligious ideas (theology) of Revelation.— The biblico-theological study of Rev. should pro- ceed, according to the modern view of this dis- cipline, largely by the comparative method. We are not to assume that the author had a theology of his own ; and we are most concerned to know the sources and influence of the Christian ideas of the book, and how they fit into the history of Christian thought. This is far more an average book, that is, an embodiment of average beliefs and hopes, than the letters of St. Paul or the Gospel of St. John. It expresses the faith and the temper of Christianity in the early years of its conflict, its struggle for existence against a hostile world. As its message is one of a speedily coming judgment and deliverance, its underlying tº will goucern the persons through whom, and the way in which, salvation is to be effected. God and Christ, redemption past and to come, are its themes. The general conception of the deliverer and the deliverance, will be determined by the concepticn of the evil from which men desire to be delivered. The theology of our author will be fundamentally determined by the question whether he conceives of the evil chiefly as political or as religious. The answer to this question is not altogether easy. Although Rome now embodies the spirit of evil itself, and is endowed with its authority, yet on the one hand it is through its religion that its evil power is exerted (218 igum.), and on the other hand it is only a temporary repré. sentative of the ultimate evil power, the Devil and Satan, the destroyer (91*), the deceiver of the whole world (12"), the real persecutor of the saints (12**"). Titius is doubtless, on the whole, right in suggesting that the political view of evil and salvation seems to be offered to the writer by some of his sources, but that it is disavowed by him (Die newtest. Lehre von der Seligkeit, iv. 35); yet the case is not, wholly clear, and the central problem in the interpretation of the Christianity of the book lies just here. The fall of Rome would seem to be a chief act in that Divine judgment which is to bring blessedness to the faithful. But this Jewish ‘apocalyptical connexion of politics and religion’ is not the teaching of the book as a whole, otherwise Christ's person and work, and the Christian conduct and }. must have been determined by the goal of political world-ruler. ship. It is not, indeed, decisive that ‘the conduct of the faithful is not political, but is characterized exclusively by patience (131° 14”)’ (Titius); for this is true also in the Blº. of Daniel, the occasion of which, like that of IRev., is not war, but religious persecution. Here literal world-rulership is un- questionably hoped for, and yet the conflict with the beast, as in Rev., ‘is carried on, on the one side by executions, and on the other by quiet martyrdom' (cf. I)n 11”). Many Jews expected that world-rulership was to come to them through God's direct intervention, upon purely religious conditions on their part. Nor can we say with confidence that the literal world-rulership of the saints was not in our author's mind (2*, 37 32, 510 20*"). When the Roman empire is regarded as the Satanic power, it is not easy to escape the con- ception of a kingdom of the saints which shall literally displace it. Nevertheless, it remains true that for our author the ultimate evil power is not Rome but Satan, and that the final struggle and victory are in the spiritual realm. It is not the world-rulership of . Iłome, but its blasphemous claims, that made it the present agent of Satan's power. Iłoth by temptation and by violence it endangered the Christian life and the Christian faith. Any power that opposed the sole worship of the one God, whether Jewish (2' 3") or IRoman (218 13" etc.), is Satanic. * (a) God.—The fundamental faith of the book is, them, that God alone is to be worshipped, since He alone is eternal and all-powerful. Monotheism is the basis on which the apocalyptical hope rests, since this is always only the hope that the real kingship of God will soon become manifest and actual. God is He who was, and who is, and who is to come (1* * 4°, cf. 1117), while the power of evil ‘ was, and is not ; and is about to come up out of the abyss, and to go into perdition' (178. 11). The difference between these two definitions saves the Christian faith which this book represents from dualism. The doctrine of God is Christianity’s great inheritance from Judaism, and is given here not only in Jewish terms, but in the Jewish spirit. God is the Creator (4” 10" 147), omnipotent [travro- kpárap] (184° 1117 15° 167. 1" 19%. 19 21% ; elsewhere in NT only 2 Co 6*), Fear, not love, is the temper of worship (14715" 19° 11”). God is indeed described as one to be feared, one whose coming self- manifestation will be in wrath and judgment (61%. 17 111° 14'-il 1, 20 157, 8 16, 1915). He is a King who is absolute in power and just in His judg- ments. This justice is His supreme quality, on which faith and hope rest (61° 15' 167 101.9). (b) Christ.—Christ is conceived as one equal to His task, which is threefold. (1) IIe is to over- throw the Tºoman empire (19**) and its allies (17”), and so is described as warrior and king, wholly in Jewish terms. He is the lion of the tribe of Judah (5", cf. 22"), with a sword in IIis REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF 263 mouth (11° 21° 1' 1915, Is 114), the destined ruler of the heathen (220t. 125 1919, Ps 29, cf. Ps-Sol 1720). (2) But since the real power of evil is not Rome but Satan, Christ must be conceived not only as the greatest of kings, ‘King of kings and Lord of lords’ (17* 1910 1"), as God is in the OT (Dn 2"), but 03 one supreme in the world of spirits. So in the first vision of Him (1*), He appears as an angelic being, like Gabriel in Dn 10, but above him, since He applies to Himself (117 28 221%) the name “the first and the last,’ which belongs to God (1° 21", Is 41° 44' 48”). He is “the living one’ (18), as God also is (4". 19 10°); the One who has already, by His resurrection, gained the mastery over those powers of evil which are the last of all to be destroyed, Death and Hades (1*, cf. 20", 1 Co 15*). The second vision of Christ (54-4*) shows still more clearly His superiority to all angelic powers, even those that stand closest to the throne of God. He only of them all can open the book of the Divine purposes. The seven spirits of God are His eyes (5%), or are in His hand (3). This elevation is His, – just as in Ph 2*, - because of His redemptive death (5'). The whole creation joins in ascribing to Him praises as to God (5*, cf. 16b. 8 710). The angel-like and God-like nature of the risen Christ is the best proof that our writer’s view went beyond the political. Such a One as this was not needed for the overthrow of Rome. Yet it is a striking fact that the victory over spirit powers of evil is not, as we should expect, expressly ascribed to Christ. The demon-beasts of Rome are taken and cast into the lake of fire, but by whom is not said (19**), though it is the sword in Christ's mouth that slays their followers (v.”). The dragon recog- nized in Christ his deadly foe (12"), but it is Michael who cast him down from heaven (127-9), “an angel” who chained him in the abyss (201-8, cf. 9"); fire from heaven devoured his hosts, and it is not said who cast him, and after him Death, into the lake of fire (201".."). So the key of the abyss is in an angel’s hand (9° 20') in spite of 118. Our writer does not feel the need of formally dis- placing the angel by Christ in these Jewish figures. Angelology had already influenced the Jewish con- ception of Messiah in Enoch 37 ff. (see 46") on the basis of Daniel. But in general Michael retained his place as Israel’s heavenly representative, defender, priestly intercessor. 13ousset suggested (Der Antichrist, p. 151) that Jewish speculations about Michael may have influenced early Chris- tian ideas about Christ, and Lueken (Michael, Göttingen, 1898) has made the hypothesis probable. In our book, however, Michael is not displaced, but performs one of his chief functions (127"); on the other hand, the worship of angels is expressly forbidden (191° 22°, 9); and Christ is, with .*. spite of 1919 .."." God’-- the object of the worship of angels and men alike. While angels are classed with men, Christ is classed with God; and various titles and expressions carry us beyond not only the Messianic but also the angelological speculations of Judaism. He is once called “the Son of God’ (21°, but see also 297 3%. 21, cf. 10 141); once, ‘the beginning of the creation of God’ (3*), as only the I)ivine wisdom is called in OT (Pr 8”), and as Christ is called only by St. Paul in the NT (Col 1"). He is called once also the Word of God (19**), and even this Johannine (Hellenistic) title is surpassed by the title of eternity, “the first and the last ’ (17 2° 22'"). Yet one hesitates to out stress on the pre-existence which these titles imply, because the resurrection so supremely marks Christ and conditions His exaltation (1* 18 28 500.). A cosmical significance and fitness to deal with the cosmical principle of evil the writer certainly wishes to affirm. He would seem almost to identify Christ and God if, as seems probable, he adds to Jewish Sources the expressions ‘and of his Christ’ (1119), ‘and of the Lamb’ (22°), without feeling the need of changing the following words to plurals. . Yet close as is the association, closer and more abiding than in 1 Co 15*, subordination remains, and is expressed in simple and unreserved fashion (1' 27 97 3****).-(3) But it is neither the world-empire, nor its demon-gods, nor Satan himself that fur- nished the clief task of Christ. The Christian community was His greatest deed. He created it by His redeeming death (1" 59. 19), and is first and last the Lord of the Churches, knowing them as they are (2” etc.), ruling them in love, but with severity (21%. 4 319), their Lord (118 1418 2220. 21). For Him the perfected community is destined as a bride (197° 212 °). Believers are His servants (11 2”), as they are the servants of God (78 107 1118 etc.). The name which most expresses what Christ is to the Christian is the “Lamb,” used twenty-nine times in the book. The figure of a lamb as if slain, i.e. with throat cut as if about to be sacrificed, the author is able to use in such a way that it gives an impression of power and excites feelings of reverence and awe. Although the Lamb slain is a striking Christian transformation of the Lion of Judah’s tribe (5*"), yet lion-like rather than lamb-like qualities remain dominant. The seven horns and the seven eyes picture kingly power and Divine knowledge. The Christian Messiah is one crucified, indeed, but nevertheless kingly and powerful, a stern warrior and righteous judge (6", 14” 17*). His place is near the throne of God (5** 7”. 17), and at last upon it (2122.28 221-8). Although the name Jesus is commonly used (1° 1217 17° 1919 20' 22"), yet the reference is to the heavenly, not the earthly life. Neither allusions to the birth of Christ (121-", cf. 5° 22'"), nor to His death (5*, cf. is 53; 17, cf. Zec 1219, I)n 719), indicate a use of the Gospel accounts. The fact of the death, however, is of vital significance. The crucifixion was the crowning sin of Jerusalem (11°), but the slaying—the blood of the Lanb-is that through which He made men a kingdom, priests, unto God (1" 5"). This effect is explained as a purchase (redemption), 5° 14*. " (cf. 1 Co 620 7*), with which the reading, Xúa'avrº Šk, in 15 (‘loosed’), would correspond. But it is also said that the redeemed had “washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb' (714, cf. 22" SA, and the less probable reading, Xota avri diró, in 1°). The figure of the slain Lamb itself pictures the fact of the atoning significance of the death, but does not give us a definite theory regarding it. It is not certain whether the Paschal lamb is in mind (Ex 12”, l Co 57), or Is 537 (as probably in Jn 1*, *). The vicariousness of Christ’s death is not indicated, and the contact with St. Paul's thought at this point seems formal rather than real. (c) The Christian life.—The divergence of the thought of our book from St. Paul becomes still more evident when we note that the white gar- ments which the redeemed wear signify moral purity (3**) . It is the duty of the Christian Church to array itself in white. The fine linen, bright and pure, is the righteous deeds of the saints (198). Such raiment can be, as it were, bought of Christ (318), or given (6* 19°); but its possession is evidently regarded more from the moral than from the ritual point of view. There is no such reflexion upon the relation of gift and duty in the Christian life as in St. Paul ; but by the side of praise for redemption by Christ's blood, is an almost legalistic conception of salvation by works. In the letters, works are required by Christ (2*, *. 19. º. 2d 3.2, 8, 15, cf. 14° 18' 20". "..." 22*, Holtzmann). They are His works (2*), the keeping of His words or commands 264 REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF (38), as well as God’s words (1*, * 1217 141* 20°), of which Jesus is a witness (1°3'4). To keep God's com- mands is to ; the testimony of Jesus (1*, * 12” 19” 20*) or His faith (141*). Pure morals (214, 20 3' 14*. ") and a pure worship (2** 13”f 14*) are enjoined, over against heathen influence; and, to keep these in such a time, patience, endurance, fidelity were the most needed virtues. ‘The patience and the faith of the saints’ (13") are closely related virtues. That faith and patience alike mean fidelity is evident (21° 14” 210° 17*). They were most mani- fest in martyrdom. As Christ, through the shed- ding of His blood, proved Himself a ‘faithful witness,’ and attained as a reward His place of power, so Christians gain the highest glory through a martyr death. Its power as an example is one of the clearest interpretations given by our author to Christ's death (see 7" 12" 3° 20'-0). The point of view of reward is that from which salvation is predominºy regarded (27 etc., ‘to him that overcometh,' 111° 22′ 71*). vi. RELATION OF RI.V. TO OTHER NT BOOKS.— 1. St. Pawl.—The question in what relation the Christology and Soteriology of Rev. stand to Paulinism is one to which a confident answer is impossible until we know better how to answer the questions both of source and of influence with reference to St. Paul's thought at these points. If St. Paul is the author of the ‘higher Christology,’ Rev. must be under his influence, and certainly the expression ‘the firstborn from the dead’ (1*) suggests Col 1* (cf. 1 Co 15*), though Bousset believes that Ps 89* (LXX) accounts for it. To the same verse, Col 1* (cf. v.”), the expression ‘the beginning of the creation of God,” points (3*). Yet these parallels are far from conclusive. Both St. Paul and Rev. exalt Christ above angels as a reward for His earthly life and death (Ph 2*, Rev 59m.). If St. Paul was the first to connect the forgiveness of sin with the death of Christ, the thought of Rev. is in some sense due to him ; but St. Paul's origin- ality at this point is an open question (1 Co 15°. "), and the effect of the death of Christ is here described in a wholly un-Pauline way. Again, the univer- sality of the gospel owed most to the championship of St. Paul, but Weizsäcker is justified in saying that in Rev. Judaism has become universalistic and free from law, not in the Pauline way, but in a way of its own. The thought of Rev 59 is that of Eph 2", but dependence is not evident. There are many points of contact between the two writers in eschatology, but none that cannot be explained from the common basis of Jewish and primitive Christian conceptions. It is not probable that we are to infer from Rev 71-8 111-18 an expectation like St. Paul's of the final repent- ance and salvation of the Jewish people (Ro Il”); it is, however, possible. St. Paul expects a literal renewal of the world (Ro 818-2°, cf. Itev 211); also (before this?) an interregnum of Christ (1 Co 15*) when He and His (6**) will overcome all powers hostile to God (Rev 20%"); the last foe to be destroyed is death (1 Co 15*, Rev 201*). It is a striking fact that while the literalness of these expectations is not to be questioned in St. Paul's case, in Rev. we feel ourselves to be everywhere on the border line between fact and figure. None of these parallels is so striking as the contrast between St. Paul's attitude towards Rome and that of Revelation (Ro 13", 2 Th 2'). Even at this point, however, we cannot think of an intentional polemic against St. Paul. Antichrist has taken on a Roman instead of a Jewish character by the course of events. The effort of Baur and Volkınar to prove the presence of an anti-Pauline polemic in i. book cannot be regarded as ...}. The Christianity of the John of Rev. is neither national nor legal in a *º Jewish sense (e.g. 59 70m, 21*, 2*, 30 21*). The absoluteness of its freedom from Judaism, i.e. of its conviction that Christians are the true Jews, is seen in the fact that it can adopt without change such thoroughly Jewish pictures as 7" 11”, taking for granted their figurative application to the Christian community. Its conception of faith and of works is neither St. Paul's nor is it aimed against St. Paul's conception. We may agree with Jülicher that the Christi- anity of l{ev. is neither Pauline nor anti-Pauline; and that, as far as one can speak of the religious conceptions of the book outside of the eschato- logical circle, they can be understood as a simple development of the primitive form in which the gospel came through Jewish believers to Jews. It must, however, be a late, not an early development. 2. The Synoptic Gospels.-The traditional de- fence of the apostolicity and truth of Rev. by the claim that it is only an elaboration of the eschato: logical teachings of Jesus, especially in Mt. 24 [–25] = Mk 13– Lk 21 + 1720-87 -- 12*, must now be reconsidered and tested in view of a growing inclination on the part of scholars to regard these chapters as due to an elaboration of the simpler teachings of Jesus regarding the future, under the influence of the eschatological conceptions, in- herited from Judaism, of which Rev. is a product and record. The parallels are, of course, unmis- takable ; but for the historical interpretation of them we must wait for further studies in the Gospels, and in the history of those traditions of the life and teachings of Jesus out of which the Gospels came. Holtzmann (Einl. 422) adduces the following parallels: Mk 137, 8–1&ew 64-8. 12, Mle 1310 = Rev 140, Mk 1313 = Rev 220, Mk 1319 = Rev 1618, esp. Mk 1324.25 = Rev 612-14 812 91.2, Mk 1320 (still more closely Mt. 2730)= Rev 17, Mk 1327 = Rev 71, Mk 1381 = Rey 614 1717 211, and apparent contrasts between Rev 111 and Mk 1314, Rev 105. 6 1415 and Mk 1332. Von Soden (Abhandlwngem, p. 132), on the basis of various arallels (Rev 1310 Lk 21:34, Rev 010 Llº 187, Rev. 610 Llº 2380, ev 33 1615 Lk 1299 [=Mt, 2443), Rev 320 Lk 1280 1415.24, Itev 119 Lk 2130, Rev 33 147. iD Lk 1299f 40, Rev. 11, 220 Lk 188, Rey 18 2210 Lk 218, Rev 199 Llº 1415, Rev 227 Lk 1128, Rev 1615 Lk 1287), regards it as probable that the Christian editor of Rev. was familiar with Luke's Gospel. He thinks (p. 158 f.), on the other hand, that Matthew used Rev. in its present form because of the parallel use of words and phrases in many passages (cf. e.g. Mt 512 Rev 197, Mt 820 Rev 2ſs, Mt 2010 2244 Rev 1714, Mt 1618 Rev 11837 91 201, Mt 2758 Rev 112 212 2219, Mt 20 Rey 117, Mt 1917 238 2820 [to keep, rºosiv, commands of Christ] 2318 Rev 1922.9, Mt. 1610 isls [xºn] Rev 19, Mt. 2652 Rev 1310, Mt. 2430 Rev 17, Mt. 24.12 Rev 24, 19 315ſ, Mt 22 Rev 121, Mt 211 Rev. 2124, Mt 210-18 Rev 124. 17). Such parallels as Holtzmann adduces between IRev. and Mk 13 are referred by von Soden and many others to common or related Jewish apocalyptical sources. 3. The Gospel and Epistles of St. John.—The relation between Rev. and the other Johannine writings has been obscured by critical attacks and apologetic defence. Zahn's extravagant statement, that the common use of the name Logos (Jn 1* *, 1 Jn 11, Rev 1919) outweighs all the irreconcilable contradictions which have been found between the ideas of Rev. and those of the other Johannine writings, is anything but conclusive, although the importance of this point of connexion is to be recognized. Even Zahn admits the difficulty of the problem presented by the difference of s/º le, but thinks that both John and Rev. betrºy a Hebrew author, and that the same man might write differently as a prophet and as a historian and teacher. It is really by appeal to a super- natural agency that Zahn reconciles the books. In the Bk. of Revelation St. John is in ecstasy and receives everything in vision, the form as well as the material (p. 614 f.). So the books are not by the same real author, after all ; and how would Zahn estimate the relative value of the work of John and that of the Spirit.” In regard to the peculiar style of Rev., with its departures, from grammatical rules, certainly in part intentional, REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF 265 tºvº perhaps in the effort to give the effect of the Hebrew prophetic style, see especially Bousset, Romm. pp. 183—208. That Rev. is not by the author of the Gospel and the l’irst Ep. of John appears to the present writer little less than a certainty. There are, indeed, ideas common to these books. We have already noticed the common use of all the Johan- nine writings by the Montanists because John pronises the prophetic spirit, and Rev. is a pro- duct of it ; and the common rejection of all by the so-called Alogi, though later opponents of Montanism were contented to reject Revelation. There are also Johannine forms of expression in Itev. (see, e.g., 3*, Jn 1799, Rev 226, 27 391, Jn 159t. 17* 20°). But so there are here Pauline forms of expression. Indeed the thought - world of our author is related to one side of St. Paul’s, while John and 1 John are related to another; and while it is not impossible that both Rev. and John pre- suppose St. Paul, between these books themselves little but contrast can be discovered, both in thought and in expression. Bousset has sought to prove a linguistic relation- ship such as to justify the belief that IRev. came from the same circles in Asia Minor from which the Johannine writings came. The John of Asia Minor was, he believes, not the apostle, but the presbyter John ; and though neither the Gospel nor the Apocalypse was written by him, Bousset Supposes that both rest in some way upon him. That the John of Asia Minor was the apostle reunains, however, still the more probable supposi- tion (see the elaborate argument of Zahn, I'or- Schungen, vi. 1900, pp. 175–217). Dut the inference that the John of lèev. must in that case be the apostle, is weakened by the observation that the apocalyptist does not speak with the authority of his own person. The authoritative author of his book is Christ. All that the author claims for himself is that he is a genuine prophet. The common idea ‘that he appears as a special authority before his readers rests on fancy” (Jülicher, }.} 176). It is not he but Christ who criticizes and commends the Churches. There remains, of course, the other possibility, that, like other apocalypses, this also is pseudonymous, issued in the apostle's name. But we should in that case conſidentl look for clear references to the apostle's experi- ences, whereas the writer regards himself every. where as a prophet, and seems to look upon the apostles from without (21*, cf. 18%). That the apostle was the author of Rev., and therefore not of John (Baur, etc.), is now urged anew, chieſl on the ground of external testimony, by B. W. Bacon (Introd. to NT, 1900); buf, though not impossible, it can never be so established as to be a weighty presupposition for the solution of the problem of the Gospel. That the writer of Rev. need not have known Jesus, remains a strong in- dication that he did not know Him. In distinction from the Gospel, the Apocalypse can be historically interpreted and estimated with- out regard to the question of its author, i.e. of its final author; but a book of this class cannot be understood at all apart from the stream of apoca- lyptical tradition out of which it comes, of which it is in large measure a product. Of its authorship nothing more than guesses can be given. Wº. the nature of the book itself and the resulting method of its interpretation it is possible to deni more positively. Conclusion.—The historical value of this book as a witness to early Christianity, and the temper and expectation with which it faced its long struggle against the world, cannot be over-estimated. The religious value of apocalypses in general lies not in their form or forecast, but in the religious faith that they express. The special religious worth of Rev. lies first of all in its Christianity and then in what results from this ; in the fact that though chiefly apocalyptical it is partly prophetic in char- acter, that though largely dependent on tradition it is not wholly without the marks of a creative spirit (Bousset, p. 11). “The book has its imperishable religious worth because of the energy of faith that finds expression in it, the splendid certainty of its conviction that God's cause remains always the best and is one with the cause of Jesus Christ; but it is unreasonable to treat the detail of its phantasies as an authentic source for a history of the past or the future’ (Jülicher, p. 168). The form of the book is uncongenial to us; but a fair historical judge will not condemn it for its form, which the age supplied, and which served the age. We shall do best justice to the form if we regard it as practically poetical. The line which must be drawn for a true appreciation of our book is not the rough line between literal and figurative speech, but the far more delicate one between pictures consciously fashioned to express spiritual realities, and visions of persons and actions literally taken, but valued for the spiritual realities that lie behind them. This is an important dis- tinction, but does not involve a fundamental con- trast. Our author is a poet, whether consciously or not, since, whether taken as word-pictures or as actualities his visions were to him, as they are to us, symbols of spiritual realities, of Christian faiths and hopes.—But, apart from form, are the faiths and hopes of the book fully Christian It is hard not to judge the hatred of Rome and the desire for vengeance as in some measure a departure from Christ. The difference between His announcement of the fall of Jerusalem and this prediction of the fall of Rome is just the deeper-lying difference between prophecy and apocalypse. Christ would not allow the kingdom of God to be put into con- trast and competition with the kingdom of Caesar (Mk 121*17). St. Paul followed His contradiction of Judaism at this point (Ro 13-7, so l P 2"-17); but the writer of Rev. seems hardly to escape altogether the Jewish confusion of religion with politics. To use the money of the realm, or rather to engage in transactions involving papers which must be attested by the official stamp (xãpayua) of the emperor (Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien, 1897, pp. 68–75), seemed to him the worship of the beast (1397). With this goes also the absence of love, and with it again the absence of hope for men. The missionary spirit of Christianity is not here. Christians are to hold fast what the have, and the sinful world will be more sinful still until its speedy destruction. . To the union of re- ligion with politics belonged, in the Jewish mind, the hope that the saints would in the end rule over the world (20+"). Whether it is possible to regard this millennial reign as taken by our author from some Jewish source for its underlying, idea, or whether we must regard him as adopting the reality with the form, through the influence of his attitude towards Rome, it is in either case impossible not to regret the influence of these verses upon Christian history. To this criticism, however, two things are to be said. One is that as events, especially the Exile, brought about the transition from pro- phecy to apocalypse in Judaism, so events put Christianity at this crisis in the attitude of self- defence against the threatened extinction of its faith at the hands of Rome. The other consideration is that it was not for its chiliastic hope, but in spite of it, that Rev. held its place in the Christian Canon; and it has not been this that has given the book its power. It is the Christianity, not the Judaism, of the book that has made and kept for it a place in 266 EEZIN REVENGE, REVENGER Christian Scriptures. It aimed to put Christ at the centre of religious faith and hope. His words are the complete Taw of God, His testimony is the full contents and inspiration of prophecy; The Churches are under His eye, and responsible only to Him. He also opens the book of God’s final purposes for mankind. His birth, death, and re- surrection began that victory of good over evil, which His coming and reign will bring to a glori- ous completion, for His coming is the coming of God. The power and abiding worth of the book is in this splendid faith, against all appearances, in the kingship of Christ and God ; in the strong hope which maintained itself amid persecution an unto death; and in the intensity of emotion through which the language, though both our ignorance and our knowledge make it in part less impressive than it was at first, has still the power, and in many passages the unimpaired power, to stir in us an answering hope and faith. LITERATURE.-The principal books in which a historical under- standing of Rev. has been furthered, and several of the im- portant articles and discussions regarding it, have been named in the course of this article. The text may be studied with the help of Weiss §: Johan. Apoc. : Teactkrit. Untersuchungen, 1801), Gwynn (The Apocalypse of St. John, 1897), and Gregory (Teact-Kritik d. NT, 1900); the older critical view (contemporary- historical) in the Commentaries of Lücke, Bleek, and Ewald. In America, Stuart's Commentary (1845) defended this general method, with some ‘church-historical’ features. Of recent critics the works of Vischer, Spitta, Gunkel, and Bousset are most de- Berving of study. The Commentaries of Bousset (Meyer's Series, 1896) and Holtzmann (2nd ed. 1893) are of the greatest value. See also the Introductions of Holtzmann, Jülicher, Zahn, and Bacon; also the LIistories of the Apostolic Age by Weizsäcker (ii. 18 ft. 161-205), McGiffert, and Bartlet; the NT' Theologies of Weiss, º; Stevens, Holtzmann, Titius (Die new test. Lehre von der Seligkeit, iv. 1900), and artt. on Apoc, by Harmack in Encyc. Brit.0 and Bousset in Encyc. Bibl. Of other books bearing in an important way upon the understanding of Rev., reference may be made again to Gunkel, Schöpfwmg wºnd Chaos (1895); Bousset, Der Antichrist (1895, in English, The Antichrist Legend, 1896); Lueken, Michael (1898); Weinel, Wirkungen des Geistes, etc. (1809). FRANK C. PORTER. REVENGE, REVENGER.—See AVENGE, and GOEL. REVEREND. —In earlier English there is no difference in meaning between ‘reverend' (from Lat. reverendus, pass. ptcp. of revereri to fear, re- vere) and reverent (through Old Fr. reverent). Only the form ‘reverend’ occurs in AV : Ps 111” “Holy and reverend is his name’ (‘p: Nº chip; LXX &ytov Kal pogepôv, Vulg. sanctum et terribile), and 2 Mac 15” “Reverend in conversation' (alóñuova Thu diráv- rmgiv, Vulg. verecundum visu, RV ‘reverend in bearing’). BV maintains the mod. distinction be- tween ‘reverend’ = to be revered, and ‘reverent ’ (as from act. ptcp.) = revering. It retains ‘reverend’ in Psiii) and 2'Maciຠand adds ºn 4s marg. (Gr. oreguós, RV “honourable ’); and it also introduces ‘reverent’ into Tit. 2” “reverent in demeanour' (év Katagrijpart lepotpetreſs, AV ‘in behaviour as be- cometh holiness’). The older versions that use the word always spell it ‘reverent ' (Bish. in Ps 111°, Gen. and Dou. in 2 Mac 15”). J. HASTINGS. REVIVE.-In some of the examples of ‘revive” in AV it is evident that the meaning is literally to come back to life from the dead (or transitively to bring back to life). Thus l K 17” “The soul of the child came into him again, and he revived ’; 2 K 13” “When the man was let down and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet'; Neh 4” “Will they revive the stones out of the heaps of the rubbish which are burned 2’; Ro 14” ‘’Christ both died, and rose, and revived.” And, even when this is not the meaning, the word carries greater force than it now bears to us. Thus Ro 7” “When the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.” Cf. Erasmus, Commune Crede, 89, “It ls more probable by the deade to understonde those a-să that have departed from theyr bodies afore the daye of judgemente (for as some as they shall be revived and risen agayne, they shall be judged) ; Lk 15* Rhem. ‘This my sonne was dead, and is revived ’; and Shaks. I Henry VI. I. i. 18– “Henry is dead, and never shall revive.” J. HASTINGS. REZEPH (nº ; B'Páqets, B* 'Páqes, A Thy ‘Pápe6, 2 K 191*; BQug ‘Páq.e6, NQ* "Pāqes, A Pá pets, Is 37*; Vulg. Roseph 2 K 191%, Reseph Is 37*).-- Mentioned in the message of the Rabshakeh of Sennacherib to Hezekiah, when demanding the surrender of Jerusalem, with Gozan and Haran, and the children of Eden which were in Telassar. The district in which this town was situated be- longed, for several centuries, to Assyria, and its name occurs, as was to be expected, many times in the Assyrian records, generally under the form Ičaşappa (also Rasapa and IRosapi). The site is now represented by Rusăfa, between Palmyra and the Euphrates, and is thought to be the Pngdºba of Ptolemy (v. 15). The earliest mention of the place in the Assyrian records is in the Eponym Canon, where we learn that Ninip - kibsi-usur, was the prefect in B.C. 839. From B. C. 804 to 774, the prefect was Igi-guba-Greš, or Ninip-öreš, who, judging from the length of his term, and the fact that he was twice eponym, must have enjoyed the confidence of his superiors to an unusual degree. Other prefects mentioned as having held the office of eponym were Sin-Šallim-anni in 747, and Bôl-ömur-anni in B.C. 737. As all the above-named prefects of Ičezeph have Assyrian names, it is very probable that they were, without exception, Assyrians. The tablet K 99.21, however, mentions a governor (bél pilati) named Abda’,” who seems to lear a native name, and probably held office at a later date than the eponyms whose names are given by the Assyrian Canon. The district was an important trade-centre in ancient times, as the tablets and lists from Nineveh show. LITERATURE.--Delitzsch, Paradies, p. 207; Schrader in Riehm, H WB, 8.w.., COT ii. 11. T. G. PINCII ES. REZIN ("ºn).—No doubt the name was origin- ally spelled fish, i.e. Rezon or leazon. The LXX 'Paago dºv (in Kings, but in Isaiah "Pagetu or "Paolv disputes the plaee) points to the o sound ; so does the Assyrian Ra-sun-nu and the Pesh. & 5. 1. From 2 K 16° and Is 71* we learn that Rezin, king of Damascus, and PEKAII, king of Israel, planned an attack on Judah. This was in the year B. c. 734. Damascus and Israel were vassal States, subject to the suzerainty of Assyria. . In III Raw. 9, No. 3, Tiglath-pileser (see Winckler, ICeilinsch. Teactb. p. 17) enumerates the articles jaid him in tribute by Ita-Sun-mºt of Damascus and enahem of Samaria. The two tributaries were now anxious to throw off the yoke. Naturally they sought to enlist the aid of their neighbour j. which, for all that appears, was at this time nominally independent of the great king. Meeting with a refusal, the connederates moved forwards against Allaz. We have no reliablo in- formation as to the earlier events of the campaign. The assertion in 2 K 16" that IRezin “recovered Elath to Syria, and drove the Jews from Elath ; and the Syrians came to Elath and dwelt there unto this day,” is obviously an error. The Syrians had nothing to do with that district, which came rather within the sphere of Edom. The original pinn (Edom) of the text has been corrupted into DYN (Aram), D'pins (Edomites) into D'pinx (Aramaeans, Syrians), and when once this was done the inger- * Probably there should be a vowel at the end ('Abda u, or perhaps, Abda'i). Cf. Nºw and its variant Tºny. REZON RHEGIUM 267 tion of the king's name, Rezin, easily followed. It should be noted that according to 2 Ch 2647 the Edomites were actively hostile to Ahaz. All, then, that we really know of the beginning of the campaign is that the two kings, of whom Rezin was the more active and powerful, advanced with their troops against Jerusalem and besieged it. Isaiah endeavoured to allay the intense alarm which this caused amongst the citizens, but his efforts did not meet with much success. Allaz, at all events, put more confidence in foreign intervention than in the prophet's assurance of Divine protec- tion. He ‘took the silver and the gold that was found in the house of the LORD, and in the treasures of the king's house, and sent it for a present,’ i.e. as tribute, to Tiglath-pileser, entreat- ing his immediate help. The Assyrian was only too delighted with the pretext for interference, His approach was the signal for the murder of Pekah by his own subjects (2 K 15"), who then accepted the great king's nominee, HOSHEA, as their sovereign : ‘I took the land of Bit-Chumria, [Beth-Omri) . . . the whole of its people. I carried away their possessions to Assyria. Pekah their king did they dethrone, and I set Hoshea to rule over them ’ (III Raw. 10, No. 2, in Winckler). Turning against Damascus, he encountered a more determined resistance. 2 IX 16" states that he “took it, and carried the people of it captive to ICir, and slew IRezin.” Iłut the Assyrian monarch himself informs us that the siege lasted more than a year. It ended in B.C. 732. Schrader (COT i. 257) says that Iławlinson found the slaying of Rezin mentioned on a block, which was unfortunately left behind in Asia and has since disappeared. Winckler (Alttest. Untersuch. pp. 74,75) identifies ‘the son of Tabeel' (Is 7°) with Rezin. He ex- plains Tabeel (Táb-El) as meaning “I’ll is wise,’ and argues from the equivalent name Eliada (1 K ll”) and from the Tab-rimmon of 1 K 15° that such a name as Táb-Jºl was not uncommon amongst the kings of this dynasty. And since ‘the son of Remaliah” in Is 7" means Pekah, he holds that ‘the son of Tāb-El’ in Is 77 means Itezin. Dan- ascus, too, being the predominant partner, the chief profit of the expedition would fall to its king. The series of Damascene kings, therefore, accord- ing to him is as follows:– Circa 050 B.C. e tº . Rezon. From about 885–844. s Bir-'idri, the Ben-hadad of the 13ible. From 844 to about 804 (?) Hazael. 804 (?)-744 (?) . e Mari’ — in the Bible, Ben- hadad. 743 (?)-7 . e e . Täb-El. '?–732 º e º e Iłczin. But the identification on which this depends is brecarious. , Obviously the periphrasis, ‘the son of Remaliah,” is intended to be contemptuous. It recalls the fact that ſ’ekalı was a usurper, entirely unconnected with the royal family. Probably, then, “the son of Tāb-El’ is also a scornful title, hurled at one who was a mere puppet in the hands of the two kings. If Táb-1}l had been a king of Damascus, it would have been no derogation to Rezin's dignity to be entitled his son. 2. In Ezr 2* = Neh 7” “the clildren of Rezin' ("Nº ºn) are mentioned amongst the Nethinim. The LXX has viol "Pagºv : the viol Aatoráv of 1 Es 5* is evidently a mere scribe's error, resulting from the common confusion of n and T. Guthe, in I(autzsch's Apokr., unhesitatingly restores the “Rezin' in this passage. J. TAYLOR. REZON (ºn ‘prince’), son of Eliada, was one of the generals of that Hadadezer, king of Zobah, whom David overthrew (2 S 8*). Falling into disfavour with his master, as David had done with Saul, he fled from him. A band of freebooters —w attached themselves to his standard ; and, begin- ning in this feelyle fashion, he eventually became strong enough to seize Damascus, where he founded a dynasty. During his own lifetime he proved a thorn in the side of Solomon (1 K 11”), and the kings who traced their descent from him were amongst the most persistent and troublesome of Israel's adversaries. The question has been raised whether Rezon is the correct name. LXXA, it is true, supports that form with "Patºv ; but B has 'Eaptºp. 1 K 1.1%), which apparently corresponds to ſingſ, to which also the Ö, * Pesh. oš2Ol may point. Moreover, the "Iſ of I K 1518 seems to occupy much the same position in the genealogy as the jin of 1 K, 11”. Hence the conjecture that |\mſ. (Hezron) should be substituted for the firl (Rczon) and the ji'ſ] (Hezion) of these two passages respectively. On the other hand, it must be remembered that the Greek for finiſ would most likely have been 'Eğptºp rather than 'Eq.; cf. 'Ately for jūji, and 'Pagetv for "y". The three kings, Hezron (our Itezon), Tab-rimmon, and Ben-hadad, must also have enjoyed very long reigns if they occupied the entire interval from David to Asa. In the absence, therefore, of absolutely conclusive evidence, we are not at liberty to alter the form of the name or to assume the identity of Ikezon and Hezion. The integrity of the text and the reliableness of the statements in 1 K 11***, the only passage where this prince is named, are also disputed. Internal evidence, coupled with the fact that LXX (B, Luc.) omit the words, proves that “when David slew them of Zobah’ is no part of the original text. I(ittel (Hist. of the Hebrews, ii. 53) points out that even in the MT it looks as though ww.” had been in- terpolated between v.” and v.”, and that in the LXX (B, Luc.) the whole episode is connected with v. 14. But the connexion with v.” is as unsuitable as that with v.”. In either case it interrupts the Hadad narrative, and gives the impression of a gloss. This, however, is not to say that it is un- historical. J. TAYLOR. RHEGIUM ("P#ytov), the modern Reggio, was an important and ancient Greek colony near the south-western extremity of Italy, and close to the narrowest point of the straits separating that country from Sicily, opposite Messana (Messima) and about 6 to 7 miles distant from it. It was a much more important place in the ancient system of coasting navigation than it is in modern times. The whilipool of Charybdis near Messana, and the rock of Scylla some miles from Rhegium round the promontory north of the town, were reckoned much more dangerous then ; and ships had often to lie at Rhegium waiting for a suitable wind, and avoiding the currents which in certain circumstances run very strong in the straits. Hence the Dioscuri, the patrons and protectors of sailors, were much worshipped at Rhegium, and are represented on its coins : the mariners of the ships that put in at Rhegium would often make or dis- charge their vows to the “Twin Gods’ in the town. Rhegium occupied not merely an important but also a dangerous and exposed situation. A great city in the 6th and 5th cents, B.C.; it was totally destroyed, and its inhabitants sold as slaves, by Dionysius of Syracuse in 387. Again in 280–270 it was destroyed. Campanian troops, received as a garrison into the city, murdered the male popu- lation and made themselves masters of the place, till they were captured and exterminated by, a Roman army, and the town was given back to the scanty remnant of its former population. Hence. forth it was in alliance with Rome as a civitas 268 RHEIMS WERSION RHODES foederata. After this it is mentioned only inciden: | She was accused of *ś but persisted in her tally amid the Roman wars. It narrowly escaped the forfeiture of its territory to the soldiers of the triumvirs after the battle of Philippi, being spared by Augustus probably from a desire to Yeep at this important harbour a population accustomed to navigation and friendly to himself; and in the Sicilian War (B.C. 38–36) it rendered good service both to his fleet and his army, and was rewarded with the title of Julium Rhegium and an increase of population (with other ...”. advan- tages). Strabo mentions it as a flourishing town about A.D. 20. It presented a curious mixture of Greek and Roman population and life, shown in its mixed Greek and }. inscriptions. It was the terminus of one of the great Roman roads, a branch of the Appian Way, diverging from it at Capua, built probably by the praetor Popilius in B.C. 134 and called Via Popilia. The actual point of cross- ing to Sicily was at the Columna or Statua, 6 miles or more north of Rhegium. - The ship in which St. Paul sailed from Malta to Puteoli, the ‘Dioscuri’” (a name of good omen), lay for a day in the harbour of Rhegium, waiting till a south wind arose, which carried it to Puteoli on the morrow after it sailed (Öevrepatov). Probably some of the sailors on the ‘Dioscuri’ took the opportunity of thanking, the Twin Gods in the city for their successful voyage at that early season of the year, and praying for equal luck to their destination. The manoeuvre by which the ship reached Rhegium seems quite clear; and yet has caused much trouble and variety of opinion. The ship must have had a favourable wind from Malta, otherwise it would not have * the crossing over the open sea, so early in the year. This wind carried it to Syracuse, but there it had to lie for three days, which proves that the wind mad shifted and was then against it. It then sailed to Rhegium ; and, as it had to wait in I&hegium till a south wind set in, the wind with which it reached Rhegium cannot have been south. The expression reple\9övtes, which Luke uses, shows that the wind was so far unfavourable that the ship could not run a straight course (ev6vópouetv, Ac 16" 21*), but had to tack, running out north-eastwards towards Italy and then back to the Sicilian coast. This is the explanation of a practical yachtsman, James Smith, in his Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul. The explanation of Teplex6.jures as ‘sailing round the Sicilian coast' seems certainly wrong. The reading trepteNóvres in N* B seems to be a corruption, accepted through failure to understand the true text ; it can hardly be rendered ‘weighing anchor’ (which is the suggested rendering), for in Ac 27” it has an accusative following it in that Sense, as Blass points out ; moreover, it is of great consequence in Ac 27”, to give that information (see Smith, op. cit., on the passage), but here it is unnecessary. W. M. RAMSAY. RHEIMS WERSION.—See VERSIONS. RHESA (Pnorá).—A son of Zerubbabel, Lk 327. RHODA ('P66m).-The name means ‘Rose.” When St. Peter was miraculously released from prison he went to the house of Mary the mother of Mark. A damsel (tratótok)) of the name of Rhoda came to the door, but opened not the gate for gladness, and ran in and told how Peter stood before the gate. * Luke saw or heard the ship (a Roman imperial vessel) called by its Latin name paraseno Geminis or Castoribus (compare the inscription CII, iii. No. 3, navis paraseno Isopharid, i.e. whose sign was the Pharian Isis) in the Greek translation **627% Aſozzoápots (where the dative represents the Latin ablat. absol., as in consule Cicerome, ºrára Kuzieaw); and the formula remains in his text to puzzle those commentators who study only literary Greek and neglect technical language. statement (Ac l2*). othing further is known of her. The name is fairly common both in litera- ture and inscriptions, and was often given to slave girls. A. C. HEADLAM. RHODES ("Pôos) ranks among the most brilliant of the many brilliant cities of ancient Greece. The city was founded in B.C. 408, at the extreme north- eastern point of the island of IRhodes, when the three ancient cities, Lindus, Camirus, and Ialysus, were comcentrated in the new foundation. It enjoyed an admirable situation and a splendid climate. The commercial aptitude of the popula- tion knew how to use its advantages by wise laws and just dealings with their competitors and allies in the trade of the eastern Mediterranean. Rhodes was at its highest pitch of power in the 2nd cent. B.C., having been made mistress of great part of Caria and Lycia in the settlement of 189, after the defeat and expulsion from Asia Minor of Antiochus and the Seleucid power. The city was, however, too powerful to suit the Roman policy. In B.C. 166 the Carian and Lycian cities were declared inde- pendent by Rome; and another blow was struck at Rhodian commercial supremacy by making DELOS a free port in the same year. The result of these disasters is to be observed in the diminu- tion and alteration of Rhodian coinage about that time. But Rhodes continued to maintain its commerce. It was relieved of Delian competition by the great massacre of the Romans in Delos by Mithridates in B.C. 87; and by continuing loyal to Rome in that critical time, when almost every other Greek city joined Mithridates, it recovered favour and was permitted to regain part of its Carian º In the Roman civil wars Rhodes from B.C. 47 to 43 supported the cause of Caesar, and suffered severely in consequence. C. Cassius captured the city in 43, and exacted 4500 talents from its people; and another Cassius in 42 burned all the löhodian ships except thirty, which he manned with crews of his own and took away. Rhodes henceforth was a city devoid of real power; and it sank practically into a common provincial town of the Roman empire, though it ranked as a free city under the early emperors (except for a short time under Claudius, who took away its freedom and afterwards restored it again). Yet Strabo mentions (p. 652) that it was the most splendid city known to him in respect of harbours, streets, walls, and other equipment. Such was its condition in the time of St. Paul. Shortly afterwards Vespasian made it a part of the pro- vince Lycia. Ithodes is mentioned in the NT only as a point where St. Paul touched on his voyage from Troas to Caesarea, Ac 21". The route along the coast between the ports of the province Asia, on the one side and those of Syria or Iºgypt on the other, was probably the most frequented seaway in the wholo of the Mediterranean. The voyage was marked by a number of stopping-points, Cos, Patara, etc., - where the ordinary ships engaged in the trade called as a matter of course; and these are men- tioned in Ac 20 and 21, with the exception of MYRA (which is given in the Western Text only). Rhodes was one of them ; and the ship on which St. Paul and the whole body of delegates were sailing touched, there between Cos and Patara. This is all in the customary form. Hundreds of ships did the same every year. An excellent illustration is supplied by the voyage of Herod, about B.C. 14, from Palestine by Rhodes, Cos, Chios, and Mitylene, to Byzantium and Sinope (see Jos. Amt. XVI. ii. 2). Ithodes was also, beyond all doubt, one of the ports of call on the voyage from Alexandria to RHODES FIBILAH 26") Puteoli or to Ostia. It is, indeed, not mentioned in the voyages of that class described under MYRA, but none of those narratives gives a list of harbours, and we may assume with conſidence that in each case Rhodes was a port where the ship called (unless in exceptional circumstances). That is proved by the voyage of Vespasian from Alexandria, to Rome in A.D. 70, which was by way of the Lycian coast and Rhodes, as is seen by comparing Dion Cassius, lxvi. 8, with Zonaras, xi. 17, and Jos. Bjvii. ii. 1. The voyage of Herod the Great in B.C. 40 from Alexandria to Rome by Pamphylia and Rhodes is also a good illustration.” Herod evidently passed east and north of Cyprus, like the ship in Ac 27”; but it was the stormy season, and the over-sea voyage, common in the summer season, could not then be risked : see MYRA, where these two voyages may be added to the examples quoted. Rhodes is also mentioned in 1 Mac 15* among the States to which the Romans sent letters on behalf of the Jews about B.C. 138 (see PHASELIS, LYCIA, DELOS, etc.). Only self-governing free States were thus addressed ; and Rhodes, as almost the greatest maritime State of the eastern Medi- terranean, was of course included. The ships carrying Jews from the west and from the AEgean coasts and cities to and from Jerusalem, for the Passover, would all, as we have seen, call in ordinary course at Rhodes. Such ships are implied in Ac 181** 20°. It may be taken as practically certain that in a great commercial centre like Rhodes there would be Jews resident ; but hardly any memorial of them has been preserved. f Ezk 27” the Septuagint reads ‘Sons of the Rhodians were thy merchants’; where AV and IłV have ‘The men of Dedan were thy merchants’ (traffickers, RV). There can be little doubt that the Septuagint text in this passage is a change made by translators in the 3rd cent. B.C., who had no knowledge of the desert carrier tribe Dedan, but were familiar with the Rhodians as the greatest merchants of their time in the Levant (see 1)LDAN). In Gn 10" and in 1 Ch 17, also, the Septuagint text has “Rhodians’ (‘Pööuot) as the fourth of the sons of Javan ; but RV, following the Hebrew text, has Dodanim in the former place and Rodanim in the latter (AV Dodanim in both places). Among the sons of Javan, Rhodes, which was inhabited by Greeks (though by Dorians, not Ionians; see DODANIM), would be quite suitable ; and the Septuagint text is accepted by most moderns in those two places. The island of Rhodes is about 43 miles long from N.E. to S.W. by 20 miles where the breadth is greatest ; its nearest point is about 12 miles from the mainland. The famous colossus was a statue of the sun-god, 105 feet in height, which stood at the harbour entrance. It was erected to com- memorate the success of the Rhodians in with- standing the siege by Demetrius Poliorcetes in B.C. 280; but it fell during an earthquake in 224, and the fragments remained lying, shown as a curiosity till A. D. 672, when the Arab general who conquered Ithodes is said to have sold them to a Jew of Emesa. The island was soon afterwards reconquered by the Byzantine arms, and remained in Christian hands for many centuries. The most interesting and glorious period of Rhodian history in many respects began in 1310, when the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem took the city from the Iłyzantine empire, and founded a State, including Several of the neighbouring small islands and some towns on the mainland, especially Halicarnassus and Smyrna (the latter being taken in 1345, and held till 1403). The Knights of Rhodes were en- gag ed in ceaseless Warfare with the Turks. The * Jos. Amt. XIV. xiv. 2.f. ; BJ I. xiv. 3. city, , which was very strongly fortified by the Knights, was besieged unsuccessfully in 1440, 1444, and 1480; but at last, in 1522, the Knights sur- rendered on honourable terms to Sultan Suleiman, and retired to Crete, then to Sicily, and finally to Malta. The modern town of Rhodes is full of memorials of the time of the Knights, and con- tains hardly any apparent traces of its older history. Its harbours have been allowed to become choked with sand, and its trade is quite insignifi- cant. W. M. RAMSAY. RHOD0CUS (Pööokos).-A Jew who betrayed the secrets of his countrymen to Antiochus Eupator, He was detected and imprisoned, 2 Mac 13”. RIBAI ("2"| ; LXX in 2 S ‘Pelgá, in 1 Ch B ‘Pegué, A "Pngal, S 'Pagewal).-The father of Ittai (1 Ch Ithai) the Benjamite, one of David's thirty heroes (2 S 2329 – 1 Ch 1191). RIBLAH.—1. (nºn, once, Jer 52", nºn; LXX 2 K 25* ‘Pegxa64, elsewhere AegAabá, and other corrupt forms).-The name of a place in the ‘land of Hamath,’ now Ribleh, in the Bekā'a, or broad vale between the two ranges of Lebanon and Hermon, on the right bank of the Orontes, about 100 miles N. N.E. of Dan, 65 miles N. of Damascus, and 50 miles S.S.W. of HAMATH (which see). It was at Riblah that Pharaoh-necoh, three months after his defeat of Josiah at Megiddo (B.C. 608), in some way obtained the presence of his successor, Jehoalhaz, and threw him into chains that he might no longer reign in Jerusalem (2 K 23°). Itiblah is also mentioned as the place which, at the close of the siege of Jerusalem (B.C. 586), was Nebuchad- nezzar's Readquarters, and to which Zedekiah, and other prisoners taken out of the captured city, were }. for punishment (2 K 25* = Jer 395, 9– Jer 529t.; 2 K 2520, 21 = Jer 52%. 27). Itiblah is now nothing more than a ‘miserable' village of 40–50 houses (Rob. BRP iii. 543); but Robinson (ib. p. 545) points out how, from its situation, on the banks of a mountain stream, and in the middle of a vast and fertile plain, and also on the great road leading from Egypt and Palestine to Babylon, it was a suitable resting-place, whether for the army of Necoln, who had designs on Babylon, or for §§º. while watching the operations that were taking place in Judah. See, further, on the modern Ribleh, Sachau, Reise in Syrien (1883), 55–57. “Riblah' is likewise read by most modern scholars (Ges., Ew., Smend, Cornill, etc.), with 4 MSS, in Ezk 6" for ‘Diblath’ (nºn h;Tºp): “I will make the land desolate from the wilderness (on the S. of Judah) to Riblah (in the far North), the expression being regarded as a designation of the whole extent of Palestine, to its ideal limits, and Riblah being perhaps mentioned instead of the usual ‘entering in of Hamath' (Nu 34°, 2 lº 14*, Am 6*, Ezk 47° al.), on account of its having become prominent at the time (B.C. 592—see Ezk 12). If th. “approach to Hamath' is rightl Y. at the N. end of the broad vale between Lebanon and Anti-Libanus, where, as the traveller from the S. approaches Riblah, he finds himself entering a nGW §. and sees the country towards Hamath open out before him (see esp. van de Velde, Narra- tive, 1854, ii. 470; and cf. Rob. BRP iii. 568 ; Moore, Judges, 80, 82; also Jos 13°,” Jg 3*), this reading will be quite natural. Other scholars, however, doubt whether the Isr. territory can ever have been regarded as extending as far as the N. * Which implies that the “approach to Ilamath' was at some distance from a place at the foot of Mount Hermon. The opinion (Rob. iii. 569; HAMATII, vol. ii. p. 200") that the expres- sion denoted the approach to Hamath, not from the S., but from the West, is hardly probable (cf. Keil on Nu 848). 270 JBICHES BIDDLE end of Lebanon, and think the “approach to Hamath' must be supposed to have denoted, somewhat vaguely, a more S. part of the vale of Coele-Syria (Keil and Dillm. on Nu 34°; Buhl, Geogr. 66, 110; notice Rehöb in Nu 13*): in this case Riblah is certainly a more N. point than would be expected ; on the other hand, if the reading be not adopted, Diblath (RV ‘Diblah?) must be the name of a place otherwise unknown, which is hardly likely in such a connexion. 2. Nu 341 (nºn-lº, with the art. : LXX diró Xerpauap BMXa for nºnj Deºn). One of the places mentioned on the (in parts) obscurely-defined ideal borders of the promised land, Nu 34*. It is described as being on the E. border, somewhere between Hazar-'énān—which (Ezk 477484) was on the “border’ of the territory of Damascus, and was to be (Nu 349. 19) at the N.E. corner of Israel’s territory—and the Sea of Chinnereth (i.e. the Sea of Galilee). There is difficulty in determining the site ; for the places mentioned on the N. border of Israel, in º Nu 347-9 and Ezk 471°17, are very uncertain ; and while some scholars (Robinson, Knob., Conder) think that this border may be drawn (approximately) across the N. extremity of Lebanon (Hazar-'énān being then situated at one of the sources of the Orontes—either [Keil] the spring of Lebweh, 22 m. S.W. of Riblah 1 [Rob. iii. 532], or [Conder, Heth and Moab", 8, 11 f.] 'Ain el-'Asy, 11 m. S.W. of Riblah 1), others (Bull, 66 f.; cf. RIBLAH 1) consider this to be too far N., and think that it should be drawn across the S. ex- tremity of Lebanon (Hazar-'énān being then either Bāniās itself, or el-Hadr, 9 m. E. of it).” The Riblah of Nu 34” is, however, some place between Hazar-'ênān and the Sea of Galilee ; so that upon none of these suppositions can it be identical with Riblah 1 (which is to the N. even of 'Ain el-'Asy). No Itiblah in a suitable situation seems at present to be known. The suggestion (Wetzst.; see #. to read (after LXX) to Harbel” (Hºnſ) for ‘to Riblah,” and to identify Harbel with Harmel (or Hörmül), a place about 8 miles S.W. of Riblah (see Sachau’s map, or the one in 13ád., Route 31), does not really lessen the difficulty of the verse. S. R. DRIVER, RICHES.—See WEALTH. RID.—The original meaning of “rid” is to rescue (Anglo-Sax. hreddam, cf. Dutch redden and Germ. retten), and this is its meaning in five of its six AV occurrences (Gn 37*, Ex 69, Lv 26%, Ps 82° 1447. 11). Cf. Gn 37*Tind. “When Reuben herde that, he went aboute to ryd him out of their handes and sayde, let us not kyll him ' ' Tind. Eapos. 77, ‘Because we be ever in such peril and cunbrance that we cannot rid ourselves out, we must daily and hourly cry to God for aid and succour’; Jer 15” Cov. “And I will ryd the out of the hondes of the wicked, and delyver the out of the honde of Tirauntes.” In the remaining passage the meaning is clear out, drive out, LV 26" ‘I will rid evil beasts out of the land’ (RW ‘cause evil beasts to cease out of the land’), which is the modern meaning. The process by which the word thus practically reversed its meaning (from 7:6scue to destroy) may be illustrated from Spenser, I'Q I. i. 36— “Unto their lodgings then his guestes he riddes,' where the meaning is neutral, removes. Cf. also LV 14* Cov. “The preast shall commaunde them to ryd all thinge out of the housse,’ and Udall, Erasmus' Paraph. i. 52, ‘With these men the Pharisees consulted by what meanes they might ridde Jesus out of the waye.” J. HASTINGs. * Dillm. and Keil adopt intermediate views. Dillm. (p. 213) would not draw it N. of the present road from Bórðt to Damascus; Keil takes it as fur N. as Lebweh. RIDDLE (nºn, from root ºn [Oaf, Heb. Lea. compares Arab. e'> * decline, turn aside, avoid,’ hence perhaps riddle as indirect, obscure]; verb denom. Tim “to propose an enigma’; TI'm Tim “to wº forth a riddle,” Ezk 17*: I.xx aivitywa, Tpó8Nmua; ulg. enigma, problema, propositio) is closely re- lated in the Öf to the proverb (º), which for the most part is represented in the LXX by trapa- 8oNij–PARABLE. It has been suggested, indeed (Oort in Cheyne's Job and Solomon, p. 127), that Some of the proverbs were originally current among the people as riddles, such as ‘What is worse than meeting a bear 2 Meeting a fool in his folly’ (Pr 17*); ‘What is sweet at first, and then like gravel in the mouth ? Bread of falsehood’ (Pr 20"). Ilike the proverb or the parable or the allegory, the riddle served a more serious and didactic purpose than we usually associate with the word. The didactic usage is found throughout the whole of the OT. It is seen in Nu 12°, where Jehovah chides Aaron and Miriam for their op- position to Moses, and says to the honour of the great Lawgiver, “ Mouth to mouth speak I to him, plainly and not in riddles” (ni'na). In Ps 49* the Psalmist says, “I will incline nine ear to a parable (99%) : I will propound my riddle (‘Tºn) upon the harp,’ and the subject of the psalm—the transi- toriness of godless prosperity and the blessedness of a hope in God—justifies his application of the words. In Ps 78° the same didactic purpose is manifest. The Psalmist proposes to set forth the early his- tory of Israel in parable and riddle for the instruc- tion of his own age and time : ‘I will open my mouth in a parable (ºph): I will utter riddles (mTI) from the olden time.” This parabolic use of the history of Israel by the Psalmist is taken by the evangelist (Mt 13” ”) as justifying the em- º of parables by Jesus to set forth the ringdom of heaven : “All these things spake Jesus in parables to the multitudes, that the word might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet say: ing, “I will open my mouth in parables: I will declare things hidden from the foundation of the world,”’ which last words are a variation from the LXX “riddles from the beginning’, (Tpogxijuara &T' épxfts). This didactic purpose attributed to the riddle is well illustrated in Prl" by its associa- tion with, words of Pike purport : “To understand a parable (bºr), and an obscure saying (Tºm), the sayings (D-177) of the wise and their riddles (nºn).” In the Wisdom books of the Apocrypha, it is per- haps natural to find examples of the didactic usage. In Wis 8° it is said in praise of Wisdom : “She understandeth subtleties of speeches and interpretations of riddles’ (atpoqās X&Ywy Kal Affaeus alviypºdrov); in Sir 39* * it is said of the man who meditates in the law of the Most High, “He will keep the discourse of the men of renown, and will enter in amid the subtleties of parables (év a Tpoqiaº’s trapagoNôv). He will seek out the hidden meaning of proverbs (&Tókpupa trapotputſou), and be conversant in the riddles of parables’ (év alvlyuaart trapagoNóv), these last words being inverted in 47”, where Solomon is apostrophized as ſilling the earth with ‘parables of riddles' (év trapa (30Xa's alviyad.raju). T. association of tho riddle with the patrahle is found in Ezk 17%, where the prophet is commanded “to put forth a riddle (Trn Tn), and utter a parable” (ºp ºwn, LXX trapagoxiv), the saying being called a riddle because it requires interpretation, and a parable because of the comparison it contains of the kings of Babylon and Egypt to two great eagles, and of their treatment of Israel to the cropping of the cedar of Lebanon. ...There are still two occurrences of the word “riddle' in the l’ro- phets, where it is not so easy to say whether the didactic or the more special usage is exempliſied. RIDDLE RIDDLE 271 In Dn 8” the king of fierce countenance that is to arise, by whom Antiochus Epiphanes is meant, is credited with the gift of ‘understanding riddles’ (nū’m jºin'?); and in Hab 2" the prophet, speaking of the proud and ambitious man who seeks to make nations and peoples his own, asks, “Shall not all these take up a parable (ºp), and an obscure saying (myº), riddſes (nºn), against him º' The riddle in the more special sense of a puzzle to sharpen the wits, or a paradoxical question to stimulate interest, is found in the OT, and bulks largely in the Talmud and later Jewish literature. With riddles the Jews have been wont from an early period in their history to display their isiº ingenuity, or test the wisdom of the learned, or entertain festive occasions and hours of leisure. Deutsch (Literary Remains, p. 47), speaking of the Haggadah of the Talmud, refers to the Pilgrim's Progress, and says that Bunyan in his account of his own book unknow- ingly describes the Haggadah as accurately as Cº, Il O0– * Would'st thou divert thyself from melancholy? Would'st thou be pleasant, yet be far from folly 7 Would'st thou read riddles and their explanation? Or else be drowned in contemplation ? º & & * e O then come hither And lay this book, thy head and heart together.” The riddle is not, however, confined to Jewish literature. The riddle of the Sphinx is familiar from classical antiquity. It was a riddle that Tarquin the Proud acted when by striking off with a staff the heads of the tallest poppies in his garden he gave Sextus the hint to put out of the way the chief citizens of captured Gabii. The riddle as an amusement at feasts and on convivial occasions among the Greeks and IRomans is men- tioned in the pages of Athenaeus and Aulus Gellius. (See Bochart, Hierozoicom, iii. 384). It was at his wedding feast that Samson pro- posed the terms of his famous riddle (Jg 14). He gavellis Philistine friends seven days to ſind it out, º if they should be successful thirty fine inen wrappers and thirty gala dresses (v.”; Moore's Commentary, p. 335), and requiring from them the same if they should be unsuccessful. They accepted the terms, and Samson propounded his riddle— ‘Out of the eater came something to eat, and out of the strong came something sweet 2'. How far a riddle was fair, the solution of which required a knowledge of incidents so special as Samson's encounter with the lion and its sequel, need not be discussed. Their deceit and the treachery of his wife put the Philistines in possession of the secret. “What,’ they asked, “is sweeter than honey, and what is stronger than a lion ?’ At once he saw he had been duped, and in a satirical vein he exclaimed, employing still the language of riddles: “If ye had not ploughed with my heifer, ye had not found out my riddle.” Solomon with his high repute for wisdom in other things is credited also with skill in the solution of riddles. The Queen of Sheba on her visit to Jerusalem proved him with riddles (1 K 101 =2 Ch 9'). And Solomon “told her all her ques- tions, there was not anything hid from the king which he told her not (1 K 10° = 2 Ch 9°). Josephus tells a similar tale of Hiram king of Tyre. Solomon and Hiram were on the most friendly terms. ‘What cemented the friendship between them,” says Jos. (Amt. VIII. v. 3), ‘was º passion both had for wisdom ; for they sent riddles (irpo- 8Xijuara) to one another, with a desire to have them solved ; and in these Solomon was superior to Hiram, as he was wiser in all other respects.” In another passage of his writings the Jewish his- torian (c. A pion. i. 18. 17), records the testimony of Dius the historian of the Phoenicians, who says that Solomon when he was king at Jerusalem sent riddles (alviyuata) for Hiram to guess, and desired that he would send others back for him to find out, the condition being that he who failed should pay a fine to him who was successful. And as Hiram was unsuccessful, he had a large amount to pay. At length he found a man of Tyre, Kºon by name, who was able to guess the riddles Pººl by Solomon, and himself pro- pounded others which Solomon could not solve, thus recovering for his sovereign the money he had lost. . None of these riddles have survived, and therefore we have no means of estimating their character as hard questions. There are to be found, however, in the Proverbs bearing the name of Solomon, sayings that appear to be of the nature of riddles. The riddle of the insatiable things is one of these (Pr 30”. 1"). ‘The horse-leech (but see art. HORSE-LEECH) hath two daughters, crying, Give, giye. There are three things that are never satisfied, yea, four things say not, It is enough.” What are these ? And the answer is, ‘The grave, and the barren womb, the earth that is not filled with water, and the fire that saith not, It is enough.” This is followed by the riddles of the four mysterious things (Pr 30”), of the four intolerable things (Pr 3021-99), of the four little wise things (30°), and of the four stately things (30”). Riddle and inter- pretation alike exhibit precise observation of nature, and convey at the same time moral in- struction. To the riddles of the OT fall, perhaps, to be added the words of the mysterious writing on the wall on the night of Belshazzar's feast (Dn 5*), MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN (which see). The inscription is to be read according to recent authorities, “A mina, a mina, a shekel and half minas.” Wv.*, says Bevan (The Book of Daniel, p. 106), are plays upon the words of the inscrip- tion ; in v.” the play is a double one. "I ima- God hath mºtmbered thy kingdom and finished it. Shekel—thou hast been weighed in the balance and hast been found wanting. Ilalf mima –thy king- dom hath been divided and given to the Miº and Persians. The parable is one of the unique features of the teaching of Christ (trapagoNº in the Synoptists; trapotuta in St. John), but the riddle, except in so far as the evangelist Matthew justifies instruction by parables with a reference to Ps 78°, is not expressly mentioned. Only once in the NT is the . expressly named, and in that instance (1 Co 1319) the mention of it is obscured in EW. The meaning is—“Now we see through a glass, in a riddle' (év alviypiatt), in contrast to the direct vision of spiritual realities, ‘face to face.’ In the Revela- tion of St. John there is a riddle which remains an enigma in spite of all attempts to solve it : “He that hath understanding let him count the number of the beast ; for it is the number of a man, and his number is six hundred and sixty and six.’ Following the method known among the Jews as Gematria, by which a number is obtained from the numerical values of the letters of a name, it has been found that the Hebrew transliteration of Neron Cesar yields a total of 666. Although adopted by many modern interpreters, this solu- tion of the riddle has not attained general accept- ance any more than others which have been pro- posed from a much earlier time (see Bengel, Gnomon, p. 1095 ft. ; Milligan, Baird Lectures on The Kºº. of St. John, p. 321 ff., and art. REVELATION [Book OF] above, p. 258). In , the Talmud and Rabbinical literature there is no lack of riddles. In fact the Jews exhibit a curiosa felicitas in this department which is unique. “A large number of famous sayings,’ says Abrahams ºf 2 RIDICULOUS RIGHTEOUSINESS IN OT (Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, pp. 386, 387), are put in the form of riddles, wº. is mighty 2 Who is a fool 2 Who is happy? A whole class of popular phrases in the Talmud and Midrash are nothing more nor less than folk-riddles, the chief exponents being women and children; but distin- guished Rabbis also utilized this language of Wisdom. Ethical works of the Middle Ages abound in philosophical riddles. Riddles found their way into the prayer-book for the Passover Eve. It goes without saying, therefore, that many Hebrew riddles of the Middle Ages were serious intellectual exercises.’ To keep up atten- tion and to stimulate interest while the intricate subtleties of the law are being expounded, such an assertion as this would be announced—“There was a woman in Egypt who brought forth at one birth “six hundred thousand men.”’’ The interpreta- tion follows: the woman was Jochebed, the mother of Moses, who was himself equal to the whole armed host of Israel who came out of Egypt. Talmudic lore records a story of Rabbi J . sage and saint, akin to that related of Tarquin the Proud. The enmperor Antoninus Pius sent him a message to say . imperial exchequer was empty : how could it be replenished ? The Rabbi took the messenger into the garden and tore up the big radishes and planted young ones in their place. He did the same with the turnips and the lettuces. The emperor understood the hint ; he dismissed the old officials and put new in their place. Many of the riddles that thus delighted the Jewish fancy seem trivial enough. For example : , ‘The fish is roasted with his brother, is placed in his father, is eaten with his son, and thereafter is helped down with his father,’ where his ‘brother’ is the salt which comes like himself from the sea, his ‘father' is the water from which he is taken, and his ‘son’ the sauce in which he is served Riddles whose solution depends upon the numerical values of the Hebrew letters are common. ‘Take 30 from 30 and the remainder is 60.’ The ex- planation is that 30=twº remove 9, whose numerical value is 30, and the remainder is D'yº) =60. The letters of the Hebrew alphabet have also a lingual meaning, and a good example of a riddle whose solution depends upon such a mean- ing is the following: ‘There was a she-mule in my house : I opened the door and she became a heifer.’ To be solved thus : From the Hebrew for “she- mule' mºnº take away the letter - (Daleth = door) and there remains nº ‘ heifer.’ Plays upon words scarcely come under the scope of this article. They are found most abundantly in the Prophets and in the rhetorical passages of Job, but they occur also with considerable fre- quency in the Proverbs, and they are to be met with, though rarely, in the Psalms. In those plays upon F. names which are found in the etymological explanations of the name of the law- giver of Israel (Ex 2"; cf. Jos. c. Apion. i. 31), of the name of Samuel (1 S 1-"), and many more, the Talmud is said to be especially rich. (Upon * Paronomasia in the OT,’ see Casanowicz, j}} (1891), pp. 105–167). LiteFATURE.—For the usage of the Hebrew word nºn see Oatſ. Heb. Lea. 8.v.; Delitzsch, Zwr Geschichte der Jüdischen Poesie ; Cheyne, Job and Solomon ; Toy, Proverbs. On Biblical and Talmudic riddles–Hamburger's ſºlº ; Löw, Die Lebens- alter; Abrahams, Jewish Liſe in the Middle Ages; Wünsche, ' Die Itáth&elweissheit bei den LIcbrd.cºm. T. NICOL. RIDICULOUS.–Only Sir 34” “He that sacrificeth of a thing wrongfully gotten, his offering is ridicu- lous.” The meaning is active, derisive, mocking (Gr. Tpoo pop& pepwkmuévn, RV ‘ his offering is made in mockery'). Cf. Shaks. Love's Labour's Lost, iii. 78, “The heaving of my lungs provokes me to ridiculous smiling.’ RIGHTEOUSNESS IN OT.—The idea of Right. eousness is one of the most complex and difficult of the ruling ideas of the OT. The subject may be introduced by one or two statements of a general nature. (1) Righteousness in the OT is strictly a personal attribute. There are a few instances where the word is used of things, but these are undoubtedly secondary (see below, p. 274"). So also are the cases where it is applied to a social aggregate like the people of Israel ; these arise either through personification of the community, or through the virtues of representa- tive individuals being conceived as leavening the mass. (2) The personal relations indicated by the term are of three kinds : forensic, ethical, and religious. Tighteousness, e.g., may denote (a) a forensic right, as when Judah says of Tamar, ‘she has been in the right against me’ (Gn 38”); or (b) a moral state, as Gn 6” “Noah was a right- eous, blameless man in his generation '; or (c) a direct relation between man and God, as in Gn 15" ‘Abraham believed J", and he counted it to him for righteousness.’ But under each of these heads the notion breaks up into a great variety of dis- tinct applications, while the figurative extensions of (a) into the spheres of (b) and (c) create subtle distinctions which at times defy classification. (3) It may be remarked that the history of the idea in the OT exhibits a development in almost ex- actly the opposite direction to that observed in the case of Holiness, Holiness (which see) is prima- rily a religious term, which gradually acquires ethical content under the influence of the reve- lation of God as a Being of perfect moral purity. Righteousness, on the contrary, belongs in th. first instance to the region of moral ideas, and be- comes a technical term of religion by a process whose outlines can be traced in the ÖT.—"It will be convenient in the present art. to treat the subject under three main divisions, correspond- ing broadly to three stages in this development; viz. (i.) The meanings of Righteousness in ordi- nary popular speech ; (ii.) the conception of Right- eousness in the pre-exilic prophets (Amos to Jere- miah); and (iii.) the theological developments of the idea, chiefly in exilic and post-exilic writings. The Hebrew words expressing the idea of Righteousness are the following derivatives of the root pix:— - 1. The adj. p"s; LXX Sixo.tos, etc.; EW ‘righteous,' more rarely ‘just,' etc. 2. The abstract nouns nº and py, which appear to be prac- tically interchangeable ; LXX 312&loorávº, etc.; EW ‘righteous. ness,” more rarely ‘justice,' etc. [The Aram. Tºny appears in Dn 424). The verbal forms are much less frequently used, viz.:- 3. The Qal pºly (22 times in MT); LXX 3ſzzio; slwo.1, 31zozowy (pass.), etc.; EV ‘be righteous,’ ‘be justified,’ ‘be just,' etc. 4. The Hiphil pººn (12 times, always in a declarative sense except Is 5311, Dn 129); LXX 3.1xxiotiv, etc.; EV ‘justify,' etc. 5. The Piel pºly (5 times, with the sense “make out to be in the right,' or “make to appear in the right'); LXX buxoloty, etc.; EV “justify." 6. The Hithpael (refl.) pilºšn (Gn 4419); LXX bizzioſiv (pass.); EV “clear ourselves.” 7. The Niphal pººl (Dn 814, of the Temple); LXX zo,0xpíčuv (pass.); EV ‘be cleansed.’ The Greek and English terms given above represent only the prevalent usage of LXX and 12V respectively. . With regard to the latter, it may be said that the words ‘righteous' and ‘righteousness’ cover approximately the uses of p7s in the OT. Out of some 520 instances where the Heb, root appoars, about 400 are rendered in AV by “righteous,’ ‘righteousness,' or ‘righteously.” In over 100 cases “just,” “justice,” “justify ' are employed, sometimes appropriately enough, but at other times quite arbitrarily (cf. e.g. Gn 60 with 71, or Am 20 with 512). There are, besides, a few miscellaneous renderings, which it would serve no useful purpose to tabulate. On the other side, ‘righteous' stands for nº (‘upright') in Nu 2310, Job 47 237, Ps 10742, Pr 27 392 140 1510 2810 (similarly the adv. Ps 674 0010). IRV has rectified some of those anomalies : for instance, except in Nu 2310, ‘righteous,” etc., never are used except for 80nig form of pts. The usage of the LXX is marked by somewhat greater diversity, as was to be expected from the variety of RIGHTEOUSNESS IN OT RIGHTEOUSNESS IN OT 273. circº..nstances in which the different books were translated. In the great majority of cases, however, the Heb. terms are represented by 3izocios and the cognate words, although other renderings are frequent, as &asportos, zoºloºpés, rura'és, stors;3%g, apíciº, ixsos, ixºnºcorówn (the last two are instructive). And, conversely, bizaios, etc., are used for such words as nº, "p; (‘innocent'), Ipſ (“kindness'), nºs (“truth,’ ‘fláelity'), bºn (“judicial decision,’ ‘judgment'), etc. . A certain freedom of translation is, no doubt, permissible in view of the extreme versatility of the Heb. notion, and its association with numer- ous parallelisms; and these Heb. Synonyms have naturally to be taken into account in forming conclusions regarding the OT idea of righteousness. Cf. Hatch, 1988ay8 in Bibl. Gr. 49. i. RIGHTEOUSNESS IN COMMON LIFE. —In the earliest historical literature—the documents J and E of the Hex., and the oldest sources of the Blºs. of Samuel and Kings—the words for ‘righteous- ness’ occur, not very frequently, but in connexions which convey a pretty complete idea of what they meant in everyday life. Here the most prominent aspect of the motion is the forensic, although this by no means excludes an ethical and religious reference. In early Israel, law, morality, and religion were closely identified, all three resting largely on traditional custom or being embodied in it. Morality consisted in conformity to the conventional usages of the society to which a man belonged (Gn 26°, 2 S 13% etc.); the administration of justice was the enforcement in individual cases of the acknowledged rules of social order; and, again, these rules were invested with religious sanctions as expressing the will of J". Thus a man’s legal rights were a measure of the morality of his conduct, and at the same time all rights existing between men were also rights before J". When it is said that the forensic element pre- ponderates, what is meant is that questions of right and wrong were habitually regarded from 8, legal point of view as matters to be settled by a judge, and that this point of view is emphasized in the words derived from pis. This, indeed, is characteristic of the Heb. conception of righteous- ness in all its developments: whether it be a moral quality or a religious status, it is apt to be looked on as in itself controvertible and incom- plete until it has been confirmed by what is equivalent to a judicial sentence. Now, within the forensic sphere we can distinguish three aspects of righteousness which are of fundamental importance for the subsequent history of the idea ; . these may be illustrated from almost any period of the language. (1) Righteousness means, in the first instance, being in the right in a particular case. Of the two parties in a controversy, the one who has the right on his side is designated as pºstſ, and the one in the wrong as vyin : Dt 25* “If there be a quarrel between men, and they bring it to the judgment-seat, and (the judges) judge them, they shall justify the pil's and condemn the vºl’; cf. 1619, Ex 237.8, Is 523 2921, Pr 1710 18%. 17 242, etc. Similarly, a person accused or suspected of wrong- doing is pºſs if he is innocent and vºn if guilty (Gn 20", 2 S 411, 2 K 109, Pr 17*). It makes, of course, no difference whether the case is actually submitted to a judge or not ; all questions of right and wrong are conceived as capable ideally of being so settled, and the intrinsic merits of the dispute are described by the same terms; see Ex 9” (“J" is in the right, and I and my people are in the wrong’); 1 S 24/7, I K 8* (cf. Ex 28). Thus HRT, (ply in this sense appears to be later) denotes the right or innocence | an incriminated person, his claim to justification, the validity of his plea (2 S 19° 26*, Neh 2*).” In these cases righteous- ness is an inherent quality, not depending on the decision of the judge, but at the most demanding * The fem. of the adj. pºſs is nowhere used ; in the only instance where the right of a woman is concerned the simple verb is employed; Gn 3820 (ºp ITTY). VOL. IV.-18 recognition by him. And although the conception is essentially forensic, it is obviously one to which ethical ideas readily attach themselves. Right- eousness comes to mean unimpeachable moral con- duct (Gn 30”—a difficult case); and in this sense it may be predicated of a man’s whole life, the righteous man being one who is blameless before an ideal tribunal ; see 1 K_2° 36, Gn 7, 69 (P) 18*, Dt 9.", La 4” etc. In this application a religious reference is probably always included, the ideal tribunal being that of God. Legal phraseology is naturally transferred to the case of mere debate : Job 112 3312; here to “justify" means virtually to admit the force of one's arguments (27b). With this may be connected the use of the words to express correctness in pre- diction (Is 4120), or truthfulness in §: (Is 4510, 29 631, Ps 529, Pr 88 127 1619); although other explanations are here possible (see below, p. 274). (2) Righteousness, however, has a second sense, which is purely forensic ; it means the legal status established by a public judgment in one's favour : Is 5” “take away the jº, of the righteous from him ' (cf. 10°). Examples of this kind are rare in allusions to secular jurisprudence; but the dis- tinction plays a very important part, as we shall See, where forensic analogies are transferred to men's standing before God; and it could hardly be drawn so clearly there unless it had some basis in ordinary judicial administration.” (3) Lastly, righteousness is the quality expected of the judge in the exercise of his office. His fundamental duty is to “justify’ (pºsſ = “declare in the right ') him who is in the right, and to condemn (yººn) him who is in the wrong (Dt 25", 2 S. 15” etc.); and, if the circumstances require it, to inflict punishment on the wrong-doer (Dt 25°; cf. 2 S 12" etc.). In this he is said to manifest py (Dt 11° 1618. 29, Lv 1919, Is 114. 16%), or in a com- mon phrase to execute nº bººp. The tempta- tions to which a judge was mainly exposed being bribery and “respect of persons,’ his righteousness consists essentially in his rising superior to such influences and deciding each case with absolute impartiality on its merits. Stress, howevel, is naturally laid on the duty of redressing the wrongs of the poor and defenceless ; hence judicial righteousness is frequently equivalent to deliver- ance or protection. This idea, lies, indeed, in the verb tº itself, which means not only to judge, but also to vindicate or defend (1 S 24”, Is 117 etc.). The forensic sense of righteousness illustrated above appears to be fundamental in Heb., and goes back to a remote period in Semitic antiquity. It is found in a phrase closely corresponding to OT usage in one of the Tel el-Amarna tablets (15th or 14th cent. B.C.), where Abdhiba of Jerusalem says, sa-dw-uk ama, ia-a-Ši as-Swim amilitti Ka-Ši = “I am innocent with respect to the Kashi' (KIB v. 300 f.). That a similar usage prevailed in Aramaic and Phoenician is shown by the inscriptions in both languages (see Lidzbarski, Hamdbutch der mordsen. 19pigraphik, p. 357). The forensic conception of righteousness appears, therefore, to be characteristic of the northern group of Semitic dialects. In Arabic, on the other hand, the root has no forensic * It may here be pointed out that it is doubtful if the adj, pººls bears this sense of outward justification even in the religious sphere (Kautzsch). It seems confined to the inherent character on which a legal right is based, but not to include the status which results from a vindication of that right. In other words, it is used of the godly as entitled to Divine justification, but not as actually justified. Kautzsch thinks there are exceptions in Is 40–06 and 24-27; but that is not quite clear. Zec 9" would be a case in point if the meaning is to be determined by the following epithet yº) (‘ vindicated and victorious'; G. A. Smith, Twelve Prophets, ii. 466). On some doubtful cases in the Psalms, see below, p. 278. # This expression was probably used originally of judicial action (2 S 815, Jer 2210 235, Ezk 459), but was extended to moral conduct in general (Gn 1819, Ezk 1sh; 10.2), and very often). . In Dt 110 etc. (above) pis is partly the personal virtue of the judge, partly the objective right which is the result of his just action ; the word appears first in Hosea and Isaiah. . It is possible that this judicial sense of righteousness (3) is less primitive than that described under (1). At least the cases are few where the adj. is applied to a human judge (though often to God as the Supreme Judge of men). 2 S. 239 is a clear example; on Zec 99 see the last note; other possible cases are Jer 230, Ezk 234°. 274 RIGHTEOUSINESS IN OT RIGHTEOUSNESS IN OT associations. The verb 8adaka means to speak the truth ; ersonal energy, - J ahwe, the God of Forces.” §addaka, to attribute truth to a speaker, to accept or homolo- gate his statement; Saddik is one who is habitually veracious, and Sadik a true or sincere friend. All these uses embody the ethical idea of trustworthiness or genuineness; and a reflexion of this moral sense is probably to be recognized in some peculiar subsidiary applications, as when the verb is employed of eyes and ears that faithfully perform their functions, or of earnestness or steadiness in battle “as opposed to a false show of bravery,’ or of the desperate running of a hunted animal (see Lane, Lézicon). Saddle, the marriage gift from husband to wife, was originally a pledge of friendship; and even the much discussed rwºnh Sadk F.". means a trusty lance, and not a straight or sound or hard lance (Wellhausen, GGN, 1893, p. 434), though Nöldeke considers that in this case the meaning ‘straight' is certain (Fünf Mo'allaqāt, 2, p. 40). It has commonly been held that the varied senses of righteous- ness can be reduced to the single idea of ‘conformity to a norm,' resting ultimately on the physical analogy of straightness. But the notion of ‘conformity to a norm’ could hardly be, primitive; and, even if all the uses of p"is could be brought under it, it would not thereby be proved to be fundamental, since all legal and ethical terms necessarily imply a reference to a norm. It is indeed very doubtful if straightness be the concept originally expressed by the root. Certainly, nothing of the kind can be inferred from the cases in the OT where the word is used of material objects. Just balances, weights, etc. (Lv 1915. 30, Dt. 2519, Job 319, Ezk 4510), are simply such balances, etc., as justice demands (cf. Am 83), just as sacrifices of righteousness (Dt 3319, Ps 4, 5119) are sacrifices rightly offered. The phrases paths of righteousness (Ps 238) and gates of righteousness (11819) are so obviously figurative that they do not fall to be considered here at all. The evidence from Arabic is equally inconclusive. Here the discussion has turned largely on the use of Sadk as an epithet of the lance (see above). It happens, however, to be applied in particular to the knots of the lance reed (cf. 8adk'wl-kwºb, Muall. Antara, 48), where, if the word describes any physical quality at all, it must be hardness; unless, indeed, ka'b be understood as a Section of the reed between two lºnots (Nöldeke, ib.). On the whole, perhaps, the idea of hardness best accounts for the higher developments of the idea both in Arabic and Hebrew. The transition from hardness to trustworthiness is easy and natural, while the same analogy, in the legal sphere might denote unimpeachableness of conduct on the part of a suitor, or steadfastness of character on the part of the judge. But these speculations are of little account ; the meanings of right- eousness in OT have to be ascertained from usage, and the fundamental usages appear to be those stated in the preceding paragraphs. ii. RIGHTEOUSNESS IN THE PROPHETs.—Although the prophets were the great champions and ex- ponents of righteousness in Israel, it is not easy to Say precisely in what respect their teaching marks an advance on the current notions examined in the last section. In their use of terms they adhere closely to the common forms of speech: the pºſs is still the man whose cause is just, and TIRIX and pſy continue to be used of forensic right or judicial rectitude. Nevertheless it is clear that the whole idea is elevated to a higher plane in the teaching of the prophets, and acquires a significance at once more ethical and more universal. The difference of standpoint is partly to be explained by the state of things which the prophets saw around them. By the 8th cent. the old consuetudinary morality had broken down under the pressure of far-reaching economic changes which had affected disastrously the life of the people. Large numbers of Israelites had been dispossessed of their holdings, and in con- sequence deprived of their civil and religious rights; the poor were defrauded and ground down by the rich, and even the forms of law had been turned into a powerful engine of oppression. In face of a situation like this, it is evident that the prophetic ideal of righteousness must rest on deeper founda- tions than mere use and wont. It rests, in fact, on the ethical character of J". What is distinctive of the prophets is the conviction that social righteous- ness is the necessary and inexorable demand of J"'s moral nature. So intense is this conviction that the idea of abstract right seems to stand out before their minds as an objective reality, a power that may be resisted but can never be defeated. “Never before,’ says Wellhausen, ‘had this been proclaimed with such tremendous emphasis. Mor- ality is that through which alone all things subsist, the sole reality in the world. It is no postulate, no idea, it is at once necessity and fact,-the most living, !his is most clearly to be seen in Amos, the father of written prophecy; but all the prophets move on the lines i. down by him, and mean by righteousness substantially what he means, although they may not give it the same central position which it occu- pies in his book. It may suffice to note the following points. (1) The prophets are concerned in the first instance with that exercise of righteousness ox, which the well-being of the community most de- pends, the public administration of justice. Amos demands that right (bº) be set up in the gate (5*); that right roll down like waters, and righteous- ness like a perennial stream (5*); and complains bitterly of those who turn righteousness to worm- wood, i.e. turn the fount of justice into a source of wrong and misery (576”). Isaiah and Micah hurl their invectives against the ruling classes for their perversion of justice and legalized Jºãº of the boor (Is 117 34t. 5* 101t, Mic 21.8, 31-3, 9t.), and erenniah denounces the ºcity and misgovern- ment of the kings (22** 23”; cf. Ezk 34*). Cf. further, Hos 101*, Is 1* 57, Jer 22” etc. A well- governed State, repressing all wrong and violence, and securing to the meanest his rights as a mem- ber of J”’s lºingdom, is the embodiment of the prophetic ideal of righteousness. At the same time, the spirit which ought to preside at the seat of judgment is conceived as a principle pervading the whole life of the nation, and regulating the relations of its different members and classes. Civic righteousness is perhaps more a function of the community, a sound and normal condition of the body politic, than a rule of individual conduct ; although the latter is, of course, in- cluded (Hos 10”, Jer 4*). (2) In their conception of what constitutes righteousness, the prophets are not dependent on a written code," and still less on the technicalities of legal procedure. Their appeal is to the moral sense, the instinctive per- ception of what is due to others, the recognition of the inherent rights of human personality. The idea is far broader than what we usually mean by right or justice; it includes a large-hearted con- struction of the claims of humanity; it is, as has been said, the humanitarian virtue par eaccellence.: And this is true not only in private relations, but also in the sphere of judicial action. The righteous- ness of the judge appears pre-eminently in his vin- dication of the widow, the orphan, and the stranger, the oppressed and defenceless classes generally (Is l” etc.). In Amos the pºſs is always the poor man, with no influence at his back, who must therefore look to the judge to maintain his rights. This feature might be considered accidental, arising from the injustice to which the poor were sub- jected at that time. But it is important, never- theless, as exhibiting an aspect of the Heb. idea of judicial righteousness which is apt to be overlooked }. us. It denotes not merely the neutral impartial attitude of mind which decides fairly between rival interests, but a positive energy on the side of right, a readiness to protect and succour those who have no help in themselves. (3) IRighteousness in this ethical sense is not only rooted in the moral instincts of human nature, but is a reflexion of the character of J". It is what He requires of men, what He has looked for in vain from Israel (Is 57), that in which He delights, which He seeks to pro- duce on earth (Jer 9”). The inflexibility of this Divine demand for social righteousness is one of the most impressive things in prophecy. Ititual service is as nothing in J"'s sight; He despises and hates * J&r. at, jid. Gesch.3 109. f The idea of righteousness as obedience to the written law of God, which bulks so largely in the later writings, appears in Dt 625; cf. 2413, Zeph 23. t Cf. the combination of nº with "pſ (“kindness') in Hos 1012, Jer 923. RIGHTEOUSNESS IN OT RIGHTEOUSNESS IN OT 275 it when offered by men of immoral life, . But the claims of righteousness are absolute, and the nation that will not yield to them, though it be the chosen people of Israel itself, must perish. Further, this righteousness, being based at once on the nature of man and the nature of God, is universal in its range. It has its witness in the human conscience everywhere (Am 3°), and determines the destiny of other nations as well as of Israel (1* 2° etc.). It is, in short, the moral order of the universe, and the supreme law of J"'s operations in history. (4) As the lack of righteousness is the cause of Israel’s destruction, so the presence of it is a constant feature of the Messianic salvation to which the prophets look forward. ‘A king shall reign in righteousness, and princes decree justice’ (Is 32*). The Messiah’s kingdom shall be established in righteousness (97), and He shall judge the poor in righteousness (114. "), etc. Cf. Jer 22” 23° 33°, Hos 2% (?), Is 1* 321° 33' etc. (5) Righteousness as a personal attribute of J" is not named by the prophets so frequently as one might expect. The adj. pºſs is not used in this sense till a compara- tively late period (Zeph 3", Jer 12%). Amos never mentions the righteousness of J", though the image of the plumb-line in 77 ° shows that the conception was in his mind (cf. Is 2817). Isaiah speaks of a judgment “overflowing with righteousness’ (10%), and of the Holy God as ‘sanctifying himself by righteousness’ (5%), i.e. showing Himself to be God through the exercise of judicial righteousness. The idea is common to all the prophets. I’rom the special circumstances in which their work was carried on, they dwell chiefly (if not exclusively) on the punitive side of the IDivine righteousness, the side which it presents to the guilt of Israel (Hos 6** 10”, Hab 1*). Righteousness, in short, is here equivalent to retribution, although retri- bution is not regarded as an end in itself, but only as a step in the carrying out of a redemptive Pºłº, These appear to be the chief features of the idea of righteousness which is characteristic of the pre- exilic prophets. It is not yet to be called strictly a religious conception, inasmuch as its human side consists of moral qualities displayed by men in their relations to one another, and the righteous- ness of men before God is an idea hardly repre- sented in the prophets. Iłut it makes the religious development possible, and some anticipations of that development in the prophetic writings will have to be considered under the next head. iii. RIGIITEOUSNESS IN THE SPHERE OF RE- LIGION.—We come now to consider the different forms assumed by the idea of righteousness as expressing relations existing immediately between God and man. These are based on the mono- theistic principle, interpreted by the help of the forensic categories described above (under i.). J" is the supreme Ruler and Judge of the universe, and His judgments are seen in history or provi- dence. But the ordinary course of providence could not always be accepted as the final expres- sion of the mind of the Judge ; it is usually in some great crisis, some decisive interposition of J” felt to be impending, that the ultimate verdict is looked for. Meanwhile mations and men are on their trial, they are severally in the right or in the wrong before God, and in the final day of reckoning the issues will be made clear, and the justice of the Divine government fully vindicated. Although all the elements of this conception are present in pre-exilic prophecy, the j º tions of it now to be dealt with belong mostly to a later period, and are the result of certain currents of thought which come to the surface in the age of * Read Nx" mRD "teetºp). *=- the Exile. There are three things to be looked at: the righteousness of Israel; the righteousness of the individual ; and the righteousness of God. 1. THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF ISRAEL.—The ques- tion of Israel’s right against other nations is one little considered by the earlier prophets. It was doubtless a factor in the popular religion, revealing itself in that eager longing for the day of J” which Amos rebukes (5°). From that point of view it was a matter of course that J” should maintain the cause and right of His people, and moral considerations hardly entered into the feeling. The prophets, on the other hand, were too much concerned to impress on Israel a sense of its utter unrighteousness before God to pay much heed to the violation of right involved in its subjection to nations morally worse than itself. In the 7th cent., however, partly as a consequence of the Deuteronomic reformation, the idea of a righteous Israel, begins to exert an influence on prophetic thought (cf. Dt 6”). The first prophet to treat the matter expressly from this point of view is Habakkuk (the idea is latent in Nahum), who uses the technical terms p"T3 and yºl to designate Israel and its heathen oppressors respectively (1**; cf. 2": see the Comm.), and appeals to J" to redress the wrongs suffered by His people. But it was the Exile that brought the question to the front in the prophetic interpretation of history. The Divine sentence had gone forth confirming the moral verdict of the prophets on the nation’s past, and the more spiritual part of the people acknow- ledged the just judgment of God in what had be- fallen them (La 1*). But there still remained the promise of a glorious future, in which the righteous- ness of J" would be displayed not less than in the judgment now past. Israel, therefore, has a right which, though obscured for the present, is recog- nized by J", and will be vindicated by Him in due time. Wherein does this righteousness of Israel consist 2 - Deutero-Isaiah. —The answer to this question is given by the writer of Is 40–55 in a manner which went far to fix the sense of righteousness for all subsequent theology. The prophet looks to his people's restoration from exile as a final disclosure of the righteousness both of Israel and of J", and an event fraught with the most blessed conse- quences for humanity. That Israel has been, and is, in the wrong lefore God is explicitly acknow- ledged in the ironical challenge of 43” (“that thou mayest be in the right’), and is implied in many passages besides. But its sin has been forgiven, the punishment endured has been adequate (40°), and, in spite of the unpreparedness of the people, J" brings near His . (4618 51° 5219); the liidden right of Israel, which exists annidst all its unworthiness and shortcoming, is about to be made manifest. And here, in accordance with forensic usage, the idea of righteousness is resolved into two perfectly distinct conceptions. On the one hand it denotes the inherent right of Israel's cause at the bar of the Divine judgment (as in i. (1)); and on the other hand the external vindication of that right through a judicial intervention of J" (i. (2)). In the latter sense righteousness means justification (54* 17 45* *), and is practically equivalent to salvation, the deliverance of the people being regarded as the execution of a Divine sentence in its favour.” The idea of the inherent righteousness of Israel, however, is more difficult, and several elements appear to enter into it. (a) Israel is in the right, first of all, as having suffered wrong at the hands of the world - power. The triumph of Babylon has been the triumph of brute * In 412, where it is said of Cyrus that ‘right meets him at every step,' ply bears the sense of right vindicated on the field of battle, i.e. ‘victory’ (see the Comm.). 276 RIGHTEOUSINESS IN OT RIGHTEOUSNESS IN OT force over helpless innocence (47° 52*), and a viola- tion of the moral order of the world. On this ground alone Israel has a plea before the Judge of all the Carth, it has a right (bºn) which does not escape the notice of J" (40”; cf. Mic 7"). (b) Righteousness includes, in the second place, a way of iife in accordance with the law of God. of the better part of the people it is said that they follow after righteousness (51*) or know righteousness (517), just as it is said of another section that they Similarly, in are far from righteousness (46%).” 53* it is said of J”s righteous Servant that by his knowledge he shall make many righteous, i.e. bring them to a moral condition conforming to the Divine will. (c) There is, perhaps, yet another element to be taken into account : Israel is in the right in virtue of its being identified with the cause of J", the only true God. Israel is J"'s witness, His client in the great controversy be. tween the true religion and idolatry, His servant and His messenger whom He has sent (43". *44° 41* * 42° etc.). As the organ of J’s self-revelation, the nation represents the cause that must ulti- mately triumph, and is therefore essentially in the right. This vocation of Israel is described as per- fectly realized in the ideal Servant of the Lord (49%), whom J" has called in righteousness (42") and appointed for a light of the Gentiles, that His salvation might be to the ends of the earth (49"; cf. 42* *). The Servant’s confidence that he shall be justified (50°: " 49") rests on the conscious- ness of his election, and the unique relation which he holds to the redemptive purpose of J". The same distinction between inherent and external righteous- ness is met with in chs. 56–66, which are assigned by some Scholars to a later date. Thus in the sense of justification (Salvation, prosperity, etc.) the nouns occur in 561b 588 599 619.10t. 021. (cf. 4818, possibly an interpolated passage in the earlier part). Of inherent right, the adj. is used in 571 6021 ; the substantives in 561° 58° 04'ſ, the aspect most prominent appears to be obedience to the law.—The idea of civic right- º in the sense of the pre-exilic prophets appears in The sense of Israel's right against the nations appears like- wise in other post-exilic writings, particularly in the Psalter, where the antithesis of ‘righteous' and “wicked' sometimes denotes Israel and the heathen respectively; cf. Ps 710 145 3118 331 526ſ. 7510 942, 9711f. 11815, 20 etc. etc. But here it is no longer possible to separate between the national and individual references of the idea of righteousness; and it is therefore better to deal with the subject after we have considered— 2. THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL – That individual righteousness was an idea familiar in early times to the Israelites, is sufficiently clear from such passages as 1 S 26”, l K 8%, Is 319. 11 (? if genuine), etc. It may be true that the individual was hardly felt to possess an independ- ent religious status before God. His life and his interests were seen to be merged in those of his family or the community (1 S 3° etc.); and it was perhaps not expected that his outward fortunes should correspond exactly with his moral condition. At all events, there is no evidence that the inequal- ities of providence, in this sphere pressed severely on religious thought till towards the Exile, when a growing sense of personal right begins to assert itself (Dt 24", 2 K, 14"). In the remarkable pro- phetic experience of Jeremiah, religion appears to resolve itself into a personal relation of the indi- vidual soul to God. And it is noteworthy that immediately he is confronted by the gravest pro- blem of Jewish theology, Why is it that the man who is right with God has to suffer affliction and * Many commentators take the word in these passages in the Bense of outward justiſleation. But the parallelism in 517 ( in whose heart is my law') 8trongly favours the more ethical meaning, and this ought in fairness to rule the interpretation of 511. 4612 is more doubtful. t On an Aramaic inscription of the 7th cent. B.C. (Nerabji, 2) the following words are put into the mouth of a dead priest : “ lºor my righteousness before him, he (the god) gave me a good name and lengthened my days’ (Hoffmann, ZA, 1896, p. 221 f.). -* ~ injustice in the world 2 ‘Too righteous art thou, O J", for me to contend with thee; yet of judg- ments would I speak with thee: Wherefore is the way of the wicked prosperous?’ etc. (12"). £zekiel.—Besides the general tendency of thought referred to in the last paragraph, there were two special reasons for the rapid growth of individual- ism in the exilic and post exilic ages. One was the dissolution of the State, in consequence of which the principle of collective retribution was ſeves- sarily º and each man became directly accountable to God for his own sins (Jer 31*, Ezk 18**). But another and more permanent cause was the introduction of the written Ilaw as the basis of religion. The Law makes its appeal in the first instance to the individual conscience, and, although the aim of the Deuteronomic covenant was to make of Israel a righteous nation through obedience to the Divine will (Dt 6”), its immediate effect was only to set up a standard of righteous- ness which served as a test of the individual’s relation to God. The influence of these two facts is very apparent in the conception of righteousness which meets us in the Blº. of Ezekiel. Except in a few instances (16%. 23°45") the words ‘righteous’ and ‘righteousness’ are there used solely to denote the religious condition of individual persons in the sight of God (340m, 13° 1414, 20 1801. 218ſ. 3312m). Sometimes even the plu. n\pi} is employed of the separate virtues or good deeds, which when integ- rated make up the religious character (3* 18° 33°; cf. Is 33° 64°). In form the idea is purely legal, consisting in obedience to the precepts of the written Law ; its content, as given in 18° 33” etc., is mainly but not exclusively ethical. And to this conception of righteousness there is attached a rigorous theory of individual retribution; ºccord- ing as a man's state is when the judgment over- takes him, so will his destiny be : the righteous shall live, and the wicked shall die. Book of Job. —Ezekiel’s doctrine of retribution was formulated with express reference to the ſinal judgment which determines whether a man is to be admitted into the perfect kingdom of God or excluded from it. When the principle was ex- tended to the ordinary course of providence, it was found to be contradicted at many points by experi- ence. Hence arose the most serious stumbling- block to the faith of OT believers—the inequalities, the seeming injustice, of God’s providential deal- ings with men. This problem emerges in many forms (see Hab 1*** **, Is 53, Mal 3”. 18, 1’s 37. 39. 49. 73, etc.), but nowhere is it treated with such benetration and such intensity of feeling as in the }. of Job. Job, a typically pious man, acknow- ledged to be such by the Almighty and the Satan, as well as by his fellow-men, is suddenly visited by a series of calamities which, on the current view of providence, could only be explained as the punish- ment due to heinous sins. This view is upheld, in the discussion which ensues, by the three friends, and is partly shared by Job himself. His mind is dominated by the thought of God as his adversary in a lawsuit ; or rather his chief com- laint is that the Almighty constitutes Himself Joth accuser and judge, while there is no umpire who can lay his hand upon them both (9%). He feels himself to be the victim of an accusation brought against him by an all-powerful antagonist ; and his contention is that the accusation is un- just—that he is in the right and God in the wrong in this unequal quarrel. This, of course, as the other disputants are quick to point out (8° 34.736° 37° 40°), is to impugn the judicial righteous- ness of God; and such a position is to them simply inconceivable. ‘How can a man be in the right against God?’ they ask (475"25"); and Job retorts with bitter irony, ‘How indeed seeing He is the – RIGHTEOUSNESS IN OT RIGHTEOUSNESS IN OT 277 Omnipotent against whom there is no redress’ (9%). Thus to the friends the question at issue is the righteousness of Job, which they ultimately deny ; while to Job himself it is the righteousness of God in His providential dealings with men : “he condemns God that he himself may be in the right' (40°, cf. 34°). Although he is forced to acknowledge that God has pronounced him guilty, he is nevertheless perfectly sure of his own right- eousness (27%), by which he means in the first instance his “just cause against God’ (35°), his innocence of the unknown transgressions laid to his charge by his irresistible opponent. “I am innocent—in the right’ is his constant cry (9% 13° 34” etc.). But behind this formal and purely forensic sense of righteousness there lies a deeper question, viz. What constitutes the righteousness of a man before God, or what entitles him to a sentence of justification in the shape of temporal prosperity ? On that point there does not appear to be any fundamental difference between Job and his friends. Iłighteousness means morality com- bined with piety—loyal and whole-hearted obedi- ence to the will of God. Observance of the written Law is obviously excluded by the conditions of the poem ; but it is assumed that God’s will is known, and that a man may so fulfil it as to be righteous. Job is a man perfect and upright, fearing God and shunning evil (1% etc.). That his outer ife had been morally correct was known to all the world ; what was known to himself alone and God was that there had been no hypoc- risy or secret inſidelity in his heart (29*. 31*); his morality had been inspired by religion, by reverence, and perfect allegiance to his Creator. On that point the testimony of his conscience is clear and unwavering ; and it is the undoubted teaching of the book that this plea of Job's is valid, and that the real problem lies where Job’s argument places it, in the mystery of the Divine government. We are not here concerned with the solution which the author intends to suggest, but it can hardly consist, as some have thought, in the undermining of Job's consciousness of innocence, and his being convicted of a subtle kind of sin in the shape of Self-righteousness. It is rather to be looked for in the remarkable distinction which the patriarch is led to draw between the God of Providence who condemns and persecutes him, and the God to whom his heart bears witness, who is even now his friend, and must yet appear as his avenger, though it be after his death (1619-21 19°-27). Job is enabled in some degree to maintain his fellowship with God apart from outward tokens of His favour, sustained only by the witness of his conscience, and the nascent hope of seeing Him as He is, in another state of being. It has already been pointed out that in this book the terms for righteousness are employed of being in the right in argu- ment ; cf. 112 270 322 3312. 89. Note also the occasional use of PTS in the sense of external justification (= prosperity), 802914 [?] 8326 867. Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.—In the two remain- ing canonical Hokhmah books the conception of righteousness is as distinctly individualistic as in Job or Ezekiel. A very common theme in the Proverbs is the contrast between the ‘righteous’ (pºs—sing. or plu.) and the “wicked ' (yºu)." Here the righteous do not form a party (as often in the Psalms); they are a class, comprising all who follow the moral ideal taught by the wise men. All men, in short, are divided by the l’roverbialists into good and bad, and ‘righteous’ is simply one of the commonest designations of the good part of * Soo 338 1() pass. {} times), 118. 10, 23, 31 125, 7, 10. 12, 21. 26 135. 0.25 1419. 32 156, 28.29 2112, 1824.15ſ. 2526 281, 12.28 202. 7, 16. 27. Thero aro many other contrasts, as sinner 1321, evil-doers 215, fools 1021 §§..." many synonyms, as wise 90 1130 2394, good 220, wbright mankind. It follows that the idea of righteous- ness presented in the book is essentially ethical, though no doubt with a strong dash of utilitarian- ism, the virtues chiefly insisted on being those which experience shows to be necessary for the welfare of society, and therefore most immediately beneficial to the individual who practises them. At the same time the moral system has a religious background. The written Law is the supreme standard of morality or righteousness. Moreover, one of the chief objects of the writers is to incul- cate the doctrine of individual retribution in the ordinary course of Divine providence. However the fact may be explained, the difficulties surround- ing this question are ignored in the Proverbs, and the law of retribution is regarded as fully mani- fested in the present life: “The righteous shall be requited in the earth, much more the wicked and the sinner’ (11*). Hence the idea of righteous- ness appears to have lost the eschatological refer- ence which it frequently has in other parts of OT, and (what is more remarkable) it has all but lost the sense of outward justification, such as we meet with occasionally even in the Blc. of Job. Although it is constantly asserted that righteous- ness is the way to honour, wealth, prosperity, etc., it does not seem ever to be identified with these external tokens of God’s approval except in 21* 8*. In Ecclesiastes the same conception of right- eousness as the Supreme moral category prevails; cf. 317 71°8'491. *. The sayings most characteristic of the author are these two : ‘Be not righteous overnmuch (7%), and “There is not a righteous man upon the earth that doeth good and sinneth not ” (7”). The latter is perhaps the only passage in OT where righteousness is treated as equivalent to sinlessness; the former exhibits a reaction against the casuistries of Pharisaic legalism. The vacilla- tion of the book on the subject of retribution (con- trast 716 81* 9” with 317 91 etc.) raises diflicult critical questions which need not be considered here.” The Psalms.--It is very diſlicult to analyze and classify the varied aspects of human righteousness presented in the Psalter. Tor one thing, it is im- possible (as was said above) to draw a sharp line of division between the righteousness of the nation and that of the individual. The point of view most characteristic of the Psalms is intermediate between these two. In a large number of *. sages the distinction of pºſs and vºn is º: to two parties within the community; the ‘righteous’ being the religious party who have regard to the Covenant, and the “Wicked the godless and wealthy anti-theocratic party who set religion and morality at defiance. Here the idea of righteousness is partly national, since the ‘right- eous” represent the true ideal Israel; partly indi- vidual, inasmuch as the party is formed by those members of the nation who accept the Law as their rule of life. In some cases, indeed, it is diſlicult to say whether the contrast intended be one within the nation or between the nation and the rest of the world. The ungodly in Israel are animated by the same spirit as the heathen that know not God, and conversely the qualities of the righteous are the same whether the predicate be extended to the people as a whole or restricted to a portion of it. With regard to the conception of righteousness implied by this contrast, the following points have to be noted. (a) The conflict of parties is, first of all, a conflict of religious first principles. The righteous are distinguished by their faith in the * Both in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes there are references to the public administration of justice, where of course the idea of righteousness has the ordinary legal applications: cf. Pr 17* * 1Sö, 17 2424 2520, 815 1612 256 319, Ee 316 68. + Cf. 15 512 lig, 6 3211 3417, 20, 22.37 pass. 5522 6410 6028 921? 1126 1401?) 1415 etc. 278 RIGHTEOUSINESS IN OT RIGHTEOUSINESS IN OT moral government of the universe. They trust *n_J" (16' 26'22"), and consciously identify them- selves with His cause in the world; they stake their existence on the conviction that ‘ there is a God that judgeth in the earth’ (58%), and that “in the end judgment must be given for righteousness’ (941, §. The wicked, on the contrary, are practical atheists. They deny, not perhaps the existence of God, but His providential action (14° 53*), and acknowledge no higher authority than their own lawless wills (12° 59' 64°947). Thus the Divine decision in their favour for which the Psalmists pray will be the vindication of that view of the world to which they have committed them- selves—the proof that they are in the right in the film.ºf beliefs on which their life is based. (b) The sphere in which the contrast is wrought out is that of personal and social morality; hence there is a constant reference, tacit or expressed, to the moral character of the suppliants. They are those who practise righteousness and justice (106° 119°); they appeal to their integrity (7° 25*41*); they claim to be upright, or upright of heart (32" 33 3718 640971) 14U19), and innocent (94”); to have clean hands and a pure heart (18” 4 24%); cf. 17". 26*. On the other land, the wicked are cruel, unjust, deceitful, bloody-minded, adulterous, avari- cious, etc.; men who, with no fear of God before their eyes, trample every social obligation under their feet." (c) Another element in the Psalmists’ sense of righteousness is the fact that they sufler wrong at the hands of their enemies (7, 10° 227ſ. 31* G9" 11986 IQ59 1438 etc.). The outrages tºº. by the heathen nations on Israel, and by the rich upon the poor within Israel, are a violation of the moral order of the world which cannot pass unpunished under the just govern- ment of J"; the oppressed are, ipso facto, in the right against their oppressors. (d) Lastly (as in I)eutero-Isaiah and elsewhere), righteousness bears the sense of justification through the judicial inter- position of J’, usually in the form of a restoration of temporal prosperity. So in 24° ‘he shall receive blessing from J", and righteousness from the God of his salvation' (cf. 171° 35-7 37° 1129: " etc.); in 23° ‘paths of righteousness’ means ‘paths of pro- sperity’ (11819 1329).f Now, while all these elements may enter more or less into the Psalmists’ consciousness of being in the right, that consciousness on which they base their expectation (or explain their experience) of deliverance (4, 7° 17' 18". * etc.),—they are not of equal importance. The second (b) far outweighs the others. Iłighteousness is in the main an ethical word, describing the condition of those whose lives are governed by regard for the moral law. To the question in what sense morality con- stitutes righteousness before God, the Psalms, of course, furnish no direct answer. The chief con- sideration, no doubt, is that obedience to the written Law was the condition of acceptance with J" under the Covenant. This thought is often expressed (1971 787 997 103* 105* 119 pass., etc.), and may be presumed to be always in the mind of the writers. At the same time it is to be observed that only the ethical (as opposed to the ceremonial) elements of the Law enter into the conception of righteousness, a fact which shows that the influence of the prophets still lives in the devotional poetry of Judaism. Nor is there anything in the 1'salms * Righteousness in judgment is emphasized, e.g., in the portraits of the king, 457 722 (cf. 581 822f 90'ſ etc.). In 723 8510. 11, 13 the word possibly means the ideal state of a well- ordered commonwealth, bringing peace and prosperity in its train (cf. Is 458). f As was remarked above, pºſs (the adj.) does not appear to have this sense ; it refers to the inherent state or character of those who are in the right, whether it has been manifested by external providential acts or not. 11810, 20 are hardly exceptions. - —- that can º be called self-righteousness or legalism in a Pharisaic sense, i.e. the Psalmists do not think of their good works as giving them an absolute title to justification. They do not (like Job) maintain their right against God—" in thy sight shall no man living be in the right,’ 143*— they are ever conscious of defect and sin cleaving to all they do; and merely plead the steadfast direction of their will towards the ethical ideal as evidence of their fidelity to J". Righteousness, in fact, is a relative term, meaning in the right as against some other, not absolute moral perfection in the sight of God. In 106*, where a single good action is said to be “counted for righteousness, the word has doubtless a sense approaching to merit (cf. Gn 15%); but here the Pauline maxim has to be borne in mind that the ‘reckoning’ of a reward is of grace, not of debt (Ro 4*). It is a manifestation of grace on the part of J" that He renders to a man according to his works (62%). This is not the place to examine the moral ideal of the Psalmists in detail (see ETHICS); it is in all important features the common property of post- . Judaism, and it has its centre in the indi- vidual life. Only one point needs to be adverted to, in order to guard against a possible misconcep- tion. It is found that in connexion with the idea of righteousness considerable emphasis is laid on the humane virtues. In 112* ‘righteous’ and ‘mer- ciful” occur together in the description of the God- fearing man; in v." of the same Psalm charity to the poor is mentioned as a condition of righteous- ness; in 37* 1129: " the righteous is characterized by willingness to lend, and to give.” Now, it is a well-known fact that in later times righteousness acquired the special sense of mercy or even alms- giving (see below), and it might he supposed that in the passages just cited, we have the first indica- tion of that in portant change of meaning. It is very doubtful if this view be correct. In reality, the phenomenon in question is little different from a feature we have already remarked in the pro- phetic conception of righteousness. To say that the righteous man is merciful, etc., is not the same thing as to identify righteousness and mercy ; all that is meant is that mercifulness is one feature of the ideal righteous character; and any stress laid on such virtues in particular passages is amply explained by the prominence assigned to them in the moral code of Judaism. Some additional illustrations of the various kinds of human righteousness may here be given from the later writings of QT. —in Mal 318 the two parties in the restored community are dis- tinguished as the ‘righteous’ and the ‘wicked' respectively (as in iPsalms).—In 320 righteousness means justification through a return of prosperity; as also J1 223: ‘the carly rain in token of justification' (TQIs?,-less probably, in just measure); Dn 924 (“everlasting righteousness').-In Is 2410202 pºſs is a predicate of the nation of Israel; in 207, perhaps of the theocratic party.— In 209 the idea, seems to be that when J" rouses IIimself to the exercise of His judicial functions, the inhabitants of the world will learn what true piety is.--Is 645, 1)n 918 express a sense of the worthlessness of the works of righteousness(n\pi}) performed by the people; the consciousness of being in the right (often so powerful in the Psalms) cannot maintain itself in the face of pro- longed national misfortune. Dn 81" (p133) is a peculiar case : the cleansing of the sanctuary is considered as a }|. a viudi- cation of its rights against the heathen who had profancq it. 3. THE RIGIITEOUSN ESS OF GOI).-In the OT righteousness is never predicated of any other deity than J", the God of Israel. It appears to be regarded * The same combination is met with in Proverbs (cf. 1210 21” 297), and perhaps in Job (2014). tº º in # In Ps, 58. 82 many commentators ſind the unfamiliar idea expressed that the government of the world has been delegated by J" to inferior, semi-divine beings, the gods of the heathem. To the unrighteous judgment of these subordinato deities is ascribed the perversion of right which prevails on earth. Iſ this view were correct (which is doubtful), it would certainly show that righteousness was expected of all beings to whºm Divine honours were paid ; but such a representation hardly conflicts with the statement made above. RIGHTEOUSINESS IN OT RIGHTEOUSNESS IN OT 279 - * not as a natural attribute inseparable from the very notion of Godhead, but as one which J" alone has proved Himself to possess in the positive reve- lation of Himself through the history of Israel (see Is 45"). The idea has its roots in the fundamental institutions of the Hebrew religion. From the time of Moses, J" was regarded as the fountain of right in Israel, the IXing and Judge of His people, dispensing justice continuously through His ac- credited representatives (Dt l”).” . The develop- ment of the idea is due chiefly to influences ema- nating from the prophets. It belongs to their view of J" as an ethical Person having an independent character of His own, in contrast with the gods of the heathen, who were conceived even by their worshippers as arbitrary and capricious beings, subject to incalculable humours and swayed by self-interest. The righteousness of J" is the stead- fastness of His character, to be seen, first of all, in His inflexible determination to punish Israel for its sins (Is 2817 etc.). It comes to É. in the moral order of the universe, which is just J" Himself operating in history in a way that answers to the sense of right which He has implanted in human nature. In Zeph 3" His moral rule is described as having the constancy and uniformity of the natural law that brings in the dawn : “J” is righteous in the midst of her; he doeth no iniquity; morning by morning , he bringeth his judgment to light, nothing is missing' (cf. Hos 6° my judgment goeth forth as the light'). In a similar and nearly contemporary passage, we read: ‘The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are judgment ; a God of faithfulness and without iniquity; righteous and upright is he’ (Dt 32"). This prophetic conception of the Divine righteous- ness receives a remarkable expansion in the hands of Deutero-Isaiah. The most suggestive passage is 45* “Not in secret have I spoken, in a place of the land of darkness; I have not said to the seed of Jacob, Seek me in the waste. I, J', speak righteousness, proclaim uprightness, . . . A right- eous God and a Saviour (gºpi pºſs ºs) there is not except me’ (cf. v.” ‘righteousness is gone forth from my mouth, a word that shall not return'; and 63% “I that speak in righteousness, mighty to Save”). Here two things are to be noted : first, that righteousness is a feature not merely of J’s judicial action, but of His whole manner of reveal- ing Himself in history ; and, secondly, that beyond the universal moral order of the world it embraces a redemptive purpose, which, however, is ultimately coextensive with the destiny of mankind. The fundamental thought would seem to be the trust- worthiness and self-consistency of J’s character, His being ever true to His own nature and purpose, —and along with that His straightforwardness in the revelation of that purpose to Israel. In the same profound ethical sense the words are used in 411" 42" 45°; the upholding of Israel, the election of the ideal servant, and the raising up of Cyrus, are all moments in one comprehensive purpose of salvation which J", in virtue of His righteousness, steadily pursues to its glorious issue. Elsewhere than in * As expressions of the righteous will of J", the precepts of the Law are sometimes spoken of as themselves ‘righteous’ (Dt 48, Ps 199, and often in Ps 119). So in 1)t 3310, and perhaps elsewhere (Ps 50 11040 etc.), the righteousness of J” means that which He requires of mam, or that which is prescribed in the Law. Some writers have thought it strange that this Divine attribute is nowhere mentioned in the Pent. in connexion with the Mosaic legislation, which, from one point of view, might seem the most signal exhibition of J"'s righteousness in the whole history of Israel. The explanation probably lies in the essentially prophetic character of the conception referred to in the text above. By the prophets the term is applied not to the legislative activity of J", but to IIis dealings in providence. # Cf. also 4221 “J” was pleased, for his righteousness' sake, to magnify revelation,' etc. Less significant, but still noteworthy, are 412; 439, where the terms are applied to predictions as verified by the event. Deutero-Isaiah, this precise sense of righteousness is rarely met with in OT (see Zec 88, Neh 9°, and those passages in the Psalms where righteousness is parallel to faithfulness). Its indirect influence, however, has been very great, as appears from the remarkable way in which the Psalmists emphasize the gracious aspect of the attribute (see below). The teaching of Deutero-Isaiah on this subject stands some. what apart from the rest of the OT, and represents a standpoint hardly reached by subsequent writers. Righteousness appears to be conceived as a moral attribute expressing what J”s character is in itself, apart from His legal relations with men ; and it is difficult to trace a connexion between this view of righteousness and the commoner forensic conceptions about to be considered. Smend describes it as ‘die Zuverlässigkeit mit der er sich als der Helfer Israels ºilº 394 ; cf. 1st ed. 421 ff.), and seems to derive it from the idea of J”s being in the right in His controversy with Israel (see (a) below). Dalman treats it sinnply as a manifestation of judicial righteous- ness on the part of God ((b) below). Were it not hazardous to depart from the forensic usage which is so prevalent in Hebrew, one might be tempted to suppose that we have here to do with an independent development of the notion parallel to what is found in Arabic. For the most part, however, the idea of Divine righteousness is based on legal analogies applied to the relation between J" on the one hand and Israel or mankind on the other. Here, again, there are two cases to be distinguished. (a) Not infrequently, in the prophets and elsewhere, J" appears as the plaintiff in a legal action, pressing His suit against Israel, and calling for the judgment of an ideal tribunal (Is 11° 43*, Mic 6" etc.). When in this connexion the word ‘righteous” is employed of J", it denotes that He is in the right and His adversary in the wrong in the controversy between them. The adj. has this sense in the mouth of Pharaoh, Ex 9” (“J” is in the right,” etc.). It is so used also in the following passages, where the righteousness of J" is acknowledged in the punishment of Israel's sin : La 118, Ezr 91%, Neh 9°, 2 Ch 12%, Dn 94. Similarly, my in Dn 97. 1", n\pi} in 1 S 127, Mic 6"; " and the verb in Ps 51% (‘that thou mayest be in the right in thy sentence”). By an extension of meaning parallel to what we have already noted in the secular sphere, this sense of righteousness might readily pass over into that of ethical perfection ; and there are a few instances where the word is ossibly to be so understood ; cf. again Zeph 3°, I)t 32°, Zec 88; also Nell 98, Ps 1457 etc. (b) The prevalent conception of the OT is that in which J" is represented not as one of the parties in a lawsuit, but as the supreme Judge, who sits enthroned above the confusion and strife of the world, and dispenses absolute justice in the end to all His creatures. Righteousness, accordingly, is pre-eminently the judicial attribute of God; it is that which pertains to Him as ‘the Judge of all the earth’ (Gn 18”). J" is a righteous Judge (Jer 1129, Ps 7”); judges the world in righteousness (l’s 98.96% 98"); He sits on a throne judging right- eousness (9%); righteousness is the foundation of His throne (89.14 97°); cf. 117 36° 48' 50" 7119.97° 111° etc. Hence the word may be expected to have the same range of meaning as the ordinary OT concep- tion of judicial righteousness, which we have seen to be a somewhat wider idea than its modern equivalent. (a) It includes of course, first of all, the cardinal virtues of the judge ; c.g. love of right (Jer 948, Ps 11733° 99"); rigorous impartiality in the distribution of punishm, nt or reward (Job Sº 36° 37*); and unerring recognition of men's true moral condition (Jer 11° 20'3, Ps 7"; cf. Is 11° of the Messiah). Its action is naturally two-sided : * n\py in Jg 511, Ps. 117 1086 is probably different (=mani- festations of judicial righteousness, in a sense favourable to Israel). + §, göttliche Zedakah ist º Gesinnung, welche in ihrer Bethâtigung dem wahren, d. i. sittlichen Werth oder Unworth einer Persömlichkeit (oder einer Gemeinschaft) in absolut richtiger Weise anerkennt ' (Diestel, JD Th, 1860, p. 179). 280 RIGHTEOUSNESS IN OT TIGHTEOUSNESS IN OT towards the wicked it is vengeance (Jer 11” 201*, Is 59°, I’s 1294 etc.), while for the righteous it umeans vindication and deliverance; and usually the two sides of the idea will be displayed in the same act of judgment, the deliverance of the righteous being effected through the destruction of the wicked. . (6) But frequently the second is so emphasized that the other is almost or quite left out of view ; and this tendency is so pronounced as almost to bring about a transformation of the whole idea of Divine righteousness. Thus in virtue of His righteousness J" establishes the righteous (Ps 7"), and pleads the cause of His people (Mic 7"); He answers their prayer by terrible things in righteousness (Ps 65°), etc. So in the many places where the righteousness of God is referred to as an object of praise (Ps 717 228, 35* 409 51.1° 71*. 1989” 1457), it is not the abstract justice of J”s dealings that calls forth adoration, but His proved readiness to help and bless His people. This aspect of right- eousness may be defined as the justifying activity of God. (y) Once more, the name righteousness is given to the act of justification in which the Divine attribute is manifested, and to its external conse- quences as seen in the lot of the justified. In other words, righteousness is synonymous with salvation (Is 4619 B15. 6. 8 5910t., Ps 4010 5116 7110t. 98% etc.). This objective righteousness is spoken of indiffer- ently as that of God the Justifier, or of men the justified" (cf. Ps 111° with 112°, and see the passages cited above amongst the illustrations of human righteousness). It should be added that in many cases the context hardly determines whether it be the subjective attribute in the Divine mind or the outward embodiment of it in providence which is to be understood. It is evident that the OT writers know nothing of the sharp contrast often drawn by theologians between the righteousness and the mercy of God. Righteousness and saving activity, so far from being opposed to each other, are harmonious prin- ciples of action in the Divine nature ; J" is a right- eous God and a Saviour (Is 45*). Accordingly, the Psalmists constantly appeal to the righteousness of God, not only for judgment (22° 35°), but for deliverance (31' 71° 143*), for quickening (5°), for the answer to prayer (143*), etc. Again, right- eousness is frequently associated with other attri- butes expressing the gracious attitude of J" to His pºle, e.g. mercy or grace (Tpm Ps 36%. 19 8914 1031, 1457), faithfulness (nºs, goodness (1457), etc. These parallelisms are not to e pressed so far as to identify righteousness with grace or faithfulness; all that is implied is that in J”s providential action various attributes meet, so that the same act may from different points of view be regarded as an exercise of righteousness, or of faithfulness, or of mercy. Still they suffice to show that in the mind of the writers there was no sense of opposition between righteousness and grace in God. How far their idea is from mere retributive justice, — the constans et perpetua, woluntas swum cuique tributendi, - appears with almost startling force from the singular wish of Ps 69* that the wicked may not come into Jº's righteousness (i.e. have no share in His justifying activity), or the not less remarkable prayer of 143* * “Answer me in thy righteousness. And enter not into judgment with thy servant : for in thy sight shall none living be in the right.’ ‘f Nay * “Gottes Gerechtigkeit hat einen mehr ursăchlichen, alctiven, die menschliche einen mehr sekundiren und receptiven Char. akter, jene ist eine löraft, diese ein Zustand' (Duhin on Ps 112). f Here ‘enter into judgment' apparently means to appear as the accuser in a legal process (Wellhausen). The Psalmist does not shrink from the judgment of God, in which Iſis ºpiº is operative, but only from a controversy with the Almighty, like that in which Job so recklessly engaged. 3. ſ §, näps Zec 88, Ps 36° 4010 88” 891' 96° 11997: 14° 143), compassion (ºn 116°), more, the principle of retribution is in. Ps 62” expressly deduced not from the righteousness of God, but from His grace : ‘to thee belongeth grace : for thou requitest each man according to his works'; here the meaning must be that it is an act of condescending grace on the part of God to take cognizance of the differences in human conduct. On the other hand, however, these examples do not justify certain extreme theories that have sometimes been built upon them. They do not, e.g., warrant the definition of righteousness as God’s fidelity to the Covenant (Kautzsch, IRiehm, etc.). No doubt, faithfulness to covenant obliga- tions is a part of the ethical righteousness of J’ when once a covenant has been established ; but there is nothing to suggest that the attribute comes into play only with the covenant relation, or tha'. its sphere of exercise is confined to the maintenance of the Covenant with Israel. Again, it is a- exaggeration to deny that retribution is an ele ment of the Divine righteousness. This has been done by Diestel and Ritschl, who hold that the righteousness of God has a positive reference only to the purpose of salvation, and that retribution has merely an accidental connexion with it in so far as the punishment of the wicked may be neces- sary for tº: establishing of the righteous. The distinction here attempted to be drawn is illusory. The punishment of sin is directly connected with the Divine righteousness in such passages as Is 5* 10%. 2817, Ps 711 50°, 1 K 8% etc.; and if this does not more frequently occur, the reasonable explana- tion is that the matter was too self-evident to require to be insisted on. But the mistake of both these theories, as of others that might be men- tioned, is that they tend to dissociate an OT idea from the historic institutions in which it was incorporated in Hebrew thought, and try to recon- struct it on the unsafe foundation of an abstract definition. The language of the OT is not scho- lastic but practical ; its writers do not analyze and expound ideas, but express in vivid popular speech the spiritual truths by which their religious life was sustained. That the Divine righteousness was mainly conceived by them as a judicial attribute is beyond dispute, and they must be presumed to include under it all that the term would imply if used of a human judge, the punishment of the guilty as well as d. vindication of the innocent. The prominence which is given to the latter aspect of the notion is certainly a fact of the utmost significance for theology, but it involves no de- parture from the analogy of secular justice as administered in ancient Israel. If it be considered that the Psalmists and other writers were accus. tomed to look on a judge as the natural protector and patron of the oppressed, and, further, that they were always . in the substantial justic: of their own cause before God, there need be no difficulty in recognizing the essentially judicial character of their conception of the Divine right- eousness, although to their minds it presents on the whole the aspect of grace. - Another point may be referred to. The OT does not appear to teach a justification of sinners as such. In Protestant theology, according to Iłitschl, justification is a synthetic judgment of God, expressing, that is, His resolve, for the sake of Jesus Christ, to treat as righteous those who have no righteousness in themselves. Assuming that to be a correct statement of the evangelical doctrine, we have merely to observe that the O'I' does not proceed quite so far. It rather leads us to think of justification as an analytic judgment, a declaration of righteousness by God in favour of such as are inherently in the right. Those who are justified are, in fact, sinful men, – though RIGHTEOUSINESS IN OT RIGHTEOUSNESS IN NT 281 never, of course, “wicked ' (n'yūji), — but still, in the relative sense in which the word is used, they are the ‘righteous'; and it is quá righteous, not qué sinners, that they are objects of the justifying decree of God. It is true . in the actual ex- perience of OT believers this order of ideas is generally reversed. The consciousness of being in the right is seldom strong enough to be long main- tained in the absence of the outward marks of God’s approval in the shape of temporal good fortune ; the case of Job is º: exceptional. The external justification, therefore, as a rule comes first in the thought of OT writers; and from it they derive the assurance that they are in- herently righteous before God. And as the with- drawal of outward prosperity is a proof of sin in the righteous, so the act of justification is equiva- lent to the pardon of sin; cf. Job 33”, where the conversion of a sinner under the chastening hand of the Almighty is said to be followed by the restoration of his righteousness. Thus the teach- ing of the OT may be said to culminate in the thought of righteousness as a gift of God, an idea appearing most clearly perhaps in Ps 24° 69*, Is 46° 51* * 56%. In these passages we find the nearest º to what we mean by “im- puted righteousness. The idea of the righteous- ness of one person being imputed to another is, it need hardly |. said, entirely foreign to the OT. In late Hebrew the word mpts underwent a remarkable change of meaning, for a full account of which the reader is referred to the valuable treatise of Dalman cited below (under Literature). A few points may here be noted. (1) In the sphere of private morals TipTx became almost equivalent to the OT 1917; i.e. it denoted any exercise of benevolence which goes beyond a man’s legal obligations. Obviously, this is a development of the humanitarian aspect of the idea which we have seen to be prominent in the prophets and the Hagiographa, and it reaches its climax in the Sense of almsgiving (see Mt. 61). Dalman considers that the word had this sense in the Aramaic dialect before its adoption by the Jews, but this is hardly proved by the examples he adduces (p 18). It is not necessary to take the original Hºly in Dn 424 as anything else than right living ; and the occurrence of the !ater sense in the Targ, (Gn 1819) is no sure evidence of an independent Aramaic development. It seems more natural to suppose that the usage of the Targ. registers a change which the idea had undergone in the religious thought of later Judaism. (2) In the judicial sphere np is has ceased to be a properly judicial attribute. It is a consideration which comes in to moderate the operation of strict justice ("), so that the ques- tion is actually raised, and answered with much ingenuity, how, in accordance with OT injunctions, Tipis is to be exercised in judgment.” This, of course, applies equally to the Divine righteousness and to that of a human judge. Here, again, we have the one-sided exaggeration of a single element in the old Hebrew notion of judicial righteousness. included both the exercise of impartial |*. and a readiness to espouse the cause of the oppressed. Eventually — partly through the parallel development in the sphere of private morals, and partly, as Dalman observes (p. 18), from a more developed sense of formal right—the two ideas proved to be incompatible, and the name HpTx was appropriated to that which, strictly speaking, has nothing to do with a judge's functions at all. - The question arises, To what time can these changes, or the beginnings of them, be traced back? Here the evidence of the }. is of importance. Where the reference is to righteous- ness manifested by God to man, "pis is not infrequently rendered by txsºooºwn (Dt 625 2413, Ps 24 (23) 6 33 (32)0 103 (102)0, Is 127 2S17 5919, Dn 910) or Asos (Is 561). For human righteousness we have only #Asos in Ezk 1820, 22 and #xsnºooºyous (= alms) in Dn 424. On the other hand, Sizzlooºwn stands for ipſ in Gn 1910 2013 2129 2427 3210, Ex 1513 347, Pr 2028, Is 637. These facts indicate a tendency to confuse the ideas of Tipnx and mon, though they do not show it to be far advanced ; something must bo allowed for the difficulty of rendering in another language the peculiar shades of meaning assumed by the Hebrew term.—In the original Hebrew of Ben Sira, the later sense of "pix appears (314 380 [cf. Pr 160] 710 4017), alongside of the more general OT sense (128 1614 4419 5130): some passages are ambiguous (40% etc.).-Since the OT probably contains * Some of Dalman's illustrations are very striking (p. 5 f.). E.g. it is said that a judge exercises ‘righteousness' when he pays out of his own pocket the fine he has imposed on a poor lllllll. Originally it. writings of more recent date than the Greek translation of the Pent., or even the age of Ben Sira (c. 200 B.C.), it would not be surprising if in some parts of the Canon the idea of righteousness were found to have undergone the transforma- tions just described. Yet, as has been already said, it is doubtful if this is the case. The OT emphasizes humanity or mercy as an element in the ethical ideal; but it is this ethical ideal itself, and not any particular yirtue, which is described by the term righteousness. . So again in the admini- stration of justice : righteousness, with whatever latitude of meaning, is always an attribute proper to the judge, never a foreign influence brought in to modify judicial action. There is no foundation in OT for the rabbinical maxim, ‘Where judg- ment is there is no room for Tpiš, and where "pnx is there is no judgment' (Dalman, p. 6). LITERATURE.-Diestel, “Die Idee der Gerechtigkeit, vorzüg- lich in AT” (J.D.Th., 1860, 173–253); Ortloph, “Ueber dén Begriff von pſy und den wurzelverwandten Wörtern im 2:en Theil des Pr. Jes.” (Zeitschr. für die ges. luth. Th. w. I(. 1860, 401– 426); Kautzsch, Ueber die Derivate des Stannes pis, etc. (1881); Orelli, “Einige ATliche Prämisse zur NT Versöhnungs- lehre : II. Die Gerechtigkeit Gottes’ (Ztschr. für Kirchl, Wiss. w. K. Leben, 1884, 73 ff.); Koenig, “Essai sur l'évolution de l'idée de justice chez les prophètes Hébreux' (Annales dw Musée Gwinnet, 1894, 121–148); Dalman, Die richterliche Gerechtigkeit tin A T (1897). The OT. Theologies of Oehler 3 (1891), 176ff., 285 ft.; Schultz 4 §§ 420 ft., 540 ft. ; Riehm (1889), 270ff., 283 ff. ; Dillmann 1895), 270 ft., 435 f.; Bennett (1896), 103, 173; Marti, Geschüchte der Israel. Iteligion (1897), lê4 ff., 170; Smend, Lehrbuch der AT IReligionsgesch.l. (1893), 410–423, 2 (1899), 388–394 (the best statement); Ikitschl, Rechtſertigwng w, Versöhnung 8, ii. 102 f., 265 f.; G. A. Smith, Isaiah (Expositor's Bible), ii. (1890) 214 f.; W. R. Smith, Prophets?, 71 f., 389. . SKINNER. RIGHTEOUSNESS IN NT.—The words denoting ‘righteous’ and ‘righteousness’ in NT, 6tratos and §ukatoo ºvm, º signify what is conformable to an ideal or standard, agreement with what ought to be. These terms naturally take their colour from the system of morals in connexion with which they are used. Righteousness will be a very noble or a very commonplace virtue, accord- ing to the standards by which men measure char- acter and conduct. Accordingly we find that, in profane Greek, righteousness is chiefly a social virtue. Usage and custom prescribe the standard of righteousness and measure its elevation. In NT, however, righteousness is, above all things, a religious word; it is rightness according to the Divine standard ; it is conformity to the will and nature of God Himself. Since, therefore, the character of God is conceived in NT teaching as absolute moral perfection, righteousness in men becomes a name for that disposition and method of life which accord with God's holy will ; in short, righteousness is Godlikeness. The adjective 6tratos occurs with nearly equal frequency in , the Synoptic Gospels and in the Pauline Epistles. The noun ölkatoorºvn occurs seven times in Matthew, once in Luke, and not at all in Mark, and is more frequently used by St. Paul than by all the other §§ Writers combined. In studying the NT concept of righteousness it will be convenient to begin with the Synoptic Gospels, with special reference to the teaching of Jesus, then to consider the Pauline usage, and finally to notice that of other NT writers. We shall thus be led to a general estimate of the NT doctrine. (A) RIGHTEOUSNESS IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. —We may here take as our starting-point that saying of Jesus to His disciples: ‘Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 5”). The righteousness which He required was in some essential respect higher than that which was current in the life and ideals of the Jewish people of His time. We must therefore briefly describe the popular Jewish idea of righteousness. That idea grew out of the current conception of God and of His revelation. Righteousness was thought to consist in obedience to commandments, and the nature of the Divine commands was viewed quite 282 RIGHTEOUSNESS IN NT RIGHTEOTJSNESS IN NT superficially. The rich young man who came to Jesus asking what he should do to inherit eternal life, is an illustration of the view which the Jews took of the commandments (Mt 191"). He said that he had kept them all. His conception evidently was that to refrain from the outward sins which they forbade—stealing, lying, Sabbath- breaking, and the like—was to keep the command- ments. Only a superficial conception of the im- port and bearing of the commandments could have permitted him to make the claim that he had kept them all from his youth. The same faulty notion of Uhe real moral requirements of the law lay at the root of the pride and self-righteousness of the Pharisees. They were able to think themselves righteous only because they measured themselves by an imperfect standard, an inadequate idea of the high demands which the law made upon the inner life. Religion was conceived as a legal affair, and therefore righteousness consisted P. rily in the observance of all the rites and cere- monies prescribed in the law, and in refraining from all the acts which the law forbade. Iłighteousness was thus placed too much in externals and too little in the state of the heart. It exaggerated the ritual features of religion, and overlooked its deeper spiritual requirements upon conduct and life. Either of two results might flow from this externalism in religion—results which would be equally detrimental to a healthy religious life. On the one hand, if one supposed himself to have done all that was required, he would easily fall a prey to spiritual pride, for had he not achieved this lofty height of goodness by his own exertions? On the other hand, if a man felt that he had failed to do the Divine will and to win acceptance with God, he would naturally become hopeless and despondent. We accordingly find that i. religious life of the Jewish people, to a great extent, oscillated between self-righteous- ness and despair. Jesus must therefore have demanded something vastly superior to this ob- servance of ritual, this conformity to command- ments and º when He said, “Seek ye first God’s kingdom and righteousness” (Mt 6”). What then is that true righteousness, that 6travoortvm 6eoû, which Christ requires and fosters in the lives of His disciples 2 This question can best be answered by appeal to the Sermon on the Mount, a collection of the sayings of Jesus, some of which were uttered on various occasions. They are grouped together as illustrating chiefly the nature and demands of “God’s kingdom and righteous- ness.’ In the ‘beatitudes’ are described the qualities which fit men for the kingdom of God— the characteristics which constitute true righteous- ness. They are such as spiritual poverty, a sense of one's weakness and sin ; meekness, merciful- ness, purity, and peacemaking. They are quali- ties which stand opposed to pride, presumption, and selfishness. They are, above all, qualities of the inner life. They describe what a man is in the secret springs of his motives and dispositions (Mt 59-9). The true righteousness is a heroic virtue. It is founded in strong convictions of truth and duty, and is willing to suffer, if need be, for the truth (Mt. 5***). The truly righteous, the sons of the king- dom, have a saving, illuminating power. They are the world’s ‘salt” and “light.” They preserve the world from moral corruption, and they shed abroad upon men the light of love . helpfulness (Mt 5*"). Again, the true righteousness is not a destructive, but a constructive principle. The righteousness of Christ's kingdom will not break with the past. It will conserve all that was true and good in OT religion, and build upon it. It requires that the earlier and imperfect system of Judaism should not be rejected, but fulfilled. Its true ideal content is to be developed out of the limited and provisional form in which it had been apprehended in earlier times, into its destined universality, and spirituality. The Divine law which has been revealed is to be observed and taught in its essential spiritual content, and not merely in its outer form, and thus the righteous- ness of the sons of the kingdom will ‘exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees’ (Mt 517- ). & Then follow several illustrations of the true righteousness. The law prohibiting murder had commonly been taken merely as a prohibition of an overt act. Not to kill another was to obey it. But Jesus places right and wrong, not in overt acts, but in inner motives. He who cherishes murder and hate—the passions from which murder springs—is, morally speaking, a murderer. From hate murder would spring were there no outward constraint preventing it. But he who would com- mit an overt act of sin but for an outward re- straint, has really committed it in his heart already (Mt 5***). The same principle holds good respecting sensual passion: . The impure thought, the carnal desire, is itself, in God’s sight, the act of adultery. Every effort must be made, every necessary self-denial endured, by those who would be truly righteous, to break the power of evil thought and to exclude impurity from the heart (Mt 527-82). Three further illustrations are given. The first concerns truthfulness. The Jews had been accustomed to make a fictitious distinction be- tween oaths taken in J”s name, which they had regarded as sacred, and other oaths, which they had felt at liberty to violate. Jesus discounten- ances not only this false distinction, but all such profane appeals to sacred names or objects. Those who confirm their assertions and promises by such oaths thereby betray the fact that their simple word is not regarded as binding, and thus show themselves not to be really truthful. The simple assertion should be enough. The honest man's word is as good as his most solemn oath. Be absolutely truthful, says Jesus, and the meaning and occasion of these irreverent oaths in common use will completely "disappear (Mt 5”). The next illustration respects revenge. The OT civil law of retaliation—which, at best, was a rude kind of justice incident to an undeveloped ethical code—was commonly construed as a permission to take private revenge. This º to do the offender an injury like that which he has done, Jesus discountenances. Detter suffer injustice, He says, than resort to revenge, which springs from hate, and is wholly incompatible with love (Mt 5*). The third illustration deals witi, the contrast of love and hate. I’rom the OT maxim, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour,’ many had drawn the inference, ‘Thou shalt hate thine enemy.” Then, by making “neighbour', mean “friend,’ it was easy to find in the maxim a justifi- cation for hatred towards personal enemies. This inference Jesus utterly repudiates. The right- eousness of the kingdom requires that we should love all men ; that we should seek the good even of our enemies. We may not hate even those who injure us. The gospel has no place for hatred, because it is essentially un-Godlike. God hates no one ; He blesses all, even the wicked. So must the man do who possesses God’s righteousness. Love is the essential principle of moral perfection, and hatred is the opposite of love. This love which finds its perfect exemplification in the character and action of God is the law of the Christian life. The Christian ideal is complete- ness of love; conformity to the moral complete. RIGHTEOUSINESS IN NT RIGHTEOUSINESS IN NT 283 º of God’s own perfectly loving character (Mt 51%-48). The next group of passages illustrates how men are to ‘do their righteousness.’ The first illustra- tion is drawn from alms-giving. Beneficence is not to be ostentatious. Those who give alms to be seen of men must do so from selfish motives. They, indeed, obtain their appropriate reward, but it is not the Divine approval (Mt. 61-4). The next example is prayer. false righteousness leads men to perform their devotions in public that they may create the impression that they are unusually pious. The true inner righteousness dictates that men pray in secret. Nor is prayer to be based on the idea that God is a reluctant Giver whose favour is to be won by the wearisome repetition of the same wish or cry. God is, on the contrary, a willing Giver who knows all our wants in advance, and only desires that we be willing to receive His mercies. A simple sincere request is therefore enough. Then follows the model prayer illustrating the true spirit, as well as the simple form of prayer (Mt. 6"-1"). Jesus then shows that fasting performed with a mere semblance of humility and sorrow is no part of true righteousness, but that it may be such when practised unostentatiously from real inward con- trition (Mt 61%-48). Then follows a series of striking contrasts between the worldly and selfish Spirit and supreme concern for the spiritual life. The latter must be placed first, * must sub- ordinate to itself all other interests. Every life must have one main direction. There can be but one supreme choice. That should be made central in life which is truly central. Other things, so far as needful, God will supply. Seek, then, first His kingdom, and His righteousness; and all those things shall be added unto you (Mt 6*). It is not necessary for our present purpose to follow this series of sayings further. It illustrates, better than isolated uses of the words ‘righteous’ and ‘righteousness’ could do, the real content of Jesus' doctrine of righteousness as the Synoptic tradition has preserved it. It does not, indeed, ield us any formal definition of righteousness, out it shows us what righteousness is by exhibiting its characteristics and by showing how it expresses itself in human conduct. It leaves no doubt that the righteousness of the kingdom is essentially Godlike character. If it is not precisely identical with love, it is, at any rate, absolutely inseparable from it. Love is the completeness (Texelörms) of God, and the completeness of character in men consists in love. Righteousness appears to be con- ceived of as the different kinds of right action which have their spring in love. Righteousness is never presented in our sources as a mere judicial prin- ciple in contrast to mercy or grace. It is right conduct and right character, both of which are grounded in love. Nor does the word bear the semi-formal sense in which we shall find it em- ployed by St. Paul. It is not thought of under the form of a status or relation ; it is used rather in the simple ethical sense, to include the qualities of a character which is acceptable to God. (B) RIGHTEOUSNESS IN THE WRITINGS OF ST. PAUL.—In several instances the phrase 6 katoo ºvm 0eoû is used to denote an attribute of God. In Iło 3" St. Paul asks the rhetorical question : ‘But if our unrighteousness commendeth the righteousness of God, what shall we say?’. The context shows that the ‘righteousness of God’ here means essentially the same as the faithfulness or truthfulness of God (cf. v.v." "). His righteousness is His faithful- ness to His own nature and promises. If men are untrue to Him, their falseness will but set. His righteousness in the stronger relief. Again, in 3* * St. Paul speaks of the évôelšºs Tás Óukatoa ºvms belonging to believers on condition of faith. atroſ, which God has made in the death of Christ, and which should prevent men from supposing that because God treated leniently the sins of men in past times, He is indifferent to sin or lightly regards it. Here, then, Öukatoa ºvm 0600 must denote that self-respecting quality of holiness in God, that reaction of His nature against sin, which must find expression in condemnation of it. Iłighteousness in this sense is the reaction of God’s holy nature against sin which expresses itself in the Divine wrath (6py?, 6eoô). In the prevailing use of the word by St. Paul, however, righteousness means the state of accept. ance with God into which one enters by faith. § is its meaning in Ro 1” “For therein (in the gospel) is revealed a righteousness of God by faith unto faith ; as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith’; also in Ro 3** “But now apart from the law a righteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the pro- phets; even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe.” We cannot accept the view of some, that in these pas- Sages also ‘the righteousness of God’ refers to the character of God, although we grant that between the idea of righteousness as an attribute of God and righteousness as a gift of God, a state of acceptance with God into which God introduces one, there is an essential connexion (cf. Sanday-Headlam on Ro 1”). The righteousness which God confers has its ground in the righteousness of God. The state of acceptance into which the believer is represented as inducted is a state of fellowship and Tharmony with God. The conditions of being accounted righteous are such as God’s perfect character pre- scribes. . These conditions may be summed up in the word faith. Now faith is, in St. Paul's viow, a personal relation with God mediated through Christ. . It involves by its very nature spiritual union with God, obedience to His will, and increas- ing likeness of character to Him. There is thus a close connexion between the righteous character of God and the righteous status which He reckons as But, formally considered, they are quite different. The meaning of Öukatoo ºvm now under considera- tion explains the meaning of justification (Öukatoats), and of the reckoning of faith for righteousness (Ro 4). To justify means in Pauline phraseology, to regard and treat one as righteous; to confer the gift of righteousness: in other words, to declare O)16} º with God. This judgment of justifica- tion God pronounces upon condition of faith. The phrase “to reckon faith for righteousness’ is a periphrasis for ‘to justify.’ To declare righteous upon condition of faith, means the same as to reckon faith for righteousness. In both cases the meaning, expressed in a somewhat formal and legal way, is simply this: that faith is the necessary con- dition of a gracious salvation. Salvation is a free gift; faith is its humble and thankful . St. Paul is fond of conceiving this process of salvation in forensic forms of thought, º of interpreting it by judicial analogies. This tendency is due to his OT and Rabbinic training. None the less does he lay stress upon its ethical and spiritual significance. If justification is a ‘forensic act,” there º to it and is involved in it a spiritual renewal. If righteousness is a gift or a state, it is also a character. It is an inward state as well as an outward one. It would be a great mistake to repre- sent St. Paul’s doctrine of salvation as predomi- nantly legal or forensic. He has indeed brought over from his Jewish training the legal conception of righteousness as an acquittal before God and of justification as the decree of acquittal, but his intensely ethical principles of grace and faith put quite a different content into these thought-forms .284 RIGHTEOUSNESS IN NT t RIMMON brom what they have in Jewish theology. Essen- i. St. Paul is far more of a mystic than of a legalist, though he still speaks, to some extent, the language of legalism in which he had been born and trained. Cf. Thackeray, Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, 87 ff. The question arises: If faith is reckoned for righteousness, is it because faith is synonymous with righteousness or a substitute for it? Faith is not righteousness in the sense of being so inherently excellent that it may be regarded as equivalent to righteousness. The power and value of faith are in its object. Faith is great because it allies man with God. Faith is union with Christ, and this union involves and guarantees increasing Christ- likeness, and Christlikeness is righteousness. The imputation of faith for righteousness involves a gracious treatment of man on the part of God; it is an anticipatory declaration of what the grace of God will increasingly realize in those who in, faith open their lives to the power of the Divine life, Justification means an entire forgiveness and an increasing attainment of righteousness. (C) RIGHTEOUSNESS IN THE JOHANNINE WRIT- INGS.–In one passage only in the Fourth Gospel is the word 6tratos applied to God : ‘O righteous Father, the world knew thee not, but I knew thee’ (17*). The idea of God’s righteousness here #. to be that it is the quality which prevents Him from passing the same judgment upon Christ's disciples which He passes upon the sinful world. Upon this equitableness of God, Jesus bases His con- fidence in asking that special blessings be conferred ". His disciples. The thought is similar in 17”, where the Father is designated as āytos. As the One who is absolutely good, wholly separate from all that is sinful and wrong, God is besought to guard from evil those whom He has given to His Son. In both these cases the righteousness or holiness of God is conceived of, not as a forensic or retributive quality, but as God’s own moral self - consistency, His faithfulness to His own equity. In 1 Jn (192”) God is described as 6tratos, and, in both cases, in a sense closely akin to that which we have found in the Gospel. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous (triaros kal 6tratos) to forgive us our sins’ (1*). The correlation of the word 6tratos with the word tria Tós, as well as the entire context, shows that righteousness here is that quality of God which would certainly lead Him to forgive those who repent. It would be inconsistent in God — contrary alike to His pro- mises and to His nature—not to forgive the peni- tent, and to exert upon his life the purifying in- ſluences of His grace. In the remaining passage (2*), the term ‘righteous” has a broader meaning, and designates the moral perfection of God in general, as the type and ideal of all goodness in man : “If ye know that he (God) is righteous, ye know that every one also that doeth righteousness is begotten of him.’ Since God is essentially righteous, those who are begotten of Him must also be righteous. A similar thought is presented in 37, but in the reverse order: “He that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he (Christ) is righteous.” As against the Gnostic over-emphasis of knowledge, the apostle insists that the mere intellectual possession of truth is not enough. Truth, or righteousness, is not merely something to be known, but something to be done (10 3%). The man is righteous who walks in the truth as his native element (2 Jn “, 3 Jn " "); in whom the truth dwells, controlling and guiding him (Jn 8*, 1 Jn 2"); who belongs to the truth and draws from it the strength and inspiration of his life (Jn 18”, l Jn 2* 3"). Doctrine and life are in- Beparable. –- (D) RIGHTEOUSNESS IN OTHER NT WRITINGS.-- There is nothing characteristically different in the conception of righteousness in the minor types of NT teaching from what we have already found. The word is almost always used in the practical, religious sense of the good life which Christ in the gospel requires and imparts. Both James and Hebrews allude to righteousness in the sense of a gift of God on condition of faith (Ja 2*, He 117), but both these Epistles generally speak of it as that good life which the Christian loves and seeks. In the Petrine Epistles righteousness is the holy life in contrast to sin, as in 1 P 2* “that we, hav- ing died unto sins, might live unto righteousness.” In Revelation righteousness is predicated of the judgment (19", cf. 15"), and is said to be ‘done” (cf. 1 Jn) by those who are righteous in the world to come (22”). From this sketch it appears that the NT presents the idea of righteousness mainly in two ways: (1) as a quality of God's nature and action, and (2) as the ãº. which God requires of man. The first of these ideas is the logical basis of the second. What God requires is grounded in what God is. What, now, is the actual content of that Divine righteousness which is the test and measure of all good life in men? What is the ethical nature of God? St. John replies that it is love, and the whole NT conception of God agrees with this answer. Righteousness is an activity or aspect of love. When it is used to denote more especially the law and penalty side of God's nature, it is the self- respecting, self-preservative aspect of holy love— love as it appears in forbidding all sin and en- joining conformity to the perfect standard of uprightness. , Righteousness is an element of love, without which love would be mere benevolence or good-nature. But since love is eternally holy, and is a consuming fire to all sin, justice and judgment are the foundation of God’s throne. In the NT, righteousness is sometimes used more comprehen- sively to denote the equity or uprightness of God in general, His correspondence to what He ought to be ; sometimes more narrowly to denote the judicial aspect of His nature and action. In the latter sense it may be defined as the self-respect of perfect love. g LITERATURE.-The NT flea of righteousness is more or less fully discussed in all Commentaries and I31blical Theologies. The Pauline doctrine is carefully considered in Meyer and Sanday-Headlam on IRomans, and in Morison on Romans Third. The general subject receives attention in the NT' Theologies of Baur, Weiss, IBeyschlag, Bovon, and Holtzmann, and special aspects of it in Wendt's Teaching of Jesus, Bruce's Kingdom of God, and St. Paul's Comception of Christianity, and Stevens' Pauline Theology. A careful study of the words will be found in Cremer's Bib.-Theol. Leav. of NT'Greek. G. B. STEVENS. RIMMON (ºn). —The name of a Syrian deity mentioned as occupying a temple in Damascus during the activity of Elisha in Israel (2 K 5*). It appears in such compound proper names as Hadad-rimmon (Zec 12") and Tab-rimmon (1 K 15*). LXX reads ‘Peppäv and the Vulg. Itemmon. It has been interpreted as “pomegranate’ by Movers (Die Phönizier, i. 197 f.) and Lenormant (Lettres assyrio- logiques, ii. 215, r. 1). But the name is now identified with the Bab.-Assyr. deity Rammón, god of wind and weather, of the air and clouds, of thunder, lightning, and storm. He is designated in the inscriptions as AN. IM, that is, “god of the celestial regions,’ and on reliefs and Seals he is figured as armed like Jove with thunderbolts. Rammān is sometimes derived from Dīn or Doºl, and thus taken to mean ‘the high,’ ‘majestic ’ one (cf. Iłaudissin, Studien, i. p. 307); again it is derived from the stem Dyn “thunder,’ and sup- posed to be = ‘the thunderer’ (Schrader, Jahrb. f. prot. Theol. i. 334 ft.). The correct derivation of the word is that advocated by Pinches from a Bab.- RIMMON RING 283 Assyr. root ramámw, ‘roar,” “thunder’ (cf. Del. H WI3 624). For Syria and the west, in a compara- tive list of deities, Hadad, Adad, Daddu, Dada, Addu appear as special names for Rammän (IBezold, PSBA, June 7, 1887). The identification of Hadad or Adad of Syria with lºammón of Babylonia- Assyria is established by the fact that these two names are represented by one and the same ideo- gram in several proper names (cf. Pinches, PSBA, 1883, pp. 71–73). Rimmon is then a Hebraized form (the word for “pomegranate’) of the Bab.- Assyr, name Ramnán, and is identical with the Syrian god Hadad or Adad. The importance of this deity in Syria is seen in the fact that his name heads the list of four gods of the North Syrian kingdom of Panamºm?! to whom his son Bar- Raīāb offered prayer (cf. A usgrabººngen in Send- schirli, vol. i. p. 61). For a detailed description of the latest utterances on the etymology of the name, and the attributes and relations of Rammān, see Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, pp. 156-164. It may be that the compound (Heb.) form Hadad-Rimmon (in Bab.-Assyr. Adad-Rammán) arose, as suggested by Baethgen (Beitr. 2. Sem. Jęelig.-Gesch. 75), in a manner similar to Adonis- Osiris in Cyprus. Such combination would be self-explanatory to the population of all Western Asia. To this ‘prince of the power of the air” was dedicated the eleventh month, the rain-month Shebat. In the Bab, pantheon, Rammān appears as the son of Anu and Anatu. LITERATURE.—Baudissin, Stud. z. sem. Relig.-Gesch. i. 306–308; Tiele, Bab.-Assyr. Gesch. ii. 525, n. 3.; Schrader, COT i. 196 f.; Delitzsch-Smith, Chald. Genesis, 200 f.; Winckler, Gesch Bab, w. Assyr. 164, 166 ; Baethgen, Beit). zwr 8em. Relig.-Gesch. 75; Winckler, Alttest. Unterswch. 69 ; Delitzsch, Calwer Bibelleavi- con, art. “Rimmon ; Riehm, H WIB, art. “Rimmon'; Meyer, Gesch. i. 175, 182; Hilprecht, Assyriaca, 76ff. IRA. M. PRICE. RIMMON (ſiºn “pomegranate,' 'Peppadºv). —A Beer- othite, the father of Baanah and Rechab, who murdered Ish-bosheth, the son and successor of Saul (2 S 42. 5: 9). RIMMON.—1. The rock (iºn(n) yºp, h trérpa (roſ) ‘Pepp.dºv) in the eastern highlands or wilderness (midbār) of Benjamin, whither the remnants of the Benjamites (Jg 20° 21”) fled. It has been i. by Robinson (i. 440) as a lofty rock or conical chalky hill, visible in all directions, on the summit of which stands the village of Rummón. It forms a remarkable object in the landscape as seen from the village of Jibá, some 6 miles distant. It is about 4 miles east of Beitºn (Bethel) (cf. van de Velde, Memoir, 345; SWP ii. 292). A place of this name is mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome as existing in their day 15 miles north of Jerusalem (Onomast. s. “Itimmon ’). 2. (ſºn) A city in the south of Judah, towards the border of Edom, Jos 15” ('Epwººd); in 197 (B 'Epeppºv, A. 'Pepp.d60) counted to Simeon ; in Zec 14" ("Pepp.div) named as lying to the far south of Jerusalem. In the first two of these passages Itimmon is coupled with Ain (in the first with, in the second without, the conjunction )), cf. 1 Ch 4”. In Neh 11”, on the other hand, we read En-rimmon ('spring of the |...} and there are good ounds for holding that this is the correct reading in all the other passages as well. See EN-RIMMON. Van de Velde (Mem, 344) has identified Rimmon and En-rimmon with Umm cr-lèum(tmén, between Beit-Jibrin and Bir es-Seba, very nearly at the distance mentioned by Eusebius. He mentions that Grotius and Rosenmüller suppose, as a solu- tion of the difficulty, that Ain ...] Rimmon were near together, and in later years united in one. ‘Ain is probably identical with a site only half a mile north of Umm er-Rumſºmin, now called Tell I(he welfeh, and opposite another ancient site, Tell Hora. Between the two tells is a copious fountain filling a large ancient reservoir, which for miles around is the chief watering-place of the Beda win population of this region. city at the base of which such a remarkable fountain existed would well derive its name from “the fountain,” and its vicinity to Rimmon would justify both its distinct enumeration and its collective appellation.” SWP (iii. p. 397), confirms this, stating that Khan Khwweilfeh is an extensive ruin near Bir Khw- weiðfeh. Cayes, cisterns, broken pillars, shafts, and traces of walls are found. The ruins extend along the valley and on the higher ground. The well is large, lined with well-dressed stones, and resembling the Beersheba wells. The tell has an artificially-levelled platform, and seems to have formed a fortress. The water-supply is perennial. At Khan wommer-Rumámin there are heaps of well- dressed stones, many of which are drafted. There are also several large lintel stones, and part of a stone apparently representing the seven-branched candlestick. These remains probably belong to the Byzantine period (SWP iii. 398). 3. In Jos 19° one of the boundaries of Zebulun is given as “Itimmon that stretched to the Néâh’ (Twin "Snºn jibn ; AV wrongly “Remmon-methoar to Neah’). In 1 Ch 67 ſhop. 9) the name appears as Rimmono ())\ºn), and in Jos 21” as Rimmonah (for which, by a textual error, MT has Dimnah [which See]). See Dillm. Joshua, ad loc. Robinson proposes to identify Rimmon with the village of Rummāneh, north of Nazareth, and this site has since been accepted. Rummānch is a small village built of stone, and containing about 70 Moslems. . It is situated on a low ridge above the plain, and there are a few olive trees around. The water - supply is from cisterns and a well. There are rock-cut caves, and traces of ancient remains in the village (SWP i. 417). C. WARREN. RIMMONO.-See RIMMON, No. 3. RIMMON-PEREZ (AV Rimmon-parez, following, with LXX and Vulg., the pausal form given in the MT of Nu 33** ſº ºn; LXX 'Pepp.dv påpes (also "Pappadov and "Pepp.d6 p.), Vulg. Remmomphares).-- One of the twelve camping places of the children of Israel, mentioned only in th. itinerary of Nu 33, between Hazeroth and Moseroth. Ewald identifies it with Rimmon in the south of Judah (Jos 15” etc.), and some of the names following are referred by him to the same region. He thinks it probable that the Israelites made their way for some dis- tance into the southern part of the country, after- wards allotted to Judah and Simeon, and that in this portion of the itinerary a trace may be found of such a campaign; cf. Nu 14* 21*, and HoRMAH. The second part of the name may have been added in commemoration of a victory gained at this place, after the analogy of BAAL-PERAZIM. A. T. CHAPMAN. RING (usually nymp tabba'ath ; Śakrºtos).-The rings of the tabernacle and its furniture are spoken of as having been cast (Ex 25**), and this sense of moulding appears in the cognate Arabic taba'at “to print,’ matba'ah ‘printing press.’ Itings are referred to in connexion with º boards for the corners of the tabernacle (Ex 26*); there are also rings through which bars pass to keep in position the upright boards for the sides of the tabernacle (v.”). Similarly, rings were attached to the ark of the covenant (25%), to the brazen altar (27*"), to the altar of incense (30°), and were used for fastening on the high priest's breastplate (28*). In Est 1" and Ca 5* Sº is translated “ring' in AV and RV, but a preferable rendering would be ‘cylinder’ or ‘rod.’ The ‘rings’ (Dº) of Ezk lº are fellocs (so IRV m ; cf. 1 K 7”). In 18W the more 286 RING RIVER general term ‘ring’ is used instead of “ear-ring’ (c)] ; see EAR-RING) in Gn 24° 35*, Job 42", Ex 32*, *. , In, Ezk 16°, where 13 W gives ‘ring’ for ‘jewel’ of AV, the allusion may be, not to a ring in the nose, but to the custom still prevailing among the Beda win, in the case of a favourite child, of fastening an ornamental ring, jewel, or bead to a lock of hair over the brow and allowing it to dangle down as a protective charm nearly as far as , the eyes. The ear-ring as worn by the Beda win is albout an inch and a half in diameter, and opens with a hinge like a bracelet, so that when closed it clasps the outer ear. The hasty removal of such ornaments is translated “break off’ (pne) in Ex 32°. The ring (tabba'ath) appears as an ornament in Is 3*, and as a gift for sacred purposes in Ex 35*, Nu 3.1" (both P). Signet-ring. — In closest connexion with the general meaning of “ring' is the special sense of signet-ring : Gn 41*, Est 319, 1% 8*, * 19, in which tabba'ath is the equivalent of nºn hôthám in Gn 3818 (in v.2; nºnin), Ex 2811. 21.80 390. 14, 30, Jer 222, Hag 2*, Job 38° 417, Ca 8"; spy 'izkā in Dn 617; haktú) tos in Lk 15*, and a ppayts in Ro 4”, l Co 9°, Apoc. passim, etc. See art. SIGNET. oth in biblical usage and in modern custom there are several important meanings connected with the employment of signet-rings. 1. Irrevocable testimony, Jer 32*, Ro 4”, l Co 9°. —Where the art of writing is limited to the edu- cated few, as is the case still in the East, the difficulty of affixing the signature is got over by the use of a seal. In front of every Turkish police. court men sit with paper and ink ready to write out a statement of evidence or form of appeal, and one or two men are usually to be met with who have seals for sale and , are expert in cutting monograms for brass seals. When a village is divided into two parties, as in the case of a dispute about a right of way through private property, it is customary to present to the local magistrate two papers covered with the seals of those who thus witness for and against the road. 2. Delegated authority.—Thus Pharaoh took off his ring and put it upon Joseph (Gn 41*), and Ahasuerus gave his ring to Haman (Est 319). Hence the figurative description of Zerubbabel as a signet of the Lord (Hag 2*). Thus in an Oriental custom- house a junior clerk borrows the seal of a busy higher official, and an indolently obliging censor leaves in the mission press his seal which gives to books the right of circulation in the empire. 3. Completion.—From its being affixed to the end of a document as a testimony to the truth of what is stated, the act of applying the seal gave ãº. of finality to what was thus sealed (Dn 924 124). 4. Inviolability (Job 1417, Eph 4”, Rev 52).—A sense of Sanctity was connected with anything sealed. The veneration felt towards anything guarded by a seal was illustrated some years ago at Sidon. Ā coasting vessel had gone on the rocks near that town, and a few days afterwards there was washed ashore a small bag of gold coins, which the captain had received from a British merchant in Beyrout, with instructions to deliver it over to another merchant in Jaffa. The bag was found on the Sidon beach by a Syrian peasant; and though such a treasure, washed up at his feet from the sea, might in itself have been regarded as sent from God to him, he shrank from breaking the seal. He walked the intervening distance of twenty miles in order to deliver the money to its owner in Beyrout. Arabic tales abound in accounts of things lºept secret and wonders wrought by seals of power, the most celebrated being the wishing seal of king Solomon. In the Book of Job there occur several beautiful figurative applications of the signet, such as the Sealing | of the stars (97) as of something folded away and laid out of sight, the sealing of instruc- tion in night visions (33") like the imprinting of a mould upon clay, and the sealing up of man's hand (377) as expressing the limitation of human power. See also art. SEAL, SEALING. G. M. MACKIE. RINGSTRAKED.—So the adj. Ipy "diköd is trºl in all its occurrences, Gn 30°. º. 40 318, 8, 10, 12. The root verb "py is found once, Gn 22” “Abraham . . . bottºnd Isaac his son,’ so that the primary idea is ‘banded” or ‘striped.’ The adj. is used of striped cattle, goats, or sheep. , The LXX tr. SuáNevkos except in 31* * Nevkós, and it is followed generally by the Vulg. (albus) and most English versions ‘white'; but Tind. has “straked ” in 31°, and then the Bishops' Bible gives ‘ringstraked' throughout. The word does not seem to occur in Eng. literature elsewhere. See STRAKE. J. HASTINGS. RINNAH (nyl). —A Judahite, one of the sons of Shimon, 1 Ch 4°. The LXX (13 'Avá, A ‘Pavvæv) makes him the son of Hanan, taking the following |T]; thus (viès Pavá ['Avdiv) instead of making it a proper name, BEN-HANAN, as AW and RV. RIPHATH (nºn; A ‘Piqā0, D 'Ipupé0).—One of the sons of Gomer, Gn 10°. The parallel passage, 1 Ch 1", reads Diphath (n5", so IRV, but AV Riph- ath); but this is certainly an ancient scribal error, easil W. explicable as due to an interchange of n and ". . The LXX (B 'Epetºpæ0, A "Pugač) and Vulgate (IRiphath) support this view. The ethnographical sense of Riplmath is uncer- tain. Perhaps . view of Josephus (Ant. I. vi. 1) that the IRipliaeans (i.e. Paphlagonians) are meant is still the most plausible. Bochart and Lagarde think of the Bithynian river Rhebas, which falls into the Black Sea, and the district Rhebantia in the Thracian Bosporus; but, as Dillmann remarks, this appears to be too far west for the position of Iłiphath between ASHKENAZ (? Phrygia) and TO- GARMAH (? W. Armenia). A widely-held opinion, which makes its appearance as early as the Book of Jubilees, identified IRiplmath with the fabulous Itiphaean mountains, which were supposed to form the northern boundary of the earth. J. A. SELDIE. RISSAH (Tyl; B Aegod, AF 'Peaſad).-A camping place of the children of Israel, noted only in Nu 33* *. It has been proposed to identify it with Ičasa in the Peutinger Tables, on the road from the Gulf of Akabañ to Jerusalem, or with "Pijara of Jos. Amt. XIV. xiii. 9, xv. 2, B.J. I. xiii. 8 ; but according to some MSS this place is 0pāoa. A. T. CHAPMAN. RITHMAH (nºn-l; LXX 'Padapá; Vulg. Rethma, Nu 33*, *). —The first of the twelve stations fol- lowing Hazeroth which are given in Nu 33 ouly. The name seems to be connected with Dnº (AV and RV ‘juniper,” RVm “broom '), and to indicate a place where that shrub was found in abundance. Such are noted by Robinson (Wady Abu l'etamót) and Palmer (Wady Erthſºme), but any definite identification of this or of the eleven following stations must be regarded as very uncertain. A. T. CHAPMAN. RIVER-In the OT this is the AV rendering of the following words: 1. n\N, or ns, an Egyptian loan-word, which in the singular is always (except in Dn 12° bis. 0.7, where it means the Tigris) used of the Nile : Gn 411. 2.8 bis. 17. 18, Ex 129 23.5 bis 40 bis 715. 17. 18 ter. 20 bis. 21 ter. 24 bis. 25, 28 Eng. 8] 85 ()). 7 (11) 175 [al] JEJ, Am 88.9%,” Is 197ter 239. 19, Jer 46 [Gr. 26]7, 8, Ezk 29*.*, Zec 1011. In all these lºgº the LXX renders by trorapós (in Ezk 29*.*, Zec 10” trorapot) except Is 23°. 19, where a different text appears to have been followed. The plur. Dºns, is used of the Nile arms or canals: Ex 7” 8" (") [both * The prophet's allusion in these two passages to the rise and the fall of the Nile (nºn;p ns) is quite obscured by the AV rendering “flood.’ - RIVER RIVER 287 P], Is 718 19° 37*=2 K 1924, Nah 38, Ezk 298.4 bis." * 1930”, Ps 78°. The LXX has in all these pas- sages torquol (in Is 7”, Ezk 29*** Totapés) except Is 19", which reads al āvūpuxes toū trorapod, and 37*, where the text is mutilated. The same word Dºns, is used of watercourses in general in Is 33* (50%. puxes), and is even applied once to shafts or tunnels cut in the rock by the miner, Job 281" (cf. ºrj in v.4). 2. h7, (LXX in the following passages trorapués, unless otherwise noted), the most general term for river, occurs some 120 times in the OT. It is un- certain whether it is derived from a root hn, “to flow,” or whether the latter is a denominative from º, which may be a loan-word (cf. Assyr. nárw, ‘stream,” “river’). It is used of rivers in general in Nu 24" [JE], Job 14” 40*, Ps 74° 7810 etc.; very frequently of particular rivers: the river of Eden and its branches Gn 219. 18, 14; the Nile Is 19° ; esp. the Euphrates (nº-nºi) Gn 15*, Dt 17, Jos 14, which is often called nº as the river kar’ &ox#v (cf. the title ‘ the great river,’ ºn hiſ;H, in Gn 15°, Dt 17, although this title is once, Dn 10", applied to the Tigris), Gn 31°1, Ex 2391, Nu 22°, Jos 244. 9. 14. ID ſall jāj, Ezr 81%, Neh 27." 37 (and Aram. "Hi, emphat. Nºl, Ezr 419. ii. 16, 17.” and oft.), prob. also Gn 36°7 (P.; see REHOBOTH, No. 2), without the art. (poet.) in Is 7”, Jer 28, Mic 7”, Zec 919, Ps 72°; the river of Gozan 2 K. 17° 1811, cf. 1 Ch 5%; the rivers of Cush Zeph 319. The reference is pºly to canals in the following: the Chebar £zk 11. 3 31%. 23 101b. 20, 22.43%; the Ahava Ezr Sºl. 81; the “rivers’ of Babylon Ps 1374; the gates of the “rivers’ of Nineveh Nah 27 (BA TVXav Tóv tróNewv, N" T. T. rotapáv), as ninj, is used of the canals of Egypt in Ex 7” 81 (*) (in both || Dºns). In Job 28%" “he (the miner) bindeth the streams (nini]]) that they trickle not,’ the reference is to underground water which is prevented by the use of lime or clay from percolating into the mine (A. B. Davidson, ad loc.). The Dynº in Aram-naharaim (Gn 24”, Dt 23* [both Mea otrorapula], Jg 3* [B trorapol Xuptas, A X. Mealo- trorapala trotagóv], PS 60 [title ; Meo'omotapita Xuptas]) was probably meant by the Hebrew writers to have a dual sense (“Aram of the two rivers,’ these being probably [see Dillm. on Gn 24") the Euph- rates and the Chaboras), but the original ending may have been a plural one (D -2-), as would appear to be implied by the Tel el-Amarna, Na-ri-ma, Malºrima, and the Egyp. Nhrima. 3, ºn. (etym, uncertain) is used either (a) of a torrent of rushing water or (b) of a valley through which a torrent flows or has flowed, a ‘torrent- valley’ (modern widy). For this latter sense cf. Gn 2617. 19, Nu 1328. 24.2112 329, Dt 124290. (see Driver's note ; so Jos 12° 13' 1" [same phrases]; v." is un- certain [see Driver's note], so Jos 12” (ºud time)) 319. 19 2nd time) 448 [as 2004), 2 K 1088. For AV “river(s)? I&V substitutes the very misleading tr. “brook(s)? in Nu 349, Dt 107, Jos 15.47 168 170 1911, 1 K 800, 2 K 247, 2 Ch 78, Am 614, Ezk 471° 48*, and the equally misleading ‘valley” in Dt 2%. 30 bis 38.1° 4°, Jos 121, 2 bis 139 bis, it bis, 2 K 1098. The use of ºn, in the sense (a) above (reproduced by the LXX in the following passages, unless otherwise noted, by xetuáppous or xetuappos) may be illustrated by its application to the Kishon Jg 47 ° 5” ºr, Ps 83" (); to Elijah's stream Cherith 1 K 17* * * * 7, which was liable to dry up in summer, cf. Sir 40° (trotapés); to water bursting from the rock Ps 78” (Il byp). Pre- fixed to another word, it is often used in the sense (b) above: Nahal Arnon Nu 21” [here plur.], Dt 2* (q,4pay;)30 38.12.10 48, Jos 12.2 139. 19, 2 K 1088; N. Eshcol (‘Wädy of the Cluster”) Nu 32°, Dt 1* (both dpåpay: 86Tpvos); N. hashshittim, ‘Wädy of the Acacias'Jl 4 (3) * (xelpºdppos Tów oxoivov); N. Besor 1S 30" ": *; N. Gad 2 S.24%; N. Gerar Gn 2617; N. Zered Nu 21*, Dt 28, 14 (LXX in last five passages bápayś); N. Jabbok Gn 32*, Dt 237 319, os 12*:, M. Kidron 2 S. 15”, l K 23, 1513 1810, 2 K23" ", 2 Ch 15" 29° 30”, Jer 31 (38) 10 (v4xax): N. Kanah Jos 16° 17" (pāpay;); N. Sorek J; 164 (B'AAgapix, A & xeuappoſv)s 20pſix); N. ha-'Arabah Am 6* [dub. ; Wellh. would read N. Mizraim ; LXX & Xetuappo(v)s róv čvouſºv). The familiar river (RV.“brook’. except in Jth...]”. “river”) of Egypt is N. Migraim (modern Wädy el-'Arish). See EGYPT (RIVER OF). ºn is oncé, Job 28, used of a miner's shaft (cf. the use of Dºns, in y.19). 4, 5, 9:4, by-form ºr or 9;N (root ºn ‘flow” [?]). The former occurs only in Jer 178 ‘he shall be as a tree planted by the Waters (D-p, tºara), and that spreadeth out his roots by the river” (933-99, girl lkuć6a, “to moisture’); the latter only in Dn 82.3.6 (Theod, transliterates to OUSAN, LXX has h trºXm). 6. Pºs, from a root PEN to hold,” is a poetical word, whose nearest English equivalent is perhaps “channel, the original idea being that of holding or confining waters." It thus denotes, primarily at least, the stream-bed rather than the stream. Its occurrences are : Ps 18*(*) (where for ‘channels of waters,’ pºp 'p'ps, we should read, as in 2 S 2210, “channels (i.e. bed) of the sea,’ D.'s. The LXX has in the latter & pégets 6a)\dooms, and in the former Trºyal Vöárov) 41* (AV and RV “brooks,’ LXX Trºyat) 1264 (AV and RV “streams,' LXX xetuáppovs), J1 120 4 (3) * (in both AV “rivers,’ IRV “brooks,’ LXX āq,éoets), Ca 5* (AV “rivers,” RV “brooks,’ LXX TAmpõuara), Job 6” (Dºn, 's ‘channel of torrents,’ LXX xelpºppous), Is 87 (AV and RV ‘channels,” LXX pápayš), Ezk 6° 31* 32° 3419 35° 36' " (AV in all the Ezekiel passages has “rivers,’ It V ‘water- courses,’ LXX pápay; in all except 31”, where it has trešlov). 7. 95, from root [195] ‘divide, cf. the proper name PELEG and the explanation of it, given by J in Gn 10°. This word means an artificial water- course, a canal formed for the purpose of irrigation. Its occurrences are : Job 29" (“rivers of oil,’ LXX jºy 'yūAa); Ps 1* (AV “rivers,’ It V “streams,” LXX 6té$oôot) 46" (“there is a river [hiſ] whose streams [bº, LXX 6pujjuara, arms or branches led from the river through the surrounding land] make glad the city of our God’) 65” (9) (Totapés, see below) 119° (‘mine eyes run down with rivers [LXX 6té$oôot] of waters’), borrowed from or Tuoted in La 3° (LXX &@égets. The figure in these two passages is probably that of the tears in their flow tracing furrows on the cheek); Pr3" (‘should thy springs be scattered abroad, thy streams of water [LXX iſèara] in the street?’ an exhortation to conjugal fidelity, addressed probably to the husband, who is cautioned against seeking pleasure from sources outside his own house ; see the various interpretations discussed in Wildeboer or Toy) 21” (“the king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD as the watercourses’; so IRV, which brings out the meaning more clearly than the AV “rivers’; LXX 6pui, jöätwv); Is 30” (LXX Jöwp Staropewóuevov, tºp ºn 32° (‘as rivers of water in a dry place,’ LXX iſãop pepſuguou). There is some doubt as to Jg 5** and Job 2017. In the former of these passages AW has “for (m. “in”) the divisions of Reuben,’ RV ‘by the watercourses of Reuben,’ miss being here and in Job 20" taken in both versions as the plural of Tłº, a supposed by- form of $5, but it is not improbable that we should at least in Jg 5 vocalize nº? (cf. 2 Ch 35" "), giving the meaning of “divisions' in the sense of clans or families. In Jg 5” the LXX has peptóes, and in v.1° 5taipégets, while in Job 20" it reads dueMéts * Cornill, following the LXX, deletes the last clause of the MT, in which Dºns, occurs a third time. t See Driver on Am 524. * The word pºes is used ſiguratively of the bones of the hippopotamus, as being hollow, Job 40"S, and of the furrows between the scales of the crocodile, 417 (19). 288 RIVER RIZPAH woudów, after which Duhm emends to n\, ahn “milk of the pastures.’ But Dillm., Budde, and most tr. ‘ streams,’ viz. of honey, etc., as explained in y.º. (cf. 296). In Ps 6519 (9) ‘the river of God’ (nºn's **) is the channel or conduit by which rain is poetically supposed to be conducted from its reservoirs in the heavens (cf. Job 38” “Who hath cleft a conduit for the rain : '). See Driver, Par. Psalt. ad loc. 8. Hºym. The proper meaning of this word is * conduit' (from # hil of Rºy), and it is so rendered by both AV and RV in 2 K 181720°, Is 7° 364 (LXX, except Is 7°, where “conduit’ is not expressed, Vöpa- yaryós). In Job 38” AV has “water-course,” RV “channel’ (poet, for rain), LXXpworts; in Ezk 31*AV ‘little rivers,” RW ‘channels’ (for irrigation), LXX ova réuara. In 1 K 18*, *.* the same Heb. term is used for the ‘trench 'round Elijah's altar (LXX 64Xaga a); but in Jer 30 [Gr. 37] 1946 [Gr. 26] 11 it (really a diff word) means either new flesh or plaister (something coming up, or placed on the wound); LXX ºpex(e)a, confusing with Rºyń from Vºy". In the NT “river’ occurs only in Mk 1", Jn 788,” Ac 1618, Rev 810 91° 164. 12221. 2, in all of which it is the tr. of troragós. ... The imagery of Rev 22* is borrowed from Gn 2* and from the vision in Ezk 47. Rivers serve in Scripture, as they have done in all ages, to fix boundaries: Gn 1518, Ex 23", Nu 34°, Dt 1738. 19 11”, Jos, 14 12, 15, 16° 17' 1911, Jg 418, 2 S 1019, 1 K. 421. 24 805, 2 K 10% 247, Ezr 410, Neh 27 etc.; they are utilized for bathing Ex 2", for drinking 7”, l K 17*.*, for fishing Ex 7”, Lv 11" ", Ec 17, Ezk 29*.*, and for irrigation (see above); they serve as means of defence Nah 3°, and as a highway for navigation Is 18%; a river side appears as a place of prayer in Ac 16”. Besides the instances of figurative employment of the word “river’ which have been referred to above, the following may be noted:—In Jer 467. 8 the rising of the Nile is used as a symbol of an Egyptian invasion ; cf. the similar use in Is 87 of ‘the river’ to typify the invading hosts of Assyria, and the language used in Jer 47%; in Is 43° (cf. Ps 66*) rivers are a type of danger or affliction ; in Is 59° a manifestation of Jehovah is compared to a my nº, the probable rendering being that of RV ‘He shall come as a rushing stream, which the breath of the LORD driveth” (AW ‘when the enemy shall come in like a flood, the spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him '; see the Comm. ad loc.); in Ps 46° (*) a river (nº) is a type of Jehovah's favour; in Job 29%, Ps. 11919", La 3° (all pºp), Mic 67, Job 2017 (both pºni) “rivers’ typify abundance ; in Am 5* righteous- ness is compared to a perennial torrent (SR); a well-spring of wisdom and a flowing torrent (Sr.) are coupled in Prº 18°; a river (nº) is a symbol of peace in Is 48* 66%; the breath of Jehovah is compared in Is 30” to an overflowing torrent, and in v.” to a torrent of brimstone (both ºn). The Syºn ºn, lit. ‘torrents of Belial,’ of 2 S 225 is a doubtful phrase. It is generally explained as ‘torrents of worthlessness (= wickedness),’ but Cheyne (Eaſmositor, 1895, p. 435 ft., see also Earpos. Times, viii. [1897], p. 423f., and Jºneye. Bibl. art. “Belial ') discovers a mythological allusion in the expression and renders it ‘streams of the under- world,’ identifying Belial with the Babylonian goddess Belili, whom he connects with the under- world. Hommel agrees with this identification, but Cheyne's interpretation is opposed by Baudissin and Jensen (see PRE”, s. “ º by all four scholars in the Eapos. Times, ix. pp. 40 ft., 91 f., 283f., 332, 567). * The quotation “Out of his belly,' etc., may represent the general sense of such OT lºgºs as Is 443 551 5811, Jer 213, Zk 36% ºf 471", JI 218ſ. 311, Zeg 131 148—the series resting ultimately (Westcott) on Ex 170, Nu 2011. and the articles For the river system of Palestine, see vol. iii. p. 642 f., and for an account of particular rivers the articles under their respective names. J. A. SELBI.E. RIVER OF EGYPT.-See EGYPT (RIVER OF), and add that in RV of Am 8° 9° the Nile is called the ‘River of Egypt’ (Dºnžºn k, AV badly “flood”). RIZIA (Rºn; B Pagetá, A 'Paatá).—An Asherite, 1 Ch 799. RIZPAH (nºn; LXX Pegg,4, except 2 S 21°, where A has 'Peppä0).—A concubine of king Saul. She is called the daughter of Aiah (2 S 37 219), which may imply that she was a descendant of that Hivite clan in the S.E. of Palestine from which Esau is said to have taken one of his wives (Gn 36% 24 [R]). When the Philistines struck down the kingdom of Saul, and David established himself in Hebron, Rizpah must have withdrawn to Mahanaim among the few who clung to the ruined house. For (2 S 3") when Abner held towards Ishbosheth the position, and was suspected of cherishing the de- signs, of a Mayor of . Palace, some who doubted his loyalty accused him of having entered into an intrigue with his dead master's concubino. The sting of the accusation lay in the fact that such an alliance was regarded at that period as a sure ste toward claiming the throne (cf. 2 S 16*, and especially 1 K 2%). At a its; period in David's reign (the exact date of the incident is uncertain, since the story is found in an appendix to the history of David), a three years' famine fell upon the land (2 S 2'.”). The oracle, when consulted, decided that J" was angry with His people, and that the cause of that anger was to be found in the fact that Saul, instead of remaining true to the oath of the con- gregation (Jos 9), had deprived the Gibeonites of the privileges which the oath secured them, and had oppressed this clan. David accordingly ap- roached the Gibeonites with offers to stanch the feud. These rejected all money compensation, and, denying that they had any quarrel with Israel at large, demanded the blood of the guilty. house. Seven descendants of Saul —five of them sons of Merab ; two, Armoni and Mephibosheth, sons of Rizpah——were thereupon seized and de- livered over to their vengeance. The Gibeonites brought them up to Gibeon, which, from its name ‘the hill of God,” evidently bore a sacro-sanct character, and there exposed “ the seven before J". To the rock on this hill the unhappy Rizpah resorted, and, spreading her mourning cloak of sackcloth, kept dreary watch beneath her dead to scare from their prey the wheeling vultures of the daytime, the prowling jackals of the night. The judicial execution had taken place in the early days of barley harvest. It lends a sharper touch to the picture, if one can see the reapers come and go in the fields, while above them the silent woman crouched beside her dead, whose death was to avert the curse from those fields. For she must watch on the height until the merciful rain of heaven signalled the end. The fall of rain is not inserted as a mere mark of the length of her guard ; it is not ‘the periodic rains in October which are referred to. Probably it is mentioned as the sign from which men concluded that the famine-drought was broken, that the sacrifice was effectual, that the anger of J" was averted from His land, and that now at last the mother might cease from her fearful watch. A. C. WISLCH. * The word used is rare and uncertain in its meaning. It occurs again Nu 254. The likeliest sense is the general Oile ‘ exposed.’ Probably the method of actual execution was not mentioned, because so well known as to need no detailed explanation. See, further, ort. HANGING. ROAD ROCK 289 ROAD (Anglo-Sax. rad, a journey, literally ‘a riding,’ front ºridan to ride) is found in AV only once, 1 S 27” “Whither have ye made a road to- day?' The sense is a riding into a country with hostile intent, a “raid.’” (so RV). Cf. Calderwood, Hist. 143, ‘All who were under the danger of the lawes for the roade of Ruthven were charged to crave pardon’; and Spenser, I'Q VI. viii. 35– “In these wylde deserts where she now abode, There dwelt a salvage nation, which did live Of stealth and spoile, and making nightly rode Into their neighbours borders.” See WAY. ROBBER, ROBBERY.—See CRIMES AND PUN- ISHMENTS, vol. i. p. 522°. ROBBERS OF CHURCHES. — See CIIURCHES (RORBERS OF). ROCK.—In the OT this is the AV tr. of the following terms :—1. ºp;T, properly ‘flint.” AV renders by ‘rock’ only in Job 28° “he (the miner) putteth forth his hand upon the rock (RW ‘flint,’ AVm “flinty rock’), he overturneth the mountains by the roots’ (cf. v.” “he cutteth out channels among the rocks,” nins). The combination 'm ms ‘rock of flint’ (so AW and RV, LXX Trérpa &kpórogos, cf. Wis 114) occurs in Dt 8", and is 'n (| yºp), lit. ‘flint of rock’ (AV and RV ‘flinty rock,” LXX orepet, Trérpa) in 32°. In the only other two instances in which the Heb. word occurs, 'm stands alone : Ps 1148 (I his ; AV and I&V ‘flint,’ LXX &kpºropos), Is 507, where it is used as a symbol of firmness, “therefore have I set my face like a flint’ (a repeã Térpa ; cf. Ezk 3" ‘ as an adamant harder than flint [ns, Trétpa] have I made thy fore- head '). See, further, art. FLINT. 2. []?] only in plur. D'E). This, which is per- haps an Aram. loan-word (Nº képhal, cf. the NT ICephas, see art. PETER in vol. iii. p. 756), occurs only in Jer 4” “they climb up upon the rocks’ (for refuge ; LXX trérpat), and in Job 30% of one of the dwelling-places of a race of outcasts (| Dºnn ‘ caves’; on cave - dwellers or Troglodytes, see Driver, Deut. 37 f.), cf. 24° “they embrace the rock (ms, Tétpa) for want of a shelter.” In 30" the LXX has a shorter text than the Hebrew, the whole verse reading &v of oikot atrów #aav Tpó)\at Terpáv. 3. iśyp is once rendered ‘rock” by AV, namely Jg 6” “build an altar upon the top of this rock’ (m. ‘strong place,’ IłV ‘strong hold,’ B to Maovék, A to "pos Madºx). The reference is probably to a natural stronghold rather than to a fortification (Moore). The word hyp ‘place of refuge’ (if from V ny) or ‘strong place’ (if from my) occurs elsewhere only in the l’rophetical books (21 times) and in Proverbs (once) and Psalms (9 times). I'or hyp ms, applied to God, see below. Cf. also art. MAUZZIM, 4, whº, the nearest Inglish equivalents of which are ‘cliff’ and ‘crag.” The ideas of steepness and inaccessibility are connected with the word, at least in earlier passages, although in later ones it has at times a more general sense. In the follow- 1ng passages yºp is used (LXX, wherever ‘rock ’ is expressed, has trérpa, unless otherwise noted): Nu 205 vis, 10 vis, 11 [all P], Neh 915, Ps 7810 (v. 10 ms), of the rock struck by Moses; in the similar narra- tive, Ex 17" his [E] ms is used, and so in I)t 815, Ps 78% (v. 10 ybp) * 105* 1148, Is 48* is [on the later Jewish legends regarding this rock, see below on 1 Co 10°]. In Nu 24” [JE] the words of Balaam with reference to the ſenites, ‘strong is thy dwelling-place, and thy nest (kcm, a characteristic word-play) is set in the rock,’ allude to the safety J. HASTINGS. * Raid is of Scand. origin. Raid, says Skeat, was the northern Iłorder word, “road' being used in the south ; but the first quotation above is Scottish, and yet, “road' is used. VOL. IV. —IQ of birds and their nests on inaccessible cliffs, cf., for the same figure, Ca. 2", Jer 48 [Gr. 28]* 49 [Gr. 29] 19, Obº, Job 39*. Dt 3218 [JE] ‘ He made him to suck honey out of the crag' (whº ; ‘oil out of the rock of flint,’ tºp?I ms) has in view the stores of honey that are found in palestine in the caves and fissures of the dry limestone rocks (cf. Ps 811% *3), and the fact that the olive flourishes even in rocky soil (cf. Job 29° nis, LXX rà èpm); see Driver, Dewt. ad loc. The yºp of Jg lºº, 2 K 147, Is 16, 42n (in the first two passages with the art. in both MT and LXX) is very frequently taken to be Petra, the rock-built capital of Edom (see art. SELA). But while this might suit the two passages in Isaiah (but see Dillm. ad loc.), and is very appro- priate to 2 K 147, it appears quite innpossible to ſit such an identification to the situation of Jg 1". There are strong reasons for taking ‘the cliff’ in this last passage to be some prominent cliff near the south end of the Dead Sea, perhaps the modern es-Safieh (see Buhl, Gesch. d. Jºdom. 20, and Moore, Judges, ad, loc.). In Jg 6” (probably a late inter- olation) yºp, but in v.” his (and so in 1319 of anoah’s sacrifice), is used of the rock on which Gideon offered his sacrifice ; the fissure of the cliff ETAM was one of Samson's places of refuge, Jp. 158. 11.1%, cf. 2010, 17 219 the crag RIMMON to which the Benjamites fled, 1 S 13" the crags where the Israelites took refuge from the Philistines, 23” the crag in the Wilderness of Maon to which IDavid fled from Saul [on Scla-hammalilekoth of v.” see art. under that name], 1 Ch 11” the rock. at Adullam, Is 291 (I has, and so in vv. 19. 1") the crags to which men are to flee from before the LORD, Jer 16" the refuge from which the Israelites are to be hunted, 48 [Gr. 31]* the crags for which Moab is to abandon her cities (cf. 21*). Crags are spoken of as the haunt of bees Is 79 (cf. Dt 32° above), conies (II/raa, Syriacus) Prš0*, wild goats Job 39), Ps 104", cf. 1 S 24” (ms); sepulchres are hewn in rocks, Is 22%; a rock is a type of hardness, Jer 5° ‘they have made their faces harder than a rock’; precipitation from a rock appears as a form of execution in 2 Ch 25” (Kpmuvēs), cf. (?) Jer 51 [Gr. 28]*, and see art. HANGING in vol. ii. p. 298°; the feet set upon a rock typify security, I’s 40° (*), cf. 27°61” (9) (both ms); crags were splintered by the storm in Elijah's vision, 1 K 19"; the shadow of a great crag is grateful in a weary land, Is 32°; cliffs are strong places of defence, Is 33" [for the two crags of 1 S. 14' see BOZEZ and SENEII]; the clefts of the rocks in the widis were the scene of the sacrifice of children, Is 57”; in a hole of the rock Jeremiah was to hide his girdle, Jer 13"; the word of the LORD is compared to a hammer that breaketh a crag in pieces, Jer 23”; in Ezk 247 the blood of Jerusalem’s idolatrous sacrifices is compared to blood shed upon a bare rock (étri \ewTerplav), which does not sink into the earth but continues to cry to heaven for vengeance, cf. the threatening in the following verse ; Ezk 26*, * declare that Tyre is to become a bare rock (y'?p H^n}, \ewTerpia), there being here a punning allusion to the name of the city (Tyre = n := ms= ‘rock'); the question ‘do horses run upon crags 2° introduces in Am 6° a re- proach for conduct of a thoroughly unnatural kind. 5. his is best reproduced by ‘rock,’ having all the senses (except, of course, the geological one) which that word bears in lºnglish. In many instances it is synonymous with yºp (see the numerous parallel occurrences of the two terms quoted above), but there are some passages where ms occurs in which y, p could not have been suitably used, at least by early writers. Iłesides the occurrences of the word which have been already noted, nºs is used : of the rock where Moses had a partial vision of the glory of Jahweh, Ex 33* * 29() ROCK ROCK [JJ; of the rocky summit (kopvph épéov) from which Balaam looked down upon the camp of Israel, Nu 23° [JE]; of the rock OREB where the Midian- ite prince Oreb was slain, Jg 7” (200p), Is 10"; of the rock where Saul’s seven sons were ‘hanged? (see HANGING in vol. ii. p. 298") by the Gibeonites, and where Rizpah kept her ghastly watch, 2 S 21"; in Job 14* the removing of the rock out of its place is an accompaniment of the wearing down of a mountain by . natural forces, while in 18° the question “shall the rock (rá čpm), be removed out of its place 3’ is tantamount to ‘shall the con- stitution of the world be subverted ?’; the custom of cutting inscriptions on rocks, of which so many examples are known, is referred to in Job 19°; rocks are the shelter of a class of outcasts, Job 24°, see under No. 2, above ; in Pr 30” the way of a serpent over a rock (i.e. its mysterious movements, without the aid of feet) is one of the four things which the writer cannot understand; Jehovah is to be a stone of stumbling (his las) and a rock of offence (ºp his) to both the houses of Israel ; in Is 51% Abraham is called the rock (see vol. iii. p. 79.5°, ‘Additional Note ’) whence Israel was hewn ; the perennial snow on the rocky summit of Lebanon is mentioned in Jer 18"; the rocks are broken asunder (Nowack ſemending the text] “kindled') by the fury of the LORD, when it is poured out like fire, Nah 1%. We have reserved till now those passages in which the term ‘rock’ is figuratively used of God. These are the following. The word whº is used in 2 S 22' [=Ps 18° (*) (a repéopa)] 31* (*) (kpatatwaa) 42” (9) ('Avrt- Xijuirrap) 71" (a repéopa). The term employed is "hs in Dt 324, 15, 18, 30.8l (all 9eós, cf. v.37), 1 S 29 (26tkatos), 2 S 223 (ºpćXaš) * (krtarms) [=Ps 18% (31) (0eºs)] +7 (pºxaš) [=Ps 1847 (49) (9e3s)] 239 (9e3s), Ps 1918 (14) (Bombös).281 (9eós) 319 (2) (0eos Utrepartriotis) 629 (*): 7 (0): 37) (all 0eós) 718 (0sós Virépartiarás) 73* (0eós) 78% (80706s) 89” (20) (&vrixáutrop) 9210 (1*) (9eós) 94.” (Bomb3s) 95] 1441 (both 6eós), Is 1719 (80700s) 264 (? uéyas) 30” (9eós) 449 (LXX om.), Hab 124 (LXX om.). In some of these passages it has been contended that zur has the force of a proper (Divine) name. Hommel, for instance, in support of his claim that a certain class of personal names found in P, which have been widely suspected of being late and artificial, are boºt, fide ancient Hebrew survivals, brings forward two compound names to show the exist- ence in early times of a Divine name Zur. These are Zuri-riddºtna, from a S. Arabian inscription not later than B.C. 800, and Bir- (or IBar-) Zur, from Zinjerli (8th cent. B.C.). But, while Hommel has rendered a service by calling attention to these names, one does well to remember that, whatever they may prove for the period and the place, to which they belong, it is very questionable whether they justify the inference that Zur was used in a similar sense by the early Hebrews, and it remains as doubtful as before whether names like Pedahzur, Elizur, Zuriel, and Zwri-shaddai, Nu 1". ". 19 3” [why are these the only instances in the OT of compounds with zur, and why are they confined to P?], were at any time, and much more in early times, prevalent in Israel. To the present writer the probability appears to be that, as far as the OT is concerned, Dt 32 is the source to which all the above passages may be traced back ; and neither in Dt 32° 18 nor in Hab 113, the passages which plead most strongly in favour of Hommel’s view, does it seem to be necessary to take 27tr as a Divine name in the proper sense. The circum- stance that Sela' and zur are both employed in the sense we are examining (sometimes even side by side, e.g. Ps 18% (9) [cf. v.”] 71°), strengthens the conclusion that in all the instances cited we have to do simply with one of those metaphors of which Hebrew writers are so fond. “It (gºtr) designates Jehovah, by a forcible and expressive figure, as the unchangeable support or refuge of His servants, and is used with evident appropriateness where the thought is of God’s unvarying attitude towards His people. The figure is, no doubt, like crag, stronghold, high place, etc., derived from the natural scenery of Palestine’ (Driver, Deut. 350; similarly Bertholet and Steuernagel. Hommel’s contentions will be found stated in his AHT, pp. 300, 319 f., where he opposes the views of G. Buchanan Gray contained in HPN, 195 f.; Gray replies to Hommel in the Expositor, Sept 1897, p. 173 ff.: cf. also Whitehouse's view, as expressed in art. PILLAR in the present work, vol. iii. p. 881"). In the NT ‘rock’ always represents Trérpa. Its occurrences are as follows: Mt 7” || Lk (** as a type of a sure foundation, in Jesus' simile of the two buildings; Mt 168 “upon this rock I will build my church' [this passage is exhallºy discussed in art. PETER in vol. iii. p. 758]; Mt. 27" the rocks were rent by the earthquake at the Crucifixion ; Mt. 2700 || Mk 1519 J j. tomb was hewn out in the rock, cf. Is 22"; ll: 8%. 19 part of the seed scattered by the sower fell étri Tàu Trétpav, ‘upon rock,” which is interpreted by the étri Tà tre+ptºm of Mt. 13". "[the expression means places where only a thin coating of soil covered the underlying rock, hence RV appropriately ‘rocky places’; AV infelicitously ‘stony places,’ which suggests ground in which a number of loose stones were found]; Ro 9” “As it is written, behold I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling (\tffov trpookópºuaros) and a rock of offence (trétpav okavöäNov),’ where Is 814 and 28% appear to be in view as in 1 P 2"-8; in Rev 6*, the caves and rocks of the mountains play the same part as in Is 2"; and as the moun- tains and hills in Hos 10° (cf. Lk 23°). Finally, there is 1 Co 10°, where St. Paul says of the Israelites who were led by Moses through the wilderness that “they did all drink the same spiritual drink, for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them : and the rock was Christ’ (&Tuvov ‘Yāp ék Trvevuarukås droNov0oiſans tréſpas, h Térpa 6é àu Ö Xptorrós). Not only does St. Paul here spiritualize the smitten rock and the water that flowed from it, giving to these a Lucharistic sense (cf. the foreshadowing of Baptism which he discovers in the Passage of the Red Sea and the Pillar of Cloud, v.1, and St. Peter's treatment of the Deluge and the Ark, l P 3**), but he has drawn upon later Jewish expansions of the OT story. Neither in Ex 170ſ, nor in Nu 208" is it hinted even that the water continued to flow from the rock after the temporary occasion for it had passed (contrast the case of Jg 1519). Jewish haggädt, however, went much beyond this, describing how the rock accom- panied the Israelites all through their march (cf. St. Paul's droNov6očan Tétpa), and how, wherever the Tabernacle was pitched, the princes came and sang to the rock, ‘Spring up, O well, sing ye unto it,” where- upon the waters gushed forth afresh (Bammidbar rabba Nu 2117t: ; Delitzsch in ZR W, 1882, p. 455 fl.; I) river, I’mpos. Jam. 1899, p. 15 fl. ; Thackeray, St. Paul and Contemp. Jew. Thought, 204ff.; the Comm. on 1 Corinthians; cf., for instances of similar Jewish fancies, Schürer, G.JV " ii. 343 [Iſ/P II. i. 344]). RV substitutes ‘rocky ground' for AV ‘rocks’ in Ac 27* as tr. of Tpaxcº’s Tótrov (lit. ‘rough places’), and ‘hidden rocks’ for AV ‘spots” (Vulg. muſtculae) in Jude 1* as tr. of a triNáðes [the AV rendering was, no doubt, influenced by the parallel passage 2 l’ 2”; see the Comm. ad loc.]. J. A. SELBIE. * In the last clause of this verse the true reading is 31& rô 22x2's olzo)oºrſloe, cººr/y (RV “because it had been well builded '), not reſ/sºforo y&p tar, rºw ºrárpov (AV ‘for it was founded upon a rock '), which has been introduced from Mt 72". # St. Paul follows similar methods of interpretation and argument in Ro 100tſ, and Gal 422ſ. ROID RODANIM 291 ROD (nºp matteh, ºpp makkâl, by shöbet, njyºp mish eneth ; på860s). —The rod or staff in the hand is the chief emblem of Oriental travel. Thus Jacob setting out for Paddan-aram left everything behind him except his makkāl (Gn 321°), the Israel- ites lººk the first Passover feast malekël in hand (Ex 12"), and Elisha sent his mish'eneth, the com- panion of his journeys, on before, as if it had been a living friend, to represent him in the chamber of death (2 K 4”). The modern Syrian peasant when on a journey carries a staff slightly longer than that used in Europe. He invariably holds it by the thin end, with the hand an inch or two down and the thumb often resting on the top. Such a manner of grasping the stick is suggestive of de- fence; and by the way in which he raises himself by means of it in the steep and rough mountain path, and pushes himself along when travelling on the dusty road of the hot plain, it is evident that the walking-stick is also meant to be a support on the journey. Protection from danger and some- thing to lean upon, such are the two original meanings of the rod or staff. In EV the word matteh, used literally, is trans- lated ‘rod” when referring to the rod of Moses (Ex 4” and oft.), of Aaron (Ex 7”. * and oft.), of the heads of the tribes (Nu 17**), of Jonathan (1 S 14-7.43), and is tr. ‘staff” in Gn 3818. *, Is 101*, * 2827 (as a kind of flail) 30” (for punishment), Hab 3°. of office. The Heb., word is translated ‘sceptre’ in Gn 491", Nu 24/7, Ps 45%, Is 14°, Ezk 1911. 14, Am 1* *, Zec 10”, and in RV of Ps. 1258. See SCEPTRE. These meanings of power, authority, punish- ment, or correction are exemplified in 2 S 71*, Job 98" 21° 3718 (AVm), Ps 29, Is 114. In Is Ili the expression a rod (nºh, of which the only other occurrence is Prlá”, where see Toy's note) out of the stem of Jesse’ is more appropriately rendered in RV “a shoot out of the stock of Jesse,” where the figure is that of a cut-down stump, which will put forth a single flourishing ‘rod.’ &º, for the figure, mºp in Ezk 1911. * **bis (blooming up into a Shébet, sceptre of rule). Along with his ‘rod” or club (shābet) the shepherd had also his “staff’ (mish'em eth), which was a straight pole about 6 ft. in length. Its service was for mountain climbing, for striking trouble- Some goats and sheep, beating leaves from branches beyond the reach of his flock, and especially for leaning upon. As he stood clasping the top of his stick with both hands, and leaning his head against it, his conspicuous and well-known figure gave confidence to the sheep grazing around him anong the rocks and bushes of the wilderness. The ºmish eneth is essentially something to lean upon. Thus it is the word used for Elisha's staff (2 K4”), and it indicates the untrustworthiness of Egypt as a reed of cane for Israel to lean upon (Is 36"), in- 1. Shepherd's rod or, rather, club (shëbet), 2. Shepherd's staff (mish'emeth). 3. Common staff (matteh, makkâl, or misle' eneth), In the Heb. matteh is coupled with shabet in Is 94 (of taskmaster; fig. of oppressor; cf. 10”, “ 14°) 101° 28°7 36°, and with makkal in Jer 487 in such a way as to imply that the terms were practically hº under ordinary circumstances. It is in the primitive usage of the shepherd's life that a distinction is found between the ‘rod' and the ‘staff.” The shepherd carries both, but for different purposes. In Ps 23 the ‘rod’ (shābet) is a club about 25 ft. long, made from an oak sapling, the bulging head being shaped out of the stem at the beginning of the root.” The shepherd’s shābet, frequently with large-headed nails driven into the knob, is his weapon against men and animals When in the Wilderness with his flock. It is worm either suspended by a thong from the waistband or inserted in a special sheath or pocket in the outer cloak ; cf. Lv 27°, and Mic 7”, Ezk 2097 (last two fig.). The shébet was, further, the staff of authority (not necessarily of a king), Jg 5* and perhaps Gn 49". It is seen in the sculptures of Assyrian and Egyptian kings, and was the original of the military mace and the baton and truncheon * This manufacture of the shëbet from a young tree might st:ggest that in the metaphorical use of Shēbet (Arab, sabt), “tribe,' the reference is to various seedlings with a common origin—the tribes of the children of Israel. It is to be noted, however, that unateh is equally (183 t.) used for “tribe,” and bossibly the original reference in both cases is to a company ed by a chief with a staff. See, further, on the relation between shöbel and matteh, Driver in Journ. Philol. xi. (1SS2) 213 f. stead of upon the strength of God. In Nu 2118 the mish'encth is used by the nobles in digging a well (see LAWGIVER); the angel who appeared to Manoah carried a mish eneth (Jg 6*); in Zec 84 the mish'eneth is characteristic of old age. “He that leaneth upon a staff’ (1951 pinp, B Kparóv okvráAms) of 2 S 3” should probably be “he that handleth the spindle' (see Driver, ad loc.), if the text be correct, which II. P. Smith (Sam, ad loc.) doubts. The references to makkel are generally to the ordinary staff” for a journey [in Hos 4'- ‘their staff lº, unto them,” there is reference to the practice of rhabdomancy], at once protec- tive º supporting. Examples are Jacob's staff (Gn 32"), the staff of the Passover feast (Ex 12"), Balaam’s stafl (Nu 22”), with which he could support himself by resting the end of it on the front of the broad Oriental saddle ; also probably the staff in David’s hand when he went out to meet Goliath (1 S 17"), for being them on a journey he would have laid aside the more cumbrous shepherd equipment. In NT pagöos has the twofold meaning of a staff for a journey (Mt 10", Mk 65, Lk 9', He ll”) and a rod for chastisement (1 Co 4* [cf. the verb in 2 Co 11*], Rev 2:7 12° 1919). G. M. MACKIE. RODANIM, reading of MT in 1 Ch 17 for the Dodanim of Gn 10", answering to the 'Pºlot of the LXX in both passages. See DODANIM. * This is also the word used in Gn 8087ſ of the sticks employed by Jacob in his cattle-breeding artiſices. 292 - TOE IROMAN --- ROE.--This word occurs once in AV (Pr 519, RV ‘doe’) as the equivalent of mºve ya'ālāh; see DoE. In all other places where ‘roe’ occurs in AV (2 S 218, 1 Ch 128, Pr 65, Ca 27. 9. 173° 45 78 814, Is 1314) it is the tr" of zébi or zébiyyāh, and in these RV also gives ‘roe,’ but in every passage except 2 S 2* and 1 Ch 12°, with marginal note, ‘gazelle,’ which is undoubtedly the correct rendering. See GAZELLE. G. E. POST. ROEBUCK.—This word, wherever it occurs in AV (Dt 12*, * 14° 15°, 1 K 4*), is the equivalent of "is gébé, LXX 6opkás. It V has in all these pas- sages consistently trº zébi ‘gazelle” (see GAZELLE). ‘Roebuck' is the proper trº for hipſ: ſalmitr, which is rendered by AV ‘fallow deer’ (Dt 14°, 1 IN 4”). Tristram (Fatuma and Flora, p. 4) says that yahmūr is used by the natives of Carmel for the roebuck, which is still found there. One of the districts of Carmel is known as Yahmūr, perhaps from the former abundance of this animal. Conder says that the roebuck is called hamitr in Gilead. The people about Kūna and ‘Alma, north of Carmel, call it wall, which is one of the names of the ibex or wild goat, which animal, however, is not now found there. In N. Africa yahmür is synonymous with bakar el-wahsh, Alcephalus bu- balus, Pall. From these facts two things are evident—(1) That “fallow deer’ is not a correct trº of yahmár. The fallow deer is 9;s 'ayyāl (see HART). The first three animals of the list (Dt 14°) are 'ayyāl, correctly tr" in both AV and I&V ‘hart’; zébi, AV incorrectly ‘roebuck,” It V correctly ‘ gazelle’; and ſalºmitr, AV incorrectly “fallow deer,’ l{V correctly, as we believe, ‘roebuck.” The LXX (B) gives us no help, as it has only &\apos and 6opkás, the equivalents of 'ayyál and zébi, and drops out yahmººr from the lists. (2) That bubale (LXX AP BoiſBaxos), as proposed by some, is also not a correct trº for yahmººr. The bubtle is not now found west of the Jordan, and only rarely east of it. The roebuck is found in considerable numbers on both sides of this river. The bubale is not called yahmūr where found on the confines of Palestine. The roebuck is so called both east and west of the Jordan. It is most numerous in the thickets, in the widis of Carmel and N. W. Galilee. The roebuck, Cervus capreolus, L., is shaped like a gazelle. Its full length is 3 ft. 10 in. from the tip of the nose to the end of the rump; height at shoulder 2 ft. 4 in., at rump 2 ft. 6 in. The horns are about as long as the face, on a line with it, and have three short branches. The eyes are almond- shaped, with point forward. There is no external tail. The coccyx is 2 in. long, but is covered by the rump fat. The colour is grey, with a reddish- brown shade towards the posterior part of the rump, and white between th. thighs and on the belly. (See figure of a specimen in PEI'St, July 1890, p. 171). e G. E. POST. ROGELIM (p:bj', ; Poye)\eta, A in 2 S 1727 "Po- ºyekelp.).-The native place of 13arzillai the Gileadite. The exact site is unknown ; it probably lay in the north of Gilead (2 S 17” 19”). ROHGAH (Kethibh nann, corrected by Keré to HT; B om., A 'Oyá).-An Asherite, 1 Ch 7”. ROIMUS ("Póeipos), 1 Es, 5*, corresponds to Relium, Ezr 2*, or Nehum, Neh 77. ROLL.—See WRITING. ROMAMTI-EZER (nly ºppº).-A son of Heman, 1 Ch 25**. There is reason to believe that this and five of the names associated with it are really a fragment of a hymn or prayer (see GENEALOGY, III. 23 m. ; and cf. Kittel in SBOT, and W. R. Smith, OTJO” 143 m.). ROMAN ('Poudios, esp. Ac 1621:37.38 22** 2327).- Roman citizenship (civitas) might be held in NT times (a) by birth, from two IRoman citizens united in justa, nºtptiſt. There was no comwbium, or right of Roman marriage unless specially granted), ex- cept with a Roman woman. If the union were un-Roman (with a Latin woman, a foreigner, a concubine) or unlawful (with a slave, etc.), it gave no patria potestas, and the children followed the mother’s condition. It might also be held (b) by manumission in certain cases, or (c) by grant, either to entire cities or districts, or to individuals in reward of political or other services, as to a soldier on his discharge. Under Claudius, how- ever, Messalina sold the civitas, and the price gradually fell (Dio, lx. 9) to a ridiculous figure. The chief captain (Ac 22*) bought it at a high rice ; but if St. Paul was born free, it must have een held at least by his father (Ramsay, St. Paul, 30f.). The franchise of Tarsus (Ac2l”'Iovóaſos, Tap- gets) would not imply the civitas as a matter of course, for Tarsus was an urbs libera (Pliny, N H v.27). The most practical advantage of the civitas in NT times was that no citizen could be scourged (lex Valeria, B.C. 509, lex Porcia of uncertain date) or put to death by any provincial authority without the right of appeal to the emperor. Even the praefectus practorio could not condemn him to deportatio, and the emperor himself commonly had him executed by the sword, reserving the cross, the fire, and the beasts for slaves and other low people. It was illegal when Paul and Silas were scourged at Philippi (Ac 16”), and when Paul was to have been examined at Jerusalem by Scourging (Ac 22” p.40 rušºv diverd; ea.0at). In both cases dra- rákpitos is re incognita (IRamsay, St. Paul, 225), for it would not have been less illegal after Condelma- tion. Of the other two scourgings mentioned in 2 Co 11* nothing further is known. The right of appeal to the emperor seems to continue neither the old provocatio ad populum, which was linited even in republican times by the Quastiones perpetuat, and had now become obsolete, nor the old intercessio of the tribunes, which was purely negative, and limited by the first milestone from Rome. It seems rather to rest on the general authority of the emperor, under the lex de imperio, to do almost anything he should consider ca: ºtsu reipublica, etc. The appeal was not granted quite as a matter of course. Festus confers (Ac 25°) with his assessors before deciding (v.” &Rptua). Once granted, it stopped the case. The governor could not even release the accused (Ac 26”). His only duty was to draw up a statement of the case (apostoli, littera, dimissoria—I'estus asks Agrippa's help in doing this) and send him to Caesar. St. I’aul is delivered to a centurion, a Telpms Xeftaatſs— one of the legionary centurions employed on de- tached service at Rome, and therefore called pere- grini from the Roman point of view, and by him handed over at Rome to his chief, the otpa) or eó- &pxms (Ac 28", but om. WH) or princeps per6.jr in- orum (so Mommsen : not the prafectus practorio), The accused might be kept before trial in (a) custodia publica, the common jail, though a man of high rank was frequently committed to (b) custodia, libera as the guest of some citizen who would answer for his appearance. Intermediate was (c) custodia, anilitaris, where one end of a light chain (&\vats) was constantly fastened to his right wrist, the other to the left wrist of a soldier (so St. Paul, Ae 2620 28%, Eph 6”, 2 Ti 1"). In this case he might either be kept in strict custody (2 Ti 117, where Onesiphorus needs diligent search to find St. Paul), or allowed to live in his own — ROMAN EMPIRE ROMAN EMPIRE 293 *— lodgings and receive in them what company he chose (Ac 24* 28”). The actual trial was before the emperor (often in person) and his consiliarii ; and each count of the indictment was separately examined. 2 Ti 4” seems to say that the prima actio against St. Paul had been a failure, though the apostle has no hope of escape on the second. A }. claim of citizenship was a capital crime (Suet. Claudius, 25). LITERATURE. –Mommsen, Römische Staatsrecht, 1876–77, and º peregrini) Berlin, Akad. Sitzungsber, 1895, p. 501; Willems, Droit public. Itomnain, 1883; Karlowa, IRämische Itechtsgesch- ichte, 1885; W. M. Ramsay, St. Pawl the Traveller, 1895. H. M. GWATRIN. ROMAN EMPIRE (most nearly orbis terrarum, h olkovpévm, Lk 2"; and its people genus humanum, as Tac. A mn. xv. 44 “odio humani generis.’ Im- periºt” popºtli Romani does not cover the free cities, and Itomania seems first found Ath. Hist. Ar, 35, and Orosius, Hist. e.g. vii. 43).-Augustus left the Empire bounded by the Rhine and the Danube, the Euphrates, the African desert, the Atlantic, and the North Sea. These limits he recommended to his successors, and they were not seriously exceeded till Trajan’s time, except that the conquest of Britain was begun by Claudius in 43, and finished as far as it ever was finished at the recall of Agricola in 85. Germany had re- covered its independence in 9 A.D. by the defeat of Varus, and the conquest of Parthia was hardly within the range of practical politics. Not Rome destroyed the ancient nations, but their own wild passions and internecine civil strife. The Greeks could make not&ing of the liberty Flamininus gave them, the Gauls were no better, and even Israel—the one living nation Rome did crush--was in no very diſferent case in Judaea. Rome came in as often as not to keep the peace ; and when the Empire settled down, it seemed quite natural that “all the world’ should be subject to her. , Virgil and Claudian sing with equal en- thusiasm her everlasting dominion ; and even the Christians firmly believed that nothing but Anti- christ's coming would end it (2 Th 2*). So, though she had mutinies enough of armies, Israel was almost the only rebel nation. She could mass her legions on the great river frontiers, and leave a score of lictors to keep the peace of Asia, a garrison of 1200 men to answer for the threescore States of Gaul. She no more ruled the world than we rule India by a naked sword. Hence there was a vast variety even of political status within the Empire. Some cities had the IRoman civitas (see ROMAN), others only the jus Latii ; some, like Athens, were in theory free and equal allies of IRome, while others had no voice in their own taxation. Italy had the civitats, and was supposed to be governed by the Senate, whereas a senator could not even set foot in Egypt without the emperor's permission. Some provinces were governed by senatorial proconsuls or pro- oraetors, others by legati Attgºsti pro practore, or, #. Iºgypt or Judaea, by a prºfectus (tugustalis, or a procurator of lower rank. Some regions, again, had client kings, like Mauretania, Judaea. under the Herods, or Thrace. True, the Empire was steadily levelling all this variety. The client kingdoms disappeared—Galatia, as early as B.C. 25, Chalcis § by Agrippa II.) as late as 100. The autonomy of the wrbes libera was commonly respected.--Hadrian was archon twice at Athens; but the Roman civitats was steadily extended till Caracalla gave it in 212 to all free inhabitants of the Empire. Broadly speaking, the Eastern half of the Empire was Greek, the Western Latin. The dividing line may run pretty straight from Sirmium to the altars of the Philaeni. But Greek was dominant in parts of the West,-Massília, Sicily, and the coasts of Southern Italy,–and was in most places the language of culture and of commerce, whereas Latin in the East was not much more than an official language. Nor was either Latin or Greek quite supreme in its own region. Latin had perhaps dis . by this time the Oscan and other dialects .# Italy; but it liad only well begun the conquest of Spain, Gaul, and the Danube countries, Greek was opposed by the rustic languages of Thrace and the interior of Asia Minor, such as the Lycaonian (Ac 14”) and the Galatian. Further East it had tougher rivals in Aramaic and Coptic, which it was never able to overcome, though Alexandria was a Greek city, and Galilee almost bilingual in the apostolic age. The distribution of the Jews resembled that of the Greeks in being chiefly Eastern, and in following the lines of commerce westward : but their great Centres were Syria, and Alexandria, within the Empire, Babylonia beyond it. Rome was never able to make a solid nation of her Empire. In Republican times her aim was utterly selfish—to be a nation ruling other nations, and getting all she could out of them. The Re- public broke down under the political corruption this caused, and the proscriptions jº the destruction of healthy national feeling. The Empire had higher aims from the first, and the sense of duty to the conquered world increased on it as time went on ; but it could neither restore nor create the patriotism of a nation. The old Toman nation was lost in the world ; and if the world was lost in Rome, it did not constitute a new Roman nation. Greeks or Gauls might call themselves Romans, and seem to forget their old people in the pride of the Roman civitats ; but Greeks or Gauls they remained. Every province of the Empire had its own character deeply marked on the society of the apostolic age and on the Churches of the future. Galatia was not like Asia, and Pontus or Cilicia differed from both. There were peoples in great variety; but the old nations were dead, and the one new nation was never born. Yet the memory of nations put the Empire in a false position. It belonged, like the Christian Church, to the universalism of the future ; but the circumstances of its origin threw it back on the nationalism of the past. Augustus came in after the civil wars as a ‘Saviour of Society,’ sustained by the abiding terror of the proscriptions. Ilence he was forced into a conservative policy very unlike the real tendency of the Empire to level class dis- tinctions, to replace local customs by uniform laws and administration, and to supersede national worships by a universal religion. The Empire was hanpered by Republican survivals, degraded by the false universalism of Caesar-worship. Augustus had to conciliate Rome by respecting class-feeling, and by leaving Republican forms of government almost unaltered. He was no king, forsooth (not reac, though called 8aat)\ets in the provinces, Ac 177, 1 P 29, 17), -only princeps, the first citizen of the Republic. The consuls were still the highest magistrates, though those who gave their names to the year were replaced during the year by one or more pairs of consules suffecti. Praetors, quaes- tors, etc., went on much the same, and even the anarchical power of the tribunes was not limited by law till the reign of Nero, though the popular assemblies vanished after that of Augustus. The Senate deliberated as of old under the lºy of the consuls, and the emperor himself respect- fully awaited their Nihil vos mortmatr at the end of the sitting. It still governed Italy, and half the provinces, and furnished governors for nearly all—deep offence would have been given if any one 294 ROMAN EMPIRE ROMAN EMPIRE but a senator had been made legatus Augusti pro prºtore... Above all, the Senate could legislate without interference from tribunes or Comitia. It elected all the magistrates (from the time of Tiberius), and even the emperor owed to it his constitutional appointment. So far as forms went, the State was a Republic still, and became a real one for a moment when the government lapsed to the consuls at an emperor's death. The name respublica lasted far past 476. But the emperor was not only master, but fully recognized as such. The liberty of the Senate was hardly more than liberty to flatter him. The pillars of his power were three. He had (1) the imperium proconsulare, which gave him full mili- tary and civil power in the great frontier pro- vinces, where most of the army lay. The rest were left to the Senate ; but as his imperiwm was defined to be majus—superior to that of ordinary Oroconsuls—he practically controlled , them too. The power was for life, and was not forfeited in the usual way by residence in Rome. He held also (2) the tribwrvicia potestas, also for life, and without limitation to the ſirst milestone out of Iłome. This made his person sacrosanct, and gave him the jus awailii, by which he cancelled decisions of magistrates, and the intercessio, by which he annulled decisions of the Senate. He had also (3) other powers conferred separately on Augustus, but afterwards embodied in a lea, regiſt or de îm- perio for his successors. A fragment of the law passed for Vespasian is preserved (CIL vi. 930), and two of its clauses run— * Utique, quascumque ea: w8w reipwblict, majestate divi- m(trwin, human (trum, publicarum privatarumnque rerun esse censebit, ei agere, face're jus potestasque sil, ita wti divo Awgusto Tiberioque Iulio Caesari Augusto Tiberioque Claudio Caesari Awſ, w8to Germanico fuit 5 wtique quibus legibus plebeive Scutis script win ſuit me divus Augustus dºc. temeremtur, its legibus plebisque scilis imperator Coesar Vespasianus solutus sit, qua'que ea: Quſtſ, we lege, rojatione divum Augustwyn &c. facere oportuit, ea omnia imperatori Coesari Vespasiano Awgw8to ſacere liceat.” Thus the emperor was not arbitrary. He was subject to law like any other citizen, unless dis- pensed by law. True, he could alter law by getting a senſttus consultum, or by issuing his calict as a magistrate. He could also interpret it by a rescript or answer to a governor who . directions; his actat were binding during his reign, though the Senate might quash them afterwards; and, as we have seen, he had large discretionary powers. But by law he was supposed to govern, and by law lie commonly did govern. The excesses of a Nero must not blind us to the steady action of the great machine, which was so great a blessing to the pro- vincials. Moreover, though the Senate was com- monly servile enough, it was no cipher even in the 3rd century. It represented the tradition of the past, the society of the present ; and every prudent emperor º it scrupulous respect. If an emperor is called bad, it ...} not mean that he was incom- petent (Tiberius was able enough), or that he oppressed the provinces (Nero did not). It means that he was on bad terms with the Senate, and, therefore, with the strong organization of society which culminated in the Senate. Nero did himself more harm by ſiddling and general vulgarity than by murders and general vileness. , Society was always a check on the emperor, and in the end it proved the stronger power. If Diocletian shook off the control of the army, he did it only by a capitulation to the plutocrats of society, The religious condition of the Empire was not like anything in modern Europe. It had no estab- lished, or even organized Church, for the regular worships were local, except that of the emperor. Priesthoods might run in families or be elective, or Sometimes any one who knew the ritual might act as priest ; but the priests were not a class Taken as he commonly was from the higher lanks of society, the priest was first of all the great Senator or local magnate, so that his priesthood was only a minor office. The priests were not a clergy, ex- . in the irregular Mithraic and other Eastern cults, where they were not yet taken from the higher classes. Nevertheless, there were sharp limits to IRoman toleration, though persecution was not always going on. Intolerance, indeed, was a principle of heathenism, laid down in the Twelve Tables, and impressed by Maecenas on Augustus. Rome had her gods, whose favour had built up the Eumpire, and whose wrath might over- throw it : so no Roman citizen could be allowed to worship other gods without lawful authority, which could be given only by the Senate. Gradually all national gods obtained recognition, so that the pantheon of the Empire became a large one ; but the individual was as strictly as ever forbidden to go outside it. Thus we get the anomaly of perse- cution without a persecuting Church. The emperor's own position was equally unlike that of modern sovereigns. He held the office of Pontifea. Maasimus in permanence after the death of Lepidus, B.C. 12. This gave him a digniſie - position as head of the college of pontiffs, which superintended the State religion; and it gave him by law or usurpation the appointment of pontifls, vestals, and flamens. Ibut these were only local officials; with the priests in the provinces and with the irregular Eastern cults the Pontifea. Maasimºts had no direct concern. Complete as was the identification of Church and State in Rome, the office gave its holder no exorbitant power over religion. The strength of his position was not official but personal—vaguely indicated by the title Attgustus (Xégaards, Ac 26*, *). The courtly fiction that the Julian house was descended from the gods might do service for a time; but the truth came out clear at Vespasian's elevation. If he was a tough old general with no romance about him, who died with a scoff on his lips at his own divinity, he was none the less the impersonation of the glory of the world and Rome; and this is what made the emperors divine, and kept them so in spite of absurd deiſications like those of Claudius and of Poppaea's infant. Emperor-worship might be i. but it was also a real cult sustained by genuine belief. . If courtiers placed. Augustus among the household gods, courtiers did not keep Marcus there in Constantine's time. IGings were counted gods from the Pharaohs of Egypt to the Jubas of Mauretania; and the Greeks had wor- shipped great men from Lysander (B.C. 403) on- º till deiſication became a cheap compliment for kings and their favourites. Rome understood better than the Greeks the diſſerence between gods and men—deus is a much more definite word than 0éós; yet even she deified legendary kings. But IRomulus was the last of them, and she never deified the heroes of the Republic. I’laminimus was a god in Greece; but jº was no more than a man at Rome; and even Sulla was only Felia, not Augustus. To the last she reserved the honour for emperors and their near relations, for the worship of Hadrian's favourite Antinous was rather Eastern and Greek than IRoman. Yet in the goddess Itoma the spirit of the State was worshipped long before the lionours of deity were pressed on the dictator Caesar by a grateful people and a servile Senate. Caesar's murder was a warning to Augustus; and he called himself Divi Filius, but not Divus. He allowed the Asiatic cities to build temples to him after the battle of Actium, but required them to join with him the goddess IRoma. Other cities followed: first in Asia in apostolic times was ROMAN EMIPIRE ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE 295 Pergamum, ‘where Satan's seat is (Rev 2"). Such cities were called vewkópot or temple wardens of Augustus, as Ephesus (Ac 19”) was vewkópos of Artemis. Before long a Commune Asiae (Tó Kovov rås 'Aclas) was formed, with a chief priest or ASIARCH (in looser sense, as Ac 19”, unless these be past Asiarchs) in each city, and over them an elected Asiarch (in the strict sense) or chief priest of the province. Other provinces did likewise, as Bithynia, Galatia, Phoenicia, etc., and in B.C. 12 the 60 States of Gaul organized a Commune, meet- ing annually at the confluence of the Rhone and the Saône. These provincial assemblies were powerful enough—the priests were always mag- nates — to answer Some of the purposes of repre- sentative government. They could complain of a had governor, and often obtain his recall. In Italy, and especially in Rome, the worship of the emperor was chiefly represented by that of his genius or his virtues: only at his death he was ormally placed among the gods by the Senate. * Reliquos deos accepúñº.” says Valerius Maximus, ‘Capsares dedimws.’ This deiſication was the rule, though emperors who displeased the Senate were not deified when the honour could safely be refused them ; and it can be traced well into Christian times, certainly till Jovian (364), and perhaps as late as Theodosius, though long before that time the emperor had ceased to be a real divinity, even among the heathens. If the ºpiº was the greatest of hindrances to the gospel, it was also the greatest of lielps. We must look below its superficial tolerance in the Apostolic Age, below the deeper enmity proclaimed by Nero's persecution. The single fact that the Empire was universal went far to complete the fulness of time for Christ's coming. Iłome put a stop to the wars of nations and the great sales of slaves resulting from them, to the civil strife of cities and their murderous revolutions. Henceforth they were glad to live quietly beneath the shelter of the Roman peace. º and trade (wit- ness the migratory Jews) were easier and freer than ever since in Europe till quite recently. It was settled peace, too, such as never came again till after Waterloo. Whole provinces hardly saw the face of war for generations together. l{oman law went with Roman citizenship ; and Latin civilization overspread the West, while Greece under Roman protection completed her conquest of Asia, within Mount Taurus. Historically, the Eumpire is the great barrier which won for civilization a respite of centuries by checking at the Rhine the tide of Northern barbarism, and at the Euphrates the two thousand years' advance of Asiatic barbarism through Par- thian and Saracen and Turkish times, beginning with Alexander’s retreat from the Sutlej, B.C. 327, and ending only at the repulse of the Turks from Vienna, in 1683. During that momentous respite IRoune gathered into herself the failing powers of the old world, and fostered within her the nascent powers of the new. This was her work in history —to be the link between the ancient and the modern — between the heathem city-states of the ancient world and the Christian nations of the modern, Her weakness was not political. I’m- perors might rise and fall, but the Empire itself did not perish when emperors rose and fell no more. It was not military : generals might blunder, but nearly to the end no enemy could face a ltonian legion in the shock of battle. It was partly economic, in slavery and bad taxation ; partly educational, in the helpless hark back to the mere words of the past ; partly also admini- strative. Christian thought is even now pro- foundly influenced by the fact that the Empire ht...] no good police. Drigands were plenty in Judaea (Amorós 15 times in NT, of which 2 Co A128 may refer to Gentile regions), and, though other provinces were better off, the evil increased as time went on, and the emperor lost control of the administration. Hence arbitrary sevºrities and laws of atrocious cruelty against such offenders as were unlucky enough to be caught. The Empire was by far the worthiest image of the kingdom of God yet seen on earth, but its imper- fections are writ large on every form of Christian thought which looks on power as the central attribute of deity. After all, the Empire was the passing of the ancient world. With all their grandeur, its rulers were only the karapyoguevo, (1 Co 2"). LITERATURE.-See Roman: and add Boissier, Religion romaine; Westcott's Comin. on St. John's Jºpp. (‘The Two Empires'); Lightfoot, Iquittiw8, iii. 404; and authorities juo'. 2d by them, to which add Fustel de Coulanges, La Gawle romaine; and E. G. Hardy, The Provincial Councils from Aug. to I)iocl.,’ in Eng. LIist. Itev. v. 221. H. M. GWAT KIN. ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE.— i. Place of the Epistle in tradition. .ii. Time and Place of writing. iii. Occasion and Purpose: (1) Jews in Rome; (2) Christians un Rome ; (3) Apostolic foundation ; (4) Jewish or Genuile readers? (5) Letter or Treatise? (6) Itelation to other letters of the group. iv. Sketch of main arguments, and Analytical Table. v. Importance of the Epistle. vi. Theology, and characteristic ideas: (1) God, Attributes and Will—Law, Christ; (2) Man under sin; (3) Man under law, and under grace, the Spirit; (4) Man's admission to grace, faith, justification; (5) Grace and the moral life; (6) The Christian community and its ... ... Institutions, vii. Materials for personal history of St. Paul. viii. Transmission of the Text. Integrity. Literature. i. PLACE OF THE EPISTLE IN TRADITION. — What has been remarked of 1 Corinthians applies equally to this Epistle. Ibut definite traces of its language, occur already in 1 Peter, fainter but still distinct traces in Hebrews, and probable distinct traces in James, though here the case is less clear, and Mayor, in his edition of James, con- tends for the priority of the latter (see for details, and traces in Jude, Sanday-Headlam, lxxi ſi.). The Epistle was well known to Clenn. Itom. (nine passages are distinctly traceable), Ignatius (twelve), Polycarp (six), Justin Martyr (seven), and appar. ently to Gnostic writers (Naassenes, Valentinians, and Basilides) quoted by Hippolytus. For details, See Sanday-Headlam, who add some very instruc- tive quotations (thirteen, of which seven seem indisputable) from Test. of acii. Patriarchs. The first reference to our Epistle by name is that by Marcion, who included Romans in his collection of Pauline Epistles (see below, § viii.). We may safely repeat here what was said on 1 Corinthians (which see), that the Epistle to the Romans has been recognized in the Christian Church as long as any collection of St. Paul’s Epistles has been extant. In the Muratorian and other early lists our Epistle stands seventh among the Pauline Epistles, i.e. last among the Epistles addressed to Churches as distinct from individuals. Its present position at the head of the list appears first in the 4th cent. (see on 1 Cor., § 1, and Sanday-Headlam, lxxxiv. ff.). Another in portant direct quotation is in Irenaeus, Har. III. xvi. 3, and in IV. xxvii. 3, an “elder,’ the pupil of men who had seen the apostles, is repre- sented as quoting lºo ll". * (‘Paulum dixisse’) and 3”. Marcion, it is true, omitted clas. 15. 16, and certain other passages; but neither he nor any other heretic impugned the authority of the Epistle, which is included in all the ancient l y versions. ISut no weight of external attestation could be more eloquent than the style and char. acter of the Epistle itself. Its very difficulty is of a mature which raises it above the plane of arti. Genuineness. 296 ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE ficiality. For this difficulty springs from no clumsiness of expression or confusion of thought, but from the depth of the questions handled and the originality of their treatment. It is the most * Pauline’ of all the writings which bear St. Paul’s name. Accordingly, critics who have set down almost every other writing of the NT as amonymous, have allowed that this Epistle, along with those to the Corinthians and Galatians, is really from the land of St. Paul. The somewhat reckless criticism of Bruno Bauer produced little or no effect upon the body of critical opinion in Germany. In more recent times the hypercriticism of the Dutch school of Loman and others, and the extreme theories of Steck (on these see 1 CORINTIIIANS, § 4; also Sanday-Headlam, pp. lxxxvi-lxxxviii), have failed to shake the main body of representa- tive critics in their estimate of our Epistle. ii. TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING.—The ministry of St. Paul as recorded in Acts falls into three periods: (a) The Antiocheme (Ac 13-18°), when Antioch was his headquarters. Towards the end of this period (Ac 16–18) he founds the great Churches of the AEgean region. (b) The AEgean or Ephesian period (Ac 18%–21%), when he transfers his residence to Ephesus; at the end come his second visit to Corinth and his last voyage to Jerusalem. (c) The period of captivity (Ac 21"-28) at Caesarea and Rome. To the first period belong the Epistles to the Thessalonians, written from 8.i. ; to the second, the four Epistles to the Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans. The third period is that of the ‘captivity group,’ Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon. Our Epistle was in all probability the last of its group, —cer- tainly it is later than 1 and 2 Corinthians. It was written from Corinth, where (assuming that 16” belongs to our Epistle, see below, § viii.) St. Paul was the guest of the Gaius of 1 Co 1*. Phoebe, possibly the bearer of the letter, was a ° deaconess’ of Cenchreae, the eastern port ef Corinth. Moreover, St. Paul was on the eve of departure from Corinth with the alms collected by him in Macedonia and Achaia (15**) for the ‘poor saints’ of Jerusalem. From the latter lº he was hoping to visit Rome, and afterwards Spain (1528; cf. 2 Co Sl. 2, Ac 24,720° 1941). It was after the winter, which St. Paul had probably spent in Corinth (1 Co 16"), for he proposed to sail to Syria. (Ac 20°) and to reach .. before Pentecost (Ac 201"). But Ro 15 contains no allusion to the }. of the Jews which at the last moment forced him to change his route (Ac 20°). The exact year in which the Epistle was written depends upon the dates to be assigned to 1 and 2 Cor. (see 1 COR- INTHIANS, $ 6 and reff., and CHRONOLOGY OF NT). If, as the present writer inclines to believe, the chronology of Lightfoot, etc., is not definitely superseded, the Epistle dates from just before the Passover of the year 58. If the whole scheme has to be shifted back two years, then the correspond- ing date in 56 must be º The point may, for the purpose of this article, be left in suspense. The relative date, i.e. with reference to the other Epistles, is the point of real importance for the his- torical explanation of our Epistle. On this point the limits of doubt are narrow. There is no ques- tion but that Romans belongs, with l and 2 Cor., to the Ægean period (see above), in contrast to 1 and 2 Thess., which belong to the Antiochene period, and to Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, Phile- mon, which come after St. Paul’s captivities had begun. There is, moreover, no doubt that IRomans was written on the eve of St. Paul’s departure from the AEgean region, and therefore was preceded in time by both Epistles to the Corinthians. The point which is less absolutely certain is the relation of Iłomans to Galatians. It is not so very im- portant to subdivide the alternative hypothesos which agree. in supposing Romans, to follow Galatians. If Lightfoot's view of the close psycho- logical relation between 2 Corinthians and Gala- tians remains unshaken in itself, and is not outweighed by general chronological considera- tions, we have a very intelligible historical situa- tion for the origin of Romans (see below, §§ iii. v.). Even if Galatians has to be placed at the beginning of the Ephesian period (Weiss, etc.) or at the close of the Antiocheme period (Ramsay, Rendall, etc.), we lose, no doubt, something of the dramatic unity of situation, but we may still regard Romans as the mature expression and expansion of the thoughts struck out at white-heat in Galatians. isut the relation is wholly reversed if (with Clemen, Chromol. der Paul. Briefe) we regard Galatians as º Romans. This view is part of a general rearrangement of Pauline chronology dis- cussed in the art. 1 CORINTHIANS, vol. i. p. 485. Its direct proof is drawn from the relation of the treatment of circumcision, the law, etc., in our Epistle to that in Galatians, which is supposed to represent an exacerbation of the apostle's attitude. The view to be maintained below (§§ iii.-vi.) seems quite as legitimate an inference from the facts, and in itself more in accord with our general know- ledge of St. Paul’s thought and temper. If the reader finds it unsatisfactory, he may remember that he has the hypothesis of Clemen to fall back upon. iii. OCCASION AND PURPOSE. –In order to esti- mate the occasion and purpose of our Epistle, we must first ask, For what readers was it meant 7 and, secondly, What was the apostle probably de- sirous to say to such readers at this particular time 2 This necessitates a glance at the ante- cedents of Roman Christianity. The Christian body to which our Epistle is ad- dressed was clearly not, like that of 'I’lless. or even of Gal., of recent origin (1*, * 15° 167). In view of features of the Epistle, to which attention will presently be drawn, its origin is to be sought in connexion with the existence of a Jewish com- munity in I&ome. 1. Jews in Rome.—The first known connexion of the Jews and Ikomans was in the 2nd cent. B.C., under the Maccabees (1 Mac 87ſ. 121* 141* * 15*). Jewish embassies had gone to Rome, and had obtained treaties of alliance (B.C. 161, 144, 141, 129). Probably their earliest settlements in Iłome date from this period, though there is no need to seek a special occasion at Rome at a period when Jews were beginning to find their way all over the civilized world. , Cicero (pro Flacco, 59) tells us of a large Jewish community in Rome, which sent annual subsidies to Jeru- salem. The captives brought by Pompey from the East (B.C. 61) swelled their numbers. Many of these gained enfranchisement (Philo, Leg. ſtal Gaium, 23), and these are probably the Libertini who supported a synagogue of their own at Jeru- salem (Ac 6"). Their worship was expressly toler- ated by Julius, Augustus, and Tiberius. They occupied, according to Philo, a quarter of their own beyond the Tiber. But there is evidence of synagogues, and therefore of Jewish residents, in other parts of the city also. º: tells us how 8000 Jews in Rome supported the complaints against the rule of Archelaus in Judaea (A. D. 2–4; Amt. XVII. xi. 1; BJ II. vi. 1). The satires of Horace, Juvenal, and Persius show that the Jews were far from popular in Iłome ; while yet, partly from the attraction which foreign rites had for the superstitious, partly, no doubt (Schürer, HJP § 31, v.), from the more serious attraction of the fusion of a higher morality and a purer theism than were to be found elsewhere, they did not ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE 297 lack very numerous adherents (‘Unus multorum,” Hor. Sat. I. ix. 71). A temporary expulsion, A.D. 19, by Tiberius, did not long check their growing numbers and importance in the city (see, for de- tails, Schürer, Gemeindeverſassung, and HJP $31, i. ii.; Berliner, Gesch. der Juden in Rom, 1893; Sanday-Headlam, Romans, Introd. § 2, and autho- rities cited by them). 2. Origin of Christianity in Rome. — A move- ment which so profoundly stirred Judaism at its religious centre could not fail to find an early response in the Jewish community at the centre of the world’s intercourse. At every great festival at Jerusalem, Roman Jews would be present (ért- 6mu.oOvres, Ac 2", i.e. Čv travmyºpet, as Demosth. c. Mid. p. 584). This was the case at the first Christian Pentecost. We may see in the mention of the Roman Jews of Ac 2" a significant hint of what may possibly have happened. “Some who had gone ...], from Rome, as Jews may well have returned there as Christians’ (W. H. Sinncox). But we must look rather to the constant stream of movement to and fro than to the result of so momentary an impression as that of this one festival. “It would take more than they brought away from the Day of Pentecost to lay the founda- tions of a church.” The origin of the Roman Church is to be looked for in the steady though obscure circulation, kept up among the Jews as among other classes, between l{ome and the pro- vinces. Aquila, and Priscilla may have been Christians before their expatriation from Rome, A.D. 51, 52. It was, at any rate, in the class to which they belonged that the seed of the vast tree of Roman Christianity was first sown and grew (see also Sanday-Headlam, p. xxvii, for details from Ro 16). 3. Apostolic foundation of the Roman Church.- 'I'here is no need to assume that any apostle first planted the gospel in Rome, nor do the facts per- mit the supposition. St. Paul is not, in Writing to the Romans (15*), building upon the foundation laid by another. He is, on the contrary, discharg- ing an unfulfilled portion of his mission as Apostle to the Gentiles (ll” 1" "). The Roman Church, then, had hitherto lacked apostolic leadership and, so far as our Epistle informs us, organization on any permanent basis (see below, § vi. 5, and art. 1 CORINTHIANS, vol. i. p. 490). It is true that early tradition ascribes do foundation of the Roman Church to St. Peter, and a less ancient but still sonmewhat early tradition ascribes to that apostle a twenty-five years' episcopate of the Roman Church. The highly contentious char- acter of the questions here at issue, their extra- ordinary complexity, and their secondary bearing upon our main subject, forbid anything but the slenderest discussion of them in this article. But it may be said, with reference to the first-named tradition, that the earliest testimony on the sub- ject ascribes the foundation of the Itoman Church to St. Peter and St. Paul jointly; it is “Petro- Pauline,’ i.e. ascribes nothing to St. Peter which it does not equally ascribe to St. Paul. Moreover, it hinges primarily on the martyrdom of the two apostles at Rome. Clement, writing soon after 95 (5*), couples the death of the two apostles in a context suggestive of martyrdom ; he does not expressly locate their death at l'ome, but speaks of it as if it were within the direct knowledge of those on whose behalf he is writing. Ignatius (nd Rom. iv. 3) is less explicit ; he suggests that the two apostles had given instructions to the l{oman Christians. His language exemplifies the habitual association of the two names. This is stronger still in Dionys. Cor. (in Eus. HI, II. xxv. 8); he makes the two plant the Church of Corinth as well as that of Itome. Irenaeus (and perhaps Hegesippus, ap. Eus. HE IV. xxii.) knows that the Roman Church claims the two apostles as its founders. Tertullian (Praescr. 36) speaks of the two apostles as having ‘poured into that Church all their doctrine along with their blood.’ His Roman contemporary, Caius, knows the rpºrata of the two apostles on the Vatican and by the Appian Way. We must notice, lastly, the inter- esting statement in the Pradicatio Pauli, quoted by pseudo-Cyprian (De rebrºpt., Hartel, vol. iii. p. 90), that after long separation the two apostles met and suffered together in Rome. It is a very improbable suggestion of Lipsius, that this stream of tradition owes, its origin to the attempt to harmonize the relations of the two apostles, and that it presupposes the Clementine tradition in which the anti-Pauline tradition of SIMON MAGUS at Rome was incorporated. This latter tradition is closely connected with the tradition which ascribes to St. Peter a special connexion with the Roman Church, i.e. as distinct from St. Paul. Whether it is possible to separate them, so as to exhibit the story of St. Peter's twenty- five years’ episcopate, without any dependence on the legend which brings Simon Magus to Rome (which in turn seems wholly due to a well-known mistake of Justin, see Dict. Chr. Biog. art. ‘Simon Magus'), is a most intricate question. An inade- quate discussion of it would be worthless, an ade- quate discussion would transgress the proportions of this article. Suffice it, then, to say tº. the question of importance for our purpose is whether St. Peter can be credibly held to have come to Rome as early as the reign of Claudius (41–54). There are two possible sources for this supposition. The one is the statement of Justin, that Simon came to Rome in this reign. But, apart from the mistake upon which Justin founded this state- ment, neither Justin, nor Irenaeus, nor Tertullian after him, know anything of the Roman conflict of Simon with St. Peter. The other source is the idea that St. Peter, on leaving Jerusalem (Ac 127), came to Rome shortly before the death of Herod Agrippa I. (i.e. about A.D. 42); the Lord having (as inferred from that teact) commanded the apostles to remain twelve years in Jerusalem. either of these alternatives proves any founda- tion in fact for so early a visit of St. Peter to Rome. On the whole, we conclude that the Petro-Pauline tradition is the only one which goes back to the 1st cent., that it is presupposed by the tradition of the Roman conflict between St. Peter and Simon, and by the tradition of St. Peter's twenty- five years' episcopate, and that its foundation in fact is the martyrdom of both apostles at Rome. This was the ‘foundation’ of the Roman Church in the sense in which the ‘foundation-stone’ of a building is often laid after the actual foundations have been long in progress. The two apostles ‘consolidated the Church with their blood.’ There is therefore no primitive tradition which brings St. Peter to Rome before St. Paul, or any long time before the usually accepted date of his martyrdom. (See Lipsius, Apokr. Apostelgesch. vol. ii., and Quellen der röm. I’etrussage ; Erbes, ‘Todestage der Apostel Paul. und Pet.” in Tewte und Untersuch. xix. 1; Lightfoot, St. Clement, vol. ii. p. 490 ft. ; the very careful and fair discussion in Sanday- Headlam, Imtr. § 3; and Chase in art. PETIER in vol. iii. of the present work). 4. Composition of the Body addressed by St. Paul. —We must assume as the basis of discussion that St. Paul was not wholly ignorant of the composi- tion and general state of the Church to §. he was writing. The names and data of ch, 16, which we believe to be an original part of the Epistle (see below, § viii.), and the sureness of touch which 298 ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE marks all St. Paul's references to the readers of this Epistle, are enough to carry us thus far. The Epistle, then, is certainly meant for readers of Gentile origin. St. Paul counts the Romans, as such, as Gentiles; see 17" &vols éare kai Üueis, v.” €v toſs \otiro’s éðveauv, cf. 15*. The readers are expressly described as Gentiles ll”, especially tºpºv Aéºya, To’s éðveauv, while he speaks of the Jews in the third person 9 m. 11***'. These passages are quite conclusive, and would justify a verdict if taken alone. But there are other passages which show with equal clearness that St. Paul is contemplating ºreaders Jewish in their religious education and Čdeas. (1) The general argument of the Epistle, levelling down the Jew, both under iaw and under grace, to the footing of the Gentile, is more intel- igible as addressed to Christians of Jewish habits of thought. Th2 careful discussion of Abraham's righteousness suggests a similar origin. Nor, be it observed, is there any suggestion of anti-Pauline agitators in the Roman Church to account for this line of argument (as in Galatians). Add to this the assumption of knowledge (5*) as to Adam and his heritage of death, the pains taken (3° 6') to rebut the imputation of antinomianism, and to show (ch. 11) that the rejection of Israel may be but the necessary step to their eventual accep- tance. (2) The dialectical form in which Jewish difficulties are carefully faced, and paradoxes espe- cially abhorrent to the Jewish mind repelled with pi, Yévotro (3: 34, 77. 1894. 90 lll: 11, cf. Gal 217); the Tpoexöge0a of 3" (cf. 4", and 7". " in conjunction with the expansion, vv.7-”, also 91"). (3) Here we Inust emphasize the express statement 7"-" that the readers had lived under the Law, and in “old- ness of letter,’ and that by the death of Christ they had been discharged from their allegiance to the Law. This passage was regarded by Mangold (der R.-Brief w. S. gesch. Vorawssetzungen, 1884) as the immovable corner-stone of the Jewish-Christian character of the Iłoman Church. It seems to ex- plain St. Paul's readiness throughout to make use of Jewish concessions (22m. 3+ 19.29ſ. 41m. 616tſ.) and his regard for objections natural to a Jewish mind. In any case, there is not the smallest evidence in the Epistle that St. Paul apprehended hostility on the part of his readers (see 6'7 167). He writes as a Jew to Jewish, but not to inveterately prejudiced readers. The Judaism of the Dispersion was, in many places (e.g. Beroea), milder and less prati- quant than that of Palestine. The Jewish Chris- tianity of the Diaspora may well have stood, in many cases, in an analogous relation to that of the Trøxol āytot (Ac 21*). Iºvidently, the Jewish in- fluence which had moulded the religious temper of the Roman Church was not, as in Galatia and Corinth, of a recently imported or aggressive type. How, then, are we to combine the two classes of evidence? Partly we might explain their diverg- enge by St. Paul's habit of treating one portion of a Church as if it represented the whole; e.g. at Thessalonica, Corinth, and Ephesus there were numerous Jewish Christians, but St. Paul addresses the Churches, especially the first and last named, as wholly Gentile. But the mere assumption of a mixed composition does not quite account for the phenomena. The readers are treated by St. Paul as a homogeneous body. Even in ch. 14 the distinction between the strong and the weak is not to be simply identified with that between Gentile and Jew. " The Roman community as a whole is treated as Gentile in its elements, but Jewish in its ideas and feeling. Now, a glass of men corresponding to this description existed all over the Hellenistic Jewish world in the PROSELYTES, the oregſgevot of Acts, who, without as a rule accepting circumcision, frequented the synagogues, observed the moral law, worshipped the God of Israel, and were instructed in the Scriptures. It was annong these, according to Acts, that the gospel everywhere made its first heathen conquests. Probably the Roman Church was no exception. If so, there would of course be, as at Corinth, etc., a nucleus of Christian Jews, and, by the time when our Epistle was written, numbers of heathen might well have become proselytes directly to the Öhristian body without previously passing through the intermediate stage of Jewish proselytism. Still it was the proselytes who gave the tone to the community, and they owed their all, as Christians, to the influence and training of Christian Jews. We are compelled to form hypo- theses in this matter, and it is this hypothesis which best satisfies the conditions of our problem. The old Tübingen alternative of anti - Pauline Jewish, or anti-Jewish Pauline Christianity, is not imposed upon us either by the facts of history or by the internal evidence of the letter itself. (On this subject see also Hort, Iłomans and Ephesians, pp. 19–33; Beyschlag in S1(, 1867; Schürer's art. on ‘Romans’ in Encyc. Brit."). 5. Letter or Treatise £–This being assumed, we . may approach the question of the writer's purpose. St. Paul would not fail to see that the future of Gentile Christianity in the Roman world depended to no small extent º the future of the Christian body in the imperial city. \\ c accept the sugges- tion of Ramsay, that St. Paul had early grasped the importance of the Roman empire as a vellicle for the dissemination of the gospel. To commend his own Fº gospel of the Gentiles—to w community like that at Rome, was no hopeless task. To this end a personal visit to Rome was the obvious means, and this he had long resolved to pay (1*). But a letter such as this would º the way for a successful visit, and meanwhile it would accomplish much. Hence its reasoning con- ciliatory tone (12° 15" etc.), specially claracteristic of a period of reaction from a critical contest, when the apostle's own desire for peace was, more- over, finding concrete expression in the great \oyla 15*, *). It was, then, no mere arbitrary choice which led St. Paul to address this, his greatest letter, to Iłome. The Epistle is not a systematic treatise which might with equal appropriateness have been addressed to any Church. It has, primarily at least, in view the idiosyncrasy of the Christian community at IRome (see below, § v.). 6. Itelation to other Jºpistles of the group.–Our Iºpistle comes at the close of a period of deep agi- tation, reflected in the Epp. to the Corinthians and Galatians, and summed up in 2 Co 7” ɘev Adºxal, êa w8ev p^{3ot. Referring for details to the articles on those Epistles, it will suſlice to say that many of ‘the circumcision' had never in their hearts acquiesced in the recognition (Ac 15, Gal 2") of a Christianity emancipated from the Law, or frankly recognized the apostleship of St. Paul. At Corinth the latter question had been brought into promi- nence, in Galatia, the former and deeper question. The Epistle to the GALATIANS stands in the closest relation to our Epistle, and its main ideas must be grasped as a º to the understanding of Romans (see below, § v.). ‘To the Galatians, the apostle flashes out in indignant remonstrance the first eager thoughts kindled by his zeal for the gospel, striking suddenly agains" a stubborn rent- nant of Judaism. To the Romans he writes at leisure, under no pressure of circumstances, in the face of no direct antagonism, explaining, complet- ing, extending the teaching of the earlier Epistle, by giving it a double edge directed against Jew and Gentile alike ’ (Lightfoot). The agitators of Gal- atia had insisted upon the Law as a necessary and permanent Scheme of righteousness and salvatiou RQMANS, EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE 299 for mankind. Laid down by God as the condition of man's communion with Himself, it could not be set aside by any subsequent covenant. Man could only appear before God as a faithful doer of the Law. St. Paul in reply had addressed himself to two main points: (1) to prove that the Law could not, and that faith alone could, make man right- cous in God's sight ; (2) to show the true position of the Law in the history of God’s dealings with man. Righteousness, he argues, is a free gift from God to man, and as such was accorded to Abraham on the sole condition of faith in an unconditional promise. The inheritance of this promise passes not by any earthly law of succession, but to those who resemble Abraham in his faith. The Law, being of long subsequent date to the Promise, could not be meant to affectits fulfilment. It was given for a temporary purpose, pending the fulfil- ment of the l’romise, namely, to prepare men for the fulfilment by bringing out and making men feel their essential sinfulness and helpless inability to approach God with any claim to righteousness of their own. The righteousness which they could not earn is accorded as the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham's faith in Christ. Like the promise itself, it is unconditional, demanding jºi. OIl our part but faith. To go back to circumcision is to abandon the attitude of faith, and to refuse to see that in Christ the Law has fulfilled its pur- pose, and has an end. ‘Dehold, I I’aul say unto you, that if ye accept circumcision, Christ shall Blofit you nothing’ (Gal 5%, cf. the whole of ch. 3). This is the central thought worked out in Romans, but fortiſied and enlarged by a wider outlook upon history, a profound application to the principles of the moral É. and a comprehensive philosophy of the history of revelation. In this latter part of our lºpistle (chs. 9–11) the school of Baur saw its principal purpose. This is a mistake. Iłut it is essential to St. Paul’s argument to show that the righteousness of faith, by excluding the Jewish “boast,” does not involve a reversal of God’s “gifts and calling.’ iv. AIRG UMENT OF THE EPISTLE, AND ANALYSIS. —The theological part of the Epistle extends from lºº to the end of ch, 11. It treats successively the Theology of (1) Redemption (1"–5), (2) of the Christian life (6–8), and (3) of history (9–11). The Theology of Redemption comprises two themes, summed up and contrasted in 5*, viz. the ‘wrath of God’ (1"–3”) and the righteousness of God (3*–5”). The Wrath of God is the correlative of man's need of redemption. “I’irst comes the state- ment that the world up to that moment had been, morally speaking, a failure’ (Mozley, Miracles, Lect. vii., a remarkable passage on our Epistle). A moral creed was there, but not a corresponding life. Among Jews and Gentiles alike the facts are the same : ‘knowledge without action.” The utmost the knowledge of right could do for man was to confound him with a sense of utter self- condemnation. And this self-condemnation was but the perception of an awfully real fact—the wrath of God revealed in all its fearful intensity, not Oilly upon the careless Gentile, but upon the Jrivileged Jew, whose privilege (none the less real }. of his apostasy, 3-8) only heightened his personal guilt. 13ut God’s dealings with men, His self-revealed claracter, had not only led men to fear His holiness, but had also from the first led men to look upon Him as a Saviour. His long series of mercies to His people had led them to look forward to something in the future, some deliverance more final, more complete, more mar- vellous, than His mighty works of old. God was lº to redeem, and God was righteous (see Yelow, § vi. (1)). The OT revelation had led men to hold to the righteousness of God as containing the promise of Salvation; the gospel declares it as an accomplished fact. And the universality of the wrath of God before Christ only brings out that redemption, when it came, was the sole out- come of the righteousness of God, and not in any degree the achievement of man. God’s righteous- ºness has as its correlative the fact of Redemption. The redeeming work of Christ, then, wherein God appears as ‘righteous and making righteous” (3*), humbles man even more completely than did the antecedent revelation of wrath—their boast is shut out, not (only) by a law of works, but (even more completely) by a law of faith. The privilege of the Israelite has no place in the sight of God. And this strange result, so far from revoking the word of God in the OT, is really its fulfilment. This gospel of faith, this levelling of privilege, was preached before the Law, before any characteristic institute of Judaism was ordained. The whole story of Abraham—the boasted father of Jewish privilege—makes this clear (ch. 4). “Well, then, my readers,’ the apostle concludes, ‘let us all make this gift of God our own (see Beet on éxwuev, 5'). Peace with God is ours, founded on the certainty of God’s love for us—a certainty created in our hearts by the Spirit of God Himself, but no mere subjective certainty; for actual recorded fact speaks plainly to us of that love—a love transcend- ing all probable limits of human devotion. We can trust God to complete what He has begun, and live in joyful hope, however the appearances of life are against us. True, the experience of history, so far, has been that of a world-wide heritage of death and sin. But the act of weakness which bequeathed that heritage to man has now been superseded by an act of Divine power fraught with the promise of Righteousness and Life to all who receive the abundance of its grace (5**). In this great twofold division of human history, how subordinate a part was played by Law It forms the last º of the heritage of death, aggravating the disease in order to intensify man's want of the IRennedy (5*). - St. Paul has done half his work, and what he has done is “more than half of the whole.’ He has shown that the wall of sin no longer shuts out the soul from God, that access to God is ours, that the Christian Life is made possible. But it remains for him to place the Christian Life itself before our eyes, and this he does in the second great section. And, first of all, he takes it in the concrete (ch. 6). The twofold question, ‘Shall we sin 2’ (vv.”) at first sight answers itself—no one would say that the Christian is to sin. . But the weight of the question really turns on the reason why? These dº. (6-8) give us the fundamental principles of Christian ethics. And, first of all, he shows us that ‘the grace wherein we stand,” which he has hitherto viewed negatively as Justification, i.e. Forgiveness of sin, is on its positive side union with Christ. If we were united to Ilim by Baptism, the rite resembling His Death, we shall further be united with Him by something corresponding to His Resurrection, viz. a new vital energy—Katvörmt. Kajs; only, we must realize this—allow the new life of Christ to wield our limbs. , lºor we are no longer under an external compulsion, but instinct with an indwelling Force –“ not under law, but under grace.” Our obedience to the will of God will bo not less complete for this reason, but far more. ‘If, he continues, ‘you seem to take what I have said as a paradox, I will make my meaning plain by an unworthy metaphor. You have to choose between slavery and , slavery—nay, you have made your choice—you have renounced slavery to sin. Well, then, you are slaves of righteousness, slaves of 300 ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE God: you cannot, if you look back on the past, repent your choice. You are dead in Christ, and when a person dies, he passes out of the control of law. You then, in dying with Christ, died to the law, and are alive to Christ alone” (6*–7*). St. Paul passes from the concrete picture of the Christian life to the consideration of the forces which are at work in it (7°–8). He employs the method of difference, comparing the pre-Christian life at its very best, i.e. as lived under Divine law, with the Christian life; the old life under the letter with the new life in the Spirit. This contrast is tersely stated in 7".", then life under law is characterized in 77*, and life in the Spirit in ch. 8. In 81* the question asked in 6', so far as it needs an explicit answer, is formally answered. The connexion of 9–ll with the general argument of the Epistle may be best seen if we consider how they are anticipated in 3-9. That this is so can be readily proved. The Rejection of Israel, then, was a fact which apparently collided with the main thought of the first section—the Righteousness of God. The Righteousness of God was apparently, to St. Paul, above all God’s consistency with, or truth to, His revealed character and purpose. And the absolute levelling of Jew and Gentile— especially the levelling down of the Jew to the position of the Gentile as the object of God’s wrath —had the look of a revocation of express promise, the going back upon God’s own covenant. Was, then, God a “covenant-breaker’?—pººl yèvotto. Yet to St. Paul the difficulty was a very real one, and had to be explained. His fundamental explana- tion is found in 9” and 11”—viz. that the proper }. to the Divine covenant, the true heir to the Promises, is not Israel after the flesh, but the believing few—or, rather, all who by their faith prove themselves true Sons and heirs of Abraham (see ch. 4), and that this has been made plain by God all along. But there is the equally in portant thought that the calling in of all nations—without which the Divine promises from Abraham down- wards would not be satisfied, nor the Truth of God really maintained — would have been impossible but for the rejection of the Jews. ‘By their fall, salvation had come to the Gentiles,’ their un- righteousness had established the Righteousness of God (3%). This is the great paradox of the third section. Still, even with St. Paul, Tô ovyyevés Tot ôetvöv, h 6’ 6pu)\la, blood is thicker than water, and he will not surrender the hope of the ultimate conversion of the apostate people, consecrated as they are by the root whence they had sprung (1111-32). . The argument therefore falls into the following tabular scheme – I. Epistol, ARY INTRoduction, 11-10. A. THE SALUTA TION (1.7).—o. The writer, his gospel and apostleship (1-0); 3. the readers (74); 2. the greeting (7b). B. TſIE I'OMA WS, AND TIIE APOSTLE'S DESII.E TO 1ſt EAciſ To TIIEM (8-15). II, DocTRINAL PART (110–11). A. T.III:OLOGY 01' SALVATION (110-8). a. Theology of Itedemption (116–5). Preamble (116. 17). (1) The Wrath of God (118-320). All, Gentiles (11932) and Jews (21–38), alike (39.20) under the wrath of God against sin, , and in need of redemp- tion ; (21-10 lay down a general prin- º; preparing for the direct attack 17-29) upon Jewish self-esteem). (2) The Righteousness of God (bringing re- demption to all) (321–521). oc. The fact of Redemption (321-20 (vv.25-26. Significance of the Death of Christ). &. All men on an equality in view of this fact (327.90). 2. The Righteousness of Faith older than that of Law (381–425). 3. The Righteousness of Faith the basis of Certitude and Hope (51-11). * * 4. Conclusion. The work of Christ in ºt with the failure of Adam 5 .." * b. Theology of the Christian Life (61–839). (1) Synthetic treatment. The Christian and the pre-Christian life contrasted as— oc. Life and death (61-14). 8. Sin and righteousness (615-23). 9. º º grace (or letter and Spirit) 614 71-0). (2) Analytic treatment (75.25): the factors (or psychology) of the Christian life. c. Under Law: flesh, will, (75.7.25). 8. Under Grace : spirit, and the Spirit of God (768). TIII, SPIRIT of Sonship in CIIRIST creates ſ Obedience to God's Will (81-17), in us \ Certitude and Iſope (818-89). B. TIIEOLOGY OF IIISTORY (0–11; cf. 31-8). (The character of God as shown in the history of the People of God). The problem of the rejection of Israel (91-8) con- sidered in relation to— a. The Past (the promise of God) (90.20). (1) The promise to Israel was never, from the first, tied to fleshly descent (7-19), but freedom was expressly reserved to God (14.18). (2) This freedom vindicated—c. a priori (1921), and 3, a posteriori (22:24); what has happened is the fulfilment of God's word in prophecy (29-29). b. The Present (920–1021), the responsibility cf the rejected. (1) The actual error of Israel (930–103). § Their error analyzed and defined (108-18). 3) Its inexcusable nature shown (1018-21). c. The l’utwre (111-30). The Rejection of Israel. § Only partial (111-10). 2) Only temporary (1111-32). Doacology, closing part II. B. and the doctrinal portion of the Epistle (1138-80). III. PRACTICAL PART. A. GENERAL SOCIAL AND MORAL DUTIES (12. 13). a. I’ractical Christian Conduct (121.21). b. The Christian and the Civil Power (131-7). c. The Law of Love (138-10). d. The Approach of the Day (1311-14). B. M UTUAL DUTIES OF SECTIONS IN THIE CIIUI:CH (141–1513). a. The Strong and the Weak (141-23). b. Gentiles and Jews (151-18). IV. EPISTOLARY Conclusion (1514–1627). a. The Apostle and his readers (1514-24). - b. The Aoyiot, and the Apostle's approaching visit to Jerusalem (1525-33). c. Introduction of Phoebe (10l. 2), and salutation8 to individuals (3-10). d. Final warmings (17-20) and bemediction. e. Salutations from individuals [and be ºvediction in many MSS) (21:21). f. I’imal Doacology (25-27). v. IMPORTANCE OF THE EI’ISTLE.—It is evident that we have here, not exactly a systematic treatise on Christian doctrine, but a letter, held together in all its parts by a central idea, the working out of which in its presuppositions and applications is the essential purpose of the whole. This central idea is to be sought for in connexion with what the apostle calls (2° 16”), “my gospel’ (cf., 1*). This expression, understood in the light of Gal 27, points to more than a mere subdivision of labour between the apostles. Not merely the well-being, but the very existence of non-Jewish Christianity depended upon the gospel specially entrusted to St. Paul (compare Ph 2" with Gal 2%). The gospel of the uncircumcision, St. Paul's gospel (Ro 16°, Eph 3* *7), meant the levelling of Jewish privilege and self-righteousness (Ro 10' 3"), and this rested upon the principle of faith as the sole ground of righteousness in the sight of God (3* * read yép, 4% etc.). If this view is correct, and it seems to follow directly from St. Paul's own language, it at once places Romans in a fundamental position annong our materials for a Pauline theology, and marks the earlier chapters as fundamental in º with the rest of the Epistle. To take the latter point first : it was a too external view of the Epistle which led Baur to see its primary purpose in the subject of chs. 9–11. Near to the intellect ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE 301 à- apostle's heart (91*) as that subject was, it belongs to the historical application of the fundamental idea of the IEpistle rather than to the fibre and substance of that idea itself. The ideal relation between God and man holds good prior to any particular course which in God’s providence the religious history of the world may have followed. Had the Jews never enjoyed the position of a chosen people, the fundamental facts of human nature in relation to God would have been the same. The Law came in as a secondary factor (3*), and the historical relations of Jew and Gentile, the apostasy of the Jews, belong to the sphere not of eternal realities, but of the contin- gent. Therefore the first eight chapters accomplish St. Paul’s primary purpose ; the next three round off his fundamental thought by vindicating it in the light of religious history. And of the first eight chapters, clearly those (6–8) which deal with the principles of the Christian life presuppose and are governed by those which treat of man’s funda- mental relation to God (1–5). These chapters, then, which are directed to convincing all Chris- tians, especially those of Jewish habits of thought, that man cannot become righteous by means of law, but only by faith, are the central portion of the Epistle, and it is there that its main purpose is to be found. St. Paul's main purpose was, then, to commend ‘ his gospel,’ the principle of the righteousness of faith, to the Christians of Iłome. I3ut if so, it is a letter, not a treatise in the full sense of the word. . So far from being meant as a compendium of Christian doctrine, it is not written with special reference to what was common to St. Paul and the older apostles (1 Co 15"). This the Iłomans already know, and it is taken for granted (16'76"). The apostle writes not to controvert, nor even to reconstruct de movo, but to complete (1*). St. Paul's gospel was but the explicit for- mulation of what was implied in the gospel as breached by all, and from the first. If Christ, as all taught and all believed, had died not in vain, then righteousness did not come through Law (cf. Gal 2*). . It need not, then, surprise us that the enunciation ca, professo of the specifically Pauline doctrines is almost conſined to the Epistles of this group. In the earlier Epistles to the Thessa- onians, St. Paul is at a simpler stage of his teaching. To the recent converts of Macedonia, temperance, righteousness, and the judgment that was to come (Ac 24*) supply the natural heads of instruction. In Philippians we catch the last ecloes of the great controversy; in Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, and still more in Timothy and Titus, new circumstances call forth different categories of doctrine. But throughout, the prin- ciples of Romans and Galatians are presupposed and are fundamental. Lastly, as compared with Galatians itself, our Epistle is primary. Galatians (see above, $ iii. 6) is addressed at a special psycho- logical moment. Its argument from the priority in time of the covenant of faith reappears, i. !al in substance, but in more extended elaboration, in Ro 4. But the oternal principle which underlies this historical argument is worked out in Romans with a widor outlook and a deeper foundation in human nature. The Gentile world is included in the arraignument of human helplessness before God. The history is carried back from Abraham to Adam ; the justification of man is put into relation with the righteousness of God, ti. inability (S*) of the Law to save is grounded upon a searching psychological analysis of its exact effect (IRo 7”, cf. Gal 3"), and the contrasted moral renovation eflected by the Spirit (Gal 5*) is described at length and put into relation with a comprehensive and sublime view of the meaning and destiny of creation. No doubt, the root-ideas of Romans are those of Galatians; but in the latter Epistle St. Paul is dealing with the controversy of the hour, in Romans he is dealing with human nature itself, and with the fundamental and universal relation: of man as man to God as God, as conditioned b the central fact of history—the Person and work of Christ. Our Epistle, then, is the ripe fruit of St. Paul's distinctive mission as a master-builder (l Co 3°) in the formation of the Church. In chs. 1–5, where he speaks as a Jew to Jews, we see Judaism led out of itself by the gospel, but by its own methods and from its own premises. This is a re-statement, but on a broader basis, of the position of Galatians. Then in chs. 6–8, speak- ing as a Christian to Christians, he brings out the contrast between law (and flesh) and grace (and spirit) as the respective spheres of the old and the new life. Here the Jewish point of view, its legalism and nationalism, are left far behind, and the ethical categories of the OT (even in their truest significance) have given place to those of the New (compare the deepened sense of the terms ‘spirit” and ‘flesh,” below, § vi.), the obedience of slaves to that of sons, the natural man to the spiritual ; propitiation for sin issues in the destruc- tion of its power (8*), the satisfaction of Law by Christ in its superSession as a factor in the spiritual life. vi. THEOLOGY AND CHARACTERISTIC IDEAS. — An article like the present neither requires nor permits a full discussion of these ; but it would be incomplete without a brief enumeration of the principal characteristic conceptions of the Epistle. 1. For his conception of God, St. Paul is depen- dent on the Old Testament. In other words, he does not so much analyze the idea of God as the absolute or perfect Being, as insist upon the char- acter of God as it has entered into human experi- ence in the course of God’s dealings with men. This lias been the case in two main ways. On the one hand, God has revealed Himself to man through nature (1*) and conscience (2*). “His eternal power and divineness’ and the doom due to sin are made known to man apart from direct revelation, and moral apostasy is therefore without excuse. On the other hand, the will (2*) and character of God have been specially revealed, and Divine promises have been given, to a particular nation entrusted with His ‘oracles’ (91* 3"). Iłoth Jew and Gentile, in their several ways, have the terrible knowledge, antecedent to Christ, of the aerath of God (1*). This conception is with St. Paul pri- marily cschatological (see Sanday-Headlam, in loc., and on 5"), but the certainty of its unveiling in the ‘day of wrath’ (2*) is a present certainty. The wrath of God in our Epistle is the category which includes the sternly retributive attitude of God towards sin, His 6tratokptoſta (2°). It stands in the closest relation to the OT conception of the IOivine Hol.INESS (see Expositor, March 1899, p. 193). If the Divine wrath is an experience common to Jew and Gentile alike, the l)ivine RIGHTEOUSN ESS (see the two artt. on this subject) is one specifically related to revealed religion. This is, of course, true on the view very commonly taken of the plurase Sukatoo ºvm 0eoû in 117 and other passages of the Epistle, viz. that it denotes, not an attribute of God Himself, but a righteousness which man derives from God as its source. This view, which has influenced the RV of 1", supplies an idea, so obviously necessary to St. Paul's contrast between the false righteousness and the true (10° etc.), and is in such close correspondence with his language in 2 Co 5*, Ph 3° etc., that it must, in some way or other, be included in any satisfactory explana- tion of the phrase in l’ and cognate passages, 13ut there is a marked tendency in many quarters to go back to the sense suggested by the parallelism 302 ROMANS, EPISTIE TO THE ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE of 6%uapus 0eoû and Šuk. 6600 in 11", 17 as the primary one, and to recognize the antithesis between the wrath of God as the ‘revelation’ antecedent to the gospel, and the ‘righteousness of God’ as the specific revelation of the gospel itself. The main objection to this is the presupposition that by God's ‘righteousness’ must be meant His stern retribu- tive justice, i.e. His anger against sin. The result of an examination of the use of the conception of God’s righteousness in the Old Testament is, how- ever, adverse to this presupposition. The subject is sub judice, and it is beyond the province of this article to attempt to decide it (see above, $ iv.; Sanday-Headlam, p. 24 fl. ; Earpos., March 1893, p. 187 ff. ; Häring, Öuk. 0. bei Paulus, Tübingen, 1896; Beck in Neue Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1895, p. 249 ft. ; kölbing in SK, 1895, p. 7 ff. Häring, 3, 14 fr., tabulates the principal alternative views). here is, at any rate in this Epistle, the closest correlation between the righteousness of God and the justification of the believer in Christ (3*). A similar correlation exists between the final salvation of man and the Glory of God. By this expression St. Paul sometimes means the honour due to God from His creatures (1 Co 10”, Ro 1627); but there is a sense, specially characteristic of our Epistle, in which it denotes the supreme destiny of man, realized in the ultimate ºn of the redeemed (3* 9”, cf. 819. 21.80). The idea of the word 60%a here seems to be the positive counter- part of the more negative dirokáAvipts. The latter suggests the removal of something which hides, the former the shining forth of the thing previ- ously hidden in all its sublime reality. Relatively, this is seen in any signal display of Divine power, e.g. in the resurrection of Christ (6%). X'...}. it is reserved for the consummation of all things, when the kingdom of God shall appear in its per- fection, and the righteous shall . forth in it as the Sun. In this connexion the Divine PRE- DESTINATION must be taken into account. In 9°, though the general context relate:3 more especially to the Divine predestination of men to function, i.e. to the several parts they play in the providen- tially ordered course of history, there is in the immediate context unquestioned reference to those whom God has prepared for glory (see above), in contrast to those who are ‘made ready’ (it is not said “by God Himself’) for destruction. There is neither here nor elsewhere in the Epistle any- thing said of the ‘double predestination.” But the predestination of the saints is clearly laid down in 8-" *. Only, in the latter passage foreknow- ledge precedes predestination. On the whole, while frankly recognizing the predestinarian language used, we must also recognize its limitations. The apostle does not appear to be giving expression to a systematized scheme of thought on the subject. The will of God for man's conduct enters into man's experience in the form of Law. In the generic sense, the term is applicable to any authoritative principle of action normally issuing in human obedience (8*, cf. 347", 1 Co 9”). Such obedience may, however, be the response either to an en- abling principle working from within (see passages just quoted, and 8*), or to a summons confront- ing man from without. In this, the characteristic sense of vöpios in our Epistle, law is a factor in the moral life ſitted to acquaint the intellect with the Divine standard of conduct (7° and previous context), but incapable (döövarov, 8°) of bringing the life of man into harmony with its precepts. This result, due to the conditions of human nature (below, 2) is the more apparent the more fixed and deſinite the form in which law is promulgated. This appears to be the meaning of ‘the letter’ (ypáppa), in which the full moral effect of law is seen (7", cf. 2 Co 3", 1 Co 15%, Ro 31° 41° 540 77, Gal 319). This was above all true of the one law which had conveyed to man in inexorable fixity and definiteness the Divine standard of action, the Jewish law, 6 vöp.os. The denotative force of the definite art. depends upon its context. In most cases, ‘the law” in question is the Jewish law ; on the other hand, the anarthrous vôpos may well be used of the Jewish law, either as a law or as representing the principle of law, or as a quasi- proper name (probably 7", possibly 3” etc.). See, further, art. }. (IN NT). The Christian is ideally free from ‘law' as an external principle (6*), but to be Utrö xáptu is to be $vvopos Xploroſ) (1 Co 9”, cf. Ro 8°, see below, 2; on the whole sub- ject, cf. Gifford, p. 41 ff.). In connexion with the doctrine of God, we must, lastly, note the bearing of the Epistle on the theo- logy of the Person and Work of Christ. Neither are treated of eac professo. But in 1*" and 9° we have the contrast between what Christ was, karð. ordpka, and His higher nature as Son of God (1*) and as actually God (9%). The diſliculty of the former passage is in the exact interpretation of Karā true dua &ywoºvms (see Gifford and Sanday- Headlam, in loc.). In the latter there is a still more difficult question of punctuation (see the Commentaries, also Ezra Abbot, Critical Essays, and Hort's critical note, in loc.). On the whole, the punctuation assumed just above appears distinctly the more probable. The principle, moreover, of réAos vópov Xpwortós (10"), and Christ as an object of l'aith (1, 600Xos 'Ima. Xp., contrast 1 Co 7°), and 10° which identifies Christ (by the context) with mºi", make decisively in the same doctrinal direction. (On 8” see below, 2). . On the Atonement, 3** is a classical passage, but it leaves open most of the difficult questions which attend the theology of that mysterious subject. The reader must consult the admirable excursus of Sanday - Headlam on the subject, Lightfoot's notes, and the discussion of the passage in R. W. IDale, The Atomement. The key to the meaning is to be found in the words iNaarāptov . . . v Tø aluatu attoſ, rather than in the évôetëvs Tàs 6tratoa ſums aúro), which, taken by itself, would hardly compel us to go beyond the th9ught of punishment as a vindication of God’s moral government, which by no means exhausts the significance of the Atone- ment. The doctrine is empliasized, but not ex- plained, in 5". 2. St. Paul's doctrine of man is formulated in OT categories, but enlarged and deepened by his out- look upon life and history, and by his personal experience as a Jew and as a “slave of Christ' (Ro 11). His comprehensive formula for human nature is ‘flesh”—“all flesh ’ (cf. 1 Co 3° div0patrol = a &pkºvot). I’rom the time of Theodore of Mopsues- tia to our own day the moral colour of St. l'aul's conception of 0.4p; has been matter of keen debate. The close relation between flesh and sin in his theology is obvious. , But to make the connexion essential, is to mistake the entire meaning of the apostle. In Ito 8° we have the crucial passage. What the law could not do—namely, liberiute man from the law of sin–God did by sending His ºwn Son, and in Him condemning sin “in the flesh.’ That is, sin was, by the mere fact (trépyas) of the coming of Christ, shown to be a usurper in human nature. This was effected by the Son of God coming “in the likeness of sinful ſlesh '-éu Öpold part a'après &paprlas. “Sinful flesh” is the universal condition in which our common humanity draws its first breath (5%). Christ did not enter into this condition, but into its ‘likeness.’ The ºtºv- likeness certainly did not consist in ‘the flesh” (1° 9") which Christ, took in reality, not in mere likeness. St. Paul could not have written év ćpot&- part oapkós. But neither did he write év gapid ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE 303 &uaprlas, which he should have done had sin been to him part of the very meaning of ‘flesh” (see Gifford’s admirable discussion, Introd. p. 52, and &m loc.). His language expresses with consum- mate accuracy the thought that Christ ‘ by taking our flesh made it sinless’ (Tertull.), and so broke the empire over human nature usurped by sin. Flesh, in fact, has with St. Paul a physical (orápictuos) and a moral (a apicukós) sense. In the former sense, as long as this life lasts we are év orapki (Gal 2°), in the “mortal body’ (Ro 61° 8”). But ideally the Christian has left the flesh as the sphere of his moral life behind (Ro 7°8'). But in the pre-Chris- tian, and even in the imperfectly Christian life, the adºpkºvos is inevitably aſapkukós (IRo 7”, l Co 3*). This is carried back by him to a historic beginning in the one sin of one man (51° 10-18), which left human nature under the reign of death and sin. Unquestionably, actual disobedience is to St. Paul far graver than passive or congenital sin. Before sin becomes a fact of experience, the individual is, comparatively speaking, ‘alive” (7°). But guilt in some sense is there already (5*), and rebellion is there, though latent and ‘dead’ (7°), and it needs but the first shock of prohibition to “revive’ (v."). Under the most favourable conditions of enlighten- ment, with the law of God to guide it, and with complete mental assent to and enthusiasm for (7*, cf. 27) that law, human nature experiences helpless failure and disaster. But, where the j. guidance is absent or lost, man becomes more and more lost to self-respect and moral con- viction (1*, *). In a sense the heathen is, like the Jew, under law : apart from the ideal sense in which “the Jewish law was a law for all men’ : Hort, Romans and ſºphesians, p. 25), his reason and conscience (2*), if normal and healthy, tell him what is right. The ‘natural virtue’ of Aris- totle is fully recognized by St. Paul, and it is, in fact, this inward moral law that is restored in Christ. Iłut, in fact, the law of conscience con- demned the Gentile as completely as the written law condemned the Jew (3°), and not less so when its voice had ceased to be heard (1*, *). 3. Sinful man does not, according to St. Paul, lack a higher mature. The inward self (7%) is capable of renewal (12°), though in sore need of it. I'or the higher self St. Paul has the term rveſpa (1 Co 5", 2 Co 7"), though in this sense he employs it sparingly, and not in our Epistle. More char- acteristic of Romans is the term voſs, which plays so prominent a part in the analysis (77°). Noüs is an inalienable endowment of human nature, i.e. it belongs to the flesh (cf. Col 2"), and may be in- volved in its bondage to sin (1*, cf. Tit 11°); but it is the highest endowment of the flesh, and is cap- able of conveying to the will the commandment of }od (7°); but there its power ceases—St. Paul would have accepted, so far as it goes, Aristotle’s dictatºm that “understanding alone moves nothing.’ The understanding, the ligher self, can indeed ‘wish' what is right (71*), but its wish has no power in the face of the flesh wielded by sin—“to wish and to effect' (Ph 2*) requires a vital energy (IRo 6") which human nature cannot originate. This vital energy is the Spirit (see Kauvárms in 64 7", cf. 2 Co 517) which ñºliº the body of Christ, and dwells in those who are in vital union with Him. The word Trveſpa in this Epistle is used, now for the Spirit of God, now for the inward man (see albove) as renewed and emergized by union with Christ (see Eapositor, May 1809, p. 350 ft. ; Sanday - Headlam, pp. 162 ft., 199 f.). It is this living union with the crucified, risen, and gloriſied Christ that distinguishes the new Self from the old self (tra)\atos div6patros, 6"), the re-Christian life éu orapºl, év tra)\atºrmrt Ypápuatos, rom the regenerate life év true ſpati, Čv Xplorø, Čv katvörmt. w?s, the obedience of sons from the obedience of slaves — slaves in mind possibly to a law of God, but practically to a law of sin (72" 6*). To make quite clear the perfection of the obedience implied in the new state, St. Paul en). ploys, in 6*, with an apology for doing so (v.19), the term “slavery’ to describe it (cf. 17); but he proceeds to throw it aside (8”) in completing his theology of the Christian life. The son and the slave differ above all in this, that the son's interest is centred on his father's will, that of the slave is elsewhere. This is expressed in the famous anti- thesis of the two ºpovijuara (8", cf. I’ll 20 31", Col 3°), by which St. Paul sums up his fundamental distinction of human character. It must be noted here that the language of ch. 8 postulates the dis- tinct Personality of the Spirit (v.”) not less clearly than that of 1 Co 2* implies. His divinity. The Spirit dwells in the children of God in this 1ife as an instalment (ätrapxh, 8”, cf. &ppagdºv else- where) of the life which is theirs already (v. 1"), but to be unveiled in its glory only with the consum- mation of God’s kingdom over all His creatures (81st). 4. St. Paul’s conviction of the profound degrada- tion of human nature is thus at once deepened and relieved by his belief in its lofty capacities and destiny. The latter, though to fe fully realized only in the life to come, are to be entered upon in this life. We have now to notice St. Paul's doctrine of the transition from the helpless, hope- less old life to the ‘life and peace’ of the new. Obviously, man cannot by himself cross so vast a chasm. But the ‘good-news of Christ comes to him as ‘the power of God to his salvation' (12"), if he believes it. Faith, then, presupposes that the Divine power to save has already been directed towards the believer; and it has as its innmediate accompaniment the º of a life in fellowship with God from which the sinner as such is ex- cluded. In other words, by believing, the sinner is in God's sight as though his sin had not been, —he is “justified by faith.’ By justification, then, St. Paul primarily means the non - imputation— the forgiveness—of sin (he equates the two ideas, 4* * etc.). Justification renders possible, for the first time, active righteousness (61° 81*) in God’s sight, but it is not possible to confuse the two in one idea without destruction of St. Paul’s most characteristic thought. If once it is grasped that justification means to St. Paul the removal of the impassable barrier set up between God and the soul by sin, and not the progressive assimilation of character to the filial type which springs from reconciliation as its root, and that faith is to the apostle not merely assent to doctrine as divinely revealed, but personal trust in God through Christ, it becomes easy to see how central a place the doctrine of justification by faith holds in St. Paul's system, how unreal is its supposed conflict with the severest standard of Christian obligation, or the most thankful use of divinely provided means of grace, and how profoundly it appeals to the most legitimate and elementary need of human nature, the longing for a gracious God (see Jn 6”). The doctrine, taken by itself, does not offer an account of all that grace does for a man, but of how a man is admitted to grace. The two things are clearly distinguishable in St. Paul, though, of course, in practice they can never be separated (compare sarefully Ito 8) with context before and after). l'aith, then, is to St. Paul the attitude of soul which never regards itself as righteous before God, but refers all to God's free gift. Its trust in God is absolute ; but it has as its objective foundation certain deſinite facts (5*") which become material for faith under the inſluence of the Spirit, who interprets to the soul the Death of Christ as the 304 ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE outcome of God’s love (5°). Hence it is ‘through faith (3*) that the Death of Christ reaches its effect in the justification of the sinner. It is this fact—even more than the inclusion of all alike under sin—that reduces all men to one level in God’s sight (397). (On this subject see the articles on FAITH and JUSTIFICATION in the present work, and a most careful discussion in Sanday-Headlam, bp. 28–39; also Earpositor, March 1899, p. 200 ft.; 3itschl, Lehre d. Itechtfertigung, vol. ii. ch. 4, § 36, and all important commentaries on 1&omans). Justifying faith, then, is not purely ‘dogmatic, be- cause it is trust in a Person. Neither is it purely “undogmatic,’ because it rests upon, and includes the knowledge of, something which that Person has done (1 Co 15°, the germ of an “Apostles' Creed '). Lastly, justification, to St. Paul, is doubtless one act, the entrance once for all into the state of grace (5*). But it remains as a root of character; its connexion with vital holiness is not that of mere succession in time, but as its organic begin- ning. Faith is the abiding sphere of all Christian life (Gal 2*, 2 Co 13°), not a passing emotion, evoked by a single great crisis and subsiding with it. 5. Grace and the moral life. —The act of faith is not meritorious in its character, for this would be open, equally with righteousness by works, to the objection of 4*. It must come, that is, from God as its source ; it not only receives God’s free gift, but it is God's free gift. In other words, by excluding merit, we seem to deprive man of his responsibility. It may be questioned whether St. Paul had ever formulated in his own mind the problem of “responsibility, without merit,” which is the age-long crata of the doctrine of grace. Both from the consideration of justifying faith, and again from that of Divine predestination to glory (above, 1), the moral responsibility of man seems threatened, if St. Paul's principles are logically developed. But he neither develops them in this way himself, nor does he seem conscious of the need for a reconciliation of the opposed truths. That all human history is in God’s hands, and that the sin of man, e.g. the apostasy of Israel in rejecting Christ, is used by God as a step to the fulfilment of His will for man, is insisted upon. But the fact is wholly disallowed as an extenua- tion of the sinner's responsibility; St. Paul re- ‘pudiates with intense indignation (3*) the charge that his teaching encouraged any such view. ‘Ch. 9 implies arguments which take away free will, ch. 10 is meaningless without the presup- position of free will” (Sanday-Headlam, p. 348). It is to be noted that St. Paul’s entire case for the need of redemption (1–3*) is an indictment of human sin, which loses all force if human responsi- bility is lost sight of. Although by “works of law no flesh shall be justified, yet God “will render to each man according to his works’ (29, cf. 14*). The stress laid by St. Paul upon personal faith and individual renewal as the heart and mainspring of the moral life, gives to his theology of conduct a strongly individualistic character. But no one could be further from individualism in the sense in which that term is often used. The personal life of the Christian is one of fellow- ship with the saints through Christ. All the manifestations of the Christian life are condi- tioned by membership of a body (12”). And in critical questions of moral alternative (ch. 14) the sense of brotherhood is a safe guide. We are to ask not merely ‘what does my liberty permit º’ but ‘how will my conduct help or hinder my brother?' We are to respect the liberty of others (14*), but to be ready to subordinate our own (for the whole chapter, cf. 1 Co 8–10. 13). An interesting application of St. Paul's general correlative. theory of conduct is the attitude inculcated by him towards the civil power (13-7). In a word, his spirit is that of good citizenship, idealizing the magistrate as ‘the minister of God.” This position, natural to a born ‘Roman’ (Ac 22*), is yery much in advance of the general spirit of the apostle's º and decidedly in contrast with that of the Apocalypse. This is partly to be explained by the circumstances. When St. Paul wrote, Imperial Rome was not yet ‘drunk with the blood of the saints’; on the contrary, the imperial officials had more than once protected him against Jewish fanaticism. 6. The Church, and its institutions.—The Roman community does not seem as yet to possess a per- manent organization of ‘bishops’ and deacons (see Sanday - Headlam, Introd. § 3 (3)). The list of ministries (127*) must be compared with others of the same kind (see the table in art. 1 CORINTIIIANS, vol. i. p. 490). The trpola répuevos can hardly be a permanent officer; he comes too low on the list, and is apparently on a line with the Kv3spvijaſets of 1 Cor. Thero is evidence (16”) that the houses of different members of the community formed seat- tered centres for the worshippers of the household or neighbourhood (see Sanday-Headlam, in loc.). Of the sacraments, the Eucharist is not mentioned ; but upon baptism great stress is laid (6'-9). To St. Paul's readers, to believe and to be baptized were, probably in all cases, coincident in time. Paith issued in baptism as its concrete expression and Baptism was the extermal means of union with Christ, the closing of the door upon the old and lower self, the opening of the new life of grace. It does not occur to St. Paul to put faith and baptism in any sort of rivalry. Faith in Christ would involve the desire to join His body by His appointed means. In all probability, the reference to faith and its confession in 10” is associated with the thought of baptism. vii. MATICRIALS FOR PERSONAL HISTORY OF ST. PAUL.—The Epistle is far less rich than those to the Corinthians and Galatians in details as to St. Paul's personal history. His long-standing desire to see Rome is mentioned in ch. 1 and in 15°; the puzzling reference to his having preached Aéxpt roſ, 'IAAupukoſ, in 15" (see art. 2 CORINTHIANS, vol. i. p. 495), if the words do not compel us to suppose that he had actually entered Illyricum, would be satisſied by his visit to 13croca, the last important place in Macedonia (Ac 17"). His further intention to visit Spain (15*) is a fact of great interest, as also is his apprehension as to his coming visit to Jerusalem with the Xoyia (ww.”). The names in ch. 16 contain those of many friends of the apostle otherwise unknown to us, including his kinsmen Andronicus and Junias, Jason and Sosipater. In Tertius we have the only certain name of an amanuensis employed by the apostle. His reference to miracles worked by himself (15") should not be overlooked (cf. 2 Co 12”). Of deeper interest, though open to more doubt, is the personal bearing of the passage 7”. It is impossible to regard the passage as a mere ſtetaoxm- parta.p.6s, describing the phenomena in the first person merely for the sake of vividness. The eyd, is too emphatic, too repeated, the feeling too deep, for a purely iº statement. On the other hand, the passage is universal in its reference, and supplies the argument with an indispensable piece of analysis. We may regard it as St. Paul's account, based upon reflexion as well as on experi- ence, of the utmost that law can do for human nature. And if so, we may use it in order to understand how St. Paul may well have come to realize, even before his conversion, that if the preaching of the apostles (cf. 1 Co, 15" ") was true, if Christ had died ‘not in vain' (Gal 2"), then ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE 305 lighteousness did not come by the law. It enables us to realize something of the ‘kicking against the goads,’ which, as we know, had preceded the scene on the road to Damascus. viii. TRANSMISSION OF THE TEXT. INTEGRITY. —The text of our Epistle comes to us through much the same lines of transmission as that of 1 Cor. (which see). It is contained in the Peshitta, Old Lat., Copt., and other oldest versions of the NT, as well as in the principal Gr. MSS. Of the latter it is complete in NABLS (the last uncollated). C lacks 29–32), 99–1010, 1191–1319. DPºul lacks 11-7, 1** are supplied by a somewhat later hand (also 121-27 in the }. ; Epaul ºpy of D) has these pas- sages, but lacks 8*-*, 1119-98. Fºwl, a copy of G, is lacking in 11–3”. GP” lacks 11 &q,wptop.–tria rews 1", also 2°. K contains the Epistle only to 10”. P lacks 29–3", 8"–911, 11%–12]. - contains only 134–15". (On the cursives, and on the authorities for the Old Lat., what was said on 1 Cor. may be repeated, with a further reference to Sanday- Headlam, p. lxv). Of textual phenomena, we must notice the omis- sion in G g, supported by a note in the Bodleian cursive 47, of the words év 'Péum, 17. 1". The omission tempts a comparison with the omission, by im- portant authorities, of the analogous words in the address of EPHESIANS. But in this case there can be no question that the words év ‘Pépin are original. The omission may, however, be due, as may also be the case with Ephesians, to the early circulation of our Epistle among other Churches with the onmission of the definite references to Rome. This might be connected with the omission, in some early authorities, of chs. 15. 16 (see below). . . But this connexion would be much more certain if the authorities for the omission of év 'P&pam and of chs. 15. 16 were identical. This is not the case. A more difficult question is that of the place of the doxology (16**). L and many cursives, with some other ancient authorities, place it at the end of ch. 14; AP and a few authorities repeat it at the end of 16; FG g Marcion omit it wholly, but G leaves a blank space at the end of ch. 14. (On D see Sanday-Headlam, p. lxxxix). Iłut NBCDE, some cursives, and most Western authorities, place it after 16 only. This is probably the earliest position; its omission by Marcion may be the source of all the variations, although, if there were good grounds for thinking that St. Paul himself issued two recensions of the Epistle, the resemblance of the language of the doxology to that of the cap- tivity group of Epp. (on which, however, see Hort in Lightf. Bibl. Essays, p. 327) might warrant us in ascribing the doxology to his second recension. But here, again, the hypothesis in question is in- adequately founded. It should be noted that G g, which omit év 'Péſum, should, on this supposition, insert the doxology, which they, on the contrary, omit. A far more complex question is raised by the omission, in some indirect but ancient witnesses to the text, of chs. 15. 16. These witnesses consist of (1) Marcion, as quoted by Orig." supported by the language of Tertull. adv. Marc. v. 14. (2) The absence of quotations in Tert., Iren., Cyprian. (3) The capitulation in certain MSS of the V. (4) The fact that ALP, etc. (see above), place the doxology at the end of 14. Of these, number (2) is inconclusive as a mere argument from silence. The others require explanation. A further argu. ment from the repeated benediction 16”. * (TR) is shown by Sanday-Headlam to rest on no solid foundation. How, then, are we to explain the facts : The supposition that chs. 15. 16 are spurious (Baur) cannot stand in face of the close connexion between chs. 14 and 15”, a governing fact in the whole question. The chapters are omitted by no VOL. IV.-2O known MS, nor does the theory of their partial spuriousness (Lucht), i.e. of interpolations, find any support in the textual material. The supposi- tion that our chapters are a combination of the endings of recensions of the Epistle addressed to several different Churches, 1-14 (or 1–11) being the part common to all recensions (Renan), offends against the governing fact mentioned above, and depends, moreover, upon an erroneous view (see above) of 16*.*. A plausible, , but in reality equally untenable, modification of this view is that 16**, or 16**, or **, originally formed part of a letter addressed to Ephesus, and became after- wards incorporated in our Epistle (first suggested in 1767 by Keggermann, Substantially adopted by Ewald, Mangoſ , Reuss, Lucht, Holsten, Lipsius, Weiss, Weizsäcker, Farrar, etc.). Aquila, and Priscilla, it is true, were last heard of in Ephesus (1 Co 16”), and are there later (2 Ti419); Epaenetus is the ‘first-fruits of Asia” (RV); and St. Paul must have had many friends in Ephesus, while he had never seen Rome. But the hypothesis does not account for the facts : on the contrary, it leaves ch. 15 wholly untouched. Again, considering the constant going and coming between Rome and the brovinces, it would be very surprising that St. }. should not have many acquaintances in Rome. Moreover, there is good inscriptional and other evidence connecting many of the names with Rome, and indeed with Roman Christians. (See Sanday- Headlam, notes on ch. 16). This is specially true of the households of ARISTOBULUS and NARCISSUs, of AMPLIATUS and of NEREUS (see the articles on these names). On the whole, with all deference to the distinguished scholars who have represented it, our conclusion must be that the case for trans- ferring this section, without any textual ground, from its actual connexion to a lost Epistle to lèphesus, is not made out. To return, then, to the general question of chs, 15. 16, and to the heads of evidence (1), (3), and (4), the questions to be considered are, firstly, What were Marcion's grounds for omitting the chapters? and, secondly, Does the fact that he did so sufficiently explain (3) and (4)? If Marcion omitted the chapters on grounds of tradition, the second question need not be asked, for a tradition older than Marcion would doubtless leave other traces; but if his omission was purely arbitrary, the question of his probable influence becomes important. That Marcion's text had considerable circulation and some influence in the West may be allowed. But this is hardly adequate as a hypothesis by itself to account for the facts; it does not march without a stick. The extra support required is furnished by the assumption that the text was adapted for Church use in certain localities by omitting the personal and less edify- ing conclusion. The existence of a known text— Marcion's—which lacked chs. 15. 16, suggested the adoption of 14* as the close of the shortened Epistle, and accordingly the doxology, which it was desired to retain, was added at that point. The answer to our second question, then, may be but thus: Given a demand for an edition of our }. with the closing section, excepting the dox- ology, omitted, the inſluence of Marcion's text was likely to suggest the exact point where the omission should begin. In other words, the heads of evidence (3) and (4)—we may perhaps add (2)—- may be explained by (1). The first question, then, becomes one of probability. Was Marcion likely to omit the chapters on doctrinal grounds, or was he, on the other hand, unlikely to excise any matter with- out documentary authority ? On this question the reader is as entitled to decide as the present writer. The connexion between the question of chs. 15. 16 and the omission of év 'Pºp.m in 17 * is very 306 ROME ROME | obscure. Sanday-Headlam conjecture that Marcion is responsible for the latter onission also ; but there is no evidence that he omitted these words. But given the demand (see above) for an ‘impersonal' edition, the words may have been sº out in Some copies of such an edition either with or with- out the support of Marcion's text. That Marcion was interested in the addresses of St. Paul’s Epp. we know from the case of EPHESIANS (which see, and cf. Smith's DB2 p. 947). LITERATURE.-On the ancient commentaries, Origen, Chry- Sostom, Theodoret, John Damasc., (Ecumenius, Theophylact, Euthenius, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Hugh of St. Victor, Abe- lard, and Aquinas, see the excellent characterizations in Sanday- Headlam. Augustine thought profoundly over the lepistle to the Romans; his anti-Pelagian writings are in effect a commen- tary upon its most characteristic ideas. He began a formal commentary, but only reached the salutation (IRetract. i. 25). Of more interest is the Ea:positio quarundam quaest. in Ep. ad Rom. (Migne, Pat. Lat. xxxv. 2087), which is the result of his study of the Epistle as a presbyter (about A.D. 396) with Some friends. We have here the transition from his earlier views of grace and free will, etc., to his more developed and characteristic conviction, formed under the influence of his studies of St. Paul (see Reuter, Awgust. Studien, p. 7 ff.). The Biblical Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide (S.J., º gathers up usefully much exegetical material from ancient and media»val Latin writers, including Augustine. On the com- mentaries of Colet (ed. Lupton, 1873), Luther (Preface to Mel- anchthon's comm. 1523), Calvin (1539, “by far the best of the commentators of the Reformation'), Beza (1504), Estius (1614– 6), Hammond (1653), Locke (1705–7), Bengel (1742), Wetstein (1751–2), see Sanday-Headlam, who also give a useful list of modern commentaries. Among the more important of these are those of Fritzsche (1836-43), Meyer dº; the later German ed. by Weiss), de Wette (1830 and foll.), Olshausen, Philippi (21856 and 41896), Jowett (21869, 31894, suggestive and inexact), Vaughan (91880, scholarly and admirable in illustra- tion, less satisfactory on connexion of thought), Bisping, Maier (Roman Catholic, as also) I'lofutar (Laibach, 1880, terse and sensible), Godet (1879, 21883, admirable in general exposition and in biblical theology; among the best general commentaries), Oltramare (Geneva, 1881-2), J. A. Beet (51885, able, and always worth consulting), Otto (Glauchau, 1886), Lipsius (in Handkommentar, 1881, able and useful), Barmby (1890, in Pulpit Commentary), Moule (in Ea:positor's Bible, excellent }. Dular exegesis, and a distinct advance on that in his Camb. ible for Schools), Liddon (1893, Explanatory Amalysis). Light- foot's posthumous Notes on Epistles of St. Paul contain a precious fragment on Ro 1-7. The two volumes of Gore (1898-9) are popular, but based upon thoroughly scientific criticism and exegesis. At the head of all English commen- taries, and pre-eminent among those in any language, are those of Gifford (1886, reprinted from the Speaker's Commentary, unrivalled for accuracy, both in scholarship and theology) and Sanday-Headlam (1895). The last named is one of the most complete and satisfactory commentaries extant on any of the books of the Bible. The present article owes more to it than to any one work on this Epistle. After it, the writer would wish to acknowledge special indebtedness to Gifford, Godet, Meyer- Weiss, and Lipsius. The standard works on Biblical Theology should be consulted on the leading ideas of the Epistle. With specific reference to St. Paul, Baur's Paulus (part 2, ch. iii., which incorporates the Substance of his earlier, essays on the subject) should still be read, also Usteri's P. Lehrbegriff (21854), and Pfleiderer's highly suggestive Pawlinism. I'ssays and studies on the theology of the Epistle are numerous. Among the more recent may be mentioned Headlam in Expos. Times, 1894, 1895; Bect in Eaºp98, 1898; and some studies by the present writer, begun in Jºaºp98, 1899, but not as yet completed. On chs. 9–11, Bey- schlag, die Paul. Theodicee ; Morison (1849, on ch. 9. In 1866 he published an exposition of ch. 3). The integrity of the Epistle is discussed (in addition to works cited, above, § viii.) in the earlier part of Mangold's Römerbrief, at 8.00, and by Lightfoot and Hort in articles reprinted in Lightfoot's Biblical Essays. Hort's Lectures on ſtoºnams (ºnd Ephesiams also deal with this and other introductory matters. The Eng. tr. of Meyer's conn- mentary, that of Godet's Introd. to St. Paul's Epistles (Edinb. 1894) and the end of the Introduction on his commentary, may be referred to for additions to the above brief list. Works ré- ferred to in the body of the above article are not in all cases enumerated here. A. ROBERTSON. ROME.-The aim of this article is (1) to give an outline of the relations between Rome and the Jews during the period covered by the Scripture history; (2) to describe the general aspects and life of the city at the time when it was first brought into contact with Christianity; (3) to touch upon its associations with the names or writings of St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. John ; and (4) with some of the minor characters mentioned in the NT. —w 1. The first specific mention of Rome in Jewish literature occurs incidentally in 1 Mac 1", where reference is made to “a sinful root, Antiochus Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the king, who had been an hostage at Rome.’ Political relations of a somewhat indefinite character were estab- lished by Judas Maccabaeus in B.C. 161. By that date Rome had gained a position of unquestioned supremacy. The power of Carthage, which carrieq with it the coºl of the West, was broken at Zama in B.C. 202; the defeat of Antiochus at Magnesia in B.C. 190 made l&ome arbiter in the East. A graphic picture of the reputation which Rome had created for itself in the East is found in 1 Mac 8*-*. It ascribes to the Romans some virtues in regard to which closer experience might have modified the judgment of Judas, and contains some inaccuracies in details, but is vivid and accurate in its spirit. The valour of the Romans, the terror with whicli they inspired their foes, the support which they gave to their allies, their victories over Spain, OVel’ ºilº and Antiochus, the constitution of the Senate, the absence of all the outward insignia of royalty, their freedom from envy and emula- tion, are all set forth in words of laudation. On the strength of this conviction as to Roman power and policy, Judas sent Eupolemus the son of John, and Jason the son of Eleazar, to Rome with the view of establishing friendship and a treaty of alliance (1 Mac 8”). The object of Judas was to get rid of the Syrian yoke, and in accordance with its tradi- tional policy Iłome readily recognized the Jewish autonomy in order to cripple Syria; but though they mutually pledged themselves to furnish a contingent if required, and not to assist any common enemy with ‘victuals, weapons, money, or ships,’ the treaty seems to have |. to no de- finite action by either party. About eighteen years later, in B.C. 143, Jonathan, the brother and successor of Judas, sent representatives to Rome to renew and confirm the former alliance (1 Mac 12” “*). In B.C. 139, Simon, the brother of Jona- than, despatched an embassy, of which Numenius was the head, to Rome, with a great shield of gold, a thousand pounds in weight (1 Mac 14*). The Romans graciously, received the costly gift and entered into a formal treaty with Simon. They intimated the fact of that alliance to all the powers with which they themselves were friendly, and called on them to hand over to the Jews any ‘pestilent fellows,’ i.e. any political refugees who had found an asylum with them. Details of the embassy of Numenius are given by Jos. (.4 mt. XIV. viii. 5), though by a blunder he assigns it to a later date. (For the literature on this embassy see Schürer, IIJI’ I. i. 268). To this date is prob- ably to be referred the obscure statement in Valerius Maximus (i. 3. 3), the authenticity of which is now generally acknowledged, that ‘Cor- nelius Hispalus compelled the Jews, who had been trying to corrupt, the Roman morals by the worship of Jupiter Sabazius (J" Zébá6th £), to go back to their own homes.” If the reference be correct, it would appear that by some of the suite of Numenius attempts at propagandism had becm successfully made (see IReinach, Teactes relatiſs aw Judaisme, p. 259, note 3). Though we can point to no definite statement, it is probable that after this date many Jews found their way to Iłome in pursuit of business (Grätz, History of the Jews, ii. 67; Berliner, Gesch. d. Jud. in 180m, |. 5). After his capture of Jerusalem in D.C. 63, Pompey carried many Jewish prisoners to Rome as slaves. (See LIBERTINES). The great majority of them would seem to have been voluntarily mann- mitted by their masters or ransomed by their fellow - countrymen, for we find but a few years later that a strong Jewish community was in ROME ROME 307 existence dwelling on the other side of the Tiber in the quarter corresponding to the Trastevere of to-day. I'rom its proximity to the wharves it was a suitable place for the trades which were carried on by the Jews, and the Jewish community rapidly increased in numbers and influence. In his defence of Valerius Flaccus—who was accused of appropri- ating the gold which had been sent by the Jews in Asia Minor towards the maintenance of the temple worship at Jerus. – in the year B.C. 59, Cicero makes many allusions which show that the Jews in I&ome were a party worth conciliating. He speaks of their numbers, their unity, their influence in public gatherings. He pretends that he must speak in a whisper so that only the judges may hear, on the ground that there was no lack of persons ready to stir up the Jews against him and all the best men in the State (pro I’lacco, c. 28). The very exaggeration of the scorn, which he }. on their claim to be specially favoured of heaven (ib. c. 69) is a testimony to their grow- ing strength, as well as an index, of the alarm which the success of their proselytizing efforts had created. Julius Caesar, perhaps from the idea that the Jews were specially fitted to be inter- mediaries between the East and the West (IRosenthal in Berliner, p. 17), treated the Jews throughout the empire with great generosity; and we read without astonishment that conspicuous among the foreign races in Rome in their sorrow over the death of Caesar were the Jews, who, for nights in succession, visited his tomb (Suet. Divus Julius, c. 84). By the time of Augustus the Jewish population in Iłome must have numbered many thousands. Accord- ing to Jos. (Amt. XVII. ii. 1; BJ II. vi. 1) more than 8000 Jews supported the embassy that came to Augustus with complaints against Archelaus. For a time no repressive measures were adopted ; on the contrary, the Jews in Rome received special privileges in the form of a limited jurisdiction over their own adherents. The rulers of Palestine were often brought into close relations by friendship and alliance with members of the imperial house- hold. Herod Agrippa I., e.g., was brought up at Rome along with Drusus the son of Tiberius (Jos. Amt. XVIII. vi. 1). Prom allusions in the Roman Satirists (Juv. iii. 10–15), as well as from the evidence of the cenleteries (see Schürer), it is plain that the limitation to the Trastevere was not rigidly enforced, and soon disappeared. From a story in Jos. (Ant. XVIII., iii. 5) it may be gathered that the success of their proselytism, especially among women in the higher classes, was the main ground for the coercive measures that were subsequently adopted. In A. D. 19, perhaps at the instigation of Sejanus, who accord- ing to Philo (Deg. ad Gaium, c. 24) was bitterly hostile to the Jews, 4000 Jews were banished to Sardinia, under the pretext of being sent to put down brigandage there, but not without a hope that they might be cut off by the notoriously unhealthy climate (Tac. A mm. ii. 85; Suet, Tib. 66). In the account of the embassy to Caligula. in A.D. 40, we have a curious light thrown on the character of the emperor as well as on the attitude of the court to Jewish customs and beliefs (Philo, Leg. ad Gaium, 44–46). In A.D. 49 (or 52 according to some authorities), probably on account of the tumults created by the preaching of the gospel in the Jewish quarter (Suet. Claud. 25), Claudius issued an edict for the banishment of all the Jews from Itome.” Among those banished were Aquila. and Priscilla, who went to Corinth, where they came into contact with St. Paul (Ac 18°). But the decree of banishment was futile, for the Jews had now obtained a social and political influence that made repression difficult or impossible. ‘The customs of that most accursed race,’ says Seneca,- perhaps with an indirect reference to the influence of Poppaea on Nero (Jos. Vita, 3, Amt. XX. viii. 11), —‘have spread to such an extent that they are kept in every land; the conquered have given laws to the conqueror’ (Aug. de Civ. Dei, vi. 11). And yet “we may be sure that the proud patricians, who, in their walks on the Aventine cast a glance on the other side of the river, never suspected that the future was being made ready in that mass of hovels which lay at the foot of the Janiculum ” (Renan, Hibbert Lecture, p. 53).” The destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70 is commemorated in the well-known Arch of Titus on the Via Sacra. The seven-branched candlestick, the golden table, and the silver trumpets, delineated on the Arch, were themselves placed in the Temple of Peace in A.D. 75, but fell a prey to Genseric, and were landed safely at êº. in 455. In 535 Belisarius re- captured them, took them to Constantinople, and since then they have completely disappeared. But it is fairly certain that they cannot be, as is popularly imagined, in the bed of the Tiber. 2. When Christianity was first proclaimed in the Jewish quarter, Rome with its environs had far outgrown the old walls of Servius Tullius, and con- tained a population probably of 1% millions (Fried- länder, i. 23; Champagny, Les Casars, iv. 347–353; Renan, p. 53. Merivale, Hist. of the Romans, v. 58, estimates it at 700,000). Lauded by poets and orators as ‘the queen of cities,’ ‘the home of the gods,’ ‘golden Rome,” “the epitome of the world,’ Rome even at the beginning of the Christian era was impressive mainly by reason of its great ex- tent, and not in virtue of any distinctive beauty or grandeur. The movement begun by Augustus to make Rome worthy of the majesty of the empire, led to great changes, and to the building of many jalatial mansions, of ornate temples (e.g. the Pantheon and the Temple of Apollo), and large basilicas for the transacting of banking and law, notably the 13asilica Julia in the l’orum com- menced by Julius and completed by Augustus. Great aqueducts are associated with the names of Agrippa, and the emperor Claudius, bringing the water then as now chiefly from the hills of Alba, Longa, and making possible the life that centred around the thermas, corresponding very closely to the club life of our own day. To what an extent this afterwards developed may be seen from the imposing remains of the Baths of Caracalla and of Diocletian. The patrician’s day was divided lie- tween the forum and the thcºma. The Forum was now embellished on all sides; the Triumphal Arch of Tiberius spanned the lower part of the ascent to the Capitol ; the palace of the Caesars on the Palatine, “with gilded battlements, conspicuous far,’ looked worthy of an imperial city (see Meri- vale, v. 18–48; Conybeare and Howson, St. Paul, ii. 449–454). Ibut notwithstanding all the changes that had been effected, down even to the great fire in A.D. 64, in the reign of Nero, Rome was built on no regular plan ; its streets were narrow and dirty, the houses, several storeys high, were filmsily built * The identiſloation of tho Christians with the Jews was not the result of a mistake. They were Jews, and the Christians were regarded simply as a sect, certainly by outsiders, and in all probability they so regarded themselves. The time of cleavage was not yet. * Two of the catacombs are exclusively Jewish. One was dis- covered by Bosio on Monte Verde, and contained many slabs with the seven-branched candlestick inscribed, and one on which the word CYNAſ (oſ was plainly legible. . The other was dis- covered in 1859 in the Villa Raudanini on the Appian Way, about 2 miles out of Rome (see Cimitero degli antichi lºbrei, illustrato da Raffaele Garucci, Roma, 1862). In it the candle- stick, the dove, the olive branch and the dove are the favourite emblems. Many of the inscriptions have been removed to the I,ateran Museum. There is no authority for the statement, sometimes made, that the Colosseum was erected by forced Jewish labour. 308 ROME ROME and often tumbling down, ‘The vici,” says Meri- vale, “were no better than lanes or alleys, and there were only two viae, or paved ways, fit for the trans- port of heavy carriages, the Sacra and the Nova, in the central parts of the city.’ (For a vivid picture of the shops and streets, see Martial, vii. 61). It was desolated by frequent fires; it was subject to earthquakes and inundations; fever, as was plainly indicated by the many altars dedicated to it, was never absent ; the unhealthiness of the site mani- fested itself in the unhealthy pallor of the in- habitants. Yet from the vastness of its extent, the density of its crowds representative of every nationality, religion, and race, from its being the natural treasure-house of all that was valuable and curious in the empire, from its being the centre of political and intellectual life, from the elaborate amusements provided gratuitously for the inhabitants, it fascinated and drew to itself patriots as well as adventurers of all types. ‘The rich man went to IRome to enjoy himself, the poor to beg; the new citizen to give his vote, the citizen who had been dispossessed to reclaim his rights.” The rhetorician from Asia, the Greek philosopher, the Chaldaean astrologer, the magician from Egypt, the begging priest of Isis, all jostled each other in the struggle for existence in the metropolis (Champagny, i. 41 ; Strabo, V. iii. 8). The picture of Milton (PRiv. 36–68) furnishes a vivid if idealized representation of Rome as it would appear to St. Paul and his fellow-travellers as they came along the Via Appia from Puteoli (Pozzuoli), and passing through the Market of Appius and the Three Taverns (both as yet unidentified) entered the city through the Porta, Capena, the Dripping Gate (Me, Yida) of Martial and Juvenal (long since closed, but whose position was determined by the dis- covery in 1584 of the first milestone of the Via Appia, and since then confirmed by the discovery of the walls of the gate). These may now be seen in the cellar of the Osteria della Porta Capena. All Rome is historic ground and of special interest to the student of NT times, for the places associated with the names of the apostles and their friends and converts are in many instances still to be seen, in some few cases unchanged since apostolic times. They will be treated of under the respective names. 3. When and by whom the gospel was first pro- claimed in Rome is uncertain. As sojourners from |Rome were in Jerus, on the day of Pentecost, some of them may have been among the 3000 converts (Ac 2". *). St. Paul refers to Itomans who were in Christ before him (Ro 167). Many of the Jews who had been banished by the edict of Claudius were brought under the influence of St. Paul, and on returning to Rome swelled the ranks of the missionaries and converts there (Ac 18***, Ro 16*7.9.1%). Prisca and Aquila should be specially noted in this connexion. In A.D. 59 (or 58), when the Ep. to the Romans, was written, there was in existence a strong Church, partly composed of Jews, partly of Gentiles. St. Paul had for many years cherished a strong desire and resolution to see Rome (Ac 1991 251%, Ro 1*). From the time of the Second Missionary Journey it had been quite clear to him that his mission was to the Roman Empire qua Empire, and all his subsequent move- ments are governed by this dominant idea. Hence he goes to Ephesus, the door of the East toward the West, afterwards to Rome, and we find him urposing to visit Spain, the great province of the W. There is much plausibility in the view that his purpose in appealing to Caesar, was, to gain recognition for Christianity as a religio licita (cf. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 308); and he apparently succeeded for the time being, for after his first trial the emperor left Jews and Christians in peace. About A.D. 61 he was brought to Rome as a prisoner. , Nero had already begun to disappoint the promise of the early years of his reign, and had given way to his ungovernable savagery. For two years before his trial, St. Paul lived either in the praetorian barracks attached to the palace, or in the prietorian camp (but see p. 33") in the N.E. of the city, in a place in any case where, in spite of his bonds, he was brought into contact with the freed- men and slaves who formed part of the household of Nero (Ph 18.4%); or in the ſº of the centurion, still to be seen beneath the church of S. Maria in Via Lata, at the junction of the Via Lata and the Corso (the Via Flaminia) (see Lewin, Life and Epistles of St. Paul, ii. 238, 239, and Appendix (I.) for a sketch and plan of the house). There is no evidence beyond the name for the Scuola di S. Paolo underneath the church of S. Paolo alla Regola § arcmwla, from the Sand deposited by the Tiber) near the modern Ghetto, but the underground chamber is unquestionably old. Neither do we know with certainty the spot where the trial of St. Paul took place. The Praetorium of Ph, 118 ‘is the whole body of }. connected with the sitting in judgment, the supreme mperial Court, doubtless in this case the Prefect or both Prefects of the Prietorian Guard, representing the emperor in his capacity as the fountain of justice, together with the assessors and high officers of the court’ (see St. Paul the Trav. : 35, and cf. art. PRIETORIUM). The Mamortin dungeon or Tullianum, under the church of S. Giuseppe de' Falegnami, remains as it was in apostolic days, though the stairs leading to the lower dungeon are modern. The only entrance originally was through the hole in the roof. Here St. Peter and St. Paul are Said to have been immured during St. Paul's second im- prisonment. The outbreak of Nero's fury, which resulted in a renewal of hostilitics against the Christians, led to the numerous martyrdoms in the garden of Nero (now partly covered by St. Peter's), where, amid sufferings of ſlendish ingenuity, so many disciples sealed their testimony with their blood (Tac. Ann. xv. 44; Suet. Nero,35; Renan, Hibbert Lecture, 70-98; Light- foot, St. Clement, ii. 20, 27). This was in A.D. 64-65. About this time, or a little later, St. Paul suffered martyrdom by execution. He was led out of the city past the Pyramid of Caius Cestius, along the Via Ostiensis, thence along the Via Laurentina, to a spot near some springs, then known as Aquae Salvia0, now called Tre Fontane, and there, being a Roman citizen, was beheaded. This fact gives point to his words in Ph 28 “obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross,’ i.e. to a more degrading form of death than the apostle himself would have been allowed to suſfer. The site is fixed partly by an unbroken tradition and partly by local evidence. It is a wild, desolate spot, almost uninhabitable through the prevalent malaria (the Trappist monks have of recent years redeemed it by planting eucalyptus), so that there would be everything against the invention of such a site for so important an event. This factor has very frequently to be borne in mind in judging of the likelihood or the reverse of a traditional site. Over the spot a memorial oratory was crected in the 5th cent., whose “foundations were discovered in 1807 beneath the present church of S. Paolo alle Tre Fontane, erected in the 17th cent, together with historical inscriptions in Latin and Armenian' (Lanciani, Pagan and Christian IRome, p. 156). Ianciani also quotes an interesting fact confirmatory of the tradition that the apostle was beheaded under a stone pine. The Trappists were excavating in 1895 for the foundation of a water-tank behind the chapel, and found a mass of coins of Nero, together with several pine cones fossilized by age and earth pressure. There is a continuous tradition, found first in Tertullian (Scorp. 15; de Proescript. 30) and in Caius of Iłome (quoted by Eus. LIE II. xxv. 6, 7), and repeated in varying forms by later writers, to the effect that St. Paul was buried on the Via Ostia. Snys Caius : ‘Dut I can show you the trophies of the apostles. I'or if you will go to the Vatican, or to the Ostian road, you will ſind the trophics of those who have laid the foundation of this church.” So that albout the beginning of the 3rd cent, the revalent belief in Iłome was that St., l'aul was buried on the ia Ostia. The translation of his body, together with that of St. Peter, to thocatacomb of St. Sebastian, to the spot called Platonia, occurred later, in A.D. 258, probably owing to the Valerian perse- cution. This scens to dispose of the ingenious theory of Mr. A. S. Barnes (St. Peter and his Tomb ºn Jēome), that the apostleg were buried first of all in the catacomb, and only removed to the Vatican and the Ostian Way after the persecution of Valerian had ceased, and therefore enables us to accept the carlier and more likely theory of de Rossi. The tradition is that a certain Roman matron named Lucina, a disciple of tho apostle, begged the body and buried it in her own garden on the Ostian road, at the spot now marked by the basilica of S. Paolo fuori le mura. De Rossi has conjecturally identifical (and the identiſica- tion is accepted by Lanciani and others) Lucina, with Pomponia Graecina, the wife of Aulus Plautus, the conqueror of Britain of whom Tacitus (Ammal. xiii. 32) records that, sho was accused of ‘foreign superstition,’ was tried by her husband, and acquitted. Recent investigations have made it very probable that she was a Christian. An inscription was discovered in the cemetery of St. Callixtus, TTOWTTONIOC TPH Kel NOC. The ROME ROME 309 subsequent and varied history of the famous basilica need not be detailed here. Suffice it to say that within the walls of that nost glorious fane, into which the kings of the earth poured their treasure after the fire of 1825, rests all that is mortal of the great apostle. The remains were enclosed by Constantine in a bronze sarcophagus, and Lanciani (op. cit. p. 157) relates that in 1891 he examined the grave so far as he then could. “I found myself on a flat surface paved with slabs of marble, on one of which (placed negligently in a slanting direction) are engraved the words, PAVLO APOSTOLO MART. . . . This in- scription belongs to the 4th cent., and is, it will be observed, dedicatory and not declaratory. It is possible that ere long more will be known of this tomb and of the garden in which it stood. The Italian Government is constructing a sewer from Rome to Ostia, and the excavations will include the garden of Lucina. E. Stevenson (since dead) has recorded in an article full of interest, ‘Osservazioni sulla topografia della via Ostiense e sul cimitero ove, fu sepolto l’apostolo S. Paolo' (Nuovo Bullettino di Archeologia Cristiana, Anno iii. n. 3, c. 4, 1897), all that is known about the tomb up to the time of writing, and the Bullettino will contain an account of any discoveries that are made º; the progress of the engineering works. On the possibility of the bodies of St. Peter and St. Paul having been carried off by the Saracens in A.D. 846, see Lanciani, Destruction of Ancient IRome, p. 129ff. * During his imprisonment St. Paul wrote the Ep. to Philemon, and the Epp. to the Churches in Phil- ippi, Colossae, and Ephesus. From Rome also was written the second Ep. to Timothy shortly before his martyrdom, in A.D. 67 (?). (For a discussion of questions connected with St. Paul's imprisonment, see PAUL, and cf. Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire, and St. Paul the Trav. ; for the constitu- tion of the early Church at Rome, see ROMANS ; cf. Lightfoot, Philippians”, 1–27, 97-102; Hort, Chris- tian Ecclesia). The relation of St. Peter to Rome has been a matter of keen controversy. The general questions of St. Peter's presence and martyrdom in Rome have been fully discussed in the article PETER, and there is now an almost unanimous agreement among scholars that the apostle suffered martyrdom in the eternal city, the only point of difference being as to the date, some adhering to the earlier date, simultaneously with or shortly after the death of St. Paul, some (notably W. M. Ramsay and Swete, see Church in Roman Empire, p. 279 ; St. Man’k, p. xviii) inclining to a later date, in the persecu- tion of Domitian, but not later than that. What has been already said about the burial-place of St. Paul applies to that of St. Peter. His tomb in the Vatican Cemetery was well known in the days of Caius of Rome, and therefore anterior to the trans- lation of the body to the catacomb of S. Sebastiano. This has been recently questioned in an able book (cited above) by Mr. A. S. Barnes—a work full of interest, in its later parts dealing with the site of the tomb in old and new St. Peter's, but vitiated in the earlier chapters by an insufficient review of evidence and many inaccuracies (see review by Iłamsay in Bookman, September 1900). The site of the martyrdom is sometimes stated to have been where the obelisk now stands in the centre of the piazza, ; but this is inaccurate. The obelisk was moved when new St. Peter’s was built, and the true site is marked by a slab with an inscription (worn, neglected, and needing renewal) to be found in the pavement of the courtyard behind the sacristy on the north side of the present basilica, The sites of the supposed parting of St. Peter and St. Paul, and of the Domine quo vadis 2 story may or may not be genuine. The º in both in- stances are modern. The archaeological evidence supporting the residence of St. Peter in Rome is strong. It should be borne in mind, however, that his residence there, if proved, does not carry with it the º nor, if it did, does that involve the further claims of supremacy and infallibility: If Itamsay is right and St. Peter did not die till the last quarter of the 1st cent., there is then room (though not at the period traditionally assigned to them) for the alleged twenty-five years' residence an i work in Itome. Two spots are locally connected with this tradition—the house of Prisca and the house of Pudens, on which see below. The question as to the significance of Babylon in 1 P 5* and in the Apoc. has already been discussed in a separate article. (See BABYLON IN NT, and add to the literature there given, Butcher, The Church. in Egypt). At what date the name of Babylon came to be so used cannot be definitely determined; but it was a familiar designation in the 1st cent. of the Christian era. In 2 Es. (3* 15°), which is now usually assigned to the age of Domitian, it is so used. In the Sibylline Oracles, v. 158—written about A.D. 80, or earlier, in the judgment of Ewald and Hilgenfeld—we find the words— kai d'Aée. trövtov re 8a0öv kağrily Bağv\óva 'Ita)\tas ya'av 0'. In the Jer. Talm. ("Aboda zara, c. 1) there is a curious passage to the eflect that, on the day when Jeroboam set up the golden calves, Remus and Romulus built two huts at Rome. The story is repeated with variations in the Midrash Rabba (on Ca 1"), and it is said that the huts repeatedly fell down, until water brought from the Euphrates was mixed with the clay, and the huts thus made stable received the name mºna pin. (Cf. Otho, Lea. Ičabb.). The general opinion even among interpreters of opposite schools is that Babylon in the Apocalypse (148 1619 176 18%. 19.”) must be understood as Rome. The reference to it as the seat of universal empire (1718), as the centre of a bloody persecution (17"), above all to the seven mountains (17°), shows that, whether we are to give a mystical sense or not to that which is signified, Babylon stands for Rome. As the city of the seven hills, Rome is lauded by Virgil, Horace, Ovid, and Claudian ; it is so repre- sented on coins; it is so designated in the Sibyll, (ii. 18, etc.); in the month of December it cele- brated the feast of the Septimontium, and, if a statement of Tertullian is to be trusted, Septi- montius was one of its many divinities (ad Nationes, ii. 15). The question of the visit of St. John the apostle to Rome is one that is so far wrapped in obscurity. The first mention of it is in Tertullian (de Praes. IIaer, 36), who says: “Ubi Apostolus Joannes postcaquam, in oleum igneum demersus, nihil passus est, in insulam relegatur.” The only other early notice of this event is found in the I'ragmenta Polycarpiama (see Lightfoot, Igmatius), which is, however, both of uncertain authorship and date. The catena of which it forms a part was º by some writer later than Victor of Capua, 480–554 (Lightfoot, op. cit. iii. 420 ft.). This fragment runs thus : ‘Idem ad haec verba Christi : Calicem meum bibetis, etc. [Mt 2023]. Per huiusmodi potum signiſcat passionem, ct Jacobum quidem novissimum martyrio consummandum, fratrem vero eius Joannelm tran- siturum absolue martyrio, quamvis et afflictiones plurimas et exsilia tolerarit, sed prayparatam, martyrio mentem, Christus martyren, iudicavit. Nam apostolus Paulus, Quotidie, inquit, morior ; cum in possibile sit quotidie mori hominem en morte qua semel vita haic finitur. Sed quomiam Nº.' evangelio ad mortem iugiter erat prayparatus, se mori quotidie sub ea signifl- catione testatus est. Legitur et in dolio ferventis olei pro nomine Christi beatus Joannes fuisse demersus.’ The traditional site on which this confession of St. John took place is outside the Porta Latina (now closed). Ilence the celebration in the Calendar of S. John ante Port. Latina. The church of S. Giovanni a Porta Latina was founded by Pope Adrian I. in 772, and the adjoining circular chapel of S. Giovanni in Oleo was erected so recently as 1509. But although there are no documentary records earlier than those cited, and no evidence for the existence of a shrine on this spot earlier than the 8th cent., yet it is hardly a place likely to have been chosen unless there were Soune reasons (lost to us now) for the selection. It is out of the way, near no- where, and very inaccessible even to-day. So that there is no & priori ground for setting aside the traditional spot. Not without interest in the same connexion is the dedication of the cathedral of lèome (omotivon. Urbis ct Orbis Ecclesiarum mater et capwt) from about the 6th cent, “to Christ the Saviour, and in honour of St. John the Baptist and St. John the lºvangelist.’ The earlier dedication was “to Christ the Saviour' alone. It is difficult to resist the belief that probably at the time of the Neronian persecution, and for some cause and length of time as yet unknown to us, St. John did visit the city of the seven hills, and thence, perhaps, derived his conception of Nero as the Beast from (as Renian suggests, L'Antichrist, p. 175) Seeing the emperor GIINOXI OL8. (IINOSI ‘so Atºls pun uoulpoolſ ou? on Su IIow tº poultoſ pun: osſ AA oil’) on posso.ippu Suw pot) go , tuopsiAA, où loſ subtuoyſ uſ viſioſody quoti B,Unu.I ‘qs quitº put ‘unuſo S11 uſ su IIoA St. JoAoti S.), uſ (usioAlum saw ſolsoil ou'l Aou Su uduq quuq Aotis on soo; tıu ‘(KLinto ÅloA quºt ‘oqup u/Aouxtun qo'ſ Su go) Joshi itſ H ou!]ulu, KlöA out uo (006.I.) ItoA sillº poto Aoosp qutſ, ox|II Sotſolutio go ‘quotitoſ() put ‘uosi...I ‘suopu J Jo Osotſ, ox|II Sosnoiſ go ooliopſ Ao oil) put ‘sioquout Kiuo oui sutout ou A'q otoA tood oil? qoun Aſtuoſo Kioa UAAoqs Sūlī oſ I ‘Ulº).In IO qu'uguſ oul of uſ tºwº.up otoA on A osotiſ, Jo Suquqs [UIoos oſſ, onuſ ‘Āiptiodos ‘puu : (posoddus Kluoluntoo sº utú) Jošiuſ iſomut Kio A uood oatuſ on Igoddu Stoduſnu ouq jnd ‘ĀIlup poultuuxo oſt on 40K Stu squoo -unuo out, Jo oolioppad oul spun uo) 'quoo qst ou? uſ Aqto ouq uſ situys!.IIIO Jo Stoquiuu Iºnqou ouſ, Oluſ ‘nsuſ-Kumbuſ jo sploiſ ow', ponsoºns ºut (GGSI) ſty) wºn 1:4,tſ) ſo ssotſio, J ſty.tv'ſ 27/7 ſo ſpn/S 07/7 w? s.topo/I pozoo/ſo N. SIH III “Il () sout; ſº lossojo.I.I ‘Āion oujstºsun puu onjuA II* SI q. ‘poiſod [uponto ou') sy. Uloſt|A ‘quuſ, otojoq quºt ‘sp.tu Auo biolorſ Jo otuſ, ouq tuo, J tuoſo ÁLUlty sº A.100 -spu own ssuko ionºuſ oth go osto oth uſ 'suſtulot puu (ºpuos ºuts out, Su Hons) soilot utolstºſ oùn Jo Kuuul ºutloouoo ooliopſAo ouſ, Jo juſqJIs ogiquoros u put “ogo ‘Aotuoſoil...tugſ q S ‘(SIIuav oul opps) no slut, I qs (II) Kuqouſ I, 4S '0°o ‘poulºu Appoint, osotſi on uomi.ppu uſ ‘oluoyſ uſ solºsode Jouno Jo Iuſand oth 5upuloouoo osotſ, out: opulu oq on 5uſpoon soulo.utoso.1 out 5uotu V 'soſtoaoosp quoool II, Jo sploool Imj Uſuluoo ow!770/781 oaon N ouq puu ow???07/mg otl,I, outto: I (II Iooſſo S Isiſ, I.1%I popunoj KIAAou ouq tuo.1) polood xo oiu săului, Juolº; put ‘piut 5up to AA SI ‘IIloooº; I put. Itſoon.ru IN put Juuſout,' I Kq popuouſ ‘slalouds uuſ [tº] I go puuq oſsuſs -uuquo ouſ I, swou sqi sãuptq Kup A to Ao ‘solulu put ‘oqoſduiod ox|II 5uyun Kut, sº quoo qs I out" uſ outo I go of polavoux luo ologoq ouop oſ oº Sull IIIqs (Ion IN 'II & Q& ‘d ‘to/70a2).ſ.l., 21/?????-I ‘AS ‘Kusuruºſ : onto?] wrºsº, tºo pºw), uſuſ/pdſ ‘ºutſout'ſ oos "[mud ºs put voouos uooAqoq drušpuolij Ituoſº -Iput') ouq Sulújuoo osſu oouopſ Ao (UQuouluuo IN ‘snºſtigiN osſu coS (sus.tuoxq ‘swydd:/M/c qooy -qušIT oos) 91 º up souvu out, Jo ouos Jo uoſ) -bogiquopy old Issod out, o] pop set uſaſ"I SSolduo ou? Jo tulu.Luciunatoo out) go uoſhu.todºo ollſ, (ouin IOA qsn] out uſ unIAA lºop ovu squooby'uo ou?) ‘SIOA 8 ‘outoºr polasvisofoodſ pup umysłºſ) of 2000pupH soxinſ, put uosoſº put ‘autoğſ ſo squooy71%) 07//, ‘Aotou?! AA ‘(oyup go quo quu Aouos Aou usuolº) oqoouqio N. ‘Issoºl op Su SXLIOA tous go dot onq (101A popuns olouq od uto put ‘suuosnut outloqduo pub utiloquT oul on poAotuol §. uoaq oa'uu Squaul -nuout put ‘sooosoly ‘suoſqditosuſ out,L, ‘Soulſ, J.N. uo duptuoq outloyſ Jo s[u].Iotuou Ito.uoung toujo puts squoobyuo out! Kluo poopjou oſt Oq uſutuol otoli,L ‘Inted ‘qS Aq pouonuouſ quouloſſ) oun (IATA uopoultoo stu Jo put quouo(O “S Jo Kqtuuosiod out, Jo ox!'un Kuul was Aoi A JoAoquuM ‘south olloqsodiu ou! Jo quil, sſ qsolo) up sq Jo I uplºudſ ouſ, pub qstºoloosuolu ou', oº, pouado otolu obuo puu pouyu.Ip od Kutu q àuot oto quit! podou ol on sº q puu (OOGL) ſuo & spun old Issod su tug os q; qoodsuſ on ‘soºtouhnu au, Jo uoissºuliod pupi oùn Aq ‘poisol!AItd. suav Stoll.TA quosold out! Jo ouo qug : loyu.A lº), A popool) stuo& Kuuut to uood Sut spuſ, '('ll [G : ‘Antowo/O ‘qooyºujy"I oos) unnossoloſ) où.) Itou oluouroIO ‘S Jo uotnuo JoAOI out, UQuotioq quoulok) Jo osmou ou', pouoguouſ od pluous ‘Int, I “S put too. I qs UniM pomooutloo Kiosoſo put oiu oplonsodlu out Jo stuitoutout outnuoß (Inoq ‘suopnd Jo Osmou out, put posſid go osmou ouq IIIA Touqošo,I, ‘5uppoooo.Id III's sº osuot outſ, Jo uoſº -ganoxo oil.J., 'onoi ouq go Ssououſnuoš out, qsuyuşu as tad 5uttinou sº ouaul qugſ qi puno.1 woulºuš ÁIſsuo pino A qqnop ‘XIIoA go oood oºloquio up to Juqu oughs u uood pou q JI utiloqu"I utloſ "1S on ę- (II).Intſo out" go turnq1, so AA ou A) uſeulosſ AA Imti ſp.100 Aq uoAI3 Suw ‘toddris S.p.to' I ouq poquºqoſoo oatsu O) plus SI of 1sodu ou? (loſ (IAA uo old tº uopoo. A ". oùq ‘SIII) Jo q.Ib, I Augs sitſ 5III.Imp 1000. I jS } bosm oillºu.Inj plot(osnoiſ Jo soooyd otuos poA.losol olo A ‘000 ‘olorſ usiqduq Joy quoy tº 1101A “usſited Jo “sm????? It Injo.1 tº Jo uoſquqºsuſ 2 (Iq ‘suopuld Jo uos put, Sloqqānup ‘snougou I,I, puu ‘sopoxv.1, I “ºutſiduopnd Oq poquini.15 quoo puz, out" go oſppy (UI otſ uſ 'I Snid sottiſ, KIITſo K.IoA tuo,(J on is Juosold où" (to tuitoſ ouos uſ poqsixo sºul “(ywºnquapmaſ 704.s07000ſ — , suopu, I go tºo.Into ottº, out; II to H.I Go où" tuoly of utilo qu'ulouš, Ioqui 'u) ºutsiduopudſ ‘S poiſoo Aou ‘ûolnilo on I, 113II ou unaotuſ, Suu Käoloa:Uo.It utiluoy[ uoyu M uodn ‘(IS9 d ‘7mper ‘7S ‘I'u.I.It I : #4); 'Iſ ‘Iſ 91, ’ſ “Awouloſ) “looſquify I oos) solulooſuoo Kuttu Jo qooſqns out, uooq Suu ‘(SNSICIſ)...] oos) typnuIO put snuſ"I (IºIA Autºdtuoo uţ ‘tzip II, a uſ pouoſquotu ‘suopndſ ‘pocſiIosop qsuſ quuq ūqi A poqootiuoo snuſ, sº IIIH Iuriſtiiſ A où3 uo Suopulci Jo Osilou poquatoxo KI4 (loool oil,L “outo MI Jo (Iount[O quujuy ouſ, Jo oppolo on) Ioſ Mooſ ow qsnut outluoAV ot|1 lio Ilo.inuo KIouot quuq opisod ‘Āq[[Iqbqold IIt uſ ‘quuſ, OS "uſ.tufts UIA out, uo uTIIosſ.I.I. Jo A.10% outoo oliq uſ polluq IIu alo AA 'bosſ.I.I puts ‘sopoxg.I.I “Gutiquopndſ ‘stiopu. I quitº qouy ouſ, Aq poAold OSIG SI uopouluoo oduluſqu' Iſotſ.I. 'Squ'opuoosop Iſou, Aq pouyuquiºuſ ATInjūquy uooſt but solºsodt, oùq Jou.Imoſos out, juſ.Inp soilltum:J oAA) GUIſ) u00AAqoq poulloy suoſquio, ouſ, qullq ‘sp.10.A longo up : Suopm, I supſou,10O as Jo sputuſ out! Ontly possud ÁI]tion bosqus ptº (I Sotuſ, oſſomsode up tosſid put; tlinbv go osnouſ ouſ, quuſ) so Ao.Itſ ‘zzz, “CI'v poqub ‘qold'Uq ouſ.I. ' ' ' 'opnqqº.13 Jo uoxſoq b. Sº tºrtin IO Jo oIdood out, Kot Snuºl [ou.too suopticſ suo.It IN suſt:t) Ol polalſo uooq putſ topuſAA “punoy StºA qoſquq ozuo,Iq V, ‘quºtoduſ SI upoſt|A ‘uonº,.\boxo Ionquisitº Jo q.led Jo qunoooo ug soA15 ſuppou.uT polºgoddesſp Aou oxyſu oAguſ osnou put Áloyd.IO ºnq ‘ûointlo ouſ, Oq osolo polo Aoosip oroA osnou utuloyl ploug Jo Suſm.I out! loqui Sigo & Aoy V (outoºr woº?st.tº/O pºp wºoſiveſ squuſout;"I), punoy uooq Suuſ q, Jo oot.I] oil ºnq ‘oung ouq qu optsui Uooq oAull on Suloos sooosoly out, Jo Ádoo V “luoo q]+ oun go sijuſquſed unſaw ponºtooop ‘bosſ.I.I ‘S Igou Iodºqo uſcoub.IIonqus tº punoy juſAguſ Jo SNI'uods clu.I.UGO potutu uptu tº Uſoſt|A uſ ‘SILuq uſ orguopu Noubaujoinia oui jo 1696 xopo6 ui lòiſed go du.Iosts, uſ sº q go plooo..I KIuo out? puts ‘Alaaoosip où" on pygd StºA uoſquoqqº ON -oidſu.Ioosip K.I.Ugolo oloA solºsodt, où, Jo so.Injijou', put; tısiſ oth go [oquiſ's ou" (IoIIIA uſ sooosol.J UIQIAA poqblooop SUA qI 'uolmüo oul Iuouſ uoplus tº uſ 9LLI uſ polio Aoosip SuM KIOyoto [bui31.10 otl,I, “luoo u181 out, UI oppuſ sop.19Aoosip old'uxLLuulol K.IoA ow! Jo Squnoooo pousſland Sull Issoºl oGI , "ajost...I 19 a)7???! W ºu?..toºvoº sm?????, ouq Su UAoux sp. QI ‘quoo Ulºz I out) up uoAo puts ‘apost.t.cſ smºn?', oud sº IIoInt[o ouq go uoſqtušisop Igul:31:10 out,L &Inquoo pig out, Jo puo out! Splºoq SnuoAqlığı Áq olotl) poould su.A Kpon osot A ‘(IIASI A.Iºnutſ uo Tupuapu () out uſ populoulouluoo ‘IKq.IºIN put uſ? (IA) outuu outes oud go quggs out, utú1 toplosſ gosſ.I.I Oq uoſquoi pop outſ, “Jods out, SXIIbuI IIIH outluoAV ou? uo gosſ.I.I ‘S go (IoInt[o ouſ I, ‘oulouſ UI oouopisol STU 5uſ Imp ‘qsual quotuſ, ouos Ioy ‘pokuns oaution ppus sp Joqoq “S oIou put uotatio oAp) ſuild oul go soogld -5ulloou ouq go ‘qsoul tuo out, to ouo Kuo out, qou Ju ‘ouo SuM (891 o'I) osnou Iſou, Qoud SI q upg4,100 qugſ 'ouoyſ go tºo.Inuſ) out go slopunoy Igo.1 out, 3uſeq Jo Inouou ou? (I) g(; 'd ‘soºpmºs 70017qīq) uouſ] Joy poulºuſo otºdulin Iq (oos Uſoſ UAA) vſ11n'YV pub voSIMcI oto osoul Suontº Joſuo Kup-on go Kºſo oul uſ uſetuo.1 Suoſºyoossu tuo" A TITIAA pub “LN out, uſ pouoſquouſ out soutuu osot|A Kuºul olo A orou! oulosſ uſ q0.Int(O oilo)sodW ou liqLA poqooutloo “f '6Z ‘otoW ‘gons "JO "Rouquud o to Mafiya tº Jo soping out 5utºutrosiod puu ‘oftuo. o uoly Osoot qol osphäsip quuq up put, ‘qsooq pIIA u Su pos!nºsip, ROOF ROOF 3.11 LITERATURE. — See, besides the works already mentioned, Bchürer, Die Gemeindeveljasswng der Judent in lion, 1879, HJP 1. i. 231, II. ii. 232 et passim ; Berliner, Gesch. d. Juſt. in Rom, 1803; Holtzmann, Ansiedelung des Christenthwm3 in l:0m, 1874; Schmidt, Amſange des Christenth wins in der Stadt Iłom, 1879; Friedländer, Sittengeschichte ſtom8, i. 1-183, iii. 506, etc. (1800); Jöeman, Hibbert Lecture, 1885; Hild., “Les Juifs à Rom,” in lev. d. 18t. Juives, 1884, etc.; Huidekoper, Judaism.ºut. Itoine, 1876; the articles in Riehm's II WB, Schenkel's Bibel.-Leaſ.; Hanburger's IRE.; Lanciani, Iwins amd Ea:cavations of 47tcient Romne ; Sanday-Headlam, Romans (Internat. Crit. Com.); de Bussierre, Les Sept Basiliques de Rome; Mrs. Jameson, Sacred and Legendary Art, vol. i. ; Stanley's Sermoms and Essays on the Apostolic Age ; Murray's Handbook for IRome, ed. Pullen, Murray, Layard, and Lanciani; Macduff, I'ootsteps of St. Pawl; Plumptre, Excursus on the later years of St. Paul's life, in Com- onentary on Acts (NT Com. for English Readers); Gloag, Catholic I'pistles, pp. 140–160; Mullooly, S. Clemente ; Itamsay, ‘Paul the Statesman,’ in Contemp. Itev., March 1901. JOHN l’ATIRICK and F. RELTON. R00F (1, perhaps from a root meaning ‘to cover,’ tºp [once, Gn 19°, tr" ‘roof,” lit. ‘beam 'I, Tr; [“ roof of the mouth 'l; a réºym).-The most con- venient form of roof for domestic purposes in a dwelling-house is undoubtedly a flat one ; but the form of roof from the earliest times has probably been governed by a variety of factors, of which the most important are the materials procurable near the spot and the climatic conditions. In northern climates, where wood is plentiful and the snowfall is heavy, a high-pitched roof of thatch or shingle can be readily made, and is a necessity. All around the shores of the Mediter- ranean Sea, where there is no snow and slight rainfall, and where timber can be procured, the most convenient form of roof can be economically constructed, and that is a flat one of some sub- stance impervious to water. In more tropical climates, where the rains are exceedingly heavy and sudden, and the houses are for the most part of wood, the roofs again are usually ... and of thatch or leaves. In countries, such as Chaldaea, where there is little or no wood, the storehouses and 1.laces where dryness is neces- sary are built with thick walls and vaults with flat roofs or masonry domes, and for the same reason the houses of modern Jerusalem are built with thick walls and domes. The houses other- wise in Assyria-Chaldaea are flat-roofed. In Egypt, where timber is scarce, but where stone is ºi the roofs are usually flat, the roofs of the peasants' houses being usually lightly constructed, and resting on palm beams, while the temples and palaces were roofed with stone. 1’robably from the earliest times the same forms of roof have obtained in the same parts of the world, except that local circumstances have here and there interfered. I'or the buildings of Nineveh and Babylon, as well as for Jerusalem, the cedars of Lebanon were made use of. In Jerusalem, in early days, the roofs were flat, and the scarcity of timber, necessitating domed roofs, º to have been first felt after the siege of the Holy City by Titus. In early days in Greece the roofs were flat, and it was customary to walk upon them. But pointed roofs were also used. In Itome the solaria, properly places for basking in the sun, were terraces on the tons of houses. In the time of Seneca, the Iłomans formed artificial gardens on the tops of their houses, which contained even fruit trees and fish ponds (Smith's Dict, of Gr. and Rom, Ant., s. ‘Domus'). Herodotus (ii. 95) says that the Egyp- tians slept on the roof in the marshy part of Lower ISgypt. * Even the houses of the poor seem generally to have had their courtyards, at the back of which a structure was raised consisting of a single storey surmounted by a flat roof, to which access was given by a single staircase' leading from the court- yard. ‘'The flat roof seems to have been universal in Egypt ; it added to the accommodation of the house ; it afforded a pleasant rendezvous for the family in the evening, where they enjoyed the view and the fresh breezes which spring up at sunset. At certain seasons they must have slept there. On the other hand, the granaries, barns, and storehouses are almost always dome-shaped. “The flat roof of the house had a parapet round it, and sometimes a light outer roof supported by slender columns of briiliantly painted wood’ (l’errot and Chipiez, i. 36). Fergusson (History of Architecture, 119) gives an illustration of a three-storeyed dwelling in the Egyptians' own quaint style, ‘the upper storey apparently being like those of the Assyrians, an open gallery supported by dwarf columns. In the centre is a staircase leading to the upper storey, and on the left hand an awning supported on wooden pillars, which seens to have been an in- lº. part of all the better class of louses.’ “In the , Yezidi House we see an exact repro- duction in every essential respect of the style of building in the days of Sennacherib. Here we have the wooden pillars with bracket capitals, Supporting a mass of timber intended to be covered with a thickness of earth sufficient to prevent the rain, or heat penetrating to the dwelling. There is no reason to doubt that the houses of the humble classes were in former times similar to that here represented ' (ib. 160). In speaking of the palace of Esarhaddon, Pergusson says (ib. 164), “Had these buildings been con- structed like those of the Egyptians, their remains would probably have been applied to other pur- poses long ago; but having been overwhelmed so early and forgotten, they have been preserved to our day : nor is it diflicult to see how this has occurred. The pillars that supported the roof being of wood, probably of cedar, and the beams on the under side of the roof being of the same material, nothing was easier than to set them on fire. The fall of the roofs, which were probably composed, as at the present day, of 5 or 6 ft. of earth, that being requisite to keep out heat as well as wet, would probably suſlice to bury the building up to the height of the sculpture. The gradual crumbling of the thick walls, consequent on their unprotected exposure to the atmosphere, would add 3 or 4 ft. to this ; so that it is hardly too much to suppose that green grass might have been growing on the buried palaces of Nineveh before two or three years had elapsed from the time of their destruction and desolation. When- ever this had taken place, the mounds aſſorded far too tempting positions, not to be speedily occu- pied by the villages of the natives.” . We may here remark that the modest dwellings of the Egyptian fellah are often covered by vaults of frisé, that is to say, of compressed or kneaded clay. None of the ancient monuments of Egypt possess such vaults, which are of much less durability than those of stone or brick. We are, however, disposed to believe that they were used in ancient times (Perrot and Chipiez, i. 110). The palaces of Babylon appear to have consisted of courtyards and long narrow chambers ; and as stone was not readily obtained, the question of how they were roofed has occasioned much dis- cussion. I) iodorus (ii. 10) states that the langing gardens of Iłabylon were supported by stone beams, 16 ft. long and 4 ft. Wide ; but Strabo (xvii. 1. 5) says they were supported by vaulted arcades. Sir II. Layard believed that there were only flat roofs at Nineveh similar to that of modern houses in Mosul and the neighliouring villages, and states that he never came upon the slightest trace of a vault, while in almost every room that he excavated he found wood ashes and earlonized timber. He suggests that the long and narrow 312 ROOF ROOF rooms were roofed with beams of palm or poplar, resting on the summit of the walls (Layard, Nineveh, ii. 256). That flat roofs must have been extensively used is evident from the number of limestone roof rollers found by M. Place (Ninivé, i. 293), in his excava- tions in the ruins of buildings where they had fallen with the roofs; but Place as well as Perrot and Chipiez (i. 163) are of opinion that though the roofs were flat they were in many cases supported by brick vaults, side b side with other flat roofs of timber. Arches tº: in the city gates, and fragments of vaults found within the chambers of Sargon's palace at Khorsabad, give colour to this opinion. A vaulted storehouse for grain with a flat roof is shown in Wilkinson's Ancient Egyptians (vol. ii. p. 135). Strabo (xv. 3. 18), quoting from some old authority on Susiana, states, “In order to prevent the houses from becoming too hot, their roofs are covered with 2 cubits of earth, the weight of which compels them to make those dwellings long and narrow ; because although they had only short beams, they had to have large rooms, so as to avoid being suffocated.’ What strikes one in considering the subject of roofs is the similarity of design in the countries north and south of Palestine (Assyria, Chaldaea, Egypt), the difference being due only to the material available. Wilkinson (ii. 115) says that the roofs of rooms of houses in Egypt were sup- ported by rafters of the date tree, arranged close together, or more generally at intervals, with trans- verse layers of palm branches or planks. Many roofs were vaulted, and built, like the rest of the house, of crude brick. On the top of the house was a terrace, which served as wº for a place of repose as for exercise during the heat ; it was covered by a roof supported on columns; here they slept, using a mosquito net (Herod. ii. 95). The floors of the rooms were flat on the upper side, whether the rooms beneath were vaulted or supported on rafters. Strabo (xvii. 1. 37), in º of the labyrinth at Lake Moeris, tells us that the roofs of the dwellings here consisted of a single stone each, and that the covered ways throughout the whole range were roofed in the same manner with single slabs of stone of extra- ordinary size, without the admixture of timber or of any other material. ‘On ascending the roof, which is not a great height, for it consists only of a single storey, there may be seen a field thus composed of stones. Descending again and looking into the aulae, these may be seen in a line sup- ported by twenty-seven pillars, each consisting of a single stone.' Perrot and Chipiez (i. 109) give examples of a complete system of construction, belonging exclusively to Egypt, for stone buildings with stone roofs. The interior of the building is divided up by rows of vertical supports or monoliths, on which rest architraves or stone beams, and across from architrave to architrave are placed long flat stones forming the roof. This, however, seems to have applied only to temples, the palaces as well as the houses of the people having been of very light construction, of J. or crude brick. At Luxor, Karnak, and the Ramesseum, the temples are provided with staircases by which these flat roofs may be reached. These roofs seem to have been freely opened to the people, just as with us one is allowed to ascend domes and belfries for the sake of the view over the sur- rounding building and country. The flat roofs of houses in the East have been used from the earliest times for a variety of domestic and even public purposes.—For devotion and prayer. St. Peter went up upon the house- top to pray about the sixth hour (Ac 10'). They were used also for idolatrous purposes. There were altars on the top of the roof - challiber (n:hy) of Ahaz in Jerusalem (2 K 23°). They burned incense to Baal on the roofs of houses in Jerusalem (Jer 191° 32”); and there they also worshipped the host of heaven (Zeph, 1°).—For Tecreation and for sleep at might. It is custom- ary at the present day for the people (especially the old) to take exercise morning and evening on the roof of the house ; and during the summer - time members of the family usually sleep on the roof, carrying their bedding up at night and down again in the morning. ‘At night all sleep on the tops of their houses, their beds being spread upon their terraces, without any other covering over their heads than the vault of heaven. The poor seldom have a screen to keep them from the gaze of passengers’ (Morin, Persia, 229). “We supped on the top of the house for cool- ness, according to their custom, and lodged there likewise, in a sort of closet about 8 ft. Square, of wicker-work, plastered round towards the bottom, but without any doors’ (Pocock's Travels, ii. 6). Saul appears to have slept on the roof of Samuel's house in the unnamed city. “And it came to pass, about the spring of the day, that Samuel called to Saul on the housetop, saying, Up, that I may send thee away’ (1 S 9"); ‘David Walked upon the roof of the king's house at Jerusalem, and from the roof saw a woman washing herself” (2 S 11°); ‘Absalom spread a tent upon the top of the house’ (2 S 16*); ‘Nebuchadnezzar wº upon the royal palace at Babylon' (Dn 4”); ‘Samuel communed with Saul upon the top of the house' (1 S 9”); ‘the people made themselves booths, every one upon the roof of his house' (Neh 81%). They used the housetops to make their public lamentations, and in the villages to proclaim any news that required to be promulgated. As the houses had few windows opening to the streets, the people rushed to the roofs to look down upon any processions, and to view what was going on far and near. “At the present time local governors in country districts cause their commands thus to be published. These proclamations are generally made in the evening, "after the people have returned from their labours in the field ; the º crier ascends the highest roof at hand, and ifts up his voice in a long-drawn call upon all faithful subjects to give ear and obey. . He then proceeds to announce, in a set form, the will of their master, and to demand obedience thereto.” ‘On their housetops, and in their broad places, every one howleth’ (Is 15° 22'). ‘On all the housetops of Moab, and in the streets thereof, there is lamentation' (Jer 48”). ‘Proclaim upon the house- tops” (Mt 10%, Lk 12%). Eusebius (HE ii. 23) tells us that “the Pharisees, who had a design upon the life of St. James, bishop of Jerusalem, persuaded him to preach to the people, when assembled at the Passover, from the battlements of the temple, alluding to this custom of proclaiming from the housetop whatever was to be made known far and wide.” The roof of the house in the East is used as is the backyard of European houses; linen and flax are dried there, also ſigs, apricots, raisins, and corn. ‘The ordinary houses have no other place where the inmates can either see the Sun, “smell the air,” dry their clothes, set out their flower-pots, or do numberless other things essential to their health and comfort' (Land and Book, i. 49). Rahab the harlot brought the spies up to the roof of the house and hid them with the stalks of flax, which she had laid in order about the roof (Jos 2"). The staircase from the roof leads down into the inner court (Mt 10” 247, Lk 12°). Battlements or ROOM ROSE 313 a parapet were enjoined by the law, a very neces- sary precaution, to prevent loss of life from falling over (Dt 228). The manner in which Samson brought down the roof of the temple of Dagon (Jg 16), upon which about 3000 persons were assembled, by pulling down the two principal pillars, has not yet been satisfactorily ascertained. Shaw describes having seen several hundreds of people assembled, on the dey’s palace in Algiers, to view an exhibition of wrestlers, and describes how the pulling down of the front or centre pillars would have been attended by a catastrophe similar to that which happened to the Philistines (Shaw, Travels, p. 283). Cf. further, Moore, Judges, ad loc, The flat roofs in Syria at the present day are made as follows: Stout beams are first laid across the walls about 2 ft. apart ; crosswise is laid tough brushwood, or, if that cannot be obtained, split wood with matting, and over it a mass of thorny bush in bundles; upon this is laid a plaster of mud or clay mortar, which is well pressed in, and over this a layer of earth 6 to 12 in. thick. This is plastered over with mud and straw as a protection against the rain. Each roof requires a little stone roller to be always ready—the handles of wood being movable, and used for all the rollers of the different roofs; periodically, and whenever the rain falls, the roller must be used to fill in the cracks and keep the roof compact. Constant care is required to avoid leakage (Pr27*). During the PEF excavations at Jerusalem one of these roof rollers was found in the ancient aqueduct to the west of the temple, where it must have lain for quite 1800 years, showing that flat roofs at that time were in use at Jerusalem, though at the present day they are mostly domed roofs of stone, on account of the scarcity of timber. The un- covering of a roof (Mk 2") of this nature would not be a difficult matter. See HOUSE in vol. ii. p. 432". For other points connected with the subject of this ºn tº see BRICK, GATE, HOUSE, PAVEMENT, WALLS. LITERATURE.-Wilkinson, Anc. Egypt. ; Fergusson, Architec- ture ; Layard, Nineveh ; Place, Nimibé; Perrot and Chipiez, Jºgypt, also Chaldova, and Assyria, ; J’EI'St ; Thomson, The Land and the Book. See also Marshall in Ea:pos. March 1891, p. 218 f.; Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem 2; E. A. Abbott, Clue (1900), p. 118 ff. ; and the Comm. on Mk 24, Lk 519. C. WARREN. R00M.–1. Space to stay in : Gn 24” “Is there room in thy father's house for us to lodge in 2’; so 24* * (all Dipp, from pip to rise up, stand; RV adds Is 58 for same Heb., AW ‘ ...' PS 318 ‘Thou hast set my feet in a large room' (HIT), from ann to be spacious; RV ‘place’); Lk 27 ‘There was no room for them in the inn,” and 14* “Yet there is room ' (both rôtros); cf. Mal 3" “there shall not be room enough to receive it ' (no Heb.), Mk 2* “So that there was no room to receive them ’ (&orre p.mkéta xaſpeiv, RV ‘so that there was no longer room for them ’); Lk 12" “I have no room where to bestow my fruits’ (otic ēxaſ Troö, RV “I have not where'). In this sense is the phrase “make room,’ Gn 26*, Pr 1819 (both ann); to which IRV m adds 2 Co 7” “make room for us’ (Gr. x&pha are ºuás, AV ‘Receive us,” RV ‘Open your hearts to us’). Similarly Ps 80". “Thou preparedst room before it,” (no Heb.). Cf. Dt 33%" Tind. ‘Blessed is the rowmmaker Gad' (AW ‘Blessed be he that enlargelh Gadi); and Milton, P.L. vii. 486– ‘First crept The parsimonious ennumet, provident Of future, in small room large heart enclosed.” 2. A definite position to be occupied : To 24, Wis 13" (both otºmua); 1 Co 14” “he that occupieth the room of the unlearned ’ (6 &vatAmpèv rov Tótrov roſ, löttöTov, Vulg. qui supplct locum idiota"). Cf. Melvill, Diary, 6, ‘I durst ma wayes waver or mint away, bot stand stedfast in that roum and station wher. He haid placed me’; Calderwood, Hist, 128, ‘Displacing of the Minister of Glasgow out of his roome, which without reproach he hath occupied these many years.’ This is the meaning of ‘room’ when in AV. Tporokhtala is trº, “upper. most room’ (Mt 23° Mk 12", RV both “chief place’), or ‘chief room’ (Lk 147, RW ‘chief seat,’ 2010, RV ‘chief place’), or “highest room’ (Lk 14°, RV ‘chief seat'). The Gr. word means the place of highest honour at table. See FooD, vol. ii. p. 43*. Cf. Knox, Hist, 380, “But, said hee (turning his face towards the Room where such men as had so affirmed sate), if I bee not able to prove the Masse to bee the most abominable iii. that ever was used from the beginning of the world, I offer my selfe to suffer the punishment appointed by God to a false Preacher’; Lever, Sermons, 107, “Then who can desyre a better master then the Lorde God or a higher roume then a steward- shyppe in the house of Christ'; and Ps 639 in metre— ‘Who seek my soul to spill shall sink Down to earth's lowest room.’ So in the frequent phrase ‘in the room of ’ or ‘in his room,” the Heb. being nº (2 S 1918, 1 K 220 bis 5* * 8*, 2 K. 15” 23%, 2 Ch 261; RV adds 2 K. 1421 for AV ‘instead of ’); and the Gr. &vrt (Mt. 2”). So Ac 24” “Porcius Festus came into Felix’ room’ (gxags Štóðoxov Ó p?Niš IIópktov Pſarov, RV “Felix was suc- ceeded by Porcius Festus’). Cf. Melvill, JDiary, 129, ‘The Generall Assemblie commandit the Pres- byterie of Edinbruche to keipe his roum frie, and place nan thairin'; Calderwood, Hist. 110, ‘It pertaines to the Office of a Christian Magistrate . . . to see that the Kirk be not invaded, nor hurt by false . Teachers and Hirelings, nor the roomes thereof occupied by dumb doggs or idle bellies.’ The plu. “in their rooms’ is found in 1 K 20° (RV ‘room ') and 1 Ch 4" (RV “stead”), Heb. in both places Dºnſ. Cf. Dt 2* Tind. ‘The Caphthoryms which came out of Caphthor de- stroyed them and dwelt in their row.mes.’ This is the meaning in the phrase ‘give room,’ which has been changed into “give place' in AV where- ever it occurs in earlier VSS ; thus Gal 29 Tind. “To whom we gave no roume, no not for the space of an houre,” so Gen. NT 1557, but 1560 “gave not place.” Cf. Tindale, Works, i. 227, ‘Dearly be- loved, avenge not yourselves, but give room unto the wrath of God’; and Pent. (Prologe) ‘Isaac when his welles which he had digged were taken from him, geveth rowme and resisteth not.’ 3. The “upper room ' of Mk 14°, Lk 22” (Gr. &vá- 'yatov, TR divāyeov), and of Ac lº (Gr. Utrepôov, RV “upper chamber') is a room in the upper storey of the house, “a roof-chamber’ (see Moore on Jg 3”; IDriver, Damic!, p. 74; Thomson, Land and Book”, ii. 634, 636 [with illustration]; and cf. HOUSE in vol. ii. p. 433"). RV adds 1 Ch 28" (Heb. nº, AV “upper channber’). 4. In Gn 6” it is said that Noah's ark had ‘rooms’ made in it. The Heb. (pºp) is lit. “nests,’ and is usually understood to mean small divisions or cells. J. HASTINGS. ROSE (nºsiſ liſtöhazzeleth, Ca. 21, Is 351 RVm in both ‘autumn crocus.”—Some have derived this word from Sy: bāzāl, the same as the Arab. basal = ‘onion,’ and secondarily ‘bulb.’ This theory rests on the supposition that the initial n is a mistake for H. Apart, however, from the fact that there is no critical support for this theory, it gains no probability from the ancient versions. The Syriac, for example, hamgallāità, gives the n also instead of H. 'The Targum on Ca. 2' ex- plains håbhaggeleth by bipº = marcissus (Celsius, Hicrob. i. 489). An Assyrian word of similar 314 ROS H RUIBY form, habasillatw, signifies a ‘marsh plant or reed.” Notwithstanding the authority of Gesenius, Michaelis, and Iłosenmüller, we are inclined to accept narcissus as the correct translation. Two species of this genus grow in Palestine and Syria, N. Tazetta, L., flowering from November to March, and N. serotimus, L., flowering in autumn. The former has larger and more sweetly scented flowers than the latter. They are of the familiar pattern, with a white perigonium, and yellow, cup-shaped crown. The scape bears from three to ten flowers. The mention of the ‘narcissus of Sharon' in parallelism with the ‘lily (Shūshammāh) of the valleys’ increases the probability that they are allied plants. Shūshanmälv is doubtless generic, and may include various species of Iris, Colchicum, Crocus, Pancratium, Ixiolirion, Tulipa, Fritillaria, Hyacinthus, Asphodeline, etc. (see LILY), any or .." of which would go well in a parallelism with marcissus. For the trº ‘rose’ we have only the authority of Ben Mclech (Cels. Hierob. i. 488). The LXX div00s and Kplvov give it no support. The rose is mentioned in several º in the Apocrypha. Sirach speaks of ºbvrå Ö5óov év ‘Ieptx%, “a rose plant in Jericho’ (24", cf. 39*). Seven species of rose exist in Pal. and Syria—Itosa lutea, L., the Yellow Rose, which grows only in N. Syria; 13. glutinosa, S. et S., and I?. Thurcti, Barnat et Gremli, both Alpine species; R. canina, L., the I}og Rose, a mountain species; I. dumuctorum, Thuill., a species growing from Lebanon and Anti- lebanon northward; R. Arabica, Crep., a Sinaitic species; and R. Phaemicca, Boiss. The latter is j universal. The present writer has not met with any of these species at Jericho, but the last might easily grow . in hedges. There is nothing in the context to prevent the ‘rose plant in Jericho' being a cultivated one. It has nothing to do with the traditional ‘rose of Jericho.” This is a low, annual Crucifer, Anastatica hierochun- tima, L. The so-called rose in this case is the entire plant, which, after maturing, dries up, and its branches curl inward, forming a brown hemi- sphere, 3 to 4 in. broad. On placing the root in water, it absorbs moisture, and the dry branches expand, and spread open. It has no resemblance to a rose, except in its round contour. Itoses are everywhere cultivated in Pal, and Syria, and passionately admired by the people. The name JVardeh = Rose, is a favourite girl’s name in Arabic (cf. NT RIICDA). One of the industries for which Damascus is noted is the distilling of rose- water and an essential oil (attar of roses), as well as the making of syrup of roses. Large plantations of rosebushes are to be seen there and in other parts of the country. G. E. POST. ROSH (c/Nº).—1. A son, or, according to the LXX ('Piès), a grandson, of Benjamin, Gn 46”. The reading of MT D'Eo cºsm ‘ns ‘Ehi and Rosh, Muppim,” should, however, probably be corrected after Nu 26° to been Dºnn ‘Ahiram and Shupham' (cf. also 1 Ch 8*). 2. In the title of Gog Ush sºy, 9in. Typ in Ezk 38%. 39' (IRV ‘prince of Itosh, Meshech, and Tubal'; AV and RVm ‘chief prince of Meshech and Tubal'; AVm ‘prince of the chief of Meshech and Tubal’). It is most probable that Itosh is here the name of a people or country, like MESIIECH and TUBAL (so LXX ['Piós] and Symm. and Theod.). Its position, however, cannot be identified. Gesenius actually thought of the I&ussians, but this is impossible. I’ven the land of Itash, on the western border of Elam, which is mentioned in the cuneiform inscriptions (see I)elitzsch, Paradies, 322), appears (see A. B. David- Son, Jºzekiel, ad loc.) to lie too far east for the requirements of the prophecy. For further con- jectures see the Commentaries of 13ortholot and IXraetzschmar, ad loc. Dulum, followed by Cheyne, finds this same Ush concealed under the hºp (‘bow') of Is 66". J. A. SELDIE. RUBY.—Three Heb. words, DJs, 1572, and nylº, are tr. “ruby’ in EV (text or margin), but it is doubtful whether this is the stone meant. 1. DJs is tr. ‘ ruby’ in AVm and RVnn at Ex 2817 39", Ezk 28”. The text, in each case, has sardius, after the Vulg. Sardius and the LXX adºpótov. DJs (from DTS or DIS ‘to be red ') would obviously be a suitable name for any red stone. There is nothing in it to help us in fixing on the special kind of gem. A similar ambiguity attaches to the cognate Assyr. Word attlet matu, when used as a plant- name; all that Fried. IDelitzsch (Assyr. Hand- wörterbatch, sub voce) feels justified in saying of it is that it is ‘a plant, probably so called on account of its colour.” Pliny, too, presents the same kind of difficulty as we meet here ; his method of naming stones according to their colours often leaves us uncertain which of them he has in view. Modern authorities are divided between the claims of the carnelian [Petrie makes it the red jasper; See art. STONES (PRECIOUS)] and the ruby to repre- sent the Heb. Dºs, the majority favouring the former. Two considerations are in favour of this view : by far the largest number of gems which have come down to us from antiquity are carnelians; and the Djs of Iºxodus was an engraved stone, whereas the ruby, on account of its hardness, was seldom en- graved in ancient times. 2. 131) is tr. “ruby’ by RV at Is 54°, Ezk 2710; AV has ‘agate,’ m. ‘Heb. chrysoprase’; LXX has taarts (Is.) and xopxóp (122ek.) (from the common confusion of T and n); Vulg. aspis and chodchod. It is impossible to determine wilat the 7575 was. The root from which the noun is derived probably means ‘to sparkle.’ Dut this would suit a car- buncle almost, if not quite, as well as a ruby. 3. At Job 281*, 1°r 3” [1(ethibh, by a transcriber's mistake, Dººl 811 2010 3119, La 47, AV and RV tr. D'yº “rubies’; I&Vm has ‘red coral or pearls,” ex- cept at La 47, which has ‘corals.’ The iº is very vague and fluctuating, using Aidot, N(00 troNureNets, rå Öo drata (Job 28*); and the Vulg. is still more unhelpful, ‘cunctis preliosissimis,’ ‘cunctis opibus,’ ‘multitudo gemmarwan,’ ‘de ultimis finibus,” “de occultis,’ and at La 47 ‘cöore antiquo.” (Toy, Prov. p. 72, appears to think that this last is due to a mistaken reading, D'yº) ; but it is to be noted that at Ezk 2719 the Vulg. renders Dynº ſº by demtes he/eminos). Although D'J"Jº never occurs in a list of gems, the Heb. writers must have had a distinct class of stones in view. This is clear from La 47: the colour of the human body could not be com- pared to that of precious stones in general. The same passage seems also to preclude the ‘pearls’ of our IRV m. I'or if Carey (quoted by Delitzsch, Job, p. 370) had seen ‘pearls of a slightly reddish tinge,’ these are, at all events, not so common as to justify a comparison which would imply that pearls are usually red. The choice would appear to lie between “ruby’ and ‘red coral.’ And the decision depends on two considerations—the value and the colour of these two classes of objects. The passages in Job and Proverbs show that D'yº); were costly. “The price of wisdom is above D'yº.” ICither rubies or coral would answer to this require- ment. Itubies have always commanded a high price. Theophrastus speaks of quite a small div0pač as being worth forty gold staters. 13envenuto Cellini, in the 16th cent., states that a ruby of one carat was worth eight times as much as a diamond of the same weight. A fine ruby will still fetch more than a diamond of the same size. 3ut red coral (coral/intºm ru/rum) has also always been held in high esteem. In ancient times it was RUDDER RIJMAH 315 eagerly purchased in India. It ſinds a place in the Lapidarium of Marbodus. Good specimens continue to command a high price in China. The coral fisheries are a carefully regulated and highly important source of wealth on the Mediterranean coasts. On the second point—that of colour— the present writer is of opinion that the balance inclines in favour of the coral. Rubies are of too deep and ſiery a hue to be compared at La 47 to the red of even an Oriental’s body, notwithstand- ing the fact that there are exceptional gems, such as the one King describes (Antique Gems, p. 250), “of the most delicious cerise colour.” But coral is found of every shade—deep red, rose pink, flesh colour, and even milky white. There is no diffi- culty about the supposition that the Jews were familiar with it, for it was to be obtained from the coast of India and the Ited Sea, as well as from the Mediterranean. J. TAYLOR. RUDDER.—See SIIIPS AND BOATS. RUDIMIENT.-See ELEMENT. RUE (trijºyavov, rºtta). —Buta graveolens, L., the officinal rue, is a heavy-smelling, shrubby plant, of the order Rutaceae, 2 to 4 ft. high, with glandular- dotted, bi-pinnately parted leaves, and corymbose, yellow flowers. It is cultivated for its medicinal properties, which are antispasmodic and emmena- gogue. It has been inferred from Lk 11” that it was one of the plants subject to tithe (but see l’lummer, ad loc.). The indigenous rue of Pal. is 18ttº Chalepensis, L., the Aleppo rue, which differs but slightly from the º species. G. E. POST. RUFUS ("Poºftos). —In Mk 1591 we are told that Simon of Cyrene, who bore our Lord's cross, was the father of Alexander and Rufus. In Ro 16” St. Paul sends his salutation to Rufus, ‘the chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.’ The name, meaning ‘red,’ ‘reddish,’ was among the com- monest of slave names. The mention of Simon as the father of Alexander and Rufus seems to imply that the two latter were known in the circles to which the Gospel was addressed. There is some evidence for thinking that St. Mark’s Gospel was written in Rome ; if this be so, then the same person may be referred to in both passages; but as the name was so common, this can be only a conjecture. ‘Chosen in the Lord ' implies some particular eminence as a Christian, and not merely one of the elect, which would not be any special distinction. 13y ‘his mother and mine,” St. Paul means that the mother of Rufus had on some occasion shown to him the care of a mother, and that therefore he felt for her the aftection of a son. The name of Rufus was made use of largely in legendary history. He is introduced into the Acts of Amdrew and of Peter. According to one account he was bishop of Thebes ; according to another, bishop of Capua , according to another, bishop of Avignon. The last legend states that he travelled to Spain, founded the church at Tortosa, went over the Alps to Narbonne, and preached in Avignon. He appears to have been commemorated on the 12th, 14th, and 21st November. A. C. HEADLAM. sº-'g 418 IRV and AV m. See MANTLE, o. 4. RUHAMAH.—The second child (a daughter) of Gomer, Hosea's unfaithful wife, was called LO- IRUIIAMAH, “unpitied,’ Hos 1". *, as a type of Israel, when, º by Jahweh, she was to be given over to calamity. The ºpposite condition of things is expressed in Hos 2" [Eng. 2"| “Say ye unto your brethren, Ammi (i.e. “my people,’ in opposition to the name of the third child, LO-AMMI, ‘not my people’), and to your sisters, Ruhamah' (TºT ‘pitied,’ LXX 'EAémuéum). Similarly, when Jah- weh’s anger is turned away, He declares in v.” (*) ‘andiwińhave mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy” (wérihamti eth-ló rāllūmūh, LXXIX kai d'yat- jora, Thu Oök yarnºśvnv[AQ have eXehaw for dyathaw, and Aémpévmy for hyatrimp.évmu, cf. Hort on 1 P 2"]). J. A. SELBIE. RULERS OF THE CITY is, at Ac 17%. 8, the EV rendering of the Gr. troXtrápxat (on the various spelling troXeur. see Tisch. NT*, Prol. p. 86, n. 2), as the special local title belonging to the magistrates in Thessalonica, before whose bar the Jews of that city, along with a mob of market-idlers, dragged Jason and other Christian converts, under a charge of hospitably receiving Paul and Silas, and of en- tertaining treasonable designs against the emperor. The word denotes rulers of the citizens,’ º àS Thessalonica was a free city, had then the privi- lege of choosing their own rulers. The use of the term troXtrópxms has been pointed to as an excel- lent illustration of the accuracy of St. Luke (e.g. by Alford and Knowling, ad loc.); for, while it is not employed in that form by classical authors, who use troNapyos and troXtrapxos, the actual existence of the Lukan form at Thessalonica is vouched for by inscriptions discovered there, one of which (assigned to the time of Vespasian) mentions annong the politarchs for the time being Sosipater, Secundus, and Gaius—names occurring also as those of com- panions of St. Paul (Boeckh, CMG 1967, quoted by Conybeare and Howson, and by Alford). Much fresh light is thrown on this subject in a paper by Prof. Burton of Chicago, in the American Journal of Theology for July 1898, entitled ‘The Politarchs,’ in which he has carefully collected, and commented on, the inscriptions which attest the use of the noun troAvrápxms or of the verb troxt- Tapxéw. The following is a summary of his results: —There are seventeen inscriptions which attest the existence of the office of politarch in ancient cities, to which other two may be added, if we accept recent probable restorations. Eleven con- tain the verb, always in the present participle, and mostly in the genitive plural ; seven contain the noun, giving in all eleven instances of it. There is itacistic variation between et and t in the second syllable of both noun and verb. While isolated examples occur from Thrace, Rithynia, the Bos- poran kingdom, and Egypt, no fewer than thirteen belong to Macedonia, and five of these without much doubt to Thessalonica, itself. None have apparently been discovered from Greece proper, and there is no reason to believe that the otlice existed south of Macedonia. Its presence in the latter province so largely was probably due to Roman influence in its municipal organization. The five Thessalonian inscriptions extend from the beginning of the 1st to the middle of the 2nd cent. A. D. As regards number, Thessalonica had five politarchs in the reign of Augustus and six under Antoninus l’ius and Marcus Aurelius. Burton gives a full bibliography, mentioning as the most recent book that of I) initzas : “Il Make- Šovla €v \{00us q,0ey youévous kal paymºelous ow{ouévous, 2 vols., Athens, 1896. WILLIAM P. DICKSON. RULER(S) OF THE SYNAGOGUE. GOGUE. See SYNA- RUMAH (nºn; B Kpound, A "Puuá).-The home of Pedaiah, the maternal grandfather of king Jehoiakim, 2 IX 23*. Josephus, in the º passage, Ant. X. v. 2, has 'Agougé, no doubt, a copyist's error for Apovſki, which may be the Aitu MAII of Jg 9", which lay in the neighbourhood of Shechem. Another Itumah (in Galilee) is named in Jos, B.J III. vii. 21, which may have been the birthplace of l’edaiah (see Neubauer, Géog. du Talm. 203; Guérin, Galilée, i. 367 f.; 316 RUNNERS RYE Buhl, GAP 220 f.), if we may suppose that con- nubium still subsisted between the Northern and Southern kingdoms. The reading Horn for no.1 in Jos 15°, although supported by the LXX (B 'Pepyā, A 'Poupad), is probably a copyist's error. See DUMAH, No. 2. According to Jerome, there was a various reading, JRumah (i.e. Rome) for Dumah in Is 21”, which is said also to have been found in a manuscript belong- ing to R. Meir. J. A. SELBIE. RUNNERS.—See FOOTMAN, and GUARD, No. 2. RUSH. —See REED. RUTH (nºn, LXX ‘Poſó).—The heroine of the Bk. of Ruth. She was a Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon (Ru 419) the son of Elimelech and Naomi who were residing in the land of Moab because of a famine in Judah (Ru 11”). By the time that the famine ceased, Elimelech and his two sons were dead. Naomi decided to return to her own land, and after she and her daughters-in-law had started she recommended them to stay in their native land and marry again. Ruth refused, and declared her intention that nothing short of death should part her from Naomi. They went on their way, and arrived at Bethlehem, much to the surprise of the inhabitants. . It was the beginning of barley har- vest. Elimelech's kinsman, Boaz, was one of the leading inhabitants of Bethlehem, and Ruth went to glean, and by chance entered a part of his field. Here Boaz noticed her and bade her remain in the same ſield, and praised her for the care she had taken of her mother-in-law. He invited her to share the meal of the reapers, and instructed his men to show her proper respect (ch. 2). Instigated by her mother, she introduced herself into his presence at night and claimed his protection. He was quite willing to give it to her, but there was a nearer kinsman who had prior rights to his, and he had to be reckoned with first. Boaz therefore sent Ruth home with a present for her mother, whilst he himself took the necessary steps to call upon the nearer kinsman to exercise or refuse to exercise his rights (ch. 3). He summoned him to his side at the gate of the city, with ten elders of the city as witnesses. He then called upon the nearest kinsman to buy or redeem Elimelech's Jortion of land. He refused to do this, because it involved his taking to wife Ruth the Moabitess, and passed on his rights to Boaz by drawing off his shoe and giving it to Boaz ; for ‘this was the manner of attestation in Israel.” The people in the gate were called upon as well as the elders to bear witness to the transaction, and invoked the blessing of God upon Boaz and Ruth (4-19). In this way they were married, and their firstborn son was called Obed, from whom were descended David and Christ (Ru 419'ſ, cf. Mt. 1"). The name Ruth is of uncertain origin. It is to be noticed that her alleged descendant David entered into friendly relations with Moab (cf. 1 S 22*, *). The transaction recorded in this book is on the same lines as that legalized in Dt 25°-19, though not coming under that law (see Driver, Deut. .285). The actual selling of the land by Naomi comes nearer to the law of Lv 25°. At- tempts have been made to assign the history to the days of Eglon (Jg 3*"), or the time of scarcity preceding Gideon's call (Jg 6* *). See, further, next article. H. A. ItLDPATH. RUTH, BOOK OF.—This book, in which the history of Ruth (see preceding article) is narrated, is full of interest. It is an anonymous work, idyllic in its character, describing pastoral life among the Hebrews in a time of peace and order, when old customs were kept up and carefully observed. i. THE DATE OF THE BOOK.—This must be considerably later than the history, though how much later is a matter of controversy. The book looks back to ‘the days when the judges ruled’ (1*), to a custom existing ‘in former time in Israel’ (47), and carries the descent from Boaz down to David (4*), unless, as some have with little probability thought, the last verses do not really belong to the book. But it claims no particular date for itself, though the style would lead us to assign it to a comparatively early one. The linguistic difficulties in the way of its being early have been discussed by Driver (LOT pp. 426,427 [*454, 455]). The main argument for a post-exilic date, besides the linguistic one, is the way in which the customs of ch. 4 are treated as quite obsolete. ii. THE OBJECT OF THE BOOK.—This may be described as twofold. (1) To introduce us to the family from which David was descended ; and (2) to illustrate the marriage laws of the Israel- ites. The marriage of Ruth the Moabitess with Mahlon seems at first to run counter to the law as laid down in Dt 23* *, and certainly in post- exilic times such a union was held to be unlawful (see Ezr 9” ”, Neh 10*), but the law quoted says nothing about marriage, and differs in its terms from that of Dt 7”. Some of those who look upon this book as post-exilic have been tempted to regard it almost as a political pamphlet, and a protest against the action taken both by Ezra and Nehemiah. iii. PLACE IN THE CANON.—In the Jewish Canon the Talmud (IBab. Baba bathra. 14) *: it first amongst the Hagiographa or third class of Sacred writings immediately before the Psalms. . In Hebrew Bibles it is one of the five Megillóth or rolls which were read in the Synagogue on five special days in the Jewish ecclesiastical year— Ruth being read at the I’east of Weeks. As this was the second of the five days, the Book of Ruth generally appears second in order; but in Spanish MSS and in one bible of A.D. 1009 Ruth comes first (Buhl, Canon of the OT, i. § 10). The arrange- ment adopted in modern versions by which Ruth follows Judges goes back to the Vulgate and LXX, and also to Josephus.” Its position in them is due to its having been linked on to the Book of Judges by its first verse, and having been treated as an appendix to that book. LITERATURE.—Commentaries of Metzger (1857), Keil and Delitzsch, Wright (1804), Bertheau (combined with Judges, 1883), Hummelauer (1888), Oettli (Die gesch. IIagiog., Nord. lingen, 1889), Wildeboer (1(wrzer IIdcom. 1898), Nowack (IIdkom. 1900); cf. also Driver, LOT 425 fſ. [0 454 f.); Cornill, Einleit.” 242 f.; Wildeboer, Lit. d. A T', 341 ſp. ; Wellhausen - Block ; fºotertson in flook by Book, 75; W. R. Smith, art. “Ruth' in I'm cycl. Brit.0; see also the relevant sections in the works of Ityle, Wildeboer, and 13uhl on the Canon of OT". H. A. REDPAT H. RYE (nº kussemeth; {{a, b,\vpa, far, viſiº), - Russometh occurs three times in the Bible, Twice it is tra by AV ‘rye’ (Ex 9”, Is 28*m “spelt’; RV in both passages spelt’). It is also tº in AV ‘ſitches” (Ezk 49, AVm and RV ‘spelt’). The LXX gives in the first and third of the above references ÖNupa, and in the second &a. ÖNupa may, and {{a does, mean ‘spelt,’ which is the seed of Triticatin spella, L., a wild wheat. Notwithstanding the authority of the LXX, we think that kuśseméth is the same as the Arab. kirsanah, commonly º; Kirsenneh. This is a leguminous plant, Vicia Ervilia, L., near the lentil in its general aspect. It is an annual, with pinnate leaves of 8 to 12 pairs of oblong, retuse leaflets, and a tortulose * The only way in which Josephus' reckoning of the books of the Bible as twenty-two can be accounted for is by supposing that he reckoned Judges and Ruth as one book. SABACHTHANI SABEATH 317 pod, l in. long and $ in. broad, containing 3 to 4 seeds, larger than those of the ſentii. It is exceed. ingly common, being extensively cultivated for fodder, and for the seeds, which resemble those of the lentil. The substitution of r for the first s and n for ºn produces the classical Arab. form ićirsanah. Evidently Jerome adopted this view, translating the word by vicia. Rye is unknown in Bible ſands. Spelt is not cultivated, and is unknown here in the wild state. Perhaps the best rendering would be ‘ vetch,’ with a marginal note, ‘the seed known by the Arabs as kirsenneh, properly kirsanah’ (but see art. BREAD in vol. i. p. 316"). G. E. POST. S SABACHTHANI.-See ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACH- THANI. SABAEANS, SEBA, SHEBA.— The purpose of this article is to explain and differentiate the em- ployment of these terms, leaving ethnological and other information to be given under the articles SEBA and SHIEBA. Sabaeans occurs only twice in RV: once Is 45* (D’sºp; B 2a3aelp, A 2e30elu) as the gentilic name from Seba, and once Job 11° (N2;), LXX om.) as that from Sheba. Other two instances occur in AV: Jl 3 [Heb. 4]°, where RV substitutes “men of Sheba,” as tr. of n-sºº (LXX om.); and Ezk 23”, where RV and AV m, following the Kethibh D'Rab, substitute ‘drunkards’ [AV ‘Sabaeans’ follows the Keré D'Sºp; B orn., A olvøgévou]. The text here is almost certainly corrupt, and it can hardly be said that Cornill, Bertholet, or Kraetzschmar have been very successful in their attempts at restoring it. Seba (sºp, Xagá) is mentioned in Gn 107 (= 1 Ch 1°, B Xagar) as a son of Cush ; in Is 438 (B Xojvn) §. * is coupled with Cush, and in Ps 72” with X\{*08,. Sheba (87%), usually Xašá) is variously described as (1) a grandson of Cush Gn 107 (= 1 Ch 19, B 2a3&v); (2) a son of Joktan Gn 10” (A Xageſ, E 2a3a 0) = 1 Ch 1” (A Xagóu); (3) a son of Jokshan Gn 25° (A Xagáv, E Xagó) = 1 Ch 1” (B Sapat, A Xaflá). The queen of Sheba (1 K 101. * 10, 19–2 Ch 9****) visited Solomon, bringing with her great stores of gold, precious stones and spices; the trading companies of Sheba are referred to in Job 6" (13 Sagot, N. " " "Eos30t, Avid "Age6.o.), Is 60%, Ezk 27* * (associated with Ra'amah, Haran, Cannell, Eden, Asshur, and Chilmad) 3819 (with Dedan and Tarshish); its gold is mentioned in Ps 72° (BN 'Apapta), and its frankincense in Jer 6"; in Ps 72" the name is coupled with Seba (‘the kings of Sheba, [BN 8aat)\e's 'Apá8wv] and Seba shall ofter gifts'). J. A. SELDIE. SABANNEUS (B Xagavvatoºs, A Bavvatoºs, AV Bannaia), 1 Es 9°. The corresponding name in Ezr 10° is Zabad. SABANNUS (S48avvos, AV Sabban), l Es 869 (LXX *).—Moeth the son of Sabamus corresponds to Noadial, the son of Binnui, lºzy Sº". SABAOTH.-Soo LORD OF HOSTS. SABATEUS (B 'A3raios, A Saggaralas, AV Sa- bateas), l Es 0°-Shabbethai, Neh 87, where the LXX onlits the name. SABATHUS (Sága,00s, AV Sabatus), 1 Es 9*= Zabad, Ezr 10°7. SABBATEUS (Xaggata?0s, AV Sabbatheus), 1 Es 9*.*-‘Levis and Sabbateus” correspond to “Shab- bethai the Levite’ of Ezr 10”. SABBATH (nºw); orá88arov; also, both in LXX and NT, of a single day, rà oðg|Sata). —The Hebrew name for the seventh day of the week, which became among the Israelites a centre of many important religious observances and associations. The word is in form, probably (as may be inferred from Fººt) nºniº), contracted from ºnzº (so Olshausen, p. 349; König, ii. 180f. : otherwise, but less probably, Barth, Nominalbildung, p. 24; Jastrow [see ad fin.), p. 349). The root navy means (see Is 144 248) to desist, cease (cf. Arab. Sabata, to cut off, intercept, interrupt); hence the idea connected with the “sabbath' will be that of desisting, cessation—the doubled b having an inten- sive force, and implying either complete cessation, or, perhaps, a making to cease. It should be borne in mind that the idea expressed by nº and n:º) is not the positive “rest” of relaxa- tion or refreshment (which is rºl), but the negative “rest' of cessation from work or activity. Whether, however, this etymology expresses the original meaning of “sabbath,' must remain for the present an open question : if it be true that it and the Assyr. Šabattwº had a common origin, it may have denoted originally something different (see below, § ii., first par. in Small j i. HISTORY OF THE INSTITUTION IN THE OT.- The sabbath is mentioned in all the great Penta- teuchal codes, and there are also allusions to it in the historical and prophetical books. . It will be most instructive to consider the notices, as far as possible, chronologically. In the legislation of JE the sabbath appears as a day of cessation from (in particular) field- labour, designed with a humanitarian end : Ex 23” “Six days shalt thou do thy work (Tºyº), and on the seventh day thou shalt desist (nayſ), in order that thy ox and thy ass may rest (ſº), and that the son of thy maidservant, and thy ‘stranger,” may be refreshed (cº, lº “get breath,’’ cf. 2 S 16”),'— comp. the similar motive for the sabbatical year, V.”. And in the parallel group of laws in ch. , 34 (v.”) : “Six days thou shalt work, but on the Seventh day thou shalt desist : in plowing time and in harvest thou shalt desist.” In the Decalogue (IEx 20') the Israelite is commanded to “keep the sabbath holy’; and the injunction is expanded in the following clauses, ww." " (which are probably an explanatory com- ment, not forming part of the original Ten Wol ds): the seventh day, it is there said, is a sabbath unto' (i.e. to be observed in honour of) Jellovah : no work — nºsº, more exactly business, the word generally used in connexion with the sabbath—is to be done in it by any member of the Israelite's household (including his servants), or by his cattle, or by the ‘stranger’ settled in his country ; and in Deut. (5*) a clause similar to Ex 23” is added, ‘in order that thy manservant and thy naid- servant may rest (ſº) as well as thou’ (cf. for the philanthropic motive, 12** 14* 16"). In the early historical books and prophets the sabbath is associated with the new moon, in a manner which implies that both were occasions of intermission from labour, and holidays : in 2 IS 4** a visit to 3.18 SAIBBATH SAIBIBATH a distance would, it is implied, be undertaken naturally only on a sabbath or new moon. Hos 2" (“And I will cause all her mirth to cease, her pil- grimages, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her stated [religious] seasons’) inplies that the Sabbath, though it had a religious object (cf. Is lº), was also an occasion of social relaxation : Am 8” (“When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn ? and the sabbath, that we may Open out wheat 2') shows that trade as well as field- labour was intermitted on it. The passages quoted make it evident that in the 8th cent. B.C. the sabbath was regarded as sacred to J", and that it was marked by abstention from at least ordinary occupations. The first of these facts implies naturally in addition that some special sacrifices were offered on it—an inference which might also be drawn from the connexion in which it is mentioned in Is 1”. In later times, both the religious observances and also the abstem- tion from labour were more fully defined and specialized. Jeremiah (17”) has a prophecy re- lating to the sabbath : the people are solemnly charged by him, ‘Bear no burden on the sabbath day, neither bring in by the gates of Jerusalem, nor carry forth a burden out of your houses, nor do any business; but hallow ye the sabbath day, as I commanded your fathers’; the command, it is added, had been imperfectly observed, but Jer. attaches to its observance now a promise of the permanence of the Davidic dynasty, and the safety of Jerusalem. Jer.'s authorship of this lºy has been questioned by recent critics; ut it is exactly in Jer.’s style: the high import- ance attached to the sabbath, even before Jer.’s time, is shown by the place which it holds in the Decalogue (to which Jer. plainly refers); and no doubt the prophet emphasized the sabbath, not simply for its own sake, but as a typical religious observance; it was an institution the observance or non-observance of which might be taken as a criterion of the general faithfulness or disloyalty of the nation. In the ‘Law of Holiness’ (chiefly Lv 17–26), the individual laws in which, though their setting is later, may in many cases be as old as the 8th cent. or older (cf. vol. iii. pp. 69 f., 1083), the observance of the sabbath is inculcated more than once (‘Ye shall keep my sabbaths,’ Lv 19° 30 26”), even under pain of death (Ex 31* [a fragment of H] ‘ verily ye shall keep my sabbaths, for it is a sign between me and you [i.e. a mark, or token, like circum- cision (Gn 17*), of your being my people] . . . to know that I am J" which sanctifieth you. And ye shall keep the sabbath, for it is loly unto you ; every one that profaneth it shall surely be put to death '); and Ezekiel (who elsewhere also shows himself to be strongly influenced by this body of laws: LOT' 138–144 [* 145–152]) lays great stress upon it likewise : with evident reference to the language of H, he declares it to be an ancient ordinance of J" (20° “moreover I gave them my sabbaths to be a sign between me and them, to know that I am J" which sanctifieth them,” v.” (I said) ‘. . . and hallow my sabbaths '; cf., of the priests, 44*), and reproaches the people with having deſiantly ‘profaned” it (2018. 1%. 21.34 228 2398), or ‘hidden their eyes’ from it (22*). It is probable that at this time an increased significance began to be attached to the sabbath on account of its being one of the few distinctive institutions of Israel which could be observed in a foreign land. The same prophet in 45" 46" (cf. v.v.” ”), also gives directions—based, it may be presumed, upon ex- isting usage—respecting the sacrifices to be offered every sabbath by the ‘prince’ on behalf of the nation in the restored temple, viz. six lambs and one ram as a burnt-offering, with accompanying meal-offerings (the daily offering, according to Ezk 46”, was to be one lamb, with an accompany. ing meal-offering). The later exilic references to the sabbath are in a similar strain to the reference of Jeremiah. Its observance is the typical religious du º and the test of general allegiance to J’ (Is 56*, *, *); and a promise of restoration to Palestine is given to those Israelites who faithfully observe it, regarding it as a “delight,’ and refraining on J"'s ‘loly day from ‘doing’ their (ordinary) “ways,” or ‘find- ing’ their own “pleasure,” or ‘speaking’ [vain] ‘words’ (Is 58%); in Is 66*, also, it is pictured as being (in the restored Jerusalem) a weekly occasion of worship before J" for ‘all flesh,’ as the new moon would be analogously a monthly occasion. In the legislation of P the regulations respect. ing the sabbath are further developed and sys. tematized. Its institution is thrown back to the end of the week of Creation ; God, it is said (Gn 2"), then “blessed the seventh day and hal- lowed it,’—i.e. set it apart for holy uses, and attached blessings to its observance, — ‘because in it, he desisted (ny) from all his work (H2N}n “business’)” of creation : similarly in the motive, based upon the representation of P, attached in Ex. (20°) to the fourth commandment ; and in Ex 31”, “for in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he desisted (nº), and was refreshed (Up)),—as above, in 23*).’ In Ex 31*17 the old law, derived from H, is supple- mented by an addition (vv,”) emphasizing further the sanctity and permanence of the insti- tution, and the penalty (death) for its non- observance : Iºx 35'-' (an injunction preſixed to the account of the construction of the tabernacle) the directions contained in 31* are repeated almost verbatim (v.”), and in v.” the kindling of fire on the sabbath is prohibited ; IAW 23° it is to be observed (like certain other sacred seasons) by a ‘ holy convocation,’ or religious gathering ; Lv 24° the showbread is to be renewed every sabbath : Nu 15” relates how a man found gathering sticks on the sabbath was by IDivine direction stoned to death ; Nu 28*, the special sacrifices for the sabbath are appointed, viz. double those offered on ordinary days (vy.**), i.e. two male lambs for a burnt-offering in the morning, and two in the evening, with twice the usual meal- and drink-offerings. Lastly, in Ex 16". ** the manna is stated to have been withheld on the sabbath, and given in double quantity on the previous day, in order to preserve the sanctity of the day : and the people are forbidden to leave their homes, and (indirectly) to bake or cook anything, on the Sabbath. In P the term shabbāthān (RV “solemn rest ſproperly, cessa- tion]’) is also used in connexion with the sabbath, viz. Iºx 16°3 ‘to-morrow is a solemn rest, a holy sabbath unto J"'; 311" (cf. 352, Lv 23%) “on the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest jīn; v) n:g), holy unto J” ' (elsewhere shabbāthān is used of New Year's day, Lv 2324, of the first and eighth days of the Feast of Dooths, Lv 2399, and of the sabbatical year, LV 25°; and “sabbath of solemn rest” of the Day of Atonement, LV 1691 23% (cf. in v.9b “Sabbath' alone), and of the sabbatical year, Lv 254 f).—The term ‘sabbath' is used also (Lv 25% al.) of the SAB- BATICAL YEAR. On Lv 2311, 10 see WEEKS (PIAST OF). In the history of the post-exilic period wo read in Neh 109 how the people, headed by Nellemiah, bound themselves, il foreigners offered Wares or food for sale on the sabbath, not to buy of them ; and in Neh 13” how Neh., finding this obligation disregarded, and also other kinds of work done on the sabbath (treading wine - presses, lading animals with corn, bringing fruit and other Wares into Jerus., and selling and buying them), remon- strated with the people, and had the gates of Jerus. closed on that day, in order that merchants and SABBATH SATBBATH 319 packmen might not bring their ‘ burdens’ (cf. Jer 17*) into the city. Allusions to the sacrifices offered on the sabbath occur in Nell 10°, 2 Ch 24 81° 31°. It will be evident, from the preceding survey, that in the priestly Law the original character and objects of the sabbath have receded into the background, it has become more distinctly a purely ceremonial institution, and the regulations for its observance have been made more strict. It will appear in the sequel (iii.), how in a still later age these characteristics are all intensiſed. ii. SPECUIATIONS ON THE ORIGIN OF THE SAB- BATH.—It is not improbable that the sabbath is ultimately of Babylonian origin. In a lexico- graphical tablet (II Rawl. 32, i. 16) there occurs the equation— &m nºth libbi =&a-bat-twm, or ‘day of rest of the heart' (i.e. not, as was formerly supposed, a day of rest for iman, but, as parallel occurrences of the same phrase show,” a ay when the gods rested from their anger, a day for the pacification of a deity's anger) = Sabbath. Further, in a religious calendar for two months (the second, or intercalary Elul, and Marchesh- van), which we possess," prescribing duties for the king, the 7th, 14th, 19th,; 21st, and 28th days are entered as ‘favourable day, evil day,’ while the others are simply ‘favourable' days. On the five specified days, the king is not, for instance, to eat food prepared by fire, not to put on royal dress or offer sacrifice, not to ride in his chariot, or hold court, not to seek an oracle, or even to invoke curses on his enemies : on the other hand, as soon as the day is over, he may offer a sacrifice which will be accepted. The days, it is evident, are viewed superstitiously : certain things are not to be done on them, in order to avoid arousing the jealousy or anger of the gods. The meaning of the expression * favourable day, evil day’ is that the day had an in- determinate character; it could become either the one or the other, according as the precautions laid down for its observance were attended to or not. § ICxcept in the passage quoted, Šabattwm is known at present to occur only (in the form Šabattim) 2 or 3. times in syllabaries (Jensen, ZA iv. 274–8, Z. f. Deutsche Wortforschtung, Sept. 1900, p. 153 (in an art. on the Week of seven days in Babylonia): in the first of these syllabaries it corresponds to a Sumerian ideogram meaning to pacify ; in the second (where Jensen con- tends that it occurs with the meaning to come to rest, be calmed, pacified) its occurrence is º by Jastrow, A.JT'h ii. 315 m.; in the third (Z. f. D. Wortſ. 153) it corresponds strangely to the ideogram which means simply day, Swn, light. The etymo- logy of Šabattwm is uncertain. The verb Šaldtwis, in a lexico- graphical tablet, equated with gam(ºru, which means commonly (Deiitzsch, II WI3 p. 199) to bring to an end, complete, but which seems, to judge from two syllabaries (Z. f. D. Worlſ. 153), to have signified also to pacify, appease ; and Jensen, assuming that in the tablet Śabátu is quoted with this excep- tional meaning of gamviru, explains Sabattum, Šabattim, from it. It remains however, for the present, a difficulty that while in Heb., shabbāth is connected (apparently) with shūbath, to desist, the Assyr. verb Šabatu, means something different. These facts make it at least a plausible con- jecture that the Heb. sabbath (which was likewise primarily a day of restrictions) was derived ulti- mately from Babylonia, or, as Jensen would prefer * IE.g. śigit mill, libbi = psalm of propitiation (Jastrow, AJTh, vol. ii. p. 316). ł Jastrow, Irelig. of Bab. and Assyr. p. 376 ft. f Perhaps the 7x7= 49th day from the 1st of the preceding month--the month having 30 days. § The ancient Assyrians regarded the simplest and most ordinary occurrences as ominous of either good or evil (Jastrow, IRel, of Bab. and Assyr. p. 355, etc.); and, in fact, there is a calendar in which every day in the year is marked as either fortunate or unfortunate for something or other (p. 379 ft.). | So Schrader, KAT'2 on Gn 23 ; Lotz, Quastiones de hist, Stubb. (1883) 07; Sayce, IICM 76 f., EIIII 193 (where, how- ever, the facts about the Bab. ‘Sabbath' are overstated ; for though, no doubt [Lotz, 58], Śwbattwin might very naturally be the name of the 7th, 14th, etc., days of the two months referred to above, it is not, in any text at present known, applied to them actually); Gunkel, Schöpf, w, Chaos (1806), 155, Nor is there at present any evidence that a continuous succession of ‘weeks," each ending with a day marked by special observances, was a lab. institution (Jenson, 154). to say,” that the Heb., and Babylonian institu. tions had a common origin; though naturally, like other Heb. institutions which were not originally confined to Israel, it assumed among the Hebrews a new character, being stripped of its superstitious and heathen associations, and being made sub- Servient to ethical and religious ends. It is not difficult to imagine how, under the influence of Israel’s religion, a change of , this kind might gradually be wrought, though (supposing the hypothesis to be a sound one) we have no infor- mation of the stages by which it was actually effected ; Jastrow’s endeavour (AJTh, vol. ii. pp. 321 ff., 332ff., 345ff.) to show that the Heb. sabbath had once (like the ºn ntil libbi) a propitiatory character, and even that the verb shöbath, as º to J", and shabbāthān, expressed originally the ideas of ceasing from anger, being pacified, cannot be deemed convincing. The sabbath, as a day of restriction, is an institution parallel to what is found among many early peoples, and indeed, as a survival from an earlier stage, among civilized peoples as well. The wide diffusion of periods of restriction makes it probable that they had their origin in simple ideas and social conditions. In all the cases known to us the restrictions are of the same general character—they refer to occupations, food, dress. Thus, besides the Babylonian institution, which has been already referred to, the Egyptians had a list of days, on which certain acts were pro- hibited (AJTh, ii. p. 350 t). In Rome business was suspended during the feria: ; and on all dies néfast courts of law and the comitia were closed. In the Hawaiian Islands, it was unlawful, on certain days, to light ſires or to batlle ; the king also at certain times withdrew into privacy, giving up his ordinary pursuits. . In Borneo, work was forbidden on certain days in connexion with the harvest. The origin of such times of restric- tion is lost in antiquity : they come before us commonly as established customs, resting on pre- cedent, and not supposed to need explanation. They may have arisen from various causes: thus in some cases observation would show that par- ticular times were favourable or unfavourable to certain occupations; but very often they would be determined by superstitious or religious motives. The days thus fixed would gradually be tabulated and systematized ; and when calendars had been constructed, particular days would come to be marked upon them as lucky or unlucky, and in some cases these would agree with definite phases of the moon. “Such a calendar the Hebrews may have inherited, or may have received from 13aby- lonia, or from some other source ’: if they received it from Babylonia, they detached it from its con- nexion with the moon (fixing it for every seventh day, irrespectively of the days of the month), the generalized the abstinence associated with it, º more than all, they transformed it into an agency, which, though, like other institutions, capable of abuse, has nevertheless, partly as observed by the Jews themselves, partly (see below) as forming the model of the Christian Sunday, operated on the whole with wonderful efficiency in maintain- ing the life of a pure and spiritual religion.} The question, which was formerly much debated, whether the sabbath was instituted at the close of the Creation, or whether it was a purely Mosaic ordinance, was already answered by Dr. l Iessey (p. 135 ft.) in the latter sense ; and in the light in which the early chapters of Gen. are at present regarded by scholars (cf. CosModoNY, and Ryle's Iºarly Narratives of Genesis), the question itself has become irrelevant. It is plain that in Gn 21-3 the sanctity of the seventh day of the week is * Z. f. D. Wortforschung, 154. # See also Maspero, Dawn of Civilization, 210–212; Wiede mann, Relig. of A m c. lºſſypt. 263 f. ! With the last paragraph cf. C. H. Toy, “The earliest form: of tho Sabbath,’ in J 1311, 1809, pp. 191–103. 320 SABBATH SABBATH explained unhistorically, and antedated: instead of the sab- bath, closing the week, being sacred, because on it God ‘desisted" from His six days' work of creation, the work of creation was distributed among six days, followed by a day of rest, because the week, ended by the sabbath, existed already as an institution, and the writer (P) wished to adjust artificially the work of creation to it. In the Decalogue, “Remember' may be interpreted quite naturally as signifying ‘keep in mind' in the future (cf. Ex 139, Dt 163). iii. THE SABBATH IN THE LATER JUDAISM AND THE NT.—There are not many allusions to the sabbath in the apocryphal books. It was natur- ally, included amongst the distinctively Jewish institutions, which Antiochus Epiphanes sought (B.C. 168) to abolish (1 Mac 199: " ", 2 Mac 6"). At the beginning of the Macc. uprising, the loyal Jews allowed themselves to be massacred in cold blood rather than profane the sabbath, even in self-defence (1 Mac 2**): but in view of the con- sequences which persistence in such a course would obviously entail, Mattathias and his friends decided (vv.**) to recognize defensive warfare as permissible on the sabbath (cf. 1 Mac 9°4'4", 2 Mac 8**; also Jos. BJ II. xix. 2). The destruction of siege-works was not, however, considered allow- able; and so Pompey was able to complete his mound against Jerus, on the sabbath (Jos. Ant. XIV. iv. 2). The unwillingness of the Jews to fight on the sabbath naturally became known to their enemies; and several instances are on record of attacks being planned for that day, and carried Out successfully (Jos. c. A p. i. 22 end ; 2 Mac 5%t. 15°; Amt. XIII. xii. 4, XVIII. ix. 2). The Romans so far recognized the scruples entertained by the Jews with regard to bearing arms or travelling on the Sabbath, as to release them from the obliga- tion of military service (Jos. Amt. XIV. x. 11–19). Allusions to the Sabbath, generally more or less satirical, occur in the classical writers: by some of them it was supposed to be a day of mere idleness, by others that it was a fast. See Tuc. Hist. v. 4; Sueton. Octav. 76; Juv. xiv. 90, 105 f.; Martial, iv. 4, 73 Persius, v. 179–184; Seneca, Epist. 95, 47 (lights not to be kindled on it). By the Jewish legalists the OT regulations re- specting the Sabbath were developed and systema- tized to an extent which has made their rules on the subject a byword for extravagance and ab- surdity. Two entire treatises of the Mishna, Shab- bāth and ‘Eräbin, as well as parts of others, are devoted to provisions for the observance of the sabbath ; and there are also long discussions on the subject, with quotations of the divergent opinions of different Rabbis, in the Gemara. We may mention some of the more simple and reason- able provisions first. As the J ...}. day began at sunset in the evening, the salobath lasted from sunset on what we should call Friday to sunset on Saturday; according to Jos. BJ IV. ix. 12, the beginning and end of the day were announced by trumpets from the temple. The afternoon of Friday was called the “eve of the Sabbath' (any n;gºn), or the PREPARATION-DAY (wapaakevä), and no business was allowed to be begun on it which might extend into the sabbath. The sabbath was no fast-day (cf. Jth 8"): the second Isaiah had said that it should be regarded as a ‘delight’ (ly); and the Jews have always been careful not to divost it of this character. Three meals (cf. Péâh. viii. 7; Shabb. xvi. 2), of the choicest available food (Edersh. ii., 52),” were accordingly prescribed for it, being laid ready before sunset on the Friday, and the lamp for the Sabbath being lighted it the same time. The Mishna adds minute regula- tions, as to how the meals, if necessary, were to be kept warm, without infringing the sanctity of the iſiºn. as of course no ſire might be kindled * The meal of which our Lord partook on a sabbath in the house of one of the ‘rulers of the Pharisees’ (Lk 141) would, we may be sure, be one of these sabbatical epulce law.tiores. have been just quoted. (Ex 35°), or even attended to, on the day. The sabbath was regarded as set apart for religious exercises—both for private meditation and prayer, and also for public worship in the SYNAGOGUE (Mk 121. 28 (Lk 49. 98), 62 (Lk 410), Lk 69 1319, Ac 131st. * * * 15” 17t. 18%), or other place of prayer (Ac 1618).” With regard to the more technical observance Yf the saibath, the Mishna (Shabb. vii. 2) enumerates 39 principal classes+ of prohibited actions, viz. How- ing, º; reaping, gathering into sheaves, threshing, winnowing, cleansing, grinding, sifting, kneading, baking ; shearing wool, washing it, beating it, dyeing it, spinning it, making a warp of it, making two thrum-threads, weaving two threads, splitting two threads, tying, untying, sewing two stitches, tearing thread to sew two Stitches; catching deer (game), killing, skin- ning, salting it, preparing its hide, scraping off its hair, cutting it up ; writing two letters, erasing for the purpose of writing two letters; building, ulling down, extinguishing fire, kindling fire, eating with a hammer, and carrying from one º to another (add also Béza v. 1, 2::). The real “micrology’ of the Rabbis appears, however, not so much in this enumeration as such, as in the consideration of the cases in detail, the discussion what actions do or do not fall under the several classes manned, and sometimes also in the casuistical evasion of a prohibition. A few specimens of the extraordinary refinements thus introduced must suffice. The prohibition to tie or untie a knot was too general, so it became necessary to deline the species of knots referred to. It was accordingly laid down that a camel-driver's knot and a boat- man's knot rendered the man who tied or untied them guilty; but R. Meir said, ‘a knot which a man can untie with one hand only, he does not become guilty by untying.’ A woman might, however, tie on various articles of dress, and also tie up skins of wine or oil, and pots of meat. A º might be tied to a well by a band (“fascia,”), ut not by a rope (baſſ). R. Jehudah laid down the rule that any knot might be lawfully tied which was not intended to be permanent (Shabb. xv. 1, 2). This rule is, in fact, the principle by which the commentators explain the distinctions that The rest of the tractate is almost wholly occupied with the discussion of similar distinctions in other subjects. The aim of the tractate 'Eräbin (“mixtures,” or ‘connexions °) is to alleviate the extreme rigour of some of the Rabb. enactments respecting the sabbath. The 39th of the list of prohibited actions quoted above was that of carrying from one pro- º to another: but in this tractate it is explained low places might, by a legal fiction, be combined together, so that things might lawfully be carried from one into another: there was thus an "Črib, or ‘commixture,” of courts, of streets, and of limits : a number of houses opening into a common court were, for example, treated as one, by all the families before the Sabbath depositing some food in the common court ; or a number of marrow streets or blind alleys were converted into a “private pro- perty,’ by extending along them a wire or rope, or by laying a beam over the entrance. The limit of a sabbath-day's journey’ (Ac 1”) was, according ta. * On the sabbath as a day of spiritual cdification, cf. also Jos. A mt. xvi. ii. 4 middle, c. A p. ii. 17 end ; Philo, ii. 108 end, 169, 197, 282, 630 (from Euseb. Prap. Jºv. viii. vii. 9 f.). # nins: derivative actions, or species of the principal classes named, were called nºtºn. Margoliouth (Papos. Nov. 1000, p. 330 ft.) cites from an unedited Persian MS, containing an account of the feasts and other observances of different nations by an author of the 11th cent., an enumeration of 38 forbidden acts, differing in many particulars from those mentioned in the Mishna, and including more directly some of those alluded to in the Gospels. & ! See Wünsche, Erlöwterwmg [see full title ad ſin.], p. 148. SABBATH SABBATH 321 the Rabbis, 2000 cubits ; * but if, before the sab- bath, a man deposited food for two meals at the boundary, he was considered to declare that place to be his domicile, and he was at liberty, when the sabbath came, to proceed 2000 cubits beyond it. However, it seems that such concessions were only granted for some serious and worthy purpose (Schechter, ap. Montefiore, Hibb. Lect. 562). Naturally, there were cases in which higher con- siderations superseded these rules for the strict observance of the sabbath, nºrms "nº “push aside the sabbath' is the expression used. The priests in the discharge of their duties in the temple—e.g. in preparing and offering the sacri- fices appointed for the day—profaned the sabbath, and were “guiltless' (Mt 12%). And so the Mishna permits on the sabbath acts necessary for the sacrifice of the passover, though it carefully ex- cludes those which are deemed unnecessary (Pesúhim vi. 1, 2). A Levite performing upon a stringed instrument on the sabbath in the temple (but not elsewhere), might, if his string broke, tie it up again, but he is forbidden to put in a new string ('Erübin x. 13). A priest who hurts his finger may bind it up with reeds in the temple (though not elsewhere), but he is not permitted to press out the blood (ib. 14). º circum- cision was permitted, though not anything con- nected with it which could be prepared Şefore (Jn 7* ; Shabb. xix.). In other cases humanitarian grounds superseded the sabbath. The general principle was that any ‘doubt about life,’ i.e. any doubt as to whether life was in danger, super- seded the sabbath (nàgºrns Triº nivºj pºp-99 Yömä viii. 6); ; but, of course, the further question then arose, What did endanger life 2 Ailments sup- posed to be dangerous to life are mentioned, and treatments permitted or forbidden are enumerated ; but, to our minds, the distinctions drawn are arbitrary and absurd, and the reasons alleged in support of them most trivial and insufficient. 6 #. who has the toothache must not rinse his teeth with vinegar [and spit it out again ; for this would be to apply a medicine]; but he may wash them as * [and swallow the vinegar, for this would be nerely like taking food]. He who has pains in the loins may not anoint himself with wine and vinegar [which would be a medicinal applica- tion], but he may anoint himself with oil [acc. to the usual custom], though not with oil of roses [which, being costly, would certainly not be used, except as a medicine].” (Shabb. xiv. 4; the ex- planations, from the commentators, ap. Surenh.). A strain might not have cold water poured upon it, but it might be washed in the usual way (xxii. 6). With such feelings current on the sub- ject, the hostility aroused by the cures wrought our Lord on the sabbath (Mt. 129-18 – Mk 31-9– Lk 69-10, Lk 1310-17 14-0, Jn 5'-l' 729 914-10) is at once intelligible. It is also apparent why on a sabbath the sick were brought to Him to be healed after sunset (Mk 1°, see v.”). The disciples, in ‘plucking” (Mt 12–Mk 228– Lk 6") and “rubbing” (Lk 6") the ears of corn on the Sabbath, violated the day, according to Rabb. * The distance is obtained by an essentially Rabbinical com- bination of Ex 1624, 2118 and Jos. 34. See Lightfoot on Lk 2450, who remarks drily on the process, ‘sed artem disce fabricandi quid libet ex quolibet'; and comp. further the next article, t Cf. Pesahim 65a (and elsewhere): cºpº may I’s ‘there is no sabbath-keeping in the sanctuary.’ # See, in Wünsche (p. 151 f.), from the Gomārā (Yôma S5 ab; cf. Mechilta on Ex 3113, fol. 1030, ed. Friedmann), the biblical authority which 'Akiba and other Rabbis of the 2nd cent. Sought to discover for this principle. The text which was deemed most conclusive was Ly 185, where it is said of the statutes of the law that if a man does them, he will ‘live by them,' and not that he will die by them. See, further, on the teaching and º of early IRabbis on the subject of the Babbath, Bacher, Die Agada der Tammaitem, i. 72, 84 f., 117, 191, 238, 200, 296 fr., 803, 404, ii. 94 f., 351, 302, 470, 510. VOL. IV. —2 I ideas, in two respects; for ‘plucking’ was a Species of “reaping,’ and “rubbing” of threshing (cf. Maimonides, Hilchoth Shabbath, viii. 3, “He who reaps even as little as a dry fig on the sabbath is guilty; and the plucker is a species (nºn) of reaper’; and Jerus. Talm. Shabb. 10a, “A woman rubbing the heads of wheat [is guilty], as being a thresher,’ ap. Edersh. ii. 56 ; also Lightfoot, Hºrae Heb. on Mt 12*). To lead an animal to water Oſl the sabbath (Lk 13”) was allowable, provided it carried nothing that could be regarded as a ‘ burden'; water might even be drawn for it, and poured into a trough, so that it came and drank of its own accord ; it might not, however, be brought and set before the beast (Lightf. ad loc.; Jºriðin, fol. 206). But it is not permitted, at least in the Talmud, if an animal has fallen into a pit, or pool of water, to ‘lay hold of it, and lift it out ’ (Mt 12"; cf. Lk 14°): it is allowed, however, to supply it with food, or, if that be impossible, to bring mattresses and cushions for the purpose of helping it to come out of itself (Shabb, fol. 128b; Maim. Shabb. xxv. 26); it is possible, however, that in the time of Christ this prohibition had not yet been formulated. To make clay and apply it to the eye (Jn 9" ") involved a breach, if not a double breach, of the sabbath-law : the Mishna (Shabb, xxiv. 3) lays it down that “water may be poured on bran, but it must not be kneaded,” and the same rule might be naturally held to apply to clay : but the application of the clay to the eye was certainly not allowable : it was indeed per- mitted to apply wine to the outside of the eyelid (though not to put it inside the eye), but the application of saliva (which is mentioned, as it was deemed to possess curative properties) was altogether forbidden (Shabb. 108b; Maim. Shabb xxi. 25 ; Lightfoot, ad loc.). Of course, to take up a bed (Jn 5") was prohibited, being an act of ‘carrying.’” - It is, however, only right to observe that, in spite of the rules and restrictions created by the Itabbis, the sabbath does not seem to have been felt practically to be a day of burden and gloom, to those living under them. ‘The sabbath is celebrated by the very people who did observe it, in hundreds of hymns, which would fill volumes, as a day of rest and joy, of pleasure and delight, a day in which man enjoys some presentiment of the pure bliss and happiness which are stored up for the righteous in the world to come. To it such tender names were applied as the “Queen Sab- bath,” the “Bride Sabbath,” and the “holy, dear, beloved Sabbath” (Schechter, JOR iii. 763, or ap. Montefiore, Hibb. Lect. 507 ; cf. the hymns quoted by Abrahams, Jewish Life in the M º Ages, 1896, pp. 133–137). iv. SUMMARY. —It appears, from what has been said, that, so far as we can trace the sabbath back among the Hebrews, it was a day sacred to J", and also a day, presupposing the agricultural Oeriod, marked by cessation from labour in the lº. and in the field : it had thus essentially a philanthropic character, the duty enjoined on it, as Wellh. has said, being less that the Israelite should rest himself, than that he should give others rest. Whatever the sabbath may have been in its primitive form, we may feel sure that this philanthropic application of it is of Israelite origin. As sacred to J", religious observances, * Cf. Schürer, ii. 303-400, 412–414, The tractates Shabbāth and 'Erilbin are translated, in Sola and Raphael's Eighteem. Treatises of the Mishna (1843), pp. 34-90 ; and, with copious notes, in Surenhusius' Mischna (1690), ii. 1–77, 78–184. There is also a pretty full abstract of Shabb{(th, in Edersheim, Lifa and Times, ii. 774 ſſ.; and a separate ed. in Heb., with useful introd. and glossary, by H. L. Strack, Lpz. 1890. See, further, the many Talm. passages tr. by Wetstein (Nov. Test. on Mt. 122, 5, 10, Llº 141 etc.; and comp, also W. H. Bennett, The Mishnah as illustrating the Gospels, 1884, p. 53 ff. 322 SABRATH SABBATH at first simple and rudimentary, afterwards such as would spring naturally out of a more educated and maturer religious feeling, were attached to it, —special sacrifices, gatherings for worship in the temple, private prayer and meditation, and ulti- mately services in the synagogues. On its prac- tical side, it was essentially an institution “made for man.’ Its intention was to give a rest from laborious and engrossing occupations, and from the cares and anxieties of daily #. and at the same time to secure leisure for thoughts of God. The restrictions attached to it were meant to be inter- preted in the spirit, not in the letter. It had not essentially an austere or rigorous character; it was never intended that actions demanded by duty, necessity, or benevolence should be proscribed on it. Its aim was rather to counteract the deaden- ing influence, upon both body and soul, of never- interrupted daily toil, and of continuous absorption in secular pursuits. But as time went on, an anxious and ultimately a superstitious dread of pro- faming the sabbath asserted itself; the spiritual was subordinated to the formal, restrictions were multiplied, till at length those which were really important and reasonable were buried beneath a crowd of regulations of the pettiest description. The general attitude taken towards the sabbath by our Lord was, while accommodating Himself to such observances as were consistent with its real purpose (e.g. worshipping or teaching in the syna- Kogue), or otherwise innocent (p. 320” n.), to free it rom those adventitious accretions with which the ‘tradition of the elders’ had encrusted it. The sabbath, He emphatically declares (Mk 227), “was made for man, not man for the sabbath.’ ” In particular, deeds of mercy were no infringement of its sanctity: it was “lawful to do good on the sabbath day’ (Mt 121*). Nor was the sabbath, as the Rabbis seemed to make it, an end in itself, for the sake of which men should be subjected to a number of needless, and vexatious rules; it was a means to an end, the good of God's people, and this end was best promoted by a reasonable liberty in the interpretation of the statutes relating to it; the multiplication of rules tended really not to pre- serve its essential character, but to destroy it. The injunction Mt 2420 (‘Pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on a sabbath'; the clause is not in the | Mk 1318) rests probably upon the supposition either that the Christians addressed, being still resident in Judaea, would not, at the time contemplateſ, have yet cast off their Jewish scruples, or (Hessey, p. 174 f.) that impediments would be thrown in the way of their flight by the Jews around them Jn 517 ‘My Father worketh even until now (viz. without interruption), and I work,' bears upon the relation which—not an ordinary man, but—Christ Himself holds towards the sab- bath : He does not by works of mercy break the sabbath any more than God the Father does by His sustaining providence, which operates continuously on the sabbath not less than on other days, (cf. B'réghith R. § 11; tr. Wünsche, 48; Bacher, i. 84 f., 298 f.). The addition in the Cod. Bezie after Lk 64 deserves also to be mentioned here : rā, ºrá #2.Égº. Usagázsvá; two: #20.2%, ºvov.7% go.g64%, tºrºv obrá, "Av0eors, si ſºv ol?: tí 'rosis, wo.24% of il; if 8, 2% otho.s, irizrépzros zai rap23&rns ºf row vépcov. As regards the apostles, the sabbath is men- tioned by St. Paul, directly in Col 21ſt. ‘Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon, or a sabbath day, which are a shadow of the things to come (i.e. of the Christian dispensation); but the body is Christ's'; and inferentially in Gal 49-11, where the observance of ‘days and months and times and years’ is described as a return to the ‘Weak and beggarly elements,’ and Ro 14%, where it is implied that it is a matter of indifference whether one day is esteemed above another, or * In the discussion in Yömä 85b a somewhat similar principle (‘the Sabbath is delivered into your hands, not you into the hands of the Sabbath') is deduced, by an essentially Itabbinical method, from the words of Jºx 3114 (‘ it is holy for yow'). The argument is attributed in Mechilta on Jºx 3113 to It. Shimeon b. Menassya (c. 190 A.D.); cf. Bacher, op. cit. ii. 403. whether every day is esteemed alike : ‘let every man be persuaded in his own mind.” The mean. ing of these passages clearly is that the Jewish Sabbath, like other Jewish ceremonial observances, as the distinction of clean and unclean foods, or Jewish, sacred seasons, as new moons, feast-days, and sabbatical or jubile “ years,' was a matter of indiflerence to the Christian, and was abrogated under the Christian dispensation. The general teaching of the NT is thus, in Dr. Hessey's words, that “the sabbath properly so called, the sabbath of the Jews, with everything connected with it as a positive ordinance, was swept away by Chris- tianity’ (Lect. v., ad imit.). The Fathers frequently compare the (Jewish) sabbath with Circumcision, treating it, like that, as a temporary ordinance, and pointing out that Abraham, for instance, was justiſled without observing it: e.g. Justin, Tryph. §§ 19, p. 236 E, 27, p. 245 B ; Iren. IV, xvi. 2; Tertull. adv. Jud. c. 2 (Ilessey, pp. 56 f., 371 ff. [ed. 5, pp. 42 ft., 281 ſt.). In He, 49 “There remaineth therefore a sabbath rest (orog- 8&tigwés) unto the people of God,' sabbath rest is used figura- tively of the rest in God after death. The apostle has been arguing that it was God's purpose that some should enter into His “rest' (z27%rovals, mºrp, properly place of rest), the rest' signified by the expression being in the original context (Ps 9511 ; cf. Dt 129. 10) the rest of Canaan, and this being identi- fied by the apostle—no doubt on account of the presence and fellowship of God implied in it—with the rest of God, i.e. the “rest' into which God entered after finishing His work of crea- tion, and which He designs to be shared ultimately by all His faithful people; as Israel, º disobedience, failed to enter into that “rest,’ the promise still remains open for Christians. See more fully A. B. Davidson's Comm. (T. & T. Clark), pp. 90-101. The Rabbis also sometimes regarded the sabbath as foreshadowing the rest of the world to come : thus in the Mishna (redacted c. 200 A.D.), Tamid vii. 4 (= Sopherim xviii. 2), in the enumeration of the psalms which were sung by the Levites in the Temple, when the morning burnt-offering was offered (Delitzsch, Psalm.4 26 f.), it is said: ‘On the sabbath, they recited the psalm (92) of which the title is “A Psalm, a Song for the sabbath-day,” i.e. a Psalm for the future (Tºny; sº), for the day (var. lec. for the age), which is all sabbath, and rest for life eternal (ºr? Tºp, nºw Yºrk; (Bºy', 'N '5) º Dºpply)." The same saying is quoted also often elsewhere, e.g. Mechilta on 12x3119, IRosh ha-Shama 31a (where, with the entire passage, it is attributed to R. "Akiba (d. 135 A.D.]; cf. Racher, i. 336); see also Aboth de IV. Natham, fol. 3a, bottom, ed. Schechter (with the note). But the passages cited by Schöttgen on He 49 from Zohar, Yalkut Rubeni, and R. Samuel ben 1)avid, are very late, the book Zohar being of the 13th cent., and the other two of the 17th cent. 'a The question of the relation of the ‘Lord’s Day” (Rev 1"), or Christian Sunday, to the Jewish sab- bath, does not properly belong to the present article, and need therefore be only referred to briefly. The true view appears to be that the Sunday is not substituted for the Jewish sabbath; the sabbath is abolished ; and the observance of the First Day of the week is an analogous institu- tion, based on the consecration of that day by our Lord's Resurrection, sanctioned by º usage (Ac 20", 1 Co 16”), and accepted by the early Church,--the day being set apart for similar objects—rest from labour, and the service of God, —in a manner consonant with the higher and more spiritual teaching of Christ, and to be observed in the spirit of loyal Christian freedom, rather than }. obedience to a system of precise statutes. Dr. essey has made it abundantly clear that during the first three Christian centuries the Lord's Day was never confounded with the sabbath, but care- fully distinguished from it ; and that it was only after the 3rd cent., and even then only gradually, that the Christian and the Jewish institutions were confused, and that tendencies towards “Sabbatari- anism began. See, further, LORD's DAY. By early Christian writers, it may be worth noticing, the terms oré93&now and o.o.º.B2 rºsty are not infrequently uséd in a ſig. or spiritual sense of abstinence from evil ; e.g. Justin, Thºſph. § 12, “The new law (of Christ) wills that you should keep sabbath perpetually’; let a thief, etc., turn from sin, zoº orgroz836 ruze rô, revºsp?. (cf. Is 5813) zoº &Aaſhvo, a 6,330. To * On the opinion that this ‘day' would be 1000 years, see Charles, Book of the Secrets aſ I'moch, on 331, 2: Sanh. 97 ft. SABIBATH DAY'S JOURNEY SABBATICAL YEAR 323 rod 0100. Similarly Clem. Al. Stron. iii. 15, § 99, p. 556 Potter, where ‘that keepeth the sabbath' of . Is 564 is explained to signify x2+& &roxºv &coptqºzárov, and iv. 3, § 8, p. 506 ($ wo 3ozir rô ..º.º. &rozºic zoºzåy iyapárstow ochvírriorſo.1), Tertul- lian, adv. Jud. c. 4, and others: see Hessey, pp. 57 ff., 93, 96 (ed. 5, P; 43 ff., 70, 72); Suicer, Thes, Eccles. 916, 918 f.; and cf. also Ep. Barnab. xv. 1, 6, 7. And this, no doubt, is the meaning of the expression in the second of the “Sayings of Jesus,’ discovered in 1807 at Oxyrhyncus, Aéyst 'Izoroúc, 'E&y Az) vºorºo’ºrs row 260/coy [read roi, zoo pow), où pºstpºrt rºw £ocoſſasſocy, rot. 0sov 22) #29 ºz.) o'o. 332 rio” tº roo & 83 & row oºzººsot's row raríoc. : the Christian's whole life is to be hallowed, as a sabbath, in the service of God. But it is difficult to think that Christ Himself can have used the expression in this metaphorical sense. See, further, Ea:pos. Times, ix. 60; Harnack, Über die jiingst emtdeckten Sprüche Jesu, 1897, pp. 9–12 (tr. in Ea:pos. Nov. 1807, pp. 323–7); Lock and Sanday, Two Lectures on the “Sayings of e8w8,’ Oxf. 1897, pp. 7, 9, 19 f., 35 f. LITERATURE.-Besides the references already given, Wellh. Hist. 112, 116; Monteſiore, Hibb. Lect. (Index); Smend, Alttest. Rel,-gesch. 139 f., 279, 330–332 ; Nowack, Arch. ii. 140–144 ; Speaker's Comm. on Ex. p. 339 f.; Buxtorf, Synag. Jud. c. 10–11; IXalisch, Comm. on Ea. 1355–363 (with information on Jewish usages); Wünsche, Erltiwterwmg der Evang. aw8 Talm. w. Midr. (on Mt. 122, 10 etc.); Schürer (Index); Edersheim, Life and Times, ii. 52–62, 182, 774 f.; Mainonides (d. 1204), Hilchoth Shab- bäth (‘rules for the sabbath'), in his Yād httzākāh (ed. 1550, i. fol. 77 ff., ed. 1702, i. fol. 139bff.); $$ 242-416 of part iii. (called 'Ovah hayyim) of R. Joseph Karo's (d. 1575) Shulhān ‘An’ākh (a manual of Jewish usages ; often reprinted, e.g. Danzig, 1845; in Ilêwe's abridged tr., iii. [Hamburg, 1830) p. 49 ft.); Abrahams, Jewish Life im Mid. Ages (Index); J. A. Hessey, Sunday, its origin, history, and present obligation (Bampton Lect. for 1800; latest ed. 1889). S. R. DRIVER. SABBATH DAY'S JOURNEY (Talmudic Binh" nºn).--An expression found but once in the Bible, Ac 11° (gag,8árov . . . 666v), where the Mount of Olives is said to be a Sabbath day's journey from Jerusalem. The expression immediately suggests sonne well-known regulation fixing the distance which might be travelled on the Sabbath, and, by implication, defines this distance as between five . six furlongs; for, according to Josephus in his Amt. (XX. viii. 6), the Mount of Olives is five fur- longs from Jerusalem, while in his B.J. (V. ii. 3) it is stated to be six, the variation being perhaps due either to the fact that the distance lay between the two, or to the fact that the older Hebrew ell was rather shorter than the later one. What the text suggests is quite in harmony with extant Rabbinical regulations, which, therefore, in this case exhibit not merely (as they so often and so misleadingly do) what ought to be, but what actu- ally was. Thus, in the Jerusalem Targum, the command in Ex 16” appears in the form, “And let no man go walking from his place beyond 2000 ells on the seventh day’; and in the Targum on Ru 1" Naomi says to löuth, ‘We are commanded to keep Sabbaths and festivals, and not to walk beyond 2000 ells’; and this regulation is supple- mented with many ritualistic details in the M j tractate' Bribin. Occasional variations : from this generally accepted measurement f – as, for ex- ample, the greater Sabbath day's journey of 2800 ells, the medium one of 2000, and the smaller one of 1800—are merely the freaks of individual Rabbis. The evolution of the regulation can be traced with some approximation to certainty. The Rabbis seem first to have generalized the prohibition directed in Ex 16” against a man’s “going out of his place’ on the Sabbath to gather the manna, * See Levy, NIIWB, s.v. Dynn (vol. iv. p. 637b). # Nowack (Lehrb. d. IIeb. Archdiol. i. 202) gives as his opinion that the Sabbath journey probably corresponded to the Egyptian measure of 1000 double steps, and quotes from Zuckermann the tradition in the Talmud that it was 2000 steps, explaining the 2000 ells elsewhere by Zuckermann's statement that in the Tal- mud ell and step are quite commonly made the same ; and the Sabbath journey (Nowack adds) is sometimes called "nil (?"p) —that is, AziAtov. Jerome has another measurement. In his Epist. ad A lyasiam, quoest. X, we find ; “They are accustomed to answer and say, “IRarachibas and Simeon and Hillel, our masters, have handed down to us that we should walk 2000 feet (pedes) on the Sabbath.”” ! Origen (de I’rincipiis, iv. 17) says that the Jews held 2000 ells (bloºxiovº ºrážsis) to be each man’s ‘place' (rérov) (on the Sabbath). and then to have deduced the 2000 ells from the distance ordained (Jos 3") to be between the people on the march and the ark in front of them ; or, as Some suppose, from the distance between the tabernacle in the wilderness and the outermost part of the camp ; but, probably, the case of the taber- nacle was only an imaginary Rabbinical inference from that of the ark. . . By the “analogy’ in the use of măkóm, ‘place,’ in Ex 16” and in Ex 2119— where the ‘place' is a Levitical city of refuge with borders extending (it was affirmed) 2000 ells from the walls (Nu 35")—the man’s ‘place’ of Ex 1629 became, in due course, the city in which he dwelt, together with its borders measuring 2000 ells straight out from the sides of the rectangle hypo- thetically constituting the city. (This measure- ment seems, from Nu 35*, with its 1000 ells, to have been an exegetical mistake : the 2000 ells appar- ently refer to each side of the larger rectangle cir- cumscribing the borders). , According to Ginsburg (Kitto's Cyclop., art. ‘Sabbath Day's Journey’), it was argued that “if one who committed murder accidentally was allowed to undertake this journey of 2000 yards (ells?) on a Sabbath without violating the sanctity of the day, innocent people might do the same.’ Compare also J. Lightfoot on Lk 24", and his quaint remark on the “pleasant art [the tabbis] have of working anything out of anything.’ This Rabbinical regulation, being obviously and often inconvenient, was not allowed seriously to hamper ‘the movements of the Jews. They Secured, legally, a wider freedom by a simple device, which was called the ‘connexion of boun- daries’ or the “amalgamation of distances.” If a man desired to travel more than 2000 ells on a º Sabbath day lie could adapt the law to his project by carrying, before that Sabbath began, to some point within the Sabbatical limit, food enough for two meals; he could then and there eat the one moiety and bury the other, and could thus establish a domicile (to use a modern expres- sion, a ‘place within the meaning of the Act'), from which he could date his journey on the coming Sabbath. Even this precaution was not de l'igueur. He could, if he preferred, eye a tree or a wall at a distance of 2000 ells from the place of his actual abode and declare it his legal abode for the Sabbath—that is, his legal starting-point for his projected Sabbath journey, provided he used words suſliciently definite as to the tree or wall, and, as Schürer phrases it, “ did the thing thoroughly’ (HJPII.ii. 122, quoting'Erübin, iv. 7).” J. MASSIE. SABBATICAL YEAR (including Jubile Year and Land Laws).--In this article several distinct topics are treated together, which are too closely related to one another to be dealt with separately without a good deal of overlapping. A clear summary statement of the position of the Sabbatical and Jubile years in the cycle of Hebrew sacred seasons will be found under the art. FEASTS AND FASTS. The 7 years' period recurs at every stage of the legislation, but not always with identical provi- sions, or even with application to the same subject. The 50 years' term is first found in the Priestly Code, but it is applied to cases previously connected with the 7 years' period. Consequently it will be * There is no necessary discrepancy between Lk 2400 and Ac 112. In the former passage it is said that our Lord took out the disciples of ºrpo, Bztoc wizy, “until they came within view of Bethany’ (Blass, NT Gramvºnar, 180 n. 4), which (Jn 1118) was 15 furlongs from Jerusalem. In the latter passage it is said that the disciples ‘returned from the Mount called Olivet, which is nigh unto Jerusalem, a Salobath day's journey off'--that is, from 5 to 6 furlongs. The Mount of Olives was a ridge about a mile long, and it is this and not Bethany whose distance is thus measured after Luke's manner (cf. 2419), for the purpose of in- forming readers unacquainted with the locality... Bethany was on the south-east slope of the ridge, about a mile beyond the summit. It is unlikely that Luke intended to represent, tho Ascension as taking place either within or close to the village. 324 SAIBBATICAL YEAR SABBATICAL YEAR clearest to gather the whole material from the successive sources in such a form as to make com- parison easy. Accordingly, the same letter is used to mark corresponding matter in the following paragraphs. I. COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF LAWS.—(i.) The earliest Legislation—E.—a. The 7 years’ period is found in the Covenant Book Ex 23*, and among the Judgments Ex 21*" (cf. vol. i. p. 810). b. In the former it is laid down as an obligation that every Hebrew owner of land should ‘let it rest and lie fallow' in the 7th year. Hupfeld and Wellhausen apply this to the increase only, as though it was º to sow, but not to reap ; but it is better, with Dillmann, Nowack, etc., to take it, as in our versions, as prescribing an entire cessation of all field work; for the two verbs in v.” ‘let drop (or “release’) and leave alone” (Hºmº Fººtº), seem obviously in contrast to both verbs in v.” “sow' and ‘gather.” The oliveyards and vine- ards are to come under the same rule as the corn and, i.e. no work is to be done in them in the 7th year. The aim expressed is “that the poor of thy people may eat.” And so stringent is the rule that, if all is not consumed by the poor, the remainder must not be garnered, but must be left for ‘the beast of the field’ to eat. It is not explicitly stated that the owner and his family were not to cat of the spontaneous growth of the fallow year, but the passage, taken by itself, rather suggests that they might not. c. In Ex 21** a 6 years' term is fixed as the normal period during which a Hebrew could be compelled to serve as a slave. In the 7th year he could demand his freedom (see, further, art. SERVANT, and the Oaf, Hea. i. 55). d. Neither in connexion with the fallow for the land nor with the emancipation of the slave is there any clear indication that the 7 years' period was fixed, beginning and ending simultaneously all over the country. In the second case, of the slave, this hypothesis is practically ruled out as impracticable, and in the case of the fallow the natural interpretation of the language is that each owner would reckon the term independently of others, and indeed that different portions of his holding would lie fallow in different years, so that, e.g., if his corn land did not require his labour, he would still have his vines and olives to attend to, and vice vers4. The analogy of the weekly sabbath is too precarious to be allowed much weight. e. The earliest legislation has no laws as to the inheritance, sale, or redemption of land. (ii.). The Deuteronomic Code–D.—a. The 7 years' period occurs twice in Dt 15, in vv. 1-4 and viv.19-18, and a third time in 3110-18. b. No mention is made of any custom of a periodical fallow, but an ordinance appears 15-8 for the first time (reflecting the life of times when the º agricultural stage has been passed), which provides for the remission, or, as some hold, the suspension of debts due to a creditor from ‘ his neighbour and his brother,’ though debts may be exacted ‘of a foreigner.” The motive of the law is compassion for the poor and unfortunate among the Israelites. And the provision in 3119-18 that “at the end of 7 years, in the set time of the year of re- lease' (nippº, from byp ‘let drop” [TVm ‘release’], Ex 23*), in the “Feast of Booths,’ a public reading of the Deut. Law-book should take place, indicates that the Sanction for the ordinance is to be found in the great principles of love to God and man reiterated in it. c. A Hebrew slave (15*) may go free after serving for 6 years. d. The period, in the last case, obviously begins with the entrance of the slave upon servitude ; but in the former, it is clear, from the allusion to the ‘proclaiming’ of “J”’s release,’ that the close of * each period is to be simultaneous over all the country, and to be publicly announced. ©s Except for the warnings against disturbing a neighbour's ‘landmark’ (19*277), no Deuteronomic law bears on the ownership of land. (iii.) The Priestly Code—P.—a. Not only is the 7 years' period found in this, the latest stratum of Hebrew legislation, but a 50 years' term is added to crown the calendar (LV 25). b. Every 7th year, and in addition every 50th year, is to be kept with strictness as a fallow year, the crops being neither sown at the beginning nor reaped at the close, the vines not pruned and the grapes not gathered. The idea must be that no storing, or systematic harvesting operations, was to go on, but not that the crops that might grow of themselves were to be left untouched, for it is added, ‘the sabbath of the land shall be for food for you ; for thee, and for thy servant and for thy maid, and for thy hired servant and for thy stranger that sojourn with thee; and for º cattle, and for the beasts that are in thy land, shall all the increase thereof be for food.’ So it was lawful to go into the fields and oliveyards and vineyards, and gather food as it might be wanted from the spontaneous yield of the land. This view is maintained by Dillmann, Nowack, and the Jewish interpreters. Still it is strange that in vv.20:22, where the prob- lem of food supply is dealt with, no allusion is made to the right conferred in v.9f. (cf. v.12). It might be conjectured that v.9 was added to v.0 to modify a stringency regarded as impracticable. All mention of the poor has dropped out, and the ordinance is expressly based on the religious principle that the land, as well as the people, should keep Sabbath unto J". Neither is the arrangement of Deuteronomy recalled for the re- mission of debts, though the prohibition of usury is repeated from Dt 23”. - c. A provision for emancipation of slaves occurs vv.*.*, but in connexion with the jubile, in which year every Hebrew slave is to go free with his family. This can scarcely be in addition to, but rather in substitution for, the earlier provisions; for (1) if the law of emancipation at the 7th year was in force, it would be unnecessary to order it in the 50th ; and (2) the later law in another point abrogates the earlier, as it prohibits lifelong bondage, and leaves no room for such a riveting of the ties of slavery as was involved in the archaic ceremony of the boring of the ear. Moreover, we find again the express mention of a religious prin- ciple as the motive for the law, viz. that all Israel- ites are J"'s servants, and therefore cannot be permanently owned by another, V.” a new provision is also added, that a Hebrew enslaved to a ‘stranger’ (nº) Inay be redeemed by a relative, the price varying with the distance of the jubile. Curiously, no such provision exists in the case of a Hebrew enslaved to a Hebrew. d. The 7th year in Leviticus becomes for the first time a true sabbatical year, a season to be simultaneously observed as a fallow year in which no field work was to be done under a directly re- ligious sanction. Moreover, the difficulties of such observance being apparent, doubters are encouraged (vv.**) by an assurance of Providential aid in the shape of an unusually abundant yield in the 6th year. The produce is to be enough for 3 years, ‘until the al year, until her fruits come in.” The reason is that, after the fallow of the 7th year, the ground is so hard that a second or third ploughing is necessary in the 8th year before sow- ing can take place, and consequently only the summer-sown crops of the 8th year come to any- thing, and they are not available for use till the beginning of the 9th year, the reckoning of the years being, of course, in this context from autumn to autumn. SABBATICAL YEAR SAI3BATICAL YEAR 325 ſº º-ºr- p- * It is not therefore necessary to reject “until the 9th year,' as Dillm. proposes, on the ground that the ‘8 years’ would naturally be the 6th, 7th, and 8th years, and that the allusion to the 9th year has been introduced because an editor referred the passage to the exceptional case of the 49th and 50th years when two fallow years followed one another, tho 7th Sabbatical year and the jubile year. Yet, it is natural to conclude from the language of Lv 25, as Kalisch does, that the intention of the ordinance was that, after 7 sabbatical periods had passed, the 50th or jubile year should be intercalated as an additional fallow year, immediately after the 7th sabbatical year, and that a new sabbatical period should begin with the 51st year. This was also the view of the Jewish interpreters. But see, further, below II. (iv.). - e. The purchase and redemption of land is not alluded to in the earlier codes (but cf. Ezk 46” for allusion to some such custom), but is here treated with some fulness (ww.8-19. 14-10. 99-84). The provisions may be enumerated as follows:—(1) The freehold of agricultural land could not be sold outright, for at the 50th or jubile year every piece sold returned to the owner or his representatives. The utmost that an owner desirous of selling could do was to grant a lease of the property, the term of the lease to expire at the next jubile, however near that might be. The purchaser only obtained the usu- fruct for the time being, and the price was to be regulated by the number of the crops due before the jubile. (2) In every case of a man being forced to sell part of his patrimony, it was the duty of his kinsman (v.”) either, according to the ordinary interpretation, to redeem the land, i.e. from the purchaser (who is not named), or, accord- ing to the attractive theory put forth by Buhl (AJTh i. 738), to exercise a right of pre-emption. (3) If there was no kinsman to effect the gé'ullah, still, if the original owner at any time became rich enough, he could buy it back at the selling price, less the proportion belonging to the years since the sale (v.”). (4) House property in a walled city might be sold outright without returning to the vendor at the jubile (v.”); but he was given the right of redemption during the one year after the sale (Maimonides and others mention a tradi- tion that the term “walled cities’ is restricted to those that were such in Joshua's time). (5) House property in a village was subject to the provisions, see (1)–(3) above, attaching to agricultural land. (6) The Levitical possessions were subject to special provisions; (a) house property in their cities was to be saleable, as far as the leasehold value went, redeemable at any time, and restored at the jubile; and (b) the farm land round their cities was to be altogether unsaleable and inalienable. (7) The case of a field devoted to J" is treated in Lv 27*. The field was to be valued at once, and might be redeemed at that price, with a fifth added, up to the jubile, after which it passed to the priest. . If the field had been already sold, then no redemption was possible, and the gift became effective and final at the jubile. If the field was not part of the donor’s own patrimony, but a purchased (= leased) portion of another man's possession, then the gift could only involve the usufruct till the jubile, when the property returned to the original OW Il (21. Summary.—Three stages may thus be distin- guished. (1) In Tºxodus a 7th year fallow for the land and a 7 years' term for IIebrew slaves is required, without any simultaneous reckoning of either period throughout the country. (2) In Deuteronomy a simultaneous remission of debts replaces the fallow year, the term of service for slaves remaining the same. (3) In Leviticus a simultaneous 7th year fallow is ordered ; remission of debts is dropped in favour of a general prohibition of usury; emanci- pation at the 50th year is all that remains of the 7 years' term of Service; and a whole series of pro- visions is added on land and house property. The Analysis of Lv 25.-That this chapter contains earlier and later elements is generally admitted. Dillmann, Kuenen, and Nowack consider that there are no sure grounds on which to discriminate these. Driver and White (‘Leviticus’ in SBOT) treat the jubile for the land as original in the Holiness legislation (Ph), but ascribe to a later hand the extension to ersons. Wellhausen thinks that the first draft placed the reeing of slaves and redemption of land in the 7th year, and, if Dillmann criticizes this reconstruction as involving an un- workable arrangement, Holzinger points out, on the other hand, that the priestly scribes were not always very practical. Another solution is offered in the Oatford Eleazateuch, ii. 177, on Lv. 25. It is there suggested that the regulations on the sabbath year, vv.2b-7, 1822, belong to the ſirst draft of Ph; that the block of material on the jubile, vv.8:17, which now inter- rupts the former, is itself composite, as is shown (1) by the number of doublets, and (2) by the recurrence of phrases which recall Ph; that a second draft of Ph underlies this passage and also the remainder of the chapter; that in this second draft the emancipation of slaves and redemption of land, and possibly a 50 years' term, were included; and that the rest, embracing all the clauses in which the term “jubile’ occurs, is by a later E. editor. Addis and Baentsch take a similar view. The olowing of the trumpets on the 10th day of the 7th month is thought by many to be a provision earlier than the appoint- ment of the same day as the Solemn day of atonement, so that v.9b will be later than v.99. II. HISTORICAL CHARACTER.—(i.) The Seventh Year Fallow.—The custom of a periodical fallow is so common a feature in agricultural practice that we should almost require evidence to prove that there was nothing of the kind amongst the Hebrews from the beginning of their settled life; and the 7 years’ period, which is still observed in Palestine and Syria, has every argument from analogy in favour of it. Moreover, the fact that the Covenant Book in Ex 23 is throughout directed to defining and regulating ex- isting customs, and bears no mark of introducing any novelty (cf. the prob. allusion in Jer 17*[Heb.]; see Driver, Deut. 174), weighs in the same scale. The silence of the earlier historical books must be regarded as entirely natural if the fallow was not simultaneously observed. It would not be a feature that would call for mention. It is other- wise with so serious an interruption of the common life as would be occasioned by the observance of the same year as a universal fallow year, so that all workers on the land would be keeping holiday for 12 months. Moreover, the tradition at the Exile explicitly denies the observance of the sabbath years in the pre-exilic times (2 Ch 36”, cf. Lv 26*, *). In fact, the first historical refer- ence to the sabbatical year as an institution within the range of practical politics is in Neh 10”, where it occurs among the items included in the covenant that was entered into at the prompt- ing of Nehemiah. Even there the allusion is not quite certain. The language “leave (Up) ; = ‘let lie fallow,” Ex 23*) the seventh year, and the exaction of every debt,’ recalls the law of the fallow in Exodus; but the clause is elliptical and far from explicit, and the following wº which recall Dt 15°, make it doubtful whether the remission of debts in the 7th year is not the institution in view. It is not, in fact, till we reach the Greek period that we come upon undisputed references to the observance of the sabbatical year (Jos. Ant., XI. viii. 26): for Maccabaean times, see 1 Mac 6* *; Jos. Amt. XIII. viii. 1, XIV. x. 6, XV. i. 2; BJ I. ii. 4; and for the Herodian era, Jos. Amt. XIV. xvi. 2, xv. i. 2; l'hilo in Eus. Prasp. ad lºv. viii. 7; and Tac. Hist. v. 4. (ii.) The Emancipation of Slaves at the Seventh Year.—This is once referred to in Jer 34*," where the custom is shown to be more honoured in the breach than in the observance, and to be most diſlicult to enforce. The postponement of libera- tion to the 50th year may be another witness to the same fact. (iii.) The Itemission or Suspension of Debts.- * Note here the techn. phrase mini Nºp (“proclaim liberty'), vv. 8, 10, 17; also Is G11 of captives (cf. Ezk 4617, the ‘year of minº,' either of the jubile, or of the year of emancipation of slaves), and Lv 25.10 of the jubile. [S. R. D.). $26 SABBEUS SACKBUT Unless Nell 10" refer to this, history is silent as to the observance of any such custom. (iv.) The Redemption of Real Property.—That there was some provision in law or custom against alienating land is clear from the instance of Naboth, and the institution of the ge'ullah, Jer 32", Ru 4, An obscure allusion in Ezk 7* may be taken in the same sense; and it is, of course, possible that the ‘year of liberty’ in Ezk 467 refers to the 50th year as an institution already known. Neither is there anything impracticable in the provisions themselves. See for parallels among other nations, Maine, Village Communities, 81–88; Early Hist. of Institutions, 81 f., 100 ft.; von Maurer, Dolfverfassung, i. 304 ft. This kind of tenure is known as the “shifting severalty.” Strabo speaks of the Dalmatians redistributing land every 8 years, a practice which would support Wellhausen's theory that the term was originally 7 years and not 50. The denunciations of land- grabbing in Isaiah and Micah show that no such law was operative even if in existence. Moreover, no single undisputed historical allusion to the jubile exists, and the dating of the 3 sabbatical years that can be securely traced in B.C. 164–163, 38–37, and A.D. 68–69 leaves no room for the inter- calation of the jubile year. For this reason, and because of the difficulty of the two fallow years in succession, the text has been strained to permit the identification of the 7th sabbatical year with the jubile year. The evidence from the literature is therefore rather against the jubile year having ever been historically observed. Neither is the anthropological evidence such as to rebut this presumption. The term jubile.—Nowack gives a summary of interpreta- tions, and refers to two cssays loy lyranold and Wolde (GöLt. 1837) for a fuller account ; but the O.cf. IIeb, Lea. Imentions only that which he selects as the best, and which is supported by the Targum on Ex 1918 and Jos (jº, and by Phoenician inscrip- tions, viz. Snº-'ram.’ It is used both in combination, as Jos 64ff., and alone, as Ex 1913, for a ‘ram's horn,' and lastly stands as a designation of the 50th year, ushered in by trumpet blasts. LiteitATURE.—Treatises on Heb. Archaeology by Keil (Eng. tr. ii. 10–20), Nowack, and Benzinger ; Ewald, Antiquities, 360–380; Schürer, II./P. i. i. 40 fſ. ; Dillm., Driver - White, Kalisch, Addis, Bacntsch, and Oaſ. Hea. on Lv 25 ; Mishna, Itosh ha-shama i. 1, Shebiith vi. 1, 2, 5, 6. G. HARFORD-BATTERSBY. SABBEUS(Xaggatas), 1 Es!)*=Shemaiah, Ezr 1091. SABI (B Toºels, A Xaget, AV Sami), 1 Es 5*= Shobai, Ezr 2*, Nell 7”. SABIAS (Sagias):-A chief of the Levites in the time of Josiah, 1 Es 1", called in 2 Ch 35" HASHA- IBIAH. SABIE (B Xafletſ, Xaftºff, AV Sabi).—“The children of Pochereth-hazzebain' (AW of Zebaim), Ezr 27, Neh 779, appear as the sons of Phacereth the sons of Sabie’ in 1 Es 5”. SABTA (ship) or SABTAH (nºnp).—Son of Cush, Gn 107 (A Xaga.0%), 1 Ch 1” (13 Xagará, A Saga.04, Luc. Xega 64). Glaser (Skizze, ii. 252) professes himself satisfied with the identification of this place with Dhu 'l-Sabtā, mentioned by the geo- grapher Al-Bekri (i. 65), who quotes a line of an early poet, in which this is mentioned by the side of Al-Abatir, in the dwellings of the Iłanu Asad, º in Yemamah. This identification is, however, of very small value; for the word Sabtánt means either ‘a rock’ or ‘a desert,’ and Dhu 'l- Sabtä therefore ‘the place with the rock,” or ‘the place with the desert,’ whence it is not even certain that the poet, quoted really meant it for a proper name. Moreover, there is no sign of such a place ever having been of importance. Hence the con- iecture that it was to be identified with Sabat or Sabbata in the Gulf of Adulis (Ptol. IV. vii. 8) is much more probable. Other conjectures made by ancient id modern scholars are given in Ges. Thes., the Oa:f. Heb. Leac., and the Commentaries. D. S. MARGOLIOUTII. SABTECA (NPhip, Sam. Finnip). — Son of Cush, Gn 107 (A Xabaka0á, Luc. Xabeka04), 1 Ch 1" (B Luc. Xebekað4, A Xegé0axá).—The identification of this place with Samydake in Carmania (Steph. Byz., ed. Westermann, p. 246), originally suggested by Bochart, has been renewed by Glaser (Skizze, ii. 252). There is, however, nothing in favour of this supposition, except the possibility that the genealogist may have been º by the similarity of the name to Sabtah. Early critics guessed various places in Africa, while some have even supposed a person rather than a place to be meant. The termination -ka has an appearance of being Indo-Germanic, as also has the penultimate syl- lable. In that case the name probably meant ‘sevenfold’ (Saptaka), Heptapolis, Some other conjectures are quoted by Gesenius, Thes, and j. Gen. ad loc. D. S. MARGOLIOUTH. SACAR (nºy “hire,’ ‘reward’ [cf. the name navvy" ISSACHAR]).—1. The father of Ahiam, one of David's heroes, 1 Ch 11” (13 'Axáp, A Xaxap)= Sharar of 2 S 23*, where ‘Sharar the (H)ararite’ appears in B as 'Apal Xapaoupettys and in A as 'Apóð 'Apaperms. The reading of B here may have arisen, by transposition of letters, from a Heb. original "Tº: YY), and the name Sharar should probably be read in both passages. 2. The eponym of a family of gatekeepers, 1 Ch 26" (B Xaxºp, A 20x16p). J. A. SELBIE. SACKBUT (Rºb Dn 3", späy 37: 10, it ; LXX and Theod. Tappſkm, Vulg. sambuca, Wyc. ‘Sambuke,’ Cov., Bish. ‘shawmes,” Dou. ‘doulcimer,’ Gen., AV, I&V “sackbut ’). — The Gr. orapſ3%lcºm (which Ges., Buhl, Driver, etc., believe to be derived from the Aram.) was a stringed instrument (see vol. iii. p. 461"). The Vulg. Sambuca is no doubt a translit. of the Gr. ; but since Sambuca may mean “made of the elder-tree' (from sambucus, the elder-tree), the name came to be used for any stringed instrument made of that wood: In Eng. the “Sambuke' had the same general application. Thus Aschani, Toxophilus, 26, “And whatsoever ye judge, this I ann sure, that lutes, harps, all manner of pipes, barbitons, sambukes, with other instruments every one, which standeth by fine and quick ſingering, be condemned of Aristotle, as not to be brought in and used among them which study for learning and virtue.” - The Geneva translators used the more precise “sackbut’ (possibly, however, from an impression that it was a form of the same word). But the “sack- but is unsuitable, for two reasons: it is a wind instrument (‘a brass trumpet,” says Chappell, “with a slide like a modern *. ’); and, whereas the gaubºkm was particularly shrill, the sackbut had a deep note. Cf. Drayton, Polyolbion, iv. 365– “The IIoboy, Sagbut deepe, Recorder, and the Flute’: and Bunyan, PP 235, ‘IIe and his Fellows sound the Sackbut whose Notes are more doleful than the Notes of other Music are.’ The origi:1 of “sackbut’ is doubtful. Skeat traces it tu whe Spanish sacar to draw out, and buche, a box, used familiarly of the belly, and thinks that Webster is right in suggesting that the name was given to the instrument because it exhausts one's wind in blowing Middleton shows how it lent itself to punning, Spanish Gypsy, ii. 1– “Alv.—You must not look to have your dinner Served in with trumpets. Car.—No, no, sack-buts will serve us.' h J. HASTINGS. SACKCLOTH SACRAMENTS 327 SACKCLOTH (pty sak, a dickos, saccus) was a coarse material woven from goats’ and camels' hair, and hence of a dark colour, as we see from Rev 6” ‘the sun became black as sackcloth of hair’ (orákkos Tplyuvos); cf., for the colour, Is 50°, Sir 25” “her countenance darkeneth like sackcloth,” reading ordkkos with B ; also hip “a mourner,’ lit. one who wears dark soiled garments (RS*. 414, n. 2). A similar material was called by the Romans cilicium from being prepared from the hair of the black goats of Cilicia, hence Jerome's rendering saccus cilicinus (Rev 6”). From the fact that sacks were made of this coarse haircloth, J in Genesis (42* **) uses pº as a synonym of nºns; hence through the medium of Greek and Latin our “sack’ and “sackcloth,’ though haircloth is the more appro- priate rendering. It was also used for saddle- cloths (Jos 9"). From the analogy of the evolution of dress among the Egyptians — for which see Erman (Egypt, 200 fſ., with numerous illustrations)—we may infer that the dress of the Hebrews was originally, as in Egypt, a scant loin-cloth of Sak, tied in a knot in front. This continued to be the distinctive dress of slaves, captives, and such as wished to appeal to the pity of superiors (see the instructive episode 1 K 20°"). To put on sack. cloth is nearly always py hiſ ‘to gird sackcloth’ about the loins (loc. c., Gn 37*, 2 S 3*, and oft.; hiſ alone, Is 32*, J1 1”); to take it off was originally nº “to undo [a knot]’ (Ps 30", Is 20°). The linguistic evidence is thus entirely against the current idea that the sackcloth of the OT was worn in the form of a sack “with an opening for the head, and side apertures for the arms.’ Religious usages are proverbially conservative, and Hebrew customs were no exception (see, e.g., Jos 5*); hence it is not an unlikely supposition (Schwally, Das Leben mach d. Tode, 12 ft.) that the haircloth cincture continued to be regarded as the garment most suitable for religious ceremonies long after it had disappeared-from ordinary use. This is at least more satisfactory than the usual explanation that the wish to mortify the flesh led to the use of sackcloth in the frequent instances where it is associated with fasting as an outward and visible expression of penitence, or in cases where confession and sº are combined, as indeed is most frequently the case (1 K 21”, Neh 9", Jon 3", Jth 410" etc.). In most cases, even when not expressly mentioned, there was the accompaniment of ashes (Dn 9', Mt 11”, Lk 10”) or earth (Neh 9") upon the head. Hence the author of Baruch speaks of putting on “sackcloth of prayer’ (4”; see Comm. for alternative render- ing). The extravagances of Jon 3°, Jth 4", where even the cattle are clothed in sackcloth, are scarcely historical. In the latter passage the altar, also, is similarly covered (Juh 4”). That the sackcloth in such cases was usually worn next the skin (nyān-by)—originally, as we saw, it was the only garment—even by women (Is 32*, Jth 9', 2 Mac 3"), seems beyond doubt (see 2 K, 6", Job 16", which are often wrongly, as we think, taken to be exceptional cases). Fondness for ‘the old paths,’ and the desire to furnish an object-lesson in simplicity of dress, as of life, in the midst of increasing luxury, are doubtless the reason that haircloth was the char- acteristic material of a prophet’s dress (Zec 13" RV ; cf. Rev 1 l’ trpoq’m revorovatv . . . treptgebXmuévot ords kovs). Elijah was distinguished by a mantle of hair (2 K 18 IRV m). John the Baptist's only gar- ment, like that of his prototype, was of camels’ hair (Mt. 3", Mk 1"). Isaiah, on a particular occasion, wore even the primitive loin-cloth of sak (20°). The universal use of this black haircloth (py) as Whe appropriate dress of those mourning for their dead probably has its root in the circle of primitive thought above referred to-the intention being to do honour to the disembodied spirit (cf. Schwälly, op. cit.). It was worn not only in cases of private mourning (Gn 37*, 2 S 3" and oft.), but in lamen- tations over public calamities (Am 81%, Jer 4897, La 2", 1 Mac 2"). Eurther, just as prayer in this garb might avert threatened private bereavement (Ps 35*), so might it avert—when combined with humility and Peñitºſe is great national mis- fortune (Jer 6*, J1 11°, Jth 4°). Both ideas are frequently combined—mourning for past calamities and prayer for their speedy removal (1 Mac 347, 2 Mac 2*, also Am 8", and other passages cited). A. R. S. KENNEDY. SACRAMENTS.—The word sacramentum (sacrare = ‘to dedicate ’) originally meant ‘something set apart as sacred, consecrated, dedicated.” As a technical legal term it was used of the sum which the two parties to a suit deposited in sacro, and of which the winner of the suit recovered his part, while the loser forfeited his to the arrarium. Hence it came to mean the suit itself, causa contro- versia (Smith, Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Ant. ii. p. 958). Sacramentum was also used actively of the “thing which sets apart and devotes.” As a technical military term it designated either the “preliminar engagement entered into by recruits, or (much more often) the ‘military oath of obedience’ to the commander. Under the Empire the sacramentum which soldiers were obliged to take to their imporator was often taken by subjects, whether citizens or provincials, to the emperor (Tac. Amm. i. 7, 8), in recognition of his proconsularc imperium throughout the Empire. From Horace (Od. II. xvii. 10) onwards it is sometimes used of any ‘oath or solemn engagement.’ The first appearance of the word sacrament am in connexion with Christianity may be called acci- dental. It occurs in a familiar passage in the frequently quoted letter (Ep. 96) of the younger Pliny to the Emperor Trajan. It was stated of the Bithynian Christians quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire carmengwe Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem, seque sacramento mom in Scelus aliquod obstringere. There is not much doubt that the witnesses whom Pliny quotes referred to the obligation under which every Christian lies to renounce the devil and all his works, and of which the public service of the Church reminds him. Possibly the service to which allusion is made contained an express re- newal of the baptismal pledge. That Pliny uses the word Sacramentum to express this obligation or pledge is no more than an interesting coinci- dence. It was a natural word to use ; and neither jusjurandum nor promissum, would have expressed the meaning better. Yet Lightfoot is inclined to think that it means “sacrament in the Christian sense, and that Pliny has here “confused the two Sacraments,’ the wording pointing to the baptismal pledge, while the context about the early hour and the stated day points to the eucharist (Epp. of S. Igmatius, vol. i. p. 52). It may be doubted whether the word sacramentum had as yet acquired among Christians any specially Christian meaning; and it is improbable `. the Bithynian Christians used the word in a technical sense, or that Pliny uses the word because they had done so. The word is his, not theirs; and he employs it in the ordinary classical sense. As a Christian term, sacramentum makes its first appearance in the Old Latin and in Tertullian. 13oth in Lat-Vet. and Vulg. it is sometimes used to translate ava riptov. Cod. Bob. (k) has it Mt 13”; Cod. Palat. (e) Lk 8"; Cod. Clar. (h) Eph 1938, 9.5%, I Ti 30, 10, Ro 1620; Vulg. has it Eph 193° (not *) 0 58%, Col 127 (not *), 1 Ti 3" (not ..". 1° 177 (not *). 328 SACRAMENTS SACRAMENTS But the more common rendering of uvorràptov is 2nysterium ; and sometimes in consecutive verses first one word is used and then the other. In OT sacrament win occurs Dm 218, 90 * 49, To 127, Wis 2* 6*, in all which places LXX has pivorràptov. But mysterium is also found, sometimes side by side with sacramentum (Dn 218. 19. *, *), even in the same verse (*). Tertullian uses sacramentum as the rendering of ºvariptov in passages where Vulg. has mysterium (1 Co 13%, Res. 23; 1 Co 14°, adv. Marc. v. 15; Eph 6", adv. Marc. v. 18). It is his usual word. Three elements seem to have been at work in determining the Christian use of the word : (1) the original passive sense, ‘a thing set apart as sacred’; (2) the active sense, ‘that which sets apart,” especially an oath or pledge of fidelity ; (3) †. Greek term uvariptov, to which it was regarded as equivalent. It is obvious that all these ideas coalesce very well respecting those rites which have been called sacraments, especially baptism and the eucharist. But in the first instance the use of the term was very much wider. It was used to designate not only religious rites, but doctrines and facts. Almost any external form, whether of word or action, which conveyed or symbolized a religious meaning might be called a sacramentum. It will be worth while to examine some of the passages in which the word occurs in Tertullian and Cyprian. Tertullian, after pointing out that even the heathen recognize avoidance of the public shows as the mark of a Christian, remarks that the man who puts aside the mark of the faith plainl denies the faith. Nemo in castra hostium transit . . . . ºvisi destitutis signis et sacramentis principis sui (dº Spect. xxiv.). Again, with regard to God's prohibition of idolatry, he says: Huīc sacramento militans ab hostibus provocor. Par Swm illus, si illis muſtnus dedero, Hoc defendendo depugno in acie, vulneror, concido", occidor. Quis hunc militi swo eacitum voluit, misi qui tall sacramento eum consig- mavit (Scorp. iv.)? In both these passages we have little more than the Roman military oath used metaphorically of the Christian's allegiance to GCd. In Apol. vii. we get a stage further, when he calls the horrible rite, of which Christians were often accused, in which a child was killed and eaten, Sacramentum infanticidii. It is in this treatise that the use of the word is specially frequent. In contending that Judaism, and therefore Christianity, is far more ancient than heathenism, he says: ipsa templa et oracula et sacra unius interim propheta scrinium saºculīs vincit, in quo videtwr thesaurus collocatus totius Judaici sacramnemti et inde jam nostri (xix.); where Sacramentºm Seems to mean ‘revelation,’ or ‘religion,’ or ‘dispensation.’ It has a similarly indefinite meaning in the challenge respecting Christian abstention from heathen temples an nocturnal rites: Omnem himc sacrament mostri ordinem hawrite, repercussis ante tamen opinioni- bus falsis (xv.). In the plural the word is used of the doctrines of the Christian faith. Whence, he asks, did pagan philosophy get its doctrine of future rewards and punishments? Nomnisi de nostris sacramentis (xlvii.). OT types he calls figura, wºn sacramenta (adv. Marc. v. 1). In the treatise de Baptismo we reach the more definite use of the term. It opens with the words, I'eliac Sacramentum aqua nostra, quia, ablutis delict is pristinae calcitatis in vitam atternam liberamur. And so also of the eucharist : Proinde panis et calicis Sacramento jam in evangelio probavimºus corporis et Sangwinis dominici veritatem adversus phantasma Marcionis (adv. Marc. v. 8). And again of both sacraments: ad sacramentum baptis- 7matis et ew.charistia, admittens (ib. iv. 34). Cyprian seems to have learned from his —us “master’ to use the word sometimes in its classi, cal sense, sometimes with a vagueness which was possibly deliberate, sometimes quite definitely of baptism and the eucharist. Of Christian martyrdoms he says: O quale illud fuit spec- taculum Domini, quant sublime, Quam magnum, quam Dei oculis sacramento ac devotiome militis ejus acceptum (Ep. x. 2). So of a supposed be- trayal of the Christian faith, he says: divina, militia, sacramenta solvarºtur, castrorum calles- tiwm sigma dedamtur (Ep. lxxiv. 8). He calls the Passover a sacramentum (de Cath. Eccles. Mºnit.). But it is not easy to define its meaning when he speaks of ecclesia veritas et evangelii ac sacra- memti wºmitas (Ep. liv. 1), or, again, of veritatis jura et sacramenta (Ep. lxxiii. 20). Comp. Sacra- amenta coelestia (Ep. lxxiv. 4), a phrase which he uses several times. He says that totum fidei sacra- mventum in confessione Christi nominis esse digestum (Ep. xxx. 3); and that the Lord's Prayer contains many and great Sacramenta (de Dom. Orat. 9); where ‘doctrine’ seems to be the meaning. In baptism, water and the Spirit are each of them called a sacramentum ; and, as distinct from here- tical baptism, those who receive the Church's baptism utroqve sacramento mascwmtur (Ep. lxxiii. 21). Immediately afterwards he uses baptism? sacramentum of the whole rite. So also of the eucharist he says: Item in Sacerdote Melchisedech sacrificii dominici sacramentum praefiguratwin . vidents (Ep. lxiii. 3). He calls the consecrated wine sacramentum calicis" (de Lapsis, xxv.); and he appears to call the whole rite sacramentum crucis, when he says, de Sacramento crucis et cibºt” sum is et potum (de Zelo et Livore, xvii.). On Cyprian's use of sacramentum, see an important note by E. W. Watson in Studia Biblica, iv. p. 253. Augustine says that the bread and wine ideo dicuntur sacramenta, quia in eis aliud videt wr, aliwd intelligitur (Serin. 272). And again that Sigma cum ad res divinas pertinent, Sacramenta appelantur (Ep. cxxxviii.). But there must be re- semblance between the two : si emim Sacramenta quamdam similitudimen earwm rerum quarum sacramenta sumt non haberent, omnimo sacra- menta mon essent (Ep. xcviii.). Sacraments are verba visibilia, sacrosancta guidem, verumtamen mutabilia et temporalia (com. I'austum, xix. 16). Accedit verbum ad elementum et fit Sacramentatºm, etiam ipsum tanquam visibile verbum (in Joh. Tract. 80). In one place he enumerates baptism, unction, the eucharist, and in position of hands as sacraments f (de Bapt. con. Dom. v. 28); in another he asks, Quis movit Dei omnia Sacramenta ? Quid ait Apostolus £ Si Sciero omnia Sacramenta, si habeam omnem prophetiam (Serm, ad Casar. eccles. plebem, 3). This last passage is specially interesting, because in Vulg. the Word is not used [though Aug. testifies that Old Lat. read Sacramental; it has, si habitero prophetiam ef mowerim mysteria omnia (1 Co 13°). '?'he general outcome is on the whole this, that the word sacramentatºrv had two main uses, one very vague, and the other fairly definite., . On the one hand, it might be used of anything, whether word, statement, or fact, which expressed * In harmony with this idea Rabanus Maurus (de Cler, in 8tt- tutione, i. 24, 31 ; Migne, Pat. Lat. cvii. 310) makes baptism, unction, the body, and the blood of the Lord to be four Sacra- ments, expressly counting the body and the blood as two, Paschasius Radbertus is said to do the 8ame ; but he speaks of 8acramentum (not -ta) corporis et 8amgwinis (de Corp. et Samg. Dom. iii. 2, 4; Migne, csx. 1275). # Similarly in a passage which was quoted almost verbatiºn at the beginning of Art. 26 (=25) in the Articles of 1553 : Sacra- mentis nwyngro paw.cissimis, observatione facillimis, significa- tione prostantissionis, societäten novi populi colligavit (Chris- tus], siculi est baptismus Trinitatis noming consecratuſ, com. municatio corports et sangwinis ipsius, et si quid aliud in fºr. canonicia commendatur (Ep. 54; cf. de Doct. Chr. 111. 9). SACRAMENTS SACRIFICE 329 ºr- or implied religious truth. On the other, it was applied to certain Christian rites, not fixed in number, but understood to be few, of which the chief were baptism and the eucharist. No rite had a better claim to be called a sacrament than these two, which fully realized the ideas connoted by the term, and were instituted by the Lord Himself. But there were other rites, mentioned in Scripture and sanctioned by the Church, to which the term might rightly be given; and the rite which was commonly placed side by side with these two as being of almost equal rank was unction or chrism, which is ºil; applicable to all Christians and has at least the authority of apostolic tradition. The number three was no doubt attractive ; but still more so the number seven ; and it is remark- able that a list of seven sacraments does not seem to have been made earlier than the 12th cent., when first Gregory of Bergamo (de Euchar. 14), and then Peter Lombard (Sent. IV. ii. 1) fix on this limit. It was adopted by Thomas Aquinas and stereotyped by the Council of Trent. But it is neither scriptural nor logical. Our choice lies between two and an indefinite number.” Scripture plainly marks out two. They were instituted by Christ, and He Himself ordained the outward visible signs for them. In whatever sense Christ may be supposed to have instituted any of the other five, confirmation, penance, unction, orders, and matrimony, He ordered no special sign for them ; and it is rash to say more than that they are among the more important of the many rites to which the name of sacrament may be given.i. For a discussion of any one of the seven see the separate articles in the dictionaries. But with regard to matrimony it may be here pointed out that the Vulgate rendering of Eph 5” sacramcm- twm hoc magnum est, had considerable influence in causing marriage to be regarded as a sacrament. There is a difference between the two great sacraments of the Gospel, in that baptism may be received once only, and the eucharist daily. The one confers an indelible character ; the other does not. The same difference divides the other five. Confirmation and orders resemble baptism. Once baptized, always baptized ; once confirmed, always confirmed ; once a priest, always a priest. No one may have these rites repeated for himself; nor is there any need of repetition. But penance and unction admit of repetition. Matrimony belongs Bartly to the one class and partly to the other. o repetition of the rite is admissible between the same two parties; but when death has removed one, the other is free to have the rite repeated. Augustine writes thus of baptism and orders: wtrumque enim sacramentum cat ; et quadam com- secratione utrumque homimi datur: illud, cum baptizatur, istwd, cwm ordinatur: ideoque in Catholica utrumque non licet iterari (Com. ep. Par- men. ii. 28). With regard to matrimony he says that its benefits are threefold, fides, proles, sacra- mentum ; and he explains the last, ut conjugium nom separetur, et dimissus antt dimissa mec causa prolis alteri conjungatur (de Gen. ix. 12; cf. com. Faust. xix. 26; de Nupt. et Concup. i. 11). See, fur- ther, Harnack, IIist. of Dogma, [Eng. tr.], vi. 201 ff. * IIugo de St. Victore, following the Augustinian definition of a sacrament as rei sacra, Sigmunt, enumerates some twenty or thirty lesser sacraments, as the ritual use of holy water, of ashes, of palm-branches, of the paschal candle, of bells, and of curtains; also certain acts, as malcing the sign of the cross, bowing the head or the laneo; and certain utterances, as Domi- mºts vobiscum, Alleluia, tho recitation of the De profithdīs, the Jubilate, the Creed, etc. (de Sacramentis, II. ix. 1–0; Migne, Pat. Lat. clxxvi. 471). # The anointing of a king, the washing of the Saints' feet, and the salt given in certain latin rites to catechumens, have all been called “sacraments," e.g. in the Gelasian Sacramentary is a prayer act have creatura salis in nomine Trinitatis efficiatur salutare sacramentwin. The question, whether there were sacraments under the OT, is, like the question of the number of sacraments under the NT, to a large extent a question of definition. , What is meant by a sacra- ment 2 Definitions which exclude all but baptism and the eucharist of course exclude all OT rites. But those who, with Augustine, regard sacra- ments as essential to the life of a religious com- munity must allow Sacraments to the Jewish Church. Yet if, as he holds, the sacramental character of marriage consists in its indissolubility, then marriage, which is a sacrament under the Christian dispensation, was not a sacrament under the Jewish, which allowed divorce. The sacrifices and other rites were sacraments to the Jews, necessary then, but superfluous now. The differ- ence is this: Sacramentº Novi Testamenti dant salutem. ; sacramenta Veteris Testamenti pro- miserwrºt Salvatorem. . . . Mutata sunt sacra- menta ; facta Sunt faciliora, pauciora, salubriora, feliciora (in Ps. lxxiii. 2). Both, however, tell of the passion and resurrection of Christ, the one by promising, the other by commemorating (con. IFaust. xix. 16). LITERATURE. — Juenin (French Oratorian), Commentarius Historicw8 et Dogmaticw8 de Sacramentis, Lyons, 1717; Char- don, Histoire des Sacrements, Paris, 1745; Hahn (Protestant), Doctrinoe Romance de Numéro Sacramentorunn septemario ºrationes historicaº, Breslau, 1859, and Die Lehre von den Sacra- 7menten, 1864. Most comm. on the XXXIX Articles discuss the question and quote literature; also most Theological Dictionaries. A. PLUMMER. SACRIFICE.- A. SACRIFICE IN OT TIMEs. i. Definition and Name. ii. The Origin of Sacrifice. iii. Semitic Sacrifice in the pre-Mosaic period. iv. Sacrifice in ancient Israel. v. The Prophets as reformers of Sacrificial worship. vi. The Sacrificial system of the l’riestly Code : 1. l'orms of Sacrifice ; 2. Efficacy of the Bloody Sacrifices. vii. Sacrifice in Judaistic practice and theory. B. SACRIFICIAL DocTitin E OF NT. i. Appreciation of OT Sacrifices. ii. The perfect Sacrifice of the New Covenant. iii. The Sacrifices of the Christian life. Literature. A. SACIRIFICE IN OT TIMES. i. DEFINITION AND NAME. —The rites which are comprehended under the name of Sacrifice, while exhibiting many forms and embodying an equal complexity of ideas, yet display, certain constant features which invest them with a character of unity. I'our notes will serve to elucidate their place and function in distinction from other manifestations of the religious life. (a) Sacrifice belongs to the class of speciſically religious acts, known as cultus or worship, by which man seeks to draw near to God. When religion is permeated by intense moral earnestness, greater importance is ascribed to character and conduct than to worship, yet even in the perfectly ethical religion of Christianity the cultus has sur- vived as at once a cherished privilege and a sacred obligation. In those religions in which the ethical interest is weak or absent, the paramount interest attaches to the appropriateness and impressiveness of the ceremonial approach to the 1)eity. And among the elements of the cultus, by the consent of antiquity, the rite of sacrifice excelled and over- shadowed all other ordinances in the ellicacy of its appeal to the object of worship.–(9) Sacrifice is distinguished from other ordinances of Yºlº 1I] that it takes the form of the rendering to God of a material oblation. The elements of worship are at bottom two–forms which express the con- descension of God to man, and forms which express the appeal of man to God. Of these the first has its familiar example in the proclamation l 330 SACRIFICE SACRIFICE of the word of God, the second in prayer. And with prayer sacrifice manifestly has a close affinity. To the universal religious instinct of antiquity, however, it seemed that the º offering of aspiration and petition was lacking in weight and efficacy. There was therefore associated with it, and so prominently as to eclipse it, the sacred rite in which the worshippers made over to God or shared with Him material things of a kind which ministered to human wants.--(c) Sacrifice is dis- tinguished from other acts in which material things are consecrated to the service of God by the circumstance that the sacrifice is consumed in the service. The spirit of religious devotion finds many ways of expressing itself—e.g. in the conse- cration of buildings for worship, in gifts of lands, in personal service, and to such acts the term sacrifice may be º extended ; but in strict usage it is desirable to confine it to the class of oblations which not only spring from Self-abnega- tion but also perish in the using.—(d) The effect of sacrifice, in the intention of the worshippers, is by pleasing the Deity to enjoy communion with Him, and through union with Him to gain deliver- ance from threatened evil and possession of coveted good. This formula roughly expresses the end of religion, and, in view of the ancient and commonly accorded position of sacrifice as the staple religious observance, it follows that communion with a Divine being, with the security involved in such com- munion, must also be the end generally contem- plated in sacrificial practice. In the definition of sacrifice, an attempt has usually been made to formulate the contemplated end more narrowly. “A sacriſice properly so called,’ to quote one of the older examples, “is the solemn inſliction of death on a living creature, generally by effusion of its blood, in a way of religious worship, and the pre- senting of this act to the Deity, as a supplication for the pardon of sin, and a supposed means of compensation for the insult and injury thereby offered to His majesty and government’ (Pye Smith, Sacrifice and Priesthood 9, p. 3). The fault of this defini- tion is that it is framed with reference to the single class of piacular sacrifices, and further, that it makes the questionable assumption that the piacular sacrifices consistently embodied the idea that the slaughter of the victim furnished a satisfaction to outraged Divine justice. Among writers of the anthropo- logical school, on the other hand, the specific effect of sacrifice is often defined as being to remove from the worshipper restric. tions or taboos, and to invest him with a character of sanctity. Its efficacy; in short, is conceived as being of a magical kind, —the persons or things hallowed being, as it were, charged with an energy of physical holiness, and thereby fitted to move and act in the religious sphere. In this sense the following defini- tion has been given in a recent monograph :—‘Sacrifice is a religious act which, by the consecration of a victim, modifies the condition of the moral agent who performs it, or of certain objects with which it is concerned ' (Hubert et Mauss, Jºssai sur le Sacr. p. 41). Natural, however, and widely vouched for as is the idea that the victim imparts a character or an infection of Sanctity, the interpretation of the modus operamdi of the rite has fluctuated too widely to justify us in treating the above conception as vital to the idea of sacrifice. The only constant element has been the belief that, however operating, it pleased the object of worship and secured Diyine favour. Summing up, then, we define sacrifice as an act, belonging to the sphere of worship, in which a material oblation is presented to the Deity and consumed in His service, and which has as its object to secure through communion with a Divine being the boon of His favour. The names used to describe the rite do not suggest a defini- tion, but serve to emphasize certain of the elements which have been noted. Sacrificium indicates that it is an act within the Sphere of holy things, or in the region of the cultus, while the appropriation of such a general term to the particular ordi- nance illustrates what has been said of its central position in pre-Christian worship. The group of words derived from offerre (oblation, offering, Germ. Opfer), connect themselves with the ritualistic act of the presentation of the victim, and also adumbrate the interpretation of sacrifice as a gift (cf. ºrpoorºopó.). (lvorío indicates that the typical form involved the slaughter of a victim. Sacrifice is commonly referred to in OT by specifying the two leading varieties—viz. the Burnt-offering (nºy), and the Sacri- ficial Feast, (bºy). There are, however, two terms, which have a generic as well as a specific meaning. The Hºjº (a gift) was used in the older period as inclusive both of bloody and un- bloody offerings (Gn 44, b), but in 12 and later prophetic literature it has been appropriated to the º and sub- ordinate class of cereal offerings (Lv 2). The generic term of the later period is lºny (nºn to bring near, present, Ezk 20% 4049, Lv 12th). Another term which comes near to a generio significance is Tys, an offering made by fire. It is used not only of animal offerings, but of the cereal offering (Lv 211), and even of the shewbread which was not consumed by fire, but became the portion of the priests (247. 9). In NT (lvario is often used generically (Mt 913, Mk 949 etc.). Elsewhere Uvario, is bracketed with another term to give a comprehensive descrip- tion of sacrifice—3&po, rs xx} (lvariou (unbloody and bloody offer- ings, He 51 83), 000-foºt zoº ºrpoorºopoei (the same in inverted order, He 105). The idea is also expressed by enumerating four varieties (104). - In AV the term ‘sacrifice' is of frequent occurrence, being inserted into the title of many of the varieties of offering which have a special IIeb. designation (see art. ORFERING). In RV the usual practice is to employ it only where the Heb. text has na] or a derivative, thus giving it the connotation of the sacrificial feast, while “oblation' is appropriated to offerings of a different type. Exceptionally RV retains it as translation of uſ] (Ps 11827), and of Tºrº (1412). In NT it renders ſurío, and 06ely, and is some- times distinguished from the ‘offering' as the bloody from the unbloody, ii. THE ORIGIN OF SACRIFICE.-The controversies in which this subject has been so fruitful have passed through two phases. In the earlier period the keenly debated issue was whether the institu- tion was of Divine appointment, or merely devised by man as an instrument for satisfying the wants of his spiritual nature. In recent times the human origin has usually been assumed, but only as a fresh starting - º for the discussion of rival theories as to the significance originally attached to the rite, its primitive form, and the stages in the evolution of sacrificial ritual. A. The theory that Sacrifice was instituted by Divine authority, while strongly contended for by many Reformed theologians, cannot be sustained even on the basis of the biblical narrative. The argument on which chief reliance was placed was that supplied in the account of Abel's sacrifice (Gn 43-0), and the apostolic reference to the reason of its acceptance by God (He 114). There is, it is admitted, no record of a Divine enactment, but Divine Sanction was known to support it from the period of Abel's sacrifice ; and the hint that by faith Abel offered a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, it is held, jus- tifies us in concluding upon a Divine origin. I'or faith neces- sarily implies that there must have been a previous revelation touching the ordinance : a positive cnactment is presufiposed as its object, since whbhout such it must have been, not faith but º But it is at least as natural a vicw of the matter that Abel's faith was a venture of trust called forth by a general assurance of the Divine holiness and mercy. The real spring, perhaps, of the zeal on this side of the controversy is disclosed in the argument that a human origin is precluded by the apostolic condemnation of will-worship (#!/8Aoſpn.gº.iz, Col 223), i.e. of the usurpation by the creature of the Divine prerogative in the sphere of holy things. Concede that sacrifice, the dis- tinctive feature of OT worship, was of human devising and yet acceptable to God, and it became impossible to make good against Roman, Lutheran, and Anglican practice that no festivals or rites were lawful unless expressly ordained in Scripture. As the force of this dogmatic prepossession has considerably abated, it is easy to admit that the “will-worship’ condemned by St. Paul did not include usages shaped by piety and discovered in experience to be for spiritual profit. For a complete statement of the arguments for a Divine origin, with accompanying refutations, reference may be made to Spencer, de Itatione et Origine Sacrificiorum, iv. 2. The subject is also very fully discussed by Fairbairn (Typology of Scripture, i. 286 ſ.), who advances the additional argument that in making for our ſirst parents ‘coats of skins’ (Gn 321) God prompted and authorized the rite which serves as a covering of the soul. His position is, however, a mediating one, as he molds that, assuming even that it was merely suggested by the self. revelation of God, and afterwards approved, its essentially Divine origin may, apart from a positive enactment, be maintained. In later times the case for the human origin has been strengthened. Not only does J manifestly treat it as the natural, self - evident mode of worship, but P ignores its existence altogether in pre-Mosaic times. In vicw of this conflicting tradition, and still more because of modiflod con- ceptions as to the range of the authoritative in Scripture, thero has been a growing indisposition to use the 8criptural material as a basis for a dogmatic pronouncement. The theory of a Divine institution, it should be further said, stands or falls with the theory of a primitive revelation, and this theory has even in theological schools been very generally abandoned. The only sense in which the 1)ivine origin can be held is that, by creating man for religion, God is the author of the institution in which the religious sentiment found ancient and universal expression. B. The theories which ascribe to sacrifice a human origin may SACRIFICE SACRIFICE 33] herd be lyriefly outlined, inasmuch as, while operating mainly with general anthropological material, they seek confirmation to some extent in the biblical sacrificial system. These theories may be best grasped in accordance with the views which they presuppose as to the primitive form of religion, and by which, it may be added, they must mainly be judged. (1) In the first place, we meet with two theories which rest on the assumption that the religion of primitive man was a monotheism. Either by way of intuition, or as the result of reflexion on the world and man, it is supposed that the human mind had acquired a knowledge at least of the unity and of the cardinal attributes of God. Under the impression of this knowledge man may be supposed to have gone on to shape sacrificial rites, and that from either of two motives. (a) The Iºa:platory theory is to the effect that man, conscious of sin and of the punishment which it merits, substituted an animal victim which should endure the penalty due to himself, and so make his peace with God. This interpretation of the rite, it is true, has usually been identified with the advocacy of a Divine institution, but it at least holds its place in the popular mind—apart from any question of origin—as furnishing the explanation of the age-long searching after God through the ritual of the slaughtered victim and the smoking altar.— (b) The IHomage theory of Sacrifice has been more favoured by those writers who regard the institution as a natural out- growth from a primitive monotheism. .9n this view man was in pelled to seek closer communion with God, not out of a sense of guilt, but rather out of a desire to acknowledge his dependence and profess his obedience. To give expression to these devout sentiments he fell back on the language which is more powerful than speech—the language of action (Warburton, Div. Leg. iv. 4). “To such men (Cain and Abel) there came thoughts of one who is ruling them as they rule the sheep, who in some strange way makes the seeds grow which they put into the ground. . . . How shall they confess Him, and manifest their subjection? Speech, thanksgiving are not the most childlike way of testifying homage. Acts go before words’ (Maurice, Sacrifice, p. 6). The fundamental objection to the above two theories is that they attribute to primitive man a theology which it is hard to associate with the childhood of the race. The Expiatory theory not only presupposes a primitive knowledge of God transcending the thoughts of childhood, but it credits man with a sense of sin, and with a valuation of death as the wages of sin, which belong to a later period of spiritual development. Moreover, the theory conflicts with the preponderantly joyous character of early sacrifice. The Homage theory is attractive to spiritual and philosophical minds when seeking a justification for sacri- fice, but can hardly be supposed to have originated it. (2) A second group of theories is connected with the assumption that the deities of primitive man were beings of a low anthropomorphic order—whether nature - spirits, or ancestral ghosts, or fetishes. From this point of view it naturally seems that the worshipper has somewhat to offer which his Deity needs and will gratefully accept. IIow man ministers to this need, and how his ministering proves effectual, may be conceived in various ways suggested by examination of the possible motives. tº The Gift theory has it that the offerings were viewed as presents, and that the offerer reckoned on their being received with pleasure and gratitude. A chief or a king is approached with gifts, and the gods expect the same. The currency of this interpretation in classical antiquity is vouched for by Cicero. ‘Let not the impious dare to appease the gods with gifts. Let them hearken to Plato, who warns them that there can be no doubt of what God's disposition toward them will be, since even a good man will refuse to accept presents from the wicked' (de Leg. ii. 16). In the older literature it is maintained by Spencer, who thinks it self-evident that this was the idea cherished by man in his primitive simplicity (ii. 762). Tylor and Herbert Spencer, though differing as to the primitive object of worship, find the origin of sacrifice in the idea of a gift. According to the latter, “the origin of the practice is to be found in the custom of leaving food and drink at the graves of the dead, and as the ancestral spirit rose to divine rank the refreshments placed for the dead developed into sacriflees’ (1°rinciples of Sociology, § 130 ft.). Among the older writers it was commonly held that such an account of the origin of sacrifice could not be accepted in view of the place which it ſills in the system of revelation (Bühr, Sunnholik, i. p. 270); but within the last generation it has come to be regarded as by no means axiouiatic that value implies dignity of origin. A more forcible objection is that the blood, which figures so prominently in sacrificial ritual, can scarcely have been selected as a desirable gift. And this criticism is eſtective in so far as it compels the admission that the whole system of sacrifice has not been shaped by the idea of the gift. There is, besides, reason for holding that the fundamental conception, while alcin to that already stated, is more deſlnite and suggestive. (b) The Table-bond theory exchanges the general conception of a gift for that of a meal of which the Deity partakes in company with the worshippers. The germ of the theory is to be found in Sylkes, who traced the ellicacy of Sacrifice, which is commonly a joint-meal, to the fact that “eating and drinking together were the lºnown ordinary symbols of friendship, and were the usual rites of engaging in coventunts and leagues’ (Nature of Sacrifices, p.75). On this view sacrifice has more virtue than a mere gift ; it knits the god and the worshippers together by the bonds created by the interchange of hospitality. In the hands of W, 18. Smith (RS p. 209 ft.) the theory was developed by the addition that the Deity was united to the worshippers, not merely because of His gratification, but because a cominion meal physically unites those who partake of it. Whether this latter conception of the modw8 operandi of the meal be primi- tive is open to doubt, but in view of the materials and form of early sacrifice the conclusion seems irresistible that the original idea of the worshippers was to gratify their God, and strengthen their pºsition in His favour, by joining with Him in the repast. (c) The theory of a materialistic sacramental communion is a special development of the last. The hypothesis starts from the observation that at certain stages of civilization religion takes the form of animal-worship, or of the reverence for animals which are believed to share along with man in the Divine nature. At this stage, also, it happens that the sacred animal, which is commonly proscribed as food, is on solemn occasions made to furnish the material of a sacrificial meal. In other words, there is occasionally permitted what has been bluntly described as eating the god' (Frazer, Golden Bough). The motive for this is suggested by a widespread idea of physical virtue. In eating an animal or a human being the savage is supposed to incorporate ‘not only the physical, but even the moral and intellectual qualities which were characteristic of that animal or man.’, Similarly it was easy to believe that, if the Divine life resided in a group of sacred animals, a particle of the precious deposit would be distributed among all the recipients, and incorporated with their individual life (1èS” p.,313). As to whether we may regard as primitive the totemistic conception of the Divine-human affinity of animals, and of the assimilation of the Divine life through eating the totem, there is grave reason for doubt, . The totemistic theory of the origin of worship has been widely propagated through the brilliant and learned monograph of W. R. Smith (Journ. Philol. ix. 75 f.), and its fascinating exposition by Jevons (Introduction to the LIistory of ſteligion, 1896); but the main body of lºnglish anthropologists refuse to regard it as primitive, while in France the hypothesis has been subjected to close and learned criticism (Marillier, “La place du Totemisme dans l'évolution religieuse,’ in Itev. de l'Ilist. des Religions, 1897–98). Totemism seems most intelligible when viewed as formed under the play of Savage thought or misconception, and as intruding upon and overrunning, earlier forms of worship which found a god in nature or the spirits of men. The theories above mentioned assume that sacrifice was directly called into existence by the religious idea. Another possibility is that the slaughtering of animals or men came to awaken awe and misgivings in the breast of the savage, and that he sought to reassure himself by a procedure which in vested such acts with a religious character and sanction. Amid this mass of speculation the most certain conclusion seems to be that sacrifice originated in childlike ideas of God, and that the fundamental motive was to gratify Him by giving or sharing with Him a meal. iii. SEMITIC SACRIFICE IN TIII. PRF - MOSAIC PERIOD.—For the period between the dim region of origins and the consolidation of Israel as a nation a certain amount of material is professed] contributed in the patriarchal narratives of J. The representation given is that sacrifice origin- ated in the first family when the bloody offering of Abel was accepted (Gn 4*); that Noah offered burnt - offerings after his deliverance (8*); and that by Abraham and his line it was practised under a variety of forms and with some diversity of ritual. The clief occasions were times of meet- ing with God, and other solemn moments of life : the kinds of oſlering in vogue were the Peace- offering (Gn 31*), the Burnt-offering (229), the Covenant Sacrifice (157"), and the Libation (28'"); the sacrificial material consisted of clean beasts and fowls (8”), especially cattle, goats, sheep, and pigeons (15"). Human sacrifice, it is made º to Abraham, is not required by God (22*). It is also recognized that sacrifice is pºſiº outside the pale of the chosen line (Ex 18", cf. Nu 23*). That the kinds of sacrifice thus distinguished, the material of sacrifice, and other features, corre- spond to the usage of an early period in the history of Israel is quite certain ; but the references do not carry us back to the earliest phases in the evolution of Semitic sacrifice. Iłetween the primi- tive form of sacrifice and the comparatively com- plex and elevated cultus mirrored in these nar- ratives there lies a course of development on which attention has been recently focussed owing to the researches of Wellhausen (lºcste arabischen IIcidenthums) and of W. R. Smith (RS). For the re-discovery of the stages and factors of this de- 332 SACRIFICE SACRIFICE velopment, reliance is placed on the survivals from heathen Arabia, on the vestiges of Phoenician and other Seinitic cults, and especially on the gift of divination which wrests from the phenomena of the matured institution a confession as to the course of its earlier life-listory. The special features of Smith's treatment are his insistence on the con- nexion of primitive sacrifice with totemism, and his scheme showing the derivation of the varieties of sacrifice from the alleged prinitive form, while he also supplements Wellhausen's elucidation of the growth of sacrificial ritual and the progressive modification of sacrificial ideas. This reconstructed chapter of history may be outlined as follows:— (a) Evolution of the varieties of Semitic Sacrifice.—The original point of departure, as we have already seen, is, according to Smith, the sacramental meal, at which an animal was devoured which was akin both to the god and his wor- shippers, and which in virtue of its sacred properties served as a cement to bind together in closer union the l)ivine and the human sharers of the repast (IRS2 313). On this followed a process of differentiation, giving rise on the one hand to the Sacrificial Feast, on the other to the holocaust. The distinctions between the original sacramental meal and the Sacrificial Feast are two : the former occurs at rare intervals and the flesh is deemed most holy, the latter occurs frequently and the flesh is in use as an ordinary article of diet. The transition is explained on the one hand by the cessation of the belief in the affinity of animals to man, on the other by times of Scarcity and a grow- ing taste for animal food. Less obvious is it why the primitive sacrifice, which was essentially a joint - meal, should have developed along a second line into a holocaust. The nexus is supplied by the following train of speculation. So long as the victim was a sacred animal there was but one type of sacrifice — the sacramental meal. When totemistic modes of thought º and domestic animals supplied the sacrificial material, the victim, since it was no longer deemed to be kin, no longer fulfilled the condition necessary to unite the god and his worshippers. The only victim that fulfilled the condition of being akin to worshippers and worshipped was a human victim, and so on solemn occasions recourse was had to human sacrifices. The eating of human flesh was, however, re- pugnant to natural feeling, and the human victim was therefore offered as a holocaust. And, naturally enough, when an animal came to be substituted for a human victin the holocaust per- sisted as the appropriate form (Lect. x.). By this account the evolution is carried forward to the point represented in the beginnings of Hebrew history—where the Sacrificial Feast and the Burnt-offering exist side by side. (b) Development of Sacrificial Iłitual. — The oldest Semitic form of ritual, it is supposed, is preserved in a description by Nilus of a Saracen sacriſice. ‘The camel chosen as the victim is bound upon a rude altar of stones piled together, and the leader of the band, after inflicting the first wound, in all haste drinks of the blood that gushes forth. Forthwith the whole company fall on the victim with their swords, hacking off pieces of the quivering flesh and devouring them raw, with such wild haste that in a short interval the entire camel, body and bones, skin, blood, and entrails, is wholly devoured' (18 S2 p. 338). In this savage rite we see the first stage of usages which were to undergo many modifications before reaching familiar shape.—(1) The manipulation of the blood, so im- portant in sacrificial ritual, here begins in the form that the worshippers lap it as it flows, and the god's portion runs out upon the stones. Later the repulsive draught is eschewed, and they are content to be smeared with it—a portion being Sprinkled for the god upon the altar or running into a gutter, while some is sprinkled upon the worshippers. This double sprinkling survived to historic times in the Covenant-sacrifice. Ordinarily, however, the whole of the blood was treated as the god's portion, and was conveyed to him on the altar in peace- offerings and burnt-offerings, and also in the later piacular Sacrifices.--(2) Conveyance of other portions to the god. "Assum- ing that the above-mentioned rite is primitive, the god origin- ally received nothing save a share of the effused blood. Gradually, however, other portions, as fat and entrails, were assigned to him, and the question emerged as to how they were to be conveyed to him. In the case of libations of blood or wine, they could be supposed to reach him by absorption in the ground, while fat was seen to melt, but the solid in- gredients presented a diſſiculty. An early idea was to expose them, and allow them to reach their destination through being devoured by wild beasts. Next, the use of fire came in— originally, as Smith thinks, simply to get rid of the remanent portions, but afterwards as the meang of carrying into the sphere of the gods the sublimated essence or the sweet savour of the meal. . The usage in which, while the blood is poured out on the altar, the essence of the offering ascends in ſlre from the altar, is that which has been firmly established at the dawn of Hebrew history (Wellhausen, op. cit. 110 fr., “Opfer u. Gaben’; 1:S2, Lect. ix.).-(3) Modifications of the human 7meal. Like the drinking of the warm blood, the eating of the raw flesh had to yield in the course of time to more refined methods. With the appearance of the J3urnt-offering it went artially out of use, while in the Sacrificial Feast it appears to ve been at first boiled, at a later period roasted. º Growth of opinion as to the significance of Sacrifice. The primitive interpretation of the rite as cementing the religious relation. ship through the eating of the sacred animal disappeared when the people reached the pastoral stage, although the idea lingered that food of any kind had a uniting virtue, and the illicit mystic forms of cultus which dº to be practised to some extent embodied the original idea. A new interpre- tation gained ground with the rise of the institution of pro- perty. The worshipper now had somewhat whereof he was absolute disposer, not joint-trustee along with the Deity, and it had thus become possible for him to confer on the latter a favour by the bestowal of what the worshipper was person- ally entitled to enjoy. In this way the Gift theory, whiclı is imbedded in so many terms of the sacrificial vocabulary, came into existence. The institution of property, in fact, from the first exercised an influence that on the whole has worked for religious deterioration. At a later stage the gift was understood to be in some sense a substitute for the wor- shipper. The Wellhausen - Smith contribution to the evolutionary account of Semitic sacrifice is a brilliant piece of work which has profoundly influ- enced research in cognate fields. But the attrac- tiveness of the ingenious combinations, supported as they are by vast and recherché erudition, neces- sitates a reminder of the extremely speculative and precarious character of many of the positions. The theory credited to Semitic heathenism in its primi- tive stage, as already pointed out, is highly proble- matical. The construction in question postulates the idea of a communion between the god and the worshippers due to their assimilating the same food, but it cannot be held to be proved that this natural enough idea sprang ultimately from a theory that the sacrifice was efficacious because the victim was akin to both. Further, if the god and his votaries were already kin, it is not clear that their union could be more closely cemented by eating an animal which imported into the union no more than was already found in it. As regards the genealogical scheme, while Smith makes the holocaust a late derivative, and by a complicated process, from the sacramental meal, the truth is that the two types are always found existing side by side—among the Phoenicians as well as among the Hebrews; and, so far as historical evidence goes, there is no strong reason for according priority to either (Hubert et Mauss, p. 32 ft.). A weakness of Smith's position, is that i. exposition of primi- tive Semitic ideas is largely based on late Arab practice; and the next stage must be to test his speculations by the results of the researches now being actively prosecuted in the older field of I3abylonian and Assyrian worship (Zimmern, Beit- 7&ge 27tr Kennt. der bab. Iceliff.). iv. SACRIFICE IN ANCIENT ISRAEL.— From the speculative field of prehistoric evolution we ad- vance to the period which extends from the Exodus to the rise of the 8th cent. prophets. The question which encounters us on the threshold is whether, and to what extent, Moses organized a system of sacriſicial worship. The Pentateuch, in its main body, represents the work of Moses in this depart- ment as epoch-making and ſinal. The Priestly Narrative, in the first place, makes no mention of a use of sacrifice anterior to Moses, and thus suggests, not indeed that it was not previously Jractised, but that it had then no place in the re- ſº of the chosen line, and that it had no Divine sanction. In the next place it ascribes to Moses, as the instrument of God, an elaborate code which precisely, and with an aspect of finality, deter- mines “the when, the where, the by whom, and in a very special manner the how of sacrifice (Wellh. Iſist. Isr. p. 52). But the representation is in both particulars unhistorical. The use of sacriſice in primitive Israel, antecedently more than probable, is vouched for by independent tradition. The promulgation by Moses of an elaborate sacrificial code, which treats ritualistic correctness of detail as of paramount importance, is in itself improbable, and is inconsistent with the highly flexible practice SACRIFICE SACRIFICE 333 Wr under the Judges and the early monarchy, as well as with the prophetic conceptions of the nature of the Mosaic legislation (see below). It is indeed difficult to believe that Moses" feft no impress upon the forms of the religious life of the people which remembered him not only as emancipator, but as prophet (Dt 34"), and it may well be Sup j that he stands for an early stage in the evolution of the institution which culminated in the system of the Priestly Code; but it would be a hopeless task to try to disengage the Mosaic element in the archaic usages which É certainly embodies. In these circumstances it is desirable to base the account of ancient Heb. sacrifice on another group of sources. Foremost among these is JE, whose patriarchal narratives illustrate a º early cycle of ideas, and the Book of the Covenant (Ex 20%–23*), which chronicles or corrects certain features of ritual practised down to the 9th century. In addition, great value attaches to the incidental references in Judges, in the books of Samuel, and in the early Prophets. (1) The Sacrificial material consisted of the agri- cultural produce of Canaan, animal (Ex 22"), cereal, and liquid (v.”). The victins included—of large cattle, the old and young of the ox-kind; of small cattle, sheep and lambs, goats and kids. Of birds, the pigeon might be used in the Burnt-offering. Wºlf animals and fish, which figure in the Baby- lonian ritual, were not offered. The blood and the fat were specially appropriated to Jehovah, and of animal products presented to Him we hear of wool (Hos 2"), but not of the libation of milk. Meal, which was baked into cakes (Jg 6”, Am 5*), was the com- mon form of the cereal offering. The valuable pro- ducts of oil (Gn 281*, Mic 67) and wine (1S 1*, Am 28) were ingredients of the sacrificial meal, and were doubtless also offered in the form of a libation. The sacrificial material of the Carthaginians agrees with this, except that their code allowed many species of birds and also milk (CIS i. 237). (2) The varieties of sacrifice were of two types— that in which the offering was wholly devoted to God, and that in which He received a portion and the worshippers feasted on the remainder. Of the former use |. typical example is the Burnt-offering, of the latter the §. Feast (Ex 1025 1812 20°); but there are other kinds of offering that have to be described which bear distinct names either because of the peculiarity of the ritual, or of the special end which they were designed to serve. (a) The Sacrificial I’east was probably the oldest form, was in early times by far the most common, and gave satisfaction to normal states of religious feeling. The names by which this type of offering is distinguished in RV are Sacrifice and Peace-offering. ‘Sacrifice' (n2) is some- times contrasted with the old generic name (nº 1 S 229), but oftener with the Burnt-offering (Ex 1020, 1 S 610), and in both cases it is “the gencral name for all sacrifices eaten at feasts' (Oaf, Heb. Lea. 8. mi.). The sacrifice in the narrower sense is synonymous with the Peace-offering (bºy), which is similarly used to designate the division of offerings which were divided between God and man (Ex 2024, Am 522). The original meaning of the Dºty is obscure. The interpreta- tion of our versions rendered by Peace-offering (LXX Uvorío, alonyxã) conceives it as the sacrifice offered when friendly re- lations existed towards God (bºy, ‘to be whole or at one’)—in contradistinction to the piacular sacrifices which presupposed estrangement. Heilsopfer is somewhat, similar in idea. An alternative rendering derives it from Dº) “to make whole,” “make restitution,’ in which case it would be originally an offering of reparation (Iºrstattungsopfer), and by an intelligible transition a payment of vows or thank-offering (Luther). The occasion of the Peace-offering was some such event as prompts human beings to come together in a festive spirit. Even in the modern world the joyful event provokes demonstrations and rejoicings which are felt to have their fittest - culmination in the banquet, and the Peace-offering was simply the form taken by the festal banquet in an age, thoroughly permeated by the religious spirit. The º for such celebrations is given, not only in the life of the nation and of the community, but in that of the kindred stock and of the family. In the national life such occa- sions for rejoicing occurred in the successful con- clusion of a campaign (1 S 11", cf. Jg 16”), in the cessation of a visitation of famine or pestilence (2 S 24*), and in the accession of a king to his throne (1 K 1"). In the last case, and also at the dedication of the temple, the provision naturally was on the most magnificent scale (1 K 8°). The smaller unit of the local community had its special occasion for rejoicing in the events of the agricul- tural year: firstlings and first-fruits supplied the material of a sacrificial meal (Ex 22*-81). The visit of a notable prophet to a town also suggested the recognition of the privilege by a sacrificial feast (1 S 16"). The sept or larger family professed and strengthened its kinship by an annual reunion which took the form of the sacred banquet (20%). Similarly, family religion found occasional ex- º in the pilgrimage of man and wife to a ocal sanctuary, where they ate and drank before the Lord (1 S 1"). Other events in this sphere which were similarly hallowed were the departure on a momentous journey (Gn 31*), the arrival of a guest of consequence (18”), the embarkation on a new career (1 K 19°). In general it served to keep alive the sense of dependence on God for pro. tection and the natural blessings of life, while it had the social value of promoting the solidarity of the nation and of its component parts. (1) A course of preparation was required before taking part in the sacred observance (1 S 16"). A period of continence was ordained (21°, cf. Ex 19**); and lustrations and a change of garments constituted the physical holiness which was deemed seemly and necessary in approaching the Deity (Gn 35°, Ex 1910m.). Natura. y, also, it was made the occasion for the display of finery and orna. ments (Hos 2°). There was recognized, however, the necessity of a more spiritual preparation in which the heart was touched, or even renewed by God (1S 10"). (2) The ritual necessarily varied with the material. In the case of the animal sacrifice, the blood and the fat were appropriated to God (1 S 2"), and were consumed on the altar. To lessen the temptation to sacrilege, it was provided that the fat should be given to God immediately after the slaughtering (Ex 23°). The accompany- ing offering consisted of unleavened bread (ib.). The remaining portions were divided between the briests and the offerers. The sin of the sons of £li was that, instead of taking the share allowed by ancient custom, they dipped with a rapacious flesh-hook into the cauldron, and also that they encroached on the Divine portion by claiming their share before the fat had been conveyed to God (1 S 2"). At this stage the sacrificial flesh was boiled, and it is represented as an objectionable innovation that the priests demanded their portion raw with a view to its being roasted. The custom of boiling the flesh is also commemorated in the prohibition of seething a kid in its mother's milk (Ex 23")—which probably had its origin, not so much in a feeling that the practice was of the nature of an outrage, as in heathen associations connected with the sacrificial use of milk. (3) The religious efficacy of the Sacrificial Feast was doubt- less differently interpreted according to the degree of spiritual enlightenment. The popular idea prob- ably was that God was entertained at a feast, in which He received His portion in the form of ſire- food, and that the honour and gratification thus afforded Him rendered Him well disposed to the 534 SACRIFICE SACRIFIUE worshippers. The offering would thus be con- || 1 S 14*). The ritual of Gideon is peculiar : the sidered efficacious as bringing the response which is naturally elicited by a gift or service. The command, “none shall appear before me empty- handed ' (Ex 23° 34*), suggests that the practice of approaching a monarch with gifts was regarded as typical of the approach to Jehovah with offer- ings. The use of Hºp (gift) in a comprehensive sense points to the same interpretation. With this, doubtless, was also associated the conviction that by eating and drinking along with Jehovah friendly relations were both expressed and strength- ened. That the sacred life - blood of the animal was conceived as cementing the union by constitut- ing a physical tie is more problematical (Schultz, AJTh, 1900, p. 269). But these interpretations were beginning to be challenged. The higher theo- logy excluded the idea of God as a fellow-guest. A striking saying, ascribed to Samuel, declares offerings worthless without obedience (1 S 15*). (b) The Burnt-offering, Hºy (LXX 3x0xxâna Azoº, 3Åoxxârawals, 6xozºpºroºzoº, 3Åox& tººls), ‘that which ascends,’ is so called either as that which is elevated to the altar (IXnobel, Oehler, Nowack), or which ascends in flame (Bähr, Keil, Delitzsch). It is usually synonymous with ‘the whole Burnt-offering,' though originally the distinction may have obtained that the portion of qny bloody sacrifice consumed on the altar was designated the Tºy, while only the Burnt-offering consisting of an entire victim WQS Q, 9%; (Nowack, Arch. ii. 215). lf the bright side of human experience, which gives birth to joy and hope, had its characteristic rite in the $."... the Burnt - offering answered to the mood in which the predominant feeling is grief, apprehension, or awe. In certain situations, of course, there is a combination of joyousness and solemnity, of hope and fear—as at the coronation of a monarch, or the conclusion of a national covenant with God, and in such cases the double aspect has its expression in the com- bination of i. two types of offering (1 S 10°, Ex 24"). ISut on occasions of extraordinary solem- nity or gravity the Burnt - offering stood alone. The deliverance from the Flood, accompanied as it may be supposed to have been by overwhelming awe at the sweep of God's devastating judgment, was marked by the sacrifice of the Burnt-offering (Gn 8”). Similarly on the occasion of a theophany, when the sense of privilege is overborne by the sense of danger in the presence of Jehovah, the Burnt-offering is the appropriate rite (Gn 22°, Jg 13"). At the beginning of a war, when the danger and the dubious issue are keenly realized, it alone bespeaks the Divine aid ; nor does the leader of the host embark without this appointed service on his hazardous enterprise (Jg 6”). It would even seem that in perplexity it was used with the divinatory purpose, which in IBabylonia had been one of the principal uses (Jg 6'7"). When one was driven to extremity by the hatred of a powerful opponent, it might be offered in the hope of God interposing to change his heart (1 S 2010). In time of peril it might be promised by way of vow on condition of success (Jg 11). It has indeed been alleged that in periods of national calamity it was not offered—the idea being that this was useless so long as the wrath of Jehovah was fierce against king or people; but this view rests upon an incident in the life of David (2 S 2419) Nº. acting under prophetic guidance, and cannot well be supposed to represent the prevalent belief. (1) The sacrificial material had consisted, from very early times, in one or other of the following : the ox-kind, the goat, the sheep, the turtle-dove, and the young pigeon (Gn 15"). (2) The ritual of the Burnt-offering exhibits survivals of ancient usage. Though the usual custom now was to slay the victim beside the altar, there are traces of an older practice of slaying it upon the altar (Gn 22", cf. **** 3. flesh of the kid is boiled, it is then put in a basket along with unleavened cakes and º on the altar, while the broth is poured either over it or on the ground (Jg 6* *). The token of accept- ance is its consumption by fire. In the later period the broth played no part, the flesh being consumed raw upon the altar. (3) The significance of the Burnt-offering is sug- gested by what has been said of its occasions. Its object was to secure protection against threatened danger, success in the hazardous conflict, deliver- ance from the sore calamity; and if in some in- stances it has the appearance of a thank-offering after deliverance, the dominant thought may still have been that security was sought against a recur- rence of the judgment. I'urther, it is clear that the idea was to ensure safety by performing an act which was acceptable to God, and thus dispose Him to maintain the worshippers' cause. The intention was not invariably to propitiate God in the sense of altering His attitude from hostility to clemency; the sacrifices of Abraham and of David are rendered when God is already at peace with them, but they were always at least propitiatory in the secondary sense that they were designed to prevent God from changing His attitude of clemency into an attitude of hostility. As to how they were supposed to influence God we cannot very conſidently speak. The old Hebrew idea was that the food actually reached God in the form of the fragrant fire-distilled essence, and thus gratified Him as an agreeable gift (Gn 8*). In this point of view it was more efficacious than the Peace- offering, inasmuch as it paid to God greater honour, and made Him a more costly gift. The story of the sacrifice of Isaac suggests the theory that the animal was substituted for a human victim, but it does not say that Isaac was to die for Abraham, and it therefore does not involve the idea that the animal victim was understood to bear the penalty due to the sin of the offerer. On this view, the animal victim represented only the substitu- tion of the less valuable for the more valuable gift. . As in the case of the Peace-offering, it is certain that the reflexion which was rooted in the higher faith gradually worked its way to a nobler conception than that of gratifying God by the delights of a repast. Old forms of expression, such as “sweet savour’ and “bread of God,” con- tinued to be used even when it had come to be realized that the quality which pleased God was the piety which prepared the fire-food. IIwman Sacrifices, of which OT contains some record, come under the category of the 13urnt-offering. That they occurred in the heathen stage through which the progenitors of the Hebrews passed in prehistoric times, can hardly be questioned. The practice prevailed throughout Semitic heathcndom ; it is abundantly vouched for among the Arabs and the Carthaginians, and it was in use among the Moabites (2 K 327). The story of the sacrifice of Isaac (Gn 2211) clearly implies that the custom had been deeply rooted in the past; the history of Jephthah furnishes an indubitable instance from the period of the Judges (Jg 11841); and its persistence down to a late period Inay be collected from various prophetic references (Mic 07, Jer 731, Ezk 2020 2397). The main point in dispute is whether “human sacrifices were an essential element of the Mosaic cultus' (Ghillany), or whether they “were excluded from the legitimate worship of Jehovah' º The argument for the legitimacy of the practice would be considerably º if we could regard as human sacrifices the slaying of Zellah and Zalmunna by Gideon (Jg 81811), and of Agag by Samuel (1 S 1533, cf. 2 S 219); but these acts may be assigned to the diſſerent category of executions. In the case of Jephthah it is hard to suppose that he expected other than, a human being to come forth to meet him, and the most that can bo said is that the narra- tive seems to recognize in the issue a merited punishment. The manifest, moral of the sacrifice of Isaac is that the practice was “an alien element repudiated by conscious Jahwism' (Hol- zinger on Gn 2214.20). As to the commandment of Ex 2220,— ‘the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me,’—it is an exegetical possibility that the words point to human sacrifice; but as a normal demand of OT religion, and indeed of any Sane religion, it is inconceivable (see art. PR118'TS AND LIVITEs, p. 709). SACRIFICE SACRIFICE 335 prº- (c) The Covenant-Sacrifice is closely related to the Peace-offering, although it may be considered to be intermediate between the Hºy and the na). The peculiarity lies partly in the specific object, which is to Seal a compact, partly in the ritual. Ac- cording to antique practice the formation of a covenant or an alliance was sealed by a variety of rites. One form is the º ; of each party with the other's blood, or the comming- ling of the blood of both by smearing it upon stones. In a second form animal blood is employed. Another is the partition of a carcase, with the passage of the covenanting parties between the divided parts. Of the latter custom there is an evident trace in 1 S 117. After being chosen as king, Saul ‘took a yoke of oxen and cut them in pieces, and sent them throughout all the borders of Israel.”. In the text it is interpreted as a threat of a like fate being visited upon rebels; but the form, which is reminiscent of the passage through a sundered victim, rather conveys an invitation to the tribes to join with him in a cove- nant. The form is also recognizable in the ritual employed in God's Covenant with Abraham (Gn 15). A heifer, a ram, and a she-goat are sundered in twain; and after nightfall a flaming torch, which clearly represents God in its action, passes between the divided pieces. Another noteworthy feature of the narra- tive is that at first birds of . descend upon the carcase and are driven away—not improbably a deliberate repudiation of the ancient practice of exposing the god's portion to be consumed by wild creatures (v. 11). The second important instance of the Covenant-sacrifice connects itself with the usage of cementing an alliance by an interchange of blood. At the making of the covenant between Jehovah and His emancipated people, Burnt- offerings and Peace-offerings are sacriflced ; and in connexion with the burnt-offering, as it would seem, Moses pours half of the blood upon the altar for God, while the other half is sprinkled on the people (Ex 240.9). In this type of sacrifice a different idea from that of propitiating God by a gift is clearly preserved —that, viz., of the establishment of communion of life through assimilation of the same blood. e - s (d) Vegetable offerings were later in origin, and in less repute, but must have formed an important division of the offerings at the sanctuaries. Meal, baked into calces, was doubtless a common form of offering (Jg 619, 1 S 124). The most interesting example of this class is the SIIEWBREAD (Dºn Dº, &pro variou, ºrpoxsízsvoſ (rºs) rooſio’sor, row ºrpoor&mov, tº ºrportop&s) (Ex 2530, cf. Lv 245ff). This offering, even as regards the number of the loaves, is anticipated in the far older Babylonian ritual º mern, J3eiträge). The ritual in the first stage followed the Imethod of 2xposure—the bread being laid out on a table in the Sanctuary ; but the Divine portion is conveyed to the Deity in the end by º allotted to the priests. The vegetable offer- ings, it should be added, were often associated with animal offerings. The Book of the Covenant prohibits the use of leavened bread in connexion with the Sacrificial l’east (Ex 2318). (e) The Libation was originally a libation of blood, possibly at a later stage of milk and of water (1 S 70, 2 S 2310 preserve a recollection of the latter), but in the historical period the chief material is oil, which also naturally went along with the cereal offerings. The rarity of the mention of the libation of wine, which was certainly in use, is not improbably connected with the incongruity to more elevated thought of the idea of offering to God a festal banquet, and also with official opposition to the excesses to which the prominence of this element led (1 S 114). There could not be wanting an instinct that the libation of wine was most in harmony with the unethical genius of heathendom. v. THE PROPIIISTS AS REFORMERS OF SACRI- FICIAL WORSHIP. — The sacrificial system of ancient Israel was the result of a long and com- plex formative process. A remote heathen ''. supplied the rudimentary forms, and these had undergone modification under the influence of a progressive civilization, and of the early stages of a gradual revelation. The system of ordinances thus historically given was now to be subjected to a testing ordeal. The knowledge of God and of His will, which had been conveyed through His dealings with Israel, and which had been under- stood in essence by Moses, attained to great clear- ness and consistency in the consciousness of the 8th century prophets; and, possessed as they were by this knowledge, they were compelled to examine in its light the ". and the future of the people, and to sit in judgment on all the present doings of the house of Israel. In particular, they could not but ask whether the sacrificial cult, which to popular thinking was all but coextensive with religion, was needed and justified in view of the better knowledge of God. As a fact this was a subject which bulked largely in their teaching; it Wupplied the occasion of much of their strongest invective ; and so unqualified was their denuncia- tion that it is a debatable question whether they proposed the abolition of all sacrificial worship, or only its reform. That the religious ideal of the prophets involved the abolition of Sacrifice, as affirmed by various modern writers, is a thesis which rests on a partial view of the evidence. ‘Their opposi- tion to Sacrifice,' says Kayser, “was founded on principle, and the real significance of their language is: “No offering, but love and right knowledge of God” (Alttest. Theol.2 }). 150). This; it is held, , is the natural, sense of a group of bassages which represent God as declining offerings, as sated with them, and even loathing them. ‘To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to me? I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. Bring nºmore vain oblations' (Is 111ſt, cf. Am 521-23, iios 646, Mić 6"). But such expressions may as naturally be understood of a conditional as of an absolute rejection of sacrifice. The people addressed, was a sinful nation, persisting in its sins, and the repudiation of offerings at its hand by no means implied that sacrifice would be equally unacceptable at the hºnd, of a penitent and regenerate people (cf. Smend, Alttest. Theºl. p. 108)., And the view that the repudiation is merely conditional is borne out by hints that accompany the more extensive prophetic prospects. Thus, Hosea looks forward to the Gºssation of sacrifice as a national punishment or calamity (3491ſt.); Isaiah predicts that the Egyptians will bring sacrifice and oblation to Jehovah (1921), while Jeremiah very emphati. cally includes sacrifices in the purifled worship of the future (38%. 17”). In short, those who regard the prophets as aboli. tionists make a mistake which is common in studying polemics -viz. of misconceiving an attack on abuses as an attack on the institution which they have infected. A second argument adduced is that the prophets lay great Stress on the fact that in the Mosaic period sacrifice was neither rendered nor ordained (Am 52%, Jer 721. 22), whereby they are supposed to claim for a policy of abolition, the sand- tion of a sacred period of antiquity. These remarkable pas- Sages are of great weight in the controversy as to the Mosaic contribution to sacrificial legislation, but in the present con- nexion they are not convincing. That Israel did not sacrifice during its wanderings (Am 523) was not necessarily an argument for cessation, but might equally have in view to win the people to a doctrine which certainly was included in the prophetic programme—viz, that the place of sacrifice in worship was not the all-important, or even pre-eminent, one that was commonly Supposed. The prophetic programme of reform in this field embraced both sacrificial practice and sacri- ficial theory. (1) Among the practical reforms the foremost place belonged to (a) the prohibi- tion of heathem sacrifices — i.e. those offered to other gods, to idols (Hos 11°, Jer ll”), to the dead (Ps 106”), and to sacred animals (Ezk 810). In connexion with these the practice of kissing the idol is noticed (Hos 13°). To the class of heathen sacrifices we may also refer those mystic rites in which the victim was an unclean or re- pulsive creature (the swine Is 65°, the mouse 6617), and which may have been an underground survival from a very early cult (ICS” p. 357 ff.). (b) The prohibition of certain kinds of sacrifice is also enforced—notably human sacrifices (Ezk 20%). It is, moreover, diſlicult to resist the impression, in view of the disparaging references to the number and costliness of the offerings (Is 1", Mic 67, Am 4*, Ezk 20°), that the school preferred fewer kinds and greater simplicity. In particular, antagonism to the Sacrificial Feast is strongly sug- gested by (c) condemnation of the eaccesses which commected themselves with the sacrificial cult. The sacrifices of this type naturally gave occasion for revelry, and even for drunken and licentious orgies (Hos 4”, Am 27), and thus an institution conceived to honour God became a main instrument in pro- moting a national corruption, which called down the vengeance of Heaven. While, therefore, we cannot regard the prophets as against sacrifice in principle, it is at least a probable view, in con- sideration of the organic connexion of the sacri- ficial meal with the indulgence of fleshly lusts, that they meant to discountenance the Peace- offering as the main source of evil, and laboured to enhance the credit of those other varieties which precluded its characteristic temptations, (2) It was, however, on the theoretical side that the prophetical protest went deepest, and most loudly ºi.ed the existing order, (a) It de- manded a revision of the popular estimate of the place of the cultus in religion, and in a minor degree of the place of sacrifice in the cultus. The current 336 SACRIFICE SACRIFICE conception was that religious ordinances were the grand means of pleasing God, and to this the prophets sharply opposed the doctrine that in God's view ceremonies are unimportant in comparison with morality. Latent in Mosaism, this view found , striking expression in a saying already quoted—‘to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams,’ 1 S. 15”. It is the main burden of the prophecy of Amos, and finds its classic expression in the ‘what doth the Lord require of thee ?? of Micah (6", cf. Hos 6", Pr 17, 218). The secondary importance of the cultus, in fact, was the obvious consequence of the soteriology of the prophets. According to their teaching it was only on condition of right- eousness, after backsliding on condition of repent- ance and amendment, that the Divine favour could be ensured ; failing the fulfilment of this condi- tion, ceremonial religion only provoked the Divine anger; and it was therefore out of the question to treat the two as of co-ordinate rank. And, further, even within the sphere of the cultus it is not granted that it is the all-important form of ‘service.’ Hosea attaches high importance to the teaching function of the priests (4%), while in more than one passage preference is manifestly exhibited for the exercises of prayer (‘ calves of the lips,’ Hos 14*) and for sacred song (Ps 27%). (b) The significance of sacrifice for the prophets remains to be considered. With the cultus thus depreciated, and the pre-eminence of sacrifice in the . challenged, in what sense was it possible to maintain its efficacy 2. After what has been already said, it is inconceivable that they supposed it to be acceptable to God in the capacity of a gift. The God who claimed the whole life for duty was not likely to be influenced by a present or a meal. And from the point of view of their high theology the Gift-theory fell to the ground as untenable, even ridiculous. In the first place, God did not experience the wants which the offer- ings supplied ; in the second place, even if He did, the offerings were already God’s property, not man’s to present (condensed in Ps 50"). If sacri- fice had any efficacy at all, it needed another explanation for those who had realized the true God. This it possessed as a vehicle for the ex- pression of the sentiments, and for the revelation of the spirit of the life, of those who sincerely served or sought God. Its efficacy, in short, was neither more nor less than that of prayer, which, on its part, is of value not as an act considered in itself, but in virtue of the aspirations and the sincerity which find voice in it. That in the pro- Shetic valuation the function of sacrifice was identical with that of prayer, cannot indeed be conclusively proved, but it is the view which best harmonizes with their religious theory; and it derives confirmation from several considerations. In the patriarchal narratives, which embody a measure of the prophetic spirit, it is usually associated closely with the prayer of adoration and petition, suggesting that the spoken word serves the purpose of making the action articu- late. In the case of the sacrifice of Abel, again, the ground of acceptance manifestly was the disposition of the worshipper, which disposition prayer equally with sacrifice would have served to bring to expression. Especially significant is the fact that in certain passages the offering of words is demanded (Hoš 14”) — the implication being that they served the same purpose as sacri- fice in making the appeal of prayer to God, and that they were preferable in that they were less likely to foster evil practices and to encourage superstition. The Deuteronomic Reformation made the influ- ence of the prophetic school to tell along another line on the development of the sacrificial system. The suppression of the local sanctuaries, and the con- solidation of worship in Jerusalem, which had its spring in prophetic inspiration, had far-reaching consequences. One immediate consequence was to detach sacrifice from the everyday life of the people, and to reduce it in the main to an element in the worship in which national religion found expression. Naturally also the Sacrificial l’east ceased to be as practicable as when it had been observed in their several districts by the smaller units of the family and the clan, and it tended to give place to the type of the holocaust in which the people looked on at the consumption of the offerings in the service of God, whether directl or by His priests. With the decay of the Sacri- ficial Feast, moreover, the spirit of worship was altered—the joy of the table being swallowed up in a deepening sense of the solemnity of the col- lective worship, and of the more imposing rites to which it gave prominence (Wellh. }}} Eng. tr. p. 76ff; Nowack, Argh. ii.). Sacrifice in Dewteronomy.—While in general Deut. reflects the prophetic doctrine of the superiority of morality to ceremony, it is far from representing the abolitionist standpoint ascribed to Amos. Its list of offerings includes burnt-offerings, peace- offerings, heave-offerings, votive-offerings, free-will offerings, first-fruits, while it prohibits human sacrifices (1810), the drink- ing of blood (1229), hair-offerings and mutilations (141). Among its leading interests are to conserve somewhat of the joyous char- acter of sacriſice in spite of the centralization of worship (127), and to ensure a sufficient portion to the priests from the sacriflces, --in the case of animal offerings the shoulder, two cheeks, and the maw (188). The animal victim, it is also emphasized, must be without blemish (171). The Sacrifice in expiation of an uncertain murder (210) is interesting for its peculiar ritual, manifestly antique, while it is obviously excepted from the centralization of the worship. vi. THE SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM OF THE PRIESTI.Y CODE. —With the downfall of the kingdom of Judah, involving the destruction of the Temple and the deportation of the people, Hosea's pre- diction of the cessation of sacrificial worship was fulfilled. Whatever relief individuals might there- after find in recurrence to simple forms of offering, or by conforming to heathenism, the nation as such, broken as it was and dispersed, was deprived of the stated means of communion with God. Yet the visitation which had thus overwhelmed Judah, and reduced its institutions to ruins, was not in- terpreted by its religious leaders as a Divine condemnation of its system of worship. The writings of Ezekiel bear testimony to the hopes of a great prophet touching the restoration of the Temple and its solemn ordinances. The priests who escaped into exile carried with them a minute knowledge of the Temple services, possibly also written summaries of the rules that had governed the elaborate system of offerings and ritual ; and it may well be believed that, ere the Temple with its solemn rites faded from living memory, it was realized to be a pious duty to compile a faithful record of the ancient sanctities and glories. Cherished as a monument of the past, this record naturally became, in the prospect of a new national existence, the basis of a practical religious pro- gramme. The dream of restoring the old worship on the old sacred ground, in a second Temple of Jerusalem, was one which must have irresistibly appealed to the pious exile. Ibut restoration did not preclude adaptation and amendment. Novel cir- cumstances, foreign impressions, deeper reflexion, required that the legacy from the past should be handled with freedom as well as with piety. The result of the two factors—obscure as was the pro- cess—was the l’riestly Code, which was adopted as authoritative at the Reformation under Ezra, c. 444, and which thenceforward regulated Jewish worship and gave its characteristic note to Jewish religion. The sacrificial system described in this SACRIFICE SACRIFICE 337 code (Leviticus, Ex 25–31. 35–40, Nu 1–10. 15–19. 25–36) we have now to analyze. 1. Forms of Sacrifice.—The arrangement of the complicated enactments of the code has been at- tem º in different ways, but the more satisfactory method is to adopt as the leading clue the distinc- tion of kinds and varieties. The classification of the Levitical sacrifices may, however, be carried out from different points of view. The main principle of division has been sought in the distinction of the subjects on behalf of whom sacrifices were offered. It is on this principle that Maimonides bases his interesting and instructive summary of the sacrificial laws º: tn quintam, Misma partem, iii. 1 ff.). The varieties, he premises, may all be reduced to four groups—the Sin-offering, the Guilt- offering, the Burnt-offering, and the Peace-offering ; and the victims were of five species—sheep, cattle, goats, young pigeons, and turtle-doves. In reference to the subjects, his classification (slightly transposed) is as follows:— 1. Sacrifices offered on behalf of the whole congregation :- (a) in the exercise of its ordinary religious duty, under a stated ritual, and ticd to stated occasions (Sabbath, New Moon, Feasts); (b) on the occasion of some collective or public transgression. 2. Sacrifices offered on behalf of the individual :—(a) in virtue of his connexion with the theocratic community as an official or ordinary member, e.g. the Passover; (b) on a special occa- Sion—e.g. a sin of word or deed, a bodily accident, a misfor- tune in business, the end of a fixed period, the obligation of a WOW. The Levitical sacrifices have also been classi- fied with reference to the different ends which they served in the approach to the Deity. The usual division from this point of view is into honorific, designed to render due homage to God, and piacular or ea:- iatory, designed to make atonement for sin—to which, since W. R. Smith's work, it has been usual to add sacrifices of com- mwnion. The distinction which Oehler lays at the basis of his discussion is expressed by him (Theology of OT, Eng. tr. p. 423) as follows:—“We refer the four lºinds of offering to two higher classes—those which assume that the covenant relation is on the whole undisturbed (Peace-offerings), and those that are meant to do away with a disturbance which has entered into this relation, and again to restore the right relation (of the people or of separate individuals) to God’ (Burnt-, Sin-, and Guilt-offerings). The division founded on the distinctions of the Sacrificial material — animal, vegetable, or liquid—is the most obvious, and may be followed here as of adequate inmportance, while not pre- judging the difficult question of the purpose of sacrifice. (i.) Animal sacrifices are by far the most im- º and in P it appears that a re-valuation has taken place of the two ancient types. The Peace-offering of which the worshippers claimed a large share is overshadowed by the Burnt-offering, with which are now associated two kindred sacri- fices—the Sin-offering and the Guilt-offering, falling to God and His ministers. (a) The Burnt-offering (Hºy Lv 1, Ex 2938-42, Nu 283ff, LV 63"), which stands at the head of the group, owes its position to the fact that its purpose was the most general, that the victims were of pre-eminent value, and that at this stage it was regarded as most perfectly embodying the sacrificial idea (Knobel-Dillmann on Lv 13). (1) The victims were the ox-kind, Sheep,goats, turtle-doves, or young pigeons,—in the case of the animals it was prescribed that the victim should be a male, as the more valuable, and without blemish (13, for a list of blemishes cf. 9322/h). (2) The ritual to be observed includes the following points in the case of the animal victims —(a) Action of the offerer—imposition of hands (Lv 14), slaughter of the victim at the door of the tabernacle, to the north of the altar (vv.3. º flaying and cutting up the carcase (v.9), washing of the entrails and legs (v.9). (b) Action of the priest—manipulation of the blood which is sprinkled about the altar (v.0), disposition of the 2ieces upon the wood of the altar (v. 8), burning the offering (v.9). The dove was killed by the priest, and its crop and feathers were flung aside as unsuitable (v. 14ft.). In the above ritual the occasion presupposed is a private sacrifice, which might be rendered as the result of a vow or spontaneously (2218). (3) The occasions of this sacrifice were in the main connected with tho collective worship, of which it formed the chief element. Tho daily Services of the temple consisted of the continual Burnt- offering (Tº nºv), wherein a he-lamb was offered every VOL. IV. —22 morning and evening, accompanied by cereal oblations and by libations (Ex 3038tſ, Nu 281-8). On holy days it was celebrated on a magnified scale : on the Sabbath two pairs of lambs were offered (Nu 289. 10); at the New Moon, at the Passover, and at the Feast of Weeks it consisted of two bullocks, a ram, and seven he-lambs, with corresponding increase of the concomitant offerings (v.11ſt). —The purpose of the Burnt-offering may be so far understood from its use as the constant element in the organized worship of the community. It was not connected with any particular form of transgression, but was appropriate as the means of approach to God of a P. or of individual persons, sensible of God's majesty and holiness, and of their standing in His sight. The effects are described from three points of view—that it is a ‘savour of rest-giving’ (i.e. acceptable) to God (ºn'yºrº. Lv 19), that it surrounds the worshipper with a “covering’ (rºy *55% 14), and that it cleanses from ceremonial impurity (1420). On this point see PRoPITIATION, § 4. The later period of the monarchy was a period of national calamities, culminating in ruin and exile, which were interpreted by the prophets as a judgment upon national sin. Under these con- ditions there was naturally a strong disposition to strengthen the nation's interest with Jehovah by the multiplication of solemn sacrifices, and during the Exile future safety might well seem to lie in the development of the system of bloody sacri- fices. It is thus that the fact has been º accounted for that two kinds of sacrifice, which occur only in name in the earlier history, figure in Ezekiel somewhat prominently, while in P they almost rival in importance the Burnt-offering. These are the Sin-offering and the Guilt-offering (AW Trespass-offering). . (b) The Sin-offering (nstºn, LXX [to] rspi or Jrip &peopticº) is mentioned 2 IC 1217, but there signifies presents or ſines paid to the priests. In Ezekiel the special occasions on which it is prescribed are the dedication of the altar (4310ft.), the annual cleansing of the Sanctuary (4517-19), the consecration of prince and people on festal occasions, including Passover week (4522. 23), and the return of a priest to duty after purification (442). In the ritual the outstanding features are the sprinkling of the blood of the victim on the doorposts of the temple (4519) and ou the four horns of the altar § and the burning of the carcase without the sanctuary (v.21). The regulations of P may be thus summarized :—(1) Beneficiaries and appropriate victims. For a ruler the suitable offering was a he-goat (Lv 425), for an ordinary person a she-goat (429), a ewe-lamb (439), a turtle dove or young pigeon (57th), or a cereal offering (511); for priests (43), Levites at their installation (Nu 88), and for the whole congrega- tion (LV 414), a bullock, for the latter also a he-goat (Nu º On the Day of Atonement a bullock was offered for the high priest, and two he-goats for the congregation (Lv 163ft.). º The ºitwal included the following acts: (a) in position of hands, and slaughter of the victim by the offerer (44) or the representa- tives of the congregation (v.19); (b) manipulation of the blood, which was sprinkled before the veil, smeared on the horns of the altar, and poured out at the base (v.7); (c) disposal of the carcase, whereof the choice and fat portions were burnt on the altar, while the skin, entrails, and (in some cases) the ordinary flesh were burned without the camp (v.8%). The remaining flesh was not burnt, but fell to the priests, when the offering did not concern themselves (513.1016ff). (3) The object of the sacrifice is otherwise conceived than in Ezekiel. With the latter it mainly appears as a service of consecration for holy places, in Pit is de- signed for the “covering' of minor offences (Lv 51-6), the removal of ceremonial uncleanness (126, 8ff.), and atonement for sins of ignor- ance (nº. 42.22: 27). By the last it might be understood, either that the wrong-doer was ignorant of the law, or that he acted in forgetfulness of the law. (4) As to the effect of the sacrifice, it is ºlºred that a “covering' talkes place and the sin is forgiven (420.95). * (c) The Guilt-offering, AWTrespass-offering (CWS (LXX tº wrip &yvoices, 70 rºº razºwsXs, oº, h ºr?.nºw A512), ‘offence,' then repara- tion made for the same), occurs in this general sense in the older history (1 S 69t, 2 IC 1217). The allusions to it in Ezekiel are incidental, and show that in his time it had already gained a footing, and that its special character was generally understood (40994218.4420,4620).-The occasion of the Guilt-offering, according to P, is unwitting trespass against the ordinances of God, in respect either of holy things (Lv 51*) or of the rights of property (61ſt). The special feature of the regulations is that reparation is demanded for the trespass, with the addition of a fine, one- fifth of the value of the }. to be restored, which goes to the priest (510). Where the injury is a private wrong, restitution is made to the injured party, failing whom or his heirs it goes to the priest (Nu 50ſ).-The victim is usually a ram (58), and the witual is similar to that of the Sin-offering (LV 77). The “cover- ing' of the trespass and the forgiveness of the offender follow upon the acceptance of the offering (6'). The distinction of the Sin-offering and the Guilt- offering has been felt to be a matter of some diffi- 338 SACRIFICE SACRIFICE culty, aggravated by the fact that the latter was wrongly supposed to be in view in Lv 5*-*. The principal views which have been held are—(1) that the Sin-offering was for sins of omission, the Guilt- offering for sins of commission ; (2) that the former operated objectively by averting punishment, the latter subjectively by appeasing the conscience; (3) that the former was offered because of open, the latter because of secret sins. Unmistakably, however, the speciſic feature of the Guilt-offering is the preliminary act of restitution ; and its occasion would thus seem to be those cases where the sin which had been committed allowed of an act of reparation. The Sin-offering was re- quired in cases where the harm done could not be undone or measured. The designation of the suffering Servant as a Guilt-offering (Is 53%, not ‘offering for sin’) indicates that the highest degree of efficacy was ascribed to this form of offering. In the ritual of the Day of Atonement the bloody sacrifices were combined in an impressive way, and invested with peculiar features. (d) The Peace-offering (bºy, bºy mill, LXX alonviz. [000 to..], carápiov) is brought under fixed regulations. In Lv 711th three varieties are distinguished — (1) thank-offerings (Tinº maj), (2) votive offerings (T,) rºy), and (3) free-will offerings (na) Tºji). The view of Hengstenberg, that the thank-offering is an alternative generic name, equivalent to peace-offering, and that the votive offering and the free - will offering are the species, is inconsistent with the fact that a different treatment of the sacrificial flesh is prescribed for (l) as compared with (2) and (3). As to the distinction of the three varieties, the most satisfactory explanation is that which interprets the thank-offering as a response to experienced acts of Divine goodness, while the votive offering and the free - will offering are connected with expectation of benefit and supplicatory prayer. The first, in short, was contemplated only after blessings received, while the last two were decided on when some special blessing was still awaited at the hand of God. The supplicatory pair, again, were distinguished in this way, thºut the free-will offering was presented in support of the º: while the votive offering was promised as conditional on he granting of the boon. ‘The latter did not need to be pre- sented if the prayer was not granted, the former had already been presented, even if the request continued unfulfilled ' (Kurtz, Sag. Worship, Eng. tr. p. 262).-(a) The victims are the same as in the holocaust–oxen, sheep, and goats, but not pigeons. It was accompanied by a cereal offering mingled with oil (Lv 712). In view of the less solemn character of this offering, the regula- tions as to quality are relaxed : the female animal is allowed as well as the more valuable male (LV 30), and for the free-will offering the principle of the unblemished character is not rigidly insisted on (2223). , (b) The ritual corresponded in its first stages with that of the Burnt-offering and the Guilt- offering. The imposition of hands, the killing of the victim, and the Sprinkling of blood upon the altar are common to it with the holocausts. (c) The distribution of the sacrifice includes God's portion—consisting of fat pieces (33ft.), the priest's portion— consisting of the breast (TID) and the right fore-leg ("pºn piº 730.3%), while the worshipper received the residue. The parts assigned to the priest were handled in a peculiar way, on account of which they are described as the breast of the wave-offering, and the thigh of the heave-offering (Ex 292). The ceremony of the wave-offering (nºn, Tºn) consisted in moving the portion backwards and forwards in the line of the altar, with a motion somewhat similar to that of a saw (Is 10”). “The swinging in a forward direction,’ says Oehler, “was a declaration in action that it properly belonged to Him ; whilst the movement back again d. that God on His part returned the gift, and assigned it as His own present to the priest’ (l.c. ii. 6). The handling of the heave-offering (TººnF) is interpreted in a similar way by Kurtz, following the Jewish tradition, as a symbolical act, whereby the offering was presented to God by being lifted upward (l.c. p. 269 fr.); but according to most moderns heaving was not an act of worship, but only the preliminary act of detaching a portion from the rest of the carcase for consecration (see OFFER, $ 5). In any Qase it is certain that the mode of viewing the waving must soon have extended to the heaving, and made it equally a religious ceremony and a vehicle of ideas of consceration. The breast which was waved fell to Aaron and his sons (Lv 731), the heave. shoulder to the officiating priest (738)., (d) The portion of the worshippers was enjoyed at a sacrificial meal. In the case of the thank-offering the whole had to be consumed on the day of the sacrifice (LV 719), while the feast furnished by the two other varieties might be extended over the second day (v. 16). At the end of the ſixed time the remnants were burned with fire without the camp. (e) The effect of the Peace-offering is only referred to in a general way: it is a ‘savour of rest-giving” unto the Lord, i.e. acceptable to God (LV 30). On a review of the regulations which have thus been sketched, it appears that the following dis- tinctions may be drawn –(1) In respect of destina- tion, the Peace-offering stands by itself as a sacri- ficial meal, while the remaining three are conveyed entire to God or to God and His ministers. (2) In respect of ritual, certain acts are common to all— the imposition of hands, the sprinkling of blood on the altar, the burning of the fat portions, but the other portions are either burned on the altar (Burnt-offering) or outside the sanctuary (Sin- offering and Guilt-offering). (3) In respect of occa- sion, two were elements of normal public wor- ship (Burnt-offering and Peace-oflering), two pre- supposed exceptional relations between God on the one hand and the community or the individual on the other (Sin-offering and Guilt-offering). It is indeed too much to say that in connexion with the former the sacrificer always stood upon the ground of salvation, in connexion with the latter he had fallen from a state of grace. The use of the Sin-offering in the matter of the consecration of temple buildings and furniture does not suggest the rupture of covenant relations, nor does it appear that the sacrificer of a Guilt-offering had fallen from a state of grace more surely than any ordinary member of the community. He was probably a man of unusual sanctity and tender- ness of conscience, and the point was, not that his sin was particularly heinous, but only that it was particularly definite. Moreover, it was only on the assumption that he was still “in a state of grace' that he was allowed to sacrifice at all : for the sins which led God to cast men off no sacrifice was accepted. The view, in short, that there were two classes of sacrifices contemplating re- spectively the pardoned and the unpardoned is much less tenable than the view that all four were at one in contemplating the community as being in a state of guilt, and requiring to be constantly reconciled to God. They have, in fact, become—not excepting the Peace-offering in its later interpretation—piacular sacrifices which dispose God to mercy, procure the forgiveness of sin, and avert punishment. Behind this lies the question as to the ground of its efficacy, or the modus operandi, which in view of its importance will be treated in a separate section. (ii.) Vegetable offerings consisted of the produce of the tilled field and of the vineyard, but not of garden-herbs or the fruits of the orchard. . They were sometimes an accompaniment of the bloody sacrifice, sometimes independent. The Meal- (AV Meat-) offering (vol. iii. p. 309) (Tºp of P, LXX (vario) was a preparation of flour and other ingredients. In the older practice the quantities probably varied, and features of the later practice which have been noted are the fixing of the measure (Ezk 465. 7. 11. 14), the prohibition of leavened bread and honey (LV 211), and the substitution for ordinary meal of a fine sort of flour (Wellh. l.c. p. 441). (1) Among the independent Meal-offerings we place the list in Lv 2, although it has been strongly contended, chiefly on dogmatic grounds, that a bleeding sacrifice is presupposed as a basis (see review of opinions in Kurtz, p. 304 f.). (a) Varieties are distinguished according to the different processes used in preparing the flour, viz. kneading it with oil, baking it in an oven, a baking- pan, or a frying-pan, and bruising cars of corn. (b) Other impredient 8 added were, in all cases salt (218), in most cases oil, in one case incense (v.19). Under stress of poverty a cereal oblation might also be presented as a Sin-offering, but with- out oil or incense (511th). (c) The ritual resembled that of the Sin-offering so far as consistent with the difference of 10aterial —a portion being consumed by fire on the altar, while the remainder fell to the priests (Lv 614T). (d) The effects of cover- ing sin, and delivering from its consequences, are ascribed to it in common with the Sin-offering (513, but see PROPITIATION, § 11 g). Special effects which are attributed to it are such as the insurance of the reliability of the trial by ordeal (Nu 511ſt), where oil and incense are excluded. (2) As a comcomitant of the animal sacrifices the Meal-offering had a prominent place in the sacrificial system. It was indeed laid down that no Burnt-offering or Peace-offering was legitimate without the cereal oblation (Nu 15. 28, 20). In the public worship of common days and festivals it bore a stated propor- SACRIFICE SACRIFICE 339 tion to the number and material of the burnt-offerings (Nu } 51ſt). Occasions where the material and the ritual undergo anodification are the consecration of the priests (Lv 820), the presentation of a thank-offering (712), and the sacrifices of the azirite (Nu 617). The Shewbread is regulated by a minute ritual (LV 245ff), specifying the material, the number and size of the cakes, the manner of their arrangement on the table, and the use of incense (v. 7). The sacrosanct character of the offering, of which part fell to the priests, is emphasized, and it seems to have the special significance of recalling to God the terms of His covenant (v. 7). See, further, art. SHEWBREAD. (iii.) Drink-offerings and Incense-offerings.-The libation (ſp), LXX arov6%) appears at this stage only as an accompaniment or element of another kind of offering. We have already met with oil as an ingredient of sacrificial cakes, Ezek. (4651ſ. 4614) and P (Numb.) ſix the quantity, though with variations, required in consideration of the number and quality of the victims. Neither in this case nor in that of wine (Nu 18) is anything said of the manipulation of the Drink- offering. The oil was probably used in part for kneading, in part treated as a libation. The wine was probably poured into a gutter, whence it drained into the ground. On the Incense-offering (nºb), LXX (valgao, D'ºp nºb) see art. INCENSE ; and on other forms which would fall to be noticed here, see FIRST-FRUITS, TITIIE, and art. PRIESTS AND LEVITES, passim. 2. The Efficacy of the Bloody Sacrifices is of such importance, and has figured so largely in the history of theology, as to call for separate treat- ment. The questions that have to be discussed are two—(1) the nature of the benefits which were conceived to flow from the sacrificial worship ; (2) the manner in which the offerings were con- ceived to operate so as to procure the desiderated boons. (1) The Benefits procatred by sacrifice.—These fall into two classes, which, to our thinking, are very clearly distinguished. In one group of cases the purpose is the cancelling of guilt, in the other the removal of ceremonial uncleanness. In other words, sacrifice has both a moral and a physical occasion. (a) The Eaſpiation of guilt is the leading purpose of the Levitical sacrifices. Their office is to cover or make atonement for sin. The word employed to describe this specific effect is nº. This efficacy is connected with all four kinds of principal offerings: the objects of the covering are persons, and sins, the covering takes place before God, and it stands in a specially close relation to the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the sacrificial flesh (Lv 14 etc.). The view that the main purpose of the Levitical sacrifices was the obliteration of guilt has, however, been traversed by Ritschl, who finds the necessity for the covering, not in the moral but in the natural attributes of God, not in the sinfulness but in the creaturely condition of man (Lehre von der Rechtfertigung u. Versöhnung, I3d. ii.). ºne?, originally to cover, then to explate—either as pleasing God by covering His table, or by hiding from His sight (cf. old Babylonian sacrificial term kippuru, “to wash away, atone,’ Zimmern, op. cit., Worwort). 13ut from what, according to Ritschl, does sacrifico hide? Throughout the OT there is evi- dence for the belief that to see or meet with God involved destruction (Gn 3290 Jacob, Jg 623 Gideon, 1322 Manoah), and this being so it was necessary to take measures for self-protection. This was found in sacrifice. “From the majesty of God per Se the destruction follows of those who come before His face as perishable creatures—provided that their life is not preserved of divine grace' (p. 203 ff.). To the common view, which makes the sacrifice an atonement for sin, Ritschl objects that it is in- credible that God would have prescribed for His covenant people a system which presupposed that they were to be per- manently under llis wrath. But we have no analysis of the consciousness of those witnessing a theophany which makes it clear that it was the mere presence of God, not of God as holy, that led the Israelite to expect death. In the later period at all events, when the holiness of God and the prevalence and heinousness of sin had been so profoundly realized, it is impos- sible to doubt that what invested the approach to God with its character of peril was above all the consciousness of the con- trast between Divine holiness and human guilt. The strengthſ of this penitential feeling no doubt varied in the case of dif- ferent offerings, as well as with different worshippers, but it could never be wholly absent from the educated theocratic conscience. See, further, art. PRoPITIATION, esp. § 17. (b) Purification from physical uncleanness, as a condition of re-entering the religious life of the community, is also an important function of sacri- fice. . The circumstances, constituting this cere- monial uncleanness are mainly three—participation in the processes of sexual life, contact with a corpse, and recovery from leprosy. (c.) As regards the first category, there were degrees of unclean- ness, and the major degree, which entailed a sacrificial puri- fication, attached only to morbid sexual conditions and to the position of a woman after child-bearing (Lv 15. 122ſt.). The Sacrifices prescribed for the purification of a mother were a lamb for a Burnt-offering and a dove for a Sin-offering. (3) The deſilcment diffused by a dead body was intense, long- sustained, and removed in a peculiar way (Nu 1916, 183119). The Sacrifice of the Ited Ileifer (Nu 1911).), which was appro- priated to purify from this form of deflement, presents certain Curious features of ritual. The victim is a red heifer without spot (v.2). The use of the blood is conſined to sprinkling seven times towards the sanctuary. With the Sin-offering it has a certain affinity, but in this case the whole of the carcase—skin, flesh, blood, and dung, mixed with fragrant ingredients — is burned without the camp. The extraordinary feature of the offering, however, is that the main purpose is the procuring and reservation of the ashes (v.9). These gave its virtue to the holy water which was sprinkled on the third day on those containinated by the neighbourhood of the dead, and this procured them purification on the seventh day (v. 12). For a discussion of the symbolism see Kurtz, p. 422 ft. ; for the evolutionary aspect, RS2 pp. 351, 354, 376. See, further, art. RED HEl FER. : (y) The recovery of a leper was marked by two series of rites (Lv 141-82). In the first stage one bird was killed over a vessel of running water, and another, after being dipped in the coloured water, was allowed to escape (v.V.5, 7). In the second stage the man offered a Guilt-offering, a Sin-offering, and a Burnt-offering (vv. 19.81)—with the peculiar provision that blood from the Guilt-offering was smeared on the right ear, the right thumb, and the right great toe of the offerer (v. 14). The same rite was observed for the purification of houses infected in Some such way as is typified to us by “dry-rot' (1483ft. ; see art. LEPROSY). In the matter of these purificatory rites, two outstanding facts have to be explained—the temporary isolation of persons and families under certain physical or pathological conditions, and the association of sacrifices of an expiatory kind with their readmission to the life of the community. The temporary isolation has its manifest explanation in a regard to the health of the community, which recognized permanent sources of danger in the sexual life as well as in leprosy and the death- bed. Less apparent is it why the same kinds of sacrifice which expiated guilt should have been required in connexion with events with no moral complexion—such as the natural calamity of disease, and the joyous event of birth. But the matter becomes partially intelligible when we recall the doctrine, widely operative in OT, as to the strictly retributive character of natural evils. When sickness was interpreted as a judgment because of open or secret sin, when death, especially premature or sudden death, was similarly construed, the obvious pro- cedure was to approach God with a remembrance of the pro- curing cause, and to make atonement for the guilt. Nor is it difficult to bring child-bearing within the same sphere of ideas The pangs of child-birth were naturally regarded from this standpoint as penal : in J they were interpreted as a punish- ment expressly inflicted because of woman's share in the primal sin (Gn 316); and it is quite intelligible that on restora- tion to the fellowship of her people the mother's sacrifice should be directed to cancel the guilt in which her sufferings were believed to have their spring. See, further, art. UNCLEAN, UNCLEANNESS. (c) The Consecration of persons and things for sacred uses appears as a further prominent function of the Levitical Sacrifices. The ceremonies at the consecration of the priests have been discussed elsewhere (see PRIESTS AND LEVITES, pp. 70 f. , 83). The consecration of the temple - furniture by means of sacriſice, esp. the Sin - offering, is tº prominent feature in the ordinances of Ezekiel (43*). In Exodus minute instructions are given as to the consecration of the tabernacle in all its parts by means of holy oil (30”, 40”, cf. Ly 810. 11). The idea of giving to a building and to its furniture the character of physical holiness was certainly antique, and even yet maintains its ground in opposition to the view that the only character which consecration can confer on material objects is reservation for religious uses. It had its l 340 SACRIFICE SACRIFICE roots in the conception that God is merely a visitor on earth, and that He can only appear in those places which have been detached from the earthly sphere, and which have acquired certain of the characters of His heavenly home (Jn 4*, *). (2) The Sacrificial Theory of the Levitical legisla: tion.—The theory has been the subject of keen and prolonged controversy. That the sacrificial worship was ordained as a means of grace, and indeed as a condition of pardon and communion, is evident ; but we have }. to ask what was the precise function ascribed to sacrifice in the legal economy. And at this stage, it may be conſidently premised, the sacrificial theory has shed the anthropopathic ideas which operated in the earlier ages. If the ritual embodied forms and phrases descending from the period of religious childhood, the crude ideas which first shaped them had been outgrown and forgotten. The theology of the prophets had too deeply saturated the religious thought of Israel to make it possible for any but an elevated doctrine to gain official recognition. The gift-theory of Spencer, as Bāhr observed, is involved in insurmountable difficulties if the attempt is made to prove its vitality and persistence in an age whose conscious- ness was dominated by the unity and spirituality of God (Symbolik, ii. 275). Equally does the same objection press against the view that the sacrifice may still have been construed as a gratifying meal; while it is generally admitted that the theory of a communion physically mediated by the sacri- ficial feast, whatever part it may have previously }. was now quite outside the horizon of srael’s religious teachers. Another theory, which has also had some vogue, may be summarily set aside as belonging to a plane of thought incom- Fº with the deeply religious spirit of the entateuch. This is the view which reduces the system to the level of police regulations by inter- preting the Sacrifices as essentially fines, and as rimarily designed to punish and check wrong- doing. The explanations of the Levitical sacri- ficial theory which have so far survived in the controversial struggle operate with higher forms of thought. These ex him. vary not a little in detail, but substantially they may be reduced to three types according as they seek to elucidate the subject with the help of the three Christian categories of substitutionary satisfaction, prayer, and Sagrantent. In addition, there is a widely diffused opinion that either no sacrificial theory is propounded, or that it is not consistently carried through in the later legislation. (i.) The theory of a Penal Substitution is entitled to precedence, not only on historical grounds, but also because of the primá facie support which it has in the biblical evidence. The salient points of the theory may be summarized as follows—(1) as a sinner the offerer was under the wrath of God, and his life was forfeited ; (2) by a gracious provision he was permitted to substitute an immaculate victim, to which his guilt was transferred, and which was put to death in his stead ; (3) the vica- rious death of the victim was accepted by God, who, on the ground of the satisfaction offered Him, received the worshipper to peace and fellowship. As to a fourth point—wherein the ground of the Satisfaction lay–opinion has differed within the school. The usual Protestant view has been that the ultimate ground of the sinner's acceptance was the sacrifice of Christ which the victims typified, and even that reflective minds might have risen at the OT stage to a realization of this real ground of forgiveness, with which their typical ritual brought them into touch. Others held that the Saºrifices had per se a true expiatory eficacy in relation, to the sins of the offerers (see Outram, p. 248 ft.; Fairbairn, ii. p. 304). The essential feature of this theory, them, is that the death of the animal victim was of the nature of a vicarious punishment— i.e. “Some evil inflicted on one party in order to expiate the guilt of another, in the sense of delivering the guilty from punishment, and procuring the forgiveness of sin” (Outram, ib.). The evidence on which chief reliance is placed is contained in the ritual of the Day of Atonement (see AZAZEL). In this ceremony it is distinctly stated that the high priest confesses the iniquities of the children of Israel over the scapegoat, that the goat carries their iniquities away into the desert, and that he who lets the goat go incurs defilement (Lv 1620ſt.). In the case of the Sin-offering there is a similar contamination conveyed by the victim (v.28), and, although the transference of guilt is not expressly mentioned, it is argued that this offering is clearly governed by the same ideas. Further, it is contended that the acts common to the | ritual of all of tho bloody sacrifices are º of the substitutionary idea. (a) The immaculate º ity of the victim fitted it to take the place of the guilty; (b) the imposition of hands had the significance of setting it apart as a substitute, or imputing to it the sinner's guilt, or both; (c) the slaughter of the victim was the carrying out of the penal substitution ; (d) the sprinkling of the blood on the altar attested to God that an animal had been slain as an atoning sacrifice; (e) the con- sumption by fire had the significance, on the older view, of the consignment of the substitute to eternal fire, Lon the newer, of bringing the transaction before the mind of God (Kurtz, pp. 123-149; Fairbairn, ii. p. 302ff.; Cave, p. 123 ff.). In the judg- ment of most modern scholars, the theory in question is un- tenable, and for the following reasons: (2) the death of the victim cannot have been vicarious, since sacrifice was not allowed for sins which merited death (Nu 1580), only for venial transgressions; (3) a coreal offering might also atone (Ly 511-18), and in this case there could be no idea of a penal substitution; (y) the victim was slain by the offerer, but on the theory in question should have been put to death by the priest as God's representative; (3) the assumption that the imposition of hands involved a transmission of guilt is inconsistent, not only with other references to this practice, but with the fact that the sacrificial flesh was treated as most holy, and might be eaten by the priest ; (e) the central act of the sacrifice was, not the act of slaughtering, but the manipulation of the blood, which was viewed as the seat of the animal soul, or as a life which was presented to God (Dillmann, Alttest. Theol. p. 468. On the Imposition of Hands, see Driver's note in Priesthood and Sacrifice, p. 39). Of the above arguments, at least (a), (Y), and (3) are of undeniable weight; but how much do they prove 2 Simply this, that the idea of penal sub- stitution is not one which has been consistently transfused throughout the entire sacrificial system. The various kinds of animal sacrifice, with their common element of ritual, are certainly not the creation of one man, or of one School, by whom they were shaped with a single eye to making them the vehicle of a particular sacrificial theory. The sacrificial system of P clearly embodies a large inheritance of forms and usages which had been created by earlier modes of thought, and the legislators did not feel called upon to recast every rite in a spirit of doctrinaire consistency. But when this has been said the possibility still remains that the sacrificial forms of most recent growth, and the most likely therefore to reveal the ideas of the compilers, embody the idea of propitiation through penal substitution. In the case of the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement, as we have seen, there is a transference of guilt, and the con- clusion is drawn that the flesh becomes unclean ; in the case of the Sin-offering as much is suggested ; and it is a reasonable view that the interpretation thus given was meant to supply a key to the less articulate language of the other bloody sacrifices. The locus classicus, Lv 17”, is not sufficiently definite to serve as a ground for rejecting the view. Moreover, the presuppositions of such a sacrificial theory were already recognized in OT religion. That sin is universally prevalent, that it provokes the Divine anger, and that its due recompense is suffering and death, had long been axiomatic in the higher teaching, and had been implessed upon the ſº mind by numerous examl les of public and private judgments. I’urther, the pro- phets had been wont to describe the judgments of God upon the nations as sacrifices, and it was a familiar enough idea that the consummated sacri- fice was one in which the vengeance of God was fully wreaked upon a people in the carnage of a battlefield, or in the atrocities of the sacked city. SACRIFICE SACRIFICE 341 On the prophetic view, indeed, as has been main- tained, there were only two possible modes of Divine reaction against sin—viz. the execution of the destroying purpose, or forgiveness on the ground of repentance and reformation. But there was a third possible development of thought. The sacrificial system was maintained, and even grew in honour, and it was an obvious reflexion that, in place of the consummated sacrifice of destruction spoken of by the prophets, God accepted as a surrogate the sacrifice of animal victims. That the idea of substitution was already familiar appears from Gn 22” (offering of a ram in place of Isaac), and at a late stage the vicarious idea is used to explain the sufferings of the righteous Servant of Jehovah (Is 53). And given the doctrine that sin entailed death, and that one being might suffer in room of another, it was a highly natural, if not an inevitable step, to go on to suppose that the rite of sacrifice combined the two ideas, and that the slain victim bore the penalty due to the sinner. (ii.) The Prayer-theory may serve to designate the group of interpretations which rest on the fundamental idea that the efficacy attached to sacrifice was due to the fact that it symbolized the religious sentinents which are the condition of ac- ceptance with God. While on the former view the victim is held to take the place of the offerer in bearing the doom which he has merited, on this view it is held to be the mere vehicle for the expression of his devout sentiments and longings. The purpose of the sacrifice, as with prayer, is to serve as an index of what is in the wº heart, and its virtue is exhausted in bringing this before God. I'urther, as prayer is of various kinds, so different writers have given to sacrifice varying interpreta- tions corresponding to these kinds: by Philo, e.g., it is construed as chiefly expressive of spiritual aspiration, corresponding to the prayer of supplica- tion ; for Bähr it has the function of expressing hatred of sin and self-surrender to God, correspond- ing to the prayer of confession and supplication; while Maurice also emphasizes the note which corresponds to the prayer of adoration. The views of Bähr, though he adopts a different rubric, belong to this type. He finds the key of the system in Lv 1711–“the soul placing itself at the disposal of God in order to receive the gift of true life in sanctification’ (p. 211). From this point of view the ritual undergoes a new interpretation. A valuable and un- blennished victim is selected as symbolical of the excellence and purity to which the offerer aspires; the death is necessary only in order to procure a life which may be offered to God; the sprink- ling of the altar is the presentation of the life, still resident in the blood, to God. A simpler version of the theory is given by Ochler, who emphasizes the vital point in saying that “the self- Surrender of the person sacriſicing was accomplished vicariously in the offering” (p. 632); and the discussions of Maurice centre round the same idea º 67 ſº., “The Legal Sacrifices'). Schultz holds that the Priestly Code was strongly dominated by the teaching of the prophets, and that the significance of all kinds of offerings was simply that which belongs to genuine worship. The Burnt-offerings and the Peace-offerings were a mode of adoration, while ‘the ground of purification in the Sin-offering (and the Guilt-offering) is that God accepts the sacrifice, and that man in this offering, enjoined by God as the embodied prayer of a penitent, expresses his confession, his regret, his petition for forgiveness’ (Amner, Journ. Theol. 1900, p. 310). The exegetical arguments by which this view has been supported are of no great cogency. LV 17”, on which Bihr places such reliance, is at the most a contribution, though this doubtfully, to the view that the atoning element was the pure life which was offered, not the death through which it passed. In any case it does not give ex- pression to the characteristic idea of the symboli- cal theory. “It is never said in any manner of circumlocution that the blood of the animal slain atones for the offerer by symbolically representing the soul of the offerer’ (Cave, p. 250). The inarticu- late evidence of the ritual is no more favourable. It is true that it can be so interpreted as to fall in with the theory, but no part of the rites or º commentary speaks so strongly for the theory as do the sacrifices of atonement for the idea of vicarious punishment. A further objection which has been pressed by Kurtz and others is, that it is alien to the spirit of revealed religion as the religion of grace, inasmuch as it grounds the acceptance of the sinner upon his own worthiness, or at least on the worth of his sentiments and resolutions. This, however, is indecisive: to say that prayer alone is efficacious is not to say that it is meritorious. Weightier is the objection, that on the Prayer-theory correct ritual could not claim the paramount importance which it possesses in the Priestly Code. Further, the view could never be popular that sacrifice had no efficacy other than that of a vehicle for the expression of the º of worship ; and the Priestly Code, which has all the character of a popular religion, may well be supposed to have taken account of the common need, and to have supplemented the spiritual- ized thought of the prophets on the subject of sacrifice with a theory which made the offering an objective, an independent, and as such a deeply efficacious ground of obtaining or preserving the favour of God. (iii.) The Sacramental idea has also been widely used to elucidate the sacrificial theory of the Pen- tateuch. But to describe the sacrifices as of the nature of Sacraments does not supply a definite theory as to the real questions at issue. The category called in to explain the problem is itself ambiguous, and when it has been accepted it has still to be explained whether the efficacy of a sacramelit is understood in the Roman or the Zwinglian sense, or in accordance with an inter- mediate type of doctrine. Thus a Protestant theologian claims for the sacrifices that they possess the sacramental notes; they were signs of spiritual realities: they not only represented but sealed and applied spiritual blessings, and their efficacy was proportioned to faith (Scott, Sacrifice, p. 288). Similarly, a Roman Catholic divine teaches that there were certain Mosaic ceremonies to which something of a sacramental character attached, notably the Passover, which corresponded to the Eucharist, the purificatory rites, which corresponded to the sacrament of penance, and the consecratory sacrifices, which corresponded to the sacrament of ordination (Hunter, Dogmat. Theol. iii. 172). But this means only that they have agreed to use the same name, not that they are at one as to the theory of the modws operandi—which is the point in dispute—of the OT sacrifices. That the use of the Sacramental rubric, so far from introducing us to a definite theory, rather serves to obscure the issues, appears from the fact that it is adopted by writers who differ toto coelo as to the rationale of sacrifice. ‘The acceptance of the sacrifice by Jehovah,' says Bähr, ‘and His gift of sanctification to the wor- shipper, gives to the sacrifice the character of a sacramental act’ (ii. p. 211). At the same time Cave, who devotes considerable º to the refutation of Båhr's distinctive positions, discusses the nature, the method, the extent, and the efficacy of the Mosaic atonement under a title which aſllruns that the Mosaic sacrifices had “a sacramental significance’ (p. 138 f.). Yet again the sacramental title has been claimed by Robertson Smith for the idea, which is not alleged to be consciously present in the Priestly Code, that the union of the worshippers with their God was cemented by the physical bond of a common meal. Reasons might, indeed, be given for resting satisfied with the Sacramental interpretation—as that it does justice to the element of mystery, or that it contributes a formula in which those may rest who think the controversy fruitless. But an independent theory it is not, and , when closely examined is found to branch off either into the Prayer-theory, or into some modification of the doc- trine of an objective atonement, which has its chief illustration in the theory of penal substitution. (iv.) There remains the view that no sacrificial theory whderlay the Levitical code. ... The earlier ideas, which attached themselves to the efficacy of a gift or of a uniting meal, had been discredited in the course of religious progress, and the legisla- tion, it is supposed, had nothing definite to put in their place. 342 SACRIFICE SACRIFICE “A precise answer to the question how the sacrificial worship influenced God, men were unable to give.” What was certain was that it was of Divine appointment; for the rest it was a mystery. “When, in the blood of the Sim-offering, the tie be- tween God and His people was renewed, what was felt was the weird influence of the incomprehensible” (Smend, p. 824). The impression made by the code, however, rather is that the matter was so well understood as not to require explanation, than that it was so mysterious as to be incapable of explanation (cf. Lv 17”). It seems, besides, improbable, in view of the share that the mind invariably claims in religion, and of the fact that every preceding phase had its accompaniment of illuminating idea, that at the culminating stage thought abnegated its function, and took refuge in the category of mys- tery. More likely is it that the step deemed by Holtzmann inevitable at a later stage was already taken, and that the chaos of confused ideas result- ing from the discredit of old views was averted by the assertion of the substitutionary idea—‘the most external, indeed, but also the simplest, the most generally intelligible, and the readiest answer, to the question as to the nature of expiation’ (Neutest. Theol. i. p. 68). vii. SACRIFICE IN JUDAISTIC PRACTICE AND DOCTRINE.—The authority of the Pentateuch en- sured for its sacrificial legislation a º place in the religious life of the Jewish people subse- uent to the Exile. By the destruction of the Second Temple, a revolutionary blow was subse. quently struck at the sacrificial system, inasmuch as offerings could no longer be presented at the place and in the manner appointed by God. In the necessarily brief sketch of this part of the subject, we confine our attention to the two points of out- standing interest—the theory of sacrifice prevalent in the Jewish schools before the rise of Christianity, and the way in which Judaistic thought, after the destruction of Jerusalem, accommodated itself to the suspension of its sacrificial cult. 1. The old Jewish theory of sacrifice, could we be conſident of recovering it, would possess priceless interest as helping to elucidate the sacrificial ideas of those who, like St. Paul, passed through the school of the synagogue. Unfortunately, the date of the material collected by Weber (Jüd. Theol.” 38 ft.), and utilized by Pfleiderer and Holtzmann, is somewhat uncertain ; and it is always open to doubt whether a dictum is not a product of later Talmudic reflexion. The ideas and tendencies nost satisfactorily vouched for may be thus sum- marized :— (a) Sacrificial worship was not regarded as of pre-eminent importance, but was co-ordinated, as a condition of pleasing God, with knowledge of the Law, and with the performance of good deeds. That a higher valuation of sacrifice did not ob- tain was due partly to lºº influence, partly to the later developments of the religious life. The temple had now its complement and competitor in the synagogue, which was the sphere of the larger part of religious activity, as being the ordinary place of worship ; and, as the exposition of Scripture and tradition was the most prominent element in the worship of the synagogue, the Rabbi and the scribe tended to over- shadow the priest in popular estimation. Thus a dictum ascribed to the period of the Second Temple has it that an ignorant high priest is inferior to the wise man, even though the latter be a “bastard’ (Weber, p. 38). (b) Recognition is accorded to a class of acts serving a function similar to animal sacriſices, but belonging to a higher order. To this category belong the merits of the forefathers. The merits of Abraham, in particular, served to cover the sins of his posterity. Suffering especially had expiatory quality. By penal and disciplinary suſterings, and above all by death, atonement was made for sin. A much higher degree of efficacy attached to the sufferings and death of the righteous, as foreshadowed in Is 53. The death of the righteous is expressly compared, in point of efficacy, to the Day of Atonement (Pesikta, 174b). The trial of Abraham, the lannentations of Jeremiah, all the dolour of the prophets, and all the anguish of the martyrs, constituted a ground for the forgiveness of sin in Israel. Even the penal sufferings inflicted by God upon the Egyptians and other hereditary foes of Israel have the character of a ransom for the chosen people (Weber, p. 326ff.; cf. Holtzmann, Newtest. Theol. i. p. 64 f.). (c) Interpretation of sacrifice in the sense of substitution. The rise of ideas of substitution with imputation of guilt and merit has been indicated in the previous section. If, as is probable, these were already associated with the sacrificial system, it can be readily understood how they were extended to explain the merits and the sufferings of the fathers. If, on the other hand, they originated independently, it cannot be doubted that at this period they profoundly influenced the sacrificial theory., . From the belief in the vicariousness of the death of the righteous, it was an easy, an inevitable transition, to belief in the substitution of the animal victim. . The idea of penal Substitution supplied an intelligible popular answer to the question, which could not fail to be raised, as to why and how sacrifice procured the favour of God; and although express statements of the idea are few (2 Mac 737, 4 Mac 629), the evi- dence points to this mode of thought having become current. “Everything pressed towards the assumption that the offering of a life, substituted for sinners according to God's appoint- ment, cancelled the death penalty which they had i. and that consequently the offered blood of the sacrificial victims expiated sin as a surrogate for the life of the guilty' (Holtz- mann, p. 68). The Philonic interpretation of sacrifice as sym- bolic of self-sacrifice was too, philosophical and gave too little religious assurance for general acceptance. During the period in question, the sacrificial regulations were observed with the utmost scrupu- losity, and with all due pomp and solemnity. But at the same time a process was going on which was loosening the hold of sacrifice upon the Jewish mind, and in which the conviction was already finding half-articulate expression, that it was not a complete provision, and even that it was not vital to the communion of the people with God. Had no such loosening taken place, it is diffi- cult to conceive how faith in God could have survived the blow which at one and the same time robbed the Jews of their fatherland and their organized national worship. A living belief in the necessity would naturally have issued, when sacrifice became impossible, in apostasy to heathenism. Of sacrificial practice at the close of the period some glimpses are given in NT. Allusion is made to the sacrifice of the minor Purnt-offering at the presentation of Jesus (Ill. 224), the sacrifice of the Passover (Mk 1412), the union in sacrifice of a Galilaean group (Lk 131), the offering after recovery from leprosy (MIt 84), the votive offering (Ac 2120), and money offerings (Llt 214). Josephus gives a somewhat minute account of the sacrificial system for the information of the Gentile world (Amt, passim), leaving the impression that it was thoroughly normative for con- temporary practice. The intermission of the sacrifice offered for Caesar's prosperity marked the beginning of the Jewish war (BJ II. xvii. 2). The seizure by John of the store of wine and oil, used in the Burnt-offerings, and their distribution among the multitude, made the Roman conquest, he thinks, only a merited counterpart of the doom of Sodom (V. xiii. 6). 2. Ideadjustment of Judaistic thought with the cessation of sacrifice.—To the new conditions cre- ated by the destruction of the Temple, theology accommodated itself by the theory that other observances were accepted as a substitute for sacrificial worship. The study of the Law took the place of the rites of the altar, and even took over the characteristic designation of the latter (Thy). The knowledge of the Law, it was taught, was more valuable in the sight of God than the con- tinual Burnt-offering, and even than the building of the sanctuary (Megilla, 3b, 160). In particular, it was held that the duty of , offering the legal sacrifices had been superseded by the duty of studying the laws relating to the subject (Pesikta 60b). The other observance which is treated as an equivalent for the abolished service is Prayer, in accordance with which a parallelism was worked out between the order of the daily sacrifices and the order of daily prayers, and also between the varieties of sacrifice and the diſſerent kinds of prayer (Weber, p. 38 ſº.). It was also natural that the idea of the merits of the righteous, especially of , pious sufferers, should continue to gain in significance and em- ohasis. The destruction of Jerusalem: compre- |. an unparalleled tale of horrors, and involved in suffering and death many innocent and right. SACRIFICE SACRIFICE 343 eous persons; and it might well be believed that this was a consummated sacrifice whereby full atone- §. had been made for mational sin (Weber, p. 323 f.). B. THE SACRIFICIAL DOCTRINE OF NT. It is open to question whether in an undisturbed course of development sacrifice would have main- tained its place in the religion either of the Jewish or of the Graeco-Roman world. On the one hand, it possessed many features which justified its posi- tion as the central religious rite—it lent itself to in posing ceremonial, it was peculiarly fitted to thrill the physical nature of the worshippers, it satisfied the instinct which prompts men to give to God what costs them something, it supplied an external ground of confidence, and it was hal- lowed by its immemorial antiquity. But, on the other hand, it was menaced by more than one factor in the higher civilization of the ancient world. On the aesthetic side there must have been some considerable feeling to the effect that the public slaughter of cattle, º, with such accompaniments as were observed at Roman festivals, could not be retained in a period of advancing refinement as the appropriate form of worship. Still more, the conceptions of God prevalent in the Stoic and Platonic schools raised the question as to whether animal offerings were really acceptable to God, while the scepticism of others turned upon the system the shafts of ridicule. The Jewish Church, in its turn, con- tained within it, in the prophetical teaching, a set of principles which at least involved the con- clusion that sacrifice was unnecessary, from which it was no long step to the position that it should be discontinued. º whatever the issue might have been in the natural progress of refinement and theological reflexion, the question was settled both for the Jewish and the Gentile world by two extraordinary events. The destruction of Jeru- salem, as we have seen, brought about the aboli- tion of sacrifice in one way, and in another Christianity destroyed the system in the name of a higher fulfilment. i. NT Appr15CIATION OF THE OT SACRIFICEs.—The teaching of Jesus on this subject, as recorded in the Synoptic report, has two outstanding features: (1) the recognition of the Divine authority of the sacrificial law, and of its binding character upon the Jews; (2) the accentuation of the prophetic doctrine of the pre-eminence of the moral over the ceremonial. He assumes that His hearers offer sacrifice (Mt. 524), and He enjoins a recovered leper to make the offering required in the Law (84). Did He Himself join in the sacrificial worship He whose presentation as an infant was accompanied by a Burnt- offering, whose death was preceded by the celebration of the Passover, and who made it a maxim to conform to the laws of the Jewish Church even when knowing Himself unbound by them, certainly did not hold aloof from the temple-worship of which sacrifice was the central act. With cºl certainty we may assume that it was only as an element of collective worship that sacrifice was used by lºſim. But, while at this stage sanc- tioning sacrifice, He adopts the saying of Hosea that “God will have mercy and not sacrifice. (Mt 919 127), and accounts the scribe who gives a similar valuation as not far from the king- dom of God (Mlr 1293). The second prophetic axiom, that sacri- fice is worthless with unrepented sin in the background, finds utterance in Mt. 523, 24. Had this been all the evidence, it could have been held, and with greater conſidence than in the case of the prophets, that Jesus contemplated the continuance of sacrifice as a subordinate element in the religious life. The abolition is involved in the announcement of the establishment of a new covenant (Mt. 2628, Mk 1424, Llr 2220), with the implication of the disappearance of the old economy and all its sacrifices. The direct references of St. Paul to the subject are not numerous. The observance of the sacrificial law was still main- tained to some extent among the Jewish Christians, and the apostle on one occasion associated himself with four men who went through a purification ending in offering (Ac 2126). In 1 Co 1018 he speaks as if the purpose and significance of one kind of sacrifice were well understood it “ws desigr:ed to establish communion or fellowship with God, it might be witn (lemons, and of the worshippers one with another, through the medium of the sacrificial meal. The principal aspect in which the OT sacrifices presented themselves to him was the typical. In themselves they belonged to the beggarly elements, but they pointed forward to a satisfying and enduring ground of recon- ciliation with God. .The Epistle to the Hebrews contains an express and full discussion of OT, Sacrifice. . As kinds it distinguishes gifts and Sacrifices—i.e. unbloody and bloody offerings, and regards the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement as the crown of the system. The purpose was deliverance from sin (51), the beneficiaries were priests and people, but the contemplated end was not fully attained. That they were ineffectual for the purpose in hand was proved from the restricted scope of their claim (“Sins of ignorance,'97), from the imperfections and burdened consciences of the worshippers (10%. 3), from the necessity of the repetition of the offerings (v.2), and from explicit declarations of God (v.0). The conclusion is that they accomplished only a bodily or ceremonial purification (918), and that, as merely typical of a real salvation, they were a transitory provision (iOl). In so far as blessing flowed from them in the old dispensation it was attached to the faith accompanying them (114). In general we should distinguish two stages in the thought of the apostles on this subject. In the pre-Christian stage they had believed in the full efficacy of the Levitical sacrifices, and in the Christian they regarded them as chiefly valuable because of their witness to their own inadequacy, and to the complementary work of Christ. ii. THE PERFECT SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT.-It was, then, axiomatic for the NT writers that the system of OT sacrifices had been abolished by Christ. This conclusion was not, however, founded on the belief that sacrifice was a superfluous rite, but on the conviction that the OT sacrifices, which had possessed some value rela- tive to their time, had been superseded by a sacrifice of a nobler nature and of absolutely certain efficacy. This was the sacrifice offered up by Christ. In the NT doctrine of Christ's sacrifice, now, we may distinguish five points, on three of which the testi- mony is unmistakable, while the other two are left in some obscurity. The points on which the teaching is clear are (1) the sacrificial character of Christ's death, (2) the blessings which proceed and flow from it, (3) the conditions on which these are appropriated. The debatable ground is reached when it is attempted to fix the NT conception of (4) the nature or material of Christ's offering, and (5) the manner in which it operated towards God as the procuring cause of the blessings of redemp- tion. (1) The interpretation of Christ's death as a sacrifice is imbedded in every in portant type of the NT teaching (Ritschl, ii. p. 161 ; Cave, p. 284). The silence of St. James and St. Jude raises no presumption against the idea being łº of the common stock of Apostolic doctrine. It has been denied that St. Paul adopts the category (Schmidt, Die paul. Christologic, p. 84), but the denial rests on dogmatic rather than on exegetical grounds (iiitschi, ii. p. 161). The interpretation was given by Jesus in connecting His death with the Sinaitic sacrifice of the Covenaat (Mt. 26*, Mk 14*, l Co 11”), and it is expanded and presented by the apostles under various points of view. The evidence for the Apostolic construction is as follows:— (a) It is expressly stated that Christ was offered as a sacrifice —ºrpoorºopo, (Eph. 59, He 91*), (lva, 6. º 52, He 926). (b) A saving efficacy is ascribed to the blood or the cross of Christ, and in these cases, the thought clearly points to the forms of the altar (Ro 325 59, 1 Co 1016, Eph 17 213, Col 120, Ile Q12, 14, 1 P 12, 19, 1 Jn 1750. 8, Rev 1B), (c) The correspondence is worked out between Christ's death and the different OT sacrifices— esp. the Sin-offering (Ro 89, IIe 13", 1.1' 318), the Covenant- sacrifice (He 915-22), the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement (He 217 912ſ.), and the Passover (I Go 57), (d) The distinctive acts of the OT sacrificial ritual are shown to have been repeated in the experience of Christ—the slaying of the immaculate victim (Rev 50 138), the sprinkling of the blood, both in the sanctuary as in the sin-offering (Fle 91") and upon the people as in the Covenant-sacrifice (1 P 1°), and the destruction of the victim, as in the case of the Sin offering, without the gate (He 1319) (Ritschl, ii. p. 157 D.; Sanday - IIeadlam, Romans, b. 91). (e) The specific eſtect of sacriflee—expiation or pardon of sum—being ascribed to Christ's death, points in the same direction (ib.). Nor for the apostolic age was the description of Christ's death as a sacrifice of the nature of a mere illustration. The apostles held it to be a sacrifice 344 SACRIFICE SACRIFICE in the most literal sense of the word, and it is not difficult to appreciate various reasons why they clung to, and even gloried in, this interpretation of the death it was not merely that they received it with the impress of Christ's own authority. It pro- vided them with their best defence against a popular calumny : without altar and offering Christianity lent colour to the suspicion that it was at bottom irreligious if not atheistic, and the one effective means of removing the natural prejudice was to show that it embodied the doctrine of a literal and necessary sacrifice. Further, it solved to their own minds the speculative difficulty arising out of the death of Christ. Judged by acknowledged canons, His crucifixion had the aspect of a retributive judgment, at the least, of a repudiation of His mission by God; but this explanation, in view of their faith in Christ and the event of the resur- rection, was an impossibility. On the other hand, it was not intellectually satisfying to treat it as a mere mystery, and to point to the fact that it had been foretold by the prophets. The needed intel- lectual relief was found in bringing it under the category of the victim-death with God had of old appointed, not as the punishment of the victim's sin, but as a means of blessing to others. Above all, the sacrificial interpretation met a religious want — the need, all but universally felt, of a ground of confidence external to self on which to rest in approaching the majesty and holiness of God. (2) The benefits procured by Christ's sacrifice are coextensive with the blessings of the gospel, and may be distinguished as primary and derivative. The primary effects are that it sets man in a new relation, on the one hand to God, on the other to sin. By St. Paul special prominence is given to the new relationship which it establishes between God and the sinner; on this ground the sinner is justified or accepted as righteous (Öukatwavs, Ro 3*), adopted (vio9egia, 8”), and placed on a foot- ing of reconciliation (kata)\\ayń, 5”). Elsewhere the emphasis is laid rather on its efficacy in pro- curing the forgiveness of sin, i.e. in saving from the penal consequences which otherwise the curse of the broken law inevitably entails. It is upon this aspect that Christ fastens our attention in speaking of His Covenant-sacrifice (diq eats róv ãuapriſºv, Mt 26*); the idea of cancelling guilt, of which a vital moment is liability to punish- ment, is associated with Christ's sacrifice in He 27, 1 Jn 2° (iX&orked:0at with &aaprlas as object, and so “to expiate’); and the redemption series of terms (A&rpov, diroMºtpaats, ééayopdºeuv), while com- prehensive of all the aspects of spiritual deliver- ance in Christ, has special reference to emancipation from the curse of sin or its merited penalties (Eph 17, Col 1*). Upon these fundamental boons of peace with God and forgiveness follow, in the order of grace, the gifts of the Spirit as the energy of sanctification (Gal 5*), and as the spring of boundless consolations – viz. peace, joy, hope, assurance, with their fruits (Ro 5*), while the consummation is reached in the heavenly inherit- ance that is the meet portion of the sons of God (Ro 817). In brief, th. sacrifice of Christ is represented as the ground of all filial communion with God, as the condition of pardon, as the source of all noble endeavour and true comfort in the life which now is, and as our one warrant for con- fidence as to the world to come. - (3) The conditions on which the blessings are pro- cured, on which the hypothetical becomes actual, are REPENTANCE (aerdivota) and FAITH (triarus). As to the necessity of these conditions the NT wribers speak with one voice. Even St. James must lave considered faith of vital importance, since otherwise he need not have become a Christian at all. The one question in regard to which the teaching is somewhat fluid is as to the precise object of the faith which unlocks the treasury of redemption. In Hebrews the conception is very general—the object is God and His promises. In the Pauline theology it is brought into the most intimate connexion with Christ, and includes belief in Him as Messiah, crucified Saviour, and risen Lord (Ro 4* 10", 1 Th 4*), issuing in union with the crucified and exalted Christ in trust and self-surrender (Gal 2*). (4) The nature of Christ's offering, and (5) The mode of its operation, are two questions which are so closely inter-connected that they may best be discussed in conjunction. So far we have been dealing with the facts of the Atonement as to which the biblical teaching is full and express. These data are, to adopt an old formula—the disease, sin ; the remedy, Christ's sacrifice; the application of the remedy, salvation here, and hereafter on the ground º repentance and faith But the medical analogy suggests that the remedy may cure the disease, while yet it may be obscure to the patient wherein precisely the virtue of the curative agent lay, and how it affected his system so as to overcome the disease. Similarly, theology has its questionings, which the NT teaching does not unmistakably answer, as to the precise ‘what’ of Christ's offering, and as to ‘the principle on which the forgiveness of sins is connected with its sacrificial quality’ (Ritschl, ii. p. 185). (a) The references of Christ to His own death, while representing it as conditioning the highest blessings, do not elucidate the connexion between the work and its effects. The passage in which Christ speaks of Himself as come “to give his life a ransom for many' (Mk 1042-49, Mt 2028), has been supposed to contain in muce the solution of the problems of the Atonement. A ransom implies captives (sinners), a hostile power which holds them in thrall (God as the repre- sentative and vindicator of the outraged moral law), operation of the ransom (the death of Christ accepted as a substitute for that of sinners), specific effect (deliverance of sinners from the Benalties of sin). This elaboration has, however, been chal- i. at almost every point. It is maintained by Ritschl that the key-word of the passage is erroneously rendered ‘ransom,' that as the equivalent of nº it has the significance of a protec- tive covering, and that the way in which it operates to protect us is by stimulating us to self-denying imitation of Christ (IRechtſ, w. Vers. ii. 85). Wendt adheres to the ransom idea, but maintains that the specific effect is to deliver from bondage to suffering and death, and that it accomplishes this by teaching us to adopt Christ's sanguine valuation of these evils (Lehre Jesu, ii. 237). According to Beyschlag, the evil from which it was to emancipate was worldly ambition and similar forms of sin, which could not survive the ruin of earthly hopes in the tragedy of the Cross (Newtest. Theol. i. 153). The error of this group of interpretations lies in disconnecting Christ's death from the immediate specific effect of expiation or the forgiveness of sin, while the older interpretation unduly exploited the metaphor. All that the passage teaches is that the death of Christ was the means of effecting a reden.ption from sin (&ºroAütparis) which accrues to the benefit of many. The institution of the Lord's Supper supplies an important reference to our Lord's death :--‘This is my blood of the new Covenant, which is shed for many' (Mlc 1424); ‘this cup is the new Covenant in my blood' (1 Co 1123), to which St. Matthew adds the definition of the specific effect—“for the rennission of sins’ (2628). These words are important as comparing the death of Christ to the Covenant-sacrifice which accompanied the giving of the Law at Sinai (Ex 248-8), and as suggesting that it resembles the latter in its operation and effect. As to the effect of both sacriflces there is not much room for doubt. The Covenant-sacrifice of Sinai ratiſled the legal covenant between God and His people, the Covenant-sacrifice of Calvary established the Covenant of grace foretold in Jer 31°1, in which the cardinal boon, as specified in St. Matthew's addition, is the remission of sins. As to the manner of its eſſicagy we are hampered by the uncertainly as to how the sprinkling of the people with blood in the Sinaitic sacrifice operated, or was understood to have operated, in establishing the Old Covenant. According to the traditional view, the blood of the animal victims, slain in room of the guilty people, and Sprinkled on them, was accepted as atoning for their guilt, and hallowed them for entrance on their new relation with God. Again, it has been supposed that the fundamental idea was that the victim represented the two parties in the Covenant, and the killing of it meant that so far as the Covenant was concerned they had no longer will or life, i.e. the Coventumt was immutable SACRIFICE SACRIFICE 345 **** [Westcott, Hebrew8, p. 301). Yet again it has been interpreted is of the nature of a honorific gift which as such was acceptable to God (Wendt, op. cit. ii. 287). And once more, recurring to the evolutionary account, we might utilize the idea that by sharing the blood God and His people were knit into a close physical union and communion. . . Corresponding to these accounts the sacrifice of Christ would be necessarily interpreted as efficacious as a pº substitution, as an act declaratory of the immutability of God's gracious purpose, as an acceptable gift of perfect obedience, and as a sacramental act uniting God and man. It thus appears that the conception of the death as a Covenant-sacriflce does not itself yield a theory, but only supplies a form which can be utilized to illustrate a theory ... rounded. Probably Christ's meaning was simpler than any that has been specified, viz. that it was God's plan to seal a covenant by a sacrifice, and that, like the Old, the New Covenant, which provided for the remission of sins, had a sign º: its origin and validity in the shedding and sprinkling of blood. (b) The Pauline Epistles bring us closer to the familiar theological issues. In view of his specu- lative interests, it is antecedently probable that St. Paul had reflected on the problems which have proved so fascinating to later Christian thought, while his rabbinical training must have left a deposit of answers to similar questions touching O'T' sacrifice. As a fact, he makes a large con- tribution to a theory of the Atonement. (2) The element of Christ's sacrifice to which decisive import- ance attaches is the death upon the cross. So vital is this that the gospel may be summarily described as the message of the cross (1 Co 118). It is in the death of the Son (Ro 510), in His cross, in the blood of His cross (Col. 120), that the procuring cause is found of the blessings of redemption. It is obviously true that St. Paul recognizes other elements without which the death would have had no significance. Especially does it derive its value from the dignity of the person of Him who was Messiah, declared to be the Son of God in the resurrection, and who is now exalted (Ro 14, Col 114tſ). But it was not simply as obedient (Ro 510, Ph 28), it was as the obedient One who was slain, and whose blood was spilt, that He had power and prevailed (Ro 820). “It is upon the moment of death that the grounding of salvation is exclusively concentrated ' (Holtz- mann, Newtest. Theol. ii. p. 111). *, (3) The sacrifice of Christ had the significance of the death of an innocent victim in the room of the guilty. It is vain to deny that St. Paul freely employs the category of substitution, $nvoiving the conception of the imputation or transference of moral qualities. IIe does not, indeed, expressly say that Christ died in our stead (&vaſ): the phrase is ‘on our behalf’ (ºríp, Ro 58 88%, 1 Th 510 etc.), or ‘on account of our sins' (31%, Ro 425; rºpſ, 1 Co 153). But the idea of an exchange of parts as betwixt Christ and man is unmistakable. Christ suffers death, which is the penalty of our sins, not of His own ; man is the recipient of a righteousness which he has not built up, but which is won for him by Christ (2 Co 521). From his reference to Christ as a means of propitiation (Azorràoloy, Ro 325) it is probable that the apostle conceived of Christ as expiating guilt, through, the vicarious endurance, of its characteristic penalty. It does not, indeed, follow that he conceived of Christ as becoming the object of the Father's wrath, and construed the cross as having the quality of a punishment inflicted upon Christ and recognized as such, or the content of an equivalent of the misery of the lost (Pfleiderer, Pawlimism w8, p. 92 ft.). (2) The necessity of Christ's sacrifice had its ground in the Divine justice. The economy of grace, which includes the Atonement, is indeed derived, as its ultimate spring, from the love of God (Ro 50-10882. 30); but the justice of God had a voice in the shaping and developing of the economy. The atoning sacrifice was necessary in order ‘that God might be just" as well as “the justifler of then that believe' (Ro 320), 13ut this answer only opens up new vistas of questionings. Why was Christ's vicarious death demanded by God in virtue of His justice? We may safely say that neither the Grotian theory— to prevent the spread of sinful disorder by an example of unishment, nor even the orthodox view—because Divine justice y its very nature insists on punishment or satisfaction, lay within the apostle's horizon. The ground of the necessity was something more positive, viz. that God, whose word could not be broken, had enacted and provided in Scripture that sin would be punished with death. According to Pfleiderer, this is one of the instances of the contradictions of Paulinism. The Law, which the apostle pronounced to be temporary and now abrogated, is here utilized to lay the foundation of the doctrine of the Atonement (op. cit, p. 103). But the proclamation of death as the wages of sin is not confined to the Law ; it goes back to the patriarchal and earlier times (Gn 39), in which St. Paul always recognized an anticipation of the religious condi- tions of the age of the gospel. (3) The sacrificial death of Christ was an event which broke the power of sin as the dominant principle of humanity. It does not exhaust St. Paul's teaching as to the mode of its efficacy to say that, on the ground of the sacrifice, God accepts and sanctifies the sinner. He also teaches that in the death of Christ there took place a death of mankind to sin, “If one died for all, then all died' (2 Co 514, cf. Ro 88). Hunanity was then in a manner comprehended in Him, and, although the realization was to be partial and gradual, contemporaneously with His death it died in principle to the old order in which the flesh held the nobler elements in thrall. Christ routed sin in the sphere of human nature, and a new humanity was thus potentially created. While insufficiently recognizing the for- ensic aspect of Christ's work, Weizsäcker justly observes: “it consists not only with his doctrine of the Person of Christ, but also with the several modes of thought of the great apostle, that Christ's work in death appears to him under this highest view-point of the destruction of a world and its power through a higher power and order, and that this distinction should take place in its own province, so that flesh is vanquished in the flesh, law through law, death through death’ (Apost. Zeitalt. p. 140). (c) The Epistle to the Hebrews, though dealing very fully with the sacrifice of Christ, chiefly dwells on its parallelism to the Levitical sacrifices in re- spect of the ritualistic acts of the manipulation of the blood, and its superiority as regards its range and efficacy. There are, however, two points at which it propounds or develops a reflexion which is of far-reaching importance in the field of specu- lation. The first relates to the question as to the precise nature of Christ's offering, or the element which gave it its atoning value. In common with the apostles, the writer fixes our attention closely on the event of the bodily death as that which con- stitutes Christ the sin-bearer (9°) and the instru- ment of our sanctification (10%). Dut behind this lay the question wherein the sacrificial value of the death consisted. Was the material of the sacrifice the sum of the physical anguish, and of the accom- panying distress of spirit, which innediately pre- ceded death, and especially of the agony, the humiliation, and the dissolution of the final event 2 Or was it the spirit of self-sacrificing love which prompted Jesus to lay down His life? In other words, was the sacrifice of Christ efficacious in virtue of its quality of a suſtering unto death, or in virtue of its quality of an obedience unto death . Already St. Paul, in whose scheme of thought it was of vital consequence that Christ suffered the physical consequences due to human sin, had given expression to the thought that an element of fundamental value was the obedience of Christ. That we are justified by His blood, and that we are justified by His obedience, are parallel conceptions (Ro 5*, *). This conception, which with St. Paul comes in somewhat incidentally, is very directly stated in He 10°. * “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin thou wouldest not ; then hath he said, Lo, I am conne to do thy will (vv.**). Here the contrast between the Levitical sacrifices and the sacrifice of Christ is developed in a peculiarly suggestive way. It does not consist in this, that in the former case animal victims are slain, in the latter a victim of pre-eminent dignity, but in the circumstance that in the one case the offering is a material, in the other a spiritual oblation. The second important passage is that in which the writer develops the parallel to the action of the high priest in the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. Even as the high priest entered the Holy of Holies, bearing with him sacrificial blood, which, he offered for himself and the people (97), so Christ entered heavenly places ‘through his own blood,” or to present His sacrifice before God (9" v.”). From this representation it would appear that the vital moment of the sacrificial act was the presentation of His blood. And as it may be maintained that the object in presenting the blood was, not to bring into God’s presence evidence of the consummation of the death, but to offer that which the OT described as the seat of life, it would follow that the quality of satisfying God attached to Christ's offering of a stainless soul or a perfected obedience. The issue may be more sharply defined thus : Was the satisfaction rendered by Christ the death to which Ile voluntarily submitted, or was 346 SACRIFICE SACRIFICE it the lifelong obedience which found in the death its last and most signal expression ? To many minds the thought embodied in the second alter- native has brought welcome intellectual relief, For the hard saying that God could be satisfied only by the death of His Son it substitutes the reasonable and even natural idea that the filial obedience manifested in the whole life of Jesus —in His inner life, and His ministry of teaching and beneficence, as well as in His faithfulness unto death—constituted the offering with which God was well |. and which brought humanity into a new relation to God. While suggesting the higher conception of the nature of Christ's offering, the Epistle does not free itself from the idea that the physical event of death came into account as some- thing additional to the obedience. It accepts the principle that “apart from shedding of blood there is no remission’ (922), and indeed knows nothing of a sacrifice which does not involve suffering and death as an essential element of it (920). The following utterance seems to come near to the eventual teaching of the Epistle, ‘It has been said that Christ's perfect sacri. fice is wholly inward, of the heart. But is it not essential to Sacrifice that it should be the outward act by which the inward intention is realized, is pledged, is sealed? The inward self- dedication only becomes sacrificial when it has discovered the appropriate offering by which it can verify itself. Only through attaining this expression, in outward realization, does the language of sacrifice apply to it” (Scott Holland in Priesthood and Sacrifice, p. 85). (d) In the Johannine writings the centre of gravity shifts from the Atonement to the Incarnation. In the Pauline theology the capital theme is the sinner's acceptance and pardon on the ground of Christ's atoning sacrifice; in the Johannine it is the possession of eternal life in intimate and vital- izing union with the Word made flesh. The key- note of the one is reconciliation,--of the other, communion. It is indeed a difference of emphasis, not of inclusion and exclusion. As St. Paul also ex- perienced and chronicled the inspiration and spirit- ual energy enjoyed in mystic communion with the exalted Christ, so the Johannine writings also embody numerous references to the importance of Christ's sacrificial death. They preserve the Baptist's testimony to Christ as the lamb-victim, whether the Paschal lamb or the suffering Servant of Jehovah (Is 53*), that takes away the sin of the world (Jn 1*); His work is paralleled, as in Hebrews, to that of the high priest on the Day of Atonement (17”); and His death, which is conceived as a Sin- offering, has manifestly expiatory value (Xaguès repl āpapriſov, 1 Jn 2", cf. 4"). But the group of ideas con- nected with the Atonement is felt to be accepted and reproduced as part of the common stock of Christian beliefs, rather than to have been assimi- lated and developed under the progressive guid- ance of the Spirit of truth. It has sometimes been affirmed that St. John unfolds a new theory of redemption. Not by dying, but by shedding abroad a revelation of God and true life from His Divine-human person, did Christ come to drive away darkness and sin (cf. Holtzmann, ii. 474). In other words, his soteriological theory was Greck– that sin is ignorance, and its remedy light. But his being possessed with the marvel of the Incarnation was not incom. patible with the loyal acceptance which he intimates of the general belief. as to the significance of Christ's death. In Roman Catholic and Anglican theology there is a similar in- sistence on the pre-eminence of the Incarnation dogma, coupled with a certain reserve, but assuredly no want of faith, in regard to the Atonement. Such being the perspective of the Johannine theology, there is not much ground for expecting answers to questions raised in the theory of the Atonement. It accentuates by preference moral aspects of the Atonement, but without entitling us to infer that Christ's sacriſice only inſluences w º ..] * “. . - God indirectly through the change which it pre- viously produces in believers. . As examples of its moral influence may be noted that in the Caper. naum discourse Christ views His death as the preliminary to giving His flesh for the life of the world (6*), and that at a later period it is spoken of as destined to exercise an irresistible magnetism (12”). But that its influence was not in the first instance merely subjective, appears from the fact that it is represented as a transaction in which Satan joined issue in decisive conflict, was beaten back, and in consequence was shorn of his power (16** 12*). And with this direct transcendental effect clearly predicated, it becomes the more prob- able that in the Johannine teaching the sacrifice of Christ, when likened to an expiatory or pro- pitiatory sacrifice, was understood to have an effect upon God unconditioned by its after - fruits in human experience. To sum up, we find that the NT writers are unanimous and distinct as to the saving signifi- cance of Christ's sacrifice, as to the blessings which flow from it, and as to the conditions on which these are appropriated. As regards the precise nature of the offering, and its mode of working, our Lord says nothing definite. St. Paul certainly holds the satisfaction of Divine justice through a vicarious death; the Ep. to the Hebrews emphasizes the germinal thought that the offering was the obedience or spiritual perfection of Christ ; St. John's record chiefly conſines itself to its moral bearings. Upon the points in question, indeed, they have more to teach if we could handle the key. To their thinking, and to that of their readers, these points were elucidated by describing Christ's death as a sacrifice, especi- ally a Sin-offering; but, as we cannot say with confidence what was the accepted theory of the significance of sacrifice, the elucidation has in its turn become a problem. From this condition of mingled certainty and uncertainty several infer- ences may fairly be drawn. In the first place, it may be surmised that the sacrificial category, while emphasizing certain vital aspects, was in- adequate to the expression of the full signifi- cance of the work of Christ, and that the old sacrificial doctrine was providentially left in ob- scurity at those points where it was least adequate. In close connexion with this it may also be sug- gested that theré was a design not to bind up the work of Christ so intimately with the interpre- tation of an obsolescent institution as to prevent its receiving fresh illumination from other fields of human life. From this would follow, further, a commission to theology not to regard itself as bound by the fragmentary NT data for a theory of the Atonement, but to reinterpret by its own thought the nature, the grounds of the necessity, and the mode of efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ. In the exercise of this commission modern theology has very generally become penetrated by the con- viction that the sacrifice of Christ is too narrowly interpreted of His death, and that the atoning efficacy attaches to the whole life, in which active and passive obedience are interwoven as warp and woof. Meanwhile the uncertainty which attaches to certain stages of the process only throws into bolder relief the apostolic certitude as to the fact that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. iii. THE SACRIFICES OF THE CIIRISTIAN IIFE. —The NT doctrine is that Christ offered a sacrifice which established peace with God, and which pro- cures the forgiveness of sins. But with this the conception of offering was not wholly detached from the sphere of human service; on the contrary, a place is reserved for human offerings of a com- plementary or secondary kind. (a) The graces and the activities of the Chris- tian life have a sacrificial character. In the Prophets it was a frequent thought that the forms and expressions of the devout life—the broken spirit, the voice of adoration and aspiration—were SACRIFICE SACRIFICE 347 *— r— sacrifices of peculiar value; and such spiritual exercises continued to be described as oblations. The NT doctrine of the priesthood of believers also involved the idea that tº had somewhat to offer. The material of such offerings is the Christian per- sonality (IRo 15", cf. Jude *), or the body regarded as the instrument of Christian service (Ro 12'), or the exercises and activities of the Christian life (I P 2"), including prayer (He 13"), beneficent deeds (v."), money gifts (Ph 4"), or the graces in which service has its spring (faith, Ph 27) (Cave, p. 406 ft., who treats this subject very fully and suggestively). The immediate effect attributed to these offerings is that they are pleasing to God (Ro 12'), are to Him as the odour of a sweet smell (Ph 418). But the further question arises whether God, as pleased with these sacrifices, and on the ground of the offerings, bestows upon the Christian any special corresponding blessing. It may safely be said that they are not regarded as expiatory : only faith comes into account as connected with the forgiveness of sin, and then as the mere con- dition of obtaining the boon of which the real ground is the sacrifice of Christ. IBut certain of the offerings specified have at least a purificatory virtue—faith which overcomes the world, and hope which puriſies. As regards forms of Christian service, it is antecedently probable that they were regarded as procuring certain benefits. To call an act a sacrifice, was clearly to imply that a benefit followed ; and to say that God was well pleased, was equally to imply that He would practicall manifest His approbation. From the NT stand- point, indeed, the motive for rendering spiritual sacrifices is gratitude to God for His inexpressible magnanimity; but it does not thence follow that they do not receive a rich Divine recognition. In the parable of the Unjust Steward it is taught that wealth might be so used as to procure an abundant entrance into the everlasting habitations (Lk 16”), and it is no unfamiliar thought of the apostle of grace that God will specially reward the work and labour of love. But what is the precise nature of the Divine response to the offerings of service 2 The current reply is that in the present it takes the form of inward enrichment and growth in grace, and that in the world to come it will be manifested in a distinction of degrees of glory. But it may be doubted if this exhausts the NT conception of the efficacy of the secondary sacrifices. The life that utters itself in the forms of sacrifice would appear to evoke a response additional to strengthening grace, which is of the nature of a special provi- dential discipline or blessing, and which, resting on the individual or even the house, makes gener- ally for their protection and well-being (Mt. 6"). O NYU, I’:l,ll I. ºuTUG l’ SOCC ( {\,(:(*(2))lºu, I) IQ So St. Paul, after specifying the acceptabl sacrifices of the Philippians, concludes that God will supply all their need (Phil 4”). Am capiatory character might appear to be ascribed to one class of spiritual sacrifices, viz. the sufferings of the saints. “I rejoice in my sufferings on your behalf,’ says the apostle, “and fill | what is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh on behalf of his body, which is the Church' (Col 124). Iły some Rom. Cath. exegetes it has been argued that the afflictions of the saints are regarded as combined with the passion of Christ to constitute the satisfaction on the ground of which God pardons sin. But while the apostle aſſirms that his sufferings ture for the good of the Church, he does not say that it is as lºº and the mode of conveying benefit may well have Jeen that, by the apostolic example of patient obedience, the body was edified. But how do they fill up what was lacking of Christ's sufferings? The idea may either be that the apostle desired to approximate to the standard of Christ's sufferings (Weiss), or that he desired to endure his share of the suſterings which Christ, through His Church-body, has yet to surfer (Al- ford, in loc.). See also Lightfoot and Abbott. (b) The worship of the Church embodies a sacri- ficial element ; but this is not to be identified with the Eucharist, nor can the latter be scripturally in- terpreted as having the character of a propitiatory sacrifice. . To say that worship is sacrificial is to repeat what has already been said of the NT spiritual sacrifices. . The faith and hope and love which find expression in praise and prayer, the money gifts which are devoted to the work of Christ, are declared by the apostles to have this character. Specially is the celebration of the Sacrament of .. Lord's Supper, evoking, as it does, faith and hope and the sentiment of gratitude, the occasion of the presentation of spiritual offerings. The special question is whether the Eucharist is a sacrifice in a peculiar specific sense, and if so, what is its precise character and efficacy. The question as to whether it may be called a sacrifice is not of vital importance. It may easily be brought within the compass of our working defini- tion. “In a certain loose sense the Lord's Supper may be called a sacrifice, inasmuch as it was deliberately associated by its founder with the sacrificial rites of the OT” (Cave, p. 439). The really important issues are raised by the Roman doctrine, which interprets it as continuous with the atoning sacrifice of Christ, and as therefore possessing a propitiatory character. “By the consecration of the bread and of the wine a conver- sion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood’ (Dec. Conc. Trident., Sess. xiii. cap. 4). “Forasmuch as, in this Divine sacrifice, which is celebrated in the Mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the Cross, the holy Synod teaches that this sacrifice is truly pro- pitiatory, and that by means thereof this is cffected—that we obtain mercy and find grace if we draw nigh contrite and penitent,' etc. (Twenty-second sess, cap. 2). “Wherefore, not only for the sins, etc., of the faithful who are living, but also for those who are departed in Christ, and not yet fully purified, it is rightly offered' (ib.). At the same time, it is held that propitiation is not the only, or even the principal, fruit (canon 5 of thirteenth sess.). It would be out of place to develop the general objections to this view, which involves the grave religious defect of suggesting that salvation rests on an incomplete and therefore insecure founda- tion. The relevant objections are that the tenet of transubstantiation, which is the º of the theory, has no scriptural warrant, while the interpretation of the Eucharist as a perpetual propitiatory offering is inconsistent with the NT teaching that the sacrifice of Christ was expiatory, and was offered once for all (Ro 6", He 727 919, 20-28 1019. 12, 14, 1 P 318). According to a modified view, the Eucharist is a perpetuation of Christ's sacrifice, but not of the propitiatory sacrifice which He offered on Calvary. Attention is here transferred to the sacrifice which Christ presented, and continues to resent, in the heavenly sanctuary (He 8**), and it is maintained that in the Eucharist the Church presents an offering which is organically connected with the ceaseless offering of her Head. “The offering of our Heavenly High Priest,’ to quote an im- portant statement of this view, “includes in it a ſº and eternal offering of His life in heaven.' But the duty of the Church is to repeat and represent the life of her Head in another and higher world; and in the Eucharist she “appropri- ates and reproduces the priestly offering of Hin in whom she lives. As our Lord's offering of Himself never ends or can end, so in that offering lſis people, organically united to Him, one with Him, must be oſtered, and must offer themselves; and this they do in the expressive and touching symbols of the Eucharist' (Milligan, IIcavenly I’riesthood, p. 266). On this view, then, the Eucharist is a sacrifice which not only represents. but also, as a conse- quence of Christ's union with the Church, forms a part of the offering made by Christ to God. It is commended on the ground that it satisfies the legitimate demand for a perpetual oblation which is unscripturally ministered to in the sacri. 348 SACRIFICE SACRIFICE fice of the Mass. But the scriptural evidence ls in conflict, with its cardinal positions. The offering of Christ, which is the ground of our salvation, was, according to passages alread quoted, one which does not º to be re . and we are therefore forced to seek it within the compass of Christ's earthly life — either in His death or in His obedience unto death. It is said, indeed, that that which is unchangeable and ever- lasting is not repeated, but it is hardly disputable that what was present to the mind of the writer to the Hebrews was the contrast of the ever-renewed to the completed, not to the never-ending offering. Nor was it declared in the words of institution that the special purpose of the Eucharist was to furnish the Church with an ordinance which should be a counterpart, and even a part, of the activi- ties of Christ's heavenly priesthood. , Rather is it brought into close relation with the obedience unto death which preceded His entrance into glory. On the whole, it may be concluded that, while the Eucharist, more than other means of grace, has the form of a sacrifice, it is at bottom, like them, only the occasion of sacrifice, i.e. of the presenta- tion to God of spiritual offerings. Whether the outward act be prayer, or praise, or the Eucharist, the offerings therein rendered to God are the faith, the penitence, and the self-surrender to which it gives expression, and which are sustained by the rite. The Typology of Sacrifice, which has been inci- dentally touched on, requires more direct con- sideration at the close of this study, in which we have seen the sacrificial worship of the earlier dispensation disappear in the sacrifices of the New Covenant. From the typological point of view, the Levitical sacrifices come under the category of prediction. They differed from the predictions proper in form,-being enshrined not in word but in institution and rite, but they served the same end of testifying beforehand to the person, the life, and the work of Christ, and to the contents and conditions of His salvation. In the older works the study of sacrifice as prediction and ful- filment was assiduously prosecuted as at once affording the deepest gratification to the believer, and furnishing a weapon of distinct apologetic value. In labouring at this task, Christian piety gave free play to fancy, and every feature of the OT ritual became eloquent of the unspeakable riches of Christ. Dogmatic prepossessions also supervened to dominate the discussion ; and, while the Romanist discovered in the Levitical system a foreshadowing and corroboration of the distinc- tive Sacerdotal and Sacramentarian tenets of his communion, the Protestant found in it an equally good witness for every fundamental article of the evangelical system of doctrine (1'airbairn, Typology of Scripture). The luminous and thorough monograph of Principal Cave is distinguished, in its treatment of the typical aspect of sacrifice, by great sobriety of judgment. A type is defined as an enacted prophecy, and three essential notes are distinguished: it ad- umbrates, something; it adumbrates some future thing, and it is specially, designed by God to adumbrate that future thing (p. 158). The sacrificial practice he divides into two branches —that which was concerned with atonement, and that which was concerned with the presentation of the offering. And to these types respectively correspond, as their antitypes, the death of Christ and our spiritual sacrifices. “The atonement by blood has its antitype in the atonement made by Jesus. In the activities and passivities of the Christian life are to be found the antitype of the Mosaic injunctions other than those concerning the methods of atonement, the high priesthood, and the tabernacle” (p. 419, cf. 406 f.). The precedent for treating the QT sacrifices typologically, i.e. as predictive in character and design, is set in the NT. As certainly as re- liance is placed on fulfilments of OT verbal pre- dictions is use made of antitypal fulfilments to –º attest the Messiahship and the redemptive mission of Jesus. But while the OT sacrifices are thus accorded the dignity of OT predictions, they must also share in the consequences of the altered view as to the precise nature and scope of prophecy viewed as prediction, What has become increas- ingly clear is that OT prophecy does not consist of chapters of detailed history written before the event. Prophetism was in essence faith in God as the righteous Governor of the world and the gracious Guardian of His people, and on the basis of this faith it cherished a conſident expectation of the realization on earth of a kingdom of righteous- ness by the instrumentality of a divinely commis- sioned King, who should through suffering establish His dominion (Bruce, Apolog.” p. 257 ff.). Similarly, the typical element in the Levitical code cannot be regarded as coextensive with its multifarious forms and ritualistic acts. The Pentateuchal code of sacrifice is not a mystical version of the Christian religion, whose every form and rite was shaped by a design to show forth the story of our Lord's passion, or to elucidate the “activities and the passivities’ of the Christian life. The witness which it bears to Christ is less voluminous, but not necessarily less weighty. The OT sacrifices expressed a need which Čiris: satisfies, and embodied a faith which Christ justifies. The need to which they gave utterance was that felt by the human heart for some ground of religious confidence external to itself; and this, which the animal victim only seemed to supply, is fully met in the Christian conviction that sin is forgiven, in some real deep sense, for Christ's sake. The faith which they declared was that God had provided a means by which man could enter into communion with God, and the great expectation which they expressed has its realization in the filial relations with God into which the Christian is brought by Christ. Yet once more, the institution embodied the con- viction, which was also a prediction, that the sovereign boon of union with God is not won with- out labour and cost. The victim was slain, the offerer denied himself for God. And this prin- ciple only attained to a fuller and deeper realization when, on the one hand, Christ died that He might bring men to God and reign in human hearts; and when, on the other, it was seen that self-sacrifice is the ritual of the lives that He moulds. LITERATURE.— Mishna wip hºp (Rerum sanctarwm ordo), esp. Dºnny (de Sacrificiis), ed. Surenhusius, vol. iii., Amsterdam, 1702; Philo, de Victimis (Yonge's tr. 1855, vol. iii.); Outram, de Sacrificiis, London, 1677; Spencer, de legibus Hébraeorum ritualibits (lib. iii. ‘de ratione et origine Sacrificiorum '), Cantab. 1727; Sykes, Essay on the Nature, etc., of Sºcriſices, London, 1748; Davison, Origin and Iºatent of Primitive Sacrifice, Lon- don, 1825; Bähr, Symbolik des Mosaischen Cultus, Heidelberg, 1837; Kurtz, Der AT Opfergullus (Eng. tr.), Edin. 1865, Oehler, Theol. des AT (Eng. tr.), Edin. 1882; Fairbairn, The Typology of Scriptwre, Edin. 1847; Cave, Script. Doct. of Saºri ice, Edin. 1877; Wellhäusen, Proleg. zur Gesch. Isr. 1883 (lºng tr; with additions, Edin. 1885); Nowack, Lehrb, der hebräischen Archd- ologie, bd. ii., Freiburg, 1894; Benzinger, Heb. 44 ch, Freiburg, 1865; Riehm, Alttest. Theol., IIallé, 1889,. p. 114 f.; Smend, Lehrb, der Alttest. Iteligionsgeschichte”, Freiburg, 1899, §§ 9, 17. For discussion of spécial points the following reſts, mºy be given : Stade, ZAT'ſ/, 1894 (sacriſlges of Cain and Abol); Kamphausen, Das Verhältniss des Menschenopſers 210' i80'ael. Ireligion, Bonn, 1806; Trumbull, The Ilood Coven&nt, New York, 1885; Wilcken, Ueber das IIaſtropfer, Amsterdam; 1880; Richm, “Ueber das Schuldopfer, in SIV, 1854, i. p. 93 ff.: Pºinck, ib. 1856, ii. p. 360ſ. ; H. Schultz, ‘Significance of Sacrifice in OT, in AJ'ſ, April 1900. The theological aspects are proj minent in the following: Warburton, Divine Legationi of Moses, London, 1738; Magee, Script. Doct. of Atongulent and Sacrifice, London, 1812; Payne Smith, I’owº’s and Duties of the Priesthood, London, 1868; Maurice, The Doctrine ºf Saº- fice, London, 1879; Jowett in Epp, to Theºsºl. etc., ii. 550, flondon, 1894; Delitzsch, Com. on Heb, (Eng., tr.), Iºdin. 1868; A. B. Davidson, Com. on Heb., Jºdin. 1882; Milligan, The 48gen- sion and Heavenly Priesthood of our Lord, London, 1892; Priest- hood and Sacrifice (Report of Discussion at Oxford), ed. Sºnday, London, 1900; Scott, Sacrifice : its Prophecy and I'ulſilhººt, £din. 1894; Baxter, Sanctuary and Sacrifice, London, 1806 i Moberly, Atonement and Personality, London, 1901. SADDUCEES SADDUCEES 349 The discussion of the origin and evolution of Semitic sacrifice ls dominated by Wellhausen, Skizzen w. Vorarbeiten, Resto arab. Heidenthums?, Berlin, 1897, and esp. W. R. Smith, I&S 2, London, 1894, examined by Marillier in Itev. de l'hist. deg Itel. (1897–98); Hubert et Mauss, ‘Essai sur le nature et la fonction du sacrifice,” in L'Année Sociologique for 1897–98, Paris. For the place of sacrifice in the heathen religions see de la Saussaye, Lehrb, der lèeligion&ſſeschichte, Freiburg, 1887; Tiele, Geschichte der IRel. im. Alterthwm, Gotha, 1895; Jevons, An Introduction to the Ilistory of Iteligion, London, 1896; Tylor, Primitive Culture 8, London, 1891; H. Spencer, Principles of Sociology, London, 1876; Lubbock, Onigin of Čivilizatiºn 5, London, 1889; Frazer, The Golden Bough?, London, 1900; Zimmern, Beiträge zwr Renntniss der babylon. Ireligion, Leipzig, 1806; Nägelsbach, Homnerische Theologie 3, Nürnberg, 1884; Farnell, Chilts of the Greek States, Oxford, 1896; Fowler, The Roman I'estivals of the Period of the Republic, London, 1899. W. P. PATERSON. SADDUCEES.— i. Origin and History of the Sadducees. ii. Derivation of the name ‘Sadducee.” iii. Their opposition to the Pharisees. (a) Controversies as to the Law : (1) Criminal Law, (2) questions of Ritual, (3) the Feasts. (b) Doctrinal differences: (1) as to the resurrection of the body, and future retribution ; (2) as to the existence of angels and spirits ; (3) as to ‘fate’ and free will, and Divine providence. iv. The Sadducees and Jesus. i. ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE SADDUCEES (cf. art. PHARISEES, Ś i.).—The Sadducees were the spiritual descendants of the priestly party in Jerusalem, which, towards the close of the Greek period of Israel’s history, was anxious to Hellenize the Palestinian Jews. The Maccabaean rising (see art. MACCABEES), which was caused by the attempt of Antiochus ISpiphanes to accomplish this by violence, taught these Hellenizers the folly of tampering with the national religion ; while the success of Judas Maccabaeus and his brothers in asserting the nation's political independence de- prived them of office and power. Their descend- ants, however, speedily accommodated themselves to the new order of things, which was in many respects after their mind. The Maccabaean rising i. ended otherwise than was hoped when it began. In the course of the struggle for national independence the Maccabee brothers were com- pelled to enter into alliances with foreign princes, to receive honours and dignities from them, and in general to maintain their cause by the use of purely secular means. The Jewish State which they set up was not essentially different from the Secular States around them. This led to a new development of parties among the Jews. The HASIDAEANS, who had withdrawn from the struggle with the Syrians, when religious freedom was granted, grew both in numbers and in strictness, and came to be known as the Pharisees. Their great concern was, not that the nation should be politically independent, but that it should be secured against the intrusion of all foreign ele- ments by the most scrupulous observance of the Law. And they now found themselves face to face, not with foreign rulers, but with native rinces, who, while thoroughly orthodox in the faith, were indifferent to what they conceived to be the interests of religion, and from whom they accordingly became increasingly estranged. The successors of the Hellenizers, on the other hand, were in full sympathy with the secular Jolicy of the Hasmonasan princes, and, unlike the łºś. took no exception to the illegitimacy of their high priesthood. They entered the service of the new princes as soldiers and diplomatists, and, drawing around them the leading adherents of the new dynasty, formed the party, to which was given their family name of Zadokites or Sad- datcces. Taught by experience, this lº made no violent attempts to introduce Greek customs; but they were a purely political party : their main interest was in the Jewish State as an independent State, and not, like that of the Pharisees, in the legal purity of the Jews as a religious community. The tension between the Hasmonaeans and the Phari- sees at last became so keen that John Hyrcanus broke decisively with the latter, and openly pro- claimed ...}on the side of the Sadducees. From their first appearance in history as a dis- tinct party (during the reign of John Hyrcanus, B.C. 135–105), the Sadducees were the devoted adherents of the Hasmonaean princes. Under Aristobulus I. and Alexander Jannaeus, the in- mediate successors of John Hyrcanus, their part Was Supreme. Under Alexandra Salome the Phari- Sees were for a short time in possession of power; but when Aristobulus II. became king the Sad- ducees once more came to the front. They sup- ported him in his conflict with Hyrcanus II., Antipater, and the Romans, and they also stood by him and his two sons, Alexander and Antigonus, in their attempts to restore the Hasmonaean dynasty. But the day of their political power was now past. Their numbers were also considerably reduced. When Pompey captured Jerusalem (B.C. 63) he executed many of their leaders, as did also Herod (B.C. 37). Herod further diminished their influence by appointing and removing high priests accord- ing to his own pleasure, and by filling the San- hedrin with his own creatures. When Judaea, after the deposition of Archelaus, came under the direct rule of the Romans, the Sadducees, who now included the families raised to the dignity of the high priesthood by Herod, again attained a measure of power through their preponderance in the Sanhedrin, to which the Romans committed the internal government of the country, reserving to themselves, however, not only the control of all military matters and the levying of customs, but also the confirmation and execution of all capital Sentences. Matters remained thus down to the troubled days that preceded the destruction of Jerusalem, except during the short reign of Agrippa I. (A.D. 41–44), who favoured the ſhari. sees. But the latter were the real possessors of power; for, in order to render themselves tolerable to the people, the Sadducees were compelled to act in most matters in accordance with Pharisaic principles. And when Jerusalem was destroyed and Israel ceased to exist as a nation, they speedily disappeared entirely from history. According to Josephus (Ant. xiii. x. 6, xviii. i. 4), the Sad- ducees were a small minority of the Jews, which included only the rich and those of the highest dignity. This is almost equivalent to identifying them with the priestly aristocracy and their adherents. During the second half of the Persian and the whole of the Greek domination of Israel, the high priests were the civil as well as the religious heads of the Jewish community in Judaea, and, theirs being the only hereditary office among the Jews since the downfall of the Davidic monarchy, they and their families formed a kind of sacerdotal nobility (cf. Jos. Vita, 1)... We are expressly told in Josephus (Amt. xx. ix. 1) and in Ac 517 (cf. 4l 231ſt), that in NT times some at least of the high priests were Sadducees. It was these chief priests with their families and adherents that formed the Sadducedn party. This party, however, was not a priestly party in the sense that the priests generally necessarily be. onged to it : some of these (e.g. Josephus, Vita, 1 f.; see also Vita, 39 ; Taylor's Sayings of the Jewish Fathers 2, ii. 10, iii. 2) were l’harisees (cf. Jn 119.24). Nor did it, as a rule, stand up for the special interests of the priests. The opposition between the Pharisees and the Sadducees was not an opposition between the strict legalists and the priests, but between the former and the chief priests and their adherents (cf. Schürer, GJ V8 ii. 406 f.). ii. DERIVATION OF THE NAME ‘SADDUCEES.”— The name ‘Sadducees' (pºpsis, sing. "pins, Saôov- Katow) is now almost universally derived from the proper name Zadok. The derivation, favoured by many of the Fathers and by a few moderns (e.g. Derenbourg, Stanley, and Edersheim), from the adj. pºs, according to which the Sadducees were the righteous, so called either because, in opposition to the Pharisees, they adhered to the written law, or because of their severity as judges, 350 SADDUCEES SADDUCEES must be abandoned, owing to the impossibility of accounting for the change of i into w (see especially Montet, Essai sur les origines des partis sadwcéem. et pharisien, 53 ff.). From which Zadok, however, did they derive their name? According to Aboth de- Itabbi Natham, from a disciple of Antigonus of Socho. ‘Antigonus of Socho received from Shime'on º: He used to say, Be not as slaves that serve the Rab on the terms of receiving recompense; but be as slaves that serve the Rab not on the terms of receiving recoimpense; and let the fear of Heaven be upon you ; that your reward may be doubled for the time to come. Antigonus of Socho had two disciples, who repeated his words; and they repeated them to (their) disciples, and their disciples to their disciples. They arose and refined after them, and said, What did our fathers imagine, in saying that a labourer might do work all the day and not receive his reward at evening? Nay, but if our fathers knew that there was the world to come, and that there was a revival of the dead, they would not have spoken thus. They arose and separated from the Thorah; and two sects were formed from them, Qadwkim and Baithwsin, ; Qadukin after the name of Çadok, Baithusin after the name of Baithos” (Taylor, l.c. 112 f.). This legend, though adopted by Ewald (GVI. iv. 357), is of no historical value. It is first found in a document of late origin ; it is plainly wrong in what it says of the Boethusians, who derived their name from Boethus, the father of Simon, whose daughter, Mariamne, Herod married, and whom he raised to the high priesthood (Amt. XV. ix. 3.; cf. XVII. iv. 2, XVIII. v. 1, XIX. vi. 2); it is also mistaken in asserting that the Sadducees rejected the Law, and in making the denial of a resurrection of the dead their primary and funda- mental characteristic. We must therefore either derive the name ‘Sadducee from an unknown Zadok, an influential member or head of the party at an epoch which it is impossible to determine (Montet, l.c. 59), or from Zadok, who was priest in Jerusalem in the days of David and Solomon (1 K 18. 20.8%). 295; cf. 44, 1 Ch 29*), and whose descendants held the same office down to the Exile. The latter derivation is generally regarded, not indeed as thoroughly established, but as the most probable. In his ideal picture of the future theocracy, Ezekiel (40° 431° 44' 48" ; in all these passages the LXX has the form Xačöoºk) admits only the ‘sons of Zadok’ to the right of officiating as priests in the new temple at Jerusalem. Though after the return from the Exile this rule was not strictly carried out, the ‘sons of Zadok’ formed the main body of the post-exilic priesthood ; and more especially it was from among them that the chief priests down to the close of the Greek period were drawn (see art. PRIESTS AND LEVITES, p. 96"). In the absence, therefore, of more specific information, it is assumed that the family name “Zadokites’ or ‘Sadduceds' was given, probably by their enemies, to the sacerdotal aristocratic party, which included not only the chief families of the legitimate line, but also the adherents of the Hasmonacan }.". and, in NT times, the families raised to the high priestly dignity by Herod and his successors.” This derivation of the name ‘Sadducees' is not inconsistent with what we know of the behaviour of many of these ‘sons of Zadok.” As early as the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, not only did many of the common priests intermarry with the Gentiles among whom they lived (Ezr 9°), but Eliashib, the high priest, and members of his family, entered freely into alliances with the neighbouring aris- * It is not claimed for this derivation of the name ‘Sadducce,’ which was first suggested by Geiger, that it is more than prob- able. Montet (l.c. 51 f.) argues against it that there is not a 8ingle trace in post-cxilic literature of this close connexion between the Sadducees and the Zadokites, and that this unanimous silence is fatal to the hypothesis. Kuenen, whom he cites (p. 59 f.) as holding substantially his own view, after- wards changed his opinion. ‘The name “Sadduceds,” which the priestly, nobility of Jerusalem received later, I now also identify with Zadokites. In the not unjustifiable reaction against Geiger's cxaggeration I went too far’ (Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur Biblischem Wissenschaft, 496). tocracy and with the Persian officials (Neh 13m. *). They were evidently more concerned for their own rivileges than for the reformation so dear to the heart of Ezra and Nehemiah. The position of the high priests as civil heads, under the Persian or Greek governors, of the community in Judaea, almost inevitably led to their gradual seculariza- tion. They were necessarily brought into close contact with their Gentile rulers; and their Jolitical interests tended to thrust their religious interests into the background. There were doubt- less some of these high priests who remembered what was due to their position as the servants of Jehovah, but the temptation to forget must have been very great. Towards the close of the Greek period many of the chief priestly families were entirely secularized ; they felt no interest in what was distinctively characteristic of the Jewish religion ; for the sake of their own personal enjoyment and advancement they were willing, and indeed eager, to adopt the manners and customs of their Gentile masters. ‘The high priests regarded their sacred office only as a pedestal of worldly power’ (Wellhausen, IJG” 248). There is nothing, therefore, improbable in the supposition that the aristocratic priestly party, whose interests were mainly political, and of which they formed from the beginning a considerable part, came to be known by their family name. iii. THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE PIIARISEES.— Though the Sadducees were the priestly nobility and the Pharisees were drawn mainly from the ranks of the common people, the opposition between them was not a mere opposition between two dif- ferent classes of society. Nor was it merely a question as to the laxer or stricter interpretation and observance of the Law. It was an opposition of principles, of dispositions, and of theories of life (Wellhausen, l.c. 295). The Pharisees were, in their own peculiar way, intensely religious; their great desire was to mould their fellow- countrymen into a ‘holy’ nation by means of the Law ; they looked forward to a future, in which their hopes were sure to be realized, and could therefore meanwhile endure the foreign dominion, provided it allowed them perfect religious freedom. 'he Sadducees, on the other hand, were largely indifferent to religion, except in so far as it was a matter of custom ; their great care was for the State as a purely secular State; they were satisfied with the present, so far as it permitted them to live in comfort and splendour. The acute opposition between the two parties first manifested itself in the political sphere, in the struggle for power during the reign of John Hyrcanus and his successors. When the fiasmonican dynasty fell, the animosity still continued ; but to a large extent it necessarily ceased to be political, and concentrated itself upon questions as to the Law, matters of ritual, º doctrine. (a) Controversics as to the JLaw.—The Sadducees refused to acknowledge the binding force of the oral law, the ‘tradition of the elders” (Mt 15°, Mk 7°), to which the l’harisees attached supremie importance. They held that only the written law of Moses was binding (Amt. XIII. x. 6, XVIII. i. 4); and although, as judges, and in order to maintain their position against the l’harisees, they must have had their own exegetical tradition, they did not regard themselves as absolutely bound even by it ; they held it praiseworthy to dispute with their teachers (Amt. XVIII. i. 4). It is incorrect, however, to represent them as acknowledging onl the Pentateuch and as rejecting the rest of the OT. They also doubtless agreed with the Pharisees on many points settled by the oral law; only, unlike the łºś. they did not regard it as binding (cf. Taylor, Sayings of Jewish I’athers”, p. 115). SADDUCEES SADDUCEES 351 In addition to, and partly in consequence of, this fundamental difference between the two parties, there were differences as to individual legal questions. § Criminal Law. As judges, the Sadducees were more severe than the Pharisees (Amt. xx. ix. 1 ; Cf. XIII. X. % They interpreted literally the lea: talionis (Ex 2124, Dt 1921), whereas the Pharisees mitigated its severity by accepting as punishment a money payment. They also inter- preted literally Dt 259 (‘spit in his face'); the Pharisees said it was enough to spit before the offending person. As regards Ex 2128ſ. 90ſ, they went beyond the requirement of the Law in exacting compensation not only for the damage done by one's ox or ass, but also for that done by one's servants. They were less severe, however, than the Pharisees in punishing false witnesses. According to Dt 1910ſ, a false witness was to suffer the punishment which he hoped to see inflicted on the person falsely accused by him. The Sadducees held that this punish- ment should be inflicted on him only if the falsely accused person had been punished; the Pharisees demanded his punish- ment, provided sentence had been pronounced on the accused, whether the sentence was executed or not. (2) Questions of Iłitual. The Pharisees laid the greatest stress on the cleanness of the vessels used, and on the various actions being performed in due succession and with strict legal correct- ness. According to them, all the vessels of the temple had to be purifled at the close of each feast ; the scriptures were so precious that they could be written only on the skins of clean animals, and any one who touched the sacred rolls was thereby rendered unclean ; in accordance with Lv 1613 they insisted, in opposition to the Sadducees, that on the Day of Atonement the high priest should not kindle the incense till after he had 2ntered the Holy of Holies; at a Feast of Tabernacles, Alexander Jannayus was attacked by the people, the majority of whom by that time favoured the Pharisees, because, as high priest, he poured the water of libation upon the ground beside the altar, instead of upon the altar. The Sadducees scoffed at the Pharisaic laws relating to purity: according to Pharisaic rinciples, the sacred writings were less pure than the books of Homer, contact with which did not defile; the Pharisees, it was said, would even sprinkle the sun in the heavens with lustral water. So far as they laid stress on Levitical purity, it was apparently in the interest of the priesthood. They insisted that the red heifer, from whose ashes the lustral water was º (Nu 191-10), should be burned only by priests who had Deen thoroughly cleansed from all possible deſilement, whereas the Pharisees laid more stress on the act performed by the priest than on the priest himself, whom they even tried to defile by contact with themselves. The Pharisees demanded that the cost of the daily sacrifice, which was offered on behalf of the whole people, should be defrayed out of the temple treasury; while the Sadducees maintained that, the treasure in the temple being in a manner their property, the sacrificial victims should be provided from the free-will offerings of the individuals who took part in the sacrifice. (3) As to the Feasts, the two parties differed in the manner of fixing the date of Pentecost. According to Lv 2311, 15 seven full weeks had to be counted from ‘the morrow after the Sabbath' upon which the priest waved the sheaf of first-fruits before the Lord. The Pharisees followed the traditional inter- pretation (e.g. in the LXX, ad loc. ; cf. A mt. III. x. 5), that the “Sabbath' meant the ſlrst day of the feast, and that conse- quently Pentecost might fall on any day of the week. The Sadducees (or rather, according to Schürer, l.c. 413, the Boethusians, a variety of the Sadducees) held that the “sabbath' meant the weekly sal)bath, and that therefore Pentecost always fell on the first day of the week. They naturally also refused to acknowledge as binding the tradition of the fathers as to the way of observing the sabbath.* (b) IDoctrinal differences. – (1) According to the NT (Mt. 2298, Mk 1218, Lk 2027, Ac 41 ° 238) and Josephus, the Sadducees denied the resurrection of the body, to which Josephus adds that they denied also future rewards and punishments, and even maintained that the soul perishes with the body (Amt. XVIII. i. 3 f. ; IBJ II. viii. 14). The doctrines of a bodily resurrection and of future retribution in the later Jewish sense are not found, till late, in the OT ; but it teaches a shadowy existence of souls in Sheol. In opposition to the Pharisees, therefore, the Sadducees held substantially the old Hebrew view, save (if Josephus is to be trusted) as regards continued existence after death. (2) Ac- cording to Ac 23° they also denied the eacistence of angels and spirits, i.e. of a world of supermundane spirits. Seeing that they accepted the OT, it is diſlicult to understand their position on this subject. It was probably due to their general indifference to religion and to the rationalistic temper which led to the extreme limit in opposition to the angelology of their adversaries. (3) According to Josephus (BJ II. viii. 14; Amt. XIII. v. 9) the Sad- ducees denied ‘fate' altogether; it was impossible * For a full account of these controversies see Montet, l.c. 236 ft., where the authorities are given; also Schürer, l.c. 412 ft. for God to commit or to foresee anything evil; the doing of good or evil was left entirely to man's free choice; man was the master of his own destiny and the sole author of his own happiness or misery. The Pharisees, on the other hand, made everything dependent on ‘fate ’ and God ; still they did not teach an absolute fatalism; it had pleased God that there should be ‘a mixture’ of the Divine and human elements; there was a co-operation of God in all human actions, good and evil, but the doing of good or evil was to a large extent in man’s power (BJ II. viii. 14; Ant. XVIII. i. 3, XIII. v. 9). ‘Properly understood, the real difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees seems to have amounted to this: that the former accentuated God’s preordination, the latter man's free-will ; and that, while the Pharisees admitted only a |. influence of the human element on what happened, or the co-operation of the human with the Divine, the Sadducees denied all absolute pre- ordination, and made man's choice of evil or good, with its consequences of misery or happiness, to depend entirely on the exercise of free-will and self-determination’ (Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, i. 316 f.). Though Josephus is our only authority for the denial of Divine providence on the part of the Sadducees, there is no good reason to question his substantial accu- racy. They felt no need of a Divine providence, but relied entirely on their own resources. “They claimed nothing from God, nor He from them ’ (Wellhausen, l.c. 295). iv. THE SADDUCEES AND JESUS.–In the NT the Sadducees are mentioned by name only in Mt 37 16” ". * (in the parallel passage, Mk 81m., they are not mentioned), 22*, *, Mk 1218, Lk 2027, Ac 4' 57.23%. 7 °. They are not mentioned by mame in St. John's Gospel, where, however, we find the © X pression ‘chief priests and Pharisees” (784. 4° 1147.7 18°) instead of the ‘Pharisees and Sadducees’ of Mt and Mk. It was only towards the close of His life that our Saviour came into open conſlict with them. They had little influence with the people, especially in religious matters; His criticism was therefore mainly directed against the Pharisees and scribes, the supreme religious authorities, although, according to Mt 16" ", He also warned His disciples against the leaven of the Sadducees, meaning, probably, their utterly secular spirit. They, on their part, seem to have ignored Him, until, by driving the money-changers out of the temple (Mt 2114", Mk 111", Lk 19%), He inter- fered with the prerogatives of the Sanhedrin. His acceptance of the Messianic title ‘son of David’ also filled them with indignation against Him (Mt. 21*). They accordingly joined the scribes and Pharisees in opposition to Him, and sought to destroy Him (Mk 1118, Lk 1947), first, however, attempting to discredit Him in the eyes of the people, and to bring down upon Him theyengeance of the Romans, by their questions as to His authority, as to the resurrection, and as to the lawfulness of paying tribute to Caesar (Mt 21*22*, Mk 11°7'ſ. i218tr., Lk 201ſt 19th 27m, ; cf. Jn 1147m. 57). In the San- hedrin that tried Him they probably formed the majority, and the ‘chief priests,’ who presided, belonged to their party. T. ostensible ground on which they condemned Him was His claim to be the Messiah ; this was blasphemy against God, for which they decreed Him worthy of death (Mt. 26*, Mk 1461m., Llº 22°00'.). But the Sadducees, at least, were doubtless even more influenced by the fear that a Messianic movement led by Jesus might have disastrous political consequences (cf. Jn ll"). After our }. Ascension they persisted in their opposition to Him in the person of His disciples (Ao 41m. Bliſſ. 231ſt). We are not informed that any of them joined the infant Church ; for, as we have 352 SADDUK SAINT seen, the priests, a great company of whom were obedient to the faith (Ac 67), were not necessarily of their party. According to Josephus (Amt. XX. ix. 1) they were also responsible for the death of James, the ‘brother’ of our Lord. LITERATURE.—See literature at end of art. PIIARISEES. . EATON. SADDUK (B Xaôöotſ\ovkos, A 24660 wros, AV Sadduc), 1 Es 8”. –Zadok the high priest, ancestor of Ezra (cf. Ezr 7°). SADOC.—1. (Sadoch) An ancestor of Esdras, 2 Es l" =ZADOK of Ezr 7”. 2. (Xačić K.) A descendant of Zerubbabel and ancestor of Jesus, Mt l”. SAFFRON (nbº karkóm, kpókos, crocus).—Kūr- küm, the Arab. form of karköm, is defined in the Arab. dictionaries by zafarán, from which the Eng, word saffron is derived. Three sorts of plants are known in Arab. by the name zafarān;–(1) The genus Colchicum, of the order Liliaceae. The three styles of the . of this genus are long, and often orange-coloured, but are not used in medicine or cookery. The corm and seeds are medicinal. (2) Carthamus tinctorius, L., the Safflower or Bastard Safiron. This is an annual plant of the order Compositae, 3–5 ft. high, having a head of orange-coloured flowerets as large as a walnut. These flowerets are employed for the same purposes as the true saffron, and, being much cheaper, they are used to adulterate the more costly commodity. They are also used in dyeing. The safflower is cultivated in large quantities near Damascus. (3) The genus Crocus, of the order Iridaceae, of which there are eight species in Palestine and Syria, besides the cultivated C. sativus, L. The orange-coloured styles and dis- sected stigmas of all the species of this genus are collected and dried, and used as a colouring material and aromatic in the preparation of food, esp. to impart a yellow tinge to boiled rice. They were formerly employed in medicine as an anti- spasmodic and emmenagogue. The most abundant of the wild species of crocus is C. cancellatus, Herb. Bot. The corms of this are edible, and are collected in considerable quantities, and sold in the streets of Damascus and other Oriental cities. They have a flavour somewhat like that of the chestnut. Zafarán is familiarly used for all the above-named plants. On the other hand, kärkiſm is not commonly used for any. It is the classical name for the crocus alone, but not confined to any one species. In the only passage in which karkóm. occurs (Ca, 4*), i.e. annong a list of cultivated garden aromatics, it prob. refers to C. sativus, L. G. E. POST. SAHIDIC YERSION.—See EGYPTIAN VERSIONs, vol. i. p. 669". SAINT.-This stands in AV for two Heb. words. 1. ºnº (Aram. Jºp in Daniel): (a) of men, Dt 33°, Ps 16° 34° 106", Hos 11”f [elsewhere and usually tr. ‘ holy’; see HOLINESS]; (b) of angels (a usage now obsolete), Dt 33°, Job 5’ 151°, Ps 895.7, Zec 14°, Dn 8”; cf., Jude 14 and prob. 1 Th 318 f [RV in all except last ‘holy one(s),’ see Driver on Dn 818]. 2. ~pſ, 1 S 29, 2 Ch 641, Pr 284-16 t. in Psalms [also tr. “godly,’ ‘holy,” “merciful’; see, more fully, Driver, Par. Psalter, 443 f.]. Both these words, with few exceptions (n-p) in Ps 4° 12, 1610 (?) 32% 86°, Mic 7", 1 S 29(?), Pr 28, Dt 33°; whip in Ps 106", but this is hardly an exception), are used in the plural or with a collective noun, i.e. of a class. Neither in the OT nor NT is it usual for a righteous man to be called individually “a saint ’ or ‘the Saint.” The reason of this is that a man's standing in relation ko God was not regarded as one of isolated conse- cration or holiness, but as something attaching to him as member of a larger whole, to which the covenant relation in the first instance belonged. In the OT this larger unit was Israel, the holy nation ; in the NT the Church, the holy nucleus of redeemed humanity. “The saints’—‘the saints of the Most High,’ ‘the people of the saints,’ or most fully “the peºple of the saints of the Most High' (Dm 718. * * * 844)—were the members of a holy community, consecrated to a holy life as defined by the covenant on which the relation depends. Such, then, is the general Ilotion ex- ressed by the words nºt, and D'T'pſ, and their XX and NT equivalents, lyiot and >ot. But there are further distinctions which have to be noted. "A y, o, and 3a, ou. While D'ºh", is rendered in the LXX by #yloi, Dºn't'ſ appears as ºriol. The specific idea of the former is “the consecrated,” or those in religious covenant with God; of the latter, “the godly' or ‘pious,' those dutiful to the religious relation. While &yuo; is a very rare word in classical Greek, and was perhaps for that very reason chosen by the LXX, to the exclusion of the usual term ispás—so compromised by its use in pagan religion—ºrioc, on the other hand, largely retains its classical meaning. Thus Plato (Gorg. p. 507b) says, rspi ºv &v0párovº ro, a poorázov'ro, ºrpºrtav 312&i' &w ºrpoºrtoi, ºrph 38 0sovº 6a-10. ; and elsewhere he makes 3izzio; the generic and 6orio; the º; term (cf. also Xen. Amab. 11. vi. 25). Accordin ly, in the OT, it is objective sanctity that is expressed, by oi &zio. (=oi ž»io.orgivol = 3 Axës ºroú, in Dt 338; cf. Ezr 8% ºsie &zio, rö 29pía); whereas subjective sanctity—response in feeling and conduct to God's "pſ, or graciousness—is usually empha- sized in the use of oi ºrioi (=oi &yoºróvºrs; roy Köptov in PS 96.19, where we have also ºvX&ogs, Kóptos roºf ºvX&º róv Šatov cºroú, cf. 9710; so as r& 30-ſoo &otia,0%gn, zoº pºstº &v860s TsAsſov rs38.00%aº, xzi past& #zasz'ro5, #2:Aezzos firm, 2 S 2220ſ. =Ps 1820, and cf. Dt 338). Of course the gracious conduct of ‘the godly' is but a realization of the idea of their relation as God’s ‘consecrated ones’; but it is this their conduct, in dutiful loyalty to the Covenant shown in habitual act, that marks them botto (as in Ps 505 ovyozya, ysts wºró, aous borious cºroú, Tovc bloºr,08%ivov; rºw 3.20%xay & roi; ºr Uvariocic). This agrees with the fact that 60 to: sometimes renders words like #1, minº, DE, D'ph ; and that its normal equivalent n°tſ, is also rendered by A&ſavv (Jer 31°, of God), stors@%; (Mic 72), six&goówswog (Prz8); while Tºp! is paraphrased by of vioſ arov in 2 Ch 641. Further, hāšid is use only of º ; and here one remembers the title II disidim, by which the godly called themselves in Maccabaean days; see art. HASIDAEANs. The opposite holds of oi & you, in which the stress falls on the covenant relation, though at times not without suggestions, in the context, of the practical loyalty thereto of those thus"described. These distinctions and con- trasts also persist fairly constantly through the later parts of the LXX, including the Psalms of Solomon. When we reach the NT, the striking thing is the total disappearance of ol Javot as a title of God’s own people. In a substantival sense (lavos is used only of Jesus as Messiah, and that after Ps 1610 (Ac 227 13%). On the other hand, the prerogative phrase for members of the sacred Society of Israel, ol āytot, is transferred to the members of Christ's Ecclesia, as consecrated to the Messianic Kingdom in keeping with the holy call- ing of God. It was, in ji º the over- shadowing sense of the privilege of such a status, and of the Divine action as bringing it about, that caused the objective side to obtain such exclusive emphasis as to prevent the term expressive of human devoutness (ol 80 tot) from emerging as before. Christians stood as men called out or sanctified by electing grace (ék\ekrol Tcü 950ſ, Col 312; cf. Eph 14 k\mrol ſynot, 1 Co 1*, Ito 1'), their sainthood determined by their relation to Christ as believers (&ylots K. trigroſs év Xplorø, Eph 1", Col 1*; cf. 6v roſs hytaguévous triate. Tº els éué, AC 26*), on the basis of His sacrificial death (He 10” ”), which inaugurated the New Covenant (v.”. “Saints by effectual calling’ is thus the primary sense of ‘the saints.’ But in all a new spirit or a renewed heart is assumed to exist, the subjective response quickened by the message of so great redemption. All the justified are “Saints,’ and as such are marked by true “repentance from dead works and faith towards God.” But faith towards God in Christ involves devotion to an obedient — SALAMIEL SALEM 353 walk after Christ's example, “as befitteth Saints’ (Eph 5°); and to this practical aspect of Saintship attention is growingly directed as time goes on. St. Paul is constantly calling on his converts to commit themselves, once for all, to conduct ‘worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing” (Col lº). St. Peter keeps before his readers the obligation of saintliness, after the pattern of the Holy Father, and in remembrance of the superlative cost of their initial redemption from their former vain manner of life (1 P 119°); and he refers women to the example of ‘the holy women’ in the OT (3°). In the Apocalypse we read of ‘the patience of the saints, those who keep God’s precepth and the faith of Jesus’ (14”); and are told that ‘the fine linen is the righteous deeds (5ukawópata) of the saints’ (198). And indeed this expectation that fundamental consecration will appear in conduct and character, is a necessary corollary of the belief that the believer as such was ‘sealed' a member of the Messianic community by the Holy Spirit. Here lay the significance of Christian baptism (1 Co 6”); and St. Paul at least built his whole theory of sanctification upon the abiding resence of the Holy Spirit in the “saint’ as the immanent principle of his new life (Ro 8*.*, 1 Th 47. *). It is by His energy that the regenerate will wars its warfare against the flesh and attains fuller life (819); it is in virtue of His indwelling that the saint shall enjoy the final redemption of his whole man, including release from the bondage of bodily corruption (8**); and the animating impulse of the very life of prayer, whereby Saints overcome, and realize full manhood in Christ (Eph 4*), is still the self-same Holy Spirit (Ro 8*, Eph 3” 499 678). See SANCTIFICATION. LITERATURE.—The material is collected in Trench, Symonymns of the NT, and in Cremer, Bib.-Theol. Lea..., 8, &xio; and 60.16s. J. W. BARTLI.T. SALAMIEL.—An ancestor of Judith, Jth 8" (BA XaXapuj)\, N XapapuffW). See SIIELUMIEL. SALAMIS (XaXapals; Salamis), the first place visited by Paul and Barnabas on the first mis- sionary journey (Ac 13°), was, as early as the 6th cent. B.C., one of the most important Greek towns of Cyprus. Under the Persians, it was the seat of one of the many Greek princes of the island; and in Roman times it was a flourishing mercantile town, from which the eastern half of Cyprus was governed. Having been overthrown by an earth- quake in the reign of Constantine, it was rebuilt by Constantius, and under the name of Constantia became the capital of Cyprus. From A.D. 367-403 the bishop of Constantia was * Under the Roman empire the Jews were very numerous in Cyprus; and there must have been a large colony of them at Salamis, with several synagogues. They were no doubt attracted by the facilities for trade aſſorded by the fine harbour of Salamis, and the farming of the copper mines of Cyprus to Herod the Great (Jos. Amt. XVI. iv. 5). The word was preached in Cyß soon after the martyrdom of Stephen (Ac ll**"), and amongst the early converts was Mnason (Ac 21"). , Barna- bas was a Cypriote (Ac 4"), and so possibly was John Mark, §. accompanied Paul and Barnabas to Cyprus. During the suppression of the insur- rection of the Jews in the reign of Hadrian, Salamis suffered greatly, and was almost deserted. Salamis stood on the seashore at the eastern end of the great fertile plaim—-Salaminia—which stretches westward for many miles between two ranges of mountains. Its harbour was good, and from it the rich products of Cyprus were shipped to Seleucia and the Syrian coast. The harbour is now filled with sand and overgrown with thorns and thistles; and a few broken columns and frag- VOL. IV.-23 ments of mural masonry alone remain to mark the greatness of the ancient city. The site is about 3 miles from the modern Famagusta, and not far from it is the Greek monastery of St. Barnabas. C. W. WILSON. SALĀSADAI.—An ancestor of Judith, Jth 81 (B2apaa’aéal, A. XaAao'adat, N. 2apta’aéal). SALATHIEL. — 1. The father of Zerubbabel, 1 Es 5* * * 6*(XaXaffiſ), and so in the genealogies of Mt 11° and Lk 3”). See SHEALTIEL and ZERUB- jº. 2. Another name of Esdras, 2 Es 3' (Sala- thiel). SALECAH (np?p; 'Agexxá, 2e)\xá, Xekxai, EXxd, 'Axá ; Salecha, Salacha ; AV Salcah, in Dt 319 Salchah). —Salecah, one of the cities of Og (Jos 12°), was on the eastern boundary of Basham, to which the kingdom of Og extended (Dt 31°, Jos 13"). Though not specially mentioned, it must have been included in “all the kingdom of Og, king of Bashan,’ which was given to the half tribe of Manasseh (Jos 13°). But in 1 Ch 511 the children of Gad are said to have dwelt ‘in the land of Bashan unto Salccah.” Salecah was held by the Nabataeans under king Aretas (B.C. 9–A.D. 40), whose coins have been found in the ruins. It was an important place in l{oman times, and was specially sacred to Allat, the mother of the gods. It is identical with the present Salkhad—the Sarkhad of Abulfeda, who mentions its numerous vineyards, and the Selcath. of William of Tyre, in whose day it was a strong fortress. The town occupies a commanding posi- tion a little south of the last spurs of Jebel Hawrām, at the point where the great eastern road, that led from Gadara to the Persian Gulf, entered the desert. In the town, now occupied by Druses, there are many of the ancient houses—some almost perfect. The water-supply was, and still is, derived from rain water collected in reservoirs and cisterns. A conical volcanic hill rises to a lieight of over 300 ft. above the town, and in its crater stands the castle. It was built, or rebuilt, by the Romans, and must afterwards have been restored by the Arabs or the Seljäk Turks, for at the time of the Crusades it was an important fortress. From it the old Roman road can be secn running straight as an arrow over the plain towards Bosra, and Gadara, and east- ward as it enters the desert on its way to the Persian Gulf (Porter, Giant Cities of Basham, p. 75; Heber-Percy, A Visit to Bashan and Argob). C. W. WILSON. SALEM (XàXmuos, AV Salum), 1 Es S' = Shallum, an ancestor of Ezra (cf. Ezr 7°); called also SALE- MAS (?), 2 Es 1*. SALEM (nºw), i.e. Shalem : XaXáu ; Salem).-1. A place of which Melchizedek was king (Gn 14°, He 7” ”). It was, apparently, near a broad open valley (‘āmek), called ‘the vale of Shaveh,’ or ‘the king's vale’ (Gn 1497). Various positions have been assigned to Salem. Josephus and the Jewish commentators identified the town with Jerusalem, and believed Salem to be the ancient name of that city (Jos. Amt. I. x. 2, BJ VI. x. ; Onkelos and all the Targg.). This was also the opinion of the early Christians, for Jerome (Qu. in Gen.) writes of Melchizedek as ‘king of Salem, which was the old name of Jerusalem,” and he alludes to the same belief in Ep. lxxiii. ad lºº. § 2. (See also Eus. Omom. 'Ispovaa\ju). Jerome himself, however, iden- tified Salem with a place called Salwmias, in the Jordan Valley, 8 miles south of Scythopolis, where the ruins of the palace of Melchizedek were shown (Ep. lxxiii. ad Ev. § 7 ; Omomi. s. Salem,’ ‘Aenon'). At this spot there is now an artificial mound (tell), and on it the tomb of Sheikh Salim. In a frag. 354 SALEMAS SALMON ment preserved by Eusebius (Praep. Ev. ix. 22) the meeting of Abram and Melchizedek is said to have taken place in ‘Ar-Garizin, that is, Mt. Gerizin. This is probably a tradition derived from the belief, current in the times of Eusebius and Jerome, that Shechem was the Shalem (AW, RV m) of Gn 33” (Onom. s. ‘Salem,” “Sichem’). This view was advocated by Dean Stanley (S. and P. 250). The Samaritan tradition places Salem at Sálim, east of N&blus. Bochart §. ii.) and Ewald (Gesch. i. 410) supposed Salem to have been east of Jordan, between Damascus and Sodom. - The most probable view is that Salem was Jerusalem. he arguments in its favour are:— that Jerus. is so called in Ps 76° (see below); that Salem as the residence of a E.; must have been an important and well-known city, and that, if it be not Jerusalem, it is only once mentioned in the OT ; the similarity of the names of the two kings Melchizedek and Adonizedek (Jos 10", if this and not Adonibezek is the correct reading, see ADONIZEDEK); and the parallel drawn between Melchizedek and the king of the line of David ruling at Jerusalem (Ps 110°). In the Tel el- Amarna tablets, which are earlier than the con- quest of Palestine by Joshua, Jerusalem appears as Uru-'salim, that is, according to Sayce [but this interpretation is extremely doubtful], the city of the god Salim, or god of peace. It may be added that Abram's route on his return from Damascus to Hebron might well have passed through Jerus., and that the vale of §º may have been the broad open head of the valley of Hinnom before it contracts and becomes a ravine (gai). See, further, Dillm. on Gn 1417; Sayce, HCM 295 ft., E.HHI 28 ; Hommel, A HIT 201. 2. (év elphum ; in pace) There is a general agree- ment that in Ps 76° “Salem' is Jerusalem. Each of the two names Salem and Zion indicates Jeru- salem as the special seat of Divine worship, as Judah and Israel each stand for the whole nation in Ps 76] 1 14°. 3. The valley of Salem (Töv at Nóva XaXju) is mentioned (Jth 4*) as one of the places to which the people of Judaea sent messengers on the ap- proach of Holofernes. . Reland suggests (Pal. p. 977) that the original Heb. reading was mºn Dºc” (= els aſſºva els XaXág, ‘into the plain to Salem,” that is, into the Jordan Valley (AWA&v) to Salem), and that the Greek translators rendered without the repeated els. The place was very pos- sibly that called Salatmias by Jerome (see above), which was situated not far from the point at which the ancient road from Bethshean to Shechem left the plain of the Jordan and entered the hills. 4. In Jer 41 [48] * the LXX (13) reads Salem for Shiloh. This Salem, if the reading be correct, must have been near Shechem, and possibly at (4!im to the east of Náölus. C. W. WILSON. SALEMAS (Salame, Salemas, AV Sadamias), 2 Fs 1' = Shallum, an ancestor of Ezra (cf. Ezr 7”); called also Salem, l Es 8". There is some doubt as So the nominative of this name in 2 Esdras. It occurs in the genitive, for which Dr. James reads in the text Saleme, with note “Salemae A.’ SALIM (Saxelu ; Salim).-A town or village named (Jn 3*) to indicate the position of Ænon, the “springs’ in which John was baptizing, and, presumably, a well-known place. It was on the west side of Jordan (cf. Jn 3” with 1” and 1049), lout its site has not yet been determined. Various identifications have been suggested. (1) Eusebius and Jerome (Onom. S. ‘A’non') state that in their day AEnon was shown 8 miles south of Scythopolis, near Salim (Saltmins), and the Jordan. This Salim is now, apparently, Tell Ridhghah (see SALEM), not far from which is a group of fine springs that answer well to the ‘many waters’ of Ænon. It has been º to this site that, as it was in Samaria, the Jews would not have gone to it to be baptized. But it is probable, from its position, that Salumias was in the district of Scythopolis — a town of Decapolis, with a large population of Jews noted for their strict performance of all religious observ- ances. See, further, Westcott on Jn 3”. (2) Robinson (BRP iii. 333) and Conder (Tent- Work, i. 91) have proposed Sálim, east of Náblºts; but this place is 4 miles from the springs identified with Ænon, and separated from them by a range of hills. It is, too, in the heart of Samaria, and not far from Shechem. (3) Barclay (City of the Great King, 558-570) identifies Ænon with the copious springs in Wódy I'drah, to the N.E. of Jerusalem, and is of opinion that Salim was in the W4ay Suleim near ‘Anâta (Anathoth). (4) Büsching identifies Salim with 'Ain Karim, the traditional birthplace of St. John. (5) Alford (Gr. Test. Jn 3*) and IRiehm (HWB, s. ‘Salim') suppose Salim and Ænon to be Shilhim (LXX XeXeelu) and Ain in the Negeb (Jos 15”). But these two places in the southernmost parts of Judah, as yet unidentified, seem to be too far removed from what is known of the scene of the Baptist’s labours. C. W. WILSON. SALIMOTH (B XaXetuá9, A 'AgoaXuud,0, due to a wrong division of syllables in the names Baul ao XaXiud,0, AV Assalimoth), l Es 8*. Called Shelomith, Ezr 8°. SALLAI (ºp).-1. The eponym of a Benjamito family which settled at Jerusalem after, the IReturn, Neh 118 (X,j\el). 2. The name of a priestly family, Neh 12” (BN"A om., N*" XaX\al), called in v.” Sallu. SALLU.—1. The eponym of a Benjamite family which settled , at Jerusalem after the Return, 1 Ch 97 (sºo; B XaXá'u, A. XaXá), Neh 117 (Rºo; I} >m\d, N* * >m\{a). 2. The name of a priestly family, Neh 127 (ºp; BN"A om., N* * >axoval), called in v.” Sallai. SALLUMUS (X&\\ovuos), 1 Es 9”=Shallum, Ezr 10* ; called Salum, 1 Es 5*. SALMA.—See SALMON. SALMAI (‘pºly).-The eponym of a family of Nethinim, Neh 7” (B XaXapet, A, Xexpel, N Xapaé!), called in Ezr 21, Shamlai (Keré ºw; Kethibh ºw followed by AV text Shalmai; B >apaév, A. 26Napat), and in 1 Es 5” SUBAI. SALMANASAR (Salmanasar).-2Es 13*=SHAL- MANESISR (which See). sALMon, or SALMA (Nºw Ru 4”, nºw Ru 4°, nºw 1 Ch 2in bis ºl.", LXXXaXuāv Ru I?, 1 Ch 2"A.: XaXuây Ru A, 1 Ch 2" B; XaAwudºv 1 Ch 2"..."; NT XaXudy with variant XaXá (N* B Aeth.) in Lk 3”).— The father of Boaz and son of Nahshon of the tribe of Judah (Ru 4*, *), and therefore in the direct line of the ancestry of our Lord (Mt. 1"", Lk 392). If the Salma of 1 Ch 2". " is the same person, he was the ‘father’ or ‘founder’ of Beth- |. but it is to be noticed that that Salma is reckoned as one of the sons of Caleb the son of Hur.” From Mt. 1" we learn that Salmon married IRahab. The Salma of 1 Ch 2* had ma y descend- * This cannot mean in any case that Salma was literally a son of Caleb. SALMONE SALT, CITY OF 355 ants, Bethlehem and the Netophathites, Atroth- beth-Joab, and half of the Manahathites, the Zor- ites,—but the text of the verse seems to have been corrupted. Some have wished to distinguish be- tween Salma and Salmon, in order to lengthen the genealogy, but it is scarcely to be conceived that a different person is intended in the two consecutive verses of IRuth (4”: "). As to the genealogy of Christ, Eusebius (HE ii. 7) asserts quite distinctly that genealogical tables of various families, such as that of David, were in existence up to the time of the Herods. That this is possible may be gathered from the care exercised at the time of the return from the Babylonish captivity about noting those who ‘could not show their fathers' houses, and their seed, whether they were of Israel” (Ezr 200, cf. Neh 7"). H. A. REDPATH. SALMONE (20Mućvn; Salmone).-The name of a promontory at the N.E. end of Crete, now Cape Sidero, on which stood a temple of Athene. The Alexandrian ship in which St. Paul sailed from Myra for Italy, after reaching Cnidus with difficulty, met the full force of the N.W. wind, and could not continue her voyage on the direct track, which passed close to the southern points of Morea. The captain, consequently, determined to alter, her course and, when off (kará) Salmone (Ac 277), to work his way westward under the lee of Crete. The arguments in favour of a N.W. wind, and its influence on the course of the ship, are well stated by Smith of Jordanhill (Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, p. 35). C. W. Vy ILSON. SALOAS (B X4X0as, A XaXáas, AV Talsas, from the Ald.), 1 Es 9*= Elasah, Ezr 10*. SALOM.—A Greek form (XaX&p) of the name SHALLUM (Diº). Its only application in EV is to Salom, the father of Hilkiah, Bar 17. SALOME (XaX&pm).-1. The daughter of Herodias, Mt 149-", Mk 67-49; see HEROD, vol. ii. pp. 355, 360. 2. A woman present at the crucifixion, Mk 15", and afterwards a visitor at the sepulchre, Mk 16". The comparison of the former passage with Mt 2700 leaves little doubt that sº \V (US also the wife of Zebedee, and, if so, she figures in the incident of Mt 23°. Nothing else is known of her, though there are many conjectures, of which the principal is that she was a sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus. . In support of that view may be cited a reading of the i. version of Jn 19” (cf. also the Jerus. Syr. lectionary), and a presumptive unlikelihood, on account of the similarity of the names, that Mary the wife of Clopas was a sister of the mother of Jesus. James and John would thus be the cousins of Jesus, and the silence of the NT as to so close a relationship becomes significant. ‘Many other women’ were present at the crucifixion, Mk 15"; and amongst these unnamed disciples must probably be sought the sister of Mary, the identification with Salome being precarious in the extreme, and sustained b no real evidence. See, further, art. MARY, vol. iii. p. 278 f. IR. W. MOSS. SALT (nº, &Xas, &\s). — This mineral (sodium chloride) is in such general use as a condiment to food amongst all civilized nations that it has become a necessity ; and undoubtedly it is bene- ficial in the animal economy as an antiseptic, and a preventive to the development of intestinal worms. Even wild animals feel its necessity as well as domestic cattle; and it is well known that in former times when the bison roamed in immense herds over the plains of North America, they made long journeys to the “salt-licks,” or salinas, for the purpose of licking the ground coated with this mineral. Salt of commerce is one of the most abundant of substances, and is found to a greater or less extent in nearly all countries, especially in England, Germany, Switzerland, and the Austrian Alps ; in India, both in the salt range of the Punjab and in the great salt lake of Sambur in Rajputama, ; in China, and in N. America. In Europe and the British Isles its chief source is the Triassic formation. It is also the most abundant saline ingredient in the waters of the ocean * and of most salt lakes. On the coasts of Spain, Italy, and some other countries, salt of commerce is largely extracted from the , oceanic waters by evaporation. Salt is found also in the waters of nearly all rivers. The chief source of salt in Palestine is, and always has been, the terraced hill, called Khashm Usdwm, on the south-western shore of the Dead Sea (which see); and this trade is still carried on by the Arabs. Here a cliff of solid rock-salt from 30 to 60 ft. high," º by white marl, extends for a distance of nearly 7 miles along the shore of the lake, and affords, an inexhaustible supply; while salt is also obtained from pits dug into the sand or slime of the shore, into which the waters of the Dead Sea are admitted and then allowed to evaporate. The abundance of salt was of the greatest use to the Israelites, not only for domestic pur- poses, but for use in the sacrifices of the temple (Lv 21°, Ezr 6°, Mk 9"); and so Antiochus the Great, as a reward for the alliance of the Jews in his wars with Ptolemy, Philopator, bestowed upon them gifts for their sacrifices, of wine, oil, and other articles, amongst which were 375 medimni of salt.: Cf. Ezk 47” (RV m), where, in the º de- | scription of the ideal future, after the Dead Sea as a whole has been sweetened, the marshes are still reserved for the production of salt. Salt trade was extensively carried on in ancient times along the caravan routes in Syria, Palestine, and Northern Africa. One of the chief of these was the route from the ports of Phoenicia to the Persian Gulf through Palmyra. The Phoenicians manufactured salt by evaporation from sea-water, and used it for salting fish. Emblematic Uses of the Term. — Owing to its purifying, sustaining, and antiseptic qualities, salt became an emblem of fidelity and friendship annongst Eastern nations. To have “eaten of his salt,’ and thus partaken of his hospitality, was (and still is) regarded by the Arabs as a token or pledge of eternal amity. So in the Bible it is used as an emblem of the Covenant (‘a covenant of salt ’) between J" and His people (Nu 18", 2 Ch 13°). In memorable language our Lord applies the expression to His disciples: ‘Ye are the salt of the earth' (Mt 5”). Again He says: ‘Salt is good; but if the salt have lost its saltness, wherewith will ye season it 2' and He concludes with the injunction : ‘Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another’ (Mk 9"). Excess of saltness in the ground produces sterility; hence a salt-land becomes emblematic of barrenness and desolation (Dt 29*, Jer 17", Zeph 2"); and a city when destroyed was sown with salt, in token that it was never again to be re- stored. Thus it happened in the case of Shechem when captured by Abimelech (Jg 9"). E. HULL. SALT, CITY OF (nºn Ty), —This was one of the cities which fell to the lot of the tribe of Judah, and was situated in the Wilderness of * In the proportion of 28 to 29 grammes per litre, # IIull, Mount Seir, ch. xiv. p. 129; Lartet, l'opage d'Ev- ploration de la Mer Morte; Tristram, Land ºf Israel, 326. f Jos. Amt. Nu. iii. 3. Revenue was raised by a tax on salt, the remission of which was offered the Jews by Lemmetrius, king of Syria ; ib. xiii. ii. 8. 356 SALT SEA SALUTATION Beth-arabah (Jos 15%. 8%). It was also not far from En-gedi, the site of which we know ; hence it may be inferred to have occupied some position on the western shore of the Dead Sea, between En-gedi and Khashm Usdum (the salt mountain. See art. SALT). E. HULL. SALT SEA.—See DEAD SEA. SALT, WALLEY OF (nº"s"). — The scene of memorable victories of David, or of Abishai his lieutenant, over the Edomites (2 S 818, 1 Ch 181*),” and at a later period of Amaziah over the same hereditary enemies of Judah (2 K 147, 2 Ch 25”). The position of this valley can scarcely be a matter for doubt, both on account of its historical associa- tions as related in the above passages, and from the position of the salt mountain, Khashm. Usdum, which rises from the western shore of the Dead Sea. The accounts of the battles would lead to the inference that the position was some valley lying between Jerusalem and Edom of which Petra (Sela) was the capital; and the name indicates the prox- imity of either the salt mountain or the salt sea. 13oth the inferences are satisfied by identifying the Valley of Salt with the plain extending from the southern end of the Dead Sea to the foot of the cliffs (the ascent of 'Akrabbim), f which cross the valley from side to side and form the southern margin of the Ghor. This plain is of sufficient extent to be the battleground for large armies. See arts. ARABAH and DEAD SEA. |E. HULL. SALTWORT (Job 30 RV).—See MALLows. SAI.U (stºp).-The father of Zimri the Simeonite chief who was slain, along with the Midianitish woman, by Phinehas, Nu 25* (B XaXutºv, A. XaXá, Luc. XaAdju), 1 Mac 2*(XaXúp, hence AV Salom). SALUM (A XaXotºu, Bom.), 1 Es 528 = Shallum, the head of a family of porters (cf. Ezr 2*). Called Sallunus, 1 Es 9*. SALUTATION (NT &rraguós; “salute” in OT is expressed by Tha (lit. ‘bless’] or Bºy? 9xt [lit. ‘ask for the peace of 'J, in NT by datášopal [also tr. in AV ‘greet’]).—In the modern East some word or act of Salutation accompanies all social intercourse, the phrases and gestures being modified according to the occasion and the relationship of the parties. It is against all the courtesies of Oriental life to deliver any message, ask information, or pass to any matter of business, without some form of salu- tation by which inquiry is made after each other's welfare, and goodwill is expressed. Thus a traveller seeking direction from a peasant by the roadside must first hail him by expressing a wish that his toil may bring an ample reward. Similarly, a purchaser on entering a shop, before mentioning what he wants or engaging in the usual sword- play about the price, must salute the merchant with the wish that the day may prove one of bless- ing and profit. Itemoteness from cities and centres of civilization does not mean ignorance of such etiquette, as the Beda win of the desert excel in this politeness. No inferiority of position is allowed to excuse the omission of such courtesy: the beggar at the door expects a salutation along with the copper or piece of bread, and, if refused * Both these passages, judging by the context, evidently refer to the same event, but in the former it is “the Syrians’ who are vanquished, in the latter it is ‘the Edomites.” As it is extremely improbable that the Syrians should have been encountered at the southern extremity of the Dead Sea, we must suppose that the latter is the correct account, and that the former is an errºr due to transcription. (See Driver, Sam. 217 f.). f 4krabbin -- “Scorpions,' which are found under the stones At this place. —w charity, claims that he shall at least be dismissed with a recommendation to the Divine care. Some- thing of formal dignity mingles also with the daily salutations in the family. Some of the chief occasions of salutation are : the birth of a son, a marriage, the meeting of relatives away from home, the return of a friend from a journey, the appeals of the street beggar. Salutations are also offered to the host after partaking of refresh- ments, upon meeting a fellow-traveller on the road, and on visits of respect to ecclesiastical or government officials. Oriental salutation, ancient and modern, owes much of its originating motive and distinctiveness ; character to the following facts of Oriental II e :- (1) The strong sense of personal dignity among Orientals.-In Job 29 there is an enumeration of the elements of Oriental greatness, and a descrip- tion of the happiness of the man who is met on every side b }. reverence, obedience, and loving gratitude of those to whom he has been a bene- factor. The same sense of dignity implies a quick recognition of affront, and a strong feeling of indignation when the claim to respect is repudi- ated. Hence the complaint over the cessation of the wonted reverence in Job 30. The narrative in the BR. of Esther turns upon the salutation that Mordecai refused to Haiman. Christ's Oriental hearers would be deeply stirred by the appeal of the affronted guest (Lk 7*), and by the list of indignities heaped upon the neglected king (Mt 25*, *). The ancient sculptures and paintings of Assyria and Egypt show the forms of prostration in which gods and kings were saluted and suppli- cated. Similar formalities are mentioned in the Bible as being employed in ordinary social life (Gn 3217-20 33%, 1 ST2523-91). The usual salute of reverence is that of standing erect. Thus children rise to salute their parents (Pr 31*); and in the village, when the men are gathered in a room on the occasion of a marriage or funeral, it is customary for all to rise and stand whenever a member of the village or a visitor from the neighbourhood enters the room. There is a weird allusion to this custom in Is 14". The most impressive form of salutation is to kneel, and clasp and kiss the feet. This is done when some favour is sought or inſluence solicited on behalf of oneself or a friend (2 K 427). When words fail, and there are no more tears to shed, this oratory of silent helplessness seems to say, ‘Cast me not away from thy pres- ence” (Ps 51*). It is the power of weakness over strength through the confession of weakness. (2) The comfort derived from physical health, peace of mind, and family affection.—With Ori- entals the summit is always more pleasant than the ascent ; work is undertaken in order to the attainment of rest rather than rest enjoyed in order to the renewal of labour. When anything urgent or important has to be done, the early morning is chosen, so that, if possible, rest of mind may be recovered before the evening (Gn 22°, Jer 7”). An Arabic proverb says, “It is better to have bad news in the morning than news of any kind in the evening.” Hence a fulness of mean- ing, a sense of needed comfort, in the salutation of peace (nºw shſīlóm, elphum), implying both the safety of Divine protection and the restfulness of human friendship (Gn 26*, *, 4417, Ex 48, Nu Gº", Jg 18", 1 S 117 2012 25%. 3, 297, 1 Ch 1218, Mk 5”). The ques- tion of giving and receiving this salutation of peace was one of grave importance to travellers meeting strangers on the road. If the strangers were enemies, they would also be aliens in religion, and unable to call down the blessing of their god upon those who were under the protection of another. Even at the present day, Mosler is, Jews, SALUTATION SALVATION, SAVIOUR 357 and Christians shrink from bestowing upon each other the salutation of peace. To the Moslem especially it seems heterodox to wish peace to the inſidel, and an impertinence to be thus saluted y him. These limitations are left behind in Mt 5”. Hence the directness of the question, “Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?” (Jos 51°), and the anxious inquiry, ‘Is it peace?’ (2 K 917-?”). Hence also the abhorrence of deceitful salutation (Ps 28°, Jer 6'8", Ezk 13"). The ordinary hail of travellers on the road is the old formula mentioned in Ps 118”, Mt 21° 23*, “Blessed is he that cometh.’ Among relatives and familiar friends the form of salutation after an interval of separation is to kiss On both cheeks, or on each side of the neck. It is the kiss of brotherly love, and is fºy TC- ferred to in Scripture (Gn 2727 2911, 18 3166 33", Ex 4”, Ps 8519; cf. Ito 16”, l Co 1620, 2 Co 1312 ‘Salute one another with a holy kiss,’ similarly I Th 5* ‘Salute all the brethren with a holy kiss,’ and 1 P 5* “Salute one another with a kiss of love”). In the case of children saluting their parents, scholars their teachers, and servants their masters, the custom is to stand, and, bowing down, to kiss the hand. In Oriental letters the opening sentence frequently begins with the expression, ‘After kissing your hands,’ as a token of respect. This reverential Salutation of kissing the hands is always given to priests, rabbis, and sheikhs of religion. It was the salutation claimed by the Pharisees (Mk 1298). Absalom changed the salutation of respect to that of equal friendship (2 S 15°. "). There prevails at the present time a compromise of courtesy by which one seizes the hand of a friend in order to give the kiss of veneration, but the other defeats the design by quickly withdrawing his hand as soon as his fingers have been touched. See art. KISS. In Bible instances of salutation, where one person falls upon the neck of another, the Heb. word for ‘neck” (TN's zavvār) is used in the dual º not plural] as indicating the two sides that are kissed (Gn 27° 33' 4514.46%, Ca. 4). In Oriental salutation great attention is paid to asking after each other's health and general wel- fare, in the course of a call of courtesy or on an occasion of meeting. It is exceedingly trying to a Western, who craves some exchange of thought, to have to answer these repeated inquiries after his health, more especially as every such inquiry begins another circulating decimal of devout commonplaces. It is owing to the prominence given to this matter that the visit of salutation in the Bible is often described as a health-inquiry (1S 10° 17° 30′ RV gives the more general ‘salute” instead of ‘ask of welfare’ in 1 Ch 1819). The union of reverence and affection in salutation is exemplified in Ex 187, 1 S 2011, 2 S 1498. The salutation of bowing and kissing was employed in the worship of Baal (Job 31°7, 1 K 1918). The injunction, ‘Salute no man by the way’ (2 K 4”, Lk 10"), referred to the inevitable delay imposed by common courtesy in asking and answer- ing formal inquiries as to health, family, etc. The special responsibility of one sent by another is recognized by the Orientals, and the messenger is saved from the charge of rudeness by a proverb which says, “The messenger has only to deliver his message. (3) The deep-seated conviction that both blessing and cursing in salutation tend to work out their fulfilment.—It was of importance to give or to withhold the salutation of peace. The salutation at parting took the form of a benediction (Ru 19, 14, 1 S 20°, 2 S 19”), and consequently the same word might mean “rejoice’ or ‘farewell’ (Ph 44). This form of salutation is exemplified in rich fulness at the close of the Pauline Epistles. When Christ said that the ‘peace’ He gave was not after the custom of the world, He referred to the emptiness that had come to mark salutations that once expressed a precise meaning and a sincere desire § 24*, Jn 14”20"). The disciples were told that when they went forth in His name, and invoked the Divine blessing on a house, and were refused admittance and hospitality, then the blessing returned to those who had uttered it. It was their introduction to what has since become a familiar law in the Christian service, that whatever is forfeited for the Lord is found in Him. G. M. MACKIE. SALWATION, SAVIOUR.—The purpose of this art. is to give a general survey of the doctrine of salvation as developed within the period covered by the Biblical writings. Of necessity the subject stands in close relations with others treated in the Dictionary, and the reader is therefore recom- mended to consult, in addition to special articles on such subjects as FAITH, MEDIAToit, REDEEMER, RANSOM, PAROUSIA, etc., the general articles on GOD, HOLY SPIRIT, JESUS CHRIST, MESSIAH, KINGDOM OF GOD, and ESCHATOLOGY. It will be the aim of this article, as far as possible, to avoid unnecessary repetition, and, passing over points of detail, to confine itself to a §. view of the doctrine as a whole. i. The Words. ii. The Idea (in general). iii. History of the Idea. 1. In the Old Testament. 2. Between the Testaments. 8. In the Teaching of Jesus. 4. In the New Testament: (a) in general; (b) St. Paul ; (c) St. John. iv. Systematic Statement. 1. Nature of Salvation: (a) temporal and spiritual; (b) individual and social ; (c) present and future. 2. Conditions of Salvation: (a) on the Divine side; (b) on the human side. 3. Extent of Salvation : (a) in this life; (b) in the life to Como ; (c) in the universe. i. THE WORDs.—“Salvation’ is in OT tr. of a number of words, the principal of which are: nacº, vº or vº, niyyip [only Ps 68° RV ‘deliverances’], Tºm, from the stem yº' (lit. ‘to be broad, spacious’; only found in Niphal and Hiphil, the latter with the meaning ‘deliver'); in the NT it is tr. of a tormpia, from a tºw ‘to save' (less frequently of to a wriptov, neut. of the adj. agrijpios; e.g. Lk 23° 3", Ac 28*, Eph 6"; cf. Tit 2" | xápts toū 0éoù a wriptos, “the grace of God bringing salvation ’). Other words translated ‘save' in our VSS are in OT ºn and H.III (Piel and Hiphil of nº “to live,” with the meaning ‘to keep living,” “to save alive”; so Gn 121* 1994.57 [RV] 5020, Ex 117. 18, Nu 223: 3116, Dt 2010, Jos 21° 6*, Jg 810 2114, 1 S 27m, 1 K 18, 2031, 2 K 7", Ezk 13" ", and esp. Ezk 38 1897, where the reference is to escape from penalty through repentance); ºsſi (lit. ‘to snatch away,’ with meaning ‘deliver,’ by which it is usually rendered both in AV and I&V ; c.g. l S 12” and often. The tr. ‘save' occurs in AV only 2 S 19°). Bº (Piel of unused pºp ‘to slip away,” “to escape,” with meaning ‘to let or cause to escape,' hence ‘to deliver’; 1 S 10", 2 S 10°, 1 K 14°, Job 2080, Jer 48", and 2 S 199 RV, Jer 51%. "); nºw (lit. ‘to keep,” “to preserve’; Job 2", IłW ‘spare’). In NT the word ‘save' is usually the translation of a tºw, but the compound 6tagº w is rendered ‘save' in three instances (Ll 7" RV, where AV renders ‘heal,” Ac 27*, 1 P 34", cf. Ac 23* “to bring safe”; elsewhere “escape Ac 27* 28°, or ‘make whole” Mt 14*), and the same is true in one case (2 P 29 AW) of pu)\doſo a (lit. ‘to guard,’ “to preserve,” so RV). The phrase trepitol mats § in He 10” is rendered “saving of the soul’ in ooth versions. ‘Saviour’ is the tr. in OT of the Hiph. ptcp. (yºp) of yuj (so Jg 3", 1", Is 19° 43', and often); in NT and LXX of a wrip, from a dºw. 358 SALVATION, SAVIOUR SALVATION, SAVIOUR ii. THE IDEA. — The root idea in salvation is deliverance. In every case some danger or evil is presupposed, in rescue from which salvation con- sists. Since in primitive times one of the greatest dangers to be feared is defeat in battle, salvation is often used in OT in the sense of ‘victory’ (e.g. Ex 15°, 1 S 1118 RV ‘deliverance,’ 19° # ‘vic- tory,’ Ps 20° RVm ‘victory), and successful warriors are called “saviours” (e.g. Jg 39.1%, Neh 9”). But this is only one modification of a much broader usage. Men are said to be saved from trouble (Ps 34%, Is 33°, Jer 14° 307; cf. 1 S 1019, Ps 107* *), enemies (2 S 318), violence (2 S 22°, Ps 59° ‘bloodthirsty men’), reproach (Ps 57°), exile (Ps 106.7, Jer 30104627, Zec 87), death (Ps 6", cf. v."), sin (Ezk 36”, cf. Ps 130°, Mt 1*). Since all deliverance comes from God, He is frequently spoken of as ‘Saviour' (so esp. in Deutero-Isaiah 43%. 11 45* * 49%. 6010 638; but also Jer 148, Hos 13", 2 S 228, Ps 106”). The name ‘Saviour’ is often applied to God in the Apocrypha (e.g. Ad. Est 15°, §. 4*, Jth 911, Wis 167, Sir 511, 1 Mac 480; cf. 3 Mac 620. 98 710, Ps-Sol 37 89° 16' 17"). It is less frequent in NT, being found only in Lk 17, 1 Ti 11.2° 419, Tit 1829, Jude *. Elsewhere in NT the title is applied only to Jesus Christ (so Lk 2" and ofton). With the growth of the Messianic idea we find the tendency to use the words ‘save’ and “salvation’ in a technical theological sense of the deliverance to be brought in with the Messianic age (e.g. Jer 23°) or at the last day (Is 25"). This usage, which is common in the Apocalyptic literature (e.g. Enoch 621° 9919, Apoc. Bar 68°, 2 Es 88; cf. Ps-Sol 10° 127), reappears in NT in such passages as Mt 10* 24* * and parall., Ro 1120 1311, 1 Co 3", 2 Ti 415 RV, He 928, 1 P 1" W. 19. The word is still used, however, in NT as in OT, in the wider sense of deliverance from trouble (so Ja 5" of the healing of the sick, and often in the Gospels). With the deepening sense of moral evil, ‘Salvation' acquires a more profound ethical and spiritual meaning. It in- cludes deliverance from sin itself as well as from the various evils which are the consequence of sin, and so comes to stand, in the spiritual realm as well as in the temporal, for a present experience as well as for a future expectation. The growth of this deeper meaning § become apparent as we pass to a brief review of the listory. iii. HISTORY OF THE IDEA.— The Sources.—In the present state of Biblical criticism, any attempt to trace the development of a theologica) conception must be provisional. As a part of general history, the history of doctrine is dependent for its sources upon the results reached in the wider discipline, and the uncertainty which still obtains as to the date and authorship of many OT passages (e.g. Psalms) hinders the theologian in his attempt at constructive statement. On the other hand, the student of doctrine has an advantage over the general historian. For there is an inner logic of ideas which is quite independent of time and place. And it is often possible by the aid of this logic to trace the origin and development of conceptions, even where external evidence as to their history is lacking or uncertain. In the present article the general results of Biblical criticism are presupposed. It is assumed that the idea of Salvation has had a history, the broad outlines of which we can trace, and that the record of this history is preserved for us in the Biblical writings, which, together with the contemporaneous Apocryphal and Pseud- epigraphical literature, constitute our sources. In what follows we shall give the different steps in the development of the idea in their natural order, even if the particular passages which jºrate a special usage be themselvcs of later or of uncertain ate. 1. In the Old Testament.-The most signal in- stance of the T)ivine salvation in the early history of Israel, and the one which made the deepest impression on the national memory, was the de- liverance from Egypt. The prophetic historian in the Pentateuch (J) relates with triumph how “J” saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upol. the seashore’ (Ex 14*). The same glorious deiiverance is celebrated in Ps 106 (cf. esp. v.v.7 °. 1"). ====h-4 ~ In these passages we have the simplest meaning of ‘salvation.” It is deliverance from present danger or trouble, more especially from defeat in battle. J" is the Saviour of Israel, because He is the one from whom such deliverance comes. “J” is my strength and my song, sings the author of the Song of Moses (Ex 15°), ‘and he is become my salvation.” And the context makes clear the sense in which this salvation is to be understood. “J” is a man of war, J" is his name’ (v.", cf. the title J" Sabaoth, “J” of Hosts,’ i.e. according to what is probably the best interpretation, J" the God of the armies of Israel). The use of ‘salvation’ in this sense of victory in battle is frequent in the OT, esp. in the historical books. In the time of the judges J" raised up “saviours’ in the persons of Othniel (Jg 3") and of Ehud (3°). He sent Gideon to save Israel (6'4. 1", cf. v.v.” ”), and required him to reduce his force to 300 men, lest Israel should say, ‘mine own hand hath saved me’ (7%). In the time of their distress at Aphek the people send in haste to fetch the ark from Shiloh, “that it may come among us and save us out of the hand of our enemies” (1 S 4°). With the growth of the national life the importance of such deliverance increases. J" made Saul to be king that he might save the people from the Philistines (1 S. 9"), and the same is true of David after him (2 S 3” “By the hand of . . . David I will save . . . Israel out of the hand of the Philistines and out of the hand of all their enemies’; cf. also 2 K 14”). This view of J" as the Saviour of Israel in battle finds classic expression in the Deuteronomic code (Dt 20**): “And it shall be, when ye come nigh unto the battle, that the priest shall approach and speak unto the people, id shall say unto them, Hear, O Israel, ye draw nigh this day unto battle against your enemies: let not your heart faint ; fear not, nor tremble, neither be ye affrighted at them ; for J” your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you.' .. Side by side with this view of ‘salvation’, as victory in battle, goes the wider conception of it as deliverance from trouble. J" not only delivers His people from their enemies (2 S 3°), but from all their calamities and distresses (1 S 10", cf. I’s 10719). He saves the poor man who cries to Him out of all his troubles (Ps 34", cf. 37*). His salva- tion brings with it not merely deliverance, but security and prosperity. This close connexion with prosperity is clearly brought out in such a passage as Ps 118° ‘Save now, we beseech thee, O J”. O J” . . . send now prosperity’ (cf. Ps 1064. 5 “O visit me with thy salvation : that I may see the prosperity of thy chosen'). In more than one instance the Hebrew words usually translated ‘salvation” are rightly rendered in EV “welfare’ (e.g. Job 30” rºw) or ‘safety (i.e. security, cf. Job 54. 11, Pr 1114 yº). Especially common is this connotation in connexion with the eschatological use of the word. Cf. Is Gl" ‘I will greatly rejoice in J", my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness.’ The salvation in which the redeemed Israel is here represented as rejoicing is the good time of safety and prosperity to be ushered in with the Messinnig vessºr age. But this is already to anticipate the next meaning. Thus far we have considered salvation as deliverance from present evil. The conception is both temporal and material. But with the rise of Messianic prophecy " we note a new develop- ment. The conception of salvation is still mole * The word ‘Messianic' is here used in its broadest sense, to include the doctrine of a future Diving deliverance in all its forms, whether or not it involves the belief in a Messianic king of David's line. SALVATION, SAVIOUR SALVATION, SAVIOUR 355 or less external. It involves victory in battle, the defeat of enemies, and worldly prosperity. But this victory is not looked for in the presert. There is a preceding judgment to take place, in which unfaithful is aél shali receive from jº'the just recompense of her sins. Only after this impending judgment, and then only for the faith- ful remnant, will J" show Himself as Saviour. We lave thus the beginnings of the use of the word in 8, Il eschatologicaſ sense, as one of the features of the Messianic age. The prominence of the con- ception varies greatly in the different prophets. In some it is almost overshadowed by the message of doom. In others it is a hope which burns bright and clear. Often judgment and salvation go hand in land, as in such a passage as Is 35° ‘Your God will come with vengeance . . . . he will come and save you.” The Messianic salvation is the theme of many of the Psalms (e.g. 53% ‘Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion | When God bringeth back the captivity of his eople, then let Jacob rejoice and let Israel be glad.” Cf. 147 69*. * 10647 13316). Especially common is the use of the word in the eschato- logical sense in the later portions of Isaiah (e.g. 25° 458. 17 4618 49% ºn 51° 56' 6110 62n). From the plophets it passes over into the Apocalyptic books (e.g. Ps-Sol 10° and often), and reappears in the NT with deepened ethical and spiritual meaning. Looking more closely at the content of this future salvation, we find that it has many features in common with the salvation already experienced in the past. . It is still a time of victory over enemies, of worldly prosperity and joy. But there is a new element which enters into the conception through the experiences of the Exile. Whatever else the future salvation may bring with it, it involves restoration from captivity: Thus Jeremiah, looking forward to the day when God “will raise up unto David a righteous branch,’ who ‘shall reign as King and deal wisely and shall execute judgment and justice in the land,” goes on to say that “in his days Judah shall be saved and Israel shall dwell safely. . . . They shall no more say, As J” liveth, which brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt; but as J” liveth, which brought up and which led the seed of the bouse of Israel out of the north country, and from all the countries whither I have driven them ; and they shall dwell in their own land’ (Jer 230.8; cf. 307-9. 18 “Behold, I will turn again the captivity of Jacob's tents,’ 3111, and esp. 4627 ‘I'ear not thou, O Jacob my servant, neither be dismayed, O Israel. For, lo, I will save thee from afar, and thy seed from the land of their captivity; and Jacob shall return, and shall be quiet and at ease, and none shall make him afraid”). So Ezekiel looks for a day when God shall save His distressed flock, and gather them under one shepherd, even His servant David (3422, 23). And Zechariah confidently expects the time when God shall Save His people ‘from the East country and from the West country,’ and shall “bring them, and they shall dwell in the midst of Jerusalem' (87.8, cf. Is 6620). The return from captivity is the theme of the Psalmist's prayer (10647, cf. 539); and in the little hymn which forms the appendix of Is 11 the returned exiles are represented as praising God for His deliver- . and drawing water with joy out of the wells of Salvation 12 But the Jerusalem to which the exiles return is not to be in all respects the same as the old. . We have emphasized the external features in the Messianic ideal. But we shall greatly misconceive the nature of Israel's hope if we regard it as purely external. The revelation of God's holiness had been too clearly apprehended by the prophets to make them content with any . which was not ethical. As the condition of enjoying the future salvation is repentance on Israel's part (Is 119. 20), so it includes as one of its chief elements the righteousness of the nation (Jer 31#1-#4). The Messianic age is to be a time of justice and judgment and of the pure worship of God. When the Messiah comes, he will be not merely a faithful shepherd (Ezk 3423) but a just judge (Is 118-9), binding up the broken- hearted, setting at liberty the captives, righting the wronged (Is (11), but at the same time punishing the guilty (Is 114 612); in short, realizing the ethical ideal, the failure to attain which had been the cause of all Israel's misfortunes. In the great eschatological passages in prophet and psalmist alike, sal- vation and righteousness go hand in hand (Is 458, 17 4618 515 6110, cf. Ps 2457115 1320. 10). Such being in general the nature of the Messianic salvation, how widely shall we conceive its extent? In many passages indeed the prophetic vision seems bounded by Israel. The old oppressors are to be destroyed in the great judgment of the Day of J" (Is 13. 34. 031-0, Ezk 38. 39, . 3021, Zeph 24.15), or, if they survive at all, it is as captives, holding the same menial osition which they had onco imposed upon Israel (J1 38, cf. s (315.0). Elsewhere, however, the prophetic horizon broadens, and we have the prediction of a day when the knowledge and Scrºice of J" shall be shared by those who hitherto have known [lim no". Jerusalem is to be the scene not only of a yºniversal dominion, but of a universal worship (Mic 41-4, cf. Is 22-4, Is 60.0619-21, Ps (831. 32, Zec 822, 24 1410, 17). Nay, the time is coming when the Divine worship shall not be confined to Jerusalem. The author of Is 10, associates Egypt and Assyria with Israel as worshippers of the one true § * In that day shall there be an altar to J” in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to J”. And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto J” of hosts in the land of Egypt; for they shall cry unto J” because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour and a defender, and he shall deliver them. ... And J", shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know J” in that day’ (vv. 19-21, cf. Zeph 39.10, Ps, 87). This conception of a salvation wider than Israel culminates in the great passage Is 49%. 6. Here we have the sublime conception of Israel not merely as the recipient but as the minister of the Divine Salvation. “And now saith J” that formed me from the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob again to him, and that Israel be gathered unto him, .... yea, he saith, It is too, light a thing that thou shouldst be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the pre- served of Israel; I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth’ (cf. Is 4521-24 651.0). Two features of the º teaching still need special mention, as bearing on the develop- ment of the doctrine of salvation. The first is the growing thanscendence of the conception; the second, the increasing stress laid upon the indi- vidual. In the earlier prophets the Messianic ideal is essentially earthly. Jeremiah, for example, looks for the re-establishment of the Davidic monarchy, and the restoration of conditions more glorious indeed, but essentially the same as those which preceded the Exile (Jer 23° 30' 3317°). But with the lapse of time we note the tendency to magnify the contrast between the Messianic age and that which it succeeds. The hope of Isaiah (ch. 11) of a renewed nature is taken up by his successors and developed with a great wealth of detail. In the Messianic, age the wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad, and the desert shall rejoice and blossom as the rose (Is 35'). ‘The wolf and the lanb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox’ (65'). The voice of weeping shall no more be heard in Jerusalem (65°). There shall be no more darkness or gloom, for the un- certain luminaries of earth shall be superseded by a Divine light (60**); the years of life shall be greatly extended (25°); and those Israelites who have passed away in the gloom and despair of the Exile shall rise from their graves to share with their brethren in the Messianic glory (26*, Dn 12%). It is not always easy to tell how far the passages which speak of a renewed nature are to be taken literally, and how far they are merely symbolical of the great fertility and prosperity of the Messianic age. But, whatever may be true of individual cases, there can be no doubt that the passages cited prepared the way for that transcendent view of the future which is characteristic of many of the Apocalyptic books. The pro- phetic hope seemed too great to be realized under existing conditions, and hence could be ushered in only by a complete transformation of the present order of things. The clearest anticipation of this new point of view is given by the unknown author of the last chanters of Isaiah in his doctrine of new heavens and a new earth (95.7, cf. 6622). Where such a view. point obtains, the Day of J" no longer has its significance, as in the older prophets, as ushering in a new stage of this world's history. It marks the division between two worlds or ages, separating the present period of probation and distress from the final age of fruition and judgment which is to be the scene of Israel's ‘eyerlasting salvation' (Is 4517. Cf. 1)n 714; Targum on Gn 4918 (quoted by Cremer, s.v. a.d.º.o.): ‘My soul waiteth not for the salvation of Gideon the son of Joas, for that is temporal, nor for the salvation of Samson, for it is passing, but for the salvation of the Messiah, the son of David, which through thy word thou hast promised to bring to thy people, the sons of Israel, for this redemption my soul waiteth ; for thy redemption, O Jehovah, is an everlasting redemption'). The second feature which demands notice is the increasing stress laid upon the individual. In the earlier history of Israel the conception of salvation had been primarily national, but with the destruc- tion of the nation the attention of the prophets was directed more and more from the people as a 360 SALVATION, SAVIOUR SALVATION, SAVIOUR whole to the units which composed it. and still more Ezekiel, are the prophets of this growing individualism, which appears clearly in such passages as Jer 31*, *, E. 18. No small part of Messiah’s work consists in righting the wrongs of the oppressed, and re-establishing the widow and the fatherless in the rights of which they have been defrauded (Ps 72%. 18, Is 11° 4 611-3). Under Him, as under a faithful shepherd, all those who have been faithful to J" during the period of Israel’s misfortunes shall be gathered together to form a new commonwealth in which righteousness shall be the controlling feature (Ezk 34, cf. Is 60*). This conception of God as the Saviour of the indi- vidual finds expression in the Wisdom literature (e.g. Job 51° 22′ 26°, Pr 20°), and in many of the Psalms. J" is the deliverer of the weak and the needy (109", cf. 18” 72*, *), the Saviour of the meek (76° 149", cf. Job 22”), and of all that put their trust in Him (86°, cf. 88). The poor man cried, and J" heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles (34%). He saves the upright (37° 49), and such as be of a contrite spirit (34*). He hears the cry of them that fear #. and fulfils their desire (145"). Whatever may be the true inter- Fº of many of the later Psalms, there can e no doubt that their tone was much influenced by this growing individualism. There is a sense of intimacy in relation to God, a confidence, a joy in trust in Him which can only be thus explained. Out of their own experiences in personal com- munion with God the writers have gained an insight into His tenderness and love which they transfer in thought to the nation. It is no accident that later ages have given an individual- istic interpretation to psalms whose reference is clearly national. And if we do right, with many recent interpreters, to understand the suffering servant of Deutero-Isaiah, of Israel the nation, it was surely through some personal experience of affliction gladly borne for another's good that the prophet was raised to his sublime interpretation of the meaning of his people's deeper sufferings. The crown of this individualism is reached in the doctrine of the resurrection, which unites in an unexpected way the conceptions of individual and of national salvation. In most of the OT, salvation is a conception which has meaning only for this life. There is indeed an existence after death, but it is gloomy and uneventful, without experience of God’s mercy and grace. “In death there is no remembrance of thee (God): in Sheol who shall give thee thanks 2' (Ps 6°). This earth is the scene of God’s salvation, whether present or future; and even the glories of the Messianic age unroll themselves upon this platform, and will be enjoyed by those only who may be alive when the promised deliverance comes. But with the growing sense of God’s greatness and power came the conception that even the realm of the dead was under His control, and that the righteous who had died in distress might still hope after death to see the salvation of God. This hope, which appears in sporadic utterances in the Psalms (e.g. 49” 73**), and finds classic expres- sion in Job 19° (“I know that my vindicator liveth,” etc.), culminates in the doctrine of indi- vidual resurrection, which meets us for the first time in Is 26", and is repeated in Dn 121-8. IBut this growing individualism had a still more important consequence than in extending the ‘ange of the IDivine Salvation. It materially modi- fied the idea of its nature. The conception of sal- vation with which we have thus far been dealing is, for all its ethical features, more or less ex- ternal. sin rather than from sin itself. . The prophets call upon men to repent and forsake their sins, that Jeremiah, It is deliverance from the consequences of ~~ they may become worthy to receive the promised salvation. But with the deepening moral sense there comes the insight that even for repentance itself Divine help is needed, and the cry arises to God for a deliverance which shall include not merely the consequences of sin, but the very sin which has caused them. This new insight finds expression in such a prayer as that of the 51st Psalm : “Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a firm spirit within me, Cast me not away from thy presence ; and take not thy Holy Spirit from me. Iłestore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with a willing spirit' (vv. 19-14). Here the salvation for which the Psalmist prays includes deliverance from sin as one of its elements (cf. Ps 1307. * * O Israel, hope in J" : for with J" there is loving-kindness, and with him is plenteous redemption. And he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities’; cf. Ps 39° 79°). It is the prophets of individualism, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, .. give clearest expression to this idea of salvation as deliverance from sin. “De- hold, the days come, saith J", that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel. . . . Ibut this is the covenant which I will make. . . . I will ut my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it ; and I Will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know J": for all men shall know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith J"; for I will forgive their imiquity, and their sin will I remember no more’ (Jer 31***, cf. 33°). “And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean : from all your filthi- ness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you : and I will take away the stony heart out of your ſlesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them . . . and I will save you from all your uncleannesses’ (Ezk 36”, cf. 37*). Here we have a conception of salvation which goes deeper than any external deliverance. The great plophet of the Exile carries on the same line of thought. To him the chief blessing of the Messianic age is the forgiveness of sins. It is not Israel whose right- eousness deserves the salvation of J", but J" who goes out after His erring children, to forgive and redeem them for His name's sake (Is 43*; cf. 44%. 33%. 2, 64%-9 65” “, Zec 3° 13'). In such passages we have a direct preparation for the profound con- ception of the NT. 2. Iłetween the Testaments.-In the Apocalyptic and Pseudepigraphical literature of the Jews we find a further development of the tendencies already noted in the OT. Extending over a period of some three centuries, its earlier º contemporaneous with the later parts of the OT, its later (e.g. Apoc. Baruch, 2 Esdras) with the NT, it bridges the gap between the two in thought as well as in time. This is especially true in connexion with our doctrine. In liot a few places indeed ‘salvation’ is still used in the sense of present deliverance (e.g., Jth 8", Ep., of Jer 36). In general, however, the use of the word is eschatological. The expected salvation is that of the Messianic age, which, with the lapse of time, is conceived of in more and more tran- scendent manner. Where the earlier conception of an earthly kingdom still survives, it is usually in the form of a millennium or preliminary period of blessedness, preceding the final triumph which takes place in W. other world. Side by side with this growing transcendence we note a further development of individualism. Not only has the SALVATION, SAVIOUR SALVATION, SAVIOUR 36] doctrine of the resurrection become a familiar article of faith, but the doctrine of rewards and punishments is extended to the period immedi- ately after death. In some cases the hope of individual reward is associated with large ex- pectations of the triumph of Israel, or extends even beyond this to take in the conversion of the Gentiles. In other cases (as in 2 Esdras) the writer despairs even of the conversion of Israel, and is fain to console himself with the thought that the righteous at least, even if few in number, shall at the last receive a glorious reward. Amid such a wealth and variety of material, we must confine our quotations to a few typical passages, referring the reader for fuller information on points of detail to the books which deal specially with the subject (see Literature at end of article). In the Apocalyptic picture of the Messianic kingdom, the old and the new, the material and the spiritual, are blended in startling and un- expected combinations. Sometimes we seem to be breathing the atmosphere of the old prophets; at others we are repelled by the artificiality and unreality of the conception. Thus in the earliest portion of the IBook of Enoch (1–36, dated by harles B.C. 170) the picture of the future is crassly material. At the resurrection, the right- eous eat of the tree of life (25*"), and as a result enjoy patriarchal lives (5° 25'). The scene of the Messianic kingdom is a purified earth (107 16”), with Jerusalem for its centre (25°). The blessings of the kingdom, in which the converted Gentiles share (10”), are of a sensuous nature. The powers of nature are increased indefinitely. Thus the righteous will beget 1000 children (107); of all the seed that is sown each measure will bear 10,000 grains, and each measure of olives will yield ten presses of oil (10°, cf. Apoc. Bar 29°, and note of Charles, p. 54). The author of the Psalms of Solomon (B.C. 70–40), on the other hand, emphasizes the ethical features of the kingdom. He looks for a Messianic king of the lineage of David who shall break in pieces them that rule unjustly (17*). He will be a righteous king, and taught of God (17”), pure from sin, so that he may rule a mighty people (17”). “He shall purge Jerusalem, and make it holy even as it was in the days of old (17”). “He shall not suffer iniquity to lodge in their midst ; and none that knoweth wickedness shall dwell with them ’ (17*). In both of these books the earth is the scene of the Mes- sianic Kingdom and Jerusalem its centre. Else- where, however (e.g. Enoch 82–90. 91–104. 37–70, Assumption of Moses, Apoc. Baruch), we have a more transcendent view of the future. Thus the author of Enoch 82–90 sees a new Jerusalem taking the place of the old (90**) and becoming the centre of a new community in which all the members shall be transformed into the image of the righteous Messiah (90*). The author of Enoch 91–104 takes up the prophetic thought of a new heaven and a new earth, but develops it on the former side only (91*). It is not earth but heaven which is to be the abode of the redeemed (104*). ‘Be liopeful,” he cries to his despondent readers, “for aforetime ye were put to shame through ills and aftliction ; but soon ye will shine as the stars of heaven, ye will shine and ye will lie seen, and the portals of heaven will be opened to you. . . . Be hopeful and cast not away your hope; for ye will have great joy as the angels of heaven. . . . And now fear not, ye righteous, when ye see the sinners growing strong and prospering in their ways, and be not like unto them, and have no companionship with them, but keep afar from their violence; for ye will become companions of the hosts of heaven’ (104* * *). Here we have the sharpest possible contrast between this world and *== that which is to come. The salvation of which the , writer speaks has become purely other. worldly. . A similar view-point meets us in the Assumption of Moses (cf. esp. 10°. ") and in the Slavonic Enoch (Paradise as the abode of the righteous ; cf. 8. 9. 42* * 61° 6519), as well as in º of the Apocalypse of Baruch (2119 449-18 51* 85). The most striking example of this transcendent conception of salvation is found in the Similitudes of the Book of Enoch (37– 70; Charles, B.C. 94–64). In this remarkable writing, which in many respects anticipates most clearly the NT conception of the glorified Christ, the Messiah is conceived of as a strictly supernatural being. Clothed with wisdom, and righteousness, he sits on the throne of his glory (459) to judge all living beings, whether men or angels (404 512 554.623). By the word of his mouth he slays the wicked (622), Heaven and earth are trans- formed (454. 9) and made ſit for the dwelling of the redeemed community, whose members, clothed with life (0216), resplendent with light (397), with faces shining with joy (515), become angels in heaven (514), and dwell in closest communion with § redeemer (G214), in the glory of his eternal kingdom This passage, is specially interesting because it puts the Messianic l'ingdom in the world to come. The author knows only one Salvation, even the eternal salvation of the new world. In other books, however, we have a different conception. The Messiah's Ringdom, which is of temporary duration, belongs to this world, not to the next. Thus the author of Enoch 91-104 looks for a millennial kingdom of three world-weeks preceding the transformation of nature which ushers in the new worl (939-10). The same idea reappears in the Slavonic Enoch, Baruch, and 2 Esdras. For }. see MILLENNIUM, where references and quotations are given. Doubtless this idea was the result of a compromise between the earlier and simpler view of salvation which placed it upon this earth, and that later and more transcendent conception whose growth we have been tracing. Whatever its origin, it was an idea which had wide currency, meeting us not only in Jewish but in early Christian literature as well, and being represented, within the NT itself, by the Millennium of the Apocalypse. Side by side with this growing transcendence we note a further development of the individualistic tendency. This appears most clearly in connexion with the life after death. The doctrine of the resurrection, which in Isaiah and Daniel is applied to some men only, is further extended. While the older sceptical tendency still survives in Sad- duceeism, the belief in a universal resurrection wins more and more adherents. With this change the cliaracter of the conception alters. Instead of exhausting its significance in connexion with the Messianic Kingdom as the means of entrance for the righteous upon joys which they could not otherwise enjoy, it becomes the channel of uni- versal retribution. As the righteous rise to be blessed, so the wicked are raised that they may receive the recompense of their sins (beginnings in Dn 12°; cf. also Enoch 22d 51* *, Apoc. Bar 30°-5 50. 51, 2 Es 7”; yet note that in many places resurrection is still only of the righteous, e.g. Enoch 90% 9110 92% 100°, Ps-Sol 310 143m. 1513m. ; cf. on this whole subject Wendt, Lehre Jesu, ii. 45–49). But the moralization of the life after death does not stop here. It extends also to the intermediate state. Little by little, Sheol loses its aspect of colourless monotony. It becomes the scene of preliminary rewards and punishments. It has its compartments where the wicked are kept separate from the righteous—the former in great pain, waiting the eternal judgment ; the latter in a bright spot, where there is a spring of water (Enoch 22" " ; yet note that punishment is only for those who have died and been buried “without incurring judgment in their lifetime,’”). In the Similitudes the elect are represented as dwelling in the garden of life (61°, cf. 70'60*.* the garden where the elect and righteous dwell, where my grandfather was taken up, the seventh from Adam '; 60” “the garden of the righteous'; 77° ‘the garden of righteousness'). This place of reliminary blessedness, at first tenanted only by }. and Elijah, afterwards by all the right. 362 SALWATION, SAVIOUR SALVATION, SAVIOUR eous (cf. 60°), develops into the Paradise of NT times; see PARADISE. Thus side by side with the preliminary blessedness of the millennial kingdom we have the righteous enjoying foretastes of sal- vation in the life immediately after death. The effect of this new view of the life after death was inevitably to diminish the relative import- ance of the final salvation. In those writings which, under Greek influence, developed the idea of immortality (i.e. Philo, Wisdom, 4 Maccabees), the doctrine of an intermediate state falls away altogether, and souls are represented as entering upon their final award at death (cf. Wis 3* 47-41, cf. v.1°, 4 Mac 131° 59° 18°). Even where this is not the case, as in Slavonic Enoch, we find the tendency more and more to spiritualize the earlier conceptions. Resurrection is no longer a return to earthly conditions, but, as in 1 Corinthians, the putting on of a new organism fitted to the life of the heavenly kingdom (Enoch 22*"). Paradise is no longer the abode of the righteous in the inter- mediate state, from which they are raised to enter a higher state of blessedness, but the place of their eternal habitation (Apoc. Bar 51", 2 Es 8°). Sheol is more and more identified with Gehenna as the place of final punishment of the wicked (Enoch 56° 6319 991, 1037, 2 Es 8%), and loses its character as an intermediate abode of righteous and wicked alike. Thus more and more we note the tendency, which can be paralleled in Christian history, to break down the middle wall between the intermediate and final states, and to make death the real dividing line in human destiny. A further evidence of the growing individualism is to be found in the definite abandonment, in certain quarters, of the hope of national restoration which had formed so prominent a feature of the rophetic anticipation. This appears most clearly in such late books as Apoc. Baruch and 2 Esdras.” In the earlier literature the national ideal still survives, and in many passages (e.g. Ps-Sol 17) finds beautiful expression. Even the hope of Gentile participation in the promised salvation is not without its representation (e.g. Enoch 10% 90°, Ps-Sol 17***). It could not be otherwise with a eople whose daily study had been the prophetic iterature. But as time goes on and the kingdom does not come, we find men more and more losing sight of the larger aspects of the Divine salvation, and concentrating their thoughts upon the fate of individuals. The present world is abandoned to hopeless corruption (cf. Apoc. Bar 15° 21*), and the world to come º to the righteous, and to them alone (cf. Apoc. Bar 15° 24” ”, and esp. 2 Es 7"-91). When the seer laments the sorrows of the wicked, and the small number of those who shall finally be saved, he is bidden to look away from them, and to consider the righteous, for whom alone God cares. ‘For I will rejoice over the few that shall be saved, inasmuch as these are they that have made my glory now to prevail, and of whom my name is named. And I will not grieve over the multitude of them that perish ; for these are they which are now like unto vapour and are become as flame and smoke ; they are set on fire and burn hotly and are quenched (2 Es 7". " Charles’ tr. in Eschatology, p. 292). Here we have the individual- istic theodicy in its most extreme form. No doubt this growing individualism had its good side. . Within the OT itself we have already seen how it deepened the moral insight, and heightened the sense of personal responsibility. We find in the period in question the same stress * It seems probable that both of these books in their present form are of composite authorship, the earlier portions, written before the destruction of Jerusalem, retaining the national Messianic hope, the later having definitely abandoned it. For the evidence in detail see Charles' edition of Baruch, and his 198chatology, p. 283ff. on individual righteousness. But, on tho other hand, we note also the tendency to conceive the whole matter of salvation in a more or less external and legal way. , Salvation is the reward which God has promised to those who faithfully keep His law. The more difficult the achievement the greater God’s delight in the result. This is specially apparent in the later books (cf. Apoc. ar. 517 ‘But those who have been saved by iii. works and to whom the law has been now a hope, and understanding an expectation, and wisdom a conſidence, to them wonders will appear in their time ’; 147, with Charles' note; §. 97. 8 ' And every one that shall be saved, and that shall be able to escape by his works and by faith whereby ye have believed, shall be Fº from the said perils, and shall see my salvation in my land and within my borders : for I lave sanctified then for me from the beginning'; cf. 777 8*). Here we find ourselves in that very atmosphere of work- righteousness which culminates in the Talmud, and against which the Gospel came as a protest. Summing up the conceptions of salvation which we have met thus far, we find that they are four : (1) salvation in this life, in the sense of deliver- ance from present danger or trouble, especially from defeat in battle ; (2) the salvation of the Messianic Kingdom, to be enjoyed by all the righteous who may be alive at the time, as well as by the risen saints; (3) salvation after death, in the sense of a preliminary foretaste, by the right- eous, of the enjoyment of the age to come ; (4) the final salvation of the heavenly world, when the present earth has been destroyed, and the period of corruption has come to an end. These different conceptions live on side by side, modifying one another in various ways, shading off into one another by almost imperceptible degrees, the old not displaced by the new, but transformed by it, and that in such subtle and gradual ways that it is often impossible to trace the separate steps of the process. Into such a world of thought, con- fused, changeful, yet rich with germs of fruitful and inspiring life, Jesus came with His Gospel of salvation. 's 3. In the teaching of Jesus.-The word ‘salva- tion' (orarmpia) is only twice used by Jesus—once in the conversation with Zacchaeus (Llº 19° ‘To-day is salvation come to this house’), and again in the interview with the woman of Samaria (Jn 4* “Sal- vation is from the Jews’). But the verb a dºeuv occurs frequently in His teaching. Often it is used to denote physical healing (e.g. Mt 9”, Mk 3° 5* 1092, Lk 67 818 tº 1719 1844). Elsewhere it has a broader meaning. Not to mention the well-known passages in John (5° 10' 12"), He spoke of Himself as come “to seek and to save that which was lost ' (Lk 191", cf. Mt 18", Lk 9", both omitted by IRV). Of the sinful woman who washed His feet in Simon’s house He declared that her faith had saved her (Lk 7"), and in more than one pussage concerning the future of His kingdom. He uses the word a dºſa, in the same eschatological sense with which we are already familiar (Mt 10* 24” ”, cf. Mk 1319. 29). Salvation is indeed only the reverse side of that Gospel of the Kingdom which was the burden of His preaching. The two ideas may be used interchangeably, as ºppºs from such pas- sages as Mt 1944, 25, Mk 10%. 4, Lk 81% º 13*.*. . If, then, we would understand Jesus’ view of salva- tion, we must take our departure from His idea of the Kingdom. But here we find ourselves involved in difficulties growing out of the criticism of the sources. These centre mainly about two points—(1) the relation of Jesus' teaching to that of His contemporaries; (2) the relation of His teaching to that of Ilis SUICC (2880.1°S. (1) We have already, noted, the purely transcendent and eschatological forra which the idea of the Kingdom had assumed SALVATION, SAVIOUR SALVATION, SAVIOUR 363. * in contemporary Judaism. The question arises how far Jesus felt Himself in º with this view. There are passages in the Synoptics, especially in the so-called Apocalypse of Jesus (Mk 13 and parall.), which have marked points of resemblance to the contemporary Apocalypses. The Kingdom is spoken of as purely future—a miraculous state to be ushered in by the Parousia of Jesus, and involving a sudden and complete trans- formation of the present order of things (cf. Mk 83891, Mt 1928, Lk 2000. 90). What shall we think of these passages? Do they represent the genuine teaching of Jesus? and if so, are we to think of Him, with many recent scholars, as holding a point of view essentially the same as that of His contemporaries? Or following Weiſſenbach, Wendt, and others, are we to regard these apocalyptic clements as later additions, derived from Jewish or Jewish-Christian sources, und therefore to be disre- gurded ? or, finally, is it possible, without recourse to the theory of interpolation, so to interpret Jesus' eschatological teaching as to show its harmony with the deeper and more spiritual views elsewhere expressed? This is one class of questions now being actively discussed, a full answer to which seems necessary before it is possible adequately to set forth Jesus' doctrine of salvation. (2) The other class of questions leads us into the criticism of the Fourth Gospel. Here it is the absence of the idea of the I(ingdom which is most striking. In place of the Kingdom, the great gift which Jesus brings is eternal life, which is repre- sented, not, as in the Synoptics, as a blessing to be enjoyed in the future (Mk 1080), but as a present possession (524 640, 47. 58). When we hear the Christ of the Fourth Gospel saying, “He that believeth hath eternal life’ (647), we seem to be in a different world from that of the eschatological discourses of the Syn-' optics. It is the world of a St. Paul, who says, “If any man is in Christ, he is a new creature' (2 Co 517); of a St. John, who Writes, ‘Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him and he in God’ (1 Jn 415). Are we to believe that the same Christ spoke Mt 23 and Jn 14–16; and if so, how is their teaching to be reconciled? Fortunately, we are not shut up for our view of Jesus' doctrine of salvation to the settlement of either of these disputed ques- tions. There are enough perfectly plain and undisputed pas- Sages—apart from these—to give us a clear view of His cel; tıal teaching. Possibly we may find, if we take our stand upon this more certain ground, that before we have finished we shall have gained light which will help us in the solution of the more difficult problems. If we would understand our Lord’s doctrine of Salvation in its epoch-making significance; we must consider its relation to the views of His contem- poraries. While it is true that Jesus fed His spirit upon the writings of the OT prophets, and drew thence many truths which His contemporaries had forgotten, it is no less true that He was also a man of His own time, and that His teaching was influ- enced, not merely negatively but positively, by the development whose main lines we have traced. We may |. this by a reference to the two points most prominent in the contemporary view of the kingdom-(a) its transcendence, and (b) its indi- vidualism. (a) We are often tempted, because of the familiar human features in Jesus’ teaching, to overlook its transcendent elements. Yet there can be no doubt that our Lord's conception of the Ringdom is dis- tinctly supermundane. Whatever may be the origin of the plurase, “Kingdom of heaven,’ found only in the first evangelist, it cannot be denied that the idea was characteristic of Jesus. The Kingdom of which He is the Messiah belongs to a different and higher order from that which at º obtains. Its blessings are not earthly but heavenly. The evidence for this may be found in all parts of His teaching (cf. His promise, to the persecuted disciples, of reward in heaven, Mt 5”, cf. Lk 10” “rejoice that your names are written in heaven’; the command to lay up treasures in heaven, Mt. 629, cf. Mt. 1991, Mk 10*, Llº 12° 1611; the parable of the Unjust Steward, Lk 16***; the indiflerence which He showed Himself, and which He recommended to His disciples, with reference to this world's goods, Mt. 6"; the answer to the Sadduceds about the resurrection, Lk 20”; the anſwer to l’ilate, Jn 18” “My Kingdom is not of this world'; as well as such distinctly eschato- logical passages as Mt 24" 26"). In view of such utterances, sharply contrasting the Kingdom, as belonging to the heavenly world, with all that is earthly, there can be no doubt that Jesus' con- ception stood in many respects closer to the tran- Zacchaeus He says that this day is Salvation come scendent views of His contemporaries than to the more earthly ideals of the earlier prophets. - And yet it is at this very point that the origin- ality of Jesus' teaching is most clearly apparent. To the Jews of His day the transcendence of the Kingdom meant its removal from all contact with present life. Just because their ideal was essenti- ally worldly, involving the hope of earthly triumph and prosperity, did they despair of its realization under existing conditions, and refer it wholly to the future. To Jesus, on the other hand, the Kingdom was in a true sense present already (Mt. 12*, Lk 11”, cf. Lk 10”, and comments of Holtz- mann, Newtest. Theol. i. pp. 217, 218; Lk 17*.* ‘The Kingdom of God is within you,” or, ‘in your midst'; also the references to those who are already in the Kingdom, Mt 11", cf. Lk 7*, Mk 10", cf. Lk 18% '7, Mt. 23*, and esp. the parables of the King- dom which represent it as a growth from small beginnings—so the Sower, tares, mustard seed, leaven [Mt 13 and parall.], and esp. the seed grow- ing secretly, Mk 4*). Its transcendence is the transcendence of a higher spiritual order (Holtz- mann, l.c. }. 190), which, so far from being incon- sistent with earthly conditions, is destined to be realized in and through them. Thus Jesus in- structs His disciples to pray for the doing of God's will on earth as it is in heaven (Mt. 6"), and declares that wherever men show the qualities and practise the traits which are characteristic of the heavenly world, there the Kingdom is present in germ (com- pare Mk 1014 with Mt 18"). The explanation of this change is to be found in Jesus’ view of God. At no point had contem- porary Judaism departed * from the doc- trine of the OT. The idea of J" as a living God, actively interested in human aflairs, had given place to a conception purely transcendent. God was thought of as a being remote, inaccessible, mysterious, living in a distant and heavenly world, to be approached only through the mediation of the ceremonial law. In place of this purely transcen- dent being, Jesus proclaimed a loving Rather, pro- foundly concerned in all that affects His children, watching their affairs with a tender interest, in- finitely wise and great indeed, yet infinitely conde- scending, more ready to give good gifts than earthly fathers to their children (Mt 7"), having a care for His universe so minute and detailed that not a sparrow falls to the ground without His notice (Mt 10*). To Jesus, as to His contemporaries, God was supremely holy ; but, unlike them, He did not hesitate to proclaim this holy God as the model for men's imitation (Mt 5*). To Him this world was God’s world, and hence, in spite of all its sin and misery, adapted to be the scene of the realization of His heavenly kingdom. It is in view of such conceptions of the relation of God and man that we must understand Jesus' teaching concerning salvation. To be saved, according to our Lord, means simpl to enter upon a life fitted to the children of . a Father—a life whose marks are righteousness, brotherly love, and, above all, trustful dependence upon God ; a life only fully to be realized in the future, when the redeemed shall be released from earthly limitations, and enter the new conditions of the resurrection life (Llº 20%-"), yet in a true sense possible even now for all those who, liko Him, have learned to know God as their l'ather, and, through the life of self-denying service, have entered upon a blessedness which no earthly trial or misfortune can disturb. So we find Jesus speaking of salvation as a bresent experience. To the sinful woman in the }. of Simon He declares that her faith hath saved her, and bids her go in peace (Ll 7"). To 364 SALVATION, SAVIOUR SALVATION, SAVIOUR to his house (Lk 199). Even in the midst of this present life, with its sorrows and persecutions, the children of the Kingdom are constantly receiving ood gifts from their heavenly l’ather (Mt 7”). owever much they may have given up the receive an hundredfold more (Mk 10”). Through prayer they enter into daily communion with God, and receive the strength and help they need. They have the assurance that no evil can befall them when they put their trust in Him (Mt. 6**). For the earthly fellowship which '. have sacri- ficed they receive a spiritual fellowship which is far more satisfying (Mk 10° 3°). From the bond- age of the ceremonial law, with its intolerable oke, they have entered upon the service of a $º whose burden is light (Mt. 11”). In the healing of the sick, and especially in the casting out of demons, which is a mark of their Master's ministry, they see the breaking down of Satan's kingdom, and the beginnings, even on earth, of the era of blessedness which is characteristic of the Kingdom of God (Lk 11° 10°). It is in view of such a conception that we must understand Jesus' teaching in the eschatological discourses. Whatever may be our solution of the critical difficulties involved (for a full discussion see PAROUSIA), we may without hesitation reject the view of those who see in Jesus' teaching simply the echo of the ideas of contemporary Judaism. Our Lord's view of the King- dom is so far eschatological that the complete fulfilment of the ideal which He preaches belongs to the future. But the ideal itself, as essentially moral and spiritual, has a present as well as a future application. To Jesus the hope of the Parousia meant the introduction of no new kind of salvation, but only the complete victory of the principles which He had illustrated in His own life, and whose embodiment, imperfect and yet real, in the little band of men whom He had gathered about Him, constituted the beginning of His Kingdom. It is indeed in its combination of present and future elements that the originality of Jesus' doctrine of salvation consists. Wendt has well cx- pressed this in his Teaching of Jesus when he says that “the epoch-making advance made by Jesus in His idea of salvation beyond that of the Psalmists and Prophets, as well as of the Jews of His time, consisted in the fact that He not only con- ceived the supreme ideal of Salvation as purely supermundane and supersensuous, -a heavenly, not an earthly ideal,—but also that because of this determination of the ideal. He gained a new view of the present world and or the earthly life—a view according to which it is possible for the devout to have even here and now, not merely a certain hope of salvation in the future, but also genuine experiences of salvation in the present ii. p. 187, Eng. tr., which, however, gives an inadequate render- ing of the original, i. p. 241; cf. the whole passage). In view of such considerations, the Johannine conception of eternal life as a present possession seems no longer foreign to Jesus' teaching. Whatever may be the ultimate decision of criticism as to the origin of the discourses in which the phrase occurs, there can be no doubt that the idea is one which accords well with what we learn from other sources of our Lord's doctrine of salvation. Wendt argues strongly for its genuine- ness on the ground that it is needed to account for the presence of similar ideas in the apostolic age (Lehre Jesu, ii. p. 198). But, even apart from this, some such conception seems required from what we know of Jesus IIimself. Holtzmann is certainly not a critic who can be charged with any leaning to conservative views.... Yet, Speaking of the Synoptic teaching concerning eternal life as gift and good of the future age,’ he writes (Newtest. Theol. i. 222): “Yet it (i.e. cternal life) is not thought of as a merely formal definition which can be filled up with any content which the imagination may choose to give it. On the contrary, it is a possession of the present, already well known, which has been projected into the future. The highest and most intense feeling of existence—a feeling of incompar- able power and richness of content (wmvergleichlich kraft-wind gehaltvolles Daseimsgefühl), without the slightest trace of twilight or mortality, of dull, hollow ſlniteness, this is Jesus' conception of life and blessedness. Such a thought could be entertained only by one who Himself possessed the thing. In this sense He must have already borne the IXingdom of God as an inner good within IIimself, must have known it as already present on the ground of II is own experience. And not only so ; but wherever His Gospel is preached in the world, wherever the Spirit of God is manifest cither in miraculous power or in the hearts of men, wherever, in the sense of the parables, seeds spring up and fruits ripen, there also—with the righteousness which makes out the content of the IXingdom—the Kingdom itself is already present.’ (b) But we shall not fully understand the origin- ality of Jesus' doctrine of salvation until we have considered it at the other point where it is most natural to compare it with that of His contem- poraries, i.e. its individualism. We have already studied the growth of the individualistic tendency in the later Judaism, and seen its effects in subordinat- ing the conception of national to that of individual righteousness, and in extending the doctrine of retribution from this life to that after death. Here, too, we find points of contact in Jesus’ teaching. He also insists strongly upon the necessity of individual righteousness. Most of His time is spent in dealing with individual men, and the conditions which He lays down for en- trance to His Kingdom are such that each man must fulfil them for himself. So in His view of the life after death Jesus accepts the results of the intermediate development. Sheol has alto- gether lost its character of colourless monotony. Death involves no interruption in the communion of the individual with God. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are even now enjoying a resurrection life with God (Lk 20°7.9%); Lazarus passes at once from this world into Abraham's bosom (Lk 16”); and to the dying thief on the cross the promise is made that this day he shall be with his Master in Paradise (Ll 23°). And yet it is just in His dealing with individual men that the contrast of Jesus’ view of salvation to that of His contemporaries is most apparent. To the Pharisees of His day Salvation was the reward of righteousness. And the righteous man was lie who perfectly conformed his life to the require- ments of the ceremonial law. It is difficult for us to appreciate the nature of these demands not only upon a man's good-will, but upon his time and upon his means. As Holtzmann has well shown (l.c. i. 132 ft.), it was impossible for a man of moderate means to be righteous in the full legal sense, with- out sacrificing all hope of worldly prosperity. A rich man might indeed keep the }. A few less blessed with this world’s goods—the so-called “poor’ of the later Jewish literature—had the courage to make the needed sacrifice. I'or the most part men felt the burden too heavy, and were content to live as they could, without part in the hopes and ideals of their religious teachers, despised by them as sinners and outgasts, without share in the Divine favour or interest in the Divine salvation. (Cf. Jn 749 “This multitude which knoweth not the law are accursed,’ and especially 2 Es 7***"). It was exactly to this º of outcasts, the poor and dº in Israel, that Jesus directed His preaching (Lk 4*, *, Mt 11", Lk 7”; cf. the beati- tudes of the Sermon on the Mount, Mt 5” and parall. Lk 6**). He said of Himself that He was come to seek and to save the lost (Lk 1919). He called sinners to repentance (Mk 27, Mt 9”, Lk 5”). He declared that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth than over ninety and nine just persons that need no repent- ance (Llº 157. 1"). He ate and drank with publicans and sinners (Mk 2"), and declared to the self- righteous Pharisees that the publicans and harlots were entering into the Kingdom of heaven before them (Mt 21*). He swept away the burdensome requirements of the ceremonial law, and invited men to the service of a Master whose yoke was easy and whose burden was light (Mt 11* *). He made the conditions of entrance to His kingdom humility, trustfulness, the childlike spirit (Mt 5° 18*, *). In place of a God who cared only for a spiritual aristocracy, whose pleasure it was to make hard conditions that He might increase the value of the few who were saved (2 Es 7"."), He proclaimed a compassionate and loying I’ather, willing to receive back the returning prodigal upon the first evidence of repentance (Lk 15”). He revived the forgotten prophetic doctrine of the Divine forgiveness, and |...}. the chief blessing of His Kingdom to consist in the remission of sins (Mt. 26%, cf. Mk 219). SALVATION, SAVIOUR SALVATION, SAVIOUR 365 This is the explanation of the universalism of Jesus. A Gospel for the sinful knows no race limitations. A Messiah who felt Himself specially sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mit 15*), Jew though He might be, could not turn away from humble penitence, wherever found. The Samaritan (Jn 47, Lk 17" ; cf. 1099), the Syro- hoenician (Mk 7”), even the Roman (Mt 819), shared His blessing and His praise. The teaching of the Fourth Gospel concerning the other sheep not of the Jewish fold (101"), and the hour when men shall no longer worship the Father either in Jerusalem or on Mt. Gerizim (4*), is the legitimate outcome of the principles on which Jesus regularly acted. The Messiah of the Jews showed Himself to be in very truth the Saviour of the world. There is still another point in which the teaching of Jesus differs radically from that of His contem- poraries: this is in the emphasis He lays on the principle of service. Here the individualism of wº we have spoken receives its needed com- }. Men are saved one by one, each for himself; but they are saved that they may serve. As members of the Kingdom, it is their duty and their privilege to minister to one another's needs. I’reely forgiven by the heavenly Father, they also are to forgive one another (Mt 1891-99). He that would be greatest in the Kingdom of Christ must show himself servant of all (Lk 22?", cf. Jn 1314). He that would save his life must be willing to lose it (Mt 1628, Mk 83%, Lk 924; cf. 1789). We unduly limit this sentence if we understand it simply of the conditions of entrance to the Kingdom. It expresses the law of the ICingdom all the wa through, the law, namely, of self-realization through self-sacrifice. In this connexion we find our Lord reviving another forgotten OT truth. When the great prophet of the Exile first proclaimed the doctrine of salvation through the vicarious sacrifice of the good, he found few learers (cf. Is 531 ‘Who hath believed our report 2'). The connexion of salvation with pro- sperity had been too long and too close to make the new teaching intelligible. In the succeeding centuries it fell altogether into the background. Our Lord reasserts it, and applies it to Himself. He compares Himself to the good shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep (Jn 10"). He de- clares that He is come to give His life a ransom for many (Mk 10"). He compares His death to a covenant sacrifice, sealing the new relationship between His disciples and God (Mt 26°). The crucifixion and rejection which seemed to His disciples to mark the failure of His mission had no such meaning to Him. They were but a necessary step in His redeeming work. The re- proachful word of His enemies had a deeper meaning than they knew. He saved others; Himself He could not save (Mt. 2749, Lk 23*, Mk 15”). And the principles which He applies to Himself He extends also to His disciples. Look- ing forward to their approaching persecutions, He bids them not be dismayed, since if they would enter into His glory they must drink His cup (Mt 20*, cf. 510-12). Thus suffering and death, which in earlier times had seemed the direct opposite of salvation, are shown by our Lord to have a neces- sary part to play in bringing it about. Summing up our Lord's teaching concerning sal- vation, we may say that it is deliverance from sin through entrance upon a new Divine life. The marks of this life are humility, brotherly service, and filial dependence upon God. In the practice of these traits consists the righteousness of the 1Kingdom, and in their experience its blessedness. This new Divine life, which is mediated not merely by the teaching and example of Christ but by His sufferings and death, begins here, continues un- broken in the life after death, and will be finally consummated at the Parousia, when the principles of Christ shall be everywhere accepted, and the will of God be done on earth even as it is done in heaven. 4. In the New Testament.—The salvation brought by Jesus is the theme of the entire apostolic age. %. we turn in the NT, whether it be Acts, Hebrews, St. Paul or St. John, we are conscious of a note of conſidence and triumph, as of men possessing a supreme good, in which they not only themselves rejoice, but which they are anxious to share with others. . More significant than any change in doctrine is this consciousness of salva- tion as a glorious fact, dominating and transform- ing life. None the less is it true that on this common basis we note differences of conception. Not all the disciples grasped the teaching of Jesus with equal clearness. In not a few parts of the NT we find survivals of earlier jº ideas and sympathies (e.g. Ac. 1", Rev 7* etc.). So the de- gree of theological development varies greatly (cf. the speeches in Acts . Romans). Under the circumstances there is need of discrimination. We shall begin our treatment with a brief survey of the common features of the apostolic teaching, and then F. on to describe the more distinctly theo- logical views of St. Paul and St. John. : - (a) In general.-The central theme of the apos- tolic preaching is the proclamation of Jesus as Saviour. Cf. Ac 5* * * The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, hanging him on a tree. Him did God exalt to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remis- sion of sins’ (cf. Mt 1”, Jn 317, Ac 2° 41° 1338 1511, Eph 529, Ph 30, 2 Ti 119, Tit 14 2.93%, 2 P 11, in 220 * 18, 1 Jn 4”, He 21° Jesus as author of salvation). ‘Salvation’ has become a technical term which sums up all the blessings brought by the Gospel (cf. Eph 1” “the Gospel of your salvation’; 1 Co 15* * * the Gospel . . . by which ye are saved ’; Ac 13% ‘the word of this salvation '; cf. v.47 1617 ‘the way of salvation’; 28*, Roll" “the power of God unto salvation '; 10” “confession unto salva- tion’; 11", 2 Co 7” “repentance unto salvation ’; 2 Ti 31* “able to make wise unto salvation ’; He 6° ‘things that accompany salvation '; Jude * “our common salvation'; Tit 2" “the grace of God, bringing salvation '; cf. 1 Ti 2** “God . . . who would have all men to be saved, and come to a knowledge of the truth'). In contrast to all pre- vious deliverances of God (He 11. *), the fulfilment of that for which the OT prophets looked (1 P 119-1°), the earnest of the age which is even now at the door (Ac 2". " the pouring out of the Spirit as ful- filment of the prophecy of Joel), is the great de- liverance which God has wrought through His Son. Jesus is not only Saviour; He is the only Saviour. The stone which the builders set at nought has been made head of the corner (Ac 4”). “And in none other is there salvation ; for neither is there any other name under heaven that is given among men, wherein we must be saved' (Ac 4*). In strict conformity with the teaching of Jesus, salvation is represented primarily as deliverance from sin. Our Lord is called Jesus because He ‘shall save his people from their sins” (Mt 1”). He ‘came into the world to save sinners’ (1 Ti 1”). The blessings of His kingdom are repentance (AC 511 1118, cf. 2021) and remission of sins (Ac 2*, cf. 310 58, 10's 138 2618, and esp. 3% “Unto you first God, having raised up his Servant, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities’). So the Apocalypse begins with a song of praise ‘unto him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by his blood” (1"). As death is the consequence and penalty of sin, Sal- vation is at the same time deliverance from death 566 SALVATION, SAVIOUR 'SALVATION, SAVIOUR (He 57, cf. 2*, Ja 5”, cf. 41° “he who is able to save and to destroy’; 2 Ti 1" “our Saviour Jesus Christ, who abolished death, and brought life and incor- ruption to light through the Gospel”), and from the wrath of God, of which death is the judicial consequence (cf. Ro 5" with 1*). More particularly with reference to the individual, in contrast to the cosmic salvation taught by St. Paul (Ro 8”), it is called salvation of the soul (1 P 19. 1", Ja 1*, He 10”). In its wider relations it is a salvation of the world (Jn 317, 1 Jn 414). Common also to the entire NT is the stress laid upon the sufferings and death of Christ as mediat- ing salvation. The cross which had been such a staggering blow to the disciples’ faith at the first (Lk 24” ”), and which still remained a stumbling- block to Jews and foolishness to Greeks (1 Co 1*), is now seen to have a necessary pº. to play in Christ's saving work (He 29ff, 58.9 12°, 1 Co. 118, 1 P 118. 19, Rev 19, Ac 2* 2028, Lk 2426), and is inter- preted in the light of Is 53 (Ac 8°, 1 P 2*-*. Cf. ălso the title Tambº in Rev. 5% 79. 19) as the ful- filment of prophecy (Lk 24*7, Ac 31°, 1 Co 15°). As a result of this new view of Christ's death, we find the NT writers without exception rising to a new conception of the meaning .# suffering (Ac 5* 91%, 2 Co 19, Ph 119. 28, He 59 1318, 1 P 17, Ja 12, Rev 714), and applying to their own experiences of sorrow and temptation a standard which they have learned from Jesus Christ (1 P 2*, He 1319, 2 Co 1949-11; cf. I Co 419-18, Col 1*). If we compare the NT teaching as a whole with that of Jesus, we note a greater stress upon the eschatological element. This is true not only of the Apocalypse and of the early discourses in the Acts, where the Parousia is the centre of interest (cf. Ac 320-21), but also of such writings as James (cf. 58 with 112), Hebrews, and 1 Peter, as well as the Epistles of St. Paul (cf. esp. Thess, and 1 Co 15). In Hebrews the word ‘salvation’ is used in a purely eschatological sense (e.g. He 998 “Christ, having been once offered up to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation’; cf. 114 24 210 59.69). The same is frequently the case in 1 Peter (e.g. 10.9, l0 “a galvation ready to be revealed at the last time,’ ‘the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls,” but cf. 321), and in the letters of St. Paul (e.g. Ro 1311 ‘Now is salvation nearer to us than when we believed'; cf. 510, 1 Co 310 59, 2 Ti 418). The early Christians, almost without exception, felt themselves living at the end of the ages (1 Co 1011), and looked at any moment for the return of their Master to set up His heavenly Kingdom (see PAROUSIA). Doubtless the resur- rection experiences had much to do with this. The revelation of Jesus in glory, the assurance that He was even now sitting at the right hand of the Father, tended to emphasize the tran- scendent elements in His teaching, and to magnify the contrast between this present evil age and that which was to come. Thus St. Peter in Acts urges his hearers to save themselves from this crooked generation (Ac 240), and St. Paul declares that if in this world only Christians have hope in Christ, they are of all men most pitiable (1 Co 1519). The contrast in both these passages, unlike that involved in the Johannine doctrine of the world, of which we shall speak presently, is a temporal one. The time of º distress is set over against that of future glory. At the great day of the Parousia, which is im- pending, there is to be a transformation of the universe (IRo 821, 1 Co 791), new heavens and a new earth (Rev 211), and believers, with their risen brethren who have gone before (1 Th 415), shall be clothed with heavenly bodies (1 Co 1547-49), and enter upon an existence adapted—as the present cannot be—to the enjoy- ment and practice of the spiritual life (Ro 823, cf. v. 11), It is at this point that we note the closest contact with the ideas of contemporary Judaism. Coming to Christianity from an atmosphere charged with the hope of earthly, even if of superhuman prosperity, it was impossible but that the dis- ciples should show some traces of their early training. The letters of St. Paul show us what a struggle it took before Christianity freed itself from the yoke of Jewish legalism. Not dissimilar was the relation to the eschatological ideas of Judaism. The thoughts of the early Christians clothed them- selves naturally in imagery taken from the Jewish apocalyptic books. They looked for a heavenly Jerusalem (Rev 212ſ., cf. also He 12**, Gal 420), with its streets of gold and its gates of pearl, and did not resign without a struggle the hope of a millennial Kingdom on earth anticipating and preparing the way for the joys of the heavenly IZingdom (see MilliºxNIUM). The Apocalypse introduces us most deeply into this world of Jewish-Christian thought, which, however, has left its traces in other books of the NT (e.g. 2 P, Jude), and is not wholly absent even from him who did the nost to overcome it—the Apostle Paul (e.g. Gal 420, 2 Co 23). And yet it is easy to exaggerate the extent of this influence, In syite of all the points of contact with Judaism, the carly -w Christians lived in a new world. To them as to their Mastel salvation was a new life (Ac 228, cf. 810 1118), entered upon by repentance and faith. It was a life of forgiven sin, of filial trust, of brotherly service, of present communion with Christ. If the full enjoyment of the promised salvation still lay in the future, they were yet not without experience of Christ's present blessing and help. In the miracles of healing and deliverance which characterized the opening days of the Church (Ac 310); above all, in the presence and power of the Holy Ghost (Ac 210 48] iól), they saw the pledge of their Saviour's power and rule, The sanctification without which no man shall see the Lord (He 1214) was not only the ideal, but to a large extent a character- istic of their daily living. The social joys of the ICingdom were anticipated in daily communion with the brethren (AC 240. 47). Thus the life experiences, of the early Christians, even as re- vealed in such books as Acts, are truer to the teaching of their Master than a superficial study of the use of such theological terms as ‘salvation' and “kingdom' would seem to indicate. Much more shall we find this the case when we pass to the more developed conceptions of St. Paul and St. John. (b) St. Paul.—We have already touched upon the points which the teaching of St. Paul shares with the rest of the NT—the conception of salva- tion as deliverance from 'sin, the emphasis upon the mediation of Jesus, and especially upon the significance of His death, the importance given to the eschatological element, the Jewish dress in which many of his ideas are clothed. Some inter- preters have indeed carried the relation to Judaism so far as to contend that St. Paul was a chiliast, distinguishing, on the ground of 1 Co 15*, *, an earlier resurrection of believers from the later and general resurrection (see PAROUSIA). 13ut this view cannot be successfully maintained. So far as the resurrection is concerned, St. Paul's ideas are as far as possible removed from the crass materialism which characterized the thought of many of his contemporaries (cf. 1 Co 15” “That which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be,” etc.), and the salvation of the Par- ousia, which, unlike the coming in Itev 19, intro- duces the final blessºdness of the saints, is only the working out to their full completion of prin- ciples and forces already active in this present life. Indeed the conception of salvation as a present experience is characteristic of all St. Paul's teaching, and gives it its chief significance. To appreciaté St. Paul's doctrine of salvation, we must set it against the background of his view of the flesh. Whatever be the exact interpreta- tion given to the term ; whether, with Holsten, it be understood metaphysically, as implying, on St. Paul’s part, a dualistic view of the universe, or, with most interpreters, be regarded simply as the synonym for corrupt human nature, there can be no doubt that, to St. Paul, mankind as a whole is the prey of a power of evil which it cannot resist, and from which it is unable to escape. l'rom Adam downwards all men have sinned, and come short of the glory of God (Ro 3”). , Deing sinful, they are exposed to the curse of the law, and to the death j is the inevitable consequence and penalty of broken law. . The glory of Christ's salvation consists in the fact that it delivers man from this sinful flesh, and so at the same time from the law which is its judge, and the death which is its penal consequence. Thus salvation, while a single process, involves different elements, and may be looked at from different points of view. In the first place (or, to be more accurate, in the last place), it involves deliverance from death. To St. Paul, as to the other apostles, salvation is so far an eschatological conception, that it's full effects will be apparent only at the Parousia. In that great day, when the terrors of the Divine wrath shall be revealed from heaven “upon every soul of man that worketh evil” (Ro 2", cf. 118), Christians shall be safe. The Parousia, which to others is a day of death (2 Th 1” “who shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might'), is to usher them into the pres. SALVATION, SAVIOUR SALVATION, SAVIOUR 367 ence of their long-expected Saviour. With the 1 isen saints, who have died before them, they shall be caught up to meet the Lord in the air (1 Th 4"), and, freed from the last trace of the flesh which has hitherto hampered them (1 Co 15*), shall enter into the joys of His heavenly kingdom. It is this glorious experience—still in the future—to which St. Paul refers when he uses salvation as an eschatological term (e.g. Ro 13”). g But salvation is not merely deliverance from future punishment. It includes also freedom from sin as a present power. Indeed it is this present deliverance which alone makes the future possible. Through union with Christ, the believer has be- come a new creature (2 Co 517). He has died to sin (Ro 6°), crucified the flesh, with the passions and the lusts thereof (Gal 5*), and entered upon a new spiritual life of righteousness, peace, and joy (Ro 1417). Already he is a saved man (Ro 8*, 1 Co 118, 2 Co 2"), reconciled with God (IRo 5"), claiming and receiving the privileges of a son (Ro 81*, *), rejoicing in daily experiences of a Father's grace, knowing how to glory even in tribulations (Ro 5°), since he has learned that all things work together for good to them that love God (Ro 8*). 'No doubt he stili has his conflict with evil. But the conflict is no longer a dis- couraging one. Whereas he once felt himself the slave of the flesh, sold under sin (R', '7"), now he knows himself to be its master. The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made hin: ?-ee from the law of sin and of death (Ro 8”). And ºf:0 day is coming when, through the transformation of his body, he shall be freed from whatever defiling contact still remains (Ro 8*). Being freed from sin, the Christian is also free from law. Law has authority only over the sinner ; but the man who through union with Christ has entered upon a new life in the spirit is free from law (Ro 6" 7" 10*). He is not only delivered from the fear of its punishment, but— what is more important—he has exchanged the bondage of its requirements for the freedom of the new man in Christ Jesus (Col 2", Gal 5* * *). In place of the spirit of fear he has received the spirit of nºtion; whereby he cries, ‘Abba, Father.” (Ro 813). Knowing himself to be heir of all things, he refuses to be entangled again with the beggarly rudinents of ritual prescription under which he was once held in bondage (Gal 4**, Col 220). As a Christian he lives on a higher plane, and breathes a different atmosphere from that of work-righteousness, however earnest (Ro 320.*, Gal 32-7). Thus the break with legalism, practically begun by Jesus' teaching concerning the childlike spirit, is theoretically completed by the Pauline doctrine of a justification or right- eousness by faith instead of by works. With the mention of faith we touch the heart of St. Paul’s doctrine of salvation. We are saved by faith. And faith, to St. Paul, means more than belief. It is more even than trust. It is an act of the will by which the believer so lays hold upon Christ that he actually becomes partaker of His risen and triumphant life (Eph 37, Gal. 3", *, Iło 11%, Col 21, 1931-4; cf. McGiffert, Apostolic Age, pp. 141, 142). . For the Christ whom St. Paul knows as mediator of salvation is more than man, even the best of men ; more even than the Jewish Messiah, great as are his prerogatives. He is a pre-existent Divine Being, coming into the world from a higher realm, and imparting to those who are subject to the law of sin and death the new spiritual vitality without which deliverance is hopeless. This doctrine of Christ as the incarnation of a pre-existent Divine Being, which is common to St. Paul, the writer to the Hebrews, and St. John, gave Christianity its chief point of contact with contemporary Greek thought, and formed the bridge by which men naturally passed from the latter to the former. But with all recognition of the points of similarity between the Logos doctrine of the Alexandrian philosophers and the NT teaching concerning the pre-existent Christ there is one point of difference, whose importance cannot be over- estinated. The interest of the one, is cosmological ; it grows out of a desire to understand the world. The interest of the other is soteriological ; it springs from the need of deliverance from sin. To St. Paul, helpless under the burden of the flesh, finding that, when he would do good, evil is present with him, seeking in vain for a deliverer from his intolerable bondage, - to St. Paul, we repeat, the significance of the heavenly Man, revealed to him in the experience of the Damascus road, con- sists in the fact that He is a life-giving spirit (1 Co 1545). We are ready now to understand the significance of the death of Christ. It is the means by which He gains the victory over the flesh and enters upon the new resurrection life. No merel forensic conception can do justice to St. Paul's thought at this point. It is not a matter primarily of guilt or of penalty. In sin he sees a power of evil, working out its own deadly and inevitable fruits. Christ took to Himself this sinful flesh, and let it work out upon Himself its natural consequences. He submitted to death, which is the rightful wages of sin, in its most aggravated and shocking form. In the striking words of Gal 31° He became “a curse for us : for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” But the death, which to an ordinary man would have ended everything, was to Him º the door through which He passed into the higher life of the leavenly Kingdom. Being sinless, it was impossible for Him to be holden of death. Itising from the grave in newness of life, He opens the way for like escape to all who through faith in Him become partakers of His Divine and heavenly life. No one can understand the Pauline doctrine of salvation who does not conceive it primarily as present union with the Divine and glorified Christ. What our Lord has once done on the great theatre of the universe, that each individual Christian is to repeat on the lesser stage of his earthly life. He, too, must die to sin (Ro (;2) and rise to righteousness º 60. 6). He, too, must share the sufferings of Christ (Col 124), and sit with Him in heavenly places (Eph 28). The life which he lives is to be no longer his, but that of the Christ who liveth in him (Gal 220). Old things have passed away, and all things are become new (2 Co 517). Thus already here and now the Christian antici. pates the blessings, whose full realization remains for the Parousia. Nothing can separate him from the love of Christ— neither death, nor life, nor angels nor ºrinºliº, nor things }. nor things to come (Ro 899. 39). If he die before the 2arousia, it matters not. Though to live be Christ, to die is gain, for dying means departing to be with Christ, which is very far better (Ph 123, cf. 2 Co 58 ‘absent from the body, at home with the Lord'). & It is clear that from such a point of view the significance of the Parousia is very different from that which it has in Jewish- Christian thought. To St. Paul it is not necessary to wait until the Second Coming before one can enjoy the salvation of Christ. His greatest blessing has been given already. The Spirit who shall one day Quicken our mortal bodies already dwells within us as a transforming power (IRo S11), and the redemption of the body for which we still groan (Ro 823) will only give free . to spiritual forces, with the working of which we are already familiar. Thus we see that here also, as well as in his doctrine of righteousness by faith, the teaching of the apostle is true to the new insight of the Master. Two points still need brief mention before we leave the Pauline teaching. These are : (a) The emphasis which he lays on the social side of sal- vation ; (3) his doctrine of a cosmic salvation. (a) Nothing is more striking, in view of the intense personal independence of St. Paul, than the stress which he lays upon the social side of salvation. This comes out most clearly in his doctrine of the Church—a conception which takes the º in his teaching of the present Kingdom of the parables. . Through union with Christ a man is not only joined to his Master as an indi- vidual, but becomes a member of His body, the Church º 128). The new Divine life which he enjoys is shared by his brothers and sisters of the Christian family. The gifts which he receives are for the purpose of ministering to their necessities © 368 SALVATION, SAVIOUR SALVATION, SAVIOUR & (Eph 4.1. 12). If he suffers, they suffer with him (1 Co 12*); if he is honoured, they are partakers of his joy (1 Co 12*). The end of all is the build- ing up of the Christian community in the know- ledge and love of Christ (Eph 4” ”), and the reward for which the apostle looks at the Parousia is the presence of his converts among the company of the redeemed, spiritually fitted, because of his ministry, to enter upon the enjoy- ment of the heavenly kingdom (1 Th 2", cf. 1 Co 114). It is not strange that, holding such views, we see the apostle looking upon all history as a training school for the Divine salvation (Ro 9–11), and hoping for the day when even his fellow- Israelites, who have thus far turned a deaf ear to the message of the Gospel, shall repent and become partakers of its blessings (Roll”). (8) But the apostle's view: reaches out beyond this earth, and takes in the universe as a whole. He sees the whole creation groaning and travail- ing together in º until now, waiting till it be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God (Ro 8”). He looks upon Christ as the mediator of a sal- vation truly cosmic, and declares that it is God’s É. ‘through him to reconcile all things unto himself, whether things upon the earth or things in the heavens’ (Col 1*, cf. Eph 119). Thus, according to St. Paul, the salvation in which we here share is º pº of a great world process whose end shall be a universe redeemed (cf. I Co 15%). The teaching of St. Paul had a profound influence upon his contemporaries. . We see its effect most clearly in 1 Peter, which, in spite of the emphasis it lays upon the future (1 P 10), has the conception of salvation as a present experience (321, cf. also 128 210 41). And yet it is easy to overestimate it. Other influences were at work in the early Church. The legal con- ception of religion which characterized the Jew was reinforced by sinnilar conceptions which had their origin on Gentile soil. The view of salvation as freedom from law through the posses- sion of a present spiritual life was not fully adopted even by many who in other respects were profoundly influenced by St. Paul. The letter to the Hebrews is a case in point. Here, as we have seen, the point of view is almost wholly eschatological. Salvation is conceived as a reward promised to those who remain faithful under their present trials, and faith, instead of being vital union with a present Christ, is simply the assurance that God will keep His word (He 111). In this respect the letter to the Hebrews is typical of the future. When we study the Christianity of the Fathers we find the Gospel often presented as a new law, and salvation, which is wholly future, is the reward promised by God to those who keep it. The doctrine of a mystic union with Christ through faith tends more and more to fall into the background, only to be revived in a sacramentarian form, foreign to the Pauline teaching. This fact must be borne in mind if we would appreciate the full significance of the Johannine conception of salvation. (c) St. John.-We have already referred to the problem raised by the passages in the Fourth Gospel which speak of eternal life as a present possession, and given reasons for believing that they truly represent the teaching of Jesus. But however much we may be convinced of the his- toric foundation of the discourses, there can be no doubt that, in their present, form at least, they show traces of the reflexion of the evangelist. The connexion between the Gospel and the Epistle is too close to be overlooked. This connexion is evident in thought as well as in language. In both we have a single conception, clear - cut, uniform, consistent. We have to do with a form of teaching which may be contrasted with other lº of the NT as belonging to a distinct, type. n presenting the Johannine teaching, therefore, we follow most recent scholars in using both Gospel and Epistles as sources. In St. John the conception of salvation as a present spiritual experience reaches its culmina- tion. There are indeed traces of the more common eschatological º esp. in the First Epistle (e.g. 2** 33 417; cf. Jn 5* 6*, * 21*), but they , the Parousia. disciples are branches (Jn 15"). –4 hold a comparatively subordinate place. Salva, tion is represented, as in the Synoptics, as eternal life. But for this life a man need not wait till It is already the possession of all who believe on Christ. He that hears Christ's word, and believeth Him that sent Him, ‘hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life’ (5*; cf. v.v.” " 3", 1 Jn 41° 5*). Christ is represented as the bread of life (6*), of which, if a man eat, he shall live for ever (v."). He is the resurrection and the life (11*), and whosoever liveth and believeth on Him shall never die (11*). Cf. also the passages which speak of regeneration (Jn 3°, 1 Jn 3° 5'). When we look more closely into the nature of this new life, we find that it has two main charac- teristics: it is a life of spiritual insight and of holy affection. These are indicated by the two words “light’ and “love.’ Like St. Paul, St. John makes the sharpest possible contrast between the sinful world without Christ and the new spiritual society brought into existence by His redemption. To St. John, as to St. Paul, the whole world lieth in the evil one (1 Jn 519), and the greatest need of man is to be delivered from the bond- age of sin (Jn 894.9%). But to St. John the characteristic mark of this sinful state is ignorance, and the remedy which is needed is knowledge. It is the truth which must make men free (Jn 882, cf. 594). The world lies in darkness (10). It does not know God and His Christ. It does not apprehend, and therefore will not receive, Ilis message. Into such a world the Logos comes, as light. His influence is as wide as humanity (19). In the fulness of time He becomes flesh and dwells among men (114), and they behold His glory, as of the Only-begotten from the father, full of grace and truth (114). He declares the God whom no man hath seen at any time (118). Nay, more, in His own person He clearly manifests Him; for He that hath seen IIim hath seen the l’ather (149). He is the light of the world (S12 95 1240), and the condemnation of men consists in the fact that when light was come into the world, they loved darkness better than light, because their works were evil (319; cf. 1290 ‘sons of light’ as a synonym for the saved). For this is eternal life, to know God, who is Hinmself light (1 Jn 10), and Jesus Christ whom He has sent (178, cf. i Jn 520). But the redeemed life is not merely a life of knowledge. It is also a life of love. God is love (1 Jn 48) as well as light, and every one that loveth is begotten of God and knoweth God (1 Jn 47). The clearest proof of the passage of the disciples from death to life is the presence of a loving spirit (1 Jn 314, cf. Jn 1384). “He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in the darkness "even until now. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him ' (1 Jn 29, 10). The intimacy of the relation- ships into which men enter through the Christian life is often emphasized. They are children of God º Jn 31, 2). They are Christ's dear friends, to whom, unlike those who are merely servants, He makes known all that He has heard of His Father (Jn 1510). The one commandment which He lays upon them is that they should love one another, even as IIe has loved them (1394, cf. 1517). - The secret of this new life of light and love is union with Christ. He is the vine, of which the He is the heavenly bread upon which they feed (6**). From Him comes that water of life which, when once received, never faileth, but becomes in each man a well of water, springing up unto eternal life (41*, cf. 6"). He is the good shepherd who lays down His life for the sheep (10”); the grain of wheat, which, falling into the ground in appa- rent death, springs up to bear much fruit (12”). Nor is this mediatorial work confined to His arthly life. If He leaves the disciples at death, it is to return by the Holy Spirit (14*), the Paraclete, who shall institute a yet more intimate relation than that which has gone before (16' " "), bringing to remembrance the , things of Christ (149", cf. 1614), leading the disciples, as they are able to bear it, into aff the truth (16", cf. 1 Jn 57), becoming the bond through which Christ and the Father are united to them in a communion that shall know no end (cf. 14” with * 17*.*, 1 Jn 3*). If we compare St. John's vicw of the mediatorinl work of Christ with that of St. Paul, we note many points of similarity. To both Christ comes into the world from a pre - existent heavenly life. To both IIe is the power through whom sin is SALVATION, SAVIOUR SALVATION, SAVIOUR 36% overcome, and the redeemed introduced into the spiritual I(ingdom of righteousness, of pººl and of joy. In both, His mediatorial work is universal in its extent, (cf. Jn, 14 “all things were made through him”; 19 “the light which lighteth every man’; 1010 “other sheep . . . not of this fold'; 1242 “I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto myself'; 44% ‘Saviour of the world'). And yet there is a difference of emphasis. St. Paul lays chief stress upon the death of Christ. The earthly life is passed over lightly. Attention is focussed upon the great tragedy of the cross, from which the conquering Saviour issues victorious in the resurrection. To St. John, the death is only an incident in the saving work. It is the incarnation as such which is redemptive. Christ enters into the world as light, and His mere appearance carries with it redeeming or condemning power. To as many as received Him, to them gave He the º: to become children of God (112). Those, on the other hand, who believe not, are condemned already by the mere fact of their unbelief (318). St. Paul, for all his stress upon present salvation, is a man of historic sense, quick to apprehend, and apt to state, the contrast between the present p. of affliction and the glories still to be revealed at the 'arousia. To the mystic intuition of St. John, time relations fade away, and we face two contrasted eternities—the world of light and of darkness, of righteousness and of sin, of love and of hate. Against this background of absolute realities there is no longer any place for the apprehension of relative values. Who- soever is begotten of God sinneth not (1 Jn 518, cf. 39). They that reject Christ are children of the devil, who from the beginning was a liar and murderer even as they (843-44). IIere the Pauline dualism is carried to the extremest point. The progress, the variety, the shading by which , the latter is relieved, are here blotted out in the clear white light of etermity, Yet the very sharpness of the presentation is the means of reviving forgotten truths. In the rarefled atmosphere of the Johannine Gospel, all traces of Jewish nationalism and materialism vanish. Salvation is indeed conceived as a tran- sce:dent good, but, as in the case of Jesus Himself, the tran- scendence is that of a higher spiritual order. One does not need to wait for the future to enjoy it. Here and now men may become partakers of light and life, of righteousness and love, of peace and joy. The Parousia is conceived less as a single event than as a continuous process (cf. PAROUSIA). Iłesurrection and judgment are present experiences. Even while in the world, the disciples may enter upon a life which is not of the world. The prayer of the Master is not that they may be taken out of the world, but that they may be kept from the evil (1710). We have thus completed our historical survey of the Biblical doctrine of salvation. We have seen how through the centuries the conception has been deepened and enriched, as the more external and material elements have more and more given place to those which are moral and spiritual. We have noted the transformation wrought by the life and teaching of Jesus, and seen the central place assigned to His person and work in the thought and experience of His disciples. Amid all varieties of statement—in spite of many survivals of earlier and less spiritual ideas — we have marked the persistence of certain permanent features, which warrant us in speaking of a Biblical idea of salva- tion. It remains to gather these together, and to exhibit them in their relations both to one another and to those which are more transient. This will be the aim of our concluding section. iv. SYSTEMATIC STATEMENT.—In presenting the Biblical conception of salvation as a whole we have to consider (1) its nature, (2) its conditions, (3) its extent. 1. Nature of salvation.—We have seen that in every case the fundamental idea in salvation is deliverance. Our opening statement is as true of the profound utterances of a St. Paul or a St. John as of the simplest passages in the OT, that in every case some danger or evil is presupposed, in rescue from which salvation consists.” If, then, we would understand the 13thlical conception as a whole, we must recognize clearly what is the great. evil from which, according to its teaching, mal, needs to be delivered. That evil is death. No other term is comprehensive enough to unite the various elements, in the Biblical teaching. From the first lines of the OT to the last chapter of the NT, salvation stands for that Divine activity by which God preserves or enriches the life of His children, by delivering them from the multiform dangers and evils which threaten its destruction. The content of the conception varies indeed with VOL. IV.-24 * -*. the deepening apprehension of what true life means. The dangers become less external, more spiritual; less transient, more permanent ; less local, more universal, but the underlying thought abides. . We may illustrate at once the perma- nent elements in the idea and those that are transient by considering the contrast between (a) the temporal and the spiritual; (b) the individual and the social ; (c) the present and the future. (a) Salvation as temporal and spiritual.—In the earlier portions of the OT ‘life’ is used in the familiar sense of animal existence. “Death' means physical destruction, with the loss of all that that entails. When a man dies, he loses, everything worth having — home and friends, health and strength, national relationships and responsibili- ties, the privileges of Divine worship and of Divine communion. We misrepresent the OT conception of Sheol when we speak of the shadowy existence in the under-world as life after death. In the gloomy monotony of the grave the vigour and vitality which gave joy to life are lost. Man exists, indeed, but it is with ‘a negative existence, a weakened edition of his former self; his faculties dormant, without strength, memory, consciousness, knowledge, or the energy of any affection. . . . The colour is gone from everything; a washed-out copy is all that is left” (Salmond, Immortality” (1901), p. 163). It is not strange that, where this view obtains, the great evil to be feared is physical death (Ps 6**), and the supreme blessing to be coveted a long life (Ps 91"). The Divine salva- tion is found in deliverance from all that threat- ens or impairs life, all that weakens its vigour or vitality—violence, oppression, captivity, calamity, troubles, and distresses of every kind. The great blessing which God gives is prosperity—a long life and a full one, with one's wife a fruitful vine, and one's children as olive plants about the table (Ps 128). Greatest of all ... to be feared is defeat in battle, since in the stern days with which we have to do it carries with it the loss of all that men count dear, both for the individual and for the nation. But with the deepening of the moral insight we note the rise of a deeper conception. Life is seen to involve more than *† prosperity. It has an inner spiritual meaning. A man lives, in the full meaning of the word, only when he enters into communion with God in righteousness and love. From this point of view the great evil to be feared is not physical but moral. It is sin which destroys the communion between a man and his Maker. From sin therefore, first of all, a man needs to be delivered. We have seen how this truth comes to expression in the latter portions of the OT. Jesus puts it in the forefront of His teaching, and it has been the distinct note of the Christian Gospel ever since. Salvation is primarily deliverance from sin. It is the restoration of the interrupted communion between the Father and His children through the creation in the latter of a new spiritual life. Once dead in trespasses and sins, they are made alive again through union with the living Christ. Thus it is still death from which men need to be delivered, but it is a death which is spiritual, not physical. One mark of the contrast between the two views is found in the changed estimate of suffering. To Inost of the OT, suffering is purely evil. It is a mark of that destruction and decay from which man needs to be delivered. To the NT, it has become a means through which man may enter into a more abundant life. The Christian glories in his weakness. He “takes pleasure . . . in in- juries . . . in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's sake,” knowing that when he is weak, then is he strong (2 Co 12" "). 370 SALWATION, SAVIOUR SALVATION, SAVIOUR And yet we must not exaggerate the contrast, We misrepresent the NT teaching if we limit the blessings of the Gospel to the spiritual realm. The outer world as jº as the inner is the scene of God’s rule. The common physical blessings are not to be despised. Christ healed the sick as well as preached to the poor. The Father whom He Fº knows that His children need earthly read as well as the bread from heaven. St. Paul, for all his contrast between flesh and spirit, recog- nizes the lawfulness of the physical appetites. The abstinence which he practises and recommends is out of regard for others’ consciences, not because of any inherent evil in flesh and wine (Ro 14, cf. 1 Ti 4*). The playsical universe is the scene and instrument of spiritual training. The body is a temple of the Holy Ghost (1 Co 6”). And, however great the change in the future, it is to no disem- bodied existence that he looks forward, but to a life in which the physical organism, now tainted by sin, shall be exchanged for a new body better adapted for the spiritual life (1 Co 15%"). Nothing is more characteristic of the Biblical view of the future, NT as well as OT, than the extent to which it pictures the heavenly life in imagery suggested by the earthly. The heavenly city, the marriage feast, the many mansions, the tree of life, the crystal river, these form the setting for spiritual joys. The last scene is not the destruct tion of the universe, but its transformation and redemption (Ro 8”). (b) Salvation as individual and social.—In the earlier portions of the OT, the subject of the Divine salvation is Israel the nation. It is charac- teristic of primitive society that it has small regard for the individual as such. It is the tribe, the clan, the nation which is the centre of the religious as of the social life. So markedly is this the case that the action of Ruth in leaving her own people to follow her mother-in-law Naomi to Canaan is the cause of wonder, and is made the theme of an entire book. It is only natural, therefore, that we should find the interest of the Biblical writers centring in the fortunes of the people as a whole rather than in the units which compose it. Even where the outlook broadens, and the prophetic vision, takes in other peoples, the point of view is still national. It is Egypt and Assyria whom the prophet sees standing with Israel as recipients of the l)ivine salvation, to whom, as to Israel, J" applies the endearing title, “my people’ (Is 10*, *). Where this point of view obtains, it is impossible to rise to any true universalism. For a universal religion must be founded in the nature of man as such, and for this there is needed a profound sense of the Worth of the individual. We have seen how this sense awakens in Jere- miah and Ezekiel ; how it is deepened by the experiences of the Exile and the IRestoration. We have noted the tender and beautiful utterances in which it finds expression in the Psalms, and seen how its later development tended to follow the lines of legal conformity rather than of the filial spirit. . The individualism of the Apocalyptic books is the individualism of the law-court or the market - place rather than of the family. Its language is that of bargain and sale, of reward and punishment. There is indeed no theoretical ºjº. to the reception of the Gentiles, if they will adopt the ceremonial law and become Jews. But there is the immense practical diſliculty of a condition laid upon strangers which even the children have not been able to bear. If the sal- vation of God is really to become a universal good, some deeper foundation must be found than that of ceremonial law. It must be grounded in con- ditions that are vital, not legal. Such a foundation Jesus laid in His teaching concerning the childlike spirit. Reviving the old prophetic teaching concerning the forgiveness of sins through the mercy and love of God, He laid a basis for His Gospel as broad as humanity. Men are not servants, with whom God deals on terms of law, but sons, whom He is willing to receive, Whenever they turn to Him in penitence and faith. Thus the Gospel of Jesus is founded in an intense sense of the worth of the individual. In the family each child has his peculiar place. To Jesus, salvation means the bringing back of the cluild who has been wandering in the far country into the plenty and peace of the Father's home, And yet the Gospel of Jesus, is a social Gospel. It is a Kingdom which He preaches, not a collection of individuals. His teaching differs from that of His predecessors only in that He makes the con- ditions of entrance broader, simpler, more catholic —in a word, more human. Whether or not He used the word Church in Mt 16°, there can be no doubt that He intended to found a society which should body forth to the world the principles for which He stood. . In this respect the l’auline doctrine of the Church is the legitimate outgrowth of the teaching of Jesus concerning the Kingdom. In the Christian life none liveth to himself and no one dieth to himself (Ro 147). The sacramental sign which marks the separation of the believer from the world marks also his entrance into the Christian brotherhood, and the feast by which he shows forth the death of Christ until He come is eaten with his fellow-disciples as a communion meal. The social character of the Christian life is indi- cated in a thousand º ways, but }. nowhere more beautifully than in the Pauline word about the Parousia, in 1 Th 41° 18 ‘We that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep . . . wherefore comfort one another with these words.’ - (c) Salvation as present and future.—We have seen that the earliest conception of salvation is present deliverance. This must be the case if death ends all. Hf God do not save while life lasts, He cannot save at all. The conception of national salvation does indeed open the way for a wider perspective. The life of the nation is longer than that of the individual, and God may delay His deliverance more than a single genera- tion and still be in time. Yet the point of view is fundamentally the same. If God's succour is not to be in vain, it must come before the mation utterly perishes. There must be at least a remnant to carry on the national life, a shoot left in the old stock, which may spring up to newness of life (cf. Is 618). Yet the experiences of later Jewish history made this contact between present and future increas- ingly diſlicult to maintain. The old national prestige seemed gone, never to return. More and more, men despaired of present deliverance and concentrated their thoughts upon the future. The very barrenness of their present experience, the very absence of all evidence of God's present in- terest and help, served but to enlarge their ex- jectations for the distant day when J" should at |. make bare His arm to help. What if indi viduals died ? what if Israel as a nation should yerish 2 God was able even to raise the dead. Some day He would stir the dry bones, and the nation would rise to newness of life (Ezk 37). Nay, He would call back from their graves the very individuals who had passed away, that they might share the joys of the final triumph (Is 26", Dn 12°). Thus more and more the conception of Sal vation becomes eschatological and transcendent. The gap between present and future widens. Bo tween the present time of distress, without experi | SALVATION, SAVIOUR SALVATION, SAVIOUR 37] ence of God’s redeeming grace, and the future age which brings His great de iverance, there is a great gulf fixed. This gulf Jesus bridged with His Gospel of a present kingdom. He restored the older concep- tion of a living God, able and willing to help His children in their daily need. But He saw that the great need was spiritual, not temporal. Conceiving of salvation as deliverance from sin, He taught that such deliverance was possible here and now. Prophet and psalmist before Hinn had had their intimations of a communion with God possible ey en in the midst of present trouble and distress. He made this communion a familiar experience. Devout spirits even within the OT, finding out- ward prosperity too little, had prayed for a clean heart and a contrite spirit; He showed how this rayer could be answered. The influence of the aster is apparent in the new view-point of the disciples. To the Christian believer, whatever his thought of the future, salvation is a present ex- perience, introducing a man into a fellowship with God which no earthly sorrow or misfortune—not even death itself—can interrupt. And yet here, again, we must beware of exag- geration. However great the emphasis on present deliverance, to Christianity, as to Judaism before it, salvation has its future meaning. We have noted the eschatological element in Jesus' own teaching. We have seen it repeated in that of His disciples. It is present in St. Paul; it is not absent even from St. John. He, too, rejoicing in communion with a present Christ, looks forward to a day when He shall be yet more fully mani- fested, and believers, seeing #. as He is, shall be transformed into His image (1 Jn 3°). The very preciousness of the present experience, the very exaltation of the spiritual standard, serve but to ^eepen the longing for the day when all that now impedes the progress of Christ's Kingdom shall be done away, and God be all in all. 2. Conditions of salvation.--These may be con- sidered on the Divine side and on the human. (a) On the Divine side.—The ultimate cause of salvation is the Divine mercy. This is the uniform teaching of OT and NT. Whether in the simpler meaning of victory in battle or the more profound conception of spiritual regeneration, salvation is undeserved. God does not treat the Israelites according to their merits, but according to the riches of His grace. They were not more in num- ber than other peoples whem. He chose them for His own, and delivered them from their captivity in Egypt (Dt 77). lºor His name's sake He saved them, that He might make His mighty power known (Ps 106°, cf. Jer 147). When they forsook Him and wandered from Him, He did not give them up. His love endured in spite of their un- Hºlies. (Hosea). He was inquired of by them that asked not for Hinn, found of them that sought Him not. He spread out His hands all the day unto a rebellious people (Is 65" "), lºven His judg- ments are a º: of His love (Am 3°). Not only the deliverance from enemies, but the repentance which makes it possible is His gift (Ps 51"). The same conception reappears in the NT. God is not the stern creditor exacting the uttermost farthing, but the loving T'ather, forgiving His erring cliildren ; more ready to give good gifts than earthly parents to their children. The disciples did not choose Christ, but He chose them and appointed them that they should go and bear fruit, and that their fruit should abide (Jn 15"). The more profound and º the conception of sal- vation, the deeper the conviction that it is unde- served. ‘By grace have ye been saved through faith ; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God’ (Eph 2*). In many passages indeed, esp. in OT, the Divine mercy is represented as an arbitrary thing. Not only is the deliverance of God contrasted as purely miraculous with all human instrumentalities (cf. 1 S 14" no restraint to J" to save by many or by few '; Is 59° “J”s hand is not shortened that it cannot save '; 1 S 17” “J” saveth not with sword and spear’; Hos 17 salvation by J" contrasted with salvation by bow or by sword, or by battle, etc.; cf. Ex 14*, the deliverance from Egypy. ; Jg 7” the defeat of the Midianites by Gideon , f's 33° 44' 57°), but it often seems dependent upon moods of the Divine feeling which man cannot fathom. There are times when J" may be ap- proached ; there are others when no man may draw nigh to Him (Ps 32", cf. Is 55%). When the great waters overflow, prayer cannot reach Him (Ps 32"?). At such a tine the part of wisdom is to wait patiently until His anger be past. But on the whole we find an increasing emphasis upon the º character of God's saving purpose. It belongs to God’s nature to show mercy. However Israel may change, His purpose towards Israel changes not. So we find increasing recognition of God’s use of means. When He would deliver His people from the Philistines or the Midianites, He raises up some man to be their saviour. Even the experiences which seem outside of His control are not really so. The Assyrian boasts of his defeat of Syria and Samaria, saying, “IXy the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom ' (Is 101*), and knows not that he is but the rod of J”s anger, in whose hand as a staff is His indignation (10%). This broadening view of the Divine Provi- dence becomes strictly universal in the NT. Nothing can separate from the love of Christ (IRo 8"). All things without exception work together for good to them who are called accord- ing to God’s purpose (Ro 8*). History is a mighty drama, in which each event fills its appointed place, preparing the way for that dispensation of the fulness of the times in which it is God’s pur- Yose to sum up all things in Christ (Eph. 1"). £ven the groanings of the creation in its present distress are but the travail throes of the new universe, that shall be, when the sons of God shall be revealed (Ro 8”). Among the instruments appointed by God to mediate His salvation, the Jewish law, with its sacrificial system, holds an important place. Through its precepts men were trained in purity and holiness, and in its sacrifices they saw a pledge of God’s forgiveness and mercy. To the contemporaries of our Lord it seemed a º and the salvation of the Messianic age would but serve to introduce on a larger scale the worship and sacrifices of the heavenly Jerusalem. Christians, following their Master, recognized the law as a Divine institution, but to then its authority was temporary. It was a tutor to bring men to Christ ; but after Christ was come it was no longer needed. Its significance might be vari- ously conceived. To the writer, to the Hebrews, it had a positive value, as typifying the higher righteousness and the more perfect Atonement of the Gospel. To St. Paul, its significance is chiefly negative. It reveals the futility of any merely legal righteousness, and points men to the better salvation revealed by Christ. With Christ we reach the centre of the Biblical doctrine of salvation. He is the Saviour par ºccel- lence, the true Mediator between God and man, the fulfilment of all the promises, the realization of all the hopes of the earlier dispensation. ...Two distinct lines of preparation meet in Him. There is the hope of the Messiah, a human deliverer through whom God has promised to deliver His people, and to set up on earth His long deferred ; 372 SALVATION, SAVIOUR : y SALVATION, SAVIOUR - - - kingdom. There is also tile expectation of a special intervention of J" Himself; the coming of a day when He shall leave His heavenly dwelling-place and take up His abode in the midst of His people, superseding the lesser radiance of sun .." Ill OOIl and stars by the light and glory of His presence. Jesus is at once jewish Mesiaſ, and "God in: carnate ; $ºp of Mary, and the Word made flesh. This is not the place to trace the development of the NT doctrine of Christ (see art. JESUS Ciinist). It is sufficient to say that it runs parallel, with the deepening conception of Salvation. In Jewish-Christian circles, where the thought of salvation is still framed on the older lines of an external deliverance, it is the Messianic thought which is most promi- nent. Jesus is a man, approved of God unto men, by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by Him (Ac 223), crucified according to the Scriptures (Ac 818), raised from the dead (Ac 224), and now waiting in heaven till the time of the restoration of all things (Ac 321). To St. Paul and St. John, with their deeper conception of salvation as a new spiritual life of righteousness and love, Jesus is a pre-existent Divine being, coming into the world from a higher realm as a quickening and life-giving principle to all who have been made one with Him by faith. The contrast between these two views may be illustrated in connexion with the view of Christ's death. To the Jewish- Christians, with their more external conception of salvation, it is an arbitrary appointment of God, the necessity of which they recognize, but which they cannot understand. Christ died that the Scripture might be fulfilled. To St. Paul and St. John, the death is a necessary step in that great process through which evil is overcome and the Christian believer made partaker of Christ's risen and glorified life. That we may become like Him and share His nature, it was necessary that He should become like us and share our nature. IIe must suffer death with us, that we may be raised to life with Him. The conception of salvation as a new Divine life finds clearest expression in the doctrine of the HOLY SPIRIT (which see). Here, too, we trace a development from the conception of the Spirit as the energy of God coming upon men to fit them for special work in connexion with the Divine kingdom (e.g. Jg 11” 13” 14%), to that which sees in Him the immanent God, entering into the life of men through regeneration (Jn 3%), creating in them a higher life of holiness and love (Gal 5*), dwelling within them as an inner spiritual prin- ciple (Ro 8°), uniting them with God and with § it (IRo 8%. 19), leading them into truth (Jn 1619), sanctifying them (Ro 15"), making intercession for them (Ro 8”), more and more transforming. them into the image of their Master (Ro 8”), and at last raising them from the grave through the transformation of their mortal bodies into the new glory of the resurrection life (IRo 8”). Where such a view is held, it is easy to see how futile is any thought of human merit. The aspira- tions which rise toward God, the graces which fit us for His fellowship, are the work of the Spirit. The very life which we live is not our own. It is the gift of God, who worketh within us both to will and to do of His good pleasure (Eph 28.9, Ph 218). (b) On the human side. — Yet it would be a mistake to conclude that the Bible knows no human conditions of salvation. The same St. Paul who lays such stress on the Divine activity in Salvation urges his readers to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling (Ph 2*). As on the Divine side salvation is a new life created in man, so on the human side it is a life which manifests itself in certain distinctive acti- vities. These may be summed up under the three leads of—(a) repentance, (3) faith, (y) obedi- ©IlCC. (a) The first and indispensable condition of sal- vation is repentance (which see), by which is meant not merely sorrow for sin, but actual for- ;aking of sin and turning to righteousness. This is as necessary for deliverance from Assyrian oppression as for entrance upon the new life of §. Kingdom. God may indeed save men from their sins, but He cannot save them in their sins. knowing whither he went’ (IHe 11°). _º We have already noted the deepening estimate of this grace, and seen how from a mere condition of salvation, which a man can achieve for himself without God’s help, it comes to be an element in salvation itself—the first step in the process whose end is perfect holiness. (8) Faith. –The obverse of repentance is faith (which see). Man turns from sin to God, and the means by which he lays hold of the Divine deliver- ance is faith. Saving faith in the Biblical sense is always more than belief (Ja 2*). It involves an act of the will, and issues in obedience. Yet on this common ground we note a difference of con- ception. In much of the Bible faith means trust in God’s word, together with the activities which follow it. Its object is God’s promise rather than His person. Abraham had faith in God—that is, he trusted His promise—and “he went out, not Because of this trust, he shall one day receive his reward; but this reward lies still in the future (He 11* *). This is the sense in which faith is used in Hebrews. To St. Paul, on the other hand, faith has a deeper meaning. It is the means of obtaining a present blessing, not a future one. Its object is a person, not a promise. ... By faith a man lays hold upon Christ as his Saviour, becomes one with Him, partakes of His heavenly life, shares His right- eousness, and rises with Him into His eternal Kingdom. It is thus a comprehensive term, which covers the entire human side of that experience whose Divine side is the working of the Holy Spirit. (y) But repentance and faith are alike vain, save as they issue in obedience (which see). This is the all-enbracing Biblical virtue. Man’s relation to God is such that his righteousness must take this form. The particular content may vary with the growth of the Divine, revelation. In OT, for instance, it includes the faithful observance of the ceremonial law with its prescriptions of ritual and sacrifice. Yet even in OT these are sub- ordinate to the eternal principles of justice and mercy (cf. Mic 6%-8). In the NT the law has been done away. The only sacrifice required is the spiritual sacrifice of prayer and praise (He 13”), . offering up of the person in life-service to God (Ro 121). The burdensome º of the Levitical ritual have given place to Christ's new commandment of love. Yet this love is no vague or indefinite virtue. It shows itself in the Willing acceptance of God's fullest revelation; in disciple- ship of Christ and membership in His Ringdom. Beginning with faith, it manifests itself in all the social virtues. It rejoices to minister to the needy and oppressed. It does not disdain the gatherings of the saints for prayer and praise, and it finds its public marks in the sacramental signs of baptism and the Eucharist, by which the believer's mem- bership in the body of Christ is openly showed forth. 3. Eactent of salvation.—It remains to consider the extent of salvation. Here our study has shown a constant enlargement in man's conception of the sweep of God's purpose. We may illustrate this in connexion (a) with the present life; (b) with the life after death ; (c) with the universe as a whole. (a) Salvation in this life.-We have already noted the growing universalism of the l8iblical teaching. At first it is Israel, alone for whom God cares. He is J”s dearly beloved son. Other nations are but God’s servants, instruments in His hand through which IIe accomplishes His saying purpose for Israel. Then, the Gentiles also share the blessings of the Messianic deliverance, but it is only by becoming subject to Israel, and adopt- ing the jºi. law and worship. Yet even in OT there are gleams of a conception more truly * . . . SALVATION, SAVIOUR SALVATION, SAVIOUR 373 as Israel are chosen of God. The foundation for a true universalism is laid in the prophetic doctrine of the worth of the individual. Jesus makes the conditions of entrance to His Kingdom purely moral and spiritual—repentance, trust, humility, obedience, the childlike spirit. Where these are present, there is a son of God, whether he observe the ceremonial law or not. The practical univer- salism of Jesus is theoretically completed in the Pauline doctrine of the abrogation of the Jewish law. This was the natural consequence of the new view of redemption. When salvation is re- garded as a new l)ivine life, it is impossible not to recognize the Christianity of those who have received the Holy Spirit, even if they have not been circumcised (Ac 104*). To the freedom of the Divine Spirit, like that of the wind, blowing where it listeth, no man may venture to set bounds. The salvation of Israel is still the centre of hope and prayer (Ro 9°), but it is only as part of a process which is as wide as humanity. With the widening horizon, we note a correspond- ing change in the depth of the conception. Salvation becomes not only a broader, but a more intensive term ; less external, more spiritual; less local, more permanent. It not only affects more men, but it affects them more profoundly. Its subject is the whole man. It reaches soul as well as body. It delivers from sin as well as from suffering. It not only removes causes of evil; it creates forces of good. As nothing is too large, so nothing is too small to fall within the range of its activity. Life and death, things present and things to come, are alike subject to the control of that Christ who is able to save to the uttermost. - This double growth may be well illustrated in connexion with the doctrine of election. At first the Divine choice centres in Israel the nation, or in those heroes or prophets whom God has set apart for special service in connexion with the national deliverance. Then other nations are included in the Divine plan: God chooses Egypt as well as Israel, Cyrus the Persian is His servant, set apart to do a special work in the execution of His redemptive purpose. To the broader view-point of the NT, with its juster estimate of the worth of the individual, election is no longer confined to a few. All Christians are elect, called to be saints (Ro 10) according to the Divine purpose. And as the range of the Divine choice widens, so its content deepens. Christians are elect unto salvation (2 Th 218), with all the richness of meaning which the Christian revelation has put into the word. The object of the Divine choice is not merely deliverance from future punishment. the Christian life as a whole, with its good works (Eph 210), its joys and graces, its brotherly service, its missionary zeal, its. willingness to spend and be spent, yes, if need be, even to be cast away (Ro 93), if thereby others may be saved. . Thus the individualism of the NT doctrine of election, so far from being a narrowing of the conception, is rather a mark of its true universalism. (b) In the life after death. –With the expansion of the conception of salvation in this life, we find the Biblical outlook reaching across the grave, and taking in the life after death. Nothing is a more striking witness to the strength and richness of the Hebrew conception of God than the way in which it succeeded in transforming the pagan conception of Sheol which at the first the Israelites had shared with their º: ..We have already traced the steps in this moralization of the life after death, and need not repeat them. here. From a gloomy, passionless, joyless exist- ence, Sheol becomes the scene of God’s presence and power. It has its garden of life, where the righteous await contentedly the greater joys of the resurrection. Christianity further emplasizes and enriches this conception. Whatever elements Christ has brought into the thought of God and His salvation are carried over into the life immediately after death. Christ's activity is not merely confined to the living. In the spirit He preaches even in the realm of the dead (1 P 319). The shifting and uncertain imagery through datholic. To Isaiah, Egypt and Assyria as well Men are called to new which the human imagination had endeavoured to. picture the nature of ‘that undiscovered country’ is now reinforced or superseded by a definite con- ception. To die means to depart and to be with Christ (Ph 1*); to enter into the Father's home, where the elder brother has gone before to prepare a place and a welcome for each returning traveller (Jn 14*). Whatever the joys still remaining at the Parousia, they are not different in kind from those upon the experience of which one enters immediately after death. The highest blessedness of heaven will consist in communion with Christ. ‘It is not yet made manifest what we shall be. We know that if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him, for we shall see him even as he is? (1 Jn 3°). (c) The Biblical doctrine of salvation reaches its climax in the conception of a redemption of the wniverse. Foreshadowed in the OT doctrine of new heavens and a new earth, developed in the period between the Testaments in extravagant and non-spiritual forms, it remains an element in the Biblical conception to the last. It is not God's. purpose merely to save men out of the world, but to save the world. Whatever is hopelessly evil— whether in nature, man, or spirit—shall at last be utterly destroyed. . No foe will longer remain to dispute the authority of Christ or mar the glories of His eternal Kingdom. The last enemy to be destroyed is death (1 Co 15*), . Not till then, will Christ's saving work be finished, and He restore to the Father the power given to Him, that in the redeemed universe God may be all in all (1 Co 15°). This doctrine of a cosmic salvation, wrought out most fully by St. Paul, but implied: also in other parts of the NT, has three main elements: (1) the redemption of physical nature. with its destruction of suffering and death ; (2) the redemption of mankind with its destruction of sin; (3) the redemption of the angelic world with its destruction of the spiritual forces which now. oppose the Kingdom of God. Thus , in terms. naturally suggested by the thought of his day, but with a vigour and breadth of conception: worthy of the largest generalizations of our modern Science, the apostle presents the work of Christ in its unity as one great process, running through the ages, reaching out to take in the uttermost bounds of space, penetrating to the pro- foundest depths of spiritual experience in order to: bind together all things in earth and heaven in one universal purpose of salvation (Eph 1, Col 1). LiTERATURE.—The Literature, which is voluminous, is widely scattered, all the more important Commentaries, as well as works on Biblical Theology, contributing directly or indirectly, to the subject. For monographs on special phases of the doctrine the reader is referred to the literature given in the special articles on l’sCIIATOLOGY, FAITII, JustiflóATION, PAROUSA, RANSOM, REDEMPTION, etc. Here only a general survey can be given. - - . On Salvation in general, cf. Cremer, Bib.-Theol. Lea. 8: oró{a, coráp, oratºpſ& M'Clintock-Strong, artt, ‘Saviour’ and “Salvation”; Herzog, IRE 3, artt. ‘Heil’, and ‘Erlösung'; Ritschl, Irechtfertigning wnd. Versöhnung, vol. ii. ; Kähler, “Zur Lehre von der Versöhnung,' in Dogmatische Zeilfraſſen, ii. 1898; Gess, Christi Person wind Work (1870); Thomasius, Christi Persom, whd Werk (1880); Briggs, “The Biblical Doctrine of Salvation,’ in Chwych Union, N.Y., Jan. 1897., . - On the doctrine of Salvation in OT, cf. the Biblical Theologies, esp. Schultz, 5th ed. (p. 502ff), Dillmann (p. 411 ſº.), Riehm, Smend, Kayser-Marti, Piepenbring (Eng. tr. 1, 207 ff.); Briggs, Messianic Prophecy; Dulin), Theologie der Propheten (1875); Adeney, The Hebrew Utopia (1879). tº a - On the period between the Testaments, cf. Gfrörer, Jahrhttn- dert des 11eils, ii., esp, chs, 8–10; Drummond, Jewish Messiah 1877); Stanton, Jewish and Christian Messiah ; , Schürer, IJI; ; Weber, Jüdische Theologie 2, 1897. Much information, may also be obtained from the notes in Charles' editions of Enoch, Secrets of Enoch, Apocalypse of Baruch, ſund *}. tion of Moses, as well as from his Eschatology, Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian, 1800. º & º 'º º º • On the NT doctrine, besides the Biblical Theologies of Weiss, Beyschlag, Reuss, Boyon, Stevens, Gould, and esp. Holtzmann, cf. klaibor, Newtest. Lehre von der Sünde wºnd Erlösung (1836); Wendt, Lehre Jesw; Horton, Teaching of Jesus; Gilbert, 374 SAMAIAS SAMARIA Revelation of Jesus (1899); Pfleiderer, Pawlinismus 2; McGiffert, 4postolic Age ; Briggs, Messiah of the Gospels, Messiah of the 4p08tle8 : Stevens, Pauline. Theology, Johannine Theology; Everett, Gospel of Paul (1898); du Bose, Soteriology of the NT (1892); Ménégoz, La Théologie de l'Epître awa; Hébrewa: (1894), Le Péché et la 1èédemption d'après St. Paul (1882); Nösgen, Geschichte, der NT Offenbarwing (ii. p. 300ft.); Cone, The Gospel and its earliest interpretations (1898); Baldensperger, Selbstbewusstsein Jesuº j. Titius, Die Newtest. Lehre vom der Seligkeit (1895); Ménégoz, ‘Le Salut d'après l'enseignement de Jésus-Christ,' in Rev. Chrét. 1899, ix. pp. 401–421; W. Bousset, Jest Predigt in thº'em Gegensatz ºwn Judentwm (1892); Harnack, Das Wesem des Christentwms (1900; Eng. tr. 1901). On special points in connexion with the doctrine, cf. the various monographs on the Kingdom of God by Schnedermann Schmoller, Issel, J. Weiss, Bruce, boardman, Toy (Judaism an Øhristianity, pp. 803-871); Schmidt, Die pawlin. Christol, in ihrem Zusammenhang mit der Heilslehre des Apostels danges- tellt º Cremer, Die pawlin. #jš. tim Zusam- ºnenhang ihrer gesch. Vorawssetzungen (1000); Wernle, Der Christ wºnd die Sünde bei Paulus (1897); Kabisch, Ischatologie des Pawlus (1893); Teichmann, Die paulin. Vorstellungen von Atuferstehttng wnd Gericht, whd ihre Beziehwng zur jüd. Apoca- lyptik (1896); Schlatter, Der Glawbe in NT 2 (1895), ‘Der biblische Begriſſ der Gnade' (Schrift whd Geschichte, pp. 177– 217); Riehm, Der Begritſ' der Sühne in AT (1877); IXühl, Die Heilsbedevtwmg des. Todes Christi (1890); Seeberg, Der Tod Christi in Seiner Bedeutung für die lºrlöswing (1895); E. Cremer, Die stellvertretende Bedewiwng des Todes %; (1802); Cave, Scriptwral Doctrine of Sacrifice? (1890); Gunkel, Die Wirkwngen des IIeiligen Geistes (1888); Weinel, Die Wirkungen des Geistes wnd, der Geister (1899); M'C. Edgar, The Gospel of a Risen Saviour (1892); Milligan, The Reswrrection of own Lord (1881); Salmond, The Christian Doctrine of Inn muortality, 4th ed. 1901; Schwally, Das Lebem ºſtch den T'ode (1892); Charles, Eschatology, Ilebrew, Jewish, and Christian (1800). W. ADAMS BROWN. SAMAIAS (Xauglas),-4. Shemaiah, one of the chiefs of the Levites in Josiah’s reign, 1 Es 1° (cf. 2 Ch 35"). 2. l Es 8*=Shemaiah, of the sons of Adonikam, Ezr 8 °. SAMARIA.—1. (ºt, that is, Shömörón, “watch- mountain '; Saud peta, Xepeptów, Xoweptów, Xowmptºv, Xwpawptºv ; Jos. (Amt. VIII. xii. 5), Xopapetv; Euseb. (Qºom.), Xepºmpēv ; Samaria) The capital of the kingdom of Israel. The Assyrian, Samirina (Ins. of Tiglath - pileser III., Sargon, etc.), and the Greek and Latin forms of the name, come from the Aramaic jºy. A characteristic derivation of the name is given, in l l 16*(RV, cf. Jos. Amt. VIII. xii. 5), where we are told that Samaria, was built § Omri who bought the ‘hill of Samaria.” from Shemer, and, having fortified it, called the name of the city that he built Shomerón (Samarin) after Shemer. (See discussion of etymology by Stade in 2ATW v. 165 ſº.) Commanding the roads from Shechem northwards to Esdraelon, and westwards to the coast, and situated within easy reach of the Mediterranean, no better site could have been selected for the fortified capital of the Northern kingdom. The hill (“mountain of Samaria.” Am 4' 6", Sir 50”) rises from 300 to 400 feet above the bed of a broad fertile valley (perhaps the ‘field of Samaria,’ Ob " RV), and is isolated on all sides but the east, where it is connected with the hills (“mountains of Samaria.” Am 3", Jer 31°) by a low narrow saddle. On three sides it is surrounded and overlooked by hills clothed with olive and vine, but they are beyond the range of catapult and bow, and so were not a source of danger. On the fourth side the hills are low, and the view over them to the West, with the blue waters of the Mediterranean in the distance, is one of exceptional beauty. This charm of position, in a rich ‘fat’ valley, bordered by vine-clad hills, formed part of that “glorious beauty’ which made Samaria, the ‘crown of pride of the drunkards of Ephraim” (Is 281*). From the 7th year of Omri, Samaria was the capital (‘the head of Ephraim 'Is 7", ‘Samaria and her daughters’ Ezk 16”), and residence of the kings of Israel (1 K 16” 2018211-18 2251, 2 K 1931.0 10%. 131. 10 141** 158. 19. 14. 17.29, 27 171, Is 79 109, Hos 107); and it was also their burial-place (1 K 16*2227, 2 K 10% 13* * 14"). Samaria is on this account mentioned with or º with the capital of the Southern kingdom (2 K 21”, Is 1019, 11, Ezk 16" 23°, Am 6', Mic l'."), which was to share its fate. calls it ‘the sister’ (16° 23*), and the “elder sister’ of Jerus. (16"). The city was surrounded with strong walls (Amt. VIII. xiv. 1), and beautified by the kings of Israel. There was a fortified alace, ‘the castle of the king's house’ (2 K 15* RV), with a ‘roof-chamber’ (2 K 1%). This probably stood on the top of the hill, and near or connected with it may have been the ivory palace built by Ahab (1 K 22”). There was a Syrian quarter in Samaria (1 K 20%); and a city gate (1 K 22", 2 K 7, 18. *, 2 Ch 18°) and pool (1 K 22*) are mentioned. At Samaria, Ahab received a visit from Jehosha- |. and, at the entrance of the gate, the two Kings sat to hear the prophecy of Micaiah (1 K 22°, 2 Ch 18*, *). There th. 70 sons of Alhab were slain (2 K 101-7); there Jehu destroyed all that remained unto Ahab (2 K 10**"); and there, according to one account (2 Ch 22", cf. 2 K 9”), Alhaziah was killed. It was to Samaria that Joash, after the capture of Jerus., brought the vessels for the service of the geºple and the treasures of the king's house (2 K 141*, 2 Ch 25%); and that Pekah, at least according to 2 Ch 288. " ", returned at the head of his army, laden with the spoil of Judah, and accompanied by a long train of captive Jews, who were afterwards released. Sanaria became the religious as well as the political centre of the Northern kingdom. The marriage of Ahab with Jezebel, and the consequent close alliance between the usurping dynasties of Israel and Phoenicia, led to the establishment of the Phoenician worship on a large scale in the capital. Ahab caused a temple and altar to be erected to Baal (1 K 16”; Amt. IX. vi. 6), and made the Asherah (1 K 16°, 2 IC 139 TV). The temple, which was probably of great size, contained ‘pilſars of Baal,’ apparently of wood, which were torn down and burned, and a ‘pillar of Baal,’ pos- sibly a stone pillar with an effigy of the god on one of its faces, which was broken down when Jehu destroyed the temple after slaughtering the prophets of Baal (2 K 3° 10% ºf [in y.” read prob. § Klost. Tº adytum for ny ‘city’]). The Phoe- nician rites were celebrated with great splendour, and Jezebel, who had slain the prophets of the LORD (1 K 1819), fed 450 prophets of Baal and 400 prophets of the Asherah at lier table (1 K 18" RV). The idolatrous worship was strongly opposed by the prophets of J", some of whom worked and preached in the city. Elisha had a fixed residence in it (2 K 22° 5' 6”, cf. v.”), and Hosea hº pro- phesied there. Isaiah (10". ". 36”), alludes to the idols, graven images, and gods of Samaria; Hosea (71 8°." 10%), to its wickedness, and to the calf- worship which existed side by side with the worship of Baal ; Amos (8*), to its sin; and Isaiah (8* 9"), Hosea (13%), Amos (3%), Micah (1") foretell the penalties that it would have to suffer for the sins of its people. Jeremiah (23*) mentions the pro- phets of Baal, and Izekiel (23%) can find no fitter symbol for the city than Oholah the harlot. Soon after Samaria was built, it was probably besieged by Benhadad I., who forced Omri to make ‘streets’ in the city for the Syrians (1 IN 20°). During Ahab's reign it º y resisted a siege by Benhadad II. (1 K 20-%; Amt. VIII. xiv. 1, 2). In the reign of Jelloram, after a minor expedition had been thwarted by Elisha (2 K 6**; Ant. IX. iv. 3), the city was again besieged by Benhadad. On this occasion the garrison and townsmen were reduced to the last extremity (2 K 6**), when a panic seized the Syrian army and the siege Wils raised (2 K 7"--"; Amt. IX. iv. 4, 5). In the 7th year of Hoshca, Samaria was besieged by Shalnuancser, but it was actually taken, B.C. 722, by his succes Ezekiel SAMARIA SAMARIA, TERRITORY OF 375 sor Sargon after the siege had lasted three years (2 K 170," 189, 10. 9", cf. 2118; Ant. Ix. xiv. 1; Inscrip- tions of Sargon). The Northern kingdom fell with its capital, and the people were transplanted by the conqueror; but the city was not completely destroyed (Jer 41*). Two years later it rose, in alliance with Hamath, Arpad, and Damascus, against the Assyrians; but the rising collapsed on the overthrow of the king of Hamath (see Inscrip- tions). The transplanted Jews were replaced by foreign colonists (2 K 17”, Ezr 41%) under Assyrian governors, of one of whom the name, Nabu-achi-šu, has been preserved (III. Rawlinson, 34, col. ii. 94 f.). In B.C. 331 Samaria submitted to Alexander, who killed many of its inhabitants, and replaced them by Macedonian colonists. Later it was dismantled by Ptolemy Lagi, afterwards rebuilt, and again destroyed {y Demetrius Poliorcetes. The walls must soon have been restored, for it was a ‘very strong city’ when taken by John Hyrcanus, B.C. 120, after a year's siege (Ant. XIII. x. 2, 3 ; BJ I. ii. 7). Hyrcanus is said to have completely destroyed the city by “bringing streams to drown it’; but this can refer only to that portion of it which lay at the foot of the hill. Samaria was rebuilt by Pompey, who made it a free city, and attached it to the government of Syria (Ant. XIV. iv. 4; B.J. I. vii. 7); and it was further restored and strengthened by Gabinius (Ant. XIV. v. 3.; BJ I. viii. 4). Herod, in pursuance of his commercial policy, which was based on intercourse with the West, and of his plan of covering the country with strongholds garrisoned by Gentile soldiers devoted to his interests, made Samaria, a strong fortress. . He embellished it, built a temple of great size and magnificence, and settled it with veterans from his army and people from the neighbourhood (Amt. XV. viii. 5; B.J. I. xxi. 2). The city, which is said at this time to have had a circumference of 2% miles, was re-named Sebaste (Augusta) in honour of Augustus, who had given it to Herod (Ant. XV. vii. 3); and this name has survived in the modern Sebustich. At Samaria Herod entertained Agrippa ; there he killed his wife Mariamne, and there also he strangled his sons (Amt. XV. vii. 5–7, XVI. ii. 1, xi. 7). During the Jewish revolt, Samaria and Herod’s soldiers, called Sebastenes, went over to the Romans (Amt. XVII. x. 3, 9; BJ II., iii. 4, iv. 3, xii. 5). Many authorities suppose that the gospel was preached in Samaria. º 8". " "); but it is possible that some town in the district of Samaria, of which the name is not specified, is intended (note the absence in v.” of the def. art, in some MSS). Septimius Severus made Samaria a Colonia, but it rapidly declined as Shochem (Neapolis) rose to importance, and in the 4th cent. it was already a small town (Euseb. Omom.). It was an Epiſcº See, and its bishops attended the Councils of Nicaea, Constan- tinople, and Chalcedon, and the Synod of Jerusalem (A. D. 536). According to Jerome it was the burial- place of Elisha, Obadiah, and St. John the 13aptist (Ep. ad Marcellam, Com. ad Obad.), and their tombs were shown to pilgrims in the Middle Ages. The Crusaders º a Latin bishopric in Samaria. The modern village of Sebatstieh lies at the E. end of the terraced hill of Samaria, which is now partially cultivated and in places covered with olive groyes. The old, city wall can be traced for most of its course, following irregularly the con- tour of the hill, and there are remains of the west gate. I’rom this gate a street 50 ft. wide, and lined with columns, of which many still stand, ran along the S. side of the hill to a gate on the E., which has disappeared. To the W. of the village are the columns of a large buried temple: towards the S.W. the columns of a smaller temple; and in a hollow at the foot of the N.E. side of the hill are several shafts of columns that formed part of a quadrangle, perhaps a hippodrome, 622 ft. long and 190 ft. wide. Close to the site of the E. gate are the ruins of the fine cathedral church of St. John, built between A.D. 1150 and 1180, over the traditional tomb of St. John the Baptist. In the neighbourhood of the village are two fine springs, "Ain Harim and 'Ain Kafr Rúma, from which small streams flow for a short distance. These streams are, apparently, those utilized by Hyrcanus to undermine the lower portion of the city. (Stanley, S. and P. 243–246; G. A. Smith, HGHL pp. 346–349; PEF Mem. ii. 160, 211–215; Guérin, Samarie, ii. 188, etc.). 2. SAMARIA (# Xapid peta ; Samaria) mentioned in 1 Mac 5" cannot be the well-known Samaria, and is apparently an error. The place intended seems to be Marisa (Marishah, now Kh. Mer’ash, near Beit Jibrin), a reading found in an ancient Latin version. See Josephus, Ant. XII. viii. 6, and 2 Mac 1295. C. W. WILSON. SAMARIA, TERRITORY OF (# Xapapefrus x&pa, 2a1,4peta, Xaplapia ; Jos. Xºpa Sapuapéov ; Samaria). —At an early period the name of the city was applied to the kingdom of the ten tribes, and as the limits of that kingdom varied (2 K 10* * 15*, 1 Ch 5*), so did those of the territory called Samaria. Thus the “king of Samaria.” (2 K l', Hos 107) is the king, and the ‘cities of Samaria.” (1 K 13*, 2 K 17* * 2319) the cities, of the Northern kingdom ; and the “mountains of Samaria.” (Jer 31°, Ann 3°) is simply another term for the hill-country of Ephraim (AV Mt. Ephraim). The name Samaria is used in its extended sense in 1 K 18*, 2 K 17* 231°, 2 Ch 25°, Ezr 417, Neh 4°, Am 31°. In the Apocrypha (1 Es 21% º, Jth 1944, 1 Mac 31° 5' 10%. 38 11.8, 9, 2 Mac 15) and in NT (Lk 17”, Jn 44 ° 7. ", Ac 18 S 991) the name Samaria denotes the central of the three districts—Judaea, Samaria, and Galilee—into which the country west of Jordan, was divided. According to Josephus (BJ III. iii. 1, 4, 5), Samaria was bounded on the north by Galilee and the territory of the free city of Scythopolis, its most northerly village being Ginaea (Jenim), in the great plain of Esdraelon. It extended S. to the toparchy of Acrabatta, ‘Akrółbch, and the villages of Anuath, Kh. ‘Aina, and Borceos, Bcrºft, which were about 15 Roman miles S. of Shechem, and belonged to Judaea. In the Jordan Valley the boundary ran N. of Sartaba, ICurn. Shºrtaba (Mishna, Rosh hash-shana, ii. 3); and on the west to the N. of Antipatris (Talm. Dab. Gilfin, 76a). It was separated from the sea on the W. by the coast district of Judaea, which stretched N. to Ptolemais (BJ III. iii. 5). Samaria, is a land of hills and valleys, with here and there upland plains of great fertility. Carmel and other hills are partially clothed with dense thickets, and, in places, remnants of former forests can still be seen. In the plaims and open valleys the rich soil yields abundant harvests of wheat, oats, and maize, whilst on the terraced hillsides the fig, the olive, and the vine bring forth their fruit in due season. Josephus says truly (B.J III. iii. 4) that the country was fruitful and well wooded ; it abounded in wild fruit and in that produced by cultivation ; its water was good, and in consequence of the excellence of its grass the cattle yielded more milk than elsewhere. Samaria is an open country, and was always at the mercy of .. invaders. It seems to have offered little resistance to Joshua, and, after the con. quest, Canaanites, Midianites, Syrians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans overran it with comparative ease. No great battle was fought within its 376 SAMARIA, TERRITORY OF SAMATUS limits, and the stirring episodes of mountain warfare, so frequent in Judaea, are unknown to its annals. for the number of fortified towns or ‘strong places’ that guarded its approaches. The open character of Samaria facilitated communication. Great highways of commerce passed through it, and chariots were used at a very early period. Amongst the trade routes were that #: the coast, through the remarkable pass between Ebal and Gerizim, to the districts east of Jordan ; and those from the Maritime Plain across the hills to Megiddo (Léjún), and En-gannim (Jemim), and thence to Bashan and Damascus. To these well- travelled roads was due in great measure the close connexion that has always existed between Samaria. and the trans-Jordanic regions, and the readiness with which the Jews of the district succumbed to the influence of the surrounding paganism. After the Assyrians had conquered the kingdom of the ten tribes, they carried away the people to Assyria, and brought men from łºś. and from Cuthah, and from Avva, and from Hamath and Sepharvaim,’ and placed them in the ‘cities of Samaria.” (2 K 17%. 4. *; Ant. Ix. xiv. 1). At a later date, during the reigns of Esar-haddon and Assur - bani - pal (Osnappar, RW), the number of Assyrian colonists in Samaria was largely in- creased (Ezr 4” ". 19). In 2 K. 17” these colonists are termed ‘Samaritans.’ Josephus says (Ant. IX., xiv. 3, X. ix. 7, XI. iv. 4) that they were called Cuthaeans in Hebrew, from Cuthah, the city of their origin, and Samaritans in Greek, from the country to which they were removed ; and he regarded the Samaritans of his day as their descendants. The Cuthaeans and others brought their national gods with them, an act which was believed to have brought on them the vengeance of the God of the land. One of the captive Jewish priests was consequently sent to teach them “how they should fear the LORD.’ The result appears to have been that they adopted the Jewish ritual, but combined the worship of J" with that of their graven images (2 K 17* ; Amt. IX. xiv. 3). Possibly, many of their high blaces and altars were destroyed during the re- orms of Josiah (2 K 2319, 2 Ch 340). The Captivity freed the Jews from their old sin of idolatry, and intensified the exclusiveness of the Jewish character. When, therefore, the Jews re- turned from Babylon, and the Samaritans offered to assist them in rebuilding the walls and temple at Jerusalem, the proffered aid was refused, and the Jews excluded the Samaritans from all par- ticipation in their worship. Quarrels naturally arose, and led to a mutual enmity between the two peoples, which was marked by frequent outbursts of active hostility. The Samaritans were generally the aggressors. They attempted to prevent the rebuilding of Jerusalem (Ezr 47-9", Neh 4”; Amt. XI. iv. 4); seized Jewish lands, and carried Jews off as slaves (Ant. XII. iv. 1). On one occasion they brought the bodies of dead men into the cloisters of the temple (Ant. XVIII. ii. 2), and on another they killed Galilaeans who were passing through Samaria on the way to Jerusalem. This last outburst gave rise to dis- putes, which were referred to IRome for settlement (4 mt. XX. vi. 1–3; BJ II. xii. 3–7). The Samaritans were always ready to claim kinship with the Jews when the latter were prosperous (Ant. Ix. xiv. 3, XI. viii. 6); but at other times they repudiated the relationship, and acknowledged their Assyrian origin (Ezr 4”; Ant. XI. iv. 3, 9, xII. v. 5). The feeling of the Jews towards their enemies is indi- gated by the term of reproach, “Thou art a Sumaritan, and hast a devil’ (Jn 848); by the Words of Jesus Son of Sirach (Sir 50%. 29); and On the other hand, it is remarkable —A the mutual hostility explains Christ's command to His disciples not to enter into any city of the Samaritans (Mt 10°). Samaria, after its conquest by Assyria, was ruled by Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian governors until Syria and Palestine fell to Alex- ander after the battle of Issus. The Samaritans hastened to proffer aid to the conqueror, and in return were granted, according to Josephus, }. mission to build a temple on Mt. Gerizim (Amt. XI. viii. 4, 6, XIII. iii. 4, ix. 1). In this temple, which, more probably, however, was built by Sanballat during the time of Nehemiah, the Samaritans offered sacrifices after the manner of the Jews. But when Antiochus IV. Epiphanes took Jerus. and desecrated the º they were quite ready to address him as god, and ask his permission to call their place of worship the temple of Zeus Hellenius (Amt. XII. v. 5). After having more than once changed hands during the struggle between Alexander's successors, Samaria was given by Antiochus III. the Great, as part of the dower § his daughter Cleopatra, to Ptolemy V. º, hanes (Amt. XII. iv. 1). During the reign of the atter's successor, Ptolemy VI. Philometor, the Samaritan colony in Egypt, which owed its origin to the settlement of Samaritans serving in Alex- ander's army (Amt. XI. viii. 6), and to the re- moval of Samaritans from Palestine to Egypt by Ptolemy I. Soter (Amt. XII. i. 1), maintained, in controversy with the Alexandrian Jews, that according to the laws of Moses the temple was to be built on Gerizim and not at Jerus. (Amt. XIII. iii. 4). Samaria was conquered by John Hyrcanus, who destroyed the temple on Gerizim (BJ I., ii. 6, 7); and, after passing to the IRomans when Pompey intervened in the quarrel between Hyr- canus II. and his brother, it was given to Herod by Augustus (Ant. xv. vii. 3). On Herod's death it was granted to his son Archelaus (Amt. XVII. xi. 4; BJ II. vi. 3); but, on his banishment, it was added to the province of Syria (Ant., XVII. xiii. 5; B.J II. viii. 1). In the time of Pilate a large number of Samaritans were killed when on their way to Gerizim, and to Pilate's action on this occasion Josephus ascribes his recall (Amt. XVIII. iv. 1, 2). In the days of our Lord the Samaritans formed an important element in the population ; and though they probably had a strong admixture of Jewish blood in their veins (2 K 23* *, 2 Ch 34", Ezr 6°), Jn 4”; Ant. x. iv. 5), they had not lost their distinctive character as aliens by descent (Lk 1778, cf. 10”), and apparently in religion (Jn 4*). The gospel appears to have been first preached to the Samaritans by Philip, and with some measure of success (Ac 8”). But it cannot have been very generally accepted, for the Samaritans more than once came into collisiºn with the Roman emperors and the Christians. Vespasian quelled a "...º. rising by slaying 11,600 of them on Mt. Gerizim (BJ III. vii. 32; ; and they were so severely punished by Zeno and Justinian for murdering Christians and destroying churches, that they never afterwards recovered. Benjamin of Tudela, A.D. 1163, found “Cutheanſ, who observe the Mosaic law only, and are called Samaritans,’ at Nóblus, Caesarea, Ascalon, and Damascus (IEarly Travels, p. 81). They are now represented by a few families at Náblºts. LITERATURE.—Conder, Tent-Work, i. 80-109; Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, 220–248; G. A. Smith, 11(#III, 321–343; Guérin, Samarie ; Schürer, HJ P 1, i. 190 f., 280, Il. i. 5-8 ; Bacdeker- Socin, Pal.8 220 f.; Buhl, GAP, 207. C. W. WILSON. SAMATUS (2400 ros), 1 Es 9*.—One of the sons of Ezora, corresponding to Shemariah or Shallum in Ezr 1041: 4°. SAMECH SAMSON 377 –4 –4. *— SAMECH (D). — The fifteenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and as such employed in the 119th Psalm to designate the 15th part, each verse of which begins with this letter. In this Dic- tionary it is transliterated by $. SAMELLIUS (B XagéX\tos, A Xeg- Xeg-; AV Semellius), 1 Es 219, 17. * * = Shimshai the scribe, cf. Ezr 4° etc. SAMEUS (B Gapaſos, A Xapaſos; AV Sameius).- Of the sons of Emmer (1 Es 9”), answering to Shemaiah, of the sons of Harim, Ezr 10*. SAMGAR-NEBO (Wayn;pp).-An officer of Nebu- chadnezzar, who, according to the MT of Jer 39 [Gr. 46]*, took his seat, along with other princes, in the middle gate of Jerusalem after the Chal- daean army had forced its way into the city. If the name (LXX BN Xapaydł0, A. Elagapayá6) is to be accepted, it may be = Sumgir-Nabu, “ be gra- cious, O Nebo (Schrader, COT ii. 109).” The text has in any case suffered corruption, as is evident, apart from other considerations, from the multi- tude of variant readings exhibited (cf. Swete, OT in Greek, ad loc.) by the LXX. If we retain the name Samgar-nebo, we ought perhaps to drop the first ‘Nergal-sharezer,’ and read : “Samgar-nebo the Sar-sechim [a title as yet unexplained], Nebu- shazban the Rab-saris [cf. v.”] and Nergal-sharezer the Rab-mag” (so Sayce in art. NERGAL-SHAREZER above). Another course is to reject (with Giese- brecht) the name Samgar - nebo entirely, taking nipp as a dittography of Ir in, and joining lay to the following, D-55mºnal thus = |}|ºn of v.”. It must be confessed that the means are not yet at our disposal for pronouncing with conſidence on the true text. See, for another expedient, art. SARSECIIIM. J. A. SELBIE. SAMLAH (nºny).-An Edomite king, described as of Masrekah ' (which see), Gn 36” (B deest, A XaXapá, D Sapa Ná) = 1 Ch 1” (Bom..., A Sap1ad). SAMMUS (Xappoiſs, B Xappoiſ), 1 Es 9*=Shema, Nell 8*. SAMOS (Xàuos), one of the most important islands in the AEgaean, is separated from the coast of Ionia by the narrow straits in which the Greeks met the Persian fleet and won the decisive victory of Mycale, B.C. 479. It was the centre of Ionian luxury, art, and science ; and, from the moment when it became a member of the Ionic confederacy to the time when it was deprived of its freedom by Vespasian, its history is full of interest. In B.C. 84 it was united to the province of Asia, and in B.C. 17 it was made a free city by Augustus. This was the political status when St. Paul, after passing Chios, touched at Samos (Ac 2010 RW) on his return from his third mis- sionary journey. There were many Jewish residents on the island (1 Mac 15*), who ob- tained numerous privileges when Marcus Agrippa and Herod visited Samos. The latter also made presents to the Samians (Amt. XVI. ii. 2, 4 ; B.J. I. xxi. 11). I)escriptions of the island and its his- tory will be found in Tournefort, , Voyage de Levante, ii. 103 etc.; Ross, lècise antf die gricch. Inselm, ii. 139 etc.; Murray, Handbook to Asia JMinor, etc. pp. 359-361. C. W. WILSON. SAMOTHRACE (Sago0pákm, i.e. the Thracian Samos).—An island of considerable size in the Aligaean Sea, to the south of the coast of Thrace, and north-west from the city of Troas. St. l'aul , * On the similarity of the names Shamgar and Samga" see Mcore, Judges, 100. and his companions, sailing from Troas, made a straight run, without tacking (see RHEGIUM), across the sea to Samothrace (Ac 16”); and the next day they sailed north to NEAPOLIS, on the Thracian coast, which, according to Pliny (Nat. Flist. iv. 23), was about 38 miles from the island, though the actual distance is hardly more than about 20 miles. At the northern end of the island was the town, called by the same name; and here, doubtless, it was that the ship which carried St. Paul cast anchor for the night. Ac 20%, also, probably implies that the ship anchored for a night at Samothrace ; but no details are recorded. There was no good harbour at any point round the island, which therefore was difficult of approach (importuosissima omnium, as Pliny says); but the ancient Greek sailors always liked to anchor for the night, if convenient or possible (Ac 201*, *). Samothrace is a mountainous island ; and in the view from the Trojan coast it forms a huge mass behind and towering over the intermediate island of Imbros. Its summit rises to 5240 ft.; and there Homer describes the sea-god Poseidon taking his seat to survey the battle before Troy. In a similar way the island of Samos on the coast of Ionia forms a huge mass rising boldly out of the sea ; and the common name Samos is probably due, not to colonization from one to the other, nor to common stock in the inhabitants, but to the character of the islands, each in the distance look- ing like a single huge mountain.” Samothrace, being unsuited for a trading centre by its harbourless nature, played little part in Greek history. Its only importance is due to the cult of the mysterious gods called Cabiri, who were said to have been worshipped by the original Pelasgian inhabitants of the island (Herod. ii. 51). The Mysteries of , the Cabiri rivalled those of Eleusis in reputation and attractiveness during the later centuries of Greek history; and Philip of Macedon was initiated at Samothrace. W. M. RAMSAY. SAMPSAMES (NV Sappáuns, which is followed by AV and RV ; A Xauyákms ; Lat. VSS Lampsacus). —One of the places to which the Romans are said to have written in favour of the Jews, 1 Mac 15°. It is usually identified with Samsun, a seaport town on the Black Sea, between Sinope and Tre- bizond (cf. Ramsay, Hist. Geog. of Asia Minor, 273). SAMSON.— i. The name. ii. The narrative. iii. The sources. iv. The historical background. v. Historical importance. vi. Significance for the history of religion. vii. Significance for the history of civilization. viii. Mythological traces. Literature. i. THE NAME. – The pronunciation Samson is derived from the Vulgate, which follows the LXX Sapayúv, using a vowel older than the of the Heb. hºnº Shimshön. The name is not to be derived from pv, or Dow, or cºw “serve' (cf. Moore on Jg 13*), but is formed from cºw', 'sun' by means of the denominating ending jī; a diminutive sense = ‘little sun’ (cf. the Arab. name Shºttºmats in Nöldeke, ZDMG xl. p. 166) is less probable than a derivation with the sense ‘Sunny,’ ‘sun's man’ (cf. Ges. - Kautzsch, Gram.” $ 86 f. g.). It is natural to think of the Danite city l’ETH-SHEMESH, e ** ... • f : \ which was not far from Samson's birthplace. . The name Samson is confined in the OT to the judge (but cf. 'vºv Shimshai, Ezr 4* * *), and is found nowhere but in Jg 13–16, which have him for * Constantine Porphyr, (iii. p. 41, Donn ed.), Eustathius, and Strabo (pp. 346, 457) say that S&Azos, meant ‘hill’; and the name was common in the Greek World. 378 SAMSON. SAMSON their subject (the Syr., and LXX Luc. wrongly introduce him in 1 ST2"). The same thing is true of the name of his father MANOAH (nº “rest,’ ‘ resting - place”), Jg 13* 16” ; but after the Captivity the inhabitants of Zorah, Samson’s native town, are called (1 Ch 2*P*) MANAHE- THITES ("Hºp), a circumstance which might inply that Manoah was the heros eponymos of a Danite clan, and was only afterwards assigned as father to the judge Samson (cf. the case of JEPHTHAII in Jg 111). ii. THE NARRATIVE.- Ch. 18. The barren wife of the Danite Manoah of Zorah has a vision of the angel of Jahweh in the form of a man, who pro- mises to her a son who from his mother's womb is to be a ‘consecrated one' to God (Dºn's nº, see NAZIRITE), and who is to make a commencement of freeing the people from the Philistine yoke. Therefore his mother is to abstain from all intoxicating liquors and guard against everything that defiles; no razor is to come upon the head of the child. At Manoah's prayer the angel appears a second time, and repeats his instruc- tions. Only after he ascends in the flame of the offering pre- Sented to Jahweh and disappears, do Manoah and his wife recognize who had been their guest. The boy, when born, is named Samson, and grows up under the blessing of Jahweh. Ch. 14. Arrived at manhood, Samson, not without opposition frcm his parents, makes choice of a Philistine girl at Timnah to be his wife. On his way there he kills a lion, and on his return #. eats of the honey which he finds in the carcase. At he wedding feast he makes this the subject of a riddle for the young men, and, when his young wife coaxes him into telling her the solution and betrays it to them, hu leaves her in ill humour. - Ch. 15. Having recovered himself, Samson will visit his wife in her parents' house, but finds that she has been given by her father to another. In revenge he destroys the ripe harvest fields of the Philistines by foxes with burning brands. The Philis. tines retaliate by burning his wife and all her house, an act which Samson again avenges by slaughtering many of them (vv. 1-8). Having made his escape to the territory of Judah, which, however, owned the Philistine suzerainty, he allows himself, on their menaces, to be handed over by the inhabitants bound, but bursts his bonds and slays a thousand Philistines with the jawbone of an ass. The wearied Samson is revived § !ºweh by means of a spring flowing from the jawbone y v. U-LU). Ch. 16. While Samson is visiting a harlot at Gaza, he is betrayed, and his enemies think to seize him in the morning. But he catches up the folding-doors of the city gate, posts and all, and carries them to the top of a mountain by Hebron (vv.1%). His paramour, DELILAH, in the Vale of Sorek is bribed by the Philistines to deliver him over to them : three times he deceives her as to the source of his strength, and bursts the bonds wherewith she has bound him. At last, he confesses that his strength lies in his God-consecrated hair, and after he has been shaved while asleep he falls defenceless into the hands of the Philistines. The latter put out his eyes and set him to slaves' work in the prison at Gaza (vv. 4-22). At the festival in honour of their god DAGON, the conquered foe is to be exhibited as a spectacle to the assembled people. But with the new growth of his hair the blind man feels his strength return, and after praying to Jahweh he pulls down the pillars of the house in which the Philistines are assembled, so that they all perish along with himself in the ruins. His body is buried by his relatives in the family sepulchre. His judgeship had lasted twenty years (vv.29-31). iii. THE SOURCES.—Of all the narratives in the Book of Judges, that about Samson is the only one that is not composed from the two ancient sources which supplied the material of the book— in all probability the Judaean source (J) and the Ephraimitic (E). sources throughout has only once been made, and that superficially, by von Ortenberg, but cannot be regarded as successful. On the other hand, it has been rightly recognized by van Doorninck (1879) and Stade (1884) that ch. 14 has undergone extensive revision, and Böhme (1885) has proved the same for ch. 13. . In both chapters the aim of this revision is religious; the whole personality of Samson is meant to be brought under the religious point of view more than is the case in the par- ticular narratives. Döhme has shown at the same time that ch. 13 bears marks of the source J, and thus the whole Samson history will have to be assigned to this source. That E has no share in it is explained by the circumstance that for the Ephraimitic source the judge who ‘began to deliver Israel out of the hands of the Philistines’ (13°) was The attempt to distinguish two * not Samson but Samuel (1 S 7”). Whether the Samson history, whose scene was the neighbour- hood of Judah, had only a local importance such as to prevent its being made use of by E, or whether that history was too repugnant to its theocratic character (cf. Eb. Schrader, who calls E ‘the theocratic narrator’), in any case Samuel takes the place of Samson completely in E (1 S 1–7; cf. esp. the birth story in 1 S 1 with Jg 13), whereas in J Samuel plays no part at all as judge and military commander. But if the Samson story is derived from only one source, yet, apart from the above-mentioned revision, it is not on that account a literary unity in all its parts. On the contrary, the various anecdotes about Samson were originally related separately and only afterwards collected and arranged. Later than any of them, we may assume, is the story of his birth (ch. 13), just as is the case with almost all ancient heroes, even those of them who otherwise appear in the clearest light of history. Samson is included by the Deuteronomistic re- daction, to which the Book of Judges owes its shape, amongst the “great judges’; but this, it appears, was not done without a considerable amount of weeding out. The concluding formula of the Deuteronomic redaction as to the duration of Samson's judgeship appears already at the end, of ch. 15 (v.”), and is then repeated in 16*. This should in all likelihood be explained on the ground that IRP closed his history of Samson with ch. 15, and did not admit ch. 16 into his Book of Judges. The reason is easily discovered. Down to the close of ch. 15 Samson is the husband of ome wife, and love to her along with love to his native land is the motive of all his actions. Dut in ch. 16 he appears as the slave of sensual passion, caught in the toils of a succession of paramours, to the last of whom he even betrays the secret of the Divine strength that animated him. If this itself must have appeared to the mind of RP. quite unworthy of a God-called judge (cf. 2". "), his fate also was an unſitting one, namely that he should end his life as prisoner and , slave of the unbelievers. Hence RP excluded ch. 16 in the same way as ch. 9 (the story of Abimelech). He was indiſſer- ent to the circumstance that thus the account of Samson’s death disappeared ; neither is there any mention of the death of 13arak or of Deborah, and only a supplementary allusion to that of Ehud (4"). It was not till the last redaction of Judges that ch. 16 was once more united with the preceding chapters, but the first concluding formula (15*") was still piously allowed to remain. How much of the minor alterations of the old text is to be attri- buted to this last redaction, cannot be determined. iv. THE HISTOIRICAL BACKGROUND.—The tribe of Dan, to which Samson belongs, possessed not only one tribal territory, but two, --the one west of Jerusalem, situated between Benjamin and Judah ; the other in the extreme north, at the lower sources of the Jordan, bordering upon the territory of Naphtali. Samson comes from the southern territory; his native town Zorah (TAT), one of the principal places belonging to the tribe (Jos 1941, Jg 18% 8, 11, cf. also Neh 11”), still bears the same name at the present day. It lies on the northern slope of the fertile Wady es - Surar, through which the railway from Jaffa to Jeru- salem now runs, opposite the ancient Beth- shemesh (cf. G. A. Smith, IIG III, 218 f.). Ibut the question is, whether Samson lived (or is sup- posed to have lived) before or ſiſter the emigration of the 600 Danites who founded the northern set- tlement of the tribe. The history of this cºpe. dition is given summarily in Jg 1% (to be supple- mented by Jo; 19" [LXX]), and in full idºl in SAMSON SAMSON 379 Jg 17. 18. Since the account of it in the last- mentioned two chapters is preceded by the story of Samson, one might be disposed at first to decide for the former of the above alternatives. ISut it must not be forgotten that chs. 17–21 are appen- dices to the Book of Judges, and that their present Yosition tells us nothing about their order in time. When the 600 Danites struck off to the north, their tribe was still contending for its independ- ence, although with little prospect of being able to assert it. The braver and more resolute mem- bers of the tribe having taken their departure, the remnant will have abandoned all further struggle and rested content that their foreign lords should leave them in possession of the soil, prob- ably upon condition of paying tribute. But this is the condition of things which we meet with in the story of Samson. The Philistines have pene- trated far into the Shephélah, Timnah (the modern Tibne only 4 or 5 miles S.W. of Sora) belongs to them. Between them and the Danites there is no state of war, but unrestricted intercourse, con- nubium and commercium—nay, the whole life of the Danites appears to gravitate towards the Philistine cities. The power is entirely in the hands of the Philistines: when Samson gets into trouble with them, his native town cannot shelter him. But even the territory of Judah, to which he flees, offers no security, for it, too, is subject to the Philistines, as its inhabitants (Jg 15”) expressly affirm as a fact generally recognized. Samson's own demeanour is not at all that of an enthusiast for political independence and deliverer of his people from the j yoke. He belongs, on the contrary, to that class amongst his country- men who are disposed to modern and liberal ideas, and who have no scruple about entering into relations with the Philistines and even connecting themselves with them by marriage. This strange conduct is already excused and explained in Jg 14" as being in obedience to a Divine connais- sion, in order that Sanson might find an oppor- tunity of damaging the Philistines. But this verse does not belong to the oldest form of the narrative, and is actually contradicted by other passages. Samson himself offers to the Judahites (15%) the excuse that he had not attacked the Philistines, but simply requited the wrong done to him by them. And in precisely the same fashion he always asserts his innocence to himself and to his enemies (cf. 15°. 7): if they would only leave him in peace, they should be safe from him, so he thinks at least. In the case of all his exploits, then, we have to do not with conscious attempts to de- liver Israel, but only with the involuntary uprising of a subject people against the alien and unloved oppressor, with little ‘pin-pricks,” each of which is regarded as a heroic deed and greeted with malicious joy. But ten hot-blooded and foolhardy Samsons would not have been able to loosen the chains of Israel’s bondage. This was only accom- plished when the Philistines, who had ventured to attack the kernel of the Isr. territory, were, after some initial successes (1 S 4), completely beaten by the uprising of Mt. Ephraim (1 S. 13) and after- wards of all Israel under the leadership of Saul and David, and driven back within their own narrow territory. By means of these wars Samson's home became once more free, and a permanent pos- session of Israel. The Samson stories are probably intended, then, to be understood as belonging to the period which immediately preceded the Philis- time war of 1 S 4, and are thus, apart from the appendices Jg 17–21, in the right place. That implies at the same time that the tradition, at ſirst oral, embodying them must also go back to the same period. In a later age there was no possibility of their arising. v. HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE. –According to the scheme of the Book of Judges as its programme is set down by the Deuteronomic redactor in Jg 2*, Samson was “raised up’ by Jahweh to be ‘judge’ over all the children of Israel, in order to deliver them from the rule of the Philistines, to which Jahweh had given them over on account of their unfaithfulness (cf. 13%). We saw that in the case of Samson there can be no mention of such deliver- ance, and just as little of an activity on behalf of, or any judgeship over, the whole of Israel. What we are told of him, at all events, claims nothing more than quite a local importance. We need not wonder, then, that IRP left out ch. 16 (see above), but only that he allowed Samson to pass as a ‘judge’ at all. But this may be explained as due to the example set in the pre-Deuteronomic Book of Judges, the work of IRVR (cf. Budde, Kurzer IIdcom. x ff., xv f.). The rank of a divinely - sent judge could not be henceforward taken from Samson. His credentials rest especially on ch: 13, the Divine romise and wonderful accomplishment of his É. We shall have to regard the whole of this chapter as a later addition to the particular Samson narratives which were gathered from the mouth of the people and lie before us in chs. 14–16. As a literary composition, however, that chapter need not be more recent than these others. It is worthv of note that even it still confines the historical importance of Samson within very narrow limits. All that is said of him in v.” is that “he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.’ vi. SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE HISTORY OF RE- LIGION.—The glaring contradiction between the Divine call of Samson and his far from exemplary manner of life caused much racking of the brains and much offence to the older theologians. A correct judgment of his personality is possible only when, on the one hand, we leave out of view the Christian standard of morality, and when, on the other, we take into account that Samson was originally not a religious but a popular hero. Still there remains even in the oldest strata of the narratives one religious trait, and it is this which has made it possible to represent him as under theocratic enlightenment. Any endowment be- yond the ordinary human standard, or any con- duct quite opposed to what is otherwise recognized as the character of a person, is explained in anti- quity, and so also in the OT, as due to a super- human being, a spirit, having taken up its abode in the person. On this account all who are mentally deranged are supposed to be the dwelling- place of a spirit, by whom they are possessed. In this way also the superhuman strength of Samson is explained ; and as the Philistines, the enemies of Israel, suffer through his deeds, the spirit which works through him is the spirit of Jahwell, the God of Israel. The last verse of ch. 13 notes the first occasion upon which the spirit of Jahweh moves him, wº telling us how this working showed itself. In 14". 1" 15" ‘the spirit of Jahweh came upon him ' to enable him to perform the greatest feats of strength. It is noteworthy, how- ever, that this expression is wanting in 14*. This appears to point to a different way of viewing the matter, and, as this saune way entirely domi- nates ch. 16, it may be regarded as the more original. According to Samson's own statement in 1617, which is confirmed by vv.” ”, his strength is not a new thing every time, imparted at the moment of need through his being filled with the IDivine spirit, but is a constant possession, connected with the hair of his head, on which no razor comes, because from his mother's womb he has been a consecrated one of God, a Nazirite (n']). 380 SAMSON SAMSON The Nazirate is a religious institution of undoubtedly the highest antiquity; it is named as early as Am 211ſ, along with É. as one of the special blessings which Jahweh has estowed upon His people. At the same time it persisted in Israel down to the days when Israel's religion had undergone a reat spiritualizing, for not only do we find it in Nu 6 in the egislation of the post-exilic period as a firmly established sacred usage, but we meet with its practice in Jerusalem at the temple even in the time of the Apostle Paul (Ac 21°3′). But in the OT Samson is the only Nazirite we encounter; for the consecration of Samuel is of quite a different character. and the words “and there shall no razor come upon his head' in 1 S 111 certainly do not belong to the original text. From the story of Samson, now, we can gather that the essence of the Nazirite vow consisted º in allowing the hair to grow. At the expiry of the period fixed for the vow the hair was shorn by the riest and cast into the sacrificial flame (Nu 618, Ac 2124).” Sven Samson's lifelong Nazirate (Jg 135.7) can scarcely be understood as implying that he is to carry his hair with him down to the grave, but rather that he has it shorn from time to time, and each time consecrates the shorn hair to Jahweh. But, as the Nazirite bears the God-consecrated offering upon his head, he naturally requires to keep his body, which ministers nourishment also to the hair, pure from everything that is repugnant to the Deity. The regulations on this sub- ject will undergo change and enlargement with the times; the Fº of wine (including, no doubt, all intoxicat- ing liquors) belongs certainly to the oldest state of things, and is witnessed to already in Am 219. An intoxicated man is possessed by another spirit which disputes God's authority. Samson, indeed, does not impress us as one who practised self-restraint in any direction ; his taking food from the carcase of the lion (Jg 148ſ) is directly opposed to the enactments of Nu 60ff, for the term ‘dead body’ there certainly includes a ſº. the carcases of animals. But from these contradictions etween the Samson story and the Nazirate law we can only conclude that the story does not proceed throughout on the presupposition of his being under a Nazirite vow. The contra- dictions must have been early observed, and this explains why what was wanting in the case of Samson himself, namely abstinence from wine and from unclean food, is compensated for in 134.14 by attributing this abstinence to his mother for the period of her pregnancy. According to ch. 16, Samson's strength resides in the unshorn hair of his head, a belief which in the case of the Nazirate is explained by the consecration in virtue of which Jahweh Him- self dwells in the hair consecrated to Him. Amos, too, appears to attribute special powers to the Nazirites (211?), but what is the nature of these we are not told. But the notion that some mysterious power resides in the hair, apart even from such special consecration, is extraordinarily widespread. A large collection of facts directly connected with supposed active and assive bodily powers may be found in J. G. Frazer, The Golden ough 2, iii. 390 f. The Sunda Isles of the present day con- tribute much material to this collection, but so also does Europe of the Middle Ages, especially in the matter of pro- cesses against witches. The reader may note also what is said in the same work (i. 370 f., cf. also p. 31) about letting the hair grow, and about the dangers connected with the cutting of it. he fear of these rises to such a pitch that, for instance, the chief of the Namosi upon the Fiji Islands, every time he had his hair cut, had to devour a man, in order to ward off the dangers which threatened him. We have therefore to do here with convictions diffused over the whole world, and which certainly go back to very early times. Even in Israel they must have been much older than the religion of Jahweh, but they were brought within its scope in the form of the Nazirate. From the story of Samson and from Am 211ſ we may infer with some \robability that Israel was conscious that the blessing of the azirate gave them an advantage over the Philistines and the Canaanites; and if that is 80, we must hold that the Nazirate was established in Israel prior to the conquest of Canaan. vii. SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE HISTORY OF CIVILI- ZATION.—The story of Samson is specially import- ant from this point of view. Above all, we see from it that the ideal of the country hero was exactly the same in Israel then as it is at the present day. The lion of a village must be first in success with the female sex, first in bodily strength, courage, and fondness for brawling, and first in mother wit. Samson displays the last-named quality in his riddle (ch. 14), in his ever - Við devices against the Philistines, and in the witty fashion in which he ever anew deceives Delilah. Veracity by no means belongs to the list of virtues of the tºº hero, and as little does faithfulness in OWO. eating and in drinking strong liquors, is amongst the things that may almost be taken for granted. It is strange enough that this trait is not strikingly displayed in Samson. Who knows whether from * How large a part was played by the hair-offering in the life of ancient peoples, ºcially of the Semites, may be learned from W. I. Smith, ItS2 325–334, cf. also p. 482 ft. Excess, or at least enormous capacity in the store of legends that circulated regarding him there may not have been dropped this or that portion dealing with the subject in question ? As to the matter of his enormous boc ily strength, every village, or at least every shire, has still its Samson, whose displays of strength, as recorded in popular stories, speedily go, without the calling in of any superhuman causes, beyond what is possible for man. Many of our readers, especially those who have been brought up in the country, will be able to substantiate what we have said. Such conditions of life, which we can still detect everywhere, are the earliest soil of the Samson stories; everything else is only Secondary. - We have, further, in ch. 14 a graphic description of the wedding festivities in ancient Israel, the only one which has come down to us. We see from it that on such occasions the proceedings were essentially the same as in the modern East, and, in some important points, even the same as at our own Jewish weddings. There is a seven days’ feast (v.”), above all with plenty of eating and drinking of wine (nº), in which the whole community takes part. The thirty companions (v.”), with their head, who is probably meant in 14” and 15°, are the conductors of the bride (cf. the “sixty valiant men’ of Solomon in Ca. 37, and the “friend of the bridegroom’ in Jn 3”). They would have to defray the expenses of the wedding, as is still the custom in Syrian villages. Samson and the young wife would, as is also the custom there, be called ‘king’ and ‘queen’ during the seven days (cf. Budde, Kurzer Halcom. xvii. p. xvii f.). Samson's riddle is only a small part of the amuse- ments of all kinds—songs, dances, games, stories —with which the seven days were filled up. Although, however, the practices at Samson's wedding are the same as are usual elsewhere, the same cannot be said of the character of the marriage itself. From 151f it is lº that the young wife did not go after the marriage to Zorah to Samson's house, but remained in the house of her parents at Timnah, And even if this might appear to be explained on the ground that Samson, according” to 1419b, pººl from her in anger instead of personally accompanying her in stately procession to Zorah (cf. 114), there is not the slightest hint in 151ſ that he purposed subsequently to take her home to Zor’ah, but only that he meant to visit her in her parents' house. Nor does the kid which he takes with him appear to be an extraordinary present for a special purpose, such as to make up for his anger of 1419, but seems rather to belong to the visit as such. If all this be so, then we have to do with that peculiar ancient form of marriage to which W. R. Smith (Kinship and Marriage in early Arabia, pp. 70–70) gave the name Sadika marriage. it answers to the ancient social institution of the matriarchate, under which the wife remains with her relations, the husband visits her there, the children belong to the tribe and the family of the mother. One-sided dissolution of such a marringe and the con- tracting of another (cf. Jg 152) by the woman is also witnessed to amongst the Arabs (l.c. p. 65). If Samson's marriage is to be understood in this way, this does not of course imply that at the time when these stories took their rise all marriages in Israel were of the 8adika type. But we learn again from the ancient Arabic materials collected by W. R. Smith, that, even when the later form of marriage had come to prevail, such 8adika marriages were still contracted when the ordinary marriage was not possible, as, for instance, between members of hostile tribes (l.c. ''. 71 f.). This may be the explanation in the case before us, where a man belonging to the territory of Israel, which was subject to the Philistines, seeks in marriage a girl of the ruling people. We should perhaps adopt a similar interpretation when it is said that Gideon had a concubine in Shechem (Jg 891), which still belonged to the Canaanites; and when Abimelech, her son, speaks of himself as a Shechemite and not as an Israelite (92). If any one thinks it worth while, he' may, upon the ground of this ancient social custom, view more mildly even Samson's relation to Delilah in 101ſt. It is sur- prising indeed that at such a marriage the festivities described in ch. 13 should be the same as at the marriages which constitute the man the possessor (ºy2) of the woman ; but it may well be that different points of view have here become confused. viii. MYTHOLOGICAL TRACES.—Samson’s extra- ordinary strength, which he displays in a number of feats, led even in olden times to a comparison of him with Hercules, and recently such comparisons have gone the length of vain attempts to count up exactly twelve exploits of Samson. After it came SAMUEL SAMUEL 38] to be recognized or believed that the Hercules legend is a solar myth, many in our own century proceeded to take the story of Samson also as a sun-myth, and to interpret it so in detail. The derivation of the name nºw from ºpy tells indeed rather against than in favour of this view, for it is not the way with a nature-myth to borrow or even to derive the name of its hero from the cosmical object which it describes. The derivation from Beth-Shemesh is a much more natural one. But such mythical explanations are not capable of being refuted in detail, because the elements with which they operate are so simple that any one so disposed may find them in any history, and for the most part in opposite ways. At all events, the strength of Samson requires no such explanation ; on the contrary, it is explicable, as we saw, by con- siderations drawn, on the one hand, from the history of civilization, and on the other from religion. And it is equally certain that none of the narrators of the story is conscious that he is handing on a myth ; the features of the Contem- porary history and civilization are very clearly Imarked. This does not prevent the º that mythièal traits may have found their way into these popular narratives. Undoubtedly a topo- logical §. Genesis, p. xv, incorrectly gives this the name ‘ º motive for a legend appears at work in 15", where the name “Height º the Jawbone’ is to be explained. It is quite re- markable, too, that the fire-brand foxes (15*) recur in Ovid (Fasti, iv. 679 ft.) in the Roman cultus, and are explained (ib. 701 ff.) by the act of a mis- chievous boy which exactly resembles the act of Samson. But, in this instance at all events, we have not to do with a solar myth ; the reader may be reminded how in Poitou ‘the spirit of the corn appears to be conceived in the shape of a fox' | Frazer, l.c. ii. 283; cf. the whole chapter entitled “The corn-spirit ’). The attempt to give a con- tinuous mythological interpretation of the story of Samson is therefore to be abandoned, although there are various points in it besides the above which may profitably be examined from this point of view. LITERATURD,--The Comm. on Judges, esp. those of Moore, in Internat. Crit. Conn. 1895; Budde in Kwrzer IIdconn. 1897; Nowack in Holkomºn. 1900; and the authorities cited in these, The older literature will be found in Winer's excellent art. ‘Simson’ in his I: WB3, 1848. K. BUDDE. SAMUEL (ºpy, Xapová)).—The meaning ‘name of God,” which is now generally accepted, is the only one that can be upheld on philological grounds. The author of the early listory of Samuel obviously connects the name with the circumstances of Samuel's birth as if ºspo =9sp ºsw (1* “and she called his name Samuel, saying, Because I have asked him of the Lord’); but it is impossible to regard this explanation as giving the actual deriva- tion of the name. As is not infrequently the case in the OT, ‘the writer merely expresses an asson- ance, not an etymology, i.e. the name ºspe recalled to his wind the word ºnse asked, though in no sense derived from it’ (Driver, Teact of Sam. p. 13 f.). The derivation ‘heard of God’ (‘’s ºp;) is also etymologically improbable.” - The history of Samuel as set forth in the first Book that bears his name contains so many dis- * In a recent article, on ‘The Name of Samuel and the Stem bsw' (JIBL, vol. xix. pt. i.), M. Jastrow, jr., maintains that the first element (\rty) of the compound name Shēmē’él should be rendered “offspring' rather than ‘name,' on the analogy of the Assyr. shunnu, which occurs frequently in the former sense in roper names (Nebw-shum - whim, Bel-shºwm-w8wr, etc.): he § } - explains Samuel therefore as = ‘son of God,” and compares the correlative Abiel. There is, however, no evidence to show that the Heb. Du ever bore this meaning : the passages cited by Jastrow in favour of it readily admit of the usual signification. crepancies not only as regards the history of the period, but also as regards Samuel's character and position, that it is impossible to assign it to a single author. These inconsistencies can be ex- plained only on the theory that we have two accounts of the history of Samuel, which have been combined by a later editor (see following article). In order, therefore, to obtain a clear con- ception of the life and work of Samuel, it is neces- sary to treat the two sources separately. In the earlier of the two documents from which the Books of Samuel are mainly compiled, Samuel ſirst appears in connexion with the election of Saul as king at Gilgal (91f). He is there described as “a man of God’ (90), or, more accurately, as a 800r (Tsh as opposed to Nºi, a prophet, 99), living in the land of Zuph (probably in the hill-country of Ephraim). The narrative opens somewhat abruptly with the story of Saul's search for the asses of his father. After three days' search Saul is on the point of returning homewards, when he is urged by his servant to con- sult the man of God living in that district (it is not until v.15 that we learn his name). Saul's objection, that the seer will certainly expect a present, is met by the servant producing the fourth part of a shekel. They accordingly enter the city and inquire for the seer, whom they meet on his way to the high place. The meeting, however, was no accidental one, for Samuel had been divinely prepared on the previous day for the coming of the Benjamite stranger, and had been instructed to anoint him to be prince over Israel; for, said Jehovah, “he shall save my people out of the hands of the Philistines.’ Samuel accordingly invites Saul to the sacrificial meal, at which a place had been reserved for him, and on the following morn- ing privately anoints him, and informs him at the same time of his Divine mission to deliver Israel from its oppressors. He adds, further, three signs by which Saul may prove the truth of his words, and bids him do as occasion serves him when these have been fulfilled. The signs are fulfilled, and shortly after Saul's return to his father's house the occasion foretold by Samuel presents itself in connexion with the siege of Jabesh- gilead by Nahash the Ammonite. ... Saul's prompt and successful action in relieving the besieged city arouses the enthusiasm of his countrymen, who crown him king at Gilgal. The comparatively subordinate position occupied by Samuel, according to this older narrative, and the limited extent of his influence on the affairs of the nation, stand in striking contrast to the tradi- tional view of his life and work. He is here repre- sented as the seer of a small town, who is 㺠in matters of diſliculty and perplexity by the inhabitants of the district in \!. he lives, and who is in charge of the local shrine : beyond this district he is unknown to the rest of Israel. Further, his chief claim to fame lies in the fact that on one occasion only he is chosen by Jehovah as His instrument in carrying out His plans for the deliverance of Israel. Lastly, it is noticeable that he has no voice in the establishment of the monarchy; his interest in the matter apparently ceases with the performance of his part in anoint- ing Saul; nor does he appear to have been consulted in the actual election of the king. It cannot, how- ever, be doubted that this older document has been preserved to us only in a very fragmentary form ; and we may infer with considerable probability that it originally contained a longer and fuller account of the life and work of Sanuel, which was passed over by the editor in favour of the (from his point of view) more satisfactory account preserved in the later document. The explanation of this selection is furnished by the later document, which is obviously coloured by the views and conceptions of a later age, and as such approximates more closely to the standpoint of the editor who com- bined the two narratives. It remains, therefore, to examine the narrative of the later document, and to estimate how far we can utilize it for the purpose of supplementing the earlier account. The later narrative commences with the birth of Samuel, and relates how Hannah, the barren wife of Elkanah, on the occasion of the yearly feast made a solemn vow to the Lolto that if Iſe would iock upon her aſiliction and give her a man child, she would dedicate him to the service of the Sanctuary. Samuel is born in answer to her prayer, and in due time handed over to the care of Eli, the aged priest at Shiloh. His childhood is thus spent within the precincts of the ancient Israelite shrine, 382 SAMUEL SAMUEL, I. AND II. where “he ministered to the Lord before Eli the priest' (211), and ‘grew in favour both with the Lord and also with men' (226). But the sons of Eli, who in the natural course of events would have succeeded their father, proved unworthy of their sacred office, and provoked the wrath of Jehovah º, their abuse of their priestly privileges. . In consequence of their sin the destruction of the house of Eli is decreed by Jehovah, who announces His purpose to the youthful Samuel in a vision of the night. The favour of Jehovah, however, which is openly displayed towards the latter, makes it apparent that he has been chosen to succeed to the priestly office, and all Israel recog- nized ‘that he was established to be a prophet of the LORD': for through his agency the word of the LORD was revealed to all Israel (320–41a). In the history of the defeat of Israel at Aphek, and of the capture and restoration of the ark by the Philistines (42–71), there is no mention of Samuel, who is suddenly re- introduced some time after the return of the ark, in the character of a “judge,’ rather than in that of a ‘prophet” or “priest’ (72F). Like a second Moses, he is represented as exhorting the people to turn from their idolatrous practices and to serve Jehovah alone. The people hearken to his words, and in order to confirm their resolution he summons a national assembly at Mizpah, where they make public confession of their sins. The purpose of this gathering, however, is misunder- stood by the l’hilistines, who at once collect their forces to meet what appears to them as a national uprising. Dismayed by the approach of their hereditary enemies, the Israelites beseech Samuel to intercede with Jehovah on their behalf. In answer to Samuel's prayer, Jehovah sends a violent thunder- storm, which scatters the Philistines, and renders them an easy prey to the pursuing Israelites. To commemorate their deliver- ance, Samuel sets up a great stone and calls the name of it Eben-ezer, or ‘stone of help.” According to the writer, this victory marks the downfall of the Philistine domination ; for from that time onwards the Philistines ‘came no more within the border of Israel,” while the cities ‘which they had taken from Israel were restored from Ekron even unto Gath’ (714). In the peaceful times that followed, Samuel is represented as administrating justice throughout Israel by means of a yearly circuit of the chief sanctuaries on the west of Jordan—Beth-el, Gilgal, and Mizpah. As his years increase, he naturally asso- ciates his sons with himself in the office of judge; but, like the sons of Eli, they “walked not in the ways’ of their father. For this reason, and also because they desire ‘to be like all the nations,’ the people demand that a king should be set over them. Their request is viewed with disfavour by Samuel, who plainly regards it as an act of rebellion against Jehovah. , But, in compliance with the Divine command, he first sets clearly before them the treatment they may expect at the hands of a lcing, and then, as they still persist in their demand, takes steps to grant it. For this purpose he once more summons the people to Mizpah, and, after pointing out their ingratitude, directs that lots should be cast for the king : the choice falls on Saul the son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin (821). Samuel now realizes that his life's work is at an cnd, and in a solemn farewell speech he first bids the people attest the justice of his rule, and then, by means of a brief survey of the national history, warns them against disobeying the word of Jehovah. His exhortation is rendered the more impressive by a miraculous thunderstorm, which frightens the people into a confession of their sin in asking for a king. Their fears are allayed by Samuel, . assures them of Jehovah's favour if they will serve Him ruly. The election of Saul as king, and the consequent establish- ment of the monarchy, seen to form a fitting conclusion to the work of the last Israelite ‘judge'; but the last days of Samuel were destined to be embittered by the foolish action of the king whom he had been chiefly instrumental in appointing. In accordance with the command of Jehovah as announced by Samuel, Saul wages a war of extermination against the Amalekites, but, in deference to the wishes of his people, spares Agag the king and the best of the spoil. Samuel is divinely informed of the king's action, and openly taxes him with disobeying the commands of Jehovah. Saul seeks to palliate his offence, but Samuel ignores his excuses and announces his rejection. He thereupon confesses his sin, and begs for for- giveness; but Samuel merely reiterates his sentence, interpreting the rending of his cloak by Saul as a sign that the latter's kingdom has been “rent' from him. In response, however, to Saul's appeal, he consents to honour him once more before the people by joining with him in the worship of Jehovah. He then slays Agag with his own hands, and departs to his house at IRamah. This incident marks the close of Samuel's public life; for ‘he came no more to see Saul until the day of his death,’ but remained in seclusion at Ramah (see art. RAMAII), where he died and was buried. The above sketch of the contents of the later document shows clearly that the writer regarded Samuel as exercising a far wider sphere of influence than the unknown seer of the earlier narrative. The position, indeed, which he assigns to Samuel is that of a second Moses, who rules over the people as the representative of Jehovah, and whose mission it is to win the people from their apostasy to the service of the only true God. Further, he depicts him as exercising the oſlice of a ‘judge’ (in the sense in which that term is employed in the pre- Deuteronomic Book of Judges (29–16*)), and de. livering Israel from the hands of their Philisting oppressors: thus Israel's desire for a king can only be explained as an act of rebellion against Jehovah. The contrast between the two representations of Samuel is very marked, and at first sight it would appear as if the one must necessarily exclude the other. But though there can be no doubt as to the greater historical value of the earlier narrative, which bears all the marks of a high antiquity, it by no means follows that the later narrative must be rejected as unhistorical. I'or it must be re- membered (1) that the later is not founded on, but is clearly independent of, the earlier narrative; and (2) that the view which is taken of the standpoint of the later author does not of necessity affect the general truth of his narrative. Hence, though the earlier narrative contains no account of Samuel's childhood, of his connexion with Eli at Shiloh, and of his intercession on behalf of the people, we have no grounds for regarding these facts as other than historical. It cannot be doubted, however, that the form in which they have been preserved to us has been largely coloured by the later ‘prophetic’ point of view. Interpreted by this later stand- point, the establishment of the monarchy, or rather the election of David’s predecessor as king, has little to recommend it, and is not unnaturally described as one of many acts of apostasy on the part of ancient Israel. For the purpose of this narrative, it must be remembered, is religious ; and it does not lie within the writer's scope to estimate the importance of this event in the political history of the nation. His interest rather centres in the person of Samuel the prophet, and there is on this account a marked tendency to magnify his office and to overestimate his jº. The extent to which this tendency has affected the narrative is illustrated in a very striking manner by the story of Samuel's intercession on behalf of the people at Mizpah (7%). That Samuel did intercede for the people may be inferred from Jer 15, ; but that his intercession was followed by the subjugation of the Philistines (7") cannot be reconciled with the subsequent history (see the account of Saul’s campaign against the Philistines 13–14", and especially 14” “and there was sore war against the Philistines all the days of Saul’). In like manner, we may conclude that the repre- sentation of Samuel as a ‘prophet,’ and his aver- sion to the monarchy, reflect the point of view of a later age, and have but little foundation in fact. Looking back over the past history of Israel, the writer clearly regards Samuel as the last of the old order of judges, and also as the forerunner of the new order of prophets. That his estimate in the main is a correct one cannot be denied : it is clear, however, that it has largely influenced his por- trayal of Samuel's life and work. In conclusion, it may be pointed out that the accouht of the anointing of David by Samuel (16'7"), and the second explanation of the proverb, ‘Is Saul also among the prophets?’ (19**), can only be regarded as late and unhistorical (see below, p. 386 f.). They illustrate that tendency to increase the importance of the heroes of the nation, and to connect them with the beginnings of later institutions, which in later times became especially characteristic of Jewish Writings. J. T. STENNING. SAMUEL, I. AND II.- i. Title. ii. Contents. iii. Sources and Date. iv. Analysis. Literature. i. TITLE.—The two Books of Samuel, like the two Books of Kings, formed originally in the SAMUEL, I. AND II. SAMUEL, I. AND II. 383 Hebrew Canon a single book called ºn by (Samuel).” The LXX translators, however, regarded the Book of Sanuel and the Book of Kings as a com- plete history of the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and divided them into four books, which they entitled “Books of the kingdoms’ (8tº\ot 8aat)\etſºv). The same division was followed by Jerome in the Vulgate, but the title was changed to “Books of the Kings’ (Libri Regum). #. compromise which now obtains in printed Hebrew Bibles, viz. the division of the books into four in accordance with the LXX and Vulgate, and the retention of the Hebrew titles for each pair, was º adopted in Daniel Bomberg's printed edition Of 1516. The selection of the title is due to the fact that the opening chapters deal mainly with the history of Samuel, who still plays an important rôle in those that follow : the prominent part taken by him in the establishment of the monarchy may also have contributed to the choice of his name for the history of the period which is chiefly con- cerned with the reigns of Saul and David. ii. CONTENTS.–In their present form the two Books of Samuel fall most naturally into four main sections: (a) I 1-15 Samuel and the estab- lishment of the monarchy; (b) I 16–II 8 Saul and David ; (c) II 9–20 David ; (d) II 21–24 an Appendix. That this arrangement corresponds to the intention of a later editor is made evident by the three concluding summaries by which the various stages of the narratives are marked off, viz. I 147-0, II 8 (of which 3+ 5°-10 originally formed part), and II 20°. Since, however, I 15 (the rejection of Saul and of his kingdom) was clearly intended to conclude the history of Saul’s reign, it seems better to attach that chapter to the first, rather than to treat it as introductory to the second section. The four main sections admit of the following subdivisions, which bring out more clearly the course of the history which they contain :— (a) I 1-15 From the birth of Samuel till the rejection of Saul. (1) 11–71 Samuel's birth and childhood and the mis- deeds of the house of Eli ; Samuel succeeds to the office of Iºli (11–41a): the downfall of the latter's º and the capture of the ark by the Philistines 4 9– * (2) 72-1695 Samuel as judge over Israel delivers them from their l’hilistine oppressors : in answer to the request of the people (ch. 8), and, through the agency of Samuel (ch. 9 f.), Saul after defeating the Ammon- ites (ch, 11) is made king. Samuel lays down his office (ch. 12), and Saul carries on a successful war with the Philistincs (chs. 13. 14). After defeating Annalek, Saul is informed by Samuel that Jehovah has rejected him because of his disobedience, and will give his lºingdom to another (ch. 15). (b) I 10-II 8 From the first appearance of David till he is firmly established on the throne of Israel and Judah. (1) I 16–31 IIistory of David during the reign of Saul. He is secretly anointed by Samuel, and enters the service of Saul (ch. 16). By his success as a warrior he endears himself both to , the royal family and to the people, but excites the jealousy of the king, whose attempts on his life compel him to flee from the court (17–22). Saul tries in vain to capture I)avid at the head of his band of outlaws (23–26). The latter finally becomes a vassal of the Philistine king (chs. 27. 20, 30), while Saul is once more en- gaged in war with the Philistines, and, after a vain attempt to obtain a Divine oracle (ch. 28), perishes with his sons at the battle of Mt. Gilboa (ch. 31). (2) II 1-8 David's lament over , Saul and Jonathan (ch. 1). In the civil war which ensues between David and the house of Saul, the former proves victorious, and finally becomes king over Israel and Judah (2–53). He captures Jerusalem, and succeeds in throwing off the Philistine yoke (ch. 6). The ark -º-º-º- ºaº º * This is shown by the presence of the concluding notes of the Massora at the ond of 2 Samuel. Further, Origen, who is cited by Eusebius (II I. vi. 25), attests the same fact : Bozorixsºv ºrpora, 2sy répoc, a 22' cºrers ºv, So, wováA, 6 UsózXzros ; and, similarly, Jerome (Prol. Gaul.) mentions Samuel, quem nos regmorum primwm et secumdum, dicinus, as the third of the prophetic books, is brought to the capital (ch. 6), and the permanency of the Davidie dynasty assured (ch. 7). Concluding summary of David's reign (ch. 8). (c) II 9-20. Further history of David's reign. (1) 9–12 David's kindness to . Meribbaal, the son of Jonathan (ch. 9): the war with Annmon, and David's great sin (10–12). (2) 13–20 Absalom's rebellion (13–19), and the revolt of Sheba (ch. 20). - (d) II 21-24 The Appendix, consisting of- (1) historicaſ incidents: the Gibeonites and the house of Saul (211:14); exploits and lists of David's heroes (2116-22 238-39); the census (ch. 24). (2) poetical fragments: a psalm of David (ch. 22), and David's ‘Last Words’ (231-7). The history set forth in these books extends roughly over a period of a hundred years, during which Israel gradually emerged from the condition of national disintegration and anarchy, described in the Book of Judges, and acquired a definite national existence. The ilºt of the monarchy was at once the external sign of the union which was effected between the hitherto scattered tribes, and the means by which it was brought about. Hence the main interest of the history naturally centres round the persons of Samuel, Saul, and David, who were the principal agents in the work of consolidating the kingdom. iii. SOURCES AND DATE.—The Books of Samuel in their present form afford a striking illustration of the methods of Hebrew composition. An ex- amination of their contents at once reveals the fact that their author, after the manner of Hebrew historians, has made use of previously existing documents, which, though covering the same ground, yet present the materials at their dis- posal in very different forms. The principle which |. has followed in the compilation of his work is very similar to that with which we are already acquainted in those parts of the HEXATEUCH where J and E have been united by a later editor (RWP) into a composite whole. In the present. case we have also two narratives which together form the main bulk of the history. These narratives, however, are so obviously independent of one another, and so clearly distinguished by their different point of view, that there is now consider- able unanimity among critics with regard to their respective contents. Moreover, throughout the main section of the Books of Samuel, the editor or redactor has made but little effort to harmonize the varying accounts of the incidents which he relates, and has contented himself, for the most Yart, with reproducing in a twofold form the ſºin. events in the history of Saul and David. Hence arises that duplication of incidents which is especially characteristic of the º of the greater part of the history from 17–II 8. Thus we find two independent accounts of the choice of Saul as king and of his rejection. In like manner the compiler has preserved to us a double account of David’s introduction to Saul, and of his flight from court ; of the sparing of Saul's life by David, and of the latter's flight to the Philistines; and, lastly, of the death of Saul. In nearly all these cases (to which others might be added) both accounts have been preserved almost entire, and the redactor has not attempted to connect them by other than the slightest of links: in a few instances, however, he would seem to have shortened or condensed the one narrative while transcribing the other in full ; in no case has he welded the two together in such a manner as to render analysis impossible. It remains, therefore, to investigate these two sources, and to consider their probable origin and source. In this connexion our chief if not our only guide is the difference in point of view; but this, as we have said, is so clearly marked that we have no difficulty in determining the relative ages of the two narratives. On the one hand, in what 384 SAMUEL, I. AND II. SAMUEL, I, AND II. we may provisionally call the older narrative, we have a simple, straightforward history, which, from its graphic style, and its vivid description, as well as from its religious conceptions, manifestly belongs to a period of great antiquity. In other words, we have a natural representation of the state of society and of religion which existed in the early days of the monarchy, closely akin to that which we find in the earlier portions of the Book of Judges. The later narrative throughout is obviously coloured by the religious teaching of a later age, and the standard by which the various incidents are judged is that of a period subsequent to the prophetic teaching of the 8th century. Kuenen (Hist. - Krit. Einleitung, I. ii. p. 46 f.) and Wellhausen (Composition, p. 238 f.), who are followed, at least as regards 1 S 7. 8. 107* 12, by Löhr, held that this later narrative was derived from a Deuteronomic source; but Cornill and Budde have shown conclusively that it is marked, at any rate in part, by a close affinity to E. The great similarity of this narrative, both in language and style, to the E of the Hexateuch, has led these critics to regard it as a continuation of that source. Budde, indeed, goes further, and assigns the earlier narrative to the older source J, supposing that the two sources were welded together by Rºº, and afterwards edited by a TXeuteronomic redactor. Antecedently, no doubt, this theory, which presup- poses that the Hexateuchal sources J and E did not cease with the conquest of Canaan, but con- tinued the history down to a later date, if not to their own day, has much to commend it (see Moore, Judges, p. xxv f.), but a closer examination of the resemblances between these two narratives and the Hexateuchal sources does not establish their identity. The question at issue may be briefly described as follows:—Excluding for the time being 2 S 9–24 (see Analysis), we find that the main bulk of the history contained in 1 S 1'-2S 8 has been preserved in a double series of narratives, which practically cover the same ground. These two narratives are obviously independent of one another, and are clearly ãºj by their point % wiew, and in º also by their literary style. The latter feature, however, is more especially prominent in the first incident (the election of Saul, 7–12), which is pre- served in common by both narratives. Here, as Cornill and Budde have shown (see, however, Löhr, p. xxiif.), the later narrative (7.8. 107* 12) pl esents noticeable affinities with E, and has accordingly been assigned by them to that source. But it is to be noted (1) that this resemblance to E is by no means so strongly marked in the latter portions of the history, which present the same point of view, and clearly belong to the same source as ch. 7 f.; and (2) that the aſſinity does not exclude non-Elohistic features, notably the aversion of Samuel to the monarchy. Budde, to a certain extent, evades the latter difficulty by assigning the larger portion of the later narrative to a later recension o E (E2), which, as he rightly recognizes, has been largely influenced by the prophetic teaching of the 8th cent., more especi- ally by Hosea. It is clear that both Cornill and Budde go too far in identifying the later narrative with E. That it is nearly related to E in language and thought cannot be denied, but at the most we can only conjecture that its author (or authors, for in the later narrative we can distinguish certainly two hands) belonged to the school of E, and that in writing the histories of Saul and David he was animated by a similar spirit and similar ideas. Budde's identification of the older narrative with J is closely connected with his view of the source of the later narrative. The points of contact are not so strongly marked ; but if we are right in —a rºw regarding the later narrative as the work of a follower of E, we may assume with considerable Fº that the older narrative was composed y a writer belonging to the school of J. The older narrative may be assigned approxi- mately to the 9th cent., while the earlier stratum of E (Budde's E1), which, though old, yet treats the history from a more subjective standpoint, dates probably from the following century. The later stratum (or strata) of E (E2) has, as we have seen, been influenced by the teaching of the prophets of the 8th cent., and will belong to the end of the 8th or to the beginning of the 7th cent. As in the Hexateuch and inj udges, these sources were combined and welded together by a later editor (RJP), who has, however, carried out his work in a less thorough manner. His work is in any case prior to the reforms of Josiah (B.C. 621) and to the influence of Deuteronomy, and must be blaced in the 7th cent. . The present form of the Books of Sanmuel is largely due to an author of the Deuteronomic school, whose hand may be clearly traced in the concluding summaries (I 14**, II 8), and in various chronological notices (I 7° 13', II 2.0a in 5*, *). To him also we probably owe I 297-99 and II 7, while he has expanded other passages (mainly belonging to Es) which lent then- selves to this treatment, e.g. I 3. 12, II 8, 12". Lastly, he appears to have omitted II 9–20 as in- compatible with his view of the history (compare the very similar action in the Book of Judges "), though these chapters undoubtedly belong to the older narrative of J. The older work of JE, how- ever, was not entirely superseded by the later recension; hence a later editor of the 5th or 4th cent. was able to utilize the earlier form of the two books, and, as might be expected, restored those parts of JE which D had excluded. He liot improbably also transposed II 3** 5*" from their original position after II 8*. The obviously late insertions I 161-18 1712, 13 1918-942111-1" may have been added at this time, or possibly even later. Finally, the Appendix (II 21–24), a collection of miscel- laneous fragments belonging to different periods, and the Song of Hannah (I.2”), were added after the separation of the Books of Samuel from the Books of Kings. Though we do not accept Budde's identification of the older and later narratives with J and E of the Hexateuch, we have retained these symbols as representing approximately the age and character- istics of the two sources from which the history of these books is derived. Apart from minor inter- polations and additions, the parts belonging to the respective sources are as follows:– J I 91 107. 0-10 111-11. 10 131-7a. 15b-18 141-40. 02 1614-23 185. 6 (partly)-11. 20-30 201-10. 18-30. 42b 221-4, 0-18. 20-23 231-14, 26. 27. 29–31, II 11-4. 11, 12, 17-97 21-0. 10b. 12-32 3, 4, 51-3. 0-10. 17-25 6, 9–11. 121-0. 13-31 131–9022. J I 108 l870-1Du. 19-22. † I 11-98 21-29. 29-20 31–41a (all E.) 41b-71 72–822 (E) 1017-2 (E) 12. (E.) 15+* iT1-11. 14-5s 18-4. 13-19 191. 4-0. 8-17 211-9 2210 239–2419 25. 28, II 10-10. 13-16 7. RJE I 1025-27 1112-14 151 1821b 102. 3.7 2011-17. 40-42, 2210 (last cl.) 231*-18 2419 (in part) **, 5 II 10. RD I 418 (last cl.) 7% (in part) 13, 14"–91 Q8°, II 210. In 5*, * 8 (based in part on older materials) 12"-1". Additions of the latest editor, I 41* * 6* * * 18, 19 (the larger number) 11° 15' (last ed.) 2414 30%, II 390 5%. (last cl.)7", 8" 15” (in part) 20%-49. * The Deuteronomic redactor of the Book of Judges omitted 11–299. 17–21, perhaps also ch. 10 (see SAMSON, p. 378). SAMUEL, I. AND II. SAMUEL, I. AND II. 385 Latest additions, I 21-10. 22b. 161-18 1712. 13 1918-24 21*22°, II 14*, and the Appendix 21–24. iv. ANALYSIS.—(a) I 1-15. –From the birth of Samuel to the rejection of Saul. (1) lº-4” (E2). Early history of Samuel, including the history of Eli and his house, and the announce- ment of its downfall. These chapters serve as an introduction to 41–71, and appear to be somewhat later than that section. From their represen- tation (1) of Samuel and his office, and (2) of Israel's subjection to the Philistines, it is clear that they both belong to E, though probably to different strata. The Song of Hannah (21-10) is undoubtedly a very late addition: (a) the Song is probably a triumphal ode composed on the occasion of some national suc- cess (vv.4, 19); (b) there is no special reference to the circum- stances of Hannah—the fact of its being attributed to her is due probably to a misconception of the metaphor employed in v.bb ; (c) a comparison with the LXX text of 211a (= Heb. 128b) shows that the Song was inserted at a different place in that version (see Driver on 1 S 128). Another insertion is 222b (from and how that); it is out of place after vv. 12:17, and is omitted by the LXX (note the use of 95°n instead of ºns). The an- nouncement of the anonymous prophet (227.9%) cannot also in its present form belong to the original narrative : (a) the text, especially of vv.81-83 (LXX omits v.81b and 32a), is in great dis- order and unintelligible; (b) the establishment of the monarchy is presupposed v.35; (c) v.86 clearly dates from the period after Josiah's reformation, and presupposes the central sanctuary at Jerusalem (Oort, ThT xviii. p. 309 f.); (d) the faithful priest' of v.90 is not Samuel, as we might expect from ch. 3, but Zadok, who superseded Abiathar, the grandson of Eli, under Solomon (1 K 220). The passage, which has obviously been expanded by the l)euteronomic . probably foretold the destruction of Eli's house, and the succession of Samuel. (2) 41°–71 (E). The defeat of Israel by the Philis- tines at Aphek and its results, viz. the death of Eli and the capture of the ark; further history of the ark and its restoration. In these chapters, which form a closely connected whole, it is noticeable (1) that the main interest centres in the history of the ark ; (2) that Samuel is never even mentioned ; (3) that the destruction of the house of Eli, which forms the real sequel to 11–41a, is treated merely as a side issue of the defeat. On these grounds it has been argued with some force that this Section is independent of the chapters that }. the latter were probably added with a view to supplementing the un- doubtedly old account of the fall of the house of Eli, and of the capture of the ark. The original beginning of the section (41b) is to be restored from the LXX (22) #yºváUn év rocis hºtpour #xsivals zoº ovvo. Upoičovroſ &XXéºvao sle ºréasaov irº 'Iopa.º.A); 410, 18 (last clause) and 29 are rejected by most critics as redactional glosses. For the additions of the LXX in 58 61, and its various readings in 64.0, see Driver, IIeb. Teact of Sam. p. 47 f. : unless we accept the readings of the LXX, 6bu (to the }º must be rejected as a gloss; while llb. (from with the mice) 15, 17. 18a, (to villages) 10 (fifty thousand men) will likewise be later insertions. (3) 7” (Ea). Samuel as judge; the rout of the Philistines at Mizpah ; summary of Samuel's judicial activity. The position here occupied by Samuel is that of a judge (pºt), in the sense in which that term is used in the pre- Deuteronomic Book of Judges (20-1691; see Moore, Judges, p. xxii.f.). At his command the people put away their “strange gods,' and assemble for repentance and fasting at Mizpah ; in answer to his prayers on their behalf, the Philistines are miracu- lously defeated; and so complete is their defeat, that “they came no more within the borders of Israel.” The section thus gives a similar representation of the position of Samuel and of Israel's political condition to that of the later (Ea) of the two accounts of the choice of Saul as king (S. 1017-24 12), to which it serves as an introduction. To löI) is probably to be assigned the chronological note (for it was 30 years) in v.2, the name Eben- ezer in v. 19, and the statement as to Samuel's judicial work in v. 15. Ebenczer, as we know from 41 51, was the scene not of Israel's victory, but of its defeat. For the linguistic resem- blances to the redaction of Judges, see Driver, LOTU p. 177f. It seems probable that the present section has been inserted here in place of an earlier account ; for, as Driver points out (ib. } 174), ‘the existing narrative does not explain (1) how the °hilistines reached Gilbeah (100 etc.) and secured the ascendency implied (1310ſ), or (2) how Shiloh suddenly disappears from history, and the priesthood located there º: shortly afterwards at Nob (ch. 22). That some signal disaster befell Shiloh may be inferred with certainty from the allusion in Jer 714 206 (cf. Ps 7800).’ See art. Siliuoli. (4) 8–12. The twofold account of the circum- stances that led to the election of Saul as king. The older narrative of J (9–101", 27" (LXX)—l lll: lº) describes how Saul, the son of Kish, of the tribe of VOL. IV.--—25 Benjamin, in his search for his father's asses, is persuaded by his servant to consult a seer living in the district to which they had wandered. he seer is none other than Samuel, who had previously been warned by Jehovah to expect the Benjamite stranger; and had been instructed to anoint lim as king, that he might deliver Israel from the Philistines: ‘I’or,’ says Jehovah, “I have seen the oppression of my people (LXX), because their cry has come unto me’ (9%). On the following day Samuel anoints Saul, and assures him of his Divine call by means of three signs: he further bids him do as occasion serves him after the fulfilment of the signs; for God is with him (107). About a month later (10***), the town of Jabesh-gilead is besieged by Nahash the Ammonite, and mes- sengers are despatched ‘unto all the borders of Israel’ to obtain assistance. In the course of their journey they reach Gibeah in Benjamin, and there, as elsewhere, make known their errand. On learn- ing the sad plight of his countrymen, Saul is at once seized with the spirit of God, and promptly takes measures to relieve the besieged city. By means of a forced march he surprises the Ammonites, and delivers Jabesh-gilead and is thereupon in- stalled as king at Gilgal (11”). The narrative of E (E.) (8. 107* 12) offers a very different explanation of the manner in which Saul became king. After the signal defeat of the Philis- times, described in ch. 7, Samuel continues to judge Israel in peace and quietness until com- pelled by old age to delegate his authority to his sons. But the latter prove unworthy of their high office, and the people therefore demand that a king should be set over them after the manner of the neighbouring nations. The request is viewed with disfavour by Samuel, who characterizes it as rebellion against Jehovah. At the bidding of Jehovah, however, he first sets before the people ‘the manner of the king that shall reign over them ’ (ch. 8), and then proceeds to carry out the election of a king by lot at Mizpah (107*). The account concludes with the farewell speech of Samuel, in which he solemnly lays down his office, and hands over the reins of government to Saul (ch. 12). The two narratives which are here combined are thus not only connplete in themselves * and independent of one another, but also mutually comtradictory. In the earlier narrative (1) Samuel is a seer living in a certain district, who is unknown to the rest of Israel; (2) he is employed as the instrument of Jehovah's purpose on ome occasion only ; after his interview with Saul everything is left to the working of the Divine spirit in the latter; (3) Israel is oppressed by the Philistines, and cries to Jehovah for a deliverer (916); (4) the establishment of the mon- archy is the means chosen by Jehovah for the deliveranee of His eople: Samuel's attitude towards it is merely that of an on- ooker. In contrast to this representation we find in the later narrative (1) that Samuel is the judge of all Israel, who rules over the people as the representative of Jehovah ; (2) that in accordance with this position he hands over the reins of govern- ment to the newly-elected king ; (3) that the eastermal condition of Israel is entirely favourable : the Philistines had been finally subdued by Samuel (ch. 7); (4) that the request for a king is regarded as an act of apostasy: it is due to the desire to be like other nations, and is displeasing both to Jehovah and to Samuel. The redactor has made but little effort to reconcile these con- flicting accounts, but his hand may be traced in 1020-97" and 1112-14, according to which the ceremony at Gilgal is represented as a renewal of Saul's former election at Mizpah : 10%. 20" refer back to ch. 8, and place Saul once more at Gibeah, while v.v.”ub. * In the narrative of J it is noticeable that the name of the town in which Samuel the seer lived is never mentioned. It is probable (so Budde, but see above, p. 198") that the name was omitted just because it was not lºannah, the house of Samuel the judge (717 etc.). Since also the identity of Samuel with the seer is not made clear till 914, it seems probable that the redactor has omitted a notice which both introduced Samuel and made known the name of his native town. In E there is no account of the anointing of Saul (cf. 128 ‘ his anointing '): this was robably omitted because of the already existing account in } (101). The narrative probably also contained some notice of the conflrmation of the choice of Saul as king after 10%, which was omitted by the redactor in view of 1814, 10. 386 SAMUEL, I. AND II. SAMUEL, I. AND II. 27a with their sequel in 1112-14 are intended to explain why Saul is not recognized as king in ch. 11, and why it was necessary to Tenew the kingdom. But the warriors ‘whose hearts God had touched,' and who accompanied Saul to his home, lº as a bodyguard, do not appear in ch. 11. Again, the ‘sons of worthlessness’ who refuse to acknowledge Saul, and by their action, according to the view of the redactor, prevent him from assuming the kingly office, are apparently so few in number that they can be threatened with death in 1112, 18; yet it is presum- ably on their account that the election of Saul requires confir- mation. Further, these verses conflict also with the later narra- tive of E.; for ‘the manner of the kingdom' (...) is obviously the same as ‘the manner of the king' (S9, ll), and not, as the re- dactor evidently implies, a codified system of laws to be observed by people and lºing alike. Lastly, the present Fº Of Samuel's resignation (ch. 12), which would naturally follow after 1024, may also be ascribed to the redactor. Minor additions due to the same hand are 822b, 92b ‘from his shoulders and upward he was higher than any of the pººl. (introduced from 1023E), and the explanatory note 99: on 108 see ch. 13. The linguistic resemblances of the later of these two narratives, partly with lº (esp. Jos 24), partly with the redaction of Judges, are very marked (see Driver, LOT'6 p. 177 f.). With this agrees the strong disapproval of the monarchy, which, as Budde has shown, is expressed in language that has many affinities with Hosea (see Budde, Iłichter w. Sam, p. 184 f.). That the narrative is, how- ever, pre-Deuteronomic, is shown (1) by the manner in which the author of Dt 1714-20 (the law of the king) is influenced by this narrative (see Driver, Dewt. p. 213), and (2) by the reference in Jer 151 to Samuel's intercession on behalf of the people—a fact which is recorded only in chs. 7 and 12. Traces of Deuteronomic expansion are to be found in 120 (Tº Dns nãº), v.il (nºn's a'ign), v.14f. (" "B"ns Tº): to the Deuteronomic redactor must also be assigned the mention of Samuel by himself (1211), and the mention of the invasion of Nahash (1212) as the motive for the demand for a king ; this disagrees with 84f, and further presupposes a knowledge of the earlier narrative (ch. 11). The similarity both in language and in point of view between the later of these two narratives (E) and the redaction of the Book of Judges has been already referred to, and shown to agree with the probable origin of that narrative. Both works are pre- Deuteronomic, and interpret history from the point of view of Hosea and the prophets rather than from that of Jeremiah and the Deuteronomist : the formula which is especially character- istic of Judges (cf. Jg 127 102.3, etc.) is applied to Eli (418), and in a modified form to Samuel (715), while the use of the word ‘judge’ is entirely analogous to its sense in Judges. Further, as Moore (Judges, p. xxiii f.) has pointed out, ‘Samuel's speech º 12), which contains a retrospect of the period of the judges (vv.7-11), and solemn words of warning for the future under the newly-established kingdom, is precisely the conclusion which we desire for the book of the Histories of the Judges, correspond- ing admirably to the parting discourse of Joshua (Jos 24) at the close of the period of the conquest' (so Graf, Gesch. Büch. p. 07 f., Budde, Driver). We may thus assume with gº robability that these chapters originally formed part of E's istory of the Judges, and that they were afterwards excerpted by RJ1 as forming a suitable introduction to the history of the monarchy. (5) 13. 14 (J with the exception of 137b-lºa. 19-22 (J2) 14"-ºl (RP)). Saul's struggle with the Philis- times. These clapters describe the revolt of the Israelites under Saul against their Philistine oppressors. . . The signal for revolt is given by Jonathan, who destroys the pillar (?) of the Philis- times at Gibeah (see GIBEA11); the Philistines, who had doubtless heard of Saul's election as king, at once assemble their forces at Michmash on the N. side of the Wädy Suweinit over against Geba (see GEISA and GIBEAH). Alarmed by the size of the Philistine army, the followers of Saul, who had re- treated to Gibeah, gradually melt away until only six hundred are left (13”); the Philistines in the meantime overrun the country in three directions. Jonathan once more takes the initiative, and by a bold stroke succeeds in overcoming the Philistine garrison at Michmash (14*). This success is at once followed by a general attack in which Saul completes the rout of the Philistines. Jonathan unwittingly disobeys the command of his father by eating food, and is with difficulty rescued by the people from death. Apparently Saul was not in a position to follow up his victory, but suffered the Philistines to retreat to their own land (v. 1"). The section concludes with the remark that “there sºre war against the Philistines all the days of aul.” These chapters form the continuation of the earlier narrative {J) contained in 91–1010, ºb-1111. 10, showing how Saux, carried out the object for which he was appointed (916). That they do not form the immediate sequel of those chapters is evident. From the description of Saul in ch. 91f we should not expect to find him described as the father of a full-grown warrior such as Jonathan is here represented to be, and, further, the introduce tion of Jonathan (132) is very sudden. Presumably, therefore, the redactor has omitted the intervening narrative (possibly in favour of ch, 12), unless we suppose, with l'uenen (Ond.” p. 51), that he has here incorporated a still earlier account of Saul's campaign. To the Deuteronomic redactor must be assigned the chronological notice in 131 (LXX on its) and the concluding summary of Saul's reign 1447-51. In form the latter passage displays a marked resemblance to the framework of Judges, and, as its contents show, is clearly a late insertion. The victories (LXX) here ascribed to Saul (v.47) are borrowed from the similar summary of David's reign in 2 S 8: apart from the campaign against Nahash (ch. 11) and against the Amalekites (ch. 15), Saul's reign was spent in constant warfare with the Philistines. In the view of RD the account of Saul's reign finishes here, and is followed by that of the history of David. The most probable view of the account of Saul's rejection pre- served in 108 1379-10a is that of Buddle and H. P. Smith (Samwel, p. xxi), who regard it as a later addition inserted in the narra- tive of J before the union of J and E. On the one hand, the verses cannot belong to the original narrative : for (1) 108 inter- rupts 107 and 9, and the proper sequel of 137a is 1310b ; (2) they do not agree with the facts narrated. The command to wait seven days (108) is clearly inconsistent with the exhortation of 107; nor does the narrative of 137bf, in any way establish Saul’s disobedience, seeing that he waited the prescribed number of days. Again, after 131-7a we expect to find some account of Saul's retreat from Michmash to Gibeah, rather than an inter. view with Samuel at Gilgal, necessitating a journey to and from that place, for which there would be but little º (“to Gilgal' in v.4 is no doubt an addition, cf. 7b. 15a (LXX). On the other hand, according to the view of the interpolator, the meet- ing of Samuel and Saul, described in 138ſ, is the first after 108; hence we may conclude, with Wellhausen (Hist. 257 f.), that these verses are earlier than 1112-14, i.e. than the union of J and E. 130-22 may be assigned to the same hand as vv.7b-lba : they interrupt the connexion, and appear to be somewhat exagger- ated; the text is very corrupt. (6) Ch. 15 (E). The rejection of Saul. The new king is bidden by Samuel to exterminate the Amalekites; but he and the people spare Agag the king and the best of the spoil, and Samuel is therefore commanded to announce to him the Divine sentence of rejection. The king endeavours to minimize his fault, but in vain. The sentence is bronounced, and Samuel himself slays the Amale- #. king. The chapter clearly forms the sequel of 7, 8, 10.7%. 12, describ- ing the test to which Saul was subjected, and his failure to endure it. Samuel once more appears as the representative of Jehovah, to whose word the king has to submit, while the style and language display a close affinity with the later narrative. It cannot, however, be denied that this chapter, as opposed to 7 ff., is characterized by a somewhat different tone : the author, in presenting his account of Saul's rejection, has made it sub- servient to the prophetic lesson (Jer 721.2%) which he wishes to inculcate, viz. dº obedience is better than Sacrifice. This desire to explain how Saul, who had been Divinely chosen, could be rejected by Jehovah, has, it would seem, led him to reconstruct and expand the narrative in a form which is scarcely consonant with the actual facts (note ‘the theoretical motive assigned for the expedition v.v.2.0, and the Supreme importance attached to the principle actuating Saul in his conduct of it v. 10ſr.,' Driver, LOT'0 p. 178). But, though we cannot accept his treatment of the subject, there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of his facts, viz. the campaign against Amalek, the sacrifice of Agag, and the breach between Samuel and Saul. The view expressed by Wellhausen and others, that this chapter holds “an intermediate position between the two streams of narrative already considered,’ is truo only to the extent that it is to be assigned to the early stratum of E (Budde's E,). The reference to the anointing of Saul by Samuel is probably due to the reductor, and cannot be ad; duced as proving that the writer of ch. 15 was acquainted with 91 etc. (b) I 16–II 8. Saul and T)avid. (1) 16–18%. David's introduction to Saul. The anointing of David by Samuel at the house of his father 16** (a late addition); J's narrative of David’s introduction to Saul (16**); E's account of the same (17–18°). At first sight the section 101-13, of which 1712, 18 is probably a fragment, would seem, like 1716, to belong to the series E, but a comparison of these two sections shows that the former is not presupposed by the latter; according to 17" Jesse has only jour sons, in 1610 he has eight; again, 1724 makes iſ evident that I)avid's brothers had no knowledge of his having been anointed (compare also the later history of David's persecution by Saul, in which Saul alone is regarded as the anointed of Jehovah). On the other hand, the influence of 171ſ, is apparent in 1614. 12 (cf. 1742) as well as in the general point of view. Further, the SAMUEL, I. AND II. SAMUEL, I, AND II. 387 incident is hardly consistent in itself ; Samuel's fear of Saul does not º with the character of the latter as portrayed in ch. 15, and he so far forgets it in v.0ſ, as to speak openly of his mission ; similarly, the sacrifice, which he alleges as the cause of his coming, is never performed. The suggestion of Budde, that the section is an unskilful imitation of 101ſ, inserted for the purpose of showing that David also was Divinely conse- crated, is probably correct (cf. Wellh. IIist. p. 269 f.); to the same hand is probably due the gloss 1019 (1883 hys which is with the sheep). In the earlier narrative of David's introduction to Saul he is described as a skilful musician, as ‘a mighty man of valour, and a man of war, and prudent in speech, and a comely person, and the Lord is with him (1618); he is invited by Saul to his court that he may drive away the “evil º from the Lord’ by his playing, and is given the office of king's armour-bearer. According to the later narrative, during one of the many engagements with the Philistines, the army of Israel is defied for forty days by the giant Goliath of Gath. Despite Saul’s promises, no one will venture to engage the Philistine in single combat, until David, the youngest son of Jesse, a Bethlehemite, who had been sent from the sheep- fold on an errand to his brethren in the army, expresses his willingness to accept his challenge. Saul at first seeks to dissuade him on the score of his youth, but afterwards gives his consent, and offers the loan of his armour. After a vain attempt to wear the armour, David goes forth to the en- counter armed only with his shepherd's sling. It is not until the combat has been brought to a successful conclusion that Saul, on inquiry, ascer- tains the parentage of the youthful hero; Jonathan, the king's son, is seized with a great affection for the shepherd lad, while the king insists on his remaining at court (17–18°). It is impossible to reconcile these two accounts, which differ in every essential feature. In the earlier account David is of mature age, an experienced warrior, and a player of some renown ; he is brought to court on account of his musical skill, and is attached to Saul's person as his armour-bearer; lastly, Saul is well acquainted with his parentage. In the later account David is but a shepherd lad, unused to warlike weapons; he attracts Saul's attention by his bravery in meeting Goliath; Saul does not learn his name and parentage until after the duel. The phenomenon is the same as that which confronts us in chs, 7–12. IIere RJE has attempted to harmonize the two narratives by 1710n (“now David went to and fro from Saul’), which does not agree with 1614f. (according to which David receives a permanent office at court), nor with 1717f (which describes him as living at Bethlehem with his father). It is, however, noticeable that in the LXX (B) 1712:31.38b. 41. 48b. 50. 95–180i are omitted. Wellhausen formerly held that this shorter text was the more original, and this view is still maintained by Cornill, Stade, W. R. Smith, and II. P. Smith ; but most critics agree ‘ that the translators—or more probably, perhaps, the scribe of the IHeb. MS used by them—omitted the verses in question from harmonistic motives, without, however, entirely * securing the end desired' (Driver, IIeb. Teat of Samuel, p. 116; similarly Wellhausen and Cheyne). Thus, according to 1783, David is still but a youth (not the full-grown warrior of 1618), while vv.31ſt, describe him as a shepherd lad, unacquainted with the use of armour (as opposed to 1621b). Further, it is incon- ceivable that discrepancies such as those described above should have been introduced into the text after the union of J and E, nor do the style and language of the sections omitted by the LXX support a late date. The shorter, simpler account of David's introduction to Saul given in J (1614-23) is obviously more in accordance with the actual facts; it forms a ſitting sequel to 1452, and aptly illus- trates the statement ‘ that whenever Saul saw any mighty man, or any valiant man, he tool him unto him.’ The account pre- served in E seems to be derived rather from popular tradition than from actual history ; for we learn from 2 S 2119 that not I)avid but Jºlhanan slow “Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.” Later tradition, therefore, has transferred the exploit of the warrior to his royal master; the reading of 1 Ch 200 is clearly due to a harmonizer (see Driver, Samuel, p. 272). (2) 180-90 (J and E combined). TXavid's life at Saul's court, and Saul’s growing jealousy of him. It is clear that in this section also we have two accounts com- bined, though it is not easy to distinguish the various parts. The narrative as a whole seems drawn from the older source, * By its omissions B removes the difficulties caused by (1) David's residence in Betlulehem, and (2) Saul's ignorance of David's name and parentage. -g and forms the continuation of 1614f. David is here represented as a well-known warrior and leader, and not as the youthful hero of 1711. , The song (v. 7) was probably treated by both Sources as the immediate cause of Saul's jealousy, but, whereas the second introduction in v. Gu (when David retwa'med from the &laughter of the Philistine) connects it with the Goliath incident, we require some further exploit as the occasion of the song in the older narrative; probably the first introduction in v.6 (as they came) is a fragment of this notice. Wv.9-11, the evil spirit from God, connects these verses with 1614f. ; but vv. 13-16 and vv. 17-10 must be assigned to the later narrative. In vv. 18.16 we have a parallel account to that of v.5 (belonging to the older narrative), while vv. 17-19 clearly refer back to 1726, according to which Saul was bound to receive David into his family: this is ignored by the older narrative, vv.2030, which knows nothing of David's betrothal to Merab (cf. v.23, where David seems to regard an alliance with the royal family as beyond the bounds of possibility). Further, since the later narrative must have contained an account of David's marriage with Michal, it is probable that the redactor has treated his sources more freely than usual, and omitted part of E's narrative; v.21b is obviously an attempt on his part to harmonize the two accounts of David's betrothal. The LXX º makes considerable omissions in this chapter also, viz. V.V. 5. Ga. 8b. 10, 11, 12b. 17-19. 21b. 26b. 29p, and the majority of critics accept this shorter version as representing the original text (Wellh., Kuenen, Driver). As Driver (Notes on Sanri. p. 120 f.) points out, ‘the sequence of events is clearer; and the gradual growth of Saul's enmity towards David is distinctly marked ' (cf. v.v.12a. 10, 20); further, the section then forms a con- nected whole, and nearly all the additional passages in the MT admit of satisfactory explanation. The fact, however, that throughout this portion of the Books of Samuel we are con- fronted with two accounts of the same incidents, makes it more probable that the LXX omissions here, as in ch, 17, are due to a harmonizer; further, we may argue º Budde) that it is inconsistent to reject the (unsuccessful) recension of the LXX in ch. 17, and to adopt its more successful attempt in ch. 18. (For a fuller statement see DAVID). (3) 19 (E). 20 (J). Outbreak of Saul’s hostility towards David ; David's flight. Later account of Jonathan’s intervention on behalf of his friend (19-7); the spear-throwing (vv.**); with the assistance of his wife Michal, David escapes from his house (vv.”-17); David’s flight to Ramah (vv.**); earlier account of Jona- than's intervention (20-4%). These two chapters consist of several short sections, in which are set forth various incidents illustrating Saul's enmity towards David on the one hand, and on the other the affection displayed towards him by Jonathan and Michal. The redactor has apparently expanded the account of E in 102, 3, 7, which are in- consistent in themselves, and are clearly influenced by the fuller account of J in ch. 20. Wv.8-10 give E's account of the spear-throwing, which differs but little from that of J in 1810ſ. ; vv. 11-17 have been rejected by Wellhausen, Stade, and Cornill on the ground of internal improbability, but the passage both in language and tone bears all the marks of E, and forms a suitable continuation of what precedes (for another view see H. P. Smith, Samwel, p. 178f.). Wv.18:24, which offer a second explanation of the |...} Is Saul also among the prophets? are rejected by nearly all critics as a late interpolation, similar to that in 161-18. The grounds for this view are, briefly, (1) that an entirely different and, as it would seem, more genuine account has been already given in 1010ſ. ; (2) that David would most natur ally flee southwards to Nob (cf. 21 l), and not to Rannah in the north ; (3) according to 1536 a further meeting between Saul and Samuel is excluded. (1) is decisive against these verses belonging to the earlier narrative, while (2) and (3) equally exclude 12 as their source, though the position occupied by Samuel, as well as the place (Ramah), seem to argue for that narrative ; the words “from Naioth in Ramah' (201a) naturally form part of the preceding account. Ch. 20 describes at length the attempt made by Jonathan to reconcile his father to 1)avid, and the means by which he informed the latter of the failure of his efforts. The section, which is obviously old and historical, is probably a duplicate of 191-7, by which it has been displaced ; for (1) the situation is the same as that of 191ſ., and (2) David would not require further proof of Saul's hostility after the unmistakable evidence of 1911t. These diſliculties, it is true, admit to a certain extent of explanation (cf. 1)river, LOT' 6 p. 180), but the recurrence of duplicate accounts throughout 1 Samuel renders it probable that we have here a further ex- ample of the same phenomenon. The text is evidently in great disorder, and the passage has brobably been considerably expanded by the redactor. Well- nausen is no doubt right in regarding the sign of the arrow as part of the original narrative. This sign, however, would exclude any meeting or conversation between David and Jonathan. IIence we must regard vv. 1049 (to for ever) as redactional. Further, vv. 11-17 interrupt the main course of the narrative, and reverse the relative positions of Jonathan and David, the latter being regarded as the undoubted successor of Saul; they are probably therefore to be assigned to the redactor (Budde and Kittel ascribe all v.v.b-17 to the same hand). (4) 21 (E). 22 (J). David flees to Nob, where he is received by Ahimelech, who gives him the shew, 388 SAMUEL, I. AND II. SAMUEL, I. AND II. bread, and the sword of Goliath (21*). [David flees to Achish, king of Gath, vv.”]. David takes refuge in the stronghold (read nºx; at v.”) of Adullam, whence he sends his parents to Moab (22*); massacre of the priests at Nob; escape of Abiathar (229°). With the exception of 2110-lb, the two chapters seem to connect quite naturally. But a closer examination makes it §. that the sequel (ch. 22) of the incident narrated in 211-10 elongs to a different source. (1) Doeg the Edomite is differ- ently described in 229; (2) in ch. 22 emphasis is laid on the fact that Ahimelech had ‘inquired of God' on behalf of David (v. 14f); 211ſ ignores this fact, and lays more stress on the sacred char- acter of the bread given to David and his followers. Of the two accounts the earlier is that contained in 220-23. The later account, of which only part is given in 211-9, doubtless con- tained some record of the massacre of the priests at Nob ; probably Budde is right in regarding 2219, which interrupts the connexion, as part of this later account. To the redactor may be assigned 2210b Ǻliº sword) and ‘and a sword” in v.13. The section 2110-15 interrupts the main narrative, and presupposes 161-18 and 1918-24 (Wellh., Budde); like those pas- sages, it must be regarded as a late insertion. Probably it was designed to take the place of ch. 27 f., and was afterwards retained alongside of it (Kuenen, Budde); to the same hand we must also assign 220 (the prophet Gad, cf. 2 S 2411). (5) 23–27 (J 231-14, 26, 27; E2319–241925). David as an outlaw. David delivers Keilah from the Philistines; then, warned by the oracle, leaves the city before it is besieged by Saul (23'-'"); he then takes refuge in the wilderness of Ziph, where he is visited by Jonathan (vv.”); the Ziphites inform Saul of his whereabouts, and the latter seeks to capture him (vv.”); tidings of a Philistine invasion give David a temporary respite from Saul (vv.**), who on his return continues the pursuit, and on this occasion falls into David’s hands. David, however, spares the king's life, and, in the dialogue that follows, the latter admits that David is more righteous than he is (ch. 24). The incident of Nabal, the wealthy sheepowner of Carmel (ch. 25), separates the two accounts of the sparing of Saul's life by David; for it is generally admitted that ch. 26 merely gives another version of the same oc- currence which is narrated in 2319-94. As a last resource, David enters the service of Achish, king of Gath, by whom he is assigned Ziklag as a residence: thence he makes a series of raids against the tribes dwelling in the Negeb of Judah, etc. (ch. 27). - The agreement between the two stories narrated in 231. 10.24 24 and ch. 20 in regard to (1) Saul's pursuit of David in the wilderness; (2) the sparing of Saul's life ; and (3) the dialogue that ensues, is so great that we can only regard them as different versions of the same incident. The variations only affect the details, and are such as might easily have arisen in two independent narratives. , Moreover, as Driver (LOT'0 p. 181) points out, “if the occasion of ch. 26 was a different one from that of 2319ſ, it is singular that it contains no allusion, on either David's part or Saul's, to David's having spared Saul's life before.” Of the two accounts the earlier and more original is un- doubtedly that contained in ch. 26 (Kuenen, Wellh., Driver, Stade, H. P. Smith, Löhr). The arguments in favour of this view are clearly stated by Löhr (Sam. p. xlv) as follows:–(1) the detailed information supplied as to ło David's companions (268, contrast ‘David and his men,” 248f), and º Saul and his camp (260.7); (2) the manner in which Saul falls into David's hands; and more especially the old religious conception underlying 2619. To these we may add (3) the shorter and more genuine reply of Saul (2021.2%), which appears in a more expanded form in 2417-21. Budde, however, who is followed by Cornill, Cheyne, and Kittel, solely on the ground of lin- guistic evidence, contends for the later origin of ch. 26; but the expressions cited by him are not sufficiently characteristic to outweigh the argumentH given above; further, he ignores the characteristic mºnº (2012, cf. Gn 22, 1512; see Löhr, Sam. p. xlv.; H. P. Smith, Sam. p. 230), The first section of ch. 23 (vv. 1:19) carries on 222 and belongs to the earlier narrative. V.0 is obviously out of place after v.2, and is probably a gloss designed to introduce v.9b, while the first question in v. 11 is repeated by error from v. 12. V. lºw properly forms the commencement of ch. 25 (or, accord- .ng to the view of Budde, etc., of 2319ſ). Wv. 14b.18 (the inter- view between Jonathan , and David) are clearly a redactional insertion, similar to 2011-17. 40.424. To the reductor must also be assigned 23190 (‘in the wood, in the hill of Hachilah, which is on the south of the dosért'), which is inconsistont with v.22, and the phrase 2410 (and Saul said, Is this my son Daučd:) added from 267 for harmonistic purposes. 2325-28, which have no parallel in the earlier narrative (ch. 20), contain a local, tradition explaining the origin of the name Sela-hammahlekoth (prob. = ‘The rock of divisions'). The order of 244-7 is apparently at fault ; and Gaupp, followed by Cornill and Budde, would rearrange the verses as follows: 4ſ. 0.7a, 4b, 5.7b. Possibly the disorder has arisen by interpola- tion (H. P. Smith, p. 217 f.), and we should omit, vv.4b. U (the incident of the skirt), 2418 is omitted by Wellh. and Budde ug a gloss: the latter also regards ww.20.2% as due to the redactor. The notice of the death and burial of Samuel (25li) is clearly a redactional insertion borrowed from 2884; it is out of placo here. The rest of the chapter connects naturally with 2398, and fills up the interval of time required by that verse: it is prob- able, therefore, that the earlier narrative also contained some account of the incident narrated in 2325-28. The present position of ch. 25 is doubtless due to the desire to separate the two accounts (231938 24, 26). 25%:31 have probably been expanded by the writer from the point of view of his later knowledge. 271 David's decision to take refuge with the Philistines fol- lows quite naturally after ch. 26, and the whole chapter clearly belongs to the earlier narrative with 231-14, 25. 26: with this agrees its silence as regards any previous visit of David to Gath (2110-lb), and the oracle of 229. (6) 28 (E). 29.30 (J). The Philistines prepare for battle with Israel (28**); Saul being unable to obtain a Divine oracle, seeks out a woman with a familiar spirit at Endor, who conjures up Samuel (28**); in spite of the conſidence expressed by Achish, the other Philistine leaders mistrust David’s loyalty, and insist on his dismissal (29**). On his return to Ziklag, David finds that his city has been sacked by the Amalekites; he hastens in pursuit, and recovers all that the Amalekites had taken : the rest of the booty is equally divided annong his men, part being sent as a present to ‘the elders of Judah” (ch. 30). 281.2 carry on the narrative of ch. 27, which is continued in chs. 29 and 30, 288-20 are usually regarded as out of place. According to 284 the Philistines are already at Shunem (in the §. of Jezreel); but in 291 they are assembled at Aphek in the Sharon valley, and only advance to Jezreel in v. 11; similarly the Israelites in 201 are encamped by the spring which is in Jezreel, and presumably only fall back on Gilboa before the advance of the Philistines; whereas in 284 they are encamped at Gilboa. Budde (who is followed as regards the order by Driver) solves the difficulty by placing 289.25 after chs. 29. 30. He further assigns the incident to the same source (J) as the rest of the section, arguing (1) that Samuel is here represented as a seer (91f), and not as a judge or prophet ; (2) that the general contents of the passage agree with the earlier representation, and (3) that it has many º of contact with ch. 14 : the undoubted reference in vv. 17-191 (to Philistines) to ch. 16 he re- gards as a redactional insertion. Budde's theory, however, fails to give any reason for the present order of these chapters, which admits of a perfectly simple explanation, if we assign 289.25 to the later narrative. In that case the historical introduction in 284 will be pºrº. to and independent of the similar notices in 281.2 291, 1], and the section as a whole will form the sequel to ch. 15 (Wellh., H. P. Smith). On this vicw we might retain vv. 17-10a (with H. P. Smith), but they are more probably to be regarded as a redactional expansion, suggested by v.19, which points back to 1623b, 28 (see Löhr, p. xlix). As in the case of ch. 15 (Saul's war of extermination against the Amalekites), a genuine historical incident has been utilized for the purpose of inculcating a moral lesson from the prophetic standpoint. (7) I 31–II 1 (J, except II 1-10 18-1"). Death of £Lll I. The defeat of Israel on Mt. Gilboa, and the death of Saul and his three sons (314-7). The Philistines carry off the bodies of Saul and his sons to Beth-shan, whence they are removed by the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead (vy,"."). The news of the death of Saul and Jonatlian is con- veyed to David at Ziklag by a fugitive Amalekite, who describes how he slew Saul (2 S 1'-4"). David fasts till evening, and then orders the execution - e } of the Amalekite because he had slain ‘the Lord's anointed (vv.”). The lament of David over Saul and Jonathan (vv.””). - These chapters contain a double account of the donth of Saul. The earlier narrative (J) describes how Saul in despair commits suicide after his armour-bearer has refused to slay him. (I 31–II 14): in the later narrative (E) a wandering Amalekite slays him at his request while he is Buffering from crannp (or giddiness), though unwounded (II 10-10). It has been conjeo. tured by those who regard the two chapters us belonging to the same source, that the account of the Amalokite is untrue; SAMUEL, I. AND II. SAMUEL, I. AND II. 389 but this conflicts with the whole narrative of 10-10, which con- veys no hint of such being the case. It is probable, as Budde infers from 410, that David himself slew the fugitive who brought him the tidings of Saul's death. This latter passage (410) knows nothing of the reason assigned for the execution of the messenger in 10:10, viz. the fact that he had laid hands on ‘the Lord's anointed.’ Ch. 31 has been excerpted, with slight variations, by the compiler of Chronicles (1 Ch 10), who has in part preserved a urer text (see Driver, Notes on Sam. p. 170 f.). Budde regards I 10 as a redactional insertion, introducing the later narrative; vv. 11, 12 belong probably to the earlier narrative; they are out Of #º in their present context, I 117-27 the lament of David is avowedly taken from the Book of Jashar (so Jos 1012-14, 1 K 812t (LXX)), but there is no reason to doubt David's authorship (on the text see Driver, Motes, p. 180 f.). - (8) 2-4 (J). The struggle between the house of Saul and the house of David. David is anointed king of Judah at Hebron (2*): he thanks the men of Jabesh-gilead for their kindly action in recovering the bodies of Saul and his sons, and at the same time informs them of his coronation (vv.*7). Meantine Ishbaal, the sole remaining son of Saul, is set on the throne of Israel at Mahanaim by Abner, the captain of the host (vv.**): then follows the encounter be- tween the troops of Joab and Abner at Gibeon, which results in the defeat of the men of Israel; in his flight Abner is pursued by Asahel, Joab's brother, whom he slays; Asahel's death puts an end to the pursuit (vv.”). The downfall of the house of Saul is caused by the rupture between Islıbaal and Abner: the latter makes a league with David, to whom he restores his wife Michal ; and he further promises to bring all Israel unto him. Abner, however, is treacherously slain by Joab in revenge for the death of Asahel, and is mourned by David and all the people (ch. 3). The assassina- tion of Ishbaal, and the execution of his murderers (ch. 4). These chapters continue the earlier narrative of I 81 and II 11-4, the conclusion of which is probably lost, 210a (to two wears) 11 (=5%) are obviously insertions; they interrupt the narrative, and are doubtless part of the chronological scheme of the Deuteronomic editor. 32.0 (a notice of David's family at Hebron) are out of place, and belong lº. after 814 : V, 1 is continued by V.6b., v.ſht concealing the "insertion. V.30 is omitted by all critics as a later interpolation, 44 is certainly interpolated: probably v.4b should be placed after 99 (Wellh, Budde). (9) 5'-8" (J, except ch. 7 (E)). David as king of all Israel. After the death of Ishbaal, David is acknow- ledged as king by all, the tribes of Israel (5'-8). He captures the Jebusite city, Jerusalem; takes up his residence there, and fortifies it (""). Hiram, king of Tyre, aids him in building his palace (*, *). [Notice of David's family (19-10)]. The Philistines hear that David has been anointed king over Israel, and immediately attack him, but are twice defeated (**): . The removal of the ark from Baale-judah (= Kiriath-jearim) to Jerusalem is checked by the untoward death of Uzzah : the ark is therefore left at the house of Obed-edom (6'-3"). After an inter- val of three months it is brought up to the city of David in solemn procession, in which David takes part : his action is derided by Michal, who is therefore cursed with barrenness (**). I)avid proposes to build a house, for Jehovah, but is informed by Nathan that this honour is reserved for his son (71-17). I)avid's prayer (vv. 18-29). A summary of the wars waged by David (8*-*); his judicial activity (v.”); and a list of his officers (vv. 10-18). - It is obvious that the war with the Philistines (517-26) follows immediately after vy, 13, which contain a twofold introduction, viz, vv. 1, 2 and v.3. The intervening sections (Yv.410) are clearly misplaced : vv. 4.5 (cf. 1 IX 211) aro onlitted by the Chronicler, and are premature: ww.0-0 the account of the capture of Jerusalem is undoubtedly old and gonuine, but the text is unfortunately very corrupt ; 13udde would place it after 6l : Wv, 11.1% probably belong to the latter part of David's reign, if they are not an addition from 1 K 5 (see S. A. Cook, AJSI, xvi. B, p. 151): vv. 19:10 should be placed like 32-0 after 814. It is prob- —w able that the account given in vy...?' should be supplemented by the details supplied in 2119.24288:30 (see below). That vv. 17.2% do not connect with vv. 4-10 is shown by the different use of the term “the hold’ (THsnº) in vv.9 and 17: the use of this term here and in 2314 supports S. A. Cook's theory (AJSL p. 154 f.), that David's encounter with the Philistines preceded the inci. dents in chs. 2-4, and belong to the period “when he had no army (ºn) or host (Nils), as chs. 8 and 10, but was accompanied only by his “men” or “servants”’ (521 2116, 17, 22). 61, accord- ing to Budde, must have introduced some warlike incident, and he therefore prefixes it to 50:12: the rest of the chapter is old and genuine, though possibly it has been expanded in parts. Ch. 7 is admittedly later than chs. 5 and 6, with which it is clearly connected : the section, it is true, displays certain re- semblances both in thought and expression to Deuteronomy, but these are not strongly pronounced ; and from the nature of its contents the chapter would easily lend itself to theocratic expansions. Kuenen assigns the chapter to a post-Deuteronomic source on the ground of vv.lb. 18.22, 23.24; but 1b is omitted by the Chronicler (1 Ch 17"): v. 18 is certainly due to the Deutero- nomic editor, and vv.22:24, from their general character, may well be an expansion. Probably, therefore, Budde is right in assigning the chapter to E. Ch. 8 forms the concluding survey to the history of David (cf. 1 S 1440-91 at the end of the history of Saul): in its present form the chapte" represents the work of the Deuteronomic editor, who seenis, however, to have made use of the older sources. The wars are first noticed : with the Philistines (v. 1), with the Moabites (v.2), with the Aramaeans and their allies (ww.8-8); then follows an account of the homage paid by the king of Hamath (vv.9.10); [the spoil dedicated by David to Jehovah (vv. 11.12)); the subjugation of Edom (RV Syria) (vv. 18. 14). The notices of David's family at Hebron (32.5) and at Jerusalem (518-10) should be inserted here (Wellh., Budde): Budde would also insert. 54. 6 (RD). The chapter concludes with an account of David's administration (v. 13), and a list of his officers (vv. 16-18). A fuller account of the two campaigns against the Aramaeans is preserved in ch. 10, which has |. condensed and slightly altered by R.D in vv.3-8: he has also inserted vv. 9, 10 here, transferring them from the end of ch. 10 (see below), to which vv. 13 and 14 pºpe. belong (cf. the similar conclusion 6b and 14b). Wv.11, 12 are probably a late insertion. It is remarkable that in ch. 10 the victories over the Aramaoans form but two episodes in the war with Ammon ; yet this war is ignored in ch. 8, and in its stead (v.2) the subjugation of Moab is described. This fact is not mentioned elsewhere, and seems inconsistent with I 223f. : it is far from improbable, therefore, that Mcab has been substituted for Ammon in S2 (Budde). (c) II 9–20 (J) [and 1 K 1. 2]. Life at David's court, or the history of the succession to David’s throne. The events narrated in these chapters are closely connected with, and mutually dependent on, one another : they are further distinguished by unity of plan and conception. The story of Meribbaal (ch. 9) explains the action of Ziba (16”) and the speech of the former (19**): 10–11 with 12* explain how David became acquainted with Bath- sheba, and how he compassed the death of Uriah, while the whole section chs. 10–12 forms the neces- sary introduction to the final choice of David's successor in 1 IC 1. 2. The narrative throughout, by its lifelike touches and its minuteness of detail, as well as by its bright and flowing style, betrays its early origin, and must have been composed soon after the events which it describes. (1) 91-19. David on inquiry learns of the exist- ence of Meribbaal (MEPIIIBOSHETH), the lane son of Jonathan : for Jonathan's sake he deals kindly with his son, and retains him at court ; Saul's estates are restored to his grandson, and Zibu, Saul’s servant, appointed to look after them. Budde would place ch, 24 and 211.19 before this chapter, on the ground that the incident narrated in 211t is presupposed in ch. 9 and 167ſ. 1928, and that the census (ch. 24) would naturally take place soon after David's accession. It is diflicult, how: ever, on this theory, to explain the present position of 211-14 and 24, and, as Wellhausen has pointed out, the popular and legendary character of these chapters is very different from that of chs. 0-20 (for a fuller discussion of this point see on clas. 21- 24). Mºre probable is Budde's view, that 4” should be placed after v.3. (2) 10–12. Owing to the insult offered to his ambassadors, war breaks out between David and Ammon : the latter call in the Aramaeans to their aid, and prepare to defend their capital. Joab, with the pick of the troops, attacks and defeats the Aramaeans, while the rest of the army under 390 SAMUEL, I. AND II. SAMUEL, I. ANI) II. Abishai successfully engage the Ammonites (10*). Once more the Aramaeans, under Hadadezer, assemble against Israel, but are again defeated, this time by David himself: Joab is then sent to besiege the Ammonite capital (10%–11*; see IRAB- BAH). David remains at Jerusalem, where he commits adultery with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, one of his warriors. After a vain attempt to conceal the sin, he sends a letter to Joab instructing him to bring about the death of Uriah : his orders are carried out, and David then marries Bathsheba, who bears him a son (ch. 11). The prophet Nathan awakens David to a sense of his guilt by means of a parable, and announces the Divine punishment: the child of Bathsheba dies, despite David's penitence; but another son (Solomon) is born (12*). Meantine the siege of Iłabbah has been drawing to a close, and David in person commands the final assault : the chapter ends with an account of the spoil, and of the punishment inflicted on the inhabitants (1226-81). Except in the speeches of Nathan, which have º been expanded, the narrative appears to have been preserved in its original form ; alter 1122 we must restore the longer text of the LXX (see 1)river, Teact of Sann. p. 224) in accordance with vv. 19-21 : 1210-12 are probably due to the Deuteronomic editor, who regarded all the misfortunes of David's house as resulting from his great sin, while the phrase, ‘the house of the Lord,” in v.20, seems an anachronism. With regard to the relation of 101–111 and 1226-31 to ch. 8, it is noticeable that (1) according to 10%f the Ammonites hire the services of the Aramayans of Beth- rehob and Zobah, the king of Maacah, and the men of Tob : in 89.4 the Ammonites are not mentioned, and there is only an obscure notice of a victory over the Aramacans; (2) in 83 Hadadezer of Beth-rehob (for 80m of Itehob) is mentioned by name as leader of the Aramaeans : in 101ſ his name is given so abruptly (v. 10) that he must, as Budde conjectures, have been mentioned earlier in the original narrative; (3) both accounts describe a second campaign : in 89 the Aramaeans of Damascus, in 1010 those “that were beyond the River' came to the assist- ance of their countrymen. Budde conjectures very plausibly that when the detailed account 10lf was appended, the editor wttempted to make the two narratives dissimilar : to this end he omitted the name of Hadadezer in 100, and substituted Damascus for ‘beyond the River' in 8%. By these means he was able to transfer the notices of Tou's homage (89. 10) and of the Edomite war (818. 14) from the end of ch. 10 to their present position. - • (3) 13–20. The rebellion of Absalom, its cause and effects. Amnon, David’s firstborn, and pre- sumably his successor, is murdered by command of Absalom for the violation of his half-sister Tamar: Absalom takes refuge with his maternal grandfather the king of Geshur (ch. 13). Joab, by the help of the wise woman of Tekoa, induces the king to consent to Absalon's return : the latter in his turn coerces Joab into bringing about a meet- ing between himself and the king, which results in the reconciliation of father and son (ch. 14). Absalom now schemes to win the people to his side, and thus secure the throne, and finally sets up the standard of revolt at Hebron. David at once flees eastward from Jerusalem, accompanied by his bodyguard and Ittai the Gittite : he sends back Zadok and Abiathar with the ark to the capital, and arranges that tidings should be brought to him by their two sons: he further persuades Hushai to return, that he may defeat the counsel of Ahithophel (ch. 15). In his ſlight David learns from Ziba of the disaffection of Meribbaal, and submits to the insults of Shimei the Benjamite (16”). Meantime Absalom, following the advice of Ahithophel, takes possession of his father's harem (16”). The same adviser further counsels the immediate pursuit of David, but Absalom de- clares in favour of the waiting policy advised by Hushai (17*). The news of his decision is con- veyed to David by the two sons of the priests, at the risk of their lives: he at once withdraws across Jordan, and is met at Mahanaim by rich Gileadites with ample supplies for his army (v.v.”). Absalom, who has already crossed the Jordan, is confronted at Mahanaim by David’s army under Joal), Abishai, and Ittai. In the battle that ensues David’s forces are completely victorious : Absalom in his flight is slain by order of Joab, in direct disobedience to David’s command (18”) ; then follows a graphic description of the manner in which the news was conveyed to David (vv.”). The death of Absalom º David into profound grief, from which he is only with great difficulty aroused by Joab : public opinion and the politic message of 1)avid to the men of Judah are the chief factors in bringing about the king’s return (19**). At the passage of the Jordan Shimei asks for pardon and is forgiven; Meribbaal explains how he had been slandered by Ziba ; and, lastly, the aged Barzillai refuses the king’s invitation to himself, but asks his favour for his son Chimham (v.v.”). The men of Israel are envious of the favour shown to the men of Judah, and a quarrel breaks out (vv.”). In consequence of this dispute Sheba, the Bichrite stirs up Israel to revolt against David. Amasa, the newly- appointed commander, fails to muster the men of Judah quickly enough, and Abishai (or, perhaps, Joab, see art. JoAB in vol. ii. p. 659 note) is sent with all the available troops to stamp out the rebellion. Amasa meets the royal forces by the way, and is treacherously slain by Joab : the two brothers then pursue Sheba northwards to Abel of Beth- maacah, where he is slain, and his head handed over to Joab : the chapter concludes with a repeti- tion of the list of officers given in 8” (ch. 20). In this section there are but few passages whose origin has been called in question by the critics: 1318i (to apparelled) is probably a misplaced gloss (Wellh.) to v.19; it interrupts the connexion between vv. 17 and 18b; at the end of the chapter the right order of the verses is clearly 37b, 37*. 88b. 89, 33a being due to the scribe. 1420 is rejected by most as a later addition; Budde omits all vv.25-27, 1524 appears to have been worked over by a Deuteronomic redactor : * and all the Levites with him” is certainly due to him, , while the phrase “and Abiathar went up" is out of place ; Abiathar must originally have been mentioned alongside of Zadok (cf. v.29): the textual difficulty in v.27 may also be due to the same cause (13udde reads, “See, do thou and Abiathar return’; Wellh. ‘unto [Zadok] the high priest, do thou return,” etc.). 18180 (for he said to remembrance) conflicts with 1427, and must be rejected as an interpolation, unless with Budde we omit 1497. Lastly, 202320 are repeated with some variations from 810ſ, or more probably (see H. P. Smith, Sam. p. 327 f.) are original, here, and were borrowed by the compiler of ch. 8 for his concluding panegyric. It seems very probable (as Budde suggests) that the author of ch. 8 omitted the following chapters (9–20), because, from his point of view, the family history which they contained did not redound to David's credit, and that they were afterwards restored by a later editor. The unity of chs. 9–20 (see above) has been admitted by nearly all commentators and critics (Kuenen, Wellhausen, Driver, Budde, Cornill, Kittel, Löhr, etc.), with the exception of Thenius (Comm...? p. xiii), who rejected ch. 9 (the incident, of Meribbaal) and 101–111 1226.91 (the Ammonite war) as later redactional additions to the history of David ; but, as We have shown above, these sections are necessary to and presupposed by the following narrative. This theory, however, has been revived, in a different form, by S. A. Cook in his analysis of 2 Samuel (AJSI, (IIebraica), p. 155 f.). According to the latter's view, ch. 9 is related to 1 S 2010ſ, and is therefore to be ascribed to an Ephraimite source: while ‘the story of David's sin with Bathsheba and the birth of Solomon (11%–12%) has been inserted in the account of a war against Rabbath-ammon of which it was originally independent.’ He further argues that this war with Ammon should follow, and not precede, the events recorded in chs, 13–20, chiefly on the ground that I)avid's flight to and hospitable reception at Mahanaim * are impos- sible after the sanguinary war recorded (1016); and places it at the end of David's reign. Absalom's rebellion, he contends, was probably confined to Judah (see Sayce, Early Hist, aſ the Hebrew8, p. 429 f.), the leading men (Amasa and Ahithophel) were both Judaeans, and the contre of revolt was at Hebron, the old Judaean capital,—and followed shortly after David had settled in Jerusalem : in like manner the extent of Sheba's revolt, which was really limited to the Bichrites (2014 LXX), has been exaggerated so as to include all Israel, and then appended to Absalom's rebellion. As the result of his investigation Cool; concludes: ‘(1) that the union of Judah and Israel under one king did not occur at any enrly date in David's reign, and (2) that the narratives in 2 Samuel which presuppose any close re- * Cook ingeniously emends 1727 ‘and Shobi the Son of Nahash ’ (Un;-); 'it') to ‘and Nahash, etc., brought ' ('Nºl wn;), thus supplying (according to his view of the chronology) a motive for David's cmbassy in 101ſ. SANAAS SANCTIFICATION 391 lationship between Judah and Israel (or Benjamin) previous to this unión are due to a redactor (RJE *), and, in several cases at least, seem to be derived from an lºphraimite source.” The evidence, however, on which these conclusions are based is obtained in many cases by a very subjective treatment of the text, and cannot be said to outweigh the general impression conveyed by chs, 9–20 as a whole. It is probable that Cook is right in certain cases (especially in the story of Ahithophel 1620–1723) in tracing the diſliculties of the narrative to the coin- bination of two sources; but he certainly goes too far when he condemns all the interviews recorded, viz. those with Ziba, Moribbaal, Shimei, and Barzillai, as the work of the redactor. (d) 21–24. The Appendix. These four chapters contain a number of hetero- geneous fragments, viz.: (a) the famine in Israel expiated by the death of the sons of Saul at the hands of the Gibeonites (21-14); (b) a series of exploits against the Philistines (21*); (c) David's Hymn of Triumph after the defeat of his enemies (ch. 22=Ps 18); (d) David’s ‘Last Words’ (23'-'); (e) further exploits against the Philistines, and list of David's heroes (238-39); (f) David's census of the people, and its result (ch. 24). These chapters interrupt the main narrative of chs. 9–20, which is continued in 1 K 1–2, and must therefore have been inserted in their present position after the division of the Books of Samuel and Kings. It is noticeable that (f) is closely related in style and manner to (a); 241 clearly continues 21”, while both narratives have a similar conclusion (21* 24*). The two narratives were apparently first separated by (b) and (c), the contents of which are very similar, and between these again were inserted the two Psalms chs. 22 and 23%-7. The incident narrated in 211t evidently belongs to the begin- ning of Davld's reign, and seems to be alluded to by Shimei (167. 8) and Maribbaal (1928), but is entirely ignored by ch. 9. Ch. 24 is very similar to 211-14, of which it is clearly the sequel: in each case the Divine wrath is kindled against the people owing to the action of the king, and they are punished with a plague, vv.19 and 17 (l)avld's repentance and his prayer) are out of place, and may have been inserted lator: Budde arranges the W (31°SGS Q.S. follows: 10, 1 lb. 12. 13b. 11d. 13m. 13c. 14. 13. 10d. 17. 100, He (see above) assigns both sections to J, and places them before ch. 9 : on his view ch. 24 should precede 211-14, and he therefore omits 241" as a Deuteronomic gloss; 21” he assigns to the redactor, and rejects 217 as a late insertion caused by the displacement of the passage. He suggests that the gloomy nature of their contents caused the sections to be removed by the compiler, and that they were afterwards added by the editor. The character of these and of the other sections is, however, very different from that of chs, 9–20, with which they exhibit no affinity: hence, though 211-14 and ch, 24 undoubtedly contain old traditions, we can only conjecture that they were added by a later hand after the completion of the main narra- tive. 2119.23 and 288-90 likewise contain old material, and belong to the early period of David's reign (see 517*): possibly they may be derived from the register of the ‘recorder,’ as Driver suggests (LO 79 pp. 183, 187). ISudde, who regards them as part of the ğiº narrative, places them after tº: his trans- pºsition of 2318-17* to the end, of the chapter is probably correct. The two Psalms chs. 22 (= l’s 18) and 231-7 (David’s ‘Last Words') are admittedly later additions to the book. The Da- vidic authorship of ch. 22 has been maintained by Iºwald, Hitzig, etc., but the internal evidence points to a later author. The “Last Words' of 1)avid are obviously out of place; the majority of critics agree that they are the work of a later hand : the text is in parts very corrupt. Iliter Attſ RE. –For the text see Thonius, Die Bücher. Satan wels (in Aſſf. Iºreſ. Handb.), 1 [S49, * 1878, 8 (Löhr) 1898; Wellhausen, Teart d. Bircher Sam, 1871; 1) river, I/eb. Teast of Srtºn. 1890; Klostermann, Die Bücher Sam, u, der Jºãmiſſe (in Kaf, Iomm.), 1887; Kell, Die Ritcher Sam.” 1875; II. I’. Smith, Samuel (in Internat. ('rit. Com?n.), 1899; Peters, Beiträge z. Teart- "t. Literarkritik der Bücher Stºm. 1899. For the critical analysis see especially Wellhausen, Conp. 1889, pp. 238-266: Kuenen, IIist.-Krit, Einleitunſ, (1890), I. ii. pp. 37–62; 13udde, Richter w. Sam, 1890, pp. 167-276, and SB07" viii.; Driver, LOT''' (1897), pp. 172–185; Cornill, Ztsch)...f. k. Wissensch, w. K. Leben, 1885, p. 113 ft., Königsb. Stud, 1887, p. 25 ft., Z.'ſ TW, 1890, p. 96 ft., Finleituntſ, in A T4, 1896; Kittel, S.K., 1892, p. 44 ft., Gesch. der. Iſel rôler (1892), ii. p. 22 ſt. (Iðng, tr.) vol. ii. p. 22 ft. : Cheyne, 19e rout Study of Criticism, pp. 1–126; Stade, (; PI*, 1880, i. 197 ft.; Löhr, Porbemerkºmºnſ/em in 3rd cd, of Thenius' Comyn, (see above); S. A. Cook, A./SL (= //ebraicat), 1900, p. 145 f.; H. A. White, art. DAV II) in present work. J. F. STENNING. SANAAS (B Xauá, A Xaváas ; AV Annaas, 1 Es 5*).—The sons of Sanaas returned from captivity under Zerubbabel to the number of 3330 (B 3301). In Ezr 2%, Neh 738 they are called the children of Senaah. In Neh 39 the name has the article Hassenaah. The numbers given are 3630 (Ezr.), 3930 (Nell.). SANABASSAR, SANABASSARUS.—See SHESH- IBAZZAR. - SANASIB (B Xavagels, A 'Avao etg), 1 Es 524.— The sons of Jeddu the Son of Jesus are mentioned as priests who returned “among the sons of Samasib” with Zerubbabel. The name is onlitted in the par- allel Ezr 2% ; the Vulg. probably preserves the correct form Eliasib. SANBALLAT (ºp, 2avagax\ár, Sanaballat).— The name is Assyr. Sin-ballidh, “the Moon-god has vivified.” Sanballat is called a Horonite (Neh 210. 10 13*), but the locality meant is uncertain : for conjectures as to it see art. HORONITE. He seems to have held some office in Samaria (Neh 42) when Nehemiah arrived in Jerus., and, along with Tobiah the Ammonite and Geshem the Arabian, was bitterly opposed to Nehemiah, and did his best to thwart his endeavours to rebuild the walls of the Jewish capital. There was a party inside Jerus. itself which was equally opposed to the Tirshatha, and conspired with Sanballat to hinder Nehemiah by spurious prophecies and other means (Neh (). One of the party was the high priest IEliashib, whose grandson had married Sanballat's daughter (Neh 1328). Josephus (Ant. XI. vii. 2) transports Sanballat from the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus to that of 1)arius Codomannus, the last king of Persia, whose officer he is said to have been in Samaria. His daughter Nikasó was married to Manasseh, the brother of the high priest Jaddua. Manasseh, being threatened with expulsion from the priest- hood unless he divorced his wife, fled to Sanballat, who suggested that he should become the high priest of a rival temple on Mt. Gerizim, and prom- ised to secure for him the protection of Darius. Just at this time, however, the invasion of Persia, by Alexander the Great took place; Sanballat went over to the conqueror with 7000 men, and induced him to allow the temple on Mount Gerizim to be built. Manasseh became its first high priest, and soon afterwards Samballat died. The whole story seems to be derived from some apocryphal Jewish account of the origin of the Samaritan temple. & A. H. SAYCE. *SANGTIFICATION.—Of the three words for “holiness' based on the adjective &ytos, one only is here really in question, viz. Gºytaguós. The other two, äywoºvm, the abstract quality (sanctitudo), and &ywórms, the same concretely and subjectively conceived as a personal quality (sanctitas), fall naturally under HOLINESS. But &ywaggós, like “Sanctification,” connotes state, and that not as native to its subject, but as the outcome of action or process. There is no need to deal separately and at length with the cognate verbs &yuáčeuv, &yvićevv. The es- sential ideas involved have already been discussed under IIO LINESS ; while what they have to contri- bute to the idea of sanctification as a process will appear incidentally in the body of this article. In general, however, it may be said (1) that dyid (euv is late Greek and biblical (āyvíčev being classical), and has meanings determined by the several senses of & Yvos, but all springing from ‘to consecrate,” “to render sacrosanct or appropriated to Divine use (in contrast to ‘profane" or ‘open to common use ’); whereas the more classical &Y vićevv means ‘to render pure ' (no longer unclean,” or hateful in God’s sight). (2) Each verb passes through a ritual stage of meaning to reach an ethical or spir- itual one. In the case of dyvíčew the two are clearly distinguishable, as in Jn 115*, Ac 2124, 26 2418 on the one hand, and Ja 48, 1 P 1%, 1 Ju 33 on the Other. 13ut there is little even in the latter series **Copyright, 1902, by Charles Scribner's Sons 392 SANCTIFICATION SANCTIFICATION of passages on which to base a doctrine of sanc- tification. In the case of &Yuášeuv (for Heb. see HoLINESS IN OT, ad imit. note) the senses are more varied and complex. It means (a) to render sacrosanct by ritual methods appointed by God (Ex 28° 30′ºf, Mt 237. 19, He 918; cf. 1 Co. 714), or simply by act of the Divine will (Jer 19, Jn 10”); (b) to hallow ethically, the human spirit or will being directly concerned ; (c) to realize the state of ethical devotion to the l)ivine in concrete con- duct (Jn 1719, Rev 2211; cf. Mt. 69). The second sense, ethical hallowing, has two subdivisions, viz. (i.) vicarious or sacrificial, e.g. He 1019.2° 1314, cf. 21, 1014, Eph 52%, and (ii.) intrinsic, as in Jn 1717. 19, cf. 1 P 12.2°, Ac 2032 (268), 1 Co 611, Ro 1510. Intrinsic hallowing itself is either initial, as in 1 Co 611, Ac 2618, or mature, as in 1 Th 528. In all forms the determinative part is played by the Divine (Jn 10° 1717. 19, He 1019), yet the human factor is fully recognized (Jn 1719 &yud ºw égavrów, cf. Gyvl:ew of man in Ja 4°, 1 P 12°, 1 Jn 38). The working out of these two, and the element of pro- cess involved, will appear in the detailed exposition of dyvaap6s which follows. 4. "Ayvaoru.6s : — (i.) Its use outside the NT. (ii.) Its NT usage. B. Sanctification as taught in the NT. By (a) Christ. (b) St. Paul. (c) The Epistle to the Hebrews. (d) St. Peter. (e) St. John. C. Connected Summary. Literature. A. "ATIAXMO'X.—(i.) Its use outside the NT—The form of the word, indeed, suggests that emphasis should lie on the process involved. But its actual usage, which is perhaps exclusively Biblical and patristic, does not bear this out. It is true that the LXX shows traces of the active sense; as in Jg 17°, where A has āyaapº hytaga for &Yuáčova a hytaka of B; Sir 781 6voltav Gºyaguoj K. d:trapy fiv (‘the Sacrifice of hallowing' being parallel to “first-fruits’); Ezk 454 garat atroſs (roſs lepedo tw) Tótros els otrous dºpapua- plévous rig &ywaggº abrów ; 2 Mac 2" to 3aot\etov K. rô lepárevua K. rôv & Yaogów, the covenanted prerog- atives of Israel, and 14%; &yte travròs àºyuaopod Kūpte, 6tarſipma ovels alóva dulavrov távöe Töv Tpoa ºpa- rws keka0eptopºvov oikov. But in Am 2% Nagov čk rôv vlóv Úuðv els trpoºfitas, K. Čk Töv weavia Kwu Wu6v els &yeaguóv (? = ‘a hallowed thing,” where the Heb. has “for Nazirites'), the passive sense seems to prevail (cf. 3 Mac 218 row olkov roß &Yuaguoſ), ‘the House of Sanctification,” contrasted with idol-houses ; per- haps also Sir 17900) &voua & Yaouot, alvéorova w, on the analogy of Mt. 69 &ywaa 6%rw to Övouá orov. So of Messiah it is said, in Ps-Sol 1789, that ‘he shall cleanse Jerusalem with (a state of) sanctification (év &yaguá), as it was even at the first.” Similarly in the earliest patristic usage ; as in 1st Iºp. of Clem. xxxv. 2, where, as gifts of God, are named {w}) év &0avaala, Napirpórms év Šukatoo ºvn - e éºykpáreta év &Yaguig, and xxx. 1, &yla (var. lec. âylov) owv pepts Virápxovres trotho wuev Tó toº &Yuaguoſ trévra, petryovres kata)\axids, K.T.A. Hence the idea of sanctification as a quality or state sometimes attaches to &ºyaguás, even outside the NT ; * While in the NT it will be found to be the prevailing thought in one form or another. (ii.) Its NT usage.—In St. Paul the word occurs eight times, in five distinct passages. In the earliest of these, 1 Th 4%. 4.7, it ineans a state of practical or realized consecration to God's will, conduct conformed to the ideal attitude or stand- ing of the Christian, as ‘in Christ.” Such a state is the essence of God's will for man ; and it is * Thus (Ecumenius on 1 Th 318 says, rooto &Am60s ayuaoru.6s, ro Tavros piſtrov ka9apov elvat. defined, in one connexion, as the ‘state of abstin- ence (diréxec 9at) from formication,” the ability of a man to possess (see art. POSSESS) his own vessel in a condition of hallowedness and honour, in contrast to one of lustful passion. IFor “God called us not on a basis of unchastity, but in (the Status of) hallowedness’ (ow . . . &ml &ka9apolº &AN év Gºytacaº). Similarly in 2 Th 218 he says that Christians were chosen of God “in (the status of) hallowedness due to the Spirit, and faith based On the Truth’ (€v dy. Trvetºparos k. Trio rew &Amºelas)— where none would doubt that “faith " means a state of soul. This divinely-determined state is set forth in other but kindred terms, as one wherein the soul is ‘sealed ' by the Holy Spirit (2 Co 12°, Eph 118) as something devoted to God. This idea is adopted in 1 P 12, along with explicit mention of the objective or sacrificial basis of man’s consecration, “the blood of Christ 2–the aspect emphasized in Hebrews (910. 14, 28; cf. 211). In another passage St. Paul himself refers to this more objective side of the state of hallowedness, when, in 1 Co 19), he calls Christ as crucified (v.28) God’s ‘wisdom ' or secret as regards ‘righteous- ness (justification) and sanctification and redemp- tion.” Here the thought is not of Sanctification as a process, but as a status into which a man is brought by God's act on condition of faith ; as is seen from 1 Co 611 ‘Ye were washed clean, ye were sanctified, ye were justified in (virtue of) the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in (virtue of) the Spirit of our God.” I’very Christian as such has been put into a virtual or implicit state of cleansed- ness from his sinful past and consecration to God’s holy ends, in the same experience of faith which ushers him into the state of justification. These are, indeed, but different aspects of one and the same spiritual fact, and are produced by the samo Divine means, both objective and subjective. The like thought, under the different metaphors of death to sin and life unto God, corresponding to Christ's cross and resurrection, reappears in IRo 6. “He that hath died hath been justified from sin (v.7); ‘be reckoning yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin (purification), but living unto God (con- secration) in Christ Jesus' (v.11). So saying, St. Paul passes to the practical consequences of the new attitude to sin and to God implied in spiritual union with Christ on the part of the justified. Status or attitude of soul must express itself in moral habit. As formerly it had been lawlessness that had expressed itself through the man’s actions, so now he is to let righteousness sway him, with a state of hallowed action as issue (els áyao Möv, vv. 19.”). Accordingly, the same apostle teaches, in 1 Ti 210, that an abiding state of faith, love, and hallowedness of living must characterize the Christian. And the like is taught in IIe 1214, which alludes to the pursuit of peace with all men and of the holy habit of living (āyaa/16v) befitting fellowship with God. In all these cases no stress falls upon process as entering into the state in question ; though in some there is a suggestion of it, in the notion of habit or state to be realized in conduct. The idea is that of Constant reaffirmation of the underlying attitude of consecration to God’s will and ends. But, so far, there is no suggestion of progress; rather of maintenance (see 1 "I'i 210) of a sound attitude or condition. Progressive sanctifi- cation, a growth from less to more, whether in purity or range, is not contemplated in the word āyaguás itself. Yet it is embraced in the scope of apostolic teaching, as we see when we proceed to examine other references to the subject of the Christian life. J3. SAN (;T II'I("ATION AS TAUGHT IN TIII, NT,- (a) By Christ.—Christ's own teaching on this sub- ject is too ideal or timeless to yield definite results SANCTIFICATION SANCTIFICATION 393 as to the conditions imposed by human frailty upon the realization of Divine sonship. ‘Ye shall be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt 548), is the standard at once of obligation and possi- bility. But it stands, like the Mosaic precept of which it seems to be the equivalent, ‘Ye shall be holy, for I am holy’ (Dt 18%), unconditioned by any how or whem. - - (b) St. Paul.—Accordingly it is to St. Paul, the great exponent of the gospel from the experi- mental or appropriative side, that we have to look for the fullest account of the matter. There is a state possible to Christians, corresponding to the ideal of their calling, in which they can be described as ‘unblameable in holiness' (&péuttovs év &Yuw- a ſwi), and into which they may be brought by the grace of God in this life. Therein they stand hallowed through and through (6XoreMeſs), every part of their being (6)\ók\mpov to trveijua K. # Wuxi, K. to a ſºua) abiding by grace in a condition fit to bear the scrutiny of their Lord's presence without re- buke (duéuirtos év tá trapovala toû Kvptov huôv 'Imaoſ, Xp. rmpmóelm). Such is the teaching of 1 Th 31° 5*. The fidelity of God to His purpose in calling men to be Christians is pledged to this achievement (5%), though there is no definite time, as measured from the initial hallowing of the spirit in conver- sion, at which it must needs be accomplished. God, who begins the good work in the soul, also continues to work at its perfecting (étrate)Meïv), right up to the day of Jesus Christ (Ph 19); and yet, ere that day dawns, Christians may become already ‘pure in purpose (ei)\ukpwéis = Christ's kaðapoi Ti, Kapòta) and void of offence,” and so remain ‘until the day of Christ' (110). It is this state of realized sanctification of conduct or ‘walk,” so as to “please God,” that St. Paul has constantly in view in exhorting his converts to holy living (e.g. 1 Th 41). This is what he means, at times, by his use of &ywaa ués. But the conception needs to be carefully guarded and explained by other aspects of his thought. Thus (1) it represents a growth in holi- ness rather than into holiness out of something else; (2) it is conceived as realizable by a definitive act of faith—claiming and appropriating its right- ful experience by an act of will informed by the living energy of the Holy Spirit—rather than as the cumulative result of a slow, instinctive process after conversion ; (3) it is not the same as absolute moral perfection or consummation (re)etovo-0at), but is rather the prerequisite to its more rapid and steady realization. (1) St. Paul (like the NT as a whole) bases the Christian life on an initial and Imost radical hallowing of the spirit or inmost seat of personality, implicit in justifying faith ; and it is in consequence of this that the Christian is styled ‘regenerate.” Thus the prime spring of life is renewed ; the root impulse or attitude of the eſyo is changed and hallowed ; and so the whole man can be regarded as virtually consecrated to God. The outward hallowing of the ‘walk' or conduct proceeds on the basis and in the power of this hallowed ‘inner man' of the heart, l'rom the first this ‘inner man' onjoys the salvation of which consecration to God's will and ends is one aspect. Iłut this salvation needs to work outwards, through the spheres of man's life more closely bound up with his sensuous nature and its false egoism (ordpå)—the man as buxºkás, possessed of a num- bor of faculties not yet adjusted to God's ends, but often biassed rather towards selfhood. The whole man, spirit, soul, and body, has to be leavened. This is what St. Paul means when bidding the Philippians “work out' into realization (katep- yóged 6s) their own salvation,” a salvation already possessed in principle, relying upon the in-working of God for ability, so to do (Ph 212ſ.). The ond of such actualizing of the partly latent salvation is the image of Christ, just set forth in majostic and moving terms. Conformity to the image of God's Son is the hope of the Christian's calling (IRo 899), that whereunto tends the intercassion of the lIoly Spirit Immanent in the human spirit (v.20t.). Not until this has been realized in fulness can sanctification become perſection : , and St. Paul himself re- pudiates all claim to having attained to this (Ph 819), Yet in the very same context he ranges himself with the class of ‘mature ' believers (TéAetot, 816), whose settled nº it is to rouch that goal, and for whom the one great rule is, ‘walk according to the full extent of your present ideal, and nothing less." In such persons, as in himself (1 Co 44), he assumes an habitual enjoy. ment of a good conscience, the absence of a sense of yielding to sin. Such is the sanctification of Christian maturity, the type of life belonging to those already spiritual' as distinguished from “babes in Christ” (1 Co 81). The latter are still largely de- termined by nattire, in contrast to grace (orépkºvov), by “the flesh,” in its conflict with ‘the Spirit ' (orapkikoi, cf. Gal 517). They have not yet como to realize their own position, its dangers, and the resources at hand in the Spirit, in obedience to whose impulse they are bidden consciously to walk (Gal 510 mºve ſuatu m'epurareire kai étru6vºltav orapkos ov un rexéomre). To such St. Paul says in remonstrance: “If it be to the Spirit that ou are fain to trace any true life you possess, why do ye not §ºn. walk in conscious reliance upon His promptings, but rather follow promiscuously the first instinct—whatever that may be, whether of flesh or Spirit The principle of either sort of action is still within ; yet if you yield yourselves defini- tively to the Spirit, and wait on II is illumination, as IIe reveals the things of Christ, the ſlesh will be practically neutralized and not affect your walk, which shall then be ever “in the Spirit,” relative to your degree of onlightenment’ (Gal 520. 10-20). (2) This conscious self-consecration to the ind welling Spirit, to carry out God's will alone under IIIs prompting, and so to bear only ‘the fruit of the Spirit' (Gal £22ſ.), is set forth under various figures, but is uniformly represented as a single act—whether of breaking definitely with sinful habits, or of self-devotion to the Divine sway. ‘ Ilot us (once for | cleanse ourselves (ka.0a- towpiev čavtovs) from all pollution of flesh and spirit, perfecting j (émurexojvres àywort/vmw) in the fear of God' (2 Co 74). “I beseech you . . . to present (trapaarmorat) your bodies a living sacrifice, hallowed, acceptable to God, as your spiritual service ; and undergo, not a process of §º to this age, but of transformation in mental renewal, that ye may prove what the will of God is—that good and acceptable and perfect will ' (Ro 121t.). IIere the process of gradual conformity to God's will is represented as following upon a definite self-surrender, in which the virtual or ideal relation to God, implied in trustful accept- ance of Christ as ‘righteousness and sanctification to the sinful soul, is consciously realized and reaſlirmed. As united to Christ by faith, Christians had “dled to sin,” and their old man' (old moral personality) was crucified with II in (Gal 6**) and virtually “put off"; coincidently they had been ‘ raised together with Christ,” in the power of a new moral personality, and had virtually “put on the new man which is in process of renewal unto full insight after the image of IIim that created him ' (Ito 62.10, Col 30-11, 12ph 4*). But to this, their virtual state, many needed to be awakened, in order to put themselves consciously into the line of the Divine will and working, and no longer ignore the Holy Spirit's inward striving to work out, in realized acts, the consecrated attitude of their in most being. And such awakening and real consecration—such arming for the fray—was rather a thing of definite decision (expressed by aorists, Ro 1814, Col 10ſ, Eph 511, 19-10) than of vaguely pro- tracted process (expressed by presents). (3) But such definitive self-surrender is no prelude to a life of effortless passivity. The true attitude once definitively assumed, it is to be reaflirmed in a lifelong process of conscious acts of obedience, the grounds, bearing, and issues of which are now appreciated (Eph 610, 18). No longer will it be marked by fre- uent “grieving of the Spirit,' who has 'sealed ' the soul for |. redemption, but by a filling with the Spirit' (liph 490 51*). In such a process the Christian is ‘consummating holiness ' (êtrutéAów &ytwo ºvnv), being hallowed in fresh ranges of his pow- ers, even as Christ could say, ‘For their sakes I hallow myself, that they themselves also may be hallowed by (the) truth ' (Jn 1710, 17). Such hallowing has no necessary connexion with juriſication from sin, but only with realization of the possi- §. of devotion to God's will in love. It was here that St. Paul felt himself not yot to have attained or to have been brought to perfection. (c) The Epistle to the Hebrews.--It was probably of this positive holiness, resulting from deepened consecration, that the writer to the Hebrews was thinking when he spoke of the Divine discipline of suffering as meant to issue in participation in the Father's holiness (1210). But, on the whole, the objective aspect of sanctification, that of a true covenant-relation established by the offering of the Son's holy will in II is life-blood, prevails in this Epistle. In it cleansing, consecration, and perfection * (918; 1010. 14), all refer to the initial status of the believer (so Ac 201*, cf. 20°), as one of perfect access to the Father through the perfect sacrifice of the Mediator. The present participle, ol &ywa (6pevot, does not refer to progressive sanc- tification, but expresses a constantly growing class, and so is equivalent to ol āywot (21' 10"). (d) St. Peter.—We have seem already how his use of év dynao uº iſ vetºparos refers to the initial consecration wrought and sealed by the Spirit. Similarly in 1 P 12° Tàs Wuxás judºv hyvukótes év rm * He 61 Gmi riv rexelötmta bepúuc0a is only a seeming excep- tion ; for it refors to knowledge, not to personal character. 394 SANCTIFICATION SANCTIFICATION ūrakon rās &\m0elas els pixabeXq law divvirókpitov, Šk Kapòlas d\\?\ovs dyatrºja’ate éktévôs, dvayeyevvmuévot, K.T.A., the perfect hryvuköres (like dvayeyevvmuévot) ‘ refers back to the initial act of consecration, of which their acceptance of baptism was the out- ward sign. The working out of this ... remained ’ (Hort); and it is represented as something to be taken in hand once for all (aorist). With this accords the other pertinent passage, 1 P 1 *, though it has but little theoretic significance. Hort takes its imperative, ‘become ye holy’ (&Yuot . . . yewij6m re), to refer to manifestation, not to essence. The thought is, “show yourselves holy, as you are,” “show forth in your converse with others the holiness that attaches to your standing as consecrated by the Spirit's touch.” So, too, in 2 l’ 1 +ff believers are conceived to be, through the fulfilment of the precious promises of the gospel, ‘sharers in (the) Divine nature,” and separate or hal- lowed from the corruption of worldly desire. But progress is still requisite in order to ensure the final fruition of their calling and clection. They are called diligently to add to their faith virtue, insight, self-control, patience, piety, brotherly affection, and, to crown all, love. These are re- garded as fruit, tokens of true knowledge of Christ. Their absence argues dull vision of things divine, and a forgetfulness of a man's initial cleansing from his old sins. Here the fact of progress in the experimental realization of the I)ivine life within is implied, but little or no theory of its rationale is given. Akin to this, in its practical point of view, seem the words in l8ev 221 6 &ytos &ywaa 0%ra Śrt : for parallelism with ô 6tratos 5ukatoa ºvmv trouma &ra èrt tends to fix its meaning as ‘let the Saint still (once more) act as a Saint.” (e) St. John.—In St. John we meet the idea that the regenerate, in virtue of the IDivine seed abiding in them, cannot sin habitually (1 Jn 39 5* 18, cf. 9%). But a progressive purification of life, on the model of Christ's purity and as the conscience is en- lightened, is taught (trás Ó #xwv Tiju èXtrúða tatºrmv ém' attº &yvíčev Šavröv ka9&s ékeſvos dyvös éa ruv, 3°). It does not, however, seem to imply actual sin as a condition of purification: for St. John writes, that his readers may not fall into any single act of sin (£va pil &uáprºmte, 2*). If, then, a man walk in the light of a good conscience illumined by the gospel, it is possible to have unembarrassed fellow- ship with God, on the abiding basis of the cleansing effected by the atoning blood of Jesus (17)—and that in spite of the presence of sin as a latent force within the soul (1° àuaprlav čxeuv). The initial consecration which brings free access (the trappmata of He 1019) suffices to neutralize sin, in the sense of a nature prone to sin ; while the power of the Divine seed may avail, on condition of the will's abiding in Christ, to ward off actual sin, and that indefinitely. Meantime sanctification, in the sense of the effacing of old evil habits and self-consecra- tion to new forms of love, will go forward uninter- ruptedly on the model of Christ's purity (1 Jn 3%). C. CONNECTED SUMMA 1: Y.—In Biblical religion, as elsewhere, the religious conception of holiness precedes the ethical; the idea of special relation to God and His service antedates the idea of intrinsic human goodness. The former is at first conceived as a matter of ritual duly performed, which places the worshipper in a state of objective sanctity. At a certain stage, however, the Divine will became defined in terms largely concerned with morality : henceforth the religious relation or state of holiness could be measured and tested by obedi- ence to such divinely sanctioned forms of human conduct. And as moral action was felt to derive its value from internal volition, religious holiness lost something of its strictly objective character, ~-dº and became bound up with the subjective state of man's heart or volition. This is the stage, roughly speaking, to which the prophets brought the idea of sanctification in Israel. As, moreover, any striking result in the direction of the l)ivine will was traced to the action of the Divine Spirit, the loyalty of heart found in Israel was traced to the Spirit of IIoliness proceeding from Jehovah. It does not seem, however, that even in the prophets the piety and morality of the ordinary individual were directly traced back to the Spirit. The first suggestion of this profound idea may be found in Ps 51, where the taking away of God's Holy Spirit seems to be regarded as precluding the possibility of the “clean heart' or ‘stedfast spirit,” for which the psalmist supplicates. Yet in one special instance, that of Messiah Himself, the spiritual qualities which mark His consecrated life are traced to the action of the Spirit of Jehovah, Is 11°. When we add that an ethical sense by this time attached to holiness in God, and was thence transferred to the holiness in- cumbent upon His worshippers (‘Be ye holy, for I am holy '), we have already all the rudiments of a doctrine of Sanctification such as emerges in the NT under the creative influence of Jesus the Christ. The decisive advance, whereby each individual is sealed as a hallowed member of God’s new Israel, appears as early as St. Peter's address on the Day of Pentecost; and not long after, the same apostle sees in the gift of the Spirit to Gentile believers the token of their hallowing also unto God's kingdom. But there is little or no sign that any one before St. Paul saw in the Spirit the very principle of the consecrated life in Christians, alike in its inception and in its development. His thought here was bound up with another most dis- tinctive conception, viz. the mystical indwelling of Christ as the essence of the believer's life. How closely these twin ideas were related may be seen in the great passage, Eph 319-19, in which he treats the strengthening of the inner man by the Holy Spirit as the condition of Christ's indwelling, in such wise that the believer is filled with His love, and so with the very fulness of God (cf. Jn 14–17). Here we notice, in passing, that the tenses em- ployed point to the possibility of such an experience being attained at a definite stage subsequent to conversion. It answers to that more conscious and deliberate self-surrender to God's sanctifying grace which we have already recognized, on its human side, in such passages as Ro 12'. But we observe in particular the fact that love seems to be to St. Paul (cf. 1 Co 13, Eph 14, Col 314), as to St. John, the all-inclusive ethical equivalent of personal holiness, as a state well-pleasing unto God, and indecd parti- cipation in His own essential life (‘unto all the fulness of God," cf. 2 P 14.7). Thus sanctification begins subjectively as faith (cf. Ac 201*), or trustful self-abandonment to God's revealed will ; and ends as love. Attitude passes into character, the soul becoming assimilated to its object, the God to whom it is consecrated. This means that Justification, which involves regeneration, is implicit Sanctification ; and actual Sanctification means the subjective altitude of the justified become explicit in moral life. Of the relation between the Divine and human factors active in sanctification as a process the NT gives no formal theory—any more than in the case of Faith itself, on which Sanctification, no less than Justification, is made to turn. It, too, begins and ends in faith : St. l’aul might well have written 6 &ywos ék trio rews ſhorerau. Ibut the reality of each factor is strongly affirmed. Man is urged to ‘work out. ” the grace within ; yet with an awful sense that God IIimself is already at work, prompting SANCTUARY SANCTUARY 395 and animating, and so in utter reliance on His mighty initiative. A moral conflict there is, a struggle that taxes the nerves of the soul and ex- ercises all its vigilance ; but it is a conflict of faith (1 Ti 612), conducted in reliance upon Divine re- sources (Christ, and the Holy Spirit ever taking of His things and inspiring the soul), not in self- sufficiency (see Gal 240 in contrast to Ro 10%. 77–8° 327). The normal, and not only the intermittent, issue of such a conflict may be victory, and that without prescribed limit. Failure is due to imper- fection of receptivity, intermittent “abiding.” Yet, where this is understood, failure but strengthens for fuller victory, by deepening the sense of de- pendence; “for when I am weak, then am Istrong’ (2 Co 1210). LITERATURE.—The general literature is much the same as for REGENERATION, the sections in Martensen's Doſſºm (ttic8 being specially good and suggestive. Much bearing on our topic will j. be found in books on the Holy Spirit, e.g., Kuyper, The Work of the IIoly Spirit (Eng. trans. 1900), and works there cited. Áumong oldór treatises, Marshall's Gospel Mystery of Sºtnctifica- tion (1690) is a classic. The Methodist doctrine of IIoliness as * Christian Perſection' or ‘Perfect Love' has created quite a literature of its own. And in recent times a large literature has arison, devoted to the experimental side of the subject as placed in relief by the so-called “Iſoliness Movement,” of which “Perfec- tionism' is one special phase. But such literature is not, as a rulo, marked by much exegetical precision, and is apt to confuse the Biblical and dogmatic standpoints. The most scholarly books of this type are those of Prof. II. C. G. Moule of Cambridge, e.g. Thoughts on, Christian, Sanctity and Outlines of Christian I)octrine. Thero is a pamphlet by J. A. Bect, entitled ‘Holiness, as understood by the Writers of the Bible’ (1880), which examines the passages bearing on Sanctification in a careful and Scholarly way. But in ſow books, save formal Biblical Theologies, is sufficient account taken of the standpoint and omphasis of the several Biblical writers, and in general of the psychological conditions involved in reducing their experimental language to theory. . V. BARTLET. SANCTUARY. — The ideas underlying ‘sanc- tuary,” a sacred or ‘holy place' (9,72, tº P – the former, however, is rarely, the latter never, used in OT of the local sanctuaries, for which the Canaanite term nº is regularly employed *), form part of the larger group of ideas associated with holy,” “holiness,” etc., which have been analyzed and discussed in their manifold applications in the article Holi NESS IN OT (vol. ii., see esp. p. 396*). In dealing with early Semitic religion, the term ‘sanctuary is used in a wider and a narrower application. On the one hand, the whole territory in which a particular deity is worshipped was in a sense his sanctuary ; in this sense Canaan, “J'''s land' (Hos 99), is also His house (81915) and a ‘holy land ' %. 311). On the other hand, in every such territory there were particular spots which were regarded as the favourite haunts of the god, at which he had manifested his power in the past, and was supposed to be still peculiarly accessible to his worshippers. Such primitive sanctuaries consisted of imposing natural objects—in particu- lar, mountains, springs of water with the fertile spots around them, a wide-spreading tree with the ground beneath its shade, or more arbitrarily selected spots associated with visible manifestations of the deity (theophanies). When the Hebrews entered Palestine they found the land thickly studded with such local sanctuaries, each of them a centre of Canaanite worship. As the country gradually came under their control, its sacred places became ipso facto sanctuaries of the national God, Jahweh. Only a few typical examples can be men- tioned here,t reference being made once for all to the special articles on the places named. * That “sanctuary' (mikdāsh) and ‘high place' (båmål) are synonymous in the older literature is evident from Ann 70 and I's 1612, Cf. Izk 2028f, where ‘high hill' also appears as a syno- nym of ‘high place.” 4. A Gorman scholar, Freiherr von Gall, has recently invosti- gated over one hundred, I., and W. of the Jordan; in his monograph on ancient Israelite Sanctuarios (Altis?'ttel. Rult- 8tdºtten, 1898). (a) Comparatively limited in number are the instances where &prings and wells are attested as the sites of Sanctuaries in our extant literature. The best known are the ancient sanctuary of BEERSIII: BA, associated by tradition with Abraham (Gn 2131) and Isaac (2683), and retaining its sanctity to a late date (see below); Kadesh (vº'holy place”), also named lèn-mishpat or Judgment- spring (147), and BEER-LAIIA1-Roi (107. 14). GIIION, the modern irgin’s fountain, on the west side of the Kidron ravine, was the site of Solomon's consecration, and therefore a sanctuary of repute (1 K 138. 30); his rival Adonijah assembled his friends by another sacred spot, “the Serpent stone' (Zoilº LETII), which was by En-rogel, the fuller's spring (1 K 19). (b) More numerous were the sacred tree8, which played an º: part in the religion of the heathen Semites, and are still objects of veneration among the fellahin of Syria, as the bieces of cloth hung on their branches and the fragments of roken pottery underneath amply testify. Abraham's first altar on the soil of Canaan was raised beneath the shade of the terebinth of MoRE11 (Gn 120.7 RW m) at ‘the place of Shechem,' an eloquent witness to the extreme antiquity of this oracular º IIero were buried the objectionable images of Jacob's household (854); and the same tree, no doubt, is associ- ated with Joshua (Jos 2420f) and Abimelech (Jg 96). Of equal antiquity was another sanctuary, the terobinths of MAMRE at Hebron (Gn 1318). Those tree-sanctuaries, indeed, figure with peculiar frequency in the legends of the patriarchs—a fact which is to be interpreted as implying their existence long before the IIebrew conquest. Iłesides those already noted at Shechem and IIebron, others are found at Beersheba (Gn 2138), at a spot near Bethel (858), and, from a later period, at Ophrah (Jg 6llf. 24). The fact that justice was uniformly dispensed under religious sanction and protection implies the presence of a sanctuary at the palm of Deborah (Jg 45)—by several recent scholars identi- fled with the ‘oak of weeping' (see A.I.LoN-BAouTII) of Gn 858– and at Gibeah, where, according to the better Greek text, Saul sat under the tamarisk “at the high place' (see p. 197b note), apparently to administer justice. Under the monarchy, indeed, these tree-sanctuaries were multiplied indefinitely, as we learn from the vigorous polemics of the later prophets against the “altars upon every high hill, in all the tops of the mountains, and under overy green tree and under every thick oak, the place where they did offer sweet savour to all their idols' (Ezk, 613; cf. Dt 122, Jer 220 and often, Is 575).* . For the sacred pole or 'ashërah, which some authorities regard as a substitute for the living tree, seo Asiliºn AII, vol. i. p. 165. (c) The special sanctity of mountains and high hills was a widespread |. not confined to the Semites, in the ancient world. The earliest sanctuary of which we have any historical, as distinguished from legendary, record in OT is the mountain sanctuary of Horrº-SINAI, ‘the mountain of God ' (IEx 31, cf. 1 K 198). HiſtMon, as its name implies, was invested with similar sanctity. Within the limits of Canaan the names of CARMEI. (1 K 1810ſf.), the opposing peaks of ICBA1, and GERIZIM, TA Boſt (Hos 51), and the º of () Liv Es (2 S 1582) at once suggest them- selves. These, after all, are insignificant in number compared with the innumerable ‘ high places' or ödmóth with which the land was studded (see High PLACE, Vol. ii. p. 881, for ample reff.). I)own to the 7th cent, B.o. the religious customs of the Hebrews required that every town and village should have its local sanctuary, just as in Christian lands every parish has its church. From the interesting narrative 1 S 912ſt 105 we learn that these sanctuarles were situated on the nearest commanding eminence. Where no such eminence was available, the sanctuary, it has been supposed, was erected upon an artificial mound (cf. Jer. 781, 2 K 170). The usual type, however, of the artificial sanctuary, that is, a sanctuary created by human hands to mark the site of a special Divino manifestation, was the sacred pillar or ºn aggébah or the sacred stone circle (º) or cromlech (see, for details, PILLAR, vol. iii., and cf. ALTAlt, vol. i. p. 75). Several of the above-mentioned sanctuaries had a more than local reputation. Those of greatest repute in the Northern Kingdom were Bethel, the chief “royal sanctuary " (nº tºp, AV ‘the king's chapel,” Am 718), with its companion sanctuary Dan ; Gilgal (Am 44, Hos 415 etc.); and the far dis- tant Beersheba (Am 55814). A favourite sanctuary was at Gibeon, “the great high place” (1 K 3"), where Solomon's inaugural sacrifices were offered, In the period from the conquest to the building of the temple, the presence of the ark gave a Special sanctity to the place of its location. Thus there can be no doubt that SIIILOII was the principal sanctuary in the time of the judges; a special temple (ºn) was built for the greater safety of the ark, with the house of Eli as its ministrant priests. Hence the annual religious festival at Shiloh was one of exceptional importance (Jg 21", 1 S 1**). Whether the important sanctuary at Nol was contemporary with that at Shiloh is uncertain ; * We do not include here the graves of the Hebrew patriarchs and heroes, since it is still a moot point to what extent, if at all, these were places of worship for their descendants, 396 SANCTUARY SANCTUARY my- the first mention of it occurs after the destruction of the latter (1 S 21*), but this may be accidental. All the sacred places of the South, however, were soon eclipsed by the royal sanctuary at Jerusalem, raised on the spot consecrated by the theºphºny at the threshing - floor of Araunah (2 S 24**, 2 Ch 31). Round these ancient shrines centred the religious life of the Hebrews in early times. Hither they flocked as the annual festivals came round, at the recurring new moons and sabbaths, to offer their tithes, their first-fruits, and their sacrifices. Un- fortunately, we can only partially reconstruct either the equipment of these sanctuaries or the cere- monies which characterized the worship of an- tiquity, with its sacrificial meal and the joyous intercourse of the sacral community. Without unnecessarily repeating the facts already given in the article HIGII PLACE ($ iv. vol. ii. p. 382), we may note the indispensable altar with its almost universal adjuncts, the sacred pillar (mazzébah) and the sacred pole ('ashërah), the hall (nº. 1 S 9”) or halls in which the sacrificial feast was held, a temple or shrine (nip; nº. 1 K 12* and elsewhere) for the protection of the sacred images which formed part of the equipment of some sanctuaries at least, such as the mysterious EPHOD and the almost equally mysterious TERAPHIM (see commen- taries on Hos 3"). h ſ is roºte & 's,. 16 Lºw, Outp i Co URT ) C U"r IN THE Rock ſ 18. In Ogre-- • * ~4 law. On ºp sº . 1–1–1–1 –1 = 1 Scale. 20 Fr. -y PLAN OF IIIGII PLACE, PETRA, The recent discovery of what must have been the royal Sanctuary of Edom, close to the ruins of Petra, affords very material aid in the reconstruction above desiderated. Near the Bummit of a mountain overlooking Petra “were found two rock- * The following is based on an article by Professor Robinson of Chicago (who, though not the first to visit the site, was the Ørst to realize its importance, April 1900), entitled ‘The IIigh Place at Petra in Jºdom,’ in the Biblical World, Jan. 1901; and on an earlier article by Professor Ives Curtiss (who visited the Fife in July 1900) in 1°E.I.'St., Oct. 1900. out “obelisk-like columns,’ about 18 ft. in height, and som 100 ft. apart, clearly the mazzêbahs of OT. On the actual summit was a large court, 47 ft. by 20, hewn in the rock to the depth in parts of 18 in., and approached from below by a stair cut in the rock. Near the centre of the court sufficient rock has been left to form a raised platform 5 ft. by 24, and 4 in. in height. It has been suggested that here the wor- shipper stood whose victim was being offered, the rest of the worshippers standing in the surrounding court. On the west of the latter, facing the raised platform, stands the altar, 9 ft. by 6, in height 8 ft., cut free on all sides from the surrounding rock, and furnished on the side towards the court with a short flight of four steps. On the topmost step, which is considerably the largest, stood the officiating priest. In the centre of the upper surface of the altar a rectangular depression has been hewn out to serve as the altar-hearth. Immediately to the South of the altar, and approached from it by steps, the rock presents a flat surface with two large “circular and concentric' cups, hewn out with vertical sides, the larger 3 ft. 10 in., the Smaller 1 ft. 5 in. in diameter. Here the sacrifices may have been prepared, as a conduit leading from the lower cup seems to have served to carry away the blood of the victims. For further details reference must be made to the articles cited, both of which are illustrated by photographs and drawings. Prom the time when the Hebrews served them- selves heirs to the sanctuaries of Canaan, the worship of J” was there celebrated for several centuries with the full approval of Israel’s religious guides (see 1 S 717, 1 K 3° 1899 and oft.). Such local worship is alone contemplated in the oldest Hebrew legislation (‘in every place where I record my name I will come unto thee and I will bless thee,” Ex 2)”). But by this multiplicity of sanctuaries the religion of J" was º to two great dangers, against which the prophets of the 8th century repeatedly utter the most solemn warnings. In the first place, there was an ever-increasing admixture of heathen Canaanite elements with the purer and more spiritual elements of the true Hebrew cultus, until Hosea could truthfully declare that the worship of J" had practically degenerated into idolatry (13°) and its ministrants into idol-priests (see CHEMARIM). In the second place, the native religion, with its multiplicity of local Baalim, exerted a baneful influence on the Mosaic doctrine of the unity of J". The Northern Kingdom came to an end before a reformation could be effected. In the South, thanks to the unique position of its royal sanctuary and the comparative purity of the cultus as there practised, this twofold danger was not felt to quite the same extent. Yet the de- struction of Samaria, the strongest possible proof of the Divine commission of her prophets, could not fail to make a profound impression on the best religious spirits of the South, while, at the same time, the greatly enhanced importance of the temple at Jerusalem would gradually tend to diminish the popularity, and prestige of the local sanctuaries. }. Hezekiah really made the attempt at centralization with which he is credited (2 K 18") must be left an open question. The reform, at the best, was shortlived. Not till the far-reaching reformation of Josiah, under the im- mediate inspiration of Deuteronomy (B.C. 622–621), were effective measures taken for the destruction of the local sanctuaries and the deportation of their priests to Jerusalem (2 K 23). The losses as well as the gains of so drastic a measure of reform have been set forth under the article HIGII PIACE (with which compare DEUTERONOMY, JosLAH). In the Priestly document (P) the battle has long been won, and scarcely an echo remains. The law and practice of one central sanctuary are transferred to the period of the desert wanderings (see TABER- NACLE), an unhistorical presentation of the religious history of the Hebrews which dominates the whole subsequent literature, and has prevailed to our own day. In what has been said up to this point, the juirely religious aspect of the ancient sanctuaries has been properly kept in the foreground. Dut, in early times at least, these sanctuaries were also the seats of justice (0éuts), of which their priests SAND SANHEDRIN 39'? were the administrators. In general, where the consuetudinary law of the clan or tribe proved inadequate, a fresh torah or Divine and authorita- tive decision was sought from J"'s representatives at the nearest Sanctuary of repute. The extant law-codes, further, make provision for the inter- position in specified cases of the priests of the local sanctuaries in their judicial capacity — whence their peculiar title Elohim (see bººs in Oaf, IIeb. Lea.), though some of the passages in question (Ex. 210 228t. [Heb. 7ſ); cf. 181ſt, 1 S 2%) are of doubtful interpretation. More explicit are the recommendations of Deut. regulating the procedure of the supreme court at the central Sanctuary (Dt 178f). Passing from the law-codes to the history, we find, as has been pointed out above, repeated evidence of the leaders of the people dispensing justice at the various sanctuaries, e.g. Moses at En-mishpat or Išadesh (see LAW IN OT, vol. iii. p. 674), Deborah, Samuel,—whose circuit included Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpah, all notable sanctuaries (1 S 71%), and Saul (reff. above). Every primitive sanctuary, further, in virtue of its inviolability as the abode of deity, was an asylum or place of refuge. This right of asylum is expressly recognized in the oldest legislation, only cases of premeditated murder being excluded (Ex 2119. 14; see GOEL, vol. ii. p. 223 f.; ALTAR, vol. i. p. 77a). The later institution of cities of refuge (see REFUGE) was the necessary corollary of the destruction of the local Sanctuaries. For the so-called ‘shekel of the sanctuary," see MONEY (vol. iii. p. 422). A. R. S. IXENNEDY. SAND (ºn dugos) consists of an aggregate of incoherent grains of silex, generally mixed with others of different mineral substances, such as mica, felspar, and gems. It was a familiar object with writers of the Bible, and is therefore used emblematically, the expression “as the sand which is by the seashore' being found in several passages Gn 2217, Jos 114, 1 S 13%, 1 K 4% etc). The refer- ence is to the lime of sandhills along the coast of the Mediterranean (see SEA (GREAT)) and Lower Egypt (Ex 2%). In the following passages the word is used to represent—(1) Numberlessness, vastness : the de- scendants of Abraham (Gn 2217, Jer 33%, Ro 997, IIe 1119); the store of corn gathered by Joseph in Egypt (Gn 4140); the nations of Canaan (Jos 114); the Philistines (1 S.13%); the Israelites (2 S 1711, 1 K 420, Is 10%. 4819); the captives of the Chaldaeans (Hab 10); Solomon's largeness of heart, i.e. wisdom (1 K 4” [Heb. 5"]); (2) heaviness (Job 6%, Pr 278); (3) an insecure foundation (Mt 7”). E. HULL. SANDAL.-See DRESS, vol. i. p. 627. SAND FLIES (RVlm of Ex 810 and Wis 1910).- See LICE. SAND LIZARD.—See SNAIL, **SANHEDRIN.— i. The name and its history, ii. ()rigin and history of the institution. iii. l’lace of meeting. iv. Composition, and qualifications for membership. v. The president. yi. Functions and procedure. vii, Latest history. Literature. i. TITE NAME AND ITS IIISTORY..—Sct), hed)"in (i.e. a vuéðptov) was the mame applied to the highest court of justice and supreme council at Jerusalem, and in a wider sense also to lower courts of justice. In the Jewish tradition-literature this designation, borrowed from the Greek, alternates with the post- biblical Heb. 1)-i n): Aram. Nunn i. The Hebrew- Aramaic form lººp (we find also the punctuation Tºp) sprang from the Greek word, the aspiration of the second vowel (from éðpa) becoming audible and being transcribed with n. The ending -tov was pronounced as a monosyllable, with elision of the o, as in other words with the same ending (cf. ºbºe = traXártov, i.e. palativn). The word, how- ever, is found written also without n (see Levy, Wörterb. 2. den Targumim, ii. 175; NIH WB iii. 553b). From lºn^n)b, which sounded like a Semitic plural, there was even formed a sing, form "Tºp, which is met with not infrequently. Both forms were treated as feminines. From YYY}}P was formed the plur. n\NYºn)p. - Owing to the character of the ancient traditions embodied in the Talmudic literature, it cannot be gathered from these when the employment of the Greek word began. In the halachic tradition it makes its appearance as completely naturalized and belonging to the ancient vocabulary of this tradition. The first historical statement in which Josephus employs the word avvéöpiov has regard to the procedure of the Roman governor of Syria, Gabinius, who abrogated the constitution of the country of the Jews, and divided the latter into five districts, each with a synedrion at its head (Ant. XIV. v. 4). One of these symédria had its seat at Jerusalem, and was of exactly the same rank as the others. But it is not likely that the name first took root on this occasion (B.C. 57), and in consequence of the action of Gabinius. For if the term was first employed in his decree degrading the supreme council of Jerusalem, it would surely not have been retained when, a few years afterwards, the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem re- gained its dignity; nor, if it had liad so hateful an origin, would it have gained the popularity which is conspicuous in its employment in the national tradition, and especially in that connected with religious legislation. Iłut a direct proof of the earlier origin of our loan-word may be drawn from the Alexandrian translation of the OT. In the LXX version of the Book of Proverbs avvéðptov is used pretty frequently : so in 1517 to reproduce - D in the sense of “deliberative assembly' (cf. also 1118 and 32°, likewise Jer 1517). In 2620 ºn pil is ren- dered by év a vueóplots. But specially striking are the renderings of 2210 and 31*. In the former of these passages the translator read ºn nºn ne”) for Nº nau's), and rendered accordingly 8tav yāp ka9laſm év a vyebptºp, where, however, ovvéöptov is, as in the language of the l’alestinian schools, equivalent to TT nº. In the other passage the second half of the verse is rendered hulka &v Kablo m év orvueóptºp uetá Töv yepôvrwv Katotkav ràs y?s. The addition év arvveóplº is plainly occasioned by the mention of the elders' of the land, for the members of the Sanhedrin are called Dº (Trpeggūrepot), and the Sanhedrin itself (see below) also bears the title ºyepovo (a. — Now We do not know When the Book of l’roverbs was translated into Greek, but in all probability it is included among the ‘other books,” besides the l’entateuch and the Prophets, whose translation into Greek is mentioned in the Prologue to Sirach. In that case the Greek translation of Proverbs would have been in existence as early as B.C. 130, and avvéöptov had been then for a long time the common property of the Jewish school speech, into which it must have found its way at the era of the Graeco-Syrian supremacy. ii. () It IG IN ANI) HISTOl: Y Ol' 'I’ll lº INSTITUTION. —1. It might be assumed beforehand that the institution which received the Greek title avvéðptov in the 2nd cent. B. C. had also an existence of some kind during the earlier centuries of the second temple. It has been suggested that the GREAT SYNAGOGUE (nºn-in rD)2), which in the school tradition (see Aboth i. 1) forms the connect- **Copyright, 1902, by Charles Scribner's Sons 398 SANHEDRIN SANHEDRIN ing link between the last of the Prophets and the first teachers of the Ilaw who are named in the Greek period, was nothing else than the supreme council of Jerusalem, afterwards całłed the Sam- hedrin. But it is to be noted as a fact that the school tradition itself understands by nºnan nb)) not an institution persisting for centuries, but that extremely important assembly held under Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh 8–10), which was called the “great,” just as 1 Mac 14* gives the name avvaywy?) ueyā)\m to the assembly which nominated Simon hereditary prince and high priest. Of course it is possible that the Supreme council of Jerusalem was thought of as the continuation of that great assembly, or, rather, that the great assembly was thought of as the supreme council, the Sanhed in of the period between the last of the l’rophets and the beginning of the Greek domination. Such a conception would make its way all the more readily, seeing that later tradi- tion contracted this period to a few decades. It would also explain the circumstance that in the Roll of Fasts (Megillat Ta&mith) the Sanhedrin is called snº (= nops) in the passage cited below. An actual trace of the highest court of justice as it existed in Jerusalem at the close of the l’ersian period should perhaps be discovered in the de- scription of the college of judges which, according to 2 Ch 19%, king Jehoshaphat instituted at Jeru- salem, and whose functions are specified, having regard to Dt 178. In this description the Chronicler had before his mind's eye the institution as it existed in Jerusalem in his own day. 2. In the records relating to the Greek period we find the supreme council of Jerusalem bearing the designation yepovata. It is so named by Antiochus the Great (c. 200 B.C.) at the head of the leading classes of the Jews who are freed from all imposts and taxes (Jos. Amt. XII. iii. 3). Antiochus V., in a letter to the Jewish people (B.C. 164), offers greetings tº Yepova {q rôv 'Iovöalwu (2 Mac 1127). Elsewhere, too, in the narratives of the Maccabaean era, there is mention of the yepovala, or we find the first place assigned to the “elders' (ol Tpeogórspot) of Israel (cf. Schürer, G.J. V8 ii. 192 [II.JP II. i. 167]). In the Talmudic tradition the Sanhedrin of the Hasmonaean period is called "Nyper ºw Tº nº ‘house of justice of the Has- monacans’ (Aboda zara 36b; Samhed. 82a). Its history coincides partially with the history of the conflicts between the PIHARISIES and S.A.D DUCEES. When John Hyrcanus, towards the end of his reign, shook himself loose from the I’llarisees and declared their enactments to be without force (Jos. Amt. XVI. xi. 1), he is not likely to have accom- plished this without having expelled the Pllarisaic Inelnbers from the Sanhedrin. There came thus into being a ‘Sadducean Sanhedrin” (3-pins ºv ºn-insp; cf. 5-pins by tº nº of Bab. Sanhed. 52b), as it is called in a valuable tradition preserved in § 10 of the Roll of Fasts (Megillat Taanith) which is of importance for the history of the Sanhedrin. IIere it is said that on the 28th of the month Tebet : 99 ºnvºys Niºns N)--, i.e. ‘the assembly constituted itself according to the law,” or ‘the assembly sat for judgment.” According to the accompanying gloss, which rests beyond doubt on historical tradition, this event, whose memory was thus perpetuated by an anni- versary, took place in the reign of Jannaeus, and consisted in the expulsion of the Sadducean members from the Sanhedrin, and in the constitu- tion of a new Sanhedrin, whose deliberations were conducted on Pharisaic principles, under the leadership of Simon ben Shetach. But this victory of the Pharisees was soon followed by the bitterest conflicts between them and Alexander Jannaeus, and by the consequent supremacy of the Sadducees in the Sanhedrin, which, however, had to yield —4 in turn to that of the Pharisees under Jannaeus' successor Salome Alexandra. In the brothers' quarrel amongst the sons of Alexandra, the Sanhedrin must again have played its rôle. This strife led to the intervention of Rome, and not long afterwards to the above, mentioned degradation of the Sanhedrin by Ga- binius. This degradation, however, was only transient, and soon we find the Sanhedrin sitting in judgment upon Herod the young son of Anti- pater (Ant. XIV. ix. 4). This memorable judicial sitting was destined to be fateful for the San- hedrin, those who took part in it falling victims to the bloody revenge of Herod when he came to power (ib.). The institution itself Herod allowed to continue. IIe even utilized the Sanliedrin to get sentence of death passed upon the aged Hyr- canus (Ant. XV. vi. º 3. 1)uring the period of the Roman procurators, which was interrupted for a few years (A.D. 41–44) by the reign of Agrippa I., the Sanhedrin continued to be the supreme authority of the Jewish people. It appears as such in the NT narratives of the trial of Jesus (Mt 2057, Mk 1453 151, Lk 2200, Jn 1147), as well as on other occasions in the early days of Christianity (Ac 415 522ſ. 612t 2290 231ſt. 242). Jesus Himself once (Mt 5*) names the Sanhedrin as the tribunal called on to give judgment in the case of capital offences. In Josephus’ record of the events that occurred in the times of the last procurators and during the war against Rome, the Sanhedrin is mentioned sometimes as a vuéöpuov and sometimes as BovXà. Or he speaks, as is almost his uniform practice in his autobiography, of the Kouvöv Tów "Iepoa oxvur&v (Vita 12. 13. 38.49. 70), or, shortly, to Kouvév (ib. 52. 60), meaning by this especially the Sanhedrin. It was the latter that during the first years of the war with Rome guided affairs and organized the struggle. But when the Zealots seized the reins of power in the besieged Jeru- Salom, they no doubt put the Sanhedrin aside. In order to procure a sentence of death upon a man who had incurred their displeasure, the Zealots assembled ad hoc a tribunal of 70, in which Josephus (IS.J IV. v. 4) sees a caricature of the regular court. Amongst the traditions relating to the melancholy events connected with the fall of the Jewish State, we read not only of the destruction of the Temple but of the “cessation of the Sanhedrin” (Sota ix. end ; Echat rabbathi on La 51%). “With it,” we are told, “ceased the joyous song of the feasts.” 4. As the Jewish people itself, immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem, began a new life in Palestine under new conditions, so also the Sanhed- rin of Jerusalem experienced a kind of resurrec- tion. At Jabneh (Jamnia) an assembly of teachers of the Law constituted itself and regarded itself as the continuation of the Great Sanhedrin. In the first instance a university or academy, but then an assembly which deliberated, which inter- preted the laws of the Jewish religion, and thus became really a legislative and judicial body, this new Sanhedrin, as constituted at Jamnia, had many points of close contact with the old council of Jerusalem. And when Jamnia ceased to be the central point of Jewish scribism, the Sanhedrin migrated—so the tradition expressed it (180sh hashana 31a b, upon the authority of It. Jochanan, f 279)—to other places, till it settled down at Tiberias. This notion of the persistence of the Sanhedrin even after the destruction of Jerusalem, and of its continuance in the high schools of Palestine, has largely influenced the traditions about the Sanhedrin. What was true of the new institution was transferred to the ancient one, and the historical picture of the latter was thus essentially changed. Yet it may be assumed, on SANFIEDRIN SAINHEDRIN 399 the other hand, that faithful adherence to tradi- tion about the ancient Sanhedrin secured the retention in the new body of many peculiarities of the institution as it had existed in its last decades. In this way even the statements about the Sanhedrin preserved in Tammaite tradition and in halachic theory may be treated as historical evidence. It is hard, to be sure, to bring this evidence into harmony with the statements of Josephus and the NT, but all the same it is to these first-named witnesses that we owe our acquaintance with most of the features in the picture we are to draw of the character and activity of the Sanhedrin. - 5. In distinction from the lesser courts of justice which were found in all the cities of the Jews' country, the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem was called the Great Sanhedrin (nºw ºn-in-B or nºw nºn-D, the same as ºria ºn na). The Mishna (Sanhed. i. 6) says on this point: “There was a great Sanhedrin of 71 members and a little Sanhedrin of 23.” According to the Tannaite Jose b. Chalaftha, well known as a chronologist and a source of historical information, there were in Jerusalem itself, besides the Great Sanhedrin, other two little synedria. This statement, which is coupled with informa- tion about the activity of the Sanhedrin (Tosefta, Chagiga ii. 9, and Sanhed. vii. 1 ; Jerus. Samhed. 19e ; Bab. Samhed. 88b), agrees with the anonymous statement of the Mishna (Sanhed. xi. 2) and the Sifré (on Dt 178 $ 152). iii. PLACE OF MEETING...—The seats of the two lesser courts of justice of Jerusalem are specified in the above passages as, respectively, “the entrance of the Temple mount' [in one version ‘the Temple mount’], and ‘the entrance of the Temple court' [in one version of the Chél,” Middoth ii. 3]. The legend of the destruction of Jerusalem (Echa Tab. Prooem. n. 23, ib. on La 2% and 41%; Iſohel. rab. on Ec 310 ; Bab. Gittin 57b) also speaks of the great and the little Sanhedrim.—As the seat of the Great Sanhedrin, the Tannaite tradition (be- sides the above-cited passages, see Mishna, Pećth ii. 6, Eduyoth vii. 4) names ‘the Hall of Hewn Stone' (nºun nby'), which, according to Middoth v. 4, was on the south side of the great court. This hall served the priests also for the disposing by lot of their functions (Mishna, Tamid ii. end; Tosefta, Yoma ii. 10; Bab. Yoma 25&), and as the place for the recitation of the Shema' (Tamid iv. end). According to a baražthat of the Bab, Talmud (Yoma 25a) the ‘Hall of Hown Stone' was in the form of a “great basilica.” I3ut this statement may have arisen from the description of the basilica at Alexandria in which the Sanhedrin there hold its sittings (Tos. Sukkot, iv. 6; Bab. Sukkot 58b). Abayi, a Bab. A mora of the 4th cont., inferred from the stutements about the use of the Hall of Hewn Stone, that the latter lay half on sacred ground and half outside it. In any case tho Hall must be thought of as within the Temple area, and the view of Schürer (G/W II, 311) that nºn moans the $vorós and nnn novº tho hall by the Aystus, and that the latter is identical with the govXij mentioned by Josephus (B.J. v. iv. 2), cannot hold ground. Josephus gives in this passage the situation of the place where the council' (Sanhedrin) hold its sittings during the last years of the Jewish Stato, But, according to a tradition which is to bo regarded as in its kernel true, during the last years of Jerusalem the sittings of the Sanhedrin were no longer held in the Hall of Hewn Stone, but were removed, from it to a place called the ‘trade hall' (nà), war. leo, plur, n\\\\m ‘trade halls '), and from thoro again to ‘Jerusalem' (Shabbath, 150 ; Rosh haºshand, 31(t , Samhed, 4ia ; Aboda gara Sö). According to this authority tho last sittings of the Sanhedrin were held outsido tho Temple area, in the city itself, and it is to this situation that Josephus' words about the BovXi in the neigh- bourhood of the $vatós refer. iv. COMPOSITION OF TIIE COURT.—1. The Great Sanhedrin consisted, according to the above-cited testimony of the Mishna, of 71 members. It is called on that account ins) by: 999 ºn Ind (Shebwoth ii. 2), or ins) byss, ºy ºn nºn (Jose b. Chalaftha, l.c.; cf. also Mishna, Samhed. i. 5; Tos. Sanhed. iii. 4). The derivation of this number from that of the 70 elders of Nu 1119, which with Moses amounted to 71, appears to be old (Mishna, Samhed. i. 6; Sifré on Numbers, $92). It is questionable whether it was this derivation that determined the number of members, or whether the number already estab- lished found its sanction by thus going back to the Bible narrative. According to the above-cited Statement about the basilica of Alexandria, there was in that city also a Sanhedrin of 71 members. The same number was retained at Jamnia, for, as Simon b. Azzai (before A.D. 150) relates, there were 72 elders present, when Iſleazar b. Azarja was associated with Gamaliel II. as president (Mishna, Zebachim i. 3.; Yadaim iii. 5, iv. 2), i.e. one more than the usual number. An isolated tradition, from Jehudah b. Ilai, fixes the total membership at 70 (Mishna, Sanhed. i. 6; Tos. Sanhed. iii. 9), and the Great Sanhedrin is called accordingly 5-yay 92 b (Sifré on Numbers, $92). Josephus likewise chose 70 of the elders of the land to constitute the Supreme authority in the province of Galilee, which had been assigned to him (BJ II. xx. v.); and in the same way the court set up by the Zealots (see above, ii. 3) numbered 70 members. The vacillation of our authorities between the numbers 70 and 71 is no doubt due to the circumstance that the president might be regarded as belonging to the total number or not. 2. We have no positive information as to who composed the Sanlıedrin. The halachic tradition on this point must be regarded as theory, derived only in part from the actual condition of things. The members of the Sanhedrin were called tº “elders’ (= irpeggūrepot), a name which gained its special sense from the fact that the Sanhedrin was regarded as an institution set up by Moses when he nominated the 70 elders (Nu 11). It is members of the Sanhedrin that are meant when it is said that the preparing of the high priest for his functions on the Day of Atonement is to be attended to by Yº nºn ºpin bºopſ (Yoma i. 3, 5). Again, tº is doubtless to be taken in its special sense of member of the Sanhedrin, when the epithet IRX2, is applied to Shammai, Hillel, and Hillel's grandson Gamaliel I. In the NT the members of the Sanhedrim (irpeggūrepot, or Tpeg, roß Naoû) are often named along with the chief priests (ópxtepets) and the scribes (Ypappareſs), for the membership of the Sanliedrin was recruited from these two leading classes (Schürer, l.c. p. 200). Josephus, in whose writings the Sanhedrin is frequently called 8ovXī, also calls its members 8ovNeural (BJ II. xvii. 1). This designation prob- ably accounts for one of the halls of the Temple being called tomºn now', ‘ hall of the 8ovXevral.” The same hall afterwards bore the name İY'Y'Ynºb noy's * hall of the mpósópot ' (Mishna, Yoma i. 1). This last title, which has been handed down by the Tannaite Jehudah b. Ilai (13ab. Yonna Sö), is quite worthy of credit, and it supports the suggestion of Schürer that by the mpéeópot should be understood the highest in rank of the members of the Sanhedrin, the ‘first ten of whom we hear under the procurator Festus (Amt, xx. viii. 11, toys trpºrous Séka ; cf. Schürer, l.c. p.201 f.). Upon tho above-cited authority of Jehudah b. Ilai we are told that the trpágópot were changed overy twelve months, so that the rank of ‘first ton’ was enjoyed by different members of the Sanhedrin every year. If we, further, take into account that the institution of the trpáeópov was of lato origin, we can readily understand how the above change of name for the hall also came into use, The circumstance that the ‘hall of the trpáeópou' was the private residence of the high priest is not difficult to explain, considering the relation of the high priest to the Sanhedrin. The BoyAgurat, afterwards the trpéeópov, may have assembled in the house of the high priest (cf. Mt 2697, Mk 1498) bofore taking their places in the public sitting of the Sanhedrin. 3. Of distinctions of rank within the Sanbedrin we hear nothing, apart from the above-mentioned conjecture. Neither are we aware on what prin- ciple the members were nominated or how the Sanhedrin filled up vacancies in its number. Onlv 400 SANHEDRIN SANHEDRIN two, divergent, statements have come down to us regarding the latter point, and of these one can refer only to the period preceding the destruction of Jerusalem, whereas the other has in view rather the school of Jamnia and its successors. The first statement is found in the above-named narrative of Jose b. Chalaftha, and in an anomy- mous precept of the Tosefta (Shekalim, end), according to which a seat in the Sanhedrin is the last step in the career of judge. Any One who distinguished himself as a judge in his place of residence was advanced to be a member first of the one, then of the other, of the two lesser synedria at Jerusalem, and was chosen finally to be a member of the Great Sanhedrin. According to the other statement (Mishna, Samhed, iv. 4; Tos. Sanhed. viii. 2), in front of the members of the Sanhedrin sat in three rows the non-ordained scribes, and from among these any vacancies in the membership were filled up, the requisite number being chosen and ordained according to a fixed order. It is plain that these two accounts of the filling up of vacancies relate to different periods of time. In the first, which has in view the period before the destruction of Jerusalem, there is no mention at all of the Ordination of the new mem- bers, but we find the expression n°ºn, which means “cause to sit,” implying simply that the new mem- ber had a seat assigned him in the Sanhedrin. This is quite intelligible, for, according to the view we are considering, those who became mem- bers of the Sanhedrin had previously officiated in the lower courts, and were thus ordained already. 4. As to the qualifications for membership in the Sanhedrin, the oft-cited narrative of Jose b. Chalaftha gives a list of the personal qualities which the candidate for this high rank must possess. He had to be learned (bºn), humble (ºxy ; Bab. Sanhed. 88a. Th: ºpe’), popular with his fellow-men (upon nm) nºnan nin). In the different versions of the passage there are yet further moral qualities specified. In the ancient exposition of Nu 1119 (Sifré, § 92) it is inferred from the word vºs (“man”) that the members must be perfect men : learned, courageous, strong, and modest. Jochanan, the Palestinian Amora of the 3rd cent., states the qualifications of a member of the San- hedrin thus: táll stature, learning, dignified bear- ing, advanced age. Further, in order to be able to meet the demands of his office, he must be acquainted with foreign languages and initiated into the mysteries of the art of magic (Bab. Sanhed. 17b). As the high court of justice described in 2 Ch 198 consisted of ‘Levites, priests, and heads of Israelitish families,” so in the ancient exposition of Dt 17" (Sifré, ad loc., § 15 a.d. in it.) it is stated that the court dealing with law cases in ust have priests and Levites amongst its members, but that even without these it might be legitimately composed. A rule of the Mishna (Kiddushim iv. 5) is to the effect that an inquiry as to purity of family descent is not to be carried beyond the Sanhedrin, since no one can be a member of it whose origin is not unques- tionable. It is actually described in another rule (Sanhed. iv. 2) that judges in criminal cases, including therefore members of the Sanhedrin, are to be only priests, Levites, or Israelites whose daughters may be marrical by priests. V. T.III. PIRES II) ENT OF THE SANIIEDRIN.—1. On this point the tradition-literature contains state- ments which it is difficult or impossible to recon- cile with the reports of Josephus and the NT. The last are meagre, indeed, and do not give a distinct picture of the method of procedure in the Sanhedrin and of the action of its president. But from Josephus we learn that in B.C. 47 the Has- monacan high priest and prince Hyrcanus II. called the Sanhedrin together and directed the procedure in the case of Herod (Ant. XIV. ix. 4 f.), and that in A. D. (2 the Sadducean high priest A manus II. summoned the Sanhedrin, in order to have some sentences of death passed (ib. XX. ix. 1). At the trial of Jesus, the high priest Caiaphas appears at the head of the Sanhedrin (Mt 2007), as does the high priest Ananias at the trial of St. Paul (Ac 24"). Of such a function belonging to the high priest (cf. also 2 Ch 1911) there is not the slightest trace in the tradition-literature. On the contrary, it is assumed as an axiom that the Sanhedrin had its own president, making up the number of members to 71 (see above). The simplest designa- tion of the president is ºn nº sºn ‘head of the house of justice ' (IRosh hashana ii. 7, iv. 4), which in the later haggadic literature is represented by lºnnnyb he wsn (Pesikta rabbathi, c. xi. p. 43b), lºnnnyb vsh (Tamchuma, ed. Buber, i. 175), vs- nishinib (Esther rab. on 118). But the title that must be regarded as peculiar to the president is Tº nº as ‘father of the house of justice.” As head of the supreme court, the 'Ab Béth Din is once named after the king (Yoma vii. 5), once after the ‘prince' (Taanith ii. 1), by which last title is meant the head of the State, who, after the usage of the l’entateuch and especially of Ezekiel, is frequently called in the halachic literature s tº ‘prince'; once it is expressly said, with allusion to Lv 4”, Tºpn ni svin inns) (Horayoth iii. 3). Now, remarkably enough, the same word she') became the title of the president of the Sanhedrin. The sitting arrangements of the Sanhedrin are thus described (Tos. Samhed. viii. 1; Jerus. Sanhed. 10c) : “The Sanhedrin sat in a semicircle [lit. ‘like the half of a circular threshing-floor']; in the middle sat the Nasi, and the elders [i.e. the mem- bers of the Sanhedrin] sat upon his right hand and upon his left.” This statement appears to relate to the Sanhedrin of Jamnia, for it is followed im- mediately by the reminiscences of a teacher of the Law regarding that Sanhedrin. IEleazar b. Zadok reports: “When R. Gamaliel [Gamaliel II.] held the presidency at Jamnia, my father and another sat to the right, the others to the left.” 2. It is not till the post-Hadrianic era that the "Ab Béth Dim appears side by side with the Nasi as joint-president. Jochanan (t 279) records— doubtless on the basis of trustworthy tradition —that R. Simon b. Gamaliel (the son of Gamaliel II.) was Nasi, while R. Nathan was 'Ab Béth Din (Bab. Horayoth 13b). This double presidency, to designate which the two titles of the president of the Sanhedrin are utilized, is carried back, in a quite isolated notice of the Mishna (Chaſſiga ii. 2), to the time when the Temple still existed. We are told there of a controversy about a religious law which went on for five generations, always between two teachers of the Law. The five pairs of teachers named (the last pair being Ilillel and Shammai) are the same who, according to the Mishna (Aboth i. 1), were the bearers of the tradition, and who are once (Peah ii. 5) summarily designated, as such, nunſ ‘the Pairs.” That these pairs were tho most noted teachers of their time, the Pharisaic heads of the schools of the 2nd and 1st cent. B.C., is known to us also from other traditions about most of them. But the above notice, according to which the first of the pairs was always Nasi and the second 'Ab Béth Din, must be regarded as a trans- ferring of later relations to early times. If ‘pair' had the meaning attributed to it by the author of the notice, it would be incomprehensible, apart from anything else, why the series of pairs came to an end with Hillel and Shammai. Nevertheless, the ‘ Pairs’ belonged to the leading members of the Sanhedrin, as is witnessed in the case, for instance, of Simon b. Shetach, from other quarters. One of the pairs, Shemayah and Abtalion, is mentioned also by Josephus as belonging to the Sanhedrin (Amt. XV. i. 1, where they appear as Pollion and Samcas). - 3. Yet another transference of later relations to SANHEDRIN SANHEDRIN 401 early times took place with respect to the title Nasi. This title, which from the second half of , the 2nd cent. A.D. onwards had become hereditary, was also attributed to the forefathers of its heredi- tary bearers. It was said (Bab. Shabbath 15a) that Hillel, his son Simon, Simon's son Gamaliel, and Gamaliel's son Simon, held the position of Nasi during the last century of the second Temple (B.C. 30-A.D. 70); and the appointment of Hillel to be Nasi, i.e. president of the Sanhedrin, is described in a narrative emanating from the Tannaite period (Tos. Pesachim iv. end ; Jerus. I’esach. 33a; Bab. Pesach, 66a). Both this narrative and the above chronological notice, apart from the title Nasi, have a historical foundation. For, although we hear nothing else- where of Hillel's son, we know that Hillel himself, as well as his grandson Gamaliel I. and his great- grandson Simon b. Gamaliel I., were amongst the leading men in Jerusalem. The last named was one of the directors of the war against the Romans, as we learn from Josephus (IBJ IV. iii. 9; Vita, 38), who, moreover, mentions that he was descended from an illustrious family. Hillel and Gamaliel I. are known not only as notable scribes, but also as the founders of institutions and enactments, which prove that they must have played a leading rôle in the supreme court, the Sanhedrim. That Gamaliel I., at whose feet Saul of Tarsus, the future Apostle Paul, sat as a pupil (Ac 22%), took the lead in the Sanhedrin, may be seen from the well-known marrative of Ac 584-39. Of course, all this does not prove that Hillel and his successors were presidents of the Sanhedrin. The statements of Josephus and the NT about the presidency of the high priest are too definite to be got over. 13ut, on the other hand, we may not summarily reject the supposition that in a body, composed for the most part of scribes and called on to decide questions which demanded an expert acquaintance with the Law, the heads of the scribal body took the first place side by side with the high priests, who were only exceptionally scribes as well, and that perhaps the l’harisaic heads of schools were even formally invested with a certain rank in the Samhedrin, approaching closely to that of president. In this way, as a matter of fact, the title ‘father of the house of justice' ('Ab Béth Dín) may, as has been held by many investigators, have been in use oven at a time when the president proper of the Sanhedrin was still the high priest. On closer consideration one cannot escape the impression that neither at the time of the Hasmonucan high priosts nor at that of the high priests appointed by IIerod and by the Roman procurators, could the Sanhedrin have been without a guidance not identical with the presidency of the high priest. The school traditions regarding the position held by the Pharisaic school heads in the Sanhedrin possess thus a kernel of historical truth, even if they are adapted to later conditions and artificially constructed. 4. Another question is how the term Nasi, which is used for the head of the State, could come to be the title of the president of the Sanhedrin. Two hypotheses are possible. (a) The title may go back to the time when the high priest who as such presided over the Sanhedrin was also actually prince (sº) or head of the State, i.e. to the time of the Hasmonaean rulers. Or (b) the title ‘prince' may have been given, after the destruction of Jerusalem, to the president of the Sanhedrin at Jamnia, Gamaliel II., in order, as it were, that at least in the naming of the head of the highest authority which had arisen from the ruins of the national independence, there might be preserved a symbol of that independence. The second hypothesis is the more likely, because the first would imply that the title Nasi continued unused during more than a whole century until it was revived in the way indicated in the second explanation, after the fall of Jerusalem. 5. The assumption of the title Nasi by Gamaliel II. VOL. IV.-26 and then by his son Simon was probably connected with the belief that the family of Hillel was descended from the Davidic royal house. There was thus coupled with the title in an esoteric kind of way a recollection of the former princes of the house of David. It was not till the time of Gamaliel II.'s grandson Jehudah I., who was called Nasi kar’ &#oxºv, that the title became the official designation of the head, recognized even by the Roman government, of the Jews in Palestine, i.e. of their patriarch. Its meaning as president of the Sanhedrin then fell into the second place. vi. FUNCTIONS AND PROCEDURE.-1. The Greaf Sanhedrin at Jerusalem was primarily the Supreme court of justice, which had either the sole right of judgment in certain specially important matters, or was appealed to on questions upon which the lower courts were unable to come to a decision. As to this last point, we learn from the oft-cited report of Jose b. Chalaftha (Tos. Sanhed. vii. 1 and parall.) the following: “When the first competent tribunal failed to come to a finding, the litigant, accompanied by the most distinguished member of this court, betook himself to Jerusalem to submit his case in the first place to the two lesser synedria (see above). If neither of these could come to a decision, the question came for final judgment before the Great Sanhedrin.” There can be no doubt that a kernel of historical truth underlies this description of the train of judicial procedure (see also Mishna, Sanhed. xi. 2).-In regard to cases reserved for the sole competence of the Great Sanhedrin, the Mishna (Sanhed. i. 5) enumerates the following points upon which only the ‘tribunal of the seventy-one” was entitled to judge and pro- nounce a verdict : (1) A process affecting a tribe; (2) the process against a false prophet ; (3) a pro- cess affecting the high priest ; (4) the sending out of the army to a non-compulsory war; (5) the extension of the city of Jerusalem ; (6) the extens sion of the Temple courts; (7) the appointment of synedria over the tribes; (8) the judging of a city which had lapsed into idolatry (see Dt 139*). With reference to the fourth point, it is enacted also amongst the decrees affecting the king, that the latter is to lead the army out to war only upon the authority of a decision of the Great Sanhedrin (Mishna, Samhed. ii. 4). The eight points bear, indeed, a theoretical stamp, and even presuppose the continued existence of the tribes (the first of them has for background the narrative of Jg 20 f.); but, on the other hand, they witness that, even in halachic theory, the Great Sanhedrin figures not merely as a court of justice, but also as the body that was called on to give decisions in State matters and which exercised administrative autho- rity, in the fashion exhibited to us by the state- ments and narratives, meagre as they are, contained in other sources. A Tannaite rule (TOS. Samhed, iii. 4) prescribes that the installation of a king and of a high priest is to belong only to the tribunal of the seventy-one. 2. Cases affecting life and death came, according to the Mishna (Sanhed. i. 4), before the little Sanhedrin (of 23 members). As a matter of fact, in important instances the Great Sanhedrim was called together to pronounce judgment. Accord- ing to a Tannaite tradition (Jerus. Sanhed. 18q, 24b), the right of judging in matters of life and death was taken from Israel (i.e. from the Jewish courts) forty years before the destruction of the Temple. ‘Forty here is a round mumber and un- historical, but the circumstance related by this tradition and confirmed by the Gospel accounts of the trial of Jesus is historical, and is connected with the restrictions imposed on the competence of the Jewish courts, and of the Great Sanhedrin in particular, in the time of the Roman procurators, 402 SANHEDRIN SAPHUTHI 3. The decisions of the Great Sanhedrin ‘from which went forth direction for all Israel,” were of inviolable force, and binding upon all teachers of the Law and all judges. Any one of these who gave a judgment in opposition to its decrees was called a “rebellious elder' (nºpp ſpr], and was con- demned by the Great Sanhedrin (Sanhed. xi. 2–4). The rules for dealing with occasional errors of the Sanhedrin in giving decisions or in interpreting the Ilaw are casuistically exhibited in the first chapter of the Mishnic tract Horayoth. 4. The Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem sat in the Hall of Hewn Stone (see above, iii.). Accord- ing to the report of Jose b. Chalaftha, it held its sittings from the time of the offering of the daily morning sacrifice till that of the evening sacrifice (Tos. Sanhed. vii. 1, and parall.). On the Sabbath and on feast days no sittings were held, but the members of the Sanhedrin assembled in the school situated on the temple mount (ib.; in Iłab. Sanhed. 88b, instead of the ‘school' [nº mºnary whºrn nºn] it is the place called Chêl, where at other times [see above, iii.] one of the two lesser synedria held its sittings). The members of the Sanhedrin sat in a semicircle, that they might see one another while deliberating (Mishna, Samhed. iv. 2; Tos. Sanhed. viii. 1). “Two clerks of court (now-in n>D) stood before them, the one to the right and the other to the left, and took down the words of those who gave their voice for acquittal and of those who were for condemnation " (Mishna, Sanhed. iv. 2). According to Jehudah b. Ilai (ib.) there were three clerks: one took down the votes for acquittal, one those for condemnation, while the third took down both (in order to check the lists of the other two). In the report of Jose b. Chalaftha it is said that, when a question came before the Great Sanhedrin, and the reply could not be given on the ground of a tradition, it was decided by the votes of the majority. As to the mode of deliberating and voting and the distinc- tions which were observed according to the nature of the subject under consideration, tradition con- tains a multitude of rules which, it may safely be inferred, are based upon the actual praxis of the Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem. Some of these rules may be cited :-In questions of civil right and in those affecting the Ceremonial Law, the taking of the vote began with the principal mem- ber of the Sanliedrin ; in judgments affecting life and death it began “at the side,” i.e. with the younger members, in order that their vote might not be influenced by that of the leaders (Mishna, Sanhed. iv. 2; Tos. Sanhed. vii. 2). I’or a judg- ment affecting life and death an attendance of at least 23 members was required. If the result of the vote showed a majority of only one for “guilty,” the court had to be increased by two successively till the number of 71 was reached. Only when the full number was present, was a majority of one (36 votes against 35) sufficient to procure a con- demnation (Mishna, Sanhed. iv. 5). vii. I, ATEST IIISTORY OF THE SANIIEDIRIN.— The Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem, as we have already said, revived, after the fall of Jerusalem, in the schools of Palestine. The activity of the college of scribes, in which the tradition of the Pharisaic schools was perpetuated and underwent vigorous development, attached itself to the work of the defunct supreme court of Jerusalem, and it strengthened its authority by adopting the name and the constitution of the Great Sanhedrin. I)own to the 5th cent. , i.e. down to the cessation of the office of patriarch or Nasi, which was heredi- tary in the house of Hillel, there existed in the Holy Land an institution which could be regarded as a continuation of the Great Sanhedrin. After Babylon became the one centre of Jewish learning in the time of the Gaons, the name “Sanhedrin' was given to the most eminent members of the so- called Iſalla assemblies, the 70 scholars who sat in the first seven rows and who at all events were chosen upon a fixed principle. Even recent times have witnessed a revival of the name of the ancient Sanhedriu. In the year 1807, at the summons of Napoleon I. there met in Paris an assembly of representatives of Judaism, which at the invitation of the Emperor himself took the name “Sanhedrin,” and constituted itself upon the traditional model of the Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem. Apart from a few declarations as to the relation of the Jewish religion to State law and of Jews to non-Jews, this assembly has left no permanent traces. LiterATURE.—In all accounts of Jowish history at the time of the second temple, as well as in the lIistories of NT times, the Sanhedrin is treated of in more or less detail. The sources are the writings of Josephus and the NT on the one hand, and the Jewish tradition-literature on the other. Amongst the latter the name Sanhed rim is attached to the tracts of the Mishna and Tosefta dealing with justice and its administration, as well as to the corresponding tracts of the Jerus, and Bab. Talmuds. Of the Literature cited by Schürer (GJ V8 ii. 188 f.) the following works and treatises, dealing specially with the Sanhedrin, may be selected for mention: Selden, de Symed riſis et Pra fecturis juridic is veterum, Jº brazon'tm, Ilond. 1650–55; Sachs, “Ueber die Zeit der lºntstehung des Šynhedrins' (in Frankel's Zeitschrift, 1845, F. 301–312); Levy, ‘I)ie Praesi- dentur im Synedrium ' (in Frankel's Monatsschrift, 1855); Langen, ‘I)as jūdische Synedrium und die rêmische Procura- tur in Judia' (in Tübin (ſer. Theoloſ/ische Quarta/8chrift, 1862, pp. 411–463); Kuenen, “Ueber die Zusammensetzung des Sanhe- di'in ' (Gesam. Abhandl. 2. bill. Wis 8em sch., Budde's tr. pp. 49–S1); I). IIoffmann, “I)er obersto Gerichtshof in der Stadt des Heiligthums' (Programm des Jºabbin er-Seminares 27t Berlin for 1877–78); Jelski, Die innero Jºvrichtunſ, des (77°ossez, Symedrions 2w Jerusalem wºnd ihre Foytsetzumſ/ im, späten'en paldistinensischen Lehrhause bis zur Zeit des Iº. Jehºvda ha- Nasi, Breslau, 1894. Not mentioned by Schürer is a work in Hebrew by the well-known Jakob Reiſmann, entitled "TJD (61 pages), published at Berditschew in 1888. W. BACHER. SANSANNAH (n,p)p; B Xeffevvák, A Xavorávva ; Sensenna). — A town in the Negeb (RV ‘the South ') allotted to Judah (Jos 15%). It is not mentioned amongst the towns in the Negeb that belonged to Simeon. Ibut, comparing the list in Jos 1591 with the parallel lists in Jos 19° and 1 Ch 481, it will be seem that its place is taken in the one case by Hazar-Susah, and in the other by Hazar-susim. There is no indication of its posi- tion, a question upon which authorities differ. Tristram identifies it with IBeit Susin on the road from Gaza to Egypt; Schwarz (Heil. Land, p. 72), with Simsim on a height N.I. of Gaza; and Guérin, with Săsieh, E.N.E. of es-Semº'a (Esh- temoa). C. W. WILSON. SAPH (hP; B 2.4%, A Xeqé), called in Chronicles Sippai (ºp; B Xaqoºr, A 2eqqit). —One of four Philistine champions of whom it is related that they were born to the giant in Gath, and that they were slain by David's heroes (2 S 2118, 1 Ch 204). There is no difficulty in supposing that he was a son of the Goliath whom l)avid Slew, but it is perhaps more natural to understand the term “the giant' as a collective, making him merely of the same giant stock with Goliath. See GIANT. W. J. BEECIILIR. SAPHAT.-1. (B Xaq,4), A Xaq,4t, AV Sabat) | Es 594. His sons are named among the sons of Solomon's servants who returned with Zerubbabel. There is no corresponding name in the lists of Ezr and Nell. 2. (Bºom., A Xaq,ár, Bab ng 'Agdºp) 1 Es 59–Shephatiah, ICzr 2*. SAPHATIAS (B Xoſportas, A om.), 1 Es 8% = Shephatiah (cf. Ezr 8°); called Saphat in 59. SAPHUTHI (B Xaqvel, A 2aqv0t, AV Sapheth), SAPPHIRA SARAH 403 1 Es 5*=Shephatiah, one of the sons of Solomon's servants, Ezr 297. SAPPHIRA (Xatrºbelpm).-The wife of Ananias. She fell dead, like her husband, at the rebuke of St. Peter, Ac 5*. See ANANIAS, No. 7. SAPPHIRE (Heb. ºpp, LXX adtſpeºpos, Vulg. sapphirus) is mentioned eleven times in the OT, once in the Apocr. (To 13%), and once in the NT (Rev 21*). It is one of the stones in the high riest's breastplate (Ex 28° 39"), and one of the oundations of the New Jerusalem (Rev 21”), the latter thought arising, no doubt, from Is 54”. It was of considerable value (Job 28%, Ezk 28”). From it was fashioned the throne of Ezekiel's visions (Ezk 1* 10"; cf. also Ex 2419, where the pavement under the feet of the God of Israel is of “sapphire'). The consistency with which the WSS adhere to a uniform transliteration of the name is remarkable ; Ezk 28° is no exception, for although nºt is here seventh in order, and adºr- qelpos fifth, this is due to the Greek following the arrangement of Ex 28*. The etymology of the Heb. word throws no light on the nature of the stone. Probably ºpp is Semitic, but neither of the roots nep or new tells us anything as to colour or structure. It is, how- ever, difficult to believe that a sapphire was one of the gems in the high priest’s breastplate, for this stone is not easy to engrave, the diamond being the only stone that will scratch it. A similar objection might be brought against the lapis lazuli [l’etrie's identification in STONES (PRECIOUS)], which was not deemed very suitable for engraving because of the hard points in it. But the objection has not quite so much force in this case; the lapis lazuli was sometimes engraved. And there are good reasons for thinking that this is the stone referred to in the Bible. Theophrastus (Lap. 23) evidently lias in view the d.º. mineral which is “usually mottled with white, and contains gold- like specks of iron pyrites,” when he describes the ord trºpelpos, Öatrep xpva Ötraoros. Pliny (IIN 37, 119), Writing of the cyanos, states: incst ei aliquando et antreus pulvis qualis Sappiris; by the sappirus he clearly means the lapis lazuli. And if we identify it with the Heb. nº, the requirements of all the biblical passages will be fairly met. Two varieties of lapis lazuli, a natural and an artificial, were known to the ancients. The former came from Cyprus and Scythia, and was “a silicate and sulphate of calcium, sodium, and aluminium.’ The latter was made in Egypt : it was an alkaline silicate, coloured deep- blue with carbonate of copper ; Scarabs and signets were made of it, and it was used as a pigment. If the Sapphire of our Bibles does not correspond with the gem now known by this name, it yet re- mains probable that this gem is once mentioned. RV m suggests sapphire in place of jacinth (Jákudos) in Rey 21”. Middleton (Engraved Gems, p. 132) and King (Antique Gems, p. 46) are in favour of the identification. Pliny (IIN 37, 125) seems at first sight to be against it, for he writes of the fulgor violaceus of the hyacinthos; but his view is not really adverse, for the less valuable sapphires are amethyst by artiſicial light. Ring (pp. 51, 399) quotes the lines of Marbodus as recognizing with astonishing clearness, considering his date, the fact that Sapphires, rubies, and Oriental topazes are all of them varieties of the same mineral, namely, the hyacinth— “Three various kinds the skilled as Hyacinths name, Varying in colour and unlike in fame: One, like pomegranate flowers, a flery blaze : And one the yellow citron's hue displays. Onc charms with paley bluo the gazer's eye Like the mild tint that decks the morthern sky.” The best Sapphires are now obtained from Ceylon. The Greeks wore these stones as jº. A few engraved ones have survived, mainly from the age of imperial Rome, but the gem was too hard to be much used for this purpose. Cf. art. JACINTH in vol. ii. J. TAYLOR. SARABIAS 1 Es 9% = Sherebiah, Neh 87. SARAH, also (to Gn 1719) SARAI (“Sarah’ means ‘princess,’ 1 IX 11° al.; the meaning of ‘Sarai’ is doubtful: perhaps [Olsh. Lehrb. § 110; Nöldeke, ZDMG, 1886, p. 183, 1888, p. 484; König, Lehrg. ii. 1, 427] it is an older form of ‘Sarah,” formed with the unusual fem, term. -ay).”—1. The wife of Abraham, first mentioned in Gn 11” (J). Sarai’s parentage is not given : according to 2012 (E), she was Abraham’s half-sister, the daughter of his father, but not the daughter of his mother. The incidents of her life llave already been narrated at some length in connexion with ABRAHAM, HAGAR, ISAAC, and ISHMAEL ; so that a résumé will be sufficient here. Sarai accompanied Abraham into Canaan (12°), and went down with him into Egypt (12”: J): it was on this occasion that, fearing lest her beauty might indirectly cost him his life, Abraham passed her off as his sister, and, being admired before the Pharaoh by his courtiers, she was sent for and taken into his palace. This was in accordance with the custom, described as still prevalent among Oriental princes, of arbitrarily selecting beautiful women to be added to their harems.j. Abraham's timidity and want of candour might have involved him in serious consequences; but the Pharaoh contented himself with rebuking him for his untruthfulness, and appointing an escort to conduct both him and Sarai out of the country (v.”; cf. 18" 31°7). From 124, compared with 1717, it appears that Sarai was at this time at least 65 years of age ; and it has often been won- dered why Abraham should have been in alarm on the ground stated, and why the Pharaoh should have been attracted by her beauty. The difficulty disappears when it is remembered that the statements about Sarai's age belong to a different document (P) from the one (J) which narrates the visit to Egypt : the author of the latter evidently pictured Sarai as still a young woman. (Cf. for similar cases elsewhere in Genesis, vol. ii. pp. 4S4 (No. 3), 503b, 532b). (2apaglas), Sarai is next mentioned in ch. 16 (J, except vv.” “”). Being barren (cf. 1199), she induces Abraham to take her handmaid Hagar as a con- cubine; but when she finds that Hagar ‘despises’ her, she passionately and unjustly casts the blame upon her husband : “The wrong done to me be upon thee; J" judge between me and thee.’ Abraham, however, declines to interfere; and bids Sarai herself deal with Hagar as she pleases. Her harsh treatment of her handmaid compels Hagar to take ſlight ; and only the voice of J”s angel induces her to return, and ‘submit herself to her mistress (see, more fully, HAGAli and ISILMAEL). In the existing text of Genesis, the promise of a son for Sarai is ſirst distinctly given in ch. 17 (P), vv.*. Her name is changed to Sarah (v.19); she is to be blessed, and a son is to be born to her ; * Found in certain words in the cognate languages. See Olsh. and Rönig, ll.cc.; Nöld. Syr. Gr. § 83; Wright, Arab. Gramv. i. § 295, Comp. Grann. 138; Dillm. Aeth. Gram. 127c (cf. § 120b £); Barth, Nominallyildung, SS5. Sayce's doubts (IICM 179) are unfounded. The explanation (Jerome and older seholars) my princess’ is philologically impossible. The LXX gives for Sarat Sopo, and for Sarah Szppo. f Cf. MARRIAGE, vol. iii. p. 267b; W. R. Smith, Kinship, 162 f. The tradition (Jos, Amt. i. vi. 5, al.) that she was the same person as IscAli has no probability : it can only be reconciled artificially with 2012; and had the writer of 112) identified Sarai with Iscah, he would certainly have worded the verse differently. # There is an incident quoted by Ebers in the ‘Tale of the Two IBrothers’ which partly illustrates this ; see l’etrie's Egyptian Tales, 2nd ser., 1895, pp. 53–55. ºmmºns 404 SARAH ** SARDIS ‘she shall become nations’ (cf. v.4 35"); ‘kings of peoples shall be from her’ (cf. v." 35” ; and see 36"). Abraham “laughs’ in incredulity at the idea of a son being born to him and Sarah in their old age; he fixes his hopes upon Ishmael, but is told that, though Ishmael will become a “great nation,” the covenant will be established with Isaac (vv.”). In ch. 18 (J) the promise of a son is again given to Abraham ; and when Sarah, over- hearing it, “laughs’ inwardly in incredulity, it is repeated to herself (vy.**). This narrative is in reality not the sequel to the one in ch. 17, but parallel to it : 18°1' is clearly written without reference to 17**, and the writer is evidently not conscious that a promise of the same kind had already been given. Ch. 20 (E) describes Sarah’s adventure at the court of Abimelech, in Gerar, i.e. (Trumbull, Guthe, Dillm., Buhl, p. 89) the Wädy Jerôr, 70 miles S. of Gaza, and 55 miles S.W. of Beersheba. As before (12”) in Egypt, Abraham, in fear on account of his own life (v.”), passes Sarah off as his sister : Abimelech takes her, but is warned by God in a dream that she is a married woman; like the Pharaoh (121*), though in stronger terms, he rebukes Abraham for his deceit (v."); Abraham excuses (v.”) and defends (v.”) himself; and Abimelech then makes reparation, both to Abra- ham (v.”), and to Sarah (v."), for the injury he has unwittingly done them. The narrative is in substance remarkably similar to those in 121° (Abraham and the Pharaoh) and 26*” (Isaac and Abinelech); it can hardly be doubted that all three are variations of the same fundamental theme, a popular story told of the patriarchs, and attached sometimes to one and sometimes, at different localities, to another (cf. ABIMELECH, vol. i. p. 9"; ISAAC, vol. ii. p. 484°). Isaac's birth is narrated in 211-7 (vv.” ” J.; vv.0. 7 E.; vv. 19.” P). The exclamation in v.” (“God hath prepared laughter for me; every one that heareth will laugh over me’) is meant as a third explanation of the name “Isaac’ (cf. 17” in P, 18” in J.; and see ISAAC, vol. ii. p. 485, No. 8) ; v.7 the aged mother gives expression to her joyous surprise at the birth of a son. Two or three years afterwards (21°), upon occasion of the family-feast held to celebrate Isaac's weaning, Sarah's jealousy of her handmaid is again aroused ; she peremptorily demands the expulsion of both Hagar and Ishmael; and Abraham reluctantly complies (21***). Ch. 23 (P) relates the death of Sarah (cf. the allusion of J in 24"), at the age of 127 years, in Kiriath-arba (Hebron), and the purchase by Abraham of a cave in the field of MACHPELAH, ‘in front of MAMRE, in which to bury her (cf. 25" P, 49* P). The only other reference in the OT to Sarah is Is 51°, where she is alluded to as the mother of the chosen Tace.” Sarah is a typical but not an ideal character. She is a devoted wife and mother ; but, at the same time, like many another yoznan, imperious, hasty in her judgments, and jeulois ; wrapt up in her husband and her son, she resents the smallest disparagement, or assumption of Buperiority, on the part of either Hagar or Islamael, and does not rest satisfied till she finds herself in her home without a rival. In NT Sarah is mentioned Ro 419 99 (Gn 1814), He 11” (her faith), 1 P 3" (her conjugal “obedience’ to Abraham, calling him “lord,” Gn 18”); and the narrative of Sarah and Hagar, and of their respec- tive children, is treated allegorically, as fore- shadowing the freedom of Christians, the ‘children of promise,’ in Gal 4”-5' (cf. HAGAR, vol. ii. p. 278). 2. The daughter of Raguel and wife of Tobias, * In Gn 2497a the very strange syntax of the existing IIeb, text makes it probable that ‘of his mother Sarah' is a gloss. *sº sº ToBIT (Book To 3’ ” and oft. (LXX Xàppa). r . R. DRIVER, OF). SARAIAS.–1. (Xapalas) l Es 5*, Seraiah, the high priest of Zedekiah’s time, father of Jehozadak, and grandfather of Jeshua (cf. 1 Ch 6"). 2. (Sarents) 2 Es 1", the father of Ezra. It is uncertain whether he is the same person as the AZARAIAS of 1 Es 8", where the following ZECHRIAS takes the place of Azaraias of 2 Es 1". SARAMEL, RV Asaramel (A XapauéA, NV (Agap. apé\; Asaramel).-Saramel Oppears to be a word in the original Heb. or Syr. vext of 1 Mac. which the translator did not untierstand when pre- paring the existing Gr. version. Nearly all com- mentators adopt the reading Asarannel. By some, including Luther, it is held to be a place-name, and to have been the spot at which the assembled Jews made Simon Maccabaeus ‘their leader and high priest’ (1 Mac 14*.*). By others various restorations of the Hebrew text have been pro- posed.—1. (Wē)sar-am-'êl, and prince of the people of God,” understanding this as a title of Simon. The original w8, “and,’ is supposed to have been corrupted into be, ‘in.” This view, first pro- posed by Wernsdorf (1747), is adopted by Scholz, Grimm, Schürer, Zöckler, Kautzsch, Kraetzschmar, and others. 2. (Bö)sha'ar-am-'êl, “at the gate of the people of God,' or—3. (Br)házar-am-'é!, ‘in the court of the people of God’ (Ewald, et al.). 4. A. R. S. Kennedy (Eamos. Times, Aug. 1900, p. 523 ff.) proposes either (a) ba'āzār [ath Yisra]’él, * in the court of Israel,” which was incorrectly deciphered ba'izar-ham-'él, the letters 5 and • and b and w being very like each other in the older Phoen, characters; or (b) ba'āzart-am-'él, ‘in an assembly of the people of God.’. He prefers the former. - C. W. WILSON. SARAPH (Tºy; B Xatá, A Xapáº).-A descendant of Shelah, 1 Ch 4”. & SARCHEDONUS.—The form in which the name ESAR-HADDON (which see) appears in To 1". The misspelling ‘Sarchedonus’ of the AV has been retained, surely inadvertently, by the I&V. The correct form is ‘Sacherdonus’ (BN Saxepôovös, A Xaxepôáv, in v.” 20xepôovoo'ós). SARDINE.—At Rev 4” AV renders ðgotos Al64, gapólvº by ‘like a sardine, stone.” The reading is that of the TR. It is rightly rejected by modern editors, on the overwhelming authority of NAQ, etc., which read orapöig ; RV has ‘like a Sardius': see, therefore, SARDIUS, below. SARDIS (24poets).--The capital of Lydia, when a Lydian kingdom existed before B.C. 549, was one of the greatest and most ancient and famous cities of Asia Minor. It was situated on the northern skirts of Mount Tmolos, at the point where the small river Pactolos issues from a glen in the mountains to join the Hermus, which flows West- wards about two or three miles north of Sardis. The acropolis of Sardis was situated on a spur of Tholos, separated by a depression from the moun- tains on j. south, and rising sharply from the level plain on the north, with the Pactolos Washing its western base, and formed an almost impreg- nable fortress in ancient times. The city, which is naturally the capital of the middle Hermus valley, was still, in the first century after Christ, the metropolis of a group of cities (in the south of the 'middle Hermus *i; and throughout the upper valley), which formed one of the conventus into which the province of Asia was divided. Political circumstances had been as favourable SARDIS SARDIUS 405 to it as geographical. It was the residence of a satrap, after the Persians conquered Asia Minor, and the burning of the lower town in 501 by the revolted Ionians excited vehement anger in Darius, as an insult to his government and himself. It surrendered willingly to Alexander the Great in 334, and was made ły him an autonomous, self- governing city of the Greek type, electing its own magistrates and striking, presumably, its own coins : the Sardian coins of earlier date were not municipal, but regal, and perhaps satrapal coins,” struck by despotic governors resident at Sardis. After the death of Alexander, in 322, it fell under the authority of Antigonus till 301, when after the battle of Ipsus it passed under the domination of Seleucus, and became the residence of the governor of the western part of the Seleucid empire (called, doubtless, satrap). In 190 the battle of Magnesia set Sardis free ; and the Romans incorporated it in the Pergamenian realm (in which there was much greater municipal freedom than under Seleucid rule). The known coinage of the city begins under the Pergamenian kings, and continues under Roman rule in increasing quantities. The special religion of Sardis was the worship of dº. the ruins of whose temple with two columns standing, partly are seen, partly lie buried in the glen of the Factolos near the river bank. Her nature and the character of her worship were very similar to those of DIANA at Ephesus. The necropolis of Sardis, where its chiefs and kings in early times were buried, was a great group of tumuli, some small, some of very large size, about three miles north of the Hermus, on the south side of the Gygaean Lake (Mermere Giol). There, near the shrine of Gygaean Artemis, beside the Lake, the people of the goddess re- turned at death to their divine mother. In A.D. 17 Sardis was destroyed by a great earthquake, and Tiberius remitted all its taxes for five years, and contributed ten million ses- terces towards rebuilding the city. Eleven other cities, which had been its partners in ruin, and had shared in the emperor's benefaction, and also two later sufferers, joined with it in erecting at Rome a monument in his honour; and a miniature copy of that monument, constructed in A. D. 30 at Puteoli (the harbour for the Eastern and Asian trade at that time), is still preserved."f While the three cities, Pergamus, Smyrna, and Ephesus, vied for the title of First City of Asia, Sardis, though still a place of importance, was, beyond any other of the prominent cities of Asia, a town of the past, retaining the name of great- ness, but decayed from its former estate. The words addressed to it in Rev 3' are singularly .."; to its history: “I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and thou art dead.’ The words are, of course, addressed to the Church of Sardis, and must be understood as describing its condition about A.D. 90–100, already decaying from its original high promise ; but it seems clear that the writer must have been con- scious of the listorical parallel, and chose his words so as to . it. When he goes on to say, ‘Be thou Watch ful . . . for I have found no works of thine fulfilled : . . . if therefore thou shalt not watch I will come as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee,’ one's thoughts are carried back to the two occa- sions when, through careless watching, the im- pregnable citadel failed to keep up its reputation and name and to fulfil its works, when the Median * No coins, however, are lºnown struck at Sardis either by the satraps under Persian rule or by the city as set free by Alexander. Probably Antigonus deprived it of freedom and the right of coinage, and under Seleucid rule it continued in that oppressed condition. # See CIL x. 1024; Rushforth, Latin IIistorical Inscr., No. 95. soldier in 549 and the Cretan Lagoras in 218" climbed the steep hill and stole unobserved into the acropolis. i.e very hill itself is in ceaseless decay, washed away to an extraordinary extent by ºins and frosts disintegrating the soil and l'OCK. These historical parallels were not drawn by the writer of the Apocalypse from literature: the story of the Median and the Cretan was doubtless ..a household word in Sardis, and the character of the city as failing to keep †. its ancient greatness and promise would assuredly be very plain. We may fairly infer that the writer was personally familiar with the place; and speaks from what he had learned by eye and ear in Sardis. When about A.D. 295 the great province Asia. was broken up into several smaller provinces, Sardis once more became the capital of Lydia; and in all the Byzantine lists the bishop of Sardis is mentioned as metropolitan and archbishop of Lydia, and as sixth in order of dignity of all the bishops, European and Asiatic, subject to the É. of Constantinople. The acropolis on its ofty hill was of a type suited for the frontier war- fare of Arab and Turkish raids, and the fortifica- tions remaining on it are all of a late period. It is uncertain when it passed into the hands of the Turks. , Lydia was exposed to frequent raids at the end of the 11th cent., and again after the defeat of Manuel Comnenus in 1176. In 1257 the Emperor Theodore II. encamped at Sardis, but after 1267 the raids of the Turks became bolder and more continuous in the Hermus valley (Pach. ii. 3. 313 f.), and they swept the country down to enemen near the sea. Magnesia and Philadelphia were then the two chief cities of the valley (as they still are), and Sardis was quite a secondary town. In 1306 the Turks were admitted to the Sardian acropolis, but shortly after were expelled (Pach. ii. 403 f.); but this success was only tem- porary, and there can hardly be any doubt that Sardis had fallen into their hands before 1316, when they took Nymphaion. In 1402 Sardis was captured and destroyed by Tamerlane, and it has never recovered from that crushing blow. It is now only a ruin, with a tiny village called Sart, while the town is Salikli, about five miles east. Sart is a station on the railway from Smyrna to Philadelphia and Kºira Hissar. Three miles south are great hot springs. The bishopric of Sardis is mentioned in even the latest Notitia, but probably it ceased to have any real existence soon after 1300. The fourth Notitiº Episcopatww.m. in Parthey's collection, p. 132, puts the situation plainly. It mentions Sardis in its ancient place as sixth in dignity, but adds that the bishop of Philadelphia has now been sub- stituted in the place of the Sardian exarchos." The substitution was later than 1284, when Andro- nicus Chalaza, bishop of Sardis, evidently an influential dignitary, was expelled from the Council of Adramyttium (Pach. ii. p. 65 f.), and may be dated about 1316. With that change Sardis ceased. History had decided against it, and it was dead. W. M. RAMSAY. SARDITES.—See SERED. SARDIUS.—AV uses this word thrice in the OT (Ex 2817 3919, Ezk 2S19) and once in the NT (Rev. 21"). In the OT passages RV m has ‘or ruby.” The Heb. in each case is DJs: See, therefore, lèUBY, above. At Rev 21” the orápâtos of TR or orápótov of the * In 218 Antiochus the Great, after a year's siege, captured Sardis, where his usurping rival Achaeus maintained himself. t This should have been quoted in vol. iii. p. 881 to complete, the account of the bishopric of l’hiladelphia; the relation of Notitiae iv. and Xi, is uncertain, but iv. is later. 406 SARDONYX. SARGON better MSS is the sixth foundation of the New Jerusalem. Epiphanius (quoted by Alford, Gr. Test. iv. 595) derives its name from its resemblance in colour to a salted fish called sardiom. Theo- phrastus, with whom King (Antique Gems, p. 7) agrees, traces it to the fact that the gem was first imported into Greece from Sardis. Middleton (Engraved Gems, p. 143) thinks it comes from a Pers. word meaning “yellow.’ He does not give the word in question, but the Encyc. Brit.” (art. ‘Sardonyx') connects sard with the Pers. sered, “yellowish-red.’ There does not appear to be any such word: the nearest approach to it is º zerd – “yellow.’ The sard is one of the crypto-crystalline gems of the silicon family, j”. chemical compo- sition with the carnelian, but more crystalline, more transparent, and less ruddy. . . Its colour varies from pale golden-yellow to reddish-orange Pliny (HN 37, 106) justly remarks: Nec fuit alia gemina apud antiquos w8w frequentior. This was owing to the beauty of the stone, which in the best specimens is brilliantly transparent and very fine in colour, to its toughness, its facility of working, and the high polish of which it is susceptible. It also retains its polish longer than other gems. The finest engravings of ancient times were on sards. Pliny states that the best examples came from Babylon, but that source of iº had failed in his day. Others were obtained from Paros, Assos, India, and Egypt. Theophrastus (Lap. 56) speaks of two principal kinds—the male, brownish in colour, and the female, transparent red : rö pºv ôvaq'avés, épubp3.repov 6é, KaNeſrat 0}\v' to 6é 6taqlavés pév, Alexâutepov 6é, KaNeſrat āpaev. Considering how largely this gem was used, not only amongst Greeks and Romans but also for Assyrian cylinders and Phoen. Scarabs, it is curious that there should be º one verse in the Bible where it is unques- tionably mentioned, and that not as an engraved Stone. J. TAYLOR. SARDONYX. —The name indicates the structure of the gem, a layer of sard and one of onyx. Pliny (HN 37, 86) says: Sardonyches olim . . . . intellige- bantur candoré in Sarda, hoc est veluti carne ungui hominis imposita et attroque tralucido. The finest then came from Arabia and India. In the latter country it was found in torrent-beds, some pieces being large enough for sword handles. It is better adapted for cameos than for signets, but was much used by the Romans for both purposes, and it possesses one quality valuable for a seal: wax does ºthere to it. Juvenal twice refers to Sardonyx S(28, S- “Arguit insorum quos littera gemmaque princeps Sardonychum, loculis quio custoditur eburnis’ (Sat. xiii. 188), and “Ideo conducta. Paullus agebat Sardonyche . . .’ (ib. vii. 144). This gem has always been easy to produce artiſici- ally, either by joining together layers of different stones or by placing a sard on a red-hot iron, when the surface exposed to the heat becomes of an opaque white colour. The Sardonyx (a.apóðvuš) is the fifth foundation- stone of the New Jerusalem (Rev 21*). It Vm gives sardonya, as an alternative for diſtmond in trans- lating cºn: at Ex 28° 39", but at Ezk 288 RV con- tents itself with the diamond of the text. There is no sufficient reason for supposing that bib; means sardonyx. The Oºf. JHeb. Lea. is inclined to derive BiºT from Gºn, and to explain the name as pointing to the hardness of the stone. This would not favour the identification with the sardonyx. J. TAYLOR. SAREA.—One of the swift scribes who wrote tº the dictation of Ezra (2 Es 14*). - SAREPTA.—See ZAREPHATH. SARGON (ºrp, 'Apwā).-Once mentioned in the Bible (Is 20!), when it is said that he sent his TARTAN (twºrtanºvu) or commander-in-chief against Ashdod (B.C. 711). The name had been borne by a famous king of early, Babylonia, who founded an empire which extended to the Mediterranean (B.C. 3800); and as Sargon's two predecessors, Tig. lath-pileser III. and Shalmaneser IV., had assumed new names after seizing the Assyr. throne, it seems Fº that Sargon also was an assumed name. t is written in cuneiform Sar-gina, as if a com- pound of the Semitic sar, ‘king,’ and the Sumerian gina, ‘established,’ and is accordingly rendered b the Semitic Sarru-kinºt, “the established’ or “legiti- mate monarch'; but the inscriptions of the elder Sargon show that the name is really a corruption of Sargamº, “the strong one’ (cf. the biblical Serug). When Shalmaneser IV. died or was murdered, during the siege of Samaria (B.C. 722), the crown was usurped (on the 12th of the month Tebet) by the Assyr. general Sargon, who claimed descent from a semi-mythical king of Assyria called Bel- bani. Samaria was captured soon afterwards, and Sargon transported 27,200 of its population into captivity, the city being º under an Assyr. satrap. Meanwhile £ally on had been seized by the Raldà chief, Merodach-baladan, who main- tained himself in Chaldaea for 12 years, notwith- standing the defeat of his Elamite allies. In 13. C. 720 a certain Ilu-billdi, also called Yahubidi, arose at Hamath, and led Arpad, Damascus, and Palestine into revolt. This was easily suppressed, however ; Hamath was colonized by 4300 Assyrians, and the Philistines and Egyptians were defeated at Raphia on the borders of Egypt. In B.C. 719 the Minni, east of Arafat, were attacked and de- feated, and two years later Sargon gained a great victory over the combined forces of the Hittites of Carchemish and of Mita of the Moschi (Meshech). Carchemish became an Assyrian city, its trade º into Assyrian hands, and Sargon carried rom it to the treasury of Calah l l talents and 30 manells of gold and 2100 talents of silver. In B.C. 716 Sargon was called on to meet a con- federacy of the northern nations—Rusas of Ararat or Van, Mita of the Moschi, and many other tribes, the Minni, Tubal, Milid (Malatiyeh), etc. In the course of the campaign he marched into the land of the Medes towards the Caspian Sea, and re- ceived tribute from eight of their chiefs. The following year the country of the Minni was over- run, the Minnaean chief Daiukku (Děiokes) being transported to Hamath, and the Bedáwin of N. Arabia, were chastised. In 714 the Minni Submitted, and the army of Iłusas of Ararat was annihilated. Rusas himself committed suicide. In 713 forty- five Median chiefs, including Arbaku (Arbaces), were made tributary, as well as the kingdom of Ellipi in which the city of Ecbatana was after- wards built. Tubal and Cilicia also submitted, and in 712 Milid was captured and destroyed. In 711 a vassal prince was established at Marqasi (Mer’ash), the capital of Gurgum in N. Syria, and the turtammw was sent against Palestine, where a rebellion had broken out. A league had been formed between Merodach-baladan and the princes of the West, including Hezekiah of Judah, but, before the confederates could move, Ashdod, the centre of the revolt, was taken by storm, and Judah, Moab, and Edom paid homage to the con- queror. The turn of Merodach-baladan came in 710–709, when he was driven first from Babylonia SARID SATAN 407 and then from his ancestral city, Bit-Yakin in the marshes, and Sargon was crowned at Babylon. After this he sent a statue of himself to the vassal princes of Cyprus, which was set up at Idalion, and is now in the Berlin Museum. Išummukh, or Comagéné, was annexed to Assyria in 708, and a war was commenced with the Elamites in 707. Sargon had already built his palace of Dur-Sargina (now Khorsabad, but called Sarghún by the Arabic geographers), about 10 miles N. of Nineveh. He was murdered B.C. 705. A. H. SAYCE. SARID (Tºny; B 'Eoſebekyw)\á, Xebőoºk; A Xapôté, Xaplô ; Sarid).-A border town of Zebulun, situated to the west of Cliisloth-tabor (Iksál, Jos 1919. 19). Eusebius and Jerome (Onom. S. Xäplô, Sarith) do not identify it. Conder, following the reading Xeóðoºk, and that of the ancient Syriac version, “Asdod,” reads ‘Sadid,” and identifies it with Tell Shadºd, an artificial mound with fine springs, on the north side of the great plain of Esdraelon, and about 5 miles to the westward of Iksál (PEI' Mem. ii. 43, 70). C. W. WILSON. SAROTHIE (B Sapa,0et, A Xapa,0té), 1 Es 5*.-His sons are named among the sons of Solomon's ser- vants who returned with Zerubbabel. There is no corresponding name in the lists of Ezra and Nehemiah. SARSECHIM (nºphy; BAN Nagovoraxáp, Q Nagov- oapáx, Q.” Xapa'axetu ; Vulg. Sarsachim).-One of the. º of the king of Babylon who was present at the taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in the 11th year of Zedekiah, Jer 39 [Gr. 46]”. He seems to have borne the title of RAix-SARIs, “chief of the heads or princes.’ There is much doubt as to the original form of the name, and its meaning is, therefore, likewise obscure. Schrader (COT ii. p. 110) merely remarks that the first part of the name is quite clear (ny = ‘king’), and queries the reading. In all probability, testimony to its in- correctness is to be found in the fact that the vocalization is practically the same as that of the Hebrew form of Sennacherib (Sanhérib, Sarsechim ; cf. Nimrod, Nisroch, etc.). If the first element, sar, be regarded as certain, the original form may have been Sar-iskum, “he (the god) has made a king,” that is, provided a successor to the throne. In this case the original form of the name would have been lºny," which would go back to a time when no vowels whatever were written. In the bresent state of our knowledge, however, all identifications of this name must be regarded as tentative and unsatisfactory, presenting, as they do, several difficulties, and being unsupported by the monuments. The Greek forms beginning with Naftov are probably due to the name Samgar- nebo, which precedes. If, however, they have any authority—and sometimes the Greek forms are the more correct (cf. NISIOCII)—that of Q Nagov. oapáx would be the best for comparison, as it resembles very closely the Nabû-Sar-ºld-šu, Nebo is his brothers’ king,” of the inscriptions (Strass- maier, Inschriftem von Nabuchodomosor, 172, 23 ; ; 216, 12, § and elsewhere). See also artt. NERGAL- SHAREZER and SAMGAR-NEBO. T. G. PINCHES. * pºp-y would also be likely. t As the Greek form Saracos shows, the name of Sim-Šarra- iškum (‘Sin has made a king'), the last king of Assyria, could be ronounced without the name of the deity, and would then be he same as the Sar-iskun here suggested, at the same time jº an objection, for any one bearing such a name would probably have been regarded as claiming the throne. . f Nabû-Sar-ſtbé-8w, son of Dikia, and father of Nabû-muñétik- wºrri, fifth witness to a contract dated in the 27th year of Nebuchadnezzar. § Nabû-Sar-ſthé-8w, son of Kiwunnda, son of Iddina-Pap- sukal, third witness to a contract dated in the 30th year of Nebuchadnezzar. *— -* -w a * O p SATAN (Heb. ºv, Arab Jº, Syr lifto Greek garavās [but in 2 Co 127 xaráv, N*** A** D** EKLP etc.—yet the evidence is doubtful, and the reading 2&ravă (genit.) is preferred by Lachm. Tisch.* and W H on the authority of N* A* BD” FG Copt. It. Vulg. Orig. Iren. Tert. On the other hand, the reading 20 rév was preferred by Meyer, though there is no analogy to it in the NT, and in the LXX only in 1 K 111° 23*, and Aq. on Job 18]. More frequently (especially in the Gospels) the Heb. proper name is simply rendered by 6 5.43oxos, ‘the accuser’ or “calumniator.” In Rev. 1210 6 kará. 'yap is the equivalent used).-The name and con- ception of Satan belong to the post-exilian age of Hebrew development. #.; Zec 34 is the earliest instance of its appearance in our Canonical literature. On the other hand, the roots of the conception can without difficulty be traced in the Writings of pre-exilian and exilian times. i. PRE-EXILIAN PERIOD.—(1) The Serpent, who tempts Eve and lures man to his doom, is a demon in animal shape, analogous to the Arabic jinn which frequently resided in serpents. See art. DEMON and also MAGIC (vol. iii. p. 208, footnote t). (2) The Babylonian Ti4mat, the dragon-monster of the great abyss, with whom Marduk, god of light, contended (see art. COSMOGONY), corresponds to the Hebrew Leviathan or Rahab in exilian and post-exilian literature (cf. also Am 9°), with whom Jehovah entered into conflict and whom He de- stroyed. See artt. RAHAB and SEA Monstier. (3) The individual subject might be possessed by an “evil spirit” (1 S 16", cf. Jg 9°), which drives him to commit acts of violence in opposition to the Divine will. In 1 S 16" this “evil spirit’ is placed in opposition to the Spirit of the LORD which departed from Saul upon its advent. This evil spirit, which “distressed’ (ng) the king, is also spoken of as ‘from Jehovah.' Wellhausen draws attention to the curious distinction that, whereas """ ſºn is the good spirit, "" nsp ſºn (or ºbs * Iºn) is a bad spirit. The former expression connotes a closer community of mind and purpose between the Deity, and His emissary. {. the present, however, it is sufficient to take note that evil, whether it be misfortune or sin, is referred to a Divine causality in accordance with the intense feeling of dependence on God which characterized the ancient Hebrew, 1 S 1° 1819 199 2619, 2 S 241, 1 K 22*, Jg 9”, Is 610 637, Ps 51" (Max Löhr). In the interesting parallel Jg 9* the evil spirit shows itself as a spirit of discord between Abimelech and the Shechemites, just as it exhibited itself in Saul's outbreaks of violent jealousy against David. It is thus somewhat analogous in character to the Homeric "Atm, daughter of Zeus. Cf. art. MAGIC in vol. iii. p. 208". w (4) In Micaiah’s vision the emissary who goes forth to execute Jehovah's behest is a lying spirit (npº ºn) in the mouth of the prophets who lures Ahab to his doom (1 K 22*). It would lead us beyond the limits of our subject if we were to discuss the OT conceptions of Jehovah's character involved in this naïve portrayal of the relation subsisting between God and the lying spirit. On this passage Kittel's remarks may be studied with advantage in his commentary, This narrative in 1 IV. 22" forms an almost continuous section following on ch. 20, and there are no sufficient grounds for separating v.v.” or other portions from the narrative as later additions (as Schwally proposes in ZATW, 1892, p. 159 fl. ; cf. Marti in SK, 1892, p. 230). (5) Of subsidiary significance is the difficult * Dºn's is not so distinctive a name for the God of the Hebrews, since it may even designate heathen deities. 408 SATAN SATAN section Gn 6***, in which supernatural causes are assigned to growing human corruption in the fleshly union of angels and women and the rise of a race of nephilim. Holzinger (Commentary on Gen. p. 67) suggests that it contains a fragment of an old cosmogony with a conflict of higher and lower deities, parallel to the Babylonian. ‘Note the influence of the tradition on the Book of Enoch. We have sufficiently indicated the roots of the conception of Satan which are to be found in pre- exilian and to a certain extent in exilian literature. The word ºpy occurs in pre-exilian literature in the sense of ‘opponent’ or ‘adversary.’ It is thus applied to TXavid by the Philistines (1 S 29*), and to Hadad the Edomite whom God raised up as Solomon’s adversary (1 K 11", cf. a like use in Mt 16”). Thus an angel may fulfil this function with good intent (Nu 22*). ii. Post-ExILIAN (OLD TESTAMENT) PERIOD.— When we come to post-exilian literature we find the existence of a Satan who is a supernatural adversary of man in an essential sense, whose set purpose it is to work vital injury either to the individual or to the race. The growth of this con- ception was probably due to the unconscious opera- tion of two tendencies. (1). As the conception of God became freed from the limitations of primitive nationalism and also more ethically exalted, and His sovereignty over the world regarded as uni- versal and transcendent, there gradually arose an inevitable tendency to interpolate mediating angelic agencies between this transcendent Divine sovereign and the world of which He was Lord. (2) By an unconscious logical process an attempt was made to solve the ethical problem of . presence of evil in the world on the one hand and of Divine righteousness and absolute sovereignty on the other. To post-exilian Judaism, as the 13ooks of Psalms and Job clearly testify, it was of Supreme moment to vindicate the ways of God to Israel in the presence of dire calamity and perse- cution. Though the problem of the ultimate origin of evil is not even discussed, 'evil is ascribed to Satan the opponent of man and, to a certain ex- tent, of God’s beneficent purpose. He is a spirit who takes delight in man's misfortune, and is even permitted by God to work his fell designs though they be contrary to the Divine intention. Thus in Zec 3° Jehovah is angered against Satan because the latter is not yet satisfied with all the misfortunes that have befallen Jerusalem, but de- mands further punishment. In the Book of Job the righteous sufferer is made the victim of Satan's malicious purpose. We even find ourselves in- volved in an apparent contradiction : Satan takes his place in the heavenly court among the other sons of God, and gives an account of his acts, and receives his commands from his Divine Lord. But a contrary spirit is manifest in the Divine Sovereign and in His malignant angel. The former desires to see Job’s righteous character vindicated ; the latter denies its genuineness, and desires to see it subjected to a strain that will wreck it. Here the characteristic traits of Satan's character are clearly visible, implied in his name and illustrated con- tinually in subsequent literature : (a) He is the accuser (6.43oxos) and also (b) the tempter (6 relpá- {wu) that seeks to entrap piety and work its ruin. It is in this latter rôle that he meets us in 1 Ch 21”, where he tempts David, whereas in the pre- exilian form of the story (2 S 24") it is God Himself who submits David to the test. We have here an interesting indication that in the time when the Books of Chronicles were written (4th cent. B.C.) the personality of Satan had become distinctly realized. Whereas in the earlier post-exilian writ- ings, Zecharial, and Job, the def. article is attached, the form ‘Satan’ in 1 Ch 21* is anarthrous (Smend). iii. LATER JUDAISM.–The evolution of the Jew. ish conception of Satan is marked by an ever- growing tendency to a dualism, which, however, always stops short of being absolute through the all - controlling limitations innposed by Hebrew monotheism. The tendency º, existed, and was probably fostered by Persian influence; for in Persian religion the dualism of good and evil is more accentuated than in any other ancient system. The extent to , which Persian ideas moulded the Book of Tobit has been recently made the subject of an interesting study by J. H. Moulton (Ea:pos. Times, March 1900). This writer confirms the doubts expressed by the author of the present article (see APOLLYON) that the As- modaeus of Tobit (or the Ashmedai of the Talmud) is identical with the Aëshma I)aeva of the Bunda- hesh. This identity is conſidently asserted by Holtzmann (Newtest. Theol. i. p. 53), but it cannot be accepted without stronger evidence.” His main contention, however, that l’ersian influence largely affected Jewish satanology, we hold to be well founded. Twelve years ago Cheyne contended for a like influence in the realm of Jewish eschatology (Earpos. Times, ii. 202, 224, 248; Bampton Lect. p. 394 ft.). Cf. Kohut, Jüd. Angel. p. 62 f. The demonology of the Book of Enoch is de- veloped with remarkable fulness, and presents striking analogies to that of the NT. Charles, in his art. APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE in the present work (cf. his edition of the Book of Enoch), would place the dates of the different sections between 180 and 64 B.C.: The demons proceeded, according to 16", from the giants, who were the offspring of the fallen angels who lusted after the daughters of men. These demons accomplish man’s moral ruin until the day of final judgment arrives. Satan, as in the NT, is represented as the ruler of a rival kingdom of evil, which is nevertheless subject to the ‘Lord of spirits’ (65%). We read, moreover, not only of Satan, but also of Satans; and it should be noted that in the Sûmilitudes the Satans and the fallen angels are carefully distinguished. The latter fall in the days of Jared according to clis. 1–36 and 91–104, while in ch. 69, where a catalogue of names is given (cf. 67), the functions of the two classes are confused (Charles). Jekôn is the first chief ‘who led astray all the children of the angels and brought them down to earth.” The names of other tempters follow. The name of the Satan who led Eve astray is Gádreel (69%). He is third in the hierarchy described in § 3 ff. The Satans are first mentioned in Enoch 407, where we read that Fanuel, one of the four chief angels, wards off the Satans and forbids them to appear (as Satan in the Book of Job) in the presence of the Lord of spirits to accuse the dwellers on earth. ... These Satans belong to a counter-kingdom of evil ruled by a chief called Satan (53°). They existed as evil powers before the ‘Watchers’; fell by corrupting themselves with the daughters of men. The four chief angels, “Michael, Gabriel, Rafael, and Fanuel will take hold of them on that great day [i.e. Judgment Day] and cast them into a burning furnace, that the Lord of spirits may take venge- ance on them for their unrighteousness in becoming subject to Satan and leading astray those who dwell on the earth’ (54%). These Satans, accord- ing to 407, have the means of access to heaven, which the ‘watchers’ or other fallen angels did not possess (13° 14''). They have a threefold func- tion: they tempt to evil (69*"), they accuse the * This is also the view of Baudissin in PIRE 3 sub voce “Asmodi.” - # Iłaldensperger (Selbstbewusstsein Jesu 2, pp., 12–19) would place the dates considerably later. So also Schürer; cf. hig G V 13 iii. pp. 195, 199-201. t Cf. the typāyopal of Dn 410; cf. also Book of Jubilees and Testaments of the XII Patriarchs. SATAN SATAN 409 hhabitants of earth (407), and they punish the con- demned. In this last character they are called ‘angels of punishment’ (53° 56' 62' 63) (Charles). This º activity in the kingdom of evil, expressed in multiplied personalities, is a marked feature of the Book of Enoch ; and, viewed from this aspect, there is a close resemblance between the demonology of the Book of Enoch and that of the later Judaism expressed in the treatises of the Talmud, to which attention will presently be called. In the Apocrypha, apart from the Book of Tobit, the references to Satan, though significant, are not numerous. As in the Book of Enoch, we are in the presence of a kingdom of demons, Satan, according to the Book of Sirach, so takes posses- sion cf the ungodly man's soul that when he curses Satan he may be said to curse himself (Sir 21”). In the Book of Wisdom (2*) we see that Satan and the Serpent of Gn 3 are more or less identified. Death entered into the world through the envy of the devil. This identification of the Serpent and Satan is the ever-recurring feature of Judaism and Christianity alike. In the Book of Baruch (47. *) the deities of the heathen are called demons (cf. Dt 327, Ps 10697), and Israel suffers punishment for sacrificing to them (cf. Rv 9"); but of Satan there is no express mention. In the Book of Tobit, Asmodi (Asmodaeus) may be regarded as the equivalent of Satan in being the chief personi- fication of evil. This demon is conjured by the magical prescription described in ch. 6, viz. burn- ing the heart and liver of a fish with the ashes of incense. In its demonology this book stands apart from the other books of the Apocrypha, but in its ascription of lustful qualities to Asmodaeus we find a close parallel to later Jewish conceptions. In the Psalms of Solomon we have only a slight refer- ence to the supernatural agency of evil. Ityle and James have noted the ićy of the reli- gious ideas of this book. There is only one clear allusion to angelology (17*). In 4" the prosperous man is compared to “a serpent speaking with the words of transgressors words of deceit to pervert wisdom.” Here Gn 3 is evidently in the mind of the Psalmist. In Philo Judaeus demons and Satan fall into the background and disappear. His attitude is exhibited in his Treatise on Giants, c. 4, where his rationalizing tendency is manifest. Note his treatment of Ps 77* LXX. The sources of evil are found in the flesh and its passions, in self-love and ignorance, rather than in supernatural personalities (see Drummond, vol. ii. pp. 297-305). Some reference may here be made to the inter- esting Book of the Secrets of Enoch recently brought to light in its Slavonic form by Mr. Morfill. It has been supposed that it was origin- ally composed about the beginning of the Christian era. Here again we note the identiſication of Satan with the º in Gn 3. We read in 319ſt. “The devil took thought as if wishing to make another world because things were subservient to Adam on earth . . . He became Satan after he left the heavens. His name was formerly Satanail. He conceived designs against Adam in such a namner that he entered and deceived Eve. But he did not touch Adam.’ 29* graphically por- trays how Satanail was hurled from the heights with his angels on the third day of creation : “One of those in the ranks of the archangels having turned away with the rank below him, entertained an impossible idea that he should make his throne higher than the clouds over the earth, and should be equal in rank to My power. And I hurled him from the heights with his angels. And he was flying in the air continually above the abyss.” Hero we have one of the ultimate sources of Milton's conception of Satan's revolt. The Jewish ideas reflected in the Targums and Midrash present a close resemblance to those just described. The identification of the Serpent with Satan was expressed in Jewish theological writers by the name bestowed on the latter, ºppº ºn. Thus in Sifré 1386 the heathen are called the disciples of 'jbºn wº, who seduced Adam and Eve. In Bereshith 29 we find the tradition that Sammael, the highest angel that stands before God’s throne, caused the Serpent to seduce the woman. Thus Satan and Sammael coalesce into one personality. Sammael, according to Deut. Rabba. 11, is the angel, the wicked one, chief of all Satans. Here again we observe the same divided personalities as in the Book of Enoch, and Satan appears to be a personified generalization. There is an arch- Satan called Sammael, and there are Satans who are subordinate to him, just as the angels who are subject to God as His attendant ministers. According to Targ. Jerus. I. on Gn 3" Eve saw, at the monent when the Serpent addressed her, Sam- mael, “angel of death,’ and became afraid. Envy is made the motive to man's temptation. Accord- ing to Sanhedrin 59, the Serpent was jealous of the Services rendered to man by the angels. In Sota 9a and Beresh. Itabba. 18, the temptation is ascribed to the motive of lustful jealousy. Ib. 24 relates the curious legend that demons held intercourse with Adam and Eve during the first 130 years after the Fall, and other demons (bºy, jºb, I'rºn, and ninº") were the product of the union. Bereshith 42 ascribes the ift of Cain to the union of Satan with Eve (Weber). I’reedom of will is ascribed in the Talmud to man even after the Fall. He can therefore choose either good or evil. The evil inpulse in man is designated by the term ynn hy, which works within him like a leaven (Berakh. 17a). Satan accom- plishes his fell purpose by the instrumentality of the yº ny: (Bam midbar rabba 20, Baba bathra 15a). Moreover, Satan is not only tempter, but also accuser, of whom the individual is continually in dread, since he never knows what is his stand- ing before God, whether he is justified in His sight, or liable to condemnation through Satan's accusations. A sinnilar conception underlies 1 Ti 3%. 7 and Iłev 12”. –Targums frequently foist Satan into the OT narrative, e.g. Targ. Jon. on Ex 32" (Lv. 9°). Eisenmenger, Emt. Jud. i. p. 845, quotes rabbinic passages in which the angel who wrestled with Jacob is identified with Sammael. Similarly Belial (Beliar), according to Ascensio Josaia, enters into Manasseh and accomplishes the martyrdom of the prophet. iv. NEW TESTAMENT IDEAS RESPECTING SATAN. -These follow the broad outlines of contemporary Judaism, but are without its grosser and more extravagant elements, and are generally char- acterized by simplicity. The epithets bestowed on Satan are various. He is apparently identified with Beelzebub “ (Beelzebul) in W. 1229, 27, cf. 1025; * Instead of Bsax's 305A the better attested form in Mt. 1095 1224, 27, Mk 322, Lk 1115, 18 is 135sésgoëA (sustained by 13 and partly by N. ; see WII). The latter is obviously a corruption of the former, and the former (Biša ČºoúA) arose out of the OT form adopted by Jerome and Aramaized, Beelzebub. How did Besa (s.30%x arise About this we have three theories—(1) olzobsorºrórz, in, Mt 1025 is held to be a rendering based on the Aramaic ºn hyā, This may be true in reference to Syń, but that º means ‘house,” “dwelling,' is doubtful. In 1 K 813 the reading is uncertain; cf. I, XX and Wellh. in Bleek's Ein- leitung", p. 236. See also Nowack on Hab 311. (2) ºnlyyn is regarded as a purposed variation with a contemptuous meaning, ‘lord of filth.' Sła” (= º Syr. Zebló) means stercus, Cheyne in Encycl. Bibl. argues that superstitious Jews would hardly use such an opprobrious epithet against the prince of the demons. Moreover, such a mode of pronouncing the name is not found anywhere but in the NT. (3) More probable is the view of Baudissin (art. ‘Beelzebub’ in PRD 8) that we have a change of final consonant in popular pronunciation parallel to 410 SATAN SATAN but this is doubted by Weiss (Bib. Theol. of NT, i. p. 103, footnote). He is usually called äuä60Xos (a literal rendering of the Hebrew name); some- times 6 trovmp3s, Mt 13" ", 2 Th 3°, and perhaps in the Lord's Prayer; 8%ts àpxatos, Rev. 12" 20%; 6 ex0pós, Mt 13”; 6 roſ, kóopov ćpxwv, Jn 14” etc.; [6] dipxwv Tóv Šau/zovlav, Mt 12*; 6 dipxwu Tàs ééovolas rod dépos, Eph 2°. (a) The Synoptic tradition.—Jesus felt Himself in the presence of demons belonging to a king- dom of evil ruled over by a supreme per- sonality, Satan or Beelzebub. These personal agencies work every form of physical and moral calamity. They recognize, however, the might of Jesus the Messiah gifted with the power of God to destroy the works of Satan and all his personal subordinates (Mk 14: 3, 3} + 1". 28-27 67, Lk 1017-40 1114-4 133°). Jesus on His side fully recognizes the existence and power of the l, ſngdom of Satan, which resists the establishment of the kingdom of God (Mt 12*, Mk 3*). In the narrative of the Temptation the world is regarded as ruled by Satan (cf. Jn 14”); but in the Luke tradition (49 (last clausº)), Satan, on the other hand, confesses that his authority is not original and fundamental, but is derived (épºol trapabéöorat); and this power he is willing to transfer to Jesus upon condition of His allegiance. The narrative illus- trates the character of cunning that belongs to Satan as the tempter of mankind (Gn 3%), for he quotes Ps 91* ** for his own purposes (Mt 4"), and applies the words to the Messiah. , Against this subtle deceit Jesus warns His disciples. Satan is eager to sift Simon as wheat (Lk 22*), and enters, like a demon, into Judas (v.”). The prevailing belief that physical maladies were due to the direct agency of evil spirits (see DEMON) was recognized by Christ. This demonic power that works physical havoc is under the su- preme control of Satan, and is ascribed to him in the case of the afflicted woman (Llº 13%). In the expulsion of demons by His disciples Christ sees the overthrow of Satan’s power (Lk 10°, in which utterance our Lord recurs to the well-known passage in Is 14*). Accordingly the dualistic tendency, to which we have before adverted, is . limited by the absolute nature of God’s righteous rule, whereby a definite term is set to Satan's sway. Meanwhile the anarchy which prevails works its baleful effects in the rival king- dom which Satan sets up as a quasi-god of this world (cf. 2 Co 4*). This evil is intellectual and moral as well as physical. The devil takes the seed of the Divine word out of the heart of man (Mk 4”, Mt 13". ") and plants the spurious wheat (darnel, Šišávia). In other words, to borrow Pauline phraseology, he shows his craft by beclouding the understanding, ‘blinding the thoughts of the unbelieving, so that they are unable to bellold the gºl light of Christ’s glory’ (2 Co 4"). (b) Pauline teaching.—This stands in perfect continuity with that of Jesus reflected in the Synoptic tradition. . We are still in the presence of many of the ideas that prevailed in contemporary Judaism, viz. of the Book of Jºnoch in the more remote past; of the Book of Wisdom, the Testa- ments of the XII Patriarchs, and of the Book of Jwbilees in the age that immediately preceded the time when St. Paul wrote ; of the Assumption of Moses coeval with the time of his literary activit and of the Apocalypse of Baruch, which immedi- ately followed it. The apostle's conceptions re- specting angelology and demonology have been others, e.g. Bāb el Mandel (for Mandeb).--The theory supported by IRiehm is certainly worthy of consideration, that Deelzebub in the time of Christ was understood as R777 °y; ‘lord of enmity’- 31&Qoxo; ; see Brockelmann's Lea. Syr. 8wb voce, and cf. Assyr. bel dabábi. Cf. art. BAALZEBUls. * carefully examined by Everling in a Syecial treatise, and abundantly illustrated from the litera- ture just mentioned. - In the writings of St. Paul we are confronted by an array of supernatural agencies which are not all definitely evil or good, but some of which stand in relative opposition to God (Ritschl, Ičechtfert, w. Vers," ii. p. 251, quoted by Everling). In Ro 8*, 1 Co 15° we find them designated by the names dipxal, ééovolat, and Övvápºets. Here the dpxat are perhaps to be identified with the āpxoutes toū ātóvos toūrov of 1 Co 2".” The gods of the heathen are not absolutely non-existent (see DEMON), but have a subordinate potency in heathen sacra as 0sol kal Kºptot (1 Co 8*", cf. 12%). These super- natural “rulers of this world’ have a certain wisdom of their own (1 Co 2%. 8), to which the eternal wisdom revealed by God’s Spirit to "... minded faith appears to be folly. Such wisdom will be brought to nought (cf. 2 Co 10°). To the Kūplot kai 6eot correspond the arrotxeta toû kóagov, which may be considered to be an abstraction f standing in place of the personal concrete names (cf. dpxal, éovatat, 0p$vot, and kvpuðrmtes), or, as Spitta + would interpret the phrase, the arouxeia represent the sphere of their personal activity. These are the koop.okpdropes of the dark spiritual world against which the Christian is to arm him- self (Eph 6”); over which Jesus triumphed in the Cross (Col 2", see Lightfoot). Over all this world of evil energy Satan reigns, and all its collective power for evil is gathered up in his personality. He is the tempter (6 trelpa; ov, 1.Th 3, 1 Co 7"; cf. Mt 4'' and parallels). Bodily diseases are ascribed to him just as in Lk 13”. Indeed, in one remarkable passage, 1 Co 5*, *, we even see Satan utilized for the advantage of the individual and the Church. The offender in a solemn Church assembly is to be delivered over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, in order that the spirit of the sinner may be saved in the day of the Lord’s appearing. Satan, as the inflicter of physical malady, is apparently identified with the destroyer, Ex 12” (LXX 6 6.Netpetºwv, see APOL- Lyon), Nu 16*, to which 1 Co 10" evidently alludes. Compare also the destroying angel of 2 S 241", 2 K 1999, and also Wis 18%. According to Wis 2% death entered into the world through the devil, an idea, which is closely related to the conception which prevails, all through biblical literature, that long life is the reward of the righteous (Ex 20° etc.), while the wicked are cut off and their lamp (of life) put out. Thus, accord- ing to St. Paul's own belief, surrender to Satan brought death as its ultimate consequence (1 Co 5°, 2 Co. 2"); while in Jn 8” Satan is div0pwirokróvos dir' ãpx?s (cf. Gn 3"). This power Jesus destroyed by death (He 214). St. Paul ascribed his own physical maladies to Satan's agency. “The stake (akóNob) in the flesh” he calls “Satan’s messenger’ (2 Co 127). The phrase év 300evelg in v." followed by év do Oevetals clearly points to some bodily affliction, probably chronic fever (see Ramsay, Ea:positor, July 1899, pp. 20–23). Here again Satan is made subordinate to God’s purposes of grace, and becomes a servant of moral discipline which St. Paul was strengthened to bear, though he prayed frequently to be delivered from it. With this passage and l Co 5*" cf. 1 Ti 120. The apostle, like his contemporaries, did not think of the demons as inhabiting subterranean regions (as the Arabs and ancient Babylonians * Heinrici doubts this, and would prefer to identify the &pzov’rs; here with those of Ac 1327. f Identified with of zoo.º.ox.pdºrops; in Test. Salam.; see Ever ling, p. 70. f Der Zweite Brief des Petrus, etc. p. 270. SATAN did). The angels of God had their residence in the higher regions of the heavens; and even Satan and his retinue dwelt, not beneath the earth (their final destination after the last judgment), but in the lower atmospheric realm. Thus in Eph 2° Satan is called 6 dipxwu Tàs éovalas roſ, dépos. Cf. Eph 6” “the wicked host of spirits év Toſs étrovpavlots.” An interesting parallel may be found in the Testaments of the XII Patr., Levi 3, where it is stated that “he who fears God and loves his neighbours cannot be smitten by the spirit of the air (tot deplov Tveiſuaros), Beliar.” Other interesting illustrations may be found in Everling's treatise, p. 107 ff. The most significant is from Ascension of Isaiah 10” (ed. Charles, pp. 74, 132), in which we read that Jesus descends through all the seven heavens, assuming at each stage the form of the angels which inhabit that special region. At length. He comes to the firmanent where dwells the ‘prince of this world’ (cf. 79 1128). Beliar, “ the variant of the name Belial (see BELIAL), is apparently identified by St. Paul in 2 Co 6” with Satan; but about this question of identification we have the greatest divergence in the Jewish and early Christian tradition. The subject is discussed in Bousset's learned mono- graph, Der Antichrist, part II. ch. iv., Anhang i. (p. 99 fl.). Iłelial seems identical with the “Man of Sin” in 2 Th 2" (see MAN OF SIN). St. Paul follows the Jewish tradition in identify. ing Satan with the serpent which tempted Eve. This clearly underlies Ro 16” “The God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet,” obviously based on Gn 31° (cf. 1 Ti 24, Rev 129 202). This view is again apparent in 2 Co ll” ”, where the apostle Speaks of himself as though he were Christ's own trapaviºuquos (N3'aº), to guard the chastity of the Church from the devil's wiles of seduction (on the image, cf. Jn 3”), whereby Satan even transforms himself into an angel of light (v.”). (c) The Book of Revelation obviously stands apart from the rest of the New Testament by reason of its strongly-marked Apocalyptic char- acter. Into the recent controversies respecting its original form, suggested by the ingenious theory of Vischer (supported by Harnack's autho- rity), this is not the }. to enter. In the Book of Revelation we enter a transcendental region where the world-drama is enacted before us in a series of scenes of conflict between superhuman personalities. It is a tróNepos év otpavºg between God with His angels of light, and Satan or the dragon, the ‘old serpent,’ the deceiver of the whole world (12"), with his hosts of darkness. Chapter 12 has been the subject of much dis- cussion since Gunkel wrote his stimulating treatise, Schöpfung w. Chaos (pp. 17.1-398). At the founda- tion of the story he sees Babylonian legend thinly veiled. The dragon is Tiåmat, the woman is I)amkina, the mother of Marduk (here expressed by Christ). This primitive 13abylonian myth was worked up into Jewish apocalyptic, Chaos or the I)ragon (Tiåmat) being interpreted as Rome, and the entire legend transferred to the end of the world. But such a theory raises certain diſliculties, though some appear to be solved. Bousset (Anti- christ, Anhang, p. 169) is by no means disposed to agree to the dictum that no essential trait in the narrative is of Christian origin. After the last great overthrow of the Beast and the kings of the earth (Rev 19), Satan is imprisoned in the bottom- less pit a thousand years (20%). After this he is loosed and deceives the nations, but at length is * In Asc. Is. 42 he appears as Beliar, and in 79 as Sammael. Ges. Thes, i. 210 notes the rendering of Belial (13eliar) by dominats aëris in Syriac lexicographers. Sense as well as sound . corresponds to the ending) contributed to this translat On, which aſ:cords with tradition respecting Beliar's realm. finally cast into the lake of fire and bri where the beast and false prophet are (201", Enoch 549. 9, 2 P 2"). - (d) In St. John's Gospel and Epistles such legend. ary features disappear. We move in a serener, clearer atmosphere of sharply-marked antitleses. Satan and Christ are mutually opposed. Satan cannot touch him who is born of God and sinneth not (1 Jn 5*). The devil is the ruler of this world, and has nothing in Christ (Jn 14° 16", cf. 12”). Sin enslaves through the power of the devil (8*); and this bondage is established, as St. John and St. Paul alike taught, through the flesh, which is the organic point of human attachment to the Köop.os. Satan sinned from the beginning (1 Jn 3°), and was the cause of death (Jn 8*). Falsehood is his special realm (8*). Jesus stands outside the world that is ruled by him (8* 1714. 1"), and gradually wins individuals from him into the kingdom of God. First, Christ's own disciples are rescued from Satan's worldly dominion (15* 17* *). One only has abandoned himself to the devil to his own ruin (67%). The world is at present in hostility to Jesus and His disciples (1417. 19.” 1518, 19 168 17°, 1 Jn 215-17 etc.), but we are assured of Christ's final conquest of the world (Jn 16”, cf. 17* *). For the Son of God was manifested for the express purpose of destroying the works of the devil (1 Jn 3°). This is in harmony with Christ's own teaching respecting Satan's overthrow re- ported in Lk 10°. In Jn 16” the judgment and condemnation of the devil are regarded, according to the tense usage which frequently occurs in the NT, as already finally accomplished (kékputat, cf. 12*). See the eloquent remarks on this passage in the Pulpit Commentary by the late Dr. H. B. Reynolds. v. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS.–From the preceding exposition of the biblical conceptions respecting Satan we clearly see that early Christianity shared in the prevailing Jewish belief in demons and Satan. The attempt has been made by IBeyschlag to deny the inference to which the Synoptic narratives lead us, that Jesus accepted the belief in a per- sonal Satan. And with the elimination of a per- sonal Satan he would also erase a belief in demons and angels from the inner consciousness of Christ. ‘It is certain that Jesus did not recognize as per- sonal devils the demons in whom the popular Jewish belief saw personal angels of Satan.’ ‘The form of the representation is undoubtedly personi- fying, but all the passages are poetic in style.” If language is to be manipulated in this fashion, it is diſlicult to see why Christ's belief in a personal God may not be eliminated also, or why such a process of º might not be successfully applied to all contemporary literature. Jesus used parabolic language, and His discourses are steeped in similitudes; but when He used a symbol, it was understood to be such, or, if not at once so understood, its actual meaning was nearly always disclosed (Jn 3-8 40-2ſ. 83-84 601ſ. 08 lllli, but in 219 the enigma was solved by the close of His earthly career). But to suppose that Jesus persistently and consistently . the ordinary language of angelology and demonology, and even acted in accordance with it, and yet all the time held in secret opinions totally at variance with those of all His fellow-countrymen, and never revealed them by a single hint, -surely this is to invalidate Christ's claims to candour. Yet there is not a particle of evidence adduced by 13eyschlag to sup- port his monstrous contention that Jesus did not mean by the words Satan, demon, and angel, what Ilis contemporaries meant and understood Him to mean. See IBeyschlag, NT" Theol. vol. i. pp. 93– 95. Our argument by no means implies that Jesus SATAN SAUL in all the current conceptions respecting ions. The problem, as we have already indi- cated, is a complex one. We have to give due place to two considerations: (1) that Christ's sayings and deeds are necessarily coloured by the representative human media through which they are conveyed to us; (2) that the demonology of Christ's belief is scarcely visible in the Fourth Gospel, though His belief in a personal Satan is clearly apparent. There can, however, be no scientific Christology which does not recognize that Christ's humanity was so genuine and complete that He shared in the cosmic presuppositions of His time. His Deity spoke to us through a true humanity. It was veiled and limited during His earthly ministry by those very conditions which He, in His Kévayats, voluntarily assumed when “He took the form of a slave, and being found in the likeness of man, emptied Him- self’ (Ph 27). Now, demonology was a necessar art of the intellectual apparatus of that period. †: was the latest phase pretation of the universe which was destined still to survive for centuries until the gradual growth of our inductive methods has substituted for de- monology (as formerly understood) a rationally co- ordinated nexus of physical causality and law. But the ultimate and fundamental truth of angelology and demonology has not been and never can be destroyed by the march of modern science. Behind and i. the physical nexus of interrelations there must lie personality and, moreover, per- sonalities. However complex the material con- ditions, at both ends—nay, even along the entire path—of the intricate windings of the phenomenal chain there must ever live personal power. Our whole life rests upon the presupposition of our own individual initiatives of volition operating upon one another in the phenomenal world and nuodifying its successions and coexistences. That a supreme transcendent and personal (and, to the Christian consciousness, righteous) reason and will is ever present and potent in the entire realm, is a necessary postulate of any intelligible universe. The assumption that other superhuman as well as subordinate agencies are at work, and that some among these are embodiments of evil influence, adds no fundamental difficulty to those which already exist. No moral world is conceivable except as in- volving interrelations between personalities. Now, it is matter of historic notoriety that some person- alities have lived in this world that might be called incarnations of evil influence. The supposi- tion that other and Superhuman personalities may also be foci of evil moral energy, and operate like ganglionic centres in a nervous system, presents no fundamental difficulty in addition to the diſii- culties already involved in the problem of evil. That Satan exists as a personal centre of evil influence, physical as well as moral (for the two are closely associated), is the undoubted teaching of the Bible. He is not represented to us as the absolute origin of evil or the only source of it, but as its most potent superhuman representative. See Dorner, Christliche Glaubenslehre, $ 86, 3, vol. ii. p. 213 ff. LiTERATURE. –In addition to the reff. in the article, see art. ‘Teufel' in P1t 1, 2 and “Satan' in Smith's DB ; also Dorner, Christliche Glaubenklehre, Iłd. ii. pp. 188–217, and the list of literature on p. 180 ; Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, pp. 18(1-203; Kaftan, Dogmatik, pp. 348 ſº. (much to be §ºl. 478. On lºcclesiastical teaching (which does not conne within the scope of a 13ible Dict.) sec esp. IIarnack, Dogmnengesch. (Index, 8. “Teufel' and ‘Dimonen'); Iren. adv. IIur. v. 1. 1; Origen, c. Celsun, vii. 17; Nitzsch, Lehrb. der lºyang. Doſpn. p. 333 ſº.; Dorner, ib. ii. p. 197 ff. Respecting the Mohannedam. doctrine (based on Jewish), see IIughes, Dict. of Islamn, 8.1). “Devil' (where Mishkat i. 3 is cited). Cf. also art. ‘Genii,' and on this subject, (Jinn) E. W. Lanc's claborate note 21 to his Introduction to his translation of the ‘Thousand and Ono Arabian) Nights.” The Devil was called Iblis (312/207 oz) and entified with Satan (as in NT). There were also Shaiſans f that animistic inter- (plur.), †. as in Jewish belief.-In Korán see 2163ſ. 391 (or Satan “driven forth by stoning," cf. Palmer's note) 442. 78 fid2ſt 720 1242 1420ſ, 1949. Satan is constantly called man's ‘open foo OWIEN C. WHITEHOUSE, SATHRABUZANES (Xabpagovčávms), 1 Es 69.7 m (LXX*) 7% = Shethar-Bozemai (cf. Ezr 5". " 6*, *). SATRAP.-See LIEUTENANT. SATYR.— The Heb. original Ty; sółr, plur. Dºnºvº S6'irīm, is usually tr" he goat,” its primitive meaning. In two passages (Is 13° 34") it is trºl in AV and RV ‘satyr,’ RVm “he goat,’ LXX in both ôapićvia – “demons.” In other two passages (Lv 17”, 2 Ch 11”) AV renders it “devils,’ RV he goats,’ RVm ‘satyrs,’ LXX padrata = ‘foolish things.’ Prob- ably in all these passages the intention is to refer to some demon of popular superstition believed to have a goat-like form (cf. art. DEMON). The Greek mythology describes the satyr as a creature the upper part of whose body is that of a gross, sensu- ous man, the lower that of a goat. He is the ravisher of the wood-nymphs, the drunken com- panion of Bacchus in his revels (Hesiod, fr. 91). The Roman frtum is similar, and is represented with horns and pointed ears (cf. Verg. lºcl. v. 73; Hor. Ep. II. ii. 125, Ars Poet. 233). , Disgustingly realistic statues and paintings of these creatures are to be seen in the Museum at Naples (cf. W. I. Smith, lèS* 113 f.; Bochart, Hieroz. ii. 844, iii. 825). G. E. POST. SAUL (*NW, Xaoû).—1. The first king of Israel. The son of Kish, he belonged to the small but warlike tribe of Benjamin, within which tribe his family had its seat at Gibeah.” During his early years the Philistines had overrun the Southern tribes of Israel, had captured the ark, had de- stroyed Shiloh, and were so thoroughly masters of Judaea that they maintained an outpost in Benjamin (1 S 13°). Yet, though the tribes were humbled and separated, they had not entirely lost the sense of belonging to one race or of having a common destiny; and the oppression of the Philis- times served to make clear to them that, in order to assert these things, a single leader was an indis- Jensable necessity. To have discovered the un- lº Saul, to have recognized his fitness for this task, and to have nerved him for attempting it, is the large service of Samuel, whom every account agrees in connecting with the rise of the new king. According to one account, the future chief was sent by his father to seek for some strayed asses. 3afiled in the search, he turned aside to ask Samuel, an inconspicuous seer in the land of Zuph, for information about their fate. Samuel satisfied this anxiety, but roused in the questioner the conviction of a greater destiny. Commanding him in J”s name to deliver Israel, he confirmed the message by certain signs, the occurrence of which would serve to remove any hesitation in attempt- ing so grave a task, and bade Saul then wait at home until his opportunity arrived (1S 9. 10'-": "). The opportunity was not long delayed. Nahash, a chief of Ammon, besieged Jabesh-gilead, and, when the inhabitants offered to surrender, would grant no milder terms than that their right eyes should be put out. So convinced was he of the helpless condition in which Israel lay, that he even allowed them to send messengers asking help from the tribes west of Jordan, for thus .# his glory be increased by the disgrace inflicted on all Israel. The news reached Saul as he was driving his cattle home from the plough. He Haw * Unless Gibeon is confused with Gibeah in 1 Ch 820ſ, the clan had once dwelt in Gibeon. Zela is also mentioned (2 S 211") as the burial-place of IYish, and as the final burial-place of his son. SAUL SAUL 413 in lis own wrath at the insult the indignation of Israel, and in the incident the very means needed to stir the pride of his people to a strong effort. Slaying the oxen, he sent a species of fiery cross through the South, and, with the hastily-levied force which obeyed the summons, defeated Nahash. The grateful people at Samuel's bidding brought their newly-found leader to the sacred place at Gilgal, j solemnly crowned him as their king before J” (1 S 11, omit vv.1%. 19. 14°). The other account represents Samuel as the acknowledged head over Israel, who ruled in Itamah as judge. When the Israelites, dissatisfied with their condition and with the conduct of the judge's sons, desired a king, he at first refused their request, as rejecting God’s immediate government in the nation, but at J’s command consented (1 S 8). A popular assembly was held at Mizpah, where Saul was elected prince by the sacred lot (10”). A few opposed the election, and Saul withdrew with his supporters to Gibeah. The Nahash in- cident offered the new king the occasion which justi- fied his election, and silenced all opposing voices. After it the people, convened at Gilgal, renewed the consecration, while Samuel solemnly resigned his office (111-1ſ. 12). This account regarded the kingship not only as a novelty, but as a backward step from the older theocracy, an accommodation to the weakness of the people. It was impossible for the Philistines to view with indifference Saul’s election (however it had been brought about), and not to dread the quickened national life which the victory over Nahash was sure to produce among their subject people. , Realizing this, and preparing for the inevitable shock, Saul retained about him a small army. He chose 3000 men, placed one-third of them under his son Jonathan at the home of the clan, but kept the other two-thirds under his own orders near Bethel. Probably he intended to rouse the strong tribe of Ephraim to his support. The impatient courage of Jonathan precipitated the struggle. He struck down the garrison or representative (nº), which the Philistines had in Benjamin.” The Philistines replied by gathering an army, which they marched up the valley of Aijalon in the direction of Mich- mash. They thus drove themselves like a wedge between the Northern and Southern tribes. Lest they should cut him off from Benjamin, Saul was forced to fall back, especially since the majority of his troops fled, some into hiding, others across Jordan. The king with the 600 men who still clung to him retired on Gilgal, in which position he secured a safe base on the transjordanic tribes. He left at the head of the wady and opposite the l’hilistine position a small outpost under } onathan, who should watch the movements of the enemy and warn the main body (13-7). For a time there was hesitation. Probably the Phil. wished to draw the Isr. army from its strong position and from its su * But the invaders were too proudly conſident of their strength. Forming a camp above Michmash, they divided almost their whole force into detachments and sent these northward to forage and to check any rising which Ephraim might attempt, (13%lº.”). Jonathan saw his opportunity and seized it. With- out delaying to request support from his father, he struck full at the "... centre, overwhelmed the outpost at Michmash which had been set to watch him, and penetrated to the º Thence it would be an easy task to crush the divided * The exact sense of n^x) (1 S 138) cannot be considered .ertain, but in this connexion it is enough to know that it represented in some way the Phil. suzerainty. # See, however, Wellh. Comp. 247 f.; Budde, Richt. w. Sam. 101 ft., and W. R. Smith, OT'JC2 134 n., acc. to whom Gilgal is wn unhistorical interpolation. detachments in detail. So sudden was the defeat that Saul on hearing the news had no time even to consult the oracle. He followed instantly his son's assault. . The Isr. auxiliaries among the enemy deserted. The scattered Philistines were only preserved from utter ruin by the exhaustion of their victors; they streamed back by the same pass by which they had entered, and the South country was for a period free (14*). Here it would appear that the independent record of Saul’s reign ceased. Here accordingly (14*) have been inserted a brief list of his household, and a statement that the struggle between the young kingdom and the Philistines continued during his entire lifetime. Most of the remaining in- formation about the reign is derived from accounts which relate it as introductory to the appearance of David on the stage of Isr. history; and it is only just to the first king's memory to remember that the rest of his life is narrated from the point of view of an introduction to the life of his greater rival. But the king showed his prowess, and turned the new vigour of his realm against other foes than the Philistines. Men long remembered his victory over the Amalekites, partly because the motive of the war had been such a racial and religious antipathy, as the quickened self-con- sciousness of the young nation was keener to feel (1 S 15). And something of the same feeling must have prompted the king to crush the Gibeonites, that foreign tribe which had been received into the Isr. nation (cf. 2 S 21*). About this period, however, Saul lost the support of Samuel, who had done so much to set him on the throne. The accounts differ as to the reason which produced the quarrel. One referred it to the victorious campaign against the Amalekites. These borderers had long troubled the South country of Judah, ravaging it with sudden forays, since the desert offered refuge in defeat or secure retreat with º Samuel commanded the king to proclaim a religious war and root them out ; and Saul obeying delivered a blow from which the people never again recovered. He spared, however, the best of the spoil, and especially Agag, the captured king. I'or this disregard of the exact terms of his command Samuel de- nounced the fall of Saul's house in the very hour of his triumph (1 S 15). The other account dated the strife from the time when Saul had retreated on Gilgal, and was anxiously expecting, with a handful of wavering men, the assault of the Philis- times. Samuel had bade him wait there during seven days, with the promise to come down then and offer sacrifice on his behalf. As the prophet's arrival was delayed beyond the set period, and the people were threatening to desert him, the king ventured to sacrifice independently. For this he brought upon himself the prophecy of the fall of his dynasty” (13.”). Certainly, Saul through this quarrel was de- prived of a restraining and a strengthening influ- ence. The victory, too, at Michmash could not be final, it was only introductory. The Philistines, with their organized force and their strong cities, could better bear such a defeat than the Israelites such a victory. What was required from the young realm was no longer a vigorous rising followed by a momentary effort, but the patient organization of a steady defence. And this, because * It must always be remembered that there was a theological question debated in these matters. Saul, the heaven-appointed king, failºrſ in his mission and fell on Gilboa. There must therefore have been something in his life which brought upon him the displeasure of J", who would otherwise have given him victory. Thus the Chronicler (1 Ch 101") gives as an additional cause for the king's rejection the fact that he had consulted an evil spirit at Endor; and Josephus (Amt. VI. xiv. 9) adds also as a cause that he had destroyed ‘Allimelech the high priest and the city of the high priests.” 4] 4 SAUL SAUI, it was so novel in Isr. history, must have severely tried the temper of tribes not yet fully weaned from their desert instincts. Intertribal jealousies, further, which played so large a part in that early period (cf. Jg 9*. 81-8 12-0 etc.), and which troubled the kingdom even after David's reign had consolidated it (e.g. l IC 1219), could not fail to spring up, especially since the chief belonged to one of the smaller tribes. All these things are enough to account in a sensitive man for the deep melancholy which clouded the king's powers at the very time when those were most needed (1 S 1614). David's fame as a skilful harp player led to his being brought to the little court, where his music soothed the king's vexed mood. The charm, which made all men whom he met love the future king, laid hold on Saul, and he attached the young man permanently to his person as his armour-bearer (16**). By this time the war against Philistia. had changed its character. On their side the Philistines, taught by the disaster at Michmash not to despise their foes, and probably considering the subjugation of the barren "... scarcely worth the trouble it cost, were content to keep open their trade-route along the coast. On his side Saul recognized the foily of attempting to besiege the five strongly fortified cities in the valley. In the new border warfare which sprang up David soon proved himself an adept, and rose to a trusted position in the army. ecognizing his prowess, Saul gave the young captain his daughter Michal in marriage, and asked as bride gift the present of 100 Phil. foreskins--a gift significant at once of the low culture of the period and the character of the war (18”). But the new son-in-law proved dangerously strong. His deeds in the field and the personal magnetism which never forsook him, won him the love of Jonathan and the more perilous applause of the multitude. To the darkened mind of the king it seemed by no means impossible that ambition might prove too strong for gratitude and kinship. By guile and by open force he sought to get David into his inds. Bach effort failed; even his daughter deserted him and tricked his messengers, while her husband escaped (ch. 19). After that open rupture David continued to linger in the neigh- bourhood of the court, while efforts were made, especially by the leal-hearted Jonathan, to heal the breach between Saul and the stoutest of his servants. But this only served to draw upon the prince the suspicion that he had entered into a conspiracy with the son of Jesse to dethrone the king,”—a suspicion which Jonathan was too proud in his integrity even to deny. The proud j however, would not appeal to so darkened a mind as Saul’s had become. Such a position could not endure. At last David fled to Nob, northward from Jerus., and thence made his way through the country of the Philistines into the familiar South, where his own clan were sure to shelter him (ch. 21). Saul, ‘sitting under the tamarisk-tree at Gibeah,” reproached his own men as traitors because they had not betrayed the plotter, and as fools because they failed to recognize how the first result of setting up this Judahite would be the loss of power and prestige to Benjamin. He forthwith took a fearful vengeance on the priests who had harboured the fugitive, by massacring almost the entire household of Ahimelech at Nob, and then pursued the refugee in his retreat (22"). How far this quarrel was the result of baseless suspicion in the diseased mind of the king, and how far it may have been justified by facts, must always remain uncertain. The fulness of the * This is un doubtedly the meaning and the sting of 1 S 2030ſ. * details which we possess, both over this period and over that in which David was hunted through the Negeb, proves that the hairbreadth escapes of the great king before he came to the throne were a favourite subject with the early historians. But all the accounts were written from a standpoint which regarded David as the divinely appointed king over all Israel. And it is not an impossibility that the active, patriotic mind of the young soldier may have seen d. need, if his country were to be delivered, of some stronger hand upon the reins of government at that period. It is also possible that he may have been betrayed into words or acts which wrought with extra power on the morbid mind of Saul. The first intention of the fugitive seems to have been to settle in a tract still occupied by the Canaanites which lay between Judah and Philistia. It enjoyed the double advantage of lying near the settlements of his own kindred, and of offering the desert for a last retreat. There he might hope to set up an independent principality without going over to the hereditary enemy; and the inter- mittent war along the western frontier might draw the king's attention away from his escaped captain. Once, therefore, he attempted to settle in a town at Keilah (23"). Iłut the district was devoted to the king, and Saul drove him headlong from this refuge. He then betook himself to the pasture country S.E. of Judah and adjoining the Dead Sea. But here also, though he allied himself with the strong clan of the Calebites by his marriage with Abigail, he was unable to maintain himself. Saul’s government was powerful enough to expel him even from this corner of the realin (chs. 24–26), and he was finally driven to find refuge under the protection of Achish in Gath (27%). The Philistine princes, recognizing his worth, and especi- ally his aptitude for the border warfare in which he had annoyed themselves, settled the fugitive in Ziklag (v."), where he might cover their unguarded flank, and keep the ‘way of the sea,’ the trade-route for Egypt, against the unruly tribes of the desert. It is a strong proof of the extent to which the kingdom had been consolidated even during these years of war, that Saul was able to drive out of this remote part of his government one who combined with his popularity as captain family ties in that very region. The young realm must also have included much on the eastern side of the Jordan, for the last stand of Saul's house under Ishbosheth was made at Mahanaim (28.2°"). It now began to creep along the backbone of the hill-country and to aim at overpassing the valley of Jezreel into the Northern tribes. Had this succeeded, it would not only have gained a great accession of strength in linking the Northern tribes more closely with the Southern, it would also have cut the line of communication by which the trade of the Euphrates found its way over Damascus and Philistia to Egypt. This would have , meant, draining one chief artery of the life-blood in that trading com- munity. (Only on this view of the problem can we understand why the final grapple between the two powers was not fought in the South near the head- quarters of them both, but in the comparatively far-off North.) Threatened in their most vulnerable point, the Philistines roused themselves to action, and marched by Sharon and Megiddo into Esdraelon to clear the threatencil route. Saul followed them along the hills, and crossing by En-gannim posted his army on Mt. Gilboa at the opposite side of the valley from Shunem where his adversaries lay.” * No reference has been made to the other positions occupied by Saul and the Philistines, because, so long as the position of Aphek depends on nothing better thun conjecture, all the rest must remain uncertain also. I'or a careful discussion of SAUL SAVOUR, SAVOURY 415 In this position he commanded both Jordan and E, draelon. This was no longer a guerilla contest, but a grapple of sheer bodily strength between the two kingdoms. Saul realized it, suspected also that the Philistines were too strong for him. His visit to the witch at Endor (ch. 28) both betrayed and increased the agitation with which he faced the battle. Men said he went into the fight knowing what was before him ; that the evening before, Samuel, who had first anointed him to lead the armies of Israel, summoned him to a tryst at the grave. So it fell out. The ground on which the ſight befell was not such as could protect the Isr. infantry from the dreaded, chariots of the enemy. The Philistines crossed the valley and mounted the hill slopes. Saul saw his arm routed, his sons slain, and retained only º enough to command his own death. The Philis- tines next day found their great enemy dead, consecrated his armour in the temple of the Ash- taroth, and hung his dº body in the public square of 13ethshan. 13ut gratitude was as strong as hate, for men of Jabesh-gilead crossed the Jordan in the night, took down the body of the prince to whom they owed so much, and buried it on the site of his first victory (ch. 31). Saul had been called to the task of freeing Israel from the Philistines, for without that freedom no advance was possible for the nation. And what had prompted him to seat himself on the throne had been no personal ambition, but a recognition of this fact, a very call of J". Because they could not fail to recognize this and the excellence of the deed, his people could not fail to reverence his memory, and even he who had fared worst at the king's hands sang his imperishable lament over him (2S 1*). Yet Saul had failed in his attempt, and died on Mount Gilboa. How that could be ossible was the problem which long puzzled men in Israel. May it not be that they did not look widely enough 2 For Saul had done his work, despite his failure. No one ever questioned but that the kingdom must continue ; he had proved its value too well for that. The only question which still remained was as to the man who should succeed and complete the imperfect task. That some one must, was a foregone conclusion. The first king, though outward circumstances had proved too strong for him, and though he had been unable to resolve the many difficulties which the new condition of affairs raised within Israel itself, had done enough to make the way clear for his successor: Saul died on Gilboa, but he made David possible. Saul was married to Ahinoam, the daughter of Ahimaaz (1 S 14"). Most of his sons died at his side (31°); but one at least, Ishbaal or Ishbosheth (which see), escaped from Gilboa to meet a sadder fate (2 S 4"). A son of Jonathan, Mephibosheth (which see), appears in the history of David (2S 9". 1991*), and from him the Chronicler (1 Ch 9".) derives a long line of descendants. It was one of l)ean Stanley's suggestions which requires nothing except proof, that as Zimri appears in that list, the rebellion of 1 K 16" may have been the last effort of the fallen house to recover its position. Saul also left issue by a subordinate wife (2 S 21°), for whose fate see IRIZI’AH. It is difficult to accept the computation of Ac 1821, which makes the length of this first reign in Israel 40 years. For, within two years of his father's accession, Jonathan was able to lead troops into battle (1 S 131-3), a fact which argues for Saul an age of 40 years at his ‘coronation,’ and it is almost impossible to believe that it was a man of 80 years of age who fought at Mount Gilboa. Josephus (Amt. X. viii. 4, VI. xiv. 9) gives the length of the reign as 20 years. While this may be the question and a good statement of its difficulty, see Smith, II (; 11 L 400 ſº., 675, and cf. A PHER, No. 3. It is just possible that Bethshº was the objective of both forces, and that the l’hilistines Bought elieve, the Israelites tº "over, the siege of th9 town. * ~ 2- ti merely a guess, it does not present the above difficulties, and . with the fact that Ishbaal was 40 years old at his father's eath. See, further, BENJAMIN, DAVID, and the Litera- ture at end of the latter article. 2. Saul of Tarsus. See I’AUL. A. C. WELCH. SAVARAN.—l Mac 643 A.V. See AVARAN. SAYE, SAYING. —Both “save” and “saving (from Fr. Sanºf, its force being seen in sawf mon droit, “my right being reserved,” see Skeat, Etymol. Dict. s.v.), in the sense of eaccept, frequently occur in AV. Thus Ps 18” “For who is God save the Lord 2’; Lk 18” “None is good, save one, that is God”; Dt 15° ‘Save when there shall be no poor among you’; Ac 20° ‘Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city’; Neh 4” “None of us put off our clothes, saving that every one put them off for washing’; Ec 5” “What good is there to the owners thereof, suving (DN 7) the [beholding] of them with their eyes?’ The phrase “to save one alive” (Gn 1212 5020, Ex 117, 18.22 etc.) is used synonymously with ‘to keep one alive' (Gn 619, 20 78, Jos 1410 etc.), or “to preserve one alive' (1)t 621), the Heb. being a causative form of T.I., “to be alive.” Cf. Mt. 2814 Tind. ‘If this come to the rulers eares, we Wyll pease him, and save you harmeles.’ J. HASTINGs. SAVIAS (B om., A Xaovías), 1 Es 8* = Uzzi, an ancestor of Ezra, ; cf. Ezr 7”. SAVIOUR.—See SALVATION. SAYOUR, SAYOURY.-Savour comes from Lat. sapor taste (from Sapere to taste) through the Old Fr. savour (mod. Saveur). It was used first of all, in accordance with its derivation, for the taste or relish of a thing ; then it passed to the expression of the kindred sense of smell; and from this it was easily used in the fig. sense of name or reputation. All these uses are found in AV. (l) Taste : Mt. 5* || Lk 14* “If the salt have lost his savour (uwpav0m), where with shall it be salted ?’ (&\to 0%retat ; in Lk &pru0%retat, EV ‘be seasoned ’). The tr. in both places is from the Geneva version of 1557. The meaning is probably more than mere taste, rather ‘virtue,” its power to make food “savoury’ (see the quotation from Udall’s Erasmus at the end of this art.). (2) Smell: J. 2” “His stink shall come up, and his ill savour shall come up (in;IIs, Cov. ‘ his fylthy corrupcion,’ Gen. ‘ his corruption'); elsewhere in O'T lº. “sweet savour’ §. rºl, except Ezr 6” “sacrifices of sweet savours,” Aram. I'min'). In the Apocrypha et w8tais rendered a ‘good savour’ in 1 Es l”, a “sweet savour’ in Sir 35° 38'"; other examples of the word are 2 Es 2* “for an ointment of sweet savour’ (in odorem ungu.cnti), Sir 39” “give ye a sweet savour’ (eſſwówágate 60 pujv), 50” “a sweet- smelling savour’ (30 uiju et w8ías). In NT et w8ta is tr. “sweet savour’ in 2 Co 2°, and 60 pai) etwäias is tr. ‘a sweet-smelling savour’ in Eph 5° (but in Ph 418 “an odour of a sweet smell’); elsewhere we find &apº, alone, 2 Co 2" “the savour of his know- ledge,’ i.e. the sweet smell of the knowledge of (;od (6apºv Tijs Yvºorews atroſ); and 2* “To one we are the savour of death unto death ; and to the other the savour of life unto life' (ols uév, 60 pºil 6avátov eis 0&varov' ols öé, Öopil wiis eis (wiju ; edd. insert ék before 0avárov and before {wijs, whence RV ‘ from death . . . from life”). Cf. Mandeville. Travels (in “Macmillan's Lib. of. Eng. Classics, p. 113), “And at the foot of that mount is a fair well and a great, that hath odour and savour of all spices’; Jn 12° Wyc, “the hous was fulfillid of the savour of the oynemente'; Jer 48* Cov. ‘Mir taist renºvueth, and hiſ savoure is not yet 416 SAW SCEPTRE changed '; and the Note to Lv 19 in Matthew's Bible, “This swete odoure is : the sacryfyce of fayth and of pure affeccyon, in whych God is as delited, as a man is delited in the good savoure of meates, as it is said of Noe, Gen. viii. d.” (3) Figuratively, reputation, Ex 5” “Ye have made our savour to be abhorred (AVm ‘to stink’) in the eyes of Pharaoh.” Cf. also Gn. 34”, l S 13", 2 S 10", and the Eng. ‘to be in (or to bring into) bad odour.” The verb ‘to savour’ is (1) to taste or smell of, as Pref. to AV, ‘Thus to minse the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdome.’ (2) To seek out by taste or smell, as Cranmer, Works, i. 181, “By this you may soon savour what judgment this man is of.” So in AV Mt 16” || Mk 8” “thou savourest not the things that be of God’ (oč (bpovets), Vulg. mom sapis, whence Wyc. ‘ thou saverist not,’ and all following versions till RV, ‘thou mindest not.’ Cf. Bunyan, Holy War, p. 25, ‘And that which made him yet the more ignoble . . . was, that he never could savour good, but evil.” The adj. ‘savoury’ occurs in AV only in Gn 274. 7. * * * * of the ‘savoury meat’ which Isaac loved (Heb. Dºp always plu., from Dy? to taste). The word is also found in Is 30” marg., and accepted into RW text, AV “clean,’ RVnn “salted,’ in refer- ence to the provender of oxen and young asses (Heb. Fºr, ºi, Oaf, Heb. Lea. º seasoned with salt or a salt herb, rendering it more tasty’). Cf. Udall, Erasmus' Paraph. i. 19 (on Mt 51°), ‘It muste nedes bee a lively and a piththie thynge that can be sufficient to sawce and make savourie the life of all mankynde, being so werishe and unsavourye thorowe the desyres and fond opinions of vayne thynges.” J. HASTINGS. SAW.--Tºn 2 S 1231, 1 K 79, 1 Ch 208 [but in this last the correct text is ninjip ‘axes’], Yiyp Is 10”; LXX irplay. From 1 K 7" it is evident that saws were used for cutting stone. In Syria, at the present time, long smooth blades of iron are used to cut out columns. These have no handles: a heavy piece of wood is fitted to the back of the saw ; this is grasped by two men, who draw it backwards and forwards, sand and water being plentifully used. It seems probable, from the marks on the rocks, that the ancient Egyptians used bronze saws with emery for cutting granite (Wilkinson, Amc. Egypt. ii. p. 254 n.). The ancient Egyptian car- enters in cutting wood drew the saw towards them instead of pushing it from them. In India, the same custom prevails. Iºnglish saws are bought eagerly by the Hindu carpenters, but the English handles are removed, and other handles fixed at the narrow end of the blades. In the NT the verb used is trpl{w, He ll”. W. CARSLAW. SCALL.-See MEDICINE, vol. iii. p. 329°. Scall is the AV and RV translation of png (Lv 13. 14*): Wyc. has “wem,” Tind. “burning,’ Cov. ‘skyrfe,’ Gen. “blacke spot,” Dou. ‘spotte,’ Dish. ‘fret.” The Eng. word is of Scand. origin, and signified primarily baldness (Icel. Skalli, a bald head), but in Middle Eng. (also spelt scalde) it is a scab or eruption, generally of the head. Cf. Chaucer, Scrivener, 3– “Under thy longe lockes thou maist have the scalle’; Spenser, I'Q I. viii. 47— “Her craftie head was altogether bald, And, as in hate of honourable eld, Was over growne with scurfe and filthy scald’; and Tindale, Lv 21” “Broken handed, or croke backed, or perleyed, or gogeleyed, or maunge, or skaulde’; I)t 28° “And the Lorde will Smyte the dº - . dºmº- *wº with the botches of Egipte and the emorodes, scalle, and maungynesse.” J. HASTINGS. SCANDAL. — In Wis 1411 marg, the Gr. orkavöa)\g is translated ‘scandals” (text ‘stumbling-blocks”). See OFFENCE, vol. iii. p. 586". ". The Rhem. version uses ‘scandal’ as the tr. of a kávöa)\ov (after Vulg. scandalum), in Mt 13” “The Sonne of man shal send his Angels, and they shal gather out of his kingdom al scandals, and them that worke iniquitie’—16* 187, Ro 141*; and the verb ‘scandal- ize' occurs freq. as the tr. of a kavöa)\l{w, as Mt 5* 110 15” 18°, Lk 7*, Jn 16'. J. HASTINGS. sCAPE-GoRT.—see Azazel. SCARLET.-This word is the equivalent in AV of—1. ‘jºy shamº, or ºn hashshāmi (the latter in Gn 3799, Ex 28° 3525. 85 38%. 391. 9, Jos 218.2), Ca. 43). 2. , D'jºy shamim (Is 128 [with, art.], Pr 31*). 3. nyºn"; shěnt-tola'ath, and nyºnºriº shēnē-hattola- 'ath (Lv 144: ". * * * 19%). 4. Jº-nyºn tola'ath-shūnē, and •lyn-nyºn tóla'ath-hatshsham? (Ex 25–39 passim, Nu 48). 5. yºn told (La 4"). Once (Jer 4*) only is shànim tr" AV ‘crimson,’ RV “scarlet' (see CRIMSON). In one passage (Is 1”) AV and RV tr. shānīm ‘scarlet” (LXX powukoús), and tòla ‘crimson’ (LXX kökkuvos). 6. Kókkuvos (Mt. 27°, He 9”, Rev 17* * 181*, *). As our Eng. versions do not rigidly reserve the distinction between crimson and scar- et, we cannot wonder that the ancients did not always do so. Töld originally signifies the worm or insect, and Shān; the colour. In point of fact, both colours are produced from the same insect. Sometimes one of the two words is omitted, and sometimes the other, and sometimes both are given. The article is inserted or omitted, without an obvious reason. The creature alluded to, which produces the colour, is the cochineal, a hemipter- ous insect, Coccus ilicis, of which the male in the imago state is Winged, and the female wingless. This insect attaches itself to the leaves and twigs of Quercus coccifera. An allied species, Coccºts cateti, is raised on the leaf-like branches of Cactus I'icus Indica, Haw., and C. cochillinifera, Mill., particu- larly in the neighbourhood of Nāblùs. The female is oval in form, convex at the upper, flat at the lower surface. She is about the size of half a cherry kernel, but dries up to that of a grain of wheat. The Arab. name of this bug is kirmiz, from which the word crimson is derived. Other colours besides scarlet and crimson, as purple and violet, are manufactured from the cochineal. See, further, art. COLOURS, s. “Scarlet.’ - G. E. POST. SCEPTRE is AV and RV tr. of 1. bºy shëbet: Gn 49” (“The sceptre [LXX &pxwv] shall not depart from Judah,” etc.; on this passage see art. LAW- GIVER in vol. iii. p. 83, and SHILOH, below, p. 500f.), Nu 24*7 (‘there shall come forth a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre [I,XX div0pwros] shall rise out of Israel,” where sceptre and star [cf., for the latter figure, Is 141*, Itev 22*] are symbolical for a mighty prince *), Ps 45" (7) (‘a sceptre [LXX and NT papóos] of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom,’ quoted in He 1°), Is 14” (I Tºp ; ‘the LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, the sceptre [LXX {vyós, which is used also for “staff’ immediately before] of the rulers’), Ezk 1911 (‘she [the vine symbolizing Israel] had strong rods for the sceptres of them that bare rule'; cf. v.”, where, after her destruction, “there is in her no longer a strong rod to be a sceptre to rule'), Am 10. “ (“I will cut off him that holdeth the sceptre’ [LXX here and in the two verses in * This appears decidedly preferable to the suggestion of Ball (in SDOT', on Gn 1910) that nº ('star') may here mean, like the Sumerian MULMUL, ‘a lance, or else a club, mace, or mawl, with a spiked head.’ & SCEPTRE SCEPTRE 417 Ezekiel has pu)\}, taking shabet in the sense of “tribe']), Zec 10" (‘the sceptre [LXX akīmrpov) of º!" shall depart away”). 2. lºng sharbit, used of the golden sceptre [LXX h xpurſ, pâ850s] of Ahasuerus, Est 4" 5** 8* [all]. Sharbit is simply an Aramaism for shabet (cf. the insertion of r in Darmesek for Dammesek in 1 Ch 18°, and see Siegfried, Lehrb. d, neuheb. Sprache, § 18 c). In addition to the above instances, RV in Nu 21” corrects AV by direction of the lawgiver' (LXX eu ri Bao wheta aúrów) to “with the sceptre.” The Heb, is ppnº II only ºn “with their staves.” Similarly RV reads in L’s 607 (9)= 108° (9) “Judah is my sceptre' (same Heb. word) for AV “Judah is some portrayals of the Persian monarchs (see Rawlinson, Anc. Mon. iii. 203 ff., who describes the Persian sceptre as a rod about five feet long, ornamented with a ball or apple at its upper end, and tapering at its other extremity almost to a point). Probably both forms of ‘sceptre’ are in view in Gn 49" (where tº should prob, be taken as a royal emblem), the longer one being º b %. pphº (prop. “commander's staff") of the second clause, and the shorter one by the tºº of the first clause.” The long sceptre is simply an ornamented staff, the short one is a development of the club or mace (cf. art. Rod, and see figures in Ball, l.c. pp. 50, 199", 217). It is this last-named weapon that is called shabet in 2 S 23* = 1 Ch 11*(AW and ASBY-1An king with sorptre (Dog-River INSCRIPTIONs). my lawgiver' [LXX Barºet's]. See LAwgiver, l.c. It also substitutes ‘sceptre’ for “rod' as tr. of shebet in Ps 125° (‘the sceptre [LXX pāş60s] of wickedness shall not rest upon the lot of the righteous'). ‘Sceptre’ is the appropriate rendering of shabet, when this is associated with a king or used abso- lutely," in which latter instance it probably always designates a royal possession (see Driver, Ewpos, July 1885, p. 13). Shebet, in this sense, may stand either for a short ornamental sceptre such as appears in some representations of the Assyrian king (see illustration above, and the figures in Ball, Light from the East, pp. 160, 199", 217), or for a long staff reaching to the ground, which characterizes * In instances like JG 514 (nºt tº)' baton' would be a very suitable rendering. VOL. IV. --27 RW wrongly “staff") and Ps. 2'23" (AV and RV less clearly ‘rod”). The ‘golden’ (xpºreov) or ‘gold-studded (xpworetous #\ourt) sceptre (a kimºrpov) appears frequently in the pages of |. in the lands of kings and chiefs (e.g., Il. i. 15, 246; 0d. xi. 91, 569). With such a ‘sceptre’ Ulysses beats. Thersites (Il. ii. 265 fl.); a sceptre is put by a herald into the hands of M. when he rises to address the Greeks (ib. xxiii. 568, cf. Od. ii. 37). On the difficulty of approaching the presence of the Persian kings referred to in Est 4", cf. also Herod. iii. 118, 140. J. A. SELBIE. but this is not required by the parallelism. * Dillm., Ball, Gunkel, et al., make pphº and e: synonymou here, and understand both to refer to a long 'scentre' or staff; In I's 110° nº in likewise an emblem of rule, and virtually-' sceptre. 4 18 SCEVA SCEWA SCEWA (XKevås, Sceva), Ac 1914.—The name (Blass, ad loc.) was probably of Latin origin Scaeva, but had been assimilated to a Greek form as if derived from a ketos ; it occurs in an inscription at Miletus (CIG ii. 2889. 5). In Ac 1911-29, in the account of St. Paul's preaching at Ephesus, we are told that God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul, even handkerchiefs carried from his body were sufficient to heal. But some of the wandering Jewish exorcists tried to exorcize in the name of Jesus, saying, ‘ I adjure you by Jesus, whom Paul preaches.’ Then is º the special instance of the seven sons of Sceva, described as a Jewish high priest, who attempted this and failed, the evil spirit answering, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are ye?’ and the man driv- ing two of them * naked and wounded out of the house. This caused great fear. Many who had used curious arts came confessing what they had done. Many also burnt magical books amounting in value to 50,000 drachmas (about £2000). “So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.” The whole paragraph must be taken together. It represents St. Paul's miracles and spiritual power in contrast to the magical customs which so widely prevailed. Many Jews especially devoted º to sorcery, and Ephesus was noted for, amongst other forms of sorcery, the Ephesia gram- amata (see EPHESUS and MAGIC). St. %. power and success led to imitation of him. The name of Jesus evidently seemed to have some special efficacy, and so was adopted by the sorcerers, as every other name in turn was adopted (on the ower of names see Frazer, Golden Bough, i. 403). The discoveries of papyri made in the last few years have enabled us to realize the very large extent to which magical practices prevailed, and the number of magical books which existed. The fame of Jehovah in some form is common, and in the following extract from a magical papyrus at Paris the name of Jesus is used. The papyrus is of the 4th cent., and the original cannot be earlier than Hadrian, who is mentioned by name; it is pub- lished by C. Wessely, ‘Griechische Zauberpapyrus von Paris und London,’ in the Denkschriften der phil.-hist. Classe der kais. Akad. der Wissen- schafter in Wien, vol. xxxvi. (1888) l. 3007 ff.)." reb; 32.1%avičowivov; II:3zzía's 36xiºv. Ag32, Azov ºpo.zºovro. &srå gotá was 427ty…; 22. Aatºſpo.º. ºpe, ºr; 2244.9%zov &xporio row . . . aráozº &vrizpur opzićs. $otiv 88 & 6pxiaº; otros' 6p2.3a, as xo~& rot; 0800 ray 'E3po...ov 'Izzou' to:32' 12% cºpo.00° cºuz : Joll' ºs' ºw' oºza,' sov' uſ?o.8% cºpº.o.º. 128&poov' &/348/342. " Awyz' 232%', ºzpolz' 3022 av’ avpiºxyn' & iv pairn, &poćpn; 22. zuévos zzi 6%izXz; roºww.zrif' zozto:3&ta orov 8 &yyeXo: 3 &roºpoeira roº zzi elaxony; to row ºrºpurrègesvov 8&izovo, roi; ºrx∨,&rog roºrov 3 firazºrsy % Usos $v rá &24, 32vtov repox?sſora, IMS roºpoºsvaal) . . . #221(a ri roy onwayſlivra, rå Iapº is oróA* ºwruvé zì vigian %pºpuwº a.º.A. Both the evidence of papyri and the incident recorded in the Acts imply a conviction, even amongst those who did not believe, that there was power, perhaps º power, in the name of Jesus. It would imply a general impression that miracles were wrought in His name, and bears witness to the force and power of Christianity. It is instructive also to notice how from the beginning Christianity is the resolute foe of all Imagic. - There are a number of critical questions connected with this narrative. First of all there is a question of text. The RV Codex B) reads: “And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a cw, a chief priest, which did this. And the evil spirit answered and said unto them, Jesus I know, and Paul I know ; but who are ye? And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped º them, and mastered both of them, and prevailed against them, so that they ſled out of that house naked and wounded.” D (supported by the margin of the Philoxenian) * But, see footnote on next column. º # For this and other information the present writer is in- •lelºved to Dr. I'. G. Kenyon of the British Museum. reads: “And among those also the sons of one Sceva, a priest, wished to do the same thing, who had a custom of eacorcizing 8ttch and having gone in wrºto the man possessed with devils, they began to call wºom the name, 8aying : We command thee in Jesus, whom Paul preaches, to come forth.” According to Ramsay (Church in the IRoman Empire, p. 153): “Codex Ée. here gives a text which is intelligent, consistent, and possible: the accepted text is badly expressed and even self-contradictory.’ This opinion seems to be º followed. To the present writer the text of D is clearly a bad paraphrase, and its growth can be shown. . The statement that Sceva was a Jewish high priest seemed (as it is) very Curious, and therefore was altered in various ways, D alters &pxuspia; into ispia;, and omits 'Iovºozlov, so Gig, reads “Sacerdotis,' and Cassiodorius explains by ‘principis synagogo. - Then again in the text of B, while in v.14 we have seven sons, in v. 10 it is stated that the man “mastered both of them,' im- }}. only two. Gig, therefore substitutes “duo’ for “septemn,” leaves out the number altogether, while the majority of later authorities prefer to omit or alter &ºtorieay in v.19, the Sahidic even putting eorwºn 8eptem. The remaining alterations of D are, as is generally the case, mere inept expansions. The narrative of St. Luke is very much abbreviated, and the para- tºº. or translator thought that he could make it more clear, ut he does not add a single point which could not be guessed. Even in the few words he does add he manages to introduce the form sizczy and the word 32.Écović6%avoy which are not Lukan, and the expression hºrizocatio (loci to ºvopoo, which does not occur unqualified in the NT, and betrays a later age. It may be noted that the word & uporépov is undoubtedly Lukan (8 or 9 times in Luke and Acts, 0 times elsewhere in NT). The incon- sistency may be difficult, but it is quite inconceivable that any one who had the l text before him should have taken the trouble to insert Septem. On every principle of textual criti- cism the text of B must be the original. The statement that Sceva was a Jewish high priest is un- doubtedly difficult, but we have no right therefore to correct it away. Yet in the sense of a member of a high priestly family there must have been many who could claim it, and as Zeller (Acts of the Apostles, Eng. tr. ii. p. 59) says: “It is quite possible that a band of exorcists, giving themselves out for sons or disciples of a Jewish high priest, may have made an experi- ence of the futility of their arts in the person of a lunatic who had heard something of Paul and of Christ.’ The difficulty about the discrepancy of numbers is more interesting, St. Luke's narrative is obviously very much shortened; only the necessary statements are made, and only what is essential is given. He never tells us that only two out of the seven were engaged in this incident, and it comes out accidentally, in &ºporipov.” Does not this small point imply that the writer had here a source, almost necessarily a written one, from which he abbreviated his narrative? It has been suggested that ww.11-20 have been added to the original work. Hilgenfeld ascribes the passage to R. Ramsay, who has taken a dislike to it, Says : “If there were many such contrasts in the book as between vv.11-20 and 29-41, I should be a believer in the composite character of the Acts' (St. Paul the Traveller, p. 273). It will be interesting, therefore, to examine the language. It will appear that throughout the passage we find characteristic Lukan expressions. oë rºs rvzoározº, cf. Ac 28%. rvyxzvary, 7 times in Acts and Luke, 6 times elsewhere. $ºria roºoci, 10 t. in Acts, 5 elsewhere. 31& xspás, Tây zºlpºy, 8 times in Acts. ºvarrów, 10 t. in Acts, twice in Luke, 3 t. elsewhere. toſs zºolzotowy with acc. 13 t. in Acts, once in Luke. &rariarray, 10 t. in Acts and Luke, 4 elsewhere. q630; airsorsy, cf. Lk 112, Acºyo. Aövsty, 5 tº in Acts and Luke, 3 elsewhere. of ºrgaria'rawzórss, common in Acts. izzvoſ, 29 times in Acts and Luke, 12 elsewhere. riº, or rºwzí of price, 5 times in Acts. With v.20 cf. 671224. The whole structure of the paragraph is exactly in the manner of the writer of the Acts, with the final clause summing up the whole, while there are indications that here as else- Whº. he has reproduced partly in his own words a written narrative, just in the same way as he reproduces the Synoptic narratives in the Gospels with signs of his own phraseology. Besides the special point touched on above, the historical character of the narrative has been attacked more generally. Ramsay (St. Pattl the Traveller, loc. cit.) finds in it a vulgarity of tone com- pared with the great scene at Paphos. This seems to the present writer purely fanciful. Zellor, (op. cit. ii. 58) says: ‘Even from the standpoint of the miraculous faith presented in our book, such an utterly crass and magical representation of the healing power of the apostle has too much that is offensive.” What he particularly objects to is the story of the healing power in the handker- * [In Earpos. Times, Dec. 1000, p.144, it is argued by Nestie that &/ºrspol, like ‘both’, in English (see editorial note, ib, ), may include more than two, and is at times equivalent to ºra wres. It was also discussed by J. B. Bury in the Classical 1&ev. xi. 303 (1807). There are at least two instances in Papyri I, Brit. Mw8. Pap. 336; Geneva Pap. 67]. SCHISM SCOURGE 413 chiefs of St. Paul, and this is supposed to be a mere parallel to the narrative in Ac 5**. The arallel is too distant to have any weight, and here, as elsewhere, we need only remark about the miraclos, that even if the handkerchiefs of St. Paul had no healing power it would certainly be believed that they possessed it, and that if the faith of the recipient was a condition of healing it might surely act equally with those who received a handkerchief in the virtue of which they believed. The whole narrative must be criticised and judged from the point of view of the time and place. The remarks of Conybeare and Howson, ch. xiv., who bring out how exactly the story harmonizes with the atmosphere of Ephesus, are much more valuable. ‘The character of miracles was not always the same. They were accommodated to the peculiar forms of sin, superstition, and ignorance they were required to oppose. . . . So on this occasion gar- ments were made the means of communicating a healing power to those who were at a distance ... such effects thus publicly manifested were a signal refutation of the charms and amulets and mystic letters of Ephesus.’ A. C. HEADLAM. SCHISM.–Only 1 Co. 12” “That there should be no schism in the body’: Gr. oxlapa, which means either lit. a rent in a garment (Mt 9” - Mk 2*) or fig. a division in a community (Jn 74°9' 10”, l Co 110 1118 12”). RV retains ‘schism’ in 1 Co 12*, and in the marg. of 11” points out that the Gr. is ‘schisms’ (text ‘divisions'). See HERESY, vol. ii. p. 351*. SCHOOL.—See EDUCATION. SCHOOLMASTER.— Only Gal 324. * AV (Gr. trauðaywyðs, which occurs also in 1 Co 44° AV ‘instructer’; RV in all places ‘tutor’). The tratóaywyðs (Lat., pasdagogus) was a person (gener- ally a slave) who had charge of the Greek or Roman boy till he reached manhood. Tindale’s translation ‘scholemaster' (Wyc. ‘maister’) is misleading, as the trauðaywyös was not a school- master or teacher (6tóórka Nos). Nor is the apostle thinking of one who conducted to school, though no doubt the trauðaywyös might lead the boy to school if he went there. The contrast in Gal. is between the restraint of boyhood and the liberty of manhood. To be under the Law is to be always under the control of a trauðaywyðs, to be in Christ is to be free from that irksome restraint. J. HASTINGS. SCHOOLS OF THE PROPHETS.—See EDUCA- TION, vol. i. p. 647", and PROPHECY, p. 109". SCIENCE.-This word, as used in AV, means simply knowledge. Wyclif (Works, iii. 122) renders 1 Co 8" “Science blowes men’ (AV ‘knowledge puffeth up ’). Cf. Barlowe, Dialoge, 109, ‘There is no truthe, no mercye, nor scyence of god in the yerth'; Golding, Calvin's Job, 571, “Thou shalt not run after witchcrafts, and other vaine sciences”; and Ro 2° Rhem. ‘Having the forme of science’ (AV ‘which hast the form of knowledge,” Gr. Tſis 'yvöorews). The word occurs in AV only Dn 1" ‘Children . . . understanding science' (nyi yi', LXX ypapºuarukoús, Theod. Yuyvögkoutas yuájaw); and 1 Ti 6” “Avoiding . . . oppositions of science falsely so called ' (duruſ)égets rās pewógvögov 'yviðgews, Rhem. ‘oppositions of falsely called knowledge’). See KNOWLEDGE and GNOSTICISM. Science in the modern sense, that is, the dis- covery and classification of secondary laws, is unlūnown to the Bible. To the Hebrew mind ohenomena were immediately due to the word of }. See P. Thomson in Earpos, 2nd ser. vol. i. pp. 161 ff., 241 ff. J. HASTINGS. SCORPION (nºx akrābh, okopittos, scorpio, Arab. 'akrab), – There has never been any reason to doubt the identity of this animal. It is of the order Arachnidae, resembling in shape a lobster, except that it has a long tail, at the end of which is its venomous sting. Its claws are used for Seizing its prey, which it kills with its sting. When the animal runs it holds its tail upward in readiness to strike. . It is carnivorous, living on insects and worms. Scorpions swarm under stones and in chinks of walls, and often conceal them- selves under beds and mats in houses. Their sting is very painful, frequently causing a night of agony, which nothing but a large dose of morphine will assuage. The wound is dangerous to human life only when in a situation where the swelling obstructs the respiration. Not less than a dozen Species are found in Palestine and Syria. The largest is 6 in. long, and black. Others are yellow, brown, white, and red, and variously striped. The scorpion is frequently mentioned in Scrip- ture. Allusion is made to its residence in the desert (Dt.8%). Rehoboam threatens to chastise his contumacious subjects with scorpions (1 K 12*, *, 2 Ch 10**). This is prob., figurative (see next art.). , Again, scorpions are alluded to figuratively with briers and #. to designate a rebellious people (Ezk 2"). The offer of a scorpion instead of an egg (Lk 11”) is mentioned in a way that shows the horror which this creature inspired. The figure employed by our Lord in this passage is suggested by the egg-like form of the scorpion when at rest (see Plummer, ad loc.). The pain of its sting (IRev 9°), the organ that inflicts it (v.”), and its venomous quality (v.”), are noted. The scorpion is also men- tioned in Apocr. (Sir 267 39°, 4 Mac 1119). G. E. POST. SCOURGE (bº, usually translated ‘scourge,’ six times[1 K 12ii. 14, 2 Ch 101.1", Pr 263, Nah 3°) whip'; Gr. nouns and verbs uáo ruš, paatiyêw, waarlºw ; ppay- éA\tov, ppayex\da, ; flagellum, flagclare).-Among the Hebrews the usual mode of corporal punish- ment, legal and domestic, was that of beating with the rod, just as the bastinado is still the common method in Eastern countries. The only reference to the scourge as an instrument of punishment is found in 1 K 12" ", 2 Ch 101: 14. Rehoboam sig- nalized his accession to the throne by threatening that, whereas his father had chastised the people with whips (or Scourges), he would chastise them with Scorpions. The scorpion (nºpy) may have been a more terrible kind of weapon in actual use— either a knotted cudgel or a scourge armed with barbed points, just as the Roman scorpio was i.e. by Isidore as virga modosa et aculeatre. It is possible, however, that the king was only using a lively figure of speech. Under the Itoman system of scourging, the culprit was stripped and tied in a bending posture to a pillar, or stretched on a frame (divaricatio), and the punishment was inflicted with a scourge made of leathern thongs weighted with sharp pieces of bone or lead. This is what Horace º the horribile flagellum (Sat. I. iii. 119). Jesus was scourged with it by order of Pilate before being led away to be crucified (Mt 27*, Mk 151°, Jn 191). He had foreseen and foretold this indignity (Mt 2019, Mk 10", Lk 18°). The punishment of scourging usually preceded crucifixion (see references in Swete, St. Mark, ad loc.). The Porcian law forbade the scourging of Roman citizens; and on one occasion St. Paul, after being actually bound in order to be scourged, escaped the infliction by demanding if it was lawful to scourge a man who was a Roman and uncondemned (Ac 22*, *). Jesus forewarned His disciples that they would be scourged in the synagogues (Mt. 1017 23*). The Jewish method is fully described in the Mishna. 420 SCRABBLE SCRIBES The scourge consisted of three thongs of leather, and the offender received thirteen stripes on the bare breast and thirteen on each shoulder (Makkoth tii. 12). St. Paul records that he five times suffered this punishment at the hands of the Jews (2 Co ll”); and ‘others had trial of . . . scourgings’ (He 1130). - Legal usages apart, Jesus made a Scourge (ºppa- ºyéA\tov) of small cords before cleansing the temple (Jn 2*). Opinion differs as to the use He made of it. Meyer thinks. He drove out the animals with it, not the persons; Godet, that ‘it was not an instrument but an emblem, a sign of authority and judgment.’ ‘Scourge’ is frequently used in a metaphorical sense. The Canaanites were a scourge (ppb) in the side of the Israelites (Jos 23°); Eliphaz spoke of hiding from the scourge of the tongue (Job 5*); the plague was the scourge by pre-eminence (Job 9”, Is 10°); and by a fusion of metaphors an imºsion was called an overflowing scourge (Is 281). For literature see art. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS. - J. STRACHAN. SCRABBLE.—l S 2118 only, “And scrabbled on the doors of the gate’ (lºy,” AVm and TV m ‘made marks’: the subst. E a mark or signature, esp. in the form of a cross, became the name of the Heb. letter n ; see MARK, § 6). The Eng. word comes from the Geneva version, where the marg. is ‘by making markes and toyes.” Though the same in meaning as ‘scribble' (from Lat. scribere to write), it has no connexion with that word etymologically. Skeat considers it to be a dialectic form of “scrapple' (a fre- quentative of “scrape'), of which “scramble’ is a nasalized form. Bunyan uses “scrabble’ in the sense of “scramble’ (PP #. 116, see Venables' note on p. 467), “Now, after a while, Little- aith came to himself, and getting up, made shift to Scrabble on his way.’ The modern word “scrawl,” says Skeat, “appears to We nothing but a careless form of “scrabble.” J. HASTINGS. SGREECH OWL.-Sce OWL. SCRIBES.—i. ORIGIN AND CHARACTERISTICS.— In the time of our Saviour Jewish piety was largely legalistic and formal. The whole life of a pious Jew was strictly regulated by the Law. The Law was God’s greatest gift to Israel ; it was the com- plete revelation of His will and the basis of the covenant into which He had entered with them at Sinai; in it God had made known the perfect way of life, binding Himself by its terms to reward both in time and eternity the pious Jew in propor- tion to his observance of its precepts. The Law was therefore the binding norm both of the religious and the moral life. Religion was not a communion of man with God, but a legally correct walk before God. Love of the Law was the essence of piety; conformity to the Law was the standard and source of all righteousness. The aim and motive of this piety was the hope of reward in the present age and in the age to come (cf. Weber, Jüd. Theol. 1 ff.). This legalistic tendency, which dates at least as far back as Ezra, and Nehemiah, called into exist- ence a class of men who specially devoted them- selves to the study and exposition of the Law. These were the sophérèm, or scribes. The earlier scribes, however, must not be identified in all respects with those of NT times. The latter were mainly jurists; the former were men of (sacred) letters: copyists, editors, students, and interpreters of Scripture, and more especially of the Law. Ezra, ‘the scribe’ par caccellence according to Jewish tra- dition, is the great typical form of these earlier scribes or exegetes of the Law (Ezr 7". " ", Neh * We should probably emend to ºn), ‘and he drummed on §. doors).’ So Driver, Budde, Löhr, et al., following the LXX vvaarāvu.tv and Vulg. impingebat. 81: “” is 12.**).” He is described as “a ready scribe in the law of Moses’ (Ezr 7"), i.e. as a man of letters skilful in the Law, and as having “set his heart to seek the law of the Lord, and to ão it, and to teach in Israel, statutes and judgments’ (v.19). This description of their activity doubtless applies in the main to Ezra's immediate successors. They occupied themselves in gathering together and elaborating Israel’s sacred literature, in inter- preting it to the common people, who were largely ignorant of Hebrew, and in making the Law the rule of faith and life.' But down to the Macca- bacan period their obedience to the Law was not synonymous with the narrowness of later Judaism (see Wildeboer, Die Sprüche, xvi). They were the “wise,’ the “men of understanding,’ the ‘just men’ of Proverbs and Ecclesiasticus (cf. Sir 6*. 914m. 1420ſ. 3834–3919, Dn 1189. 8, 129). It would seem from 1 Ch 2" that they tended to form themselves into guilds and families. Like Ezra himself (Ezr 7” etc.), the scribes were originally found among the priests and Levites (cf. Neh 87.*, 2 Ch 34”). But pious “laymen’ also naturally devoted themselves to the professional study of the Law, so that there was gradually formed, alongside of the priests, who were theoficial interpreters of the Law, a relatively independent class of scribes. During the Greek period this independence developed into opposition, not indeed to the priesthood generally, but to the priestly aristocracy, several of whom fell away to Hellenism and neglected the laws and customs of the fathers. The attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes to suppress the Jewish religion brought matters to a crisis. It increased the scribes’ devotion to the Law, and made them more narrow and exclusive. It also greatly increased their reputation among the people as being the leaders of those who were zealous for the Law (cf. 1 Mac 7* for their connexion with the Hasidaeans), and as men who were ready to suffer martyrdom for their faith, “welcoming death with renown rather than life with pollution (2 Mac 618-9). The issue of the Maccabee rising in the Hasmonacan State intensified their narrow- ness and exclusiveness; they became Pharisees. Under John Hyrcanus (Kuemen), or more probably under Alexandra Salome (Wellhausen), their leaders received a seat in the Sanhedrin, as a separate class, alongside of the chief priests and elders. They thus gained a kind of official position, and assumed a new character. I'rom being men of sacred letters, they became mainly jurists. Amid all the changes that followed the downfall of the Hasmonacan dynasty down to the destruction of Jerusalem, although they were never in possession of political power, they were the real leaders of the people, such as we find them in the time of our SaViOur. In the NT they are usually called Ypapuate’s (‘scribes,’ ‘men of letters’), occasionally also volutkol (‘lawyers’) and voucölöágka)\ot (‘doctors,’ ‘teachers * Scribes are mentioned in Jer 88, where the prophet accuscs them of falsifying the Law (cf. Giesebrecht, ad loc.). The term 85phár occurs frequently in the OT in other significations, e.g. Jg 514, 2 K 2519, 2 Ch 2011, Jer 3715.20 5225 ‘muster-master, an officer who had charge of the enumeration and enrolment of the troops; a kind of adjutant-general’ (Moore on Jg 5%); Is 3348 the official that rated the tribute or war-tax that had to be paid to the oppressor; Ezr 48ſ. [N]ºp), Ps 451 (Heb. 2], Jer 302), 32, Ezk 92.3 writer; 2 S 817 2025, 1R 49, 2 K. 1210 [Heb. 11] 1818, 37 iſ 233.8m iºn isjö 270 2732, 2 Ch 34 it is 20, Est 312 80, is 369,22 372, Jer 3010. 12, 20, 21 secretary of the king, secretary of State. In 1 Mac 542 the ‘scribes of the people' are also military officers, the ‘captains of thousands, and captains of hundreds, and cap- tains of fifties, and captains of tens’ of 30%. In Sir 10” “scribe' pººn prefect of the people. Cf. Doissmann [Lng. l'. J, t # The tradition regarding the Great Synagogue, which is said to have fixed the Canon of Scripture, has no historical founda- tion ; see Kuenen, Gesammelte Alhamdhºnſen, 125 fl. 3 Montet, Essai sur les origines des partis Baducteji et pharibºom, 01 ff.: and art. SYNAGoGUE (THE GIREAT). SCRIBES SCRIBES 421 of the law'). These three terms are used almost synonymously (see art. LAWYER).” They practi- cally formed the same party as the Pharisees, though such expressions as ‘the scribes of the Pllarisees’ (Mk 2") and ‘the Pharisees and their scribes’ (Llº 5", cf. Ac 23°) show that some of the scribes were Sadducees (see art. PHARISEES, $ ii. (1)). The main seat of their activity was Judaea ; but we find them also in Galilee (e.g. Lk 5'7); and they were probably to be found even in the Dias- pora. They were indispensable wherever there was living zeal for the Law. Though any one qualified might be called on by the ruler of the synagogue to read and expound the Scriptures in the synagogues, the scribes, when present, were natur- ally most frequently invited to do so (cf. Mk 1*). The scribes were very ambitious of honour (Mt 23:11, Mk 12*, Lk 1148. 4° 2010), which they de- manded more especially from their pupils. “Let the honour of thy disciple be dear unto thee as the honour of thine associate ; and the honour of thine associate as the fear of thy master; and the fear of thy master as the fear of Heaven’ (Aboth iv. 17 in Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers”). The claims of one's teacher were to be preferred to those of one's father, unless the latter were also one of the learned. If one’s father and one’s teacher had lost anything, or were bearing burdens, or were in captivity, the teacher was to be assisted first (Baba nvezia ii. 11 in Schürer, GJ V* ii. 317, and Taylor, op. cit. 71). The honour which they demanded was freely accorded to them. They enjoyed a great reputation not only among their pupils, but also among the people generally. They were usually addressed as Rabbi ('an, literally “my lord'; it also meant “master’ in the sense of “teacher,’ Jn l”), i. occasionally also as Rabban or Rabbon (cf. Rabboni, addressed to Christ in Mk 10", Jn 201"), father (= abba) and master (= teacher, Mt 239. 19). ii. FUNCTIONS.—It was mainly, though not ex- clusively, with the Law that the scribes occupied themselves. In respect of it their functions were threefold: (1) they had theoretically to develop the Law itself; (2) they had to teach the Law to their pupils; and (3) they had to act as judges in the Sanhedrin and in the various local courts.: (1) The theoretical development of the JLaw.— Theoretically, the written Law, contained in the Pentateuch, was the absolute norm of life, the religious, civil, and penal code of Israel. The bious Jew was required to observe it in its minutest #. But it was tºº. for an average man to do so without special guidance. l'or this guid- ance they looked to the scribes. One of their chief functions was to study the exact letter of the Law, to harmonize and develop its various precepts into the minutest details, so as to secure its com- plete fulfilment, and to show how its precepts were to be observed in daily life. This they did also with the great mass of unwritten legal tradi- tions, which in course of time had grown up along- side of the written Law. Cases, however, were of frequent occurrence, in regard to which both the written Law and tradition were silent, while the * ““Scribe” (Latt. scriba) unfortunately lays stress on the ety- mological sense of the word (vpx9 wºrtis = Dinºb); “lawyer” (vowizé;) is scarcely better; Lc.'s voºdo?u?&orzo, Ao; is perhaps the most exact title' (Swete on Mle 122). Josephus occasionally calls them aroquor to: (BJ I. Nxxiii. 2, II. xvii. 8, 9). “The word orogós, which in earlier times had been ºp. to one who was skilled in any of the arts of life . . . had come to be applied, if not exclusively, yet at least chiefly, to one who was shrewd with practical wisdom, or who knew the thoughts and sayings of the ancients' (Hatch's IIibbert Lectures, 26). Hatch also reminds us (p. 28) that “by Grammar was meant the study of liberature.” # According to Schürer it was not till after the time of Christ that “Rabbi' became a title ; in the Gospels it is not a title, but a respectful form of address. 1 Cf. Aboth i. 1 : The men of the Great Synagogue ‘said three things: Be deliberate in judgment ; and raise up many disciples; and make a fence to the Torah.” changes that were taking place in the national life rendered some of the old enactments highly inconvenient, if not obsolete. How, under these changed conditions, was it possible to live in accordance with the general principles of the Law 2 How were these new cases to be met 2 The solution of these difficulties was one of the leading occupations of the scribes. By means of an exegesis which was frequently very artificial, they not only based existing legal tradition more or less directly on the written Law, but also deduced from it rules that would meet the new case; or they met it by giving to some saying or recent custom of the “wise’ the value of fixed legal tradition, They were not satisfied, however, with expound. ing the Law and tradition so, as to meet actually occurring cases. They busied themselves in pro- viding for all conceivable cases that might occur, and especially in making a hedge or fence round the Law, i.e. in so expanding the connpass of legal precept beyond what was laid down in the Penta- teuch and in the oldest form of tradition, that it might be impossible for a man, if he observed all their traditional rules, to be even tempted to trans- gress the Law.” . From being “exegetes of the Law' the scribes thus became legislators; they not only made the Law more precise, but also introduced into it many innovations, supplementing and, in Some cases, abolishing it, by their inferences and traditions. Still they had no intention of innovat- ing ; they were great sticklers for antiquity; they only meant to say what was old (cf. Wellhausen, IJG8 284). This ever-accumulating mass of legal traditions and of legal determinations was called Hālāchā.f It was equally binding with the written Law, the two together constituting the absolute rule of life. It was given by God to Moses at Sinai; Moses delivered it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the men of the Great Synagogue (A both i. 1, where Torah = the oral law; cf. Weber, op. cit. 88 ft.). It was the authentic interpretation and supplem ent of the Torah ; Jehovah not only taught Moses the Torah, but also its authentic interpretation, or the lead oralis (Pesikta 38a, in Weber, 89). In theory the written Law was the highest norm ; but in practive the scribes assigned greater importance to the oral law (cf. Mt 15°r., Mk 7"). They interpreted the Law by tradition, which was ‘the fence to Torah’ (Aboth iii. 20). ‘The Bible was understood by the help of the Halacha, quite as much as the Halacha was based upon the Bible' (W. R. Smith, op. cit. 64). It was more necessary to learn and teach tradition than Scripture. The transgression of Rabbinic precepts was sin. Whoever transgressed the words of the wise was worthy of death. ‘An offence against the sayings of the scribes is worse than one against those of Scripture’ (Samh. xi. 3, quoted in Eders- heim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, i, 98; cf. also Weber, op. cit. 102 ft.). They never- theless maintained that tradition was essentially nothing more than the interpretation and more º determination of the Torah, from which, they alleged, all legal decisions were derived (cf. * Cf. W. R. Smith, OT'JC1 G1 (2 47]; Taylor, op. cit. 11 : “to make a fence to the Torah means to impose additional restric- tions so as to keep at a safe distance from forbidden ground.” Streane, The Age of the Maccabees, 22 : “The term means the prohibition of things innocent in themselves, but bordering too closely for safety on things forbidden.’ Weber, op. cit. 133, gives the following example: It was forbidden to drink the wine of the Gentiles, because they were never certain that they did not thereby come into contact with idolatry. t II&lūchá means literally “going,' ' way,' hence fig. ‘custom, ‘ usage,’ ‘rule,” esp., one fiased traditionally, jus a majoribus traditwm (Weber 1,03); ‘Halacha was legal teaching, systematized legal precept . . . the system of rules applying the I’entateuchal law to every case of practice and every detail of life' (W. R. Smith, op. cit. 5S). % 422 SCRIBES SCRIBES Weber, 96ff.). Whether an inference or a custom should become a binding hdlāchā was determined by the majority of those distinguished for learn- ing. It was thus also that they decided the differences between the rival schools of Hillel and Shammai. Theoretically, the hôtlächóth were un- changeable; but for various reasons it was im- ossible to maintain this principle in practice. ut a háláchá could be dº or abolished only with the consent of a majority of the Wise. ‘One Sanhedrin cannot abrogate the decision of another Sanhedrin, unless it be superior in wisdom and in number’ (Edwyoth i. 5, quoted in Montet, op. cit. 231). As expositors and guardians of the Law the scribes occupied themselves mainly with precepts regarding sacrifices, the festival celebrations, the observance of the Sabbath, the payments to be made to the priests and the temple, and more especially with those relating to levitical purity in the matter of foods, purifications, etc. They laid the greatest stress on these ascetic elements because they thereby kept Israel separate from the Gentiles. “Their ideal was not righteousness, but holiness’ (Wellhausen, op. cit. 150). The marks of a religious Jew were fasting (cf. Lk 18°), almsgiving (Mt. 6"), and prayer, as the fulfilment of statutory duties (cf. R. 6"" ; Aboth ii. 17: ‘be careful in reading the Shéma',’ i.e. Dt 6+"). Really ethical duties were assigned a subordinate place (Mt 15*, Mk 7*, Mt 23*). A distinction was drawn between greater and lesser commandments; but they were enjoined to be attentiye to a light precept as to a grave’ (Aboth ii. 1). Great stress was laid on the idea of reward (Aboth iv. 13 ff.: ‘whosoever fulfils the Torah in poverty will at length fulfil it in wealth’; ‘if thou labourest in the Torah, He hath wnuch veward to give unto thee'; ‘ he who performs one precept has gotten to himself one advocate; and he who commits one transgression has gotten to bimself one accuser.’ Cf. v. 11 ff., where seven kinds of punishment are shown to come on account of seven main transgressions, such as dearth from failure to tithe). Piety was thus reduced to an external and mechanical formalism. Nothing was of value, if not strictly regulated by an external law ; no room was left for moral originality or spon- taneity; uniformity and formal exactness were all-important. Life under the Law was felt to be a heavy burden ; the scribes themselves had to devise methods whereby to evade some of their own precepts (Lk 11", Mt 23*). Instead of prov- ing a help to men in their moral and religious life, the Law had become a means whereby access to God was cut off (Lk 11%).” (2) The teaching of the Law.—With a view to ‘ raising up many disciples’ (Aboth i. 1), the more famous rabbins gathered round them studious young men, to whom they expounded the Law (cf. Josephus, Amt. XVII. vi. 2, B.J. I. xxxiii. 2). Seeing that the oral law was the main theme of their instruction, their teaching consisted in a constant, repetition of its numerous precepts, so that their pupils might have them imprinted on their memory. They also put concrete cases, real or imaginary, before their pupils, in order to train them in the application of legal principles. Their pupils were also allowed to put questions to them, and to attend the disputations which they held among themselves over difficult questions. The pupils had only two duties: (a) to retain every- thing faithfully in their memory, and (b) never to teach otherwise, even in expression, than they had been taught by their master (cf. Aboth v. 18, of * For the legal traditions regarding the observance of the Sabbath, etc., see Schürer, op. cit. ii. 464 ſº. ; Edersheim, op. cit. 'i. 774 ft., and cf. art. SABBATII. --w the four characters in scholars, quick to hear, and slow to forget, is wise’; iii. 12, “when a scholar of the wise sits and studies, and has for. gotten a Word of his Mishna, they account it unto him as if he were guilty of death "; ii. 10, “Eliezer ben Hyrcanus is a plastered cistern, which loseth not a drop”). Both teachers and pupils adhered rigidly to tradition. On any subject whatever, the fact that the rabbis had said so and so was decisive (cf. Mk 911). Both for the disputations of the scribes among themselves and for the instruction of their Jupils there were special academies (beth }.}. distinct from the synagogues. In Jerusalem their lectures were delivered also in the temple (cf. Llr 2", Mt 21° 26", Mk. 14", Lk 201 2137, Jn 1820), i.e. in the outer court. The scholars sat on the ground, the teachers on a raised bench (cf. Lk 249, Ac 223, Mt 26°, Aboth i. 4, v. 21). (3) As judges.—Although in NT times a pro- fessional knowledge of the Law was not requisite on the part of a judge, the scribes would naturally be called upon to fill that office. In the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem the ‘chief priests’ had the first place; but scribes also had a seat in it (cf. Mk 1448, tº 151, Lk 22" 23", Ac 4"), and exercised the greatest in- fluence (Amt. XVIII. i. 4). See art. SANHEDRIN. Their whole professional activity both as teachers and judges was understood to be gratis. “R. Zadok said, Make them [i.e. words of Torah] not a crown, to glory in them ; nor an axe, to live by them. And thus was Hillel wont to say, And he who serves himself with the tiara, [the crown of the Law] perishes. Lo, whosoever makes profit from words of Torah removes his life from this world’ (Aboth iv. 9; cf. Taylor, op. cit. 68). They had therefore to earn the means of living in other ways. Those of them who were not possessed of private means carried on a trade in addition to the study of the Law (cf. Ac 18°). But they had to make the study of the Law supreme (Sir 38%–39” ; Aboth ii. 6, Hillel said, “He that has much traſlic will not become wise’; iv. 14, ‘R. Meir said, Have little business, and be busied in Torah'). It is probable, however, that they received pay- ment for their teaching (cf. our Lord's saying, Mt 1019, Lk 107, and St. Paul’s assertion of his right, seldom exercised, of being supported by those to whom he preached the gospel, 1 Co 9**, 2 Co 118t., Ph 410-18), and that they knew how to enrich themselves at the expense of the people (cf. Mk 1249, Lk 2017 1614). Though it was mainly with the Law that the scribes occupied themselves, they also turned their attention to the historical and didactic contents of their sacred writings. These they treated with far greater freedom than the legal contents, ampli- fying and embellishing them in the most arbitrary manner. The teaching that was thus derived from Scripture was called Haggådā. ‘Haggada was doctrinal and practical admonition, mingled with parable and legend.” “It was recognized as a rule of faith and life, and embraced doctrinal topics, practical exhortation, embellishments and fabulous developments of Bible narratives’ (W. R. Smith, op. cit. 58, 168; cf. Driver, LOT''' 487). Of historical haggādā we have an example in the Books of Chronicles, an idealization and amplifica- tion of the history in Samuel and Kings (see art. CHRONICLES, vol. i. 395 fl.). Later haggadists treated mainly of the history of creation and of the lives of the great men of the past.” They * For Creation cf. Aboth v. 1, 0; for Abraham, cf. Josephus, Amt. I. vii. 2, Aboth v. 4 with Taylor's note, 0p. cit. 80; as to Moses cf. Amt. 11,-IV. and what is said in the NT of his culture (Ac 792); of JANNEs and JAMBRES (2 Ti 3°); of the rock (see lock) that followed the Israelites through the wilderness (1 Co 104); of the Law being given him, not directly by God, but through the mediation of angels (AC 788, Gal 30, iſe 2%); of Michael SCRIP SEA 423 falso elaborated the ethical and religious contents of Scripture in an altogether unhistorical and fan- tastic manner, devoting attention especially to angelology, º and eschatology. Unlike legal tradition (hālāchā), historical and doctrinal tradition (haggádà) was not binding, save on a few points such as the creation and government of the world by God, the Divine origin of the Law, and the resurrection of the dead. On the scribes and Jesus, see art PHARISEES, $ iii. LITERATURE.—Schürer, GJ V3 ii. 305 f. (HJP II. i. 312ff.), to which the above article is greatly indebted; Wellhausen, IJG8 193 ff. and passin; Weber, Jüd. Theologie awf Grund des Talmud, etc., 1 ff.: Schultz, Alttest, Theologie B, 200ff.; Haus- rath, Newtest. Zeitgeschichte 3, 87 ff. ; O. Holtzmann, Newtest. Zeitgeschichte, 151 ff.: H. J. Holtzmann, Newtest. Theologie, 86ff.; Montet, Les origines des partis sadwcéen et pharisiem, 61 ff., 218 ft., and passim ; Marti, Theologie des Alt. Testannents 2, 269 f.; the article ‘Schriftgelehrte' in Winer's RWB.3 ii. 425– 428, in Herzog's IRE2 (by Strack), in Schenkel's Bibel-Leacikon by Klöpper), in Riehm's Il WB2 (by Schürer); Edersheim, ife and Times of Jesus the Messiah, i. 93 ff., ii.774 f.; Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish. I'athers 2 ; W. R. Smith, OT'JCl 55 fſ. [242 ft.); Bacher, Die (ilteste Terminol. der jūd. Schriftauslegwng §: 33 ff. on Haggådā, illustrating further what is quoted on the erivation in LOT, l.c., and which Schürer 8, ii. 339, accepts). D. EATON. SCRIP.-Scrip occurs once as the tr. of bipº walkát (from p5% to glean), a shepherd's bag, in its single occurrence, 1 S 17”; and six times as the tr. of Tſipa, a traveller's leathern bag for holding provisions (cf. LXX, 2 K 4”, Jth 10° 1310.1%), Mt 1010, Mk 68, Lk 93 104 2235.8%, all the examples of that word. RV retains ‘scrip” in OT, but changes into ‘wallet' in NT. The Eng. word has nothing to do with “scrip’ (formerly spelt ‘script,” from scriptum), a schedule : it is of Scand. origin (Icel. Skreppa), and is allied to, if not derived from, “scrap” (Icel. Skrap), as made from a scrap of skin, or as used for holding scraps of food. See BAG. J. HASTINGS. SCRIPTURE.—The words so translated in EW 3,I'Q- 1. hp?, only Dn 10” “I will show thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth (RV ‘writing’), where the reference is to ‘the book in which God has inscribed beforehand, as truly as they will be fulfilled, the destinies of mankind’— T}river. Elsewhere this word is trº ‘writing,' ex- cept Ezr 2%, Neh 7" (EV ‘register’). This idea of a Book of God, in which are recorded men's names or deeds, runs through OT, the Apocalyptic lit., and NT. It appears that burgess-rolls of cities were kept, in which were enrolled the names of the citizens, with their families (Jer 2290 “Write ye this man childless') and their vocations (the priests' roll or “register’ in Ezr 202, Neh 764). Such rolls suggested the figure of a roll or book kept by God, containing the names of the covenant people of Israel. In Is 48 (“he that remaineth in Jerusalem shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living [RVn ‘unto life'] in Jeru- salem’) and Ezk 139 (“neither shall they be written in the writing [RWm ‘register'] of the house of Israel') we see the transition from the civil to the religious use, or at least from the actual to the ideal. 1'rom the roll or book the name of the citizen was removed at death ; so in Ex 3293 Mºses says, “Blot me, I §. thec, out of thy book which thou hast written,” and v.8% ehovah answers, “Whosoever has simmed against me, him will I blot out of my book.’ See Charles, Book of I'moch, p. 131 ff. 2. Ypápºua : this iſ ord is used in NT in the foll. senses—(1) A letter of the alphabet, a written character, Gal 6* (where AV follows Tind. in rendering “how large a letter,’ but RV, accord- ing to the usage of Ypáupata. Ypáqelv, “how large letters,’ Wye, and Rhem. already had ‘what manner of letters’). In AV, after TR, this sense is found also in Lk 23*, but omitted from RV, after the best MSS. (2) Any written document, Lk 16" 7 AV ‘bill,’ RV “bond’ (TR to Ypáupa, edd. 7& ‘Ypáppara). (3) An epistle, Ac 28” (ypápºuara, EW “letters')... (4) The law of Moses, Jn 5" (ré, ékelyov 'ypáupwara, EV ‘ his writings’); in St. Paul as written and judicial in opposition to the liberty of the law of life in Christ, Ro. 2. "...7%, 2 Co 3". "... (5) The sacred Scriptures of the OT, 2 Ti 31° (TR Tö tepē Ypéguara, edd, omit T4, AV ‘the holy Scrip- tures,’ RV ‘the sacred writings’). (6) Learning, Jn 719, Ac 26°4. . 3. Ypapſ. Once this word refers to NT writ- ings, viz. the Epp. of St. Paul, 2 P 3"; elsewhere the reference is to a passage of the OT,” or to the OT Scriptures in general. In Gal 3° ‘the Scrip- ture’ is personified. The question whether ypocº, in the sing. is ever used of the OT as a whole is much disputed. In a note to Gal 322 Lightfoot lays down the rule that “the sing. ypocº, in the NT always means a particular passage of Scripture.” But in a subsequent note to Ro 48 he somewhat modifies this statement : “TJr. Vaughan,' he says, “takes a different view, and instances examples from St. John. The usage of St. John may admit of a doubt, though, personally, I think not ; St. Paul's practice, however, is absolute and uniform.’ Hort (on 1 P 26) says that in St. John and St. Paul h ypox?% ‘is capable of being understood as approximating to the collective sense.’ See Westcott, Hebrew8, p. 474 f.; Deissmann, Bibelstwdien, 108 ff., Eng. tr. 112ff.; and esp. Warfield in Pres. and Itef. Review, x. (July 1899) p. 472 ft. J. HASTINGS. SCYTHIANS (xx00ai, Jg 127, Jth 31", 2 Mac 47 1229, 3 Mac 7"; Gn 14'. 'Sk, in Symm. = Bºy).-A nomadic tribe of Indo-European origin who lived between the Danube and the Don, and spread over the region be- tween the Caucasus and the Caspian. In the time of the elder Pliny the name Scythia was applied vaguely to the remote regions of Central Asia and S.E. Europe. The cruelty of the Scythians was pro- verbial (Herod. iv. 64), and their injustice (2 Mac 4*7, cf. 3 Mac 7"). Herodotus mentions (i. 103–105) that a horde of Scythians invaded Media, became masters of Asia, and intended to attack Egypt. Psammetichus, the king of Egypt, met them in Palestine, where he was besieging Azotus, and prevailed on them by bribes to retreat. It is not improbable that the description of the foe from the north in Jer 4°–6” was suggested by the ravages of these Scythian hordes, and that the innagery of Ezk 38" had a similar origin. Zephaniah’s de- scription of the ‘Day of the Lord’ may also reflect the impression produced upon the prophet's mind by the news of the advance of these formidable hosts (see l) river, LOT" 252, 291 f., 342, and cf. art. JEREMIAH in vol. ii. p. 570°). Thuc. (ii. 96) connects the Scythians with the Getae, their neighbours, with whom they afterwards coalesced. Horace (Od. III. xxiv. 9 ft.) praises their simplicity and describes their nomadic habits. In Col. 3" (cf. Gal 3*), where it is said that Christianity does away with all ethnical distinctions, Scythians are mentioned in connexion with, and probably as a synonym for, barbarians. C. H. PRICHARD. SCYTHOPOLIS.—See BETIISHEAN. Its inhabit- ants are called Scythopolitans (>xv0otroX(e)tral) in 2 Mac 1299. SEA (Heb. 5: ; Gr. º. 64Xaaga ; only twice to tré\ayos, Mt 18", Ac 27°).-Besides the literal use, either generally or specially, with often a descrip- tive epithet, of the Mediterranean (Ex 23", Nu 34", Dt 11*), the IJead Sea (Nu 34”, Jos 31°, Zec 148), the Red Sea (Ex 1019, Ac 7”, l Co 10), He 11*), the Sea. of Galilee (Nu 3411, Jos 12", Mt 418 1549, Mk lid 79, Jn 21' 6"), and even the Nile (Is 18° 19", Ezk 32°, Nah 3°) and Euphrates (Is 21", Jer 51*), and the figurative use in OT for west, because the Mediter- ranean was the western limit of Palestine (Gn 28", Ex 10” 27”, Jos S 11°), there are poetical, contending with the devil for his body (Jude 9); Salma or Salmon, the father of Boaz (1 Ch 211, Ru 420t), was the husband of Rahab (Mt 15); the drought and famine of 1 R 171 181tt, were known to have lasted three and a half years (Llr 429, Ja 517; see also Gal 499, cf. under ISIIMAEL). * Hort, however, holds that in 1 P 20 tº 3-poºj cannot mean “in Scripture,” nor even ‘in a passage of Scripture,' but must nuean simply “in writing,' as Sir 399% 427 449 etc. 424 SEA SEA, BRAZEN mythological, and apocalyptic references to the sea, which in several passages give to the word a theological significance. in this use the word ‘sea’ is closely allied with the word ‘deep’ (bºrn LXX and NT # dºugo'os), which means (1) the primeval sea, from which all arose (Gn 1*, Ps 24°); (2) the ocean stream and subterranean waters (Gn 7'- 8° 49*, Dt 33° 87); (3) any mass of waters (Ex 15, Ps 427 107*); (4) the depths, the deep laces of the underworld (Ps 71*; see Cheyne on 2s 88" and 1487), as the abode of the dead $ºnºlly (Ro 107), and specially of demons (Lk 8*, jºy gº. Yi 11717°20'). While generally used only in the third sense, the word ‘sea’ seems in some passages to horrow the fourth sense also (Rev 13", Dn 7°). Either by poetical personification or as a mytho- logical survival, the sea is spoken of as a monster over which God sets a watch, and with which He wages war (Job 7”, see Davidson, Job, p. 54; Is 27", see Cheyne, Isaiah, i. p. 158; Is 51*). The image of the sea is used regarding man and his ways : the wicked are as the sea casting up mire and dirt (Is 57*), man's grief is as the unquiet sea SEA, BRAZEN (nym; h; 2 K 2519, 1 Ch 188, Jel 527; called in 1 K 7”=2 Ch 4° Molten Sea [n. pylp]; also called in 1 K 7” et al. absolutely ‘The Sea’ [nºn]).—The large basin * of º or bronze (see BRASS) which stood S.E.S. of the house, and, as in the case of the corresponding laver (nº) of the tabernacle, was situated between the altar an 1 the porch. The metal of which it was made is said to have been taken by David from the cities Tibhath and Cun.: The basin was itself 5 cubits high, with a diameter of 10 cubits and a circum- ference of 30.S. It was a handbreadth in thickness. Its rim was bent outward as in that of many cups, being of the shape of a lily. That is all we are told of its shape, but from these data Josephus concluded that it was a hemisphere : others havo thought of it as cylinder-shaped. Winer, Riellm," and Thenius ** hold it to have been a kind of cylinder, in which the lower part bulged out. Thenius, Keil, and others object to Josephus’ view that, if the basin were a hemisphere, it could not hold 2000, much less 3000 baths of water. The same might be said of the cylinder form which | Wºº & © 6 & 9 ºff • *.ſvenºr Sºº-yº” arº º, }• e -, *-* - - - - " . I Jº ºffa ; «-à) º - */ Nºss -N - - - Sºjºſ'ſ | !e). \\\\ is 2% Timº 3. |\, .4% º :- /AMA t Sh, | : | - N % - f ſ '', "ºn, N -ºff $ Š - - *...ſº 'ſ' - // s \\ . º: §§ #. - 2 t y % y \ NSF, W\ \º |\\º y ší ſº Wii. | \Sif. #") (IMINUIN) º ſº Mw W \, * . % & - \ g k } \ º | W 4% ºf ſ \ - |A || | || || $º | º Illa flºº isſ' illy Mº | ºk. : t-i-t———t—t—i-t——— cºte * ....'", ...? f ? l * — Metres. THE BRAZEN SEA (AFTER STADE). (Jer 49*), the doubtful man is as a wave tossed by the wind (Ja 1°), wicked men are raging waves of the sea foaming out their own shame (Jude *), invading hosts are compared to overflowing streams (Is 87, Jer 47°) and the noisy sea (Is 17”). In Rev 13, the beast rises out of the sea (as in Dn 7° the four beasts rise), because (1) the sea as a wild, tertible power (Ps 107*-99; see G. A. Smith, HGHL bk, ii. ch. vii.) represents heathenism (Reuss on I)n 7°); or (2) the Roman power actually came from the sea, or the west (Holtzmann, Hamdcom. on tev 13’); or (3) the sea is but a synonym for the abyss (cf. Rev 117, 17°); or (4) the sea represents humanity, as in the passages noted above (so in Rev 17” the many waters of v.” are explained as ‘peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues’; see Carpenter on Iłev 13, and 17" in Ellicott's NT" Commentary, xii. pp. 107, 207). ...The words in tov 21” “the sea is no more’ (I&V) will mean accordingly that powers hostile to God, whether some give it. Benzinger #1 points out that 2000 baths are equivalent to 72,800 litres, and that a hemisphere of the dimensions of the brazen sea. could contain but 32,707 litres, while a cylinder of these dimensions would contain, at the utmost, 49,062 litres. It is possible that the diameter and circumference are taken at the narrowest part, say immediately beneath the rim ; but it is more probable that the measurements apply to the rim, ºut lower down the vessel bulged out very IIlliCIl. According to 2 Ch 4% and Josephus, Ant. yili, iii. 5, the sea held not 2000, but 3000 baths. I(eil and Thenius trace the error to a transcriber, and accordingly alter 3000 to 2000. There is, however, no external support for the change, and it is ex- ceedingly . that we owe the larger number to the fondness of the Chronicler for exaggeration—a fondness equalled at least by the Jewish historian. Below the rim, somewhere near the middle of men or demons, shall be brought to nought. See also art. SEA OF GLASS, and for ‘brazen sea.” and ‘molten sea.” next article. A. J. GARVIE. * The Romans called large vessels lakes (lacus). # Ex 3018. º f 1 Ch 188, cf. 2 S 88. The names of places diſfºr in these parallel verses. | RWB 3 ii. 69. T H WB2 d. 985. § LXX 33. ** COmn. # Conn. on 1 IC 720. SEA, BRAZEN SEA OF GLASS 425 the second temple had its Brazen Sea too, though apart from the vague hint contained in this verse of the Apocrypha, we read nothing about a Brazen or Molten Sea in any temple except Solomon's. LITERATURE.— Reland, Antiq. Sacy. i. 6 f.; Keil, Tempel Salom.08, 118 ft. ; the Bible Dictionaries of Winer 8, Riehm 2, and the works on Biblical Archaeology by Lundius, Benzinger, and Nowack; Stade's Geschichte des Volkes Israel, i. 835 f.; the Commentaries of . Thenius, Kittel, Benzinger on ‘Rings'—the first very full and able, the last two short, cºpº and up to date. T. W. DAVIES. SEA OF CHINNERETH, SEA OF GALILEE.— See GALILEE, SEA OF. SEA OF GLASS (AV), GLASSY SEK (RV), 0áAaaaa taxlv.m, occurring Rev. 4° 15°9′, has no exact parallel in previous or contemporary litera- ture. But, as the scene in Rev 4 attaches itself to Ezk 1, it is natural to find in the “glassy sea before the throne' a reproduction of the picture in Ezk 1” “the likeness of a firmanent (Heb. yºp- = ‘ expanse ’; LXX arepéapa = ‘solid structure,’ whence Vulg. firmamentwm) like the colour of the terrible crystal’ (LXX dis Špagus kpward X\ov, “having the look of crystal'), extending over the head of the living creatures and under ‘the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone’ (Ezk 1*). We are reminded also of Ex 249. 19, where it is said that, when Moses and Aaron and the elders of Israel ascended the mount and ‘saw the God of Israel,” “there was under his feet as it were a paved work of sapphire, stone, and as it were the very leaven (LXX elóos a repetºparos toū oùpavoú, ‘the appearance of the heaven's firma- ment') for clearness.’ And just as there was “fire on the top of the mount’ (Ex 24*7), so also in Ezk l” we are told that “there was an appearance of fire . . . round about,’ and again in Rev 15° the glassy sea is “mingled with fire.” Another im- perfect parallel is found in Enoch 149. The walls of the heavenly house from which Enoch saw in vision a second house and a throne in it and the great glory thereon, were “like a mosaic crystal floor, and its groundwork was of crystal . . . and its floor was fire.' Perhaps the most nearly exact parallel occurs in the Book of the Secrets of Enoch (the Slavonic fragment of the Enoch literature, robably composed in its present form in the first ; of the 1st cent. A.D.)." In 3” Enoch tells how the angels had taken him up into the first heaven, next above the aether : ‘and they showed me (he adds), a very great sea, greater than the earthly (i.e. the Mediterranean), and they brought before my face the elders.”. Afterwards, in a higher heaven (the Seventh in Enoch) he saw the throne and the glory. In Test. aii. Patr., Levi 2, this sea is said to lie between the first and second heavens, and is called the ‘water hanging' between the two. It is to be noted, further, that just as we have, in connexion with the crystal appearance, ‘living creatures” in Ezekiel, and ‘holy ones’ in Enoch, and, in connexion with the great sea, “elders’ in the Secrets of lºmoch, so also in Rev. we have, in connexion with the glassy sea, ‘living creatures’ (ch. 4) and victorious saints (ch. 15). It is not necessary to harmonize all these apoca- lyptic images. . But it is clear that the writer of Revelation is in contact at various points with previous apocalyptic literature when he conceives of a wide expanse of water in heaven, stretching away in front of the throne, smooth, clear, bright with a golden sheen l (21*), like a fire, upon it, that ſlashes from the seven burning lamps; while hard by (or upon) this sea stand types of created life (ch. 4), and a triumphant host of those whose life has been created anew (ch. 15), glorifying the the vessel, probably two rows of colocynths” were figured, these being cast with the basin, and not subsequently carved. Stade + has shown on gram- matical and other grounds that the numeral ‘ten must go with “cubits’ and not with ‘colocynths,” and that, in short, the words constitute a clumsy gloss, and had far better be left out. The Brazen Sea rested upon 12 brazen oxen, with their heads turned towards the four cardinal points, 3 looking in each direction. All of then probably stood upon one basement of metal. It is likely that the space between the several groups was greater than that between the several members of the group ; but we have no information on this, or concerning the height of the oxen or their other dimensions. Josephus t says that in making them Solomon broke the law of Moses which forbade the making of any graven image, $ as he did also in making the lions that were about his throne. He might surely have added the cherubim, which come under the same category. Riehm Says the figures of oxen were chosen to form a rest for the basin, because oxen formed 80 large a part of the offerings. This may also supply a reason for the horns at the four corners, as lºranz Delitzsch suggests. || Stade, Ben- zinger, Nowack, and others hold that the oxen have a connexion with the worship of Jehovah in the form of a bull, which pre- vailed in the North ; the horns of the altar are traced to the same source. I(osters'ſ tries to prove that the ‘Sea’ stands for the pinſ—‘the deep,' one source of water supply, and that the lavers” represent, the clouds, the source of the rain supply: Benzinger gives his approval to this theory, ti, and so did Smend tj before him. On these matters the Bible is silent. We are not told how the basin was supplied with water, nor how the water was got out. As to the first, Keil thinks it was filled by means of a crane which raised the water from the fountain close to the altar and transferred it by means of some vessel to the ‘Sea’ whenever it was wanted. With regard to the second, there must have been some apertures low enough to be reached; possibly the water came out of the mouths of the oxen through pipes supplied with taps. For the opinions of leading rabbinical writers, see Lundius, Jüd. IHeilig., Hamburg, 1738, p. 356. Not a word is said in the older and soberer account of Kings of the purpose served by the Brazen Sea. But in 2 Ch 4" it is said to be for the priests to wash in : that is, if we take the account of the nº or laver §§ of the tabernacle to guide us, the priests washed their hands and feet with its water before they proceeded to offer sacrifices. The next point at which we meet the Brazen Sea. is in 2 K 16", where it is narrated that Ahaz, for the sake of their value, took away the brazen dxen, and laid the ‘Sea’ on the stone pavement. The Chaldaeans at a later time, led by Nebuchad- mezzar, broke the ‘Sea’ into pieces and carried away these pieces to Babylon.]|| After this we read no more about it. Yet Sir 50° ſº seems to show that in the mind of the writer * The addition ‘ten colocynths to every cubit' has no sup- port in the MIT, nor in the LXX, though Thenius and Keil defend this rendering. + ZAT'W iii. 157 f. I Amt. VIII. vii. 5. § Ex 204. | l{iehm, II V139 i. 75". He compares the Greek and Roman altars with rams' heads at the corners. Cf. TeMPLE, Altar of burnt-offering. * ThT, 1879, 445 fſ, ** See 1 K 727-30, and cf. LAVER. łf Heb, Arch, 380; cf. also Nowack, LIeb. Arch. ii. 44 f., and Kittel, I(Ömige, p. 04. it Lehrbuch der alttest. Religionsgeschichte, p. 130 (not in 2nd ed., Smend having now, as he informs the present writer, abandoned IXosters' view as being based on dogmatic rather than critical considerations]. §§ See 12x 3018!!: ; this laver is to be sharply distinguished from the 10 layers of the temple. , See LAVER, and cf. a very elaborate article by Stade, entitled “Die Kesselwagen des salom. Tenapels, 1 K. 727-99,' in ZAT'JV, 1901, p. 145ff. || 2 IC 2519, 10, Jer 5217, 20. In the last passage it is stated that the Chaldueans took away the oxen as well. This is not said in the Boole of Kings. *I* “In his days’ (those of Simon the high priest) ‘the cistern to receive water, being in compass as the sea, was covered with plutes of brass' [but see the lieb., and cf. Iautzsch, Apokºr.]. * See Charles and Morfill's edition. ! See article GLASS. 426 SEA OF JAZER SEAL, SEALING Lord God Almighty. It is possible that the idea of the glassy sea may have come from the temple Pavement of ornamental polished stones (2 Ch 78; os. BJ VI. i. 8 and iii. 2) on which the people bowed themselves in thanksgiving to the Lord, and the gleam of which the Rabbis compared to the gleam of crystal.” The suggested relation to the ‘molten sea.” (64xagga XaXkſ), the large copper reservoir of Solomon’s temple used for the ablutions of the priests (2 S Sº #. 1 K 7”), seems to be more remote, if not quite imaginary. J. MASSIE. SEA OF JAZER.—See vol. ii. p. 553° note +. SEA OF THE ARABAH (AV ‘the Plain’).—See DEAD SEA. SEA OF TIBERIAS.—See GALILEE, SEA op. SEAH.—See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. SEAL, SEALING (subst. Dºn; orbpayls, droorºpá- ºyapa [LXX twice]; specifically signet-ring, nynn, ngàtº, in Aramaic Nºry, Öakrū)\tos. Verb, DDI] ; a ppay- lºw [all voices], Karao ºppoyl{ouat [act. and pass.], étroºppaylºw [act. and mid.]).—These words are used (l) in a literal, (2) in a figurative sense. i., LITERAL SENSE.-(a) Use of Seals.—There is evidence of the general use of seals in the early ages ‘extending from the mists of Babylonian antiquity to the decline of Roman civilization' (Encyc. Brit. art. ‘Gems’). We know from the OT that seals were used at an early date by the Hebrews (Gn 38”.” Judah’s signet), by the Egyp- tians (Gn 41* Pharaoh), and by the Persians (Est 3" 8* Ahasuerus). Herodotus tells us (i. 195) that the accoutrement of a Babylonian was incomplete without a staff and a ring, but this ring was prob- ably a talisman more frequently than a signet. And the literary evidence is supported by that of gems and inscriptions dating as far back as B.C. 2000 and 3000, and showing that the practice ex- tended to other nations (see Riehm, HWB, quoting Levy's Tables, and de Vogüé's Mélanges d’Archéo. logie orientale). Arabs and Persians of to-day wear similar seals. In the NT we have the aqpayis upon the stone closing the mouth of the Lord’s tomb (Mt. 27"), and the 6akriſ)uos (probably a signet- ring containing the father's name) put upon the finger of the prodigal (Lk 15*); probably also the gold ring of the rich worshipper in Ja 2° was not only an ornament but a signet-ring, indicating in itself that he was a person of consequence. (b) Structure of seals. -If we may judge from the seals and signet-rings that have come down to us, seals were of two kinds: (1) the small seal of precious stone or precious metal in a signet-ring; (2) the more ample cone-shaped or round seals, Some of metal (occasionally set in stone), some of porcelain or terra-cottat (some even of wood are in yogue to-day in the East), large enough to contain inscriptions and animal figures, such as figures of oxen or antelopes, and intended to be hung by a cold from the neck or from the arm (Gn 3818, 20, Ca 8°) or attached to the thing sealed (a door or a document, for example) when the impression was not made in the material of the thing itself.: (c) The material used as the medium.—Beckmann * See Bousset, Offenbarung, in loco. f It is very doubtful, however, whether the “great mass of existing (Babylonian) cylinders’ could have been used as seals. t Mr. Bernard Grenfell tells the present writer that sealings are not at all uncommon on Egyptian papyri, sometimes large, more frequently small. . He believes that the practice of sealing documents went back in Egypt to the earliest times, though the date of the earliest papyrus seal is as yet uncertain. Jūr- stoppers, however, were stamped in the time of the First Dynasty, (earlier than B.C. 4000, according to Brugsch), and papyri of the Fourth and l'ifth Dynasties, extant in fragments, probably, in their original state, contained sealings. (Hist. of Inventions, i. 140, Bohn's tr., quoted in Smith's Christian Antiquities, art. ‘Seals') gives it as his opinion that ‘in #. wax has been every- where used for sealing since the earliest ages.' But in the East it was not wax but clay (Job 38"), sealed when soft and then made hard by burning. When a door or a stone was to be lefti. a clay seal was put at each end of the cord stretched across it (cf. Evang. Pet. 8, Čtréxploravčirtó a ppaytöas, with Jn 9" "). Some stones so sealed still retain the cord marks. But, like the Arabs and the Persians, the Hebrews also seem to have dipped seals or stamps in a black pigment, a paint or an ink. The picture which Ezekiel draws (9°) of the man “with the writer's inkhorn by his side,’ marking the foreheads of the men that sighed and cried for the abominations in Jerusalem, is doubtless the source of the sealing picture in Iłev 7. (d) Purposes of sealing.—Sealing was sometimes a substitute for signature (and conveniently so in days when writing was not a general accomplish- ment), if a letter had to be authenticated or a document to be ratified. So Jezebel forged Ahab's signature (1 K 21°); and in Neh 9° 10' the sealing signified adherence to the contents of the covenant there and then made with God. At other times it denoted an imalicnable possession, the signet itself being also the type of all that was most precious and inviolable (Ca, 8", Jer 22*). This comes out in the figurative application 2 Ti2° ‘Having this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are his.” (In the same sense, perhaps, are the airlypiata, the ‘brands’ of the Lord Jesus, Gal 6”). Akin to this idea was that of security and permanency, as when the stone of the lions’ den was sealed by the king with his own signet and those of his lords, “that nothing might i.e changed concerning Daniel’ (Dn 6”, cf. also Bel 14, Mt 27%). These ideas of ownership and sccurity are often combined with that of destima- tion, as in Ezk 9% and Rev 7°, where the persons sealed were, as God’s people, secured from imminent destruction and designated for future reward. Finally, connected with the ideas of security and destination was the idea of secrecy or postponement of disclosure, as when the words of a roll, morg particularly if prophetic, were sealed º for the uninitiated, or till the time came to publish them (Is 29", Dn 12", Rev. 10). Quite in harmony with all these ideas was the idea of authority in the seal or signet, so that when a king bestowed his signet he thereby invested the recipient with royal authority, lending him, in fact, the royal name (Gn 41*, Pharaoh and Joseph). ii. FIGURATIVE SENSE. –In illustrating the scope of the literal, it has been unavoidable to trench upon the figurative, literal sealing being emblematic of one idea or another. But we have still to deal with the religious, the spiritual sense of Seal and sealing, where there is nothing literal at all, even in vision. This comes out principally in the NT. The idea of authentication is prominent when converts are called the seal of apostleship (1 Co 9°), and when circumcision is named a Seal, i.e. an authentication, of that righteousness by faith which existed before the rite was performed (IRo 4”). The solemn authentication of human experi- ence lies in the expression that he who has received the witness of the Son ‘hath set seal to this that God is true’ in what He promised through the Son (Jn 3”); while the saying “Him hath God the Father sealed’ signifies authentication and destima- tion to convey eternal life (Jn 6”). The figurative sense of seal in the passage (2 Ti 2"), ‘The firm foundation of God (God’s foundation of firm be- lievers) standeth, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are iis, includes ownership, authentication, security, and destimation. All these ideas, but especially àº, are present when SEAL, SEAL SKINS SEA-MONSTER 427 it is said that believers are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise (Eph 1”); sealed unto the day of redemption (4"); sealed and having, in the Spirit within us, the earnest of what we shall be (2 Co 1*). Working back from the early assimilation of baptism to circumcision as a seal (Hermas, Sim. viii. 6; 2 Clem. vii.), some have interpreted the sealings just mentioned as directly referring to the baptismal rite. But Lightfoot seems to be justified in questioning (2 Clem. vii.) whether ‘St. Paul or St. John (e.g. Rev.9%) used the image with any direct reference to baptism.” Hatch (Hibbert Lectures, p. 295) and Harnack (Dogmengesch. I. i. 151) trace the baptism sense of a ppayts to the Greek mysteries; but Amrich (Mysterienwesen, p. 120 ft.) gives in his adherence to the belief that the origin of the use is the Jewish view of circumcision as a seal (see Anrich for illustr., and Sanday-Headlann on Ro 4”). One peculiar figurative use remains to be noticed. St. Paul, in speaking (Ro 15°) of handing over the collection to the saints at Jerusalem, describes his act as ‘sealing to them this fruit” (of his efforts, or of the spiritual blessings that had gone forth from the Jews). The simplest explanation seems to be that of Theodore of Mopsuestia : that the apostle is referring to the solemn and exact formalities of the transaction—a view which Deissmann supports from the papyri of Fayyúm, where such sealing of wheat-sacks and the like stands for a guarantee that they contain the amount they profess to con- tain. St. Paul desires to act like a conscientious merchant, and to guarantee formally that he hands over the amount due from him. The suspicions which some of his enemies had set afloat, that he helped himself from the collection, must be defi- nitely and completely foreclosed. J. MASSIE. SEAL, SEAL SKINS.—See BADGER. SEAMEW (RW Lv 1119, Dt 1419).—See CUCKow. SEA-MONSTER.—This Eng. term occurs only twice in RV (text): Gn 1% ‘God created the great sea-monsters’ (AV “great whales,’ LXX td, kātm), and Job 7” “Am I a sea or a sea-monster (AV ‘whale,’ LXX Spåkov), that thou settest a watch over me 2' The Heb. in both these passages is i'jF (plur. Dyºn and D'yº), which has been supposed to come from an (unused) root pn=“stretch,' ‘ ex- tend,’ and so to signify properly an elongated animal (see Ges. Thes. 1511). The word 'JF, in addition to these two occurrences, is used of Ser- pents or serpent-like creatures in Ex 7” [P; JE and R use cºny, LXX Squs, in the similar passages 48 and 71°], Dt 32*, Ps 91*; perhaps the crocodile is in view in Is 271 51°, Ezk 29° 32° (see small type below), Ps 74”; large water animals" of some kind are designated by it in Jer 51 [Gr. 28]*, Ps 1487. In all these passages the LXX tr. J'ºn by ëpákov, RV has ‘dragon,’ except in Ex 7” “ser- pent' (RV m, “Heb. tannin, any large reptile”); and PS 9118 ‘ºpºnt. in Ps 74° RV m has “sea- monsters,’ in 1487 ‘or sea-monsters or waterspouts.” In Neh 219 we hear also of the 'ém, hattammām. (“well of the dragon,’ LXX Trºy) Tóv ovków, “fountain of the figs,’ evidently confusing "#5 with D'JNF ‘ſigs’). Quite a different term, although it has sometimes been con- fused f with it both by copyists [j'an, LXX 32&zovres, of La 48 is a textual error for D'JF, while, conversely, D'º of Ezk 208 322 (LXX in all ºpázav) should be i'jal and by interpreters, is nº * * The creattire which is said to have swallowed Jonah (see vol. ii. p. 750) is called simply a great fish (ºn, lº), Jon 117 Heb, and Gr. 21]. The familiur ‘whale' comes from LXX zºro; º, reproduced in the zºrog of Mt. 1240. f Pocock in his Commentary on Mic 18 (1077) first showed that these two words had been confused, and pointed out that Dºg Inust denote some kind of jackal. . (once Mal 19, if the text is correct, nº, LXX 3622 ra. = Heb. mn]; cf. Jer 90 (10), Ps 6518), the plur. of (unused) E, which means some beast that haunts solitary pº probably the jackal. Its occurrences are Is 1322 3418 357 4320, Jer 910 (11) 1022 140 4988 5187, Mic 18, Ps. 4420 (19) (if the text is correct, but see Cheyne or Wellh.), Job 3022 [in all these passages AW has ‘dragons,’” RV ‘jackals'], La 43 (AW [wrongly] ‘sea-monsters,”f m. ‘sea-calves,’ RW ‘jackals’). Another monster, belonging to the same cate- gory as tannin, is LEVIATHAN (nº livyāthān, prob. = ‘wreathed,’ ‘coiled ”), which appears as a denizen of the waters in Ps 104” “liwyāthān whom thou hast formed (ºns:) to play therein' (or ‘with him,” a pºw?, LXX garatºv ºrg), and Job 411m. [Heb. 40*]. In the first of these passages the whale is often supposed to be referred to, in the second the crocodile, which last may be the reference also in Ps 74°, where liwyāthān is ap- parently symbolical of Egypt., In, Job 3° [where it is not necessary to read, with Gunkel, b, ‘sea.” for Di' ‘day’] magicians are supposed to be able to ‘rouse up ' (nºy; B xetpdaagøal) this monster. On Is 27" see below. [LXX in all these passages tr. |nº by 6pákov, except in Job 3", where it has rô puéya kāros ; Aq., Symm., and Theod., where they are extant, always transliterate Aevtaffdiv, except in this same passage in Job, where Theod. has ôpákwv]. Leviathan is referred to also in Enoch 607-9, 2 Es 649-52; cf. Apoc. Bar 294. It has been convended that, in most of the OT passages where tannin and livyāthān occur, a mythological or semi-mythological allusion is present. Such an allusion is discovered, for in- stance, in Is 27* “In that day the LORD with liis sore and great and strong Sword shall punish livyāthān. the fleeing Serpent (nºn; ºr, LXX Cºpus petrywy, Aq. Öqus uoxAós, Symm. 89ts avyk)\etwv) and livyāthām the coiled serpent (jnºpy, UM, LXX Cºpts a koxiºs, Aq. and Symm. tºpus évéorktowpačvos), and he shall slay the tannin that is in the sea.” The language here cer- tainly recalls the Babylonian mythology with its account of the primeval conflict between Marduk and Tiānlat (see art. COSMOGONY). The ‘fleeing serpent ' (cf. Job 26*) is portrayed on a Bab. seal, with Marduk in pursuit; the ‘coiled serpent ’ might be the earth-encircling ocean. These two liwyāthāns are held to be simply differentiations of Tiāmat, whose consort, Kingu, may be “the dragon in the sea.” (so Gunkel, followed by Cheyne, et al.). At the same time Gunkel (p. 40) admits that they are employed by ‘Isaiah’ to symbolize kingdoms. In Is 51° (on which see art. RAHAB) the ‘dragon’ (symbolical, as the context shows, of Egypt at the time of the Exodus) appears, as in the 13ab. cos- mogony, as having been destroyed by God long ago (so also in Ps 74” “Thou brakest the heads of the tanninim in the waters, thou didst crush the heads of liwyāthām in pieces,’ 89° al.), whereas in 27 the monster is thought of apparently as im- risoned in the sea, and destined to be destroyed at ast by Jahweh’s sword (cf. Job 3°, where, as was noted above, magicians have the power to ‘rouse up liwyāthān ; 7”, where watchers are set over the tammin ; and Am 9°, where the serpent [ºn], ôpdikwu) is in any case no venomous marine snake, for such are not found in the Mediterranean, but “an imaginary monster, supposed by the Hebrews to have its home at the bottom of the ocean, and to be at the disposal of the Almighty.” [1)river, ad loc.; similarly Nowack, who has no doubt that there is a reference to the sea-monster of myth- ology]). Again, in Ezk 29* and 32” the tannin to which Pharmon is compared, although it has points in common with the crocodile, is held to * The word 'dragon' in AV should probably be viewed merely as an old and poetical word for a large serpent (not necessarily a fabulous monster). , See examples of its use in this sense in old writers as quoted by Murray in Oakf. lºng. Dictionary, 8.v. † This is the only occurrence of ‘sea-monster' in AW. 428 SECUNDUS SEBA w— find its only true equivalent in the monster Tiåmat. The treatment to be meted out by God to Pharaoh recalls, we are told, the way in which Tiāmat and her allies were vanquished and afterwards treated by Marduk ; compare, for instance, Ezk 32° “I will spread out my net for thee,” etc., with Creation tablet iv. ll. 95, 112, “Bel (Marduk) threw wide his net, made it encompass her’; ‘In the met they lay, in the meshes they sat.” But the net is a common QT ſigure, and may be used here independently. Upon the whole, while it is practically certain that the Tiānlat myth had reached Palestine and that there are allusions to it in the OT, it will hardly be questioned that Gunkel exaggerates its influence. The ‘dragon’ of Neh 2* is probably a serpent regarded as the tutelary deity of the spring, and believed to give living power, perhaps healing virtues, to its waters (cf. W. R. Smith, RS* 156, 161 [* 172, 176]). : It does not fall within the scope of the present article to discuss the ‘dragon’ of the Greek Book of Daniel (see art. BEL AND THE DRAGON), the ‘dragons’ of Ad. Est 107 119 or of Ps-Sol 2*, or the ‘dragon” of Rev 123m 132, 4, 19 1613 20°, for which last see REVELATION (BOOK OF), p. 256, and Bousset's Comm. ad loc. See also art. RAHAB. LiterATURE.-Gunkel, Schöpfwng w. Chaos, esp. pp. 29–90; Cheyne's artt. ‘Behemoth and Leviathan' and “Dragon’, in Encyc. Bibl.; Weber, Jüd. Theol.2 100, 202, 402,404 (on Jewish fancies about Leviathan); the Comm., esp. those of A. B. Davidson, Dillm., Budde, and Duhm on Job ; of Cheyne, Dillm.-Kittel, and Marti on Isaiah ; and of Bertholet and Kraetzschmar (both disinclined to admit in Ezk 298 322, the mythological allusions contended for by Gunkel) on Ezekiel. J. A. SELBIE. SEBA (Rip). — Son of Cush, Gn 107 = 1 Ch 19. Since Seba is mentioned in connexion with Cush in Is 43° and 45", it is probable that this genealogy is a gloss on the passages of Isaiah, or, at any rate, based upon them. Of Seba this author knows that its inhabitants were tall; and since he prophesies that they should be brought in chains to Jerusalem, it seems reasonable to identify them with a race mentioned in the oracle of Is 18” ”, who were to be brought as an offering to the temple, who also were connected with a nation living beyond the rivers of Cush, and who are described as ‘drawn out, clean - shaven, and of power from ancient times.’ The rest of the description is at present unintelligible. There is a further reference to them in Ps 72%, where, however, they are merely typical of a distant race, and coupled with the familiar Sheba on the ground of the resemblance of their names. On this resemblance Glaser (Skizze, ii. 387 ff.) bases his theory that they repre- sent the Sabaeans of Jebel Shammir in Nejd – a theory which is to be rejected on the ground that the only author who knows anything definite about them keeps them carefully apart from the Sabaeans, and mentions them in connexion with Cush and Egypt. Since from the 8th cent. B.C. Cush had played an important part in politics, it is probable that an educated man would have some idea of the locality of Cush, and therefore any attempt to seek for Seba anywhere but in the heart of Africa should be rejected. The researches of Mr. Theodore Bent (IRuined Cities of Mashona- land, 1892) have certified the existence in the heart of Africa of the vestiges of ancient States, the names of which are lost to history. The description given by him of the ancient State of Mashonaland bears some resemblance to that given in Is 18, possibly on the ground of Fgyptian de- spatches or the statements of Ethiopians then dominant in Egypt. ‘There is,’ says a fºg. traveller j p. 207, ‘a tower or edifice of worked masonry, which appears evidently not to be the work of black natives of the country, but of some powerful and political nations’; p. 231 ‘there is little doubt that the ancient builders of the ruins in Mashonaland, the forts and towns between the Zambesi and the Limpopo, utilized the Sabi river as their road to and from the coast.” This, like other African rivers, was in ancient times suitable for large craft, but, through silting, is no longer ſit for it (p. 231). It does not appear that epigraphic research has as yet thrown any light on this name. l). S. MARGOLIOUTH. SEBAM (nºw ; Xegapó ; Saban).-A town in the astoral district, ‘a land for cattle,’ in which #. Elealeh, and Nebo were also situated (Nu 32%). Sibmah, which was in the territory of Reuben, and was rebuilt by the children of Reuben (Još 13", Nu 32*). Sebam probably soon fell into the hands of the Moabites, in whose possession it was in the days of Isaiah and Jeremiah. . It was then celebrated for its vines, which were destroyed by ‘the lords of the nations’ (Is 16°, 9, Jer 48*). Jerome (Onom. s. ‘Sabama,’) calls it a town of Moab in the land of Gilead, and says that it was barely 500 paces from Heshbon (Com. in Is. v.), and one of the strong places of the district. It is perhaps Súmia, on the south side of Wady Hesbóm, and 2 English miles from Heshbon. There are here some ruins, rock-hewn sarcophagi, and rock-cut wine-presses (PEF Mem. East Pal. p. 221). C. W. WILSON. SEBAT (Sagār) 1 Mac 1614, or SHEBAT (97%) Zec 17. –The eleventh month ; see TIME. SECACAH (npºp; B Alxıoğá, A Xoxoxá; Sachacha). —One of six cities situated in the ‘wilderness’ (midbār) of Judah (Jos 15"), that is, in the waste land west of the Dead Sea. It was unknown to Eusebius and Jerome (Onom. S. Xakxé, Scacha), and there is no clue to its position. Conder (Hbſc. to Bible) identifies it, doubtfully, with Khurbet ed- Dikkeh, also called Khurbet es-Sikkeh, “ruin of the path,’ 2 miles S. of Bethany. This is too near Jerusalem. Secacah was probably between the Kidron ravine (W40'y en-N47') and En-gedi. C. W. WILSON. SECHENIAS (A Xexevtas).-1. (13 on.) 1 Es S*= Shecaniah, Ezr 8”, where the text needs rearrang- ing to agree with 1 Esdras. 2. (B Elexovias), 1 Es 8%– Shecaniah, Ezr 8”. SECOND COMING.—See PAROUSIA, vol. iii. p. 674. SECT.-See HERESY, vol. ii. p. 351. It is apparently the same place as SECU (ºnyn, with the article : B &v rá, Xeqel, A €v Xokx86). —A place mentioned only in 1 S 19°. It was not far from Ramah (Samuel's residence), and apparently on the road from Gibeah to that place. In or near it, there was a large cistern (RW ‘the great well’ [ºn]] -\al, RVm ‘the well of the threshing floor” [T]hiſ ‘n, LXX ºppéaros toū āAw]) which Saul passed on his journey. The place is unknown, and its site depends wºn the position assigned respectively to Gibeah and Ramah. Several identifications have been proposed : for instance, Bir Nebala, near Gibeon (Smith's DB), Rhurbet Shºtweikeh, a little S. of Bireh (Conder, PEF Mem. iii. 52, 126), and the ancient reservoir at Solomon's Pools (PER'St, 1898, p. 17), but this last is dependent upon an improbable site for RAMAII (see above, p. 198"). The LXX (13) év tº >eqet implies the Hob. Eºs = bare height (often in Jeremiah). This is preferred to MT by Thenius, Driver (Teact of Sam. a.d. loc.), Löhr, H. P. Smith, and recent writers in general. C. W. WILSON. SECUNDUS (Xekoúv60s [TR], 2ékovvöos [WH, SECURE SEIR 423 ==º sº Plats]).-A man of Thessalonica, who accompanied St. Paul from Philippi to Europe (Ac20°), }...". one of the apostles of the Churches taking the Macedonian contributions to Jerusalem, Ac 24”, 2 Co 8*. The name (with SOSIPATER) occurs in the well-known inscription of Thessalonica, CIG ii. 1967, which gives a list of Politarchs. A. C. HEADLAM. SECURE.--—As used in AV ‘secure’ means ‘con- fident,” “trustful,” “not anticipating danger.” It is always in OT the tr. of nº to trust, confide, or some of its derivatives. In NT it occurs only as a verb, and only in Mt 28” “And if this come to the governor’s ears, we will persuade him, and secure you,” where the Gr, is pās àpepluvovs trotº- orougv, i.e. “make you free from care,” which corre- sponds exactly with the derivation of the Eng. word (Lat. securus, i.e. se “free from,’ and cura ‘care’). Cf. Jg 187 ‘they dwelt careless, after the manner of the Zidonians, quiet and secure.” How greatly the word has changed its º may be seen from Jg 8” “Gideon . . . smote the host: for the host was secure.’ Davies (Bible Eng. p. 103) quotes from Sandys (p. 210), ‘There is no where any place wherein it is safe to be secure.” ecurely (Prs”, Mic 28, Sir 4") has the same meaning. And so also security in 2 Es 7”, Sir 57; but in Ac. 17” “when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go,' this word is used in its modern sense (Gr. To travów). . J. HASTINGS. SEDEKIAS (Zečekſas, AV Zedechias), 1 Es 1* (LXX"), Zedekiah king of Judah. SEDUCTION.—See art, CRIMES AND PUNISH. MENTS, vol. i. p. 522°. SEED, SEEDTIME.-There is a threefold usage of the words rendered by EV “seed.’ 1. Botanical and agricultural.-The common Heb. term is yº) (Aram. yº) Dn 2*), usually “seed,” but in Gn 8” ‘seed time,’ and in Lv 26° ‘sowing time.” In Ezk 17" vºyniy is tr. ‘fruitful field’ (IRV “fruitful soil’). “Sowing seed’ (Lv 1197) and ‘things that are sown’ (Is 61") are equivalents of ºn. In Jl 1" nº is tr. ‘seed' (IRV ‘seeds”). “Mingled seed? (Lv 1919) and ‘divers seeds’ (Dt 22") are renderings of D.Nº. In Is 197 ynlp 93 appears in AV as ‘every thing sown,” IłV ‘all that is sown.” The usual Gr. word in Apocr. and N'T is a Tréppa, but a trópos also occurs Mk 40 [cf. Swete's note], Lk 8%. 11, 2 Co 91%. The most interesting Scripture references to “seed' in this sense are the poetic figure in Ps 126° and our Lord’s parables of the Sower and the Tares. See AGRICULTURE, vol. i. 49*. 2. Physiological.—The phraso yiyny is variously tr. in Lv 151%. 17. 18.8° 1821 1919 22%, Nu 51°. ‘To conceive seed' stands in Lv 12” for the Hiph. of yn, in Nu 5* for the Niph. with the noun yn, and in He 11” for els KaragoNīv a Trépuaros. atréppa has this meaning in Wis 7”, and a trópa bears the same sense in the metaphor of 1 P 1*, where Christians are said to have been ‘begotten again, not of corruptible seed (ék a Topás q,0aptis), but of incorruptible (340dprov), through the word of God.” 3. Mctaphorical for offspring, whether of animals (Jer 31*) or of man. Here the words are yº) and a trépua. The former is twice tr. ‘child’ (Lv 22°, 1 S 11). “Seed' has the meaning of genealogy or pedigree, Izr 2", Neh 7”. “The holy seed’ is a special designation of the people of Israel, Is 6*, Ezr 0°, l Es 879. “Seed,” like ‘genera- tion,’ is sometimes used to describe a class of eople with reference to character rather than to §. Thus we have ‘seed of evil-doers' (Is 1"), “of falsehood’ (Is 57°), ‘blameless seed' (Wis 101"), ‘accursed seed' (Wis 12"), a seed ‘honoured or “dishonoured ' (Sir 101"). Two NT passages call for separate remark. (a) The words a réppa atroſ év ačrø Lévez (1 Jn 3" have been interpreted to mean either (1) that Christians, as the ‘seed' or children of God, abide in Him and are thus kept from sinning; or (2) that a Divine principle of life remains in tfié Christian, which secures the same result. The latter is the view now almost universally accepted. It makes aúroj= 6.e00, and the airéppa 6eoû is much the same as the atropä &q,0apros of 1 P 1%. (b) In Gal 31° St. Paul bases an argument on the promises of Gn 13” 17°, and lays much emphasis on the use of the singular atépuart rather than the plural otrépuaatu as pointing to the fulfilment of the promises in an individual, viz. Christ. Now it has to be admitted, first, that neither in Heb, nor in Gr. would it have been natural to use the plural form of “seeds,' even if the promises had been meant to point only to a plurality of descendants of Abraham ; and, second, that St. Paul's language elsewhere (Ro 4* 97) shows that he did not regard the singular ortréppart as necessarily excluding the plural meaning. St. Paul’s argument in Gal 3” is therefore somewhat artificial and Rabbinical in its form. It does not logically prove that the promise to Abraham must be fulfilled in a single individual. 13ut we can take from it the thought that the collective noun, with its singular form, suggests an individual in whom the destiny of Abraham's posterity is summed up, and by whom their mission to the world is carried out. The terms of the promise, though not incompatible with a multiple or national fulfil- ment, are peculiarly compatible with one which centres in a single person, as Christ's fulfilment does (see Lightfoot, Beet, Eadie, l'indlay, Lipsius, Meyer, ad loc.). JAMES PATRICK. SEER.—See PROPIIECY, p. 108. SEETHE.--To seethe is to boil, as Berners, Froissart, xvii, ‘These Scottish men . . . take with them no purveyance of bread nor wine, for their usage and soberness is such in time of war, that they will pass in the journey a great long time with flesh half sodden, without bread, and drink of the river water without wine, and they neither care for pots nor pans, for they seetle beasts in their own skins.’ The old past tense is sod, Gn 25* “Jacob sod pottage’; 1 Es 1% “As for the sacrifices, they sod them in brass pots and pans with a good savour’; and past ptcy), sodden, Ex 12” “Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water.’ J. HASTINGS. SEGUB.—1. (nºy Keré, a y Kethibh ; B Zeyoğ8, >e you?) the youngest son of HIEL who rebuilt Jericho, 1 K 16”. The death of Segub, which synchronized with the setting up of the gates, may have been due to an accident in the build- ing operations, or he may have been offered in sacriſice by his father—a circumstance purposely obscured in the present form of the story. See IPOUNDATION and HIEL. In any case, popular opinion finally connected the death of Hiel's two sons with a curse believed to have been pronounced by Joshua on the iman that should rebuild Jericho. The form in which this curse is expressed in Jos 6” is moulded by a knowledge of the events recorded in 1 K 16*. See, further, Bertholet, and esp. Kittel on this last - named passage. 2. (n\lºy; § >epotſy, A Seyou?) son of Hezron and father of JAIR, 1 Ch 2*. J. A. SELDIE. SEIR (nºy ‘rough,’ ‘shaggy’). —1. The name of a mountainous district east of the Araball, peopled by the Edomites. . It was originally occu- pied by Horites or ‘cave-dwellers’ (Gn 14" [where read, after LXX and Sam., nyly ºn for ‘ty Dºnn of MT] 36” [in the latter passage Seir is personified as the eponymous ancestor of the indigenous inhabit- 430 SEIRAH SELA ants]). As Mt. Seir (nºy ºn, rö 8pos (ro) 2n(e)lp, Gn 36*, Dt 2" " al.) is practically synonymous with Edom (cf. Gn 32° ‘the land of Seir, the field of Edom,’ pins mily hy; PTS, yì Xmelp x&pa ’Eöðu), it will suffice to refer for further details to art. EDOM. 2. Quite different is the Mt. Seir (B 'Aqa'āp, A X meip) mentioned in Jos 15% amongst the points defining the boundaries of Judah. The name may still be preserved in that of the ruins at Sóris, S.W. of Kiriath-jearin (cf. the name Xaphs in LXX A [but B’EwBis] of Jos 15°). See Robinson, BRP” iii. 154 ft.; Buhl, GAP 91, 167; Dillm. Jos. ad loc. J. A. SELBIE. SEIRAH (Tºylyn, with the article; B Sereipó0a, A Xeelpºda ; Seirath).-The place to which Ehud escaped after killing Eglon, king of Moab (Jg 3*). It was in the hill-country of Ephraim, and appar- ently not very far from Gilgal. Its site was un- known to Eusebius and Jerome (Onom. Xelpw8á, Sirotha), and it has not yet been identified. C. W. WILSON. SELA (whº ‘the cliff”; trérpa, Is 16” 421; whyn, # trérpa, Jg 1", 2 K 147).-The capital of Edom or Mt. Seir, situated in a valley amidst the Edomite moun- tains, five days’ journey (of 12 miles each) by the Arabah from 'Akabah (Elath), and 6 from the Dead Sea by the same route.” Its identification as the capital of Edom may also be inferred from its proximity to Mount Hor (if we are right in identifying this with Jebel Haroun), which rises in a grand escarpment immediately to the N.W. of the ancient city, and which, as observed by Dean Stanley, is one of the few spots connected with the wanderings of the Israelites which admit of no reasonable doubt (Sinai and Palestine, 86). According to Strabo, Petra was the metropolis of the Nabataeans, and it is described as a city situated in a valley, decorated with gardens and fountains, but bounded on all sides by rocks." Description.—Petra is undoubtedly one of the most remarkable of the ancient cities of the East, not only for its position, shut in by mountains and formidable rocky precipices from the outer world, but for the peculiar character of its archi- tecture and the degree of preservation in which the structures themselves have come down to us through many centuries. It lies along the course of the Wädy Mūsa, a stream which descends by a narrow gorge called the Siſc from the tableland of Edom at the margin of the great Arabian desert, and which ultimately finds its way into the Wädy el-Jeib, and thus to the Dead Sea, in a north-westerly direction. On issuing from the Sík, the valley suddenly opens out into a plain, about 1000 yards across, S bounded by stupendous cliffs of red and variegated sandstone, into which several other valleys enter from the north, west, and south, also lined by lofty cliffs, through one of which the river escapes by a channel almost as narrow as that by which it entered. This central plain, of a rudely quadrangular form, contains several ruined temples and foundations of habitations. On all sides the nearly vertical walls of rock are covered by works of art—not * = a- sº built up of hewn stone, but cut out of the living rock itself; while a few ruined structures occupy sites rising directly from the valley. This style of architecture, not unknown in other Eastern countries, such as the Valley of the Nile, Penin- sular India, and Asia Minor, here attains a variety and magnificence elsewhere unreached ; and as the tombs appear to predominate in number above other kinds of structures, – not excepting the temples,—Petra has been likened by travellers to a vast necropolis, where the inhabitants could never issue forth from their dwellings without being confronted with monuments of death. It would be out of place here to attempt to describe even some of the finest examples of ancient architecture to be found in Petra, which call to mind the varied styles of Egypt, Greece, and Rome. We will only observe that in hewing out the porticoes, columns, and architraves or crowning parts of the buildings, the architects commenced at the top and worked downwards; so that, as the face of the rock was not absolutely vertical, the hewn portions became more and more deeply set into the mass of the rock itself. To this protection, caused by the projection of the original face on either side, as well as sometimes overhead, may be attributed the degree of pre- servation of the structures themselves. The fol- lowing are the more important of the monuments as known by their present names:–(1) el-Khazmé, a portico of a tomb with Corinthian columns at the entrance to the Sik; (2) the Theatre ; (3) the Tomb, or Temple of the Urn ; (4) Corinthian Tomb ; (5) Great Tomb, with three rows of columns; (6) Tomb with Latin inscription *; (7) Iłuin of . Triumphal Arch; (8) Ruined Basilica (Zob Phirown); (9) Temple (Serail Phirown); (10) Iarge Tomb (ed-Deir); (11) Isolated Column. All the lateral valleys entering the great central º have their walls perforated with tombs, and a ew habitations, the entrances to which are adorned with sculptured façades, while niches for statues are to be observed at intervals. Amongst the most interesting objects is the Roman Theatre, cut out of the solid rock on the western side of the city, and estimated to have afforded seats for 3000 spectators; and lastly, the Circular Arch, which spans the Sík high above the floor, which was doubtless constructed as part of an aqueduct to º the waters of the brook to the higher parts of the city. For figure of the recently dis- covered high plai e of Petra, see SANCTUARY, p. 396". Outline of the history of Petra.-The history of Petra has yet to be written. The following are some of the leading historical events :- (1) Its history commences in the time of Abra- ham, when Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, with his allies, swept over the region of Mount Seir, then inhabited by the Horites (or cave-dwellers), Gn 14%. (2) Esau settled in Mount Seir on separating from his brother Jacob, and the country was henceforth ruled by his descendants, the Edomites (Gn 36°). (3) At the time of the Exodus the Edomites appear to have been a powerful nation under a king ; and on the Israelites requesting permission to pass through Mount Seir, by the king's high- way, on their journey towards the plains of Moab, they were refused, and the IEdomites made a demon- stration of force to resist the passage (Nu 20°). * Giving the name of the Roman governor, Quintus Prºp- textus Florentinus, who died in the city probably in the reign of IHadrian, A.D. 117–180. # A rude plan of the city is given by Burckhardt.: but a much more full and perfect one by Laborde, together with numerous views and illustrations of the worlds of art. The beautiful draw. ings of David Roberts need only be referred to. The wonderful colouration of the sandstone rock (‘the Nubian Sandstone' of the Cretaceous age), in which the prevalent red is varied by wavy * There is no doubt in the mind of the present writer that Petra of the present day is the Sela of the OT, the Greek name being the equivalent of the Semitic; and the importance of the place in ancient times, together with its situation, point to it as the capital of that part of Arabia. But see Moore, Judges, 55 f., and cf. art. ROCK, No. 4. # Urbem in regione plana, et hortis fontibusque instructam, cinctam tamen rupibus undique (lib. xvi.). t How this stream obtained its name, unless from the fancy of the Arabs, it is impossible to say ; but it cannot be admitted that it ever had any connexion with Moses, the Israelitish leader. o. 92) endeavours to make out that Petra is Kadesh-barnea ; but this point we shall return further on. § Measured by scale from Laborde's plan near the centre of the quadrangle. It is one of the grounds on which Jean Stanley (Sinai, bands of pink and yellow in one direction and of purple to blue in the other, has called forth the admiration of all travellers. SELA SELAH 431 (4) In later times they were sufficiently powerful to maintain wars with the kings of #. and Judah. At an early stage they were brought into subjection by David, who put garrisons in the Edomite strongholds (2 S 8”); but, in the days of Joram, Edom revolted from the rule of Judah (2 K 8”), and, although defeated, maintained their independence and set a king over themselves. After their defeat by Amaziah in a great battle in the Valley of Salt on the shore of the Dead Sea, Sela, the capital, was captured, and re-named by the conqueror Joktheel (?' protection of God’), 2 K 147. At the end of the 4th cent. D. C. Edom came into possession of the Nabataeans, one of the two chief tribes descended from Ishmael. These established a powerful dynasty, successfully re- sisting the attacks of Antigonus (Diod. Sic. xix. 731, ed. 1604), and encouraging commerce and works of art. One of their kings, Aretas, was father-in-law of Herod Antipas, and during their sway many of the monuments of Petra which have come down to the present day were constructed. (5) The sway of the Nabataeans was terminated by the capture of the city, and the reduction of Arabia. Petraea to a Roman province by Trajan’s general, Hadrian, from whom the capital received the name of Hadriana, as appears from the legend on the coins of this period (Dion Cass. lib. 68). Under the fostering care of the empire it prob- ably attained to the summit of its commercial prosperity and grandeur. (6) Christianity appears to have been introduced into Petra at an ...; date, though it is impossible to verify the tradition that the city was visited by St. Paul on his retirement to Arabia, after his conversion. Petra, however, became the seat of a bislºopric, and Athanasius mentions Asterius as bishop of Petra early in the 4th cent. (tom. ad 4ntioch. 10 : 'Aa réptos IIerpäu Tàs 'Apaštas, et al.); again we find Petra mentioned as the metropolis of the episcopal province of Palestina Tertia, which included a large number of towns or villages, all of which seem to have since disappeared. (Ea:- cerpta from MS in the Vatican, quoted by Reland, i. 160). (7) With ‘the decline and fall' of the Roman empire a period of decadence for Petra set in, which was hastened by the invasion of Chosroës, king of Persia, in the middle of the 6th cent. ; and its ruin was consummated by the desolating wave of Mohammedan conquest which swept over Arabia, Petraea, from A.D. 629 to 632. The Christian inhabitants were either massacred or compelled to embrace the faith of the conqueror, and their temples and monasteries were reduced to ruins. Of the large number of ecclesiastical buildings which existed at the beginning of the 7th cent. in Arabia, only the monastery of Mount Sinai remains to , the present day. Henceforth Petra, became a city of ruins, absolutely lost to the view and knowledge of the outer world for several centuries during the Middle Ages till rediscovered by Sultan Beybars of Egypt towards the close of the 13th cent. It is now only the home of the beda win ; and the terrible predic- tions of the prophet, ‘Thus will I make Mount Seir an astonishment and a desolation ” (Ezk 357), have been literally fulfilled. Dean Burgon has well expressed this desolation in the following lines: “How changed—how fallen I All her glory fled, The Widow’d City mourns her many dead." like some fond heart which gaunt disease hath loft Of all it lived for—all it loved—bereft ; Mute in its anguish : struck with pangs too deep For words to utter, or for tears to weep.” Petra, 1845. * On the coins of Petra the city is represented as a veiled and turreted female sitting on a rock. For other predictions of the 1-10 desolation of Edom, see Is 345-17, Jer 4915-22, Ob 1-1( —y Petra and Kadesh-bornea.—The suggestion that these two places were identical comes from Dean Stanley, and would not have been considered worthy of notice had it emanated from a less distinguished writer. Both topographical and historical reasons are sufficiently clear to render the view untenable. (1), Kadesh was a place situ- ated in immediate proximity to the Canaanitish inhabitants (Nu 13”). This does not apply to Mount Seir, which was separated from º by the wide valley of the Arabah (wilderness of Zin). (2) Kadesh was in the wilderness of Paran (Nu 13*), a region lying to the west of the Arabah, and generally corresponding to the Badiet et-Tih of the present day (cf. Gn 21*, Nu 101° 121° 13%). This is in harmony with (l) above. (3) As the king of Edom refused the Israelites a passage through his tex ritory when about to leave his neighbourhood, is it conceivable that he would have permitted them to occupy the capital of his kingdom for a period of thirty-eight (or forty) years? Dean Stanley's main rcason for his sug- gestion is the name Wādy Mūsa (or Moses' Valley) attached to the stream along the banks of which Petra is situated. But however difficult it may be to account for the name, the reasons against the suggestion far outweigh whatever evidence may be derived from this source. See article SANCTUARY. LITERATURE. — Burckhardt (“Sheikh Ibrahim’), Travels in Syria and the Holy Land (1822); de Laborde, Jowrney through Arabia Petrova, etc., Eng. tr. 2nd ed. (1838); Hull, Mount Seir, Sinai, and Westerm Palestime (PE1", 1889); Reland, Palestima. ea; momumentis veteribus illustrata (Nuremberg, 1616); Stanley, SP (1800); JBL, 1899, p. 132ff. - E. HULL. SELAH (nºt). —This word occurs 71 times in the Psalter, 17 of these occurrences being in Book I., 30 in II., 20 in III., 4 in V. The majority of the psalms wherein it appears are Elohistic, and all of them ascribed, in the titles, to David, Korah, Asaph or Ethan, except Pss. 66 and 67, the latter of which has pa)\!wós Tº Aaveté in the LXX. In 16 psalms it is found once, in 15 twice, in 7 thrice, in 1 four times. It stands also three times in the salm which is known as Hab 3. In the so-called °salms of Solomon Öudya)\ua is used twice (1791 18"), but m, one of the eight MSS of which Swete has availed himself (The OT in Greek 9, vol. iii.), omits it in both cases. Its usual position is at the end of a poem or of a strophe, the only instances of its occurrence in the middle of a verse leing Ps 55" 57°, Hab 3". ". . These exceptions, lowever, are apparent rather than real : the first passage is hi of impassioned feeling, and the sº im- mediatel . a Divine title ; in the second the LXX has 6tápa)\!wa at the close of the verse ; the other two are connected with loose quotations from Dt 33°, Ps 7710-?). It is universally agreed that Selah is a musical or liturgical sign of some kind. Nowhere has the word any grammatical connexion with the con- text, l’s 9” is not an exception, for Higgaion, Selah, are both used interjectionally, ‘Itesounding music Up !’. It is not found in the prophetical writings, and its reference to the temple music is evinced by the fact, that 31 of the 39 psalms con- taining it are ascribed in their titles Hsinº, as is Hab 3 at the close. The derivation and precise significance of the note have been much disputed. (1) One sugges- tion is that we have in it simply the Heb. form of VáA\e. 13ut the musical signs of the Psalter date from an earlier º than that of the Greek influence. 13esides, if the word had come from the Greek, it is strange that no tradition to that eflect should have reached any of the Greek translators. (2) It has been taken as an abbrevia- tion. For example, nºn Hºp? ab=da (tºpo. But 432 SELA-HAMMAHLEKOTH SELEUCUS I. these abbreviations, however agreeable to the taste of later writers, are not biblical. (3) It has been derived from a verb nºb, supposed to be equivalent to nºw : the imperative would be nºº, with n paragogic Rº, in pause Hºp. The inter. change of Sãn㺠is, however, rare in the Heb. of the OT, and the sense thus obtained, “Pause !’ does not suit many of the passages: as, for instance, those where it stands in the middle of a verse or would break the flow of thought (Ps 55” 67* *, Hab 33:9), or at the end of a psalm (Ps 3. 24), where no direction to pause is needed. , (4) Several of the WSS translated it by words which mean ‘for ever.” The Targ, has sºgh, rºw, ºn? **t, *-** wrktik º e Q Rºy, jºy "phy', etc.; Aq. del ; Theod. del ; Sexta. ötatravtós, once eis téAos; Quinta els toys alóvas ; Jerome, semper, in Sempiterrum. (5) In all proba- bility it is connected with the verb 9%) = to lift up, to cast up. In this case the meaning may be (a) “Lift up Iloud ' ' a direction to the orchestra, which had hitherto been playing a soft accompani- ment and is now to strike in with loud music, trumpets and cymbals, whilst the singer's voice was hushed. Additional force would thus be given to those parts of the psalm where it seemed appropriate. It will be noticed that Selah is not found at the beginning of a psalm, for instru- mental preludes were in all probability unknown, the instruments being always secondary to the voices. Or (b) it. may mean ‘..Lift up, your bene- diction,” the reference being to a doxology ‘sung after every psalm and section of a psalm which for any liturgical reason was separated from a section which followed ' (Briggs, JBL, 1899, p. 142). The 31& JºozAgeo. of LXX, Theod., and Symm. has received almost as many varying interpretations as the original word itself. “Quidam diapsalma commutationem metri dixerunt esse : alii pausationem spiritus : nonnulli alterius sensus ex- ordium. Sunt qui rhythmi distinctionem, et quia psalmi tunc temporis juncta voge. ad organum canebantur, cujusdam musicae varietatis existimant silentium’ (Jer, ad Marcellam). It seems not unlikely that the true meaning is “an interlude ': Hesychius explains the similarly formed word 31&0\loy of the flute-playing in the interval between two choruses. B. Jacob's ‘Beiträge zu einer Einleitung in die Psalmen' (ZA T'W, 1806, pp. 129-182) is a very full discussion of the word. Denying the possibility of an etymological explanation, he reaches two main conclusions: (1) ‘Rºp signifies a pause, whether in the temple song or for the temple song’; (2) “the meaning of 'b was purposely concealed to prevent the syna- gogues and perhaps also the churches from obtaining one of the º of the temple.' Briggs' article, quoted above, is marked by great freshness in its discussion of the problem : see also under the word Tºp in the Oaf, Leb. Lea icon. J. TAYLOR, SELA-HAMMAHLEKOTH (niphnºm yºp; trérpa # p.spto.6eſa'a ; Petra dividens ; ‘the rock of divisions or escape,” RVm).—A rock or cliff in the wilder- ness of Maon, at which Saul ‘returned from pur- suing after David’ (1 S.23°). The ‘rock of divisions’ is the interpretation of the Jewish commentators (Midrash, Rashi), and is pronounced probable by Driver' (Teat of Sam, ad...loc.); the rock of escapes’ that of Gesenius (Thes. 485). The great gorge of Wädy Maláki, which runs eastward be- tween Carmel and Maon, would be a suitable osition, and the name may be a corruption of the }. by the loss of a guttural (Conder, PEF Mcm. iii. 314). C. W. WILSON. SELED (Tºp).—A Jerahmeelite, 1 Ch 289. The name occurs twice in this verse : B has, the first time, 'A\o d'Aa3 ; the second time, XàAa3, which last is the reading of A both times. SELEMIA.—One of the swift scribes who wrote to the dictation of Ezra (2 Es 14*). SELEMIAS (Xexepilas), 1 Es 9*=Shelemiau, Ezr 1049. SELEUCIA (Xexei'kela, WH XeXeukla), the great maritime fortress of Syria, was built by Seleucus Nikator. It was the seaport of his new capital Antioch, and in it he was buried. The town was situated on the southern slopes of Mt. Pieria, and on the level ground at its foot. On three sides it was protected by nature as well as by art ; and on the side of the sea, where the ground is level, it was strongly fortified. Seleucia was taken by Ptolemy Euergetes (1 Mac 11°), and afterwards (c. B.C. 220), recovered by Antiochus the Great. It was one of the most important military stations of the Seleucidae, and was greatly improved by the Romans. In St. Paul's time it was a ‘free city’—a privilege granted to it after its capture by Pompey. It was afterwards greatly favoured by the emperors, who enlarged the harbour, con- structed moles, etc. The geographical position of Seleucia, at the mouth of the Orontes valley, gave it great commercial importance. Thence ships sailed southward along the Syrian and Phoenician coasts to Egypt, and westward to Cyprus, the coast of Asia. §o. and the Roman W. And it was in one of these trading ships that Paul and Barnabas, after coming down from Antioch, sailed for Cyprus on their first missionary journey (Ac 13"). There are many remains of the old walls, temples, theatres, and other buildings of Seleucia. The walls of the inner harbour, now a morass, can be followed throughout ; the canal through which ships passed from the outer to the inner harbour can be traced ; and the piers of the outer harbour can still be seen beneath the sea. The most re- markable relic of Seleucia, however, is the great rock-hewn channel, partly a tunnel, which was º made to convey to the sea the waters of a stream that might, in times of flood, have endangered the city, and at the same time to store water for the use of the people (Chesney, Euphrates Eacpedition ; Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epp. of St. Paul ; Baedeker, Guide to Syria and Palestine). C. W. WILSON. SELEUCIDAE, the members of a Syrian dynasty founded by Seleucus, one of the generals of Alexander. They ruled over Syria from B.C. 312 to B.C. 65, their empire extending, when they were at the height of their prosperity, from Mesopotamia in the east to the borders of Greece in the West. The Seleucid era begins with Olym. 117, 1, A.U. 442, B.C. 312, and was very largely used, especially in the districts round the Euphrates and Tigris. The Seleucid year was usually regarded as beginning in autumn, but Schürer (I. i. 36–44) argues in favour of spring. None of the Seleucidae are expressly named in any of the books of canonical Scripture, but in Daniel allusions are made to several of them, including the four kings bearing the name Seleucus. In the Books of Maccabees Seleucus IV. is mentioned by name. From certain references in Josephus’ Antiquities, it has been commonly sup- posed that the Jewish historian had written a special History of the Seleucidae. I)estimon, who in his Quellen des Fl. Josephºts, pp. 21–29, has investigated the subject carefully, decides against the existence of such a work. LITERATURE.—-Ewald, Hist. of Israel, v., London, 1880, pp. 286– 354; Schürer, IIJI’l. i. 160–185,-for genealogy, i. ii. 393 ; Ryssel in art. “Syricn' in PI&E 2 xv. 170 f., Driver, J)aniel, passim. J. MACPHERSON. SELEUCUS I. (Nikator), the founder of the Seleucid dynasty, on the death of Alexander, in B.C. 323, after a successful conflict secured recogni- tion for himself under this title as ruler over all the countries between the Hellespont and the Mediter- ranean on the one side, and j. Indus and Jaxartes (Sir - Daria) on the other. In the partition of SELEUCUS II. SELF-SURRENDER 433 territories which took place in B.C. 321 he obtained the governorship of Babylon, and, though driven out by Antigonus in B.C. 316, he succeeded in B.C. 312 in establishing himself in the Babylonian pro- vinces in the east as well as in the Syrian provinces in the west. He then founded the sº dynasty, which held its place for about two hundred and fifty years. He died by the hand of an assassin in B.C. 282. He is the captain (+9) of the king of the South, |...}. Soter of Egypt, referred to in Dn 11" as having become stronger than the king. He founded several cities which became famous, among them Antioch and Apamea, on the Orontes, Laodicea. and Seleucia, Edessa, and Beroea. He settled many Jews, who had served their time under him, in Antioch and others of the cities founded by him, and conferred upon them all the rights of citizen- ship. L:TERATURE.-Josephus, Ant. xii. iii. 1; Schürer, HJP II.i. 114, ii. 271; Ewald, LII v. 237; Driver, Daniel, xxxv. 165 f. J. MACPHERSON. SELEUGUS II. (Callinicus), king of Syria, B.C. 246-226, son of the grandson of Nikator, Antiochus II, Theos. His mother, Laodice, having murdered the Egyptian princess Berenice, Ptolemy Euergetes, the brother of the murdered lady, in order to avenge his sister's death, invaded the territories of the Syrian monarch, and plundered Syria and Babylonia. Reference to this episode is made in Dn 117-9. Ptolemy took possession of Seleucia, which for a considerable time was retained by the Egyptians. Seleucus afterwards sought to retali- ate, and for this purpose led an expedition against Egypt, but was immediately put to flight. We have no particulars about the close of his reign. T/ITERATURE.—Bevan, Short Com. on Daniel, 1892, pp. 174–177; Ewald, El I v. 271, 283; Driver, Daniel, 167 f. --- J. MACPHERSON. SELEUCUS III. (Ceraunus), king of Syria, B.C. 226–223, son of Callinicus and brother of Antiochus the Great. These brothers are referred to in Dn 1119 in the word ‘ his sons.” Seleucus did not make war directly with Egypt, but his campaign in Asia. Minor may be regarded as preliminary to the expedition carried out , against Egypt by his brother. Seleucus was killed in that campaign, after a reign of two years, before the accession of Ptolemy Philopator, against whom Antiochus fought unsuccessfully (cf. Driver, JDaniel, 168 ft.). J. MACPHERSON. SELEUGUS IV. (Philopator), king of Syria, B.C. 187–175, son of Antiochus the Great and brother of Antiochus lºpiphanes. Dn 11” refers to this Seleucus, whether we understand the writer to speak of him as sending an exactor, or (transposing two words) as himself the exactor who rises up in the place of his father. In the former case, we shall understand by the exactor Heliodorus, whom Sel- eucus is said (2 Mac 37.51°) to have sent to obtain the money treasured up in the temple of Jerusalem. Bevan prefers the above transposition, rendering the passage thus: “And there shall arise in his place an exactor, who shall cause the royal dignity to pass away.” Such a designation would be very suitable for Seleucus, who was notorious for his avarice. He is spoken of in 2 Mag 3% as ‘the king of Asia.” In 1 Mac 7", 2 Mac 14, he is alluded to as father of Demetrius, and in 2 Mac 47 mention is made of his death, and of the fact that he was succeeded by Antiochus. After having reigned twelve years, Seleucus was murdered, some say by Heliodorus, his minister, who sought to win the kingdom to himself; but others say at the instigation of his brother Antiochus, who was on his way from Rome, where he had been detained for some years as a hostage. This latter view seems to be most agreeable to the language of T)aniel. - vol. Iv.–28 LITERATURE.-Bevan, Short Com. on Daniel, p. 185f.; Schürer, II.JP I. i. 172, also his art. “Seleucus' in Iłiehun, Hand vôrter. . bwch.p. 1457; Ewald, HI v. 291f., 304 ; Driver, Daniel, pp. xxxviii, 101 f., 176 f.; Fairweather and Black, 1 Mac. pp. 136, 159, 189; Jos. 47tt. XII. iv. 10. J. MACPHERSON. SELF-SURRENDER. — By this title we may understand to be indicated the fundamental principle of Christianity on its subjective side. The roots of it may be traced i. in the OT and further to the primitive instincts of religion. Schleiermacher's definition of religion as ‘the sense of dependence’ is defective and one-sided in leaving out of account this most essential element. It is seen in an extreme form in the extravagance of pagan fanaticism. The Indian fakir, the yogi whôañandons himself entirely to religious devotion, aims at making the most absolute surrender of his life and person; and yet it is seen that pride, self- will, vanity, and various self-regarding affections are not excluded by the extremity of fanaticism, and therefore some deeper if not more demonstra- tive experience must be looked for in real self- surrender. The OT prepares for this, and the NT shows the way of completely realizing it. i. SELF-SURRENDER IN THE OT.-(a) This is an important element of the Hebrew faith in its various phases. In the patriarchal history it appears in the submission and obedience of Abraham and his family in leaving Ur of the Chaldees and migrating to an unknown land where they must live a no- madic life in response to the call of God (Gn 12"-"), and in the subsequent conduct of Isaac (26*") and Jacob (28*). In the prophets it is apparent as the very foundation of their work and mission. The prophet is not an involuntary instrument in the i. of God through whom the Divine will is declared. Defore he receives his message he sur- renders himself to the call of God; he must be a ‘man of God’ if he is to be a ‘seer.” Moses sur- renders his prospects at the court of Pharaoh in the passion of patriotism; and later, receiving his call at the burning bush, gives himself up to the service of God as His ambassador to Pharaoh. A spirit of complete self-surrender is seen later in his willingness to be blotted out of God’s book that the offending people might be forgiven (Ex 32”). Ruth's devotion to her mother-in-law, though issuing in a great act of self-surrender (Ru 11%. 7), has only a secondary bearing on the giving up of self to God. Samuel is dedicated to God from his birth by his mother (1 S 1"), and his subsequent career shows that he confirmed this dedication by his own conduct. Elijah throughout his adven- turous career manifests a life completely given up to the service of God in face of the greatest dangers. Elisha, responding to the call of the older º takes solemn farewell of his parents and the circle of his friends at a final feast (1 K 19°), which may have furnished Levi the publican with the precedent for his similar action (Llº 5*). Amos leaves his herds and his orchards to go as God's messenger to the dissolute court of Jeroboam II, at Bethel. Iłut the typical act of prophetic self-surrender is seen in the case of Isaiah, who gives us a full account of God’s call and his response in a vision at the temple (Is 6). Jeremiah, shrinking from the difficult task laid on him, but going to it with the supreme courage of a naturally timorous man who is braced to face danger by a strong sense of duty and a full faith in God, lives his martyr life in the spirit of entire self-sacrifice. (b) When we turn from the history to the teach- ing of the OT, we find that this º act of religion is repeatedly insisted on. . The prophets call upon the people to give themselves up to God. Hosea, invites the unfaithful to return (Hos 14" "). Isaiah, denouncing the sin of Jerusalem as unfaith- fulness and rebellion (1*), calls the people back 434 SELE-SURRENDER SELF-SURRENDER to their loyalty, and promises a redemption that implies a return to God in the spirit of submission (v.”). Early in the Captivity, Ezekiel sketches the ideal of a restored nation fully devoted to God, and in Deutero-Isaiah the restored Israel appears as a people given up to the service of God. The completed Pentateuch gives a large place to the idea of self-surrender on the part of the Jewish eople. The whole nation is holy, i.e. set apart for God (e.g. Ex 19° 22*). The Levites and the priests are £iº to God in an especial way for the performance of specific functions, but not to the exclusion of the self-dedication of the laity. Thus the people generally are expected to ‘sanc- tify” themselves and to be ‘holy’ (e.g. Lv. 207). Among the sacrifices the burnt-offering ('6lāh, i.e. ‘that which goes up’) was especially significant of the self-surrender of the man who offered it. This was entirely consumed on the altar (therefore thought of as a ‘whole offering'), while other sacrifices were eaten in whole or in part by the priests and the worshippers. As the smoke as- cended to heaven the essence of the victim was supposed to pass up to Jehovah, and represented the offerer, who was thus º to give himself up to God under the symbol of his sacrifice (see Bennett, Theol. of OT, pp. 148, 149, and art. SACRIFICE). ii. SELF-sur-RENDER IN THE NT.—(a) This is first presented to us in the life of Jesus Christ, whose whole course consists in the abandonment of self and self-interest in order to do the will of God ; which is summarized in sayings reported in the Fourth Gospel, “My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to accomplish his work’ (Jn 4*); ‘I came down from heaven not to do mine 2 win will, but the will of him that sent me ' (6”), and described in Hebrews by the application to Christ of Ps. 40° ‘Lo, I am come to do thy will (He 10°). The agony in the garden reveals the spirit of perfect self-surrender under the severest trial when our Lord cries, ‘Howbeit, not what I will, but what thou wilt' (Mk 14*), and the endurance of the passion consummated in the crucifixion completes the sacrifice. (b) Jesus Christ invites His disciples to a similar life of self-surrender. That is seen outwardly in the call of the Twelve, which leads each to give up his work and his home in order to follow Christ, At Caesarea. Philippi the underlying principle is made a rule of universal application when our Lord says, “If any man º come after me, let him deny himself (êtrapumadaſa Čavròu), and take up his cross, and follow me ' (Mk 8*, Mt 16%, Lk 929– Luke has “take up his cross daily’). Plainly, this means much more than what we commonly under- stand by Self-denial, i.e. the giving up of certain of the conveniences of life. The essential difference is that it involves the abandonment of self altogether as the end of life (see Swete, St. Mark, in loc.). The word rendered “deny (árapvéouai, stronger than àpuéopat, and meaning a more thorough abandonment, suggested by the prefix &ré) is used for St. Peter's denial of Christ (Mk 14%) and for the denial in the presence of the angels of those who deny Christ on earth (Lk 12”). But while the absoluteness of the surrender is thus demanded, certain mistaken forms of self-denial are excluded. The notion does not involve asceticism or any form of self-torture. Primarily it is negative; it is requisite as a preliminary condition to following Christ, which is the real object to be aimed at, not commended as a meritorious act on its own account. Self must be renounced in order that Christ may be followed. Further, there is no idea. of the abandonment of the ego in the destruction of the personality, or the fusing of the individual in the universal being of God. Christ's teaching does not tend in this pantheistic direction. The very appeal to the act of self-renunciation brings in the idea of the will that is to perform it (et its 6é\et), and that will is equally requisite for the following of Christ, which is to be the subsequent aim of His servant. The disciple is to follow Christ as an individual personality, walking after his Master, though in the Master's footprints; not to merge his own consciousness and activity in the being and life of Christ. But while the individu- ality of the ego is to be thus preserved, the surrender of the will in submission and obedience is to be unconditional and complete. Probably we should regard, our Lord's hard sayings on the subject of riches in the light of this primary condition. That He did not lay down a rule of poverty as a uni- yersal condition of discipleship is proved by the fact that some of His disciples who possessed pro- perty were not required to sacrifice it, e.g. Zacchaeus, the Bethany household, the mother of St. Mark– in whose house the Church met after the resurrec- tion. Therefore the difficulty of a rich man in entering the kingdom of God, concerning which Jesus spoke with great emphasis, must be found in the entanglement of worldly goods hindering the complete surrender of will, and not in the hard necessity of giving up all the possessions. The case of the young ruler, who, when asked what he should do to obtain eternal life, was told to sell all he possessed and give it to the poor, stands by jº. we have no other instance of such a demand, and therefore it is just to conclude that it had a specific application to this man, his wealth being his fatal hindrance, and a career of discipleship being open to him if he would abandon all his worldly goods to follow Christ with the peasants and fishermen. Thus riches may be classed with the hand, or foot, or eye that is to be cut off or plucked out if the member offend. Poverty perse is no more required as a condition of membership in the kingdom of God than mutilation. But if any hindrance is found in what seems most valu- able and our own by right—even a limb of the body—so that the precious thing must be aban- doned rather than that the life should be ruined, much more must this process be followed in the case of what is so extraneous as material wealth. For a full discussion of this position see Wendt, Lehre Jesu, pp. 376–389 [Eng. tr. ii. 58 ft.]. While absolute surrender to the will of God is thus required by Christ at any cost, pure altruism is not demanded. The ‘golden rule,” which may be regarded as the primary law of Christian ethics, enjoins that we should do to others as we would wish them to do to us, on the principle that we should love our neighbours as ourselves, where some self-regarding thought is allowed, since this is expressly named as the measure of our feelings and actions towards others. Still it is to be ob- served that the more advanced teaching of the Fourth Gospel carries us beyond this line , of measurement with the ‘new commandment,’— perhaps new in contrast with the old command- ment about love to our neighbour, -inculcating love like Christ's (“even as I have loved you,' etc., Jn 13*), because His love involved complete self-sacri- fice for the saving of others. In the same Way Jesus spoke of the necessity of bearing the cross, not meaning the endurance of Some hardship, but the readiness to face death, like the condemned man who carries his cross to the place of execution ; and He laid down the great principle contained in the words, “Whosoever would (or rather quishes to, 04Xm) save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, shall stye it,” (Mk 8” etc.). Confusion has come into tho interpretation of this passage through the two senses of the word puxi, as life and soul, being SELE-SURRENDER SENAAH 435 tºsºmsºmºn introduced ; but the previous sentence about the cross, an instrument of capital punishment, should make it clear that it is not the soul, º 9,S we now understand the word “soul,” but the life, that is here referred to. The Gr. word is used in the same sense in Mk 10", where Jesus speaks of giving His ſºvº, i.e. His life, in the sense of giving #j; up to die. The passage, then, means that whoever is willing to face martyrdom for his Christian faith shall save his life—i.e. live on in spite of being killed, by entering into the eternal life; while he who makes it his aim to escape martyrdom will really die, because he will miss the eternal life. Here the self-surrender, even to the extent of suffering a martyr's death, i.e. the surrender which will face that extremity if neces- sary, is what Christ requires, not in every case the Sctual endurance of the martyrdom, for the sen- tence is hypothetical. Iłut this self-surrender is not the end, it is the means through which we are to enter into life. In a larger application of the essential principle it may be said |. we must re- nounce ourselves in order to realize ourselves. The end then, as we saw above in another connexion, is not self-abnegation, much less is it extinction of being, or loss of personality and conscious existence, Buddhist Nirvana, or Hindu absorption in Brahm, but the very opposite—the full, enduring, conscious activity known as eternal life. (c) In St. Paul’s Epistles this principle comes out with regard to the mystical union of the Christian with Christ. He dies with Christ (Col 2"); he is crucified with Christ (Gal 2%); through the cross of Christ the world has been crucified to him, and he to the world (6*); the old man is crucified with Christ (Ro 6"). The last of these phrases throws light on the others. St. Paul is tº: of the pre-Christian condition, the life of sin and the world. This is so completely put away in Christ that it is said to be killed, crucified. The apostle means more than repentance ; he is thinking of an actual end of the old thoughts, affections, desires, habits. But the peculiarity of his teach- ing is that this result is brought about by union with Christ, and especially by an inward, spiritual assimilation to His death. º, on our part, the cause is self-surrender to Jesus Christ, for Him to be the supreme commanding influence over the soul. Then this same surrender to Christ, result- ing in union with Him and assinilation to His experience, carries the soul on to a resurrection. Accordingly, St. Paul writes of Christians as being “raised together with Christ’ (Col. 3"). Writing of his own experience, the apostle declares that it is no longer he that lives, but Christ who lives in him (Gal 2-9). This, which may be called the mystical element in St. Paul’s thought, links itself to his rabbinical and legal view of redemption as an act of justification by God which we receive through faith. The bond of union between the two parts of the apostle's teaching may be found in his ideas on faith. It is faith that secures the grace of for- giveness, and so places the guilty person in a state of justification. Now, faith with St. Paul is not merely intellectual assent to dogma; it is personal trust in and adhesion to Christ: But such a con- dition of soul is the very surrender which secures the mystical union with Christ. Thus the two experiences—the subjective dying and rising, and the objective forgiveness and justification—spring out of the same act on our part, the faith that implies self-surrender. l'urther, out of this and its results arise moral obligations to continual self- renunciation for the service of Christ and the benefit of mankind. The Christian is not his own, because he has been bought with a price (1 Co 6" "). There- fore a special obligation is on him to spend his life in ºft service. lºor the same reason he must avoid unchastity, since his body is a temple ºf the Holy Ghost, Christians are exhorted to present their bodies to God as a living sacrifice, an act which the apostle calls ‘ reasonable service” (\oyuichu Aarpelav), perhaps meaning ‘spiritual service’ in contrast to the external service of Judaism (Ro 12'). (d) The Epistle to the Hebrews, treating chief of Christ and His work, does not devote muc attention to the subjective side of religion. Still it exalts faith as the secret of spiritual power and heroism, and this faith involves the renunciation of self in accepting the help of God to do His will. Thus one instance is that of Moses, who gave up the treasures of Egypt, enduring “as seeing him who is invisible’ (He 11”). (e) St. Peter describes Christians as persons who were going astray but are now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of their souls (1 P2*); and this return involves surrender to obedience, since the sheep of the flock follow their shepherd. (f) In the Johannine writings the act of self- renunciation does not come forward so prominently on its own account as elsewhere in the NT ; but it is even more completely involved in the require- ments that correspond to the Divine side of religion than in the other apostolic writings. The new birth of which Jesus speaks to Nicodemus (Jn 3*) requires the surrender of self in the abandonment of pride and self-sufficiency, in order that it may be experienced. To drink of the water of life, to eat the bread of life, to follow the Light of the World, are actions that require the abandonment of all claims to self-sufficiency. Then St. John demands faith as the great condition on our part for the reception of eternal life (1 Jn 5*). At the same time, in the prominence which he gives to this gift of eternal life as a present possession, it is plain that he does not teach any doctrine of the abandomnent of the human personality for absorption in the Divine. W. F. ADENEY. SEMACHIAH (nºpp “J” has sustained'). —The name of a Korahite family of gatekeepers, 1 Ch 267 (B XaAExévé, A Xapaxias). It is not improbable that the same name should be substituted for Ismachiah (Anºpp, “J” sustaineth '; B Sapuaxetſ, A Xapaxtº) in 2 Ch 31*. See Gray, IIPN 291, 295. SEMEI (IB Xepeel, A Septet), 1 Es 9°– Shimei of the sons of Hashum, Ezr 10”. SEMEIAS (B Xepeelas, NA Sepetas; AV Semei), Ad. Est 11° (LXX, A*) = Shimei, the ancestor of Mordecai ; cf. Est 2°. SEMEIN (B Sepestv, A Segeet ; AV Semei), Lk 320. —The father of Mattathias in the genealogy of Jesus Christ. SEMEIS (B Sevgels, A Xeuels; AV Semis), 1 Es 9” = Shimei the Levite, Ezr 10-9. SENAAH ("sp; B Saavá, Savavár, A Savavá, Xevvad, "Aadv; Sema6). —Amongst the “people of Israel’ who returned from the Captivity with Zerubbabel were the ‘children of Senaah.” Their numbers were 3630 according to Ezr 2*, and 3930 according to Nell 7”. The name occurs again, with the article, has-Semaah (Nell 3°), in connexion with the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem. . The people of Senaah built the Fish - gate, and are mentioned next, in order after the people of Jericho (cf. Ezr 2*). From this it may perhaps he inferred that Senaah was in the vicinity of Jericho. In this case it may possibly be the village Magdal- senna, Meyòa)\gevvá, which Eusebius and Jerome (Onon.) place 7 M.P. north of Jericho. In the lists in 1 Es. (5*) the name is given as 436 SENATE SEPHAR Sanaas (AV Annaas; B Xagó, A. Xaváas ; Anaas), and the number of the children as 3330. C. W. WILSON. SENATE is the rendering of yepovala in Ac 5*, where “all the senate of the children of Israel' appears to be epexegetical of the preceding “council’ (ovvéðptov). See also EPHESUS, vol. i. p. 722", and SAN HEDRIN. It is the Jewish “senate’ that is meant likewise by yepovata in 2 Mac 12" 4*. The allusions to the Roman senate in 1 Mac 847". will be found handled in art. ROME, p. 306°. SENEH (nºp; Xevvá; Sene).-One of two jagged boints, or ‘teeth of the cliff,’—the other being ozez, between which the ‘passage of Michmash” ran. It is mentioned in connexion with the exploit of Jonathan and his armour-bearer, and was to the south of and nearer to Geba, than Bozez (1 S 14*). Seneh was possibly so called from the thorns (cf. nº of Ex 3**, Dt 33°) which grew upon it (cf. ‘the plain of thorns,’ &kav0%u aw)\dºv, near the village of Gabathsaul, Jos. B.J. V. ii. 1). The name is retained in the W&dy Swweimit, on the right bank of which, not far from Jeba, the rock Seneh must have been. A good description of the locality is given by Conder (Tent-Work, ii. 112– 114). See also Robinson (BRP” i. 441). C. W. WILSON. SENIR (T1: ; Xavelp ; Samir). — The Amorite name of Mt. Hermon (Dt 3°), and one of the few Amorite words preserved in the Bible. In 1 Ch 5*, Ca. 4°, Senir is apparently distinguished from Mt. Hermon, and probably designated a particular part of the Hermon range (so Driver, Bull). In £zekiel’s lamentation for Tyre (27°) the builders are said to have made planks of the ‘fir trees of Senir,’ and in 1 Chronicles Senir is given as one of the limits to which the children of Manasseh over- flowed from Bashan. In an inscription of Shal- maneser, Hazael of Damascus is said to have made Mt. Sanir, the top of the mountain opposite Ilebanon, into a fortress (Schrader, KAT'* 210). The Arab geographers, as late as the 14th cent., also called Āmūrīābanon Jebel Saº ºr, and attached the name more particularly to that portion of the range near Danmascus and between Baalbek and IHoms. There was also a district of Samir in which Baalbek was situated (Guy le Strange, Pal. wnder the Moslems, 32, 78, 79, 295–298). See, further, art. HERMON. C. W. WILSON. SENNACHERIB (nºniº, Sevvaxmpetu, Assyr. Sin- akht-erbat, “the Moon-god has increased the breth- ren,” from which we may infer that he was not the eldest son of his father, Sargon). —Sennacherib succeeded Sargon on the 12th of Ab, B.C. 705. His first campaign was against Iłabylonia, where Merodach-baladan (or another prince of the same name) had reappeared. (See, however, MERODACH- BALADAN). After a reign of six months the latter was forced to fly for his life. Sennacherib made a certain Bel-ibni king of Babylon, and then turned against the Kassi or Kossaeans in the western mountains of Elam. After this he swept Iºllipi, north of Elam, with fire and sword. In B.C. 701 came the campaign against Palestine, which had rebelled after Sargon's death. Lulia (Elulaeus), king of Tyre, fled to Cyprus, and Sidon and other Phoenician cities were sacked by the Assyrians, Etlibaal being appointed king of the country. Ashdod, Ammon, Moab, and Edom now sent tribute, Judah with the dependent Philistine cities of Ashkelon and Ekron alone holding out. Ashkelon and Ekron were captured, and Hezekiah was compelled to restore to the throne of the latter city the anti-Jewish prince Padi, who had been imprisoned in Jerusalem. The Egyptians, now ruled by the Ethiopian Tirhakah, came to Aº —s the help of Hezekiah, but they were defeated at Eltekell and driven back. Sen. thereupon swept | the country of Judah, capturing 46 fortresses and carrying into exile 200,150 persons. While he was besieging Lachish, Hezekiah sent rich presents to him, in the vain hope of buying off his attack. The presents diº of 30 talents of gold, 800 talents of silver, precious stones, couches and seats inlaid with ivory, girls and eunuchs, male and female musicians (?). But all was of no avail: Lachish was taken and plundered, and the Rab- shakeh or Vizier sent a letter to Hezekiah de- manding the surrender of his city (2 K 198ff.). Then came the catastrophe, which obliged Sen. to leave Judah without punishing his rebellious vassal, and over which he draws a veil of silence in his annals. The events and the date of this campaign are fully discussed by Prášek in a series of articles in the Eapos. Times, xii., xiii. (1901–2). Prášek contends that there were two campaigns of Sennacherib to the West and against Judah. The following year he again entered Babylonia, of which he made his son Assur-madin-sum king, and drove Merodach-baladan out of the marshes. A few years later he had a fleet of ships built on the Euphrates, at Til-Barsip near Birejik, which he manned with Ionians and Phoenicians. The then sailed across the Persian Gulf to the mout of the Eulaeus, where the followers of Merodach. baladan had taken refuge, and burnt and plun- dered the Chaldaean colony. In return for this Assur-nadin-Sum was carried off to Elam, and the Elamites made Nergal-yusezib king in his place (B.C. 694). The usurper was defeated and captured by the Assyrians, but with little result, since the Elamites remained all-powerful in Babylonia, for a time. In B.C. 691, however, Sen. again marched into the country. At the battle of Khalulé the Bab. and Elamite forces were obliged to retreat after a hard-fought day, but two years more were required before Babylonia could be finally sub- dued. Sen. had already attempted to invade Elam, but the winter had set in before he began his march, and the snow obliged him to return. At last, in B.C. 689, Babylon was taken and razed to the ground, and the canal Arakhtu, which flowed by it, was choked with its ruins. - On the 20th of Tebet, B.C. 681, Sen. was murdered by his two sons (2 K 1997). The deed seems to have been prompted by jealousy of their brother Esarhaddon, who was at the time conducting a campaign against Ararat. For 42 days the con- spirators held Nineveh, ; then they were compelled to fly to the king of Ararat and seek his aid against their brother. (The subject of the assas- sination of Sennacherib, and esp. the question whether this was the work of one or of two of his sons, is treated in art. SHAREZER, No. 1). Sen. was vain and boastful, with none of the military skill and endurance which distinguished his father. He built the palace of Kouyunjik at Nineveh, 1500 ft. long by 700 ft. broad, and restored a second palace on the mound of Nebi- yunus. He constructed brick embankments along the sides of the Tigris, and repaired the ancient aqueducts which had gone to decay. To him also was due the great wall of Nineveh, 8 miles in circumference. A. H. SAYCE. SEORIM (nºny; ; B Seopelu, A Xeoplv).—The name of the fourth of the twenty-four classes of priests, 1 Ch 248. SEPARATION.—For “separation’ in the sense of rºl, see artt. I&ED HEIFER, p. 208”, UNCLEANNESS, and in sense of n\} art. NAZIRITE. SEPHAR (Tºp [with n locale]; LXX A 20%ipa), (IVAvH.IIs 48% INIOwnIIIs tonaxon and on out otgunma od on troos s 11 Apnºs Igonqſa jo plotſ oum up ooutºiodºtuſ Hutsuolouſ put Adui º Sossossod suolstoa luollºug Jo qualottu qsoul spun 'pubu woulo out uO ' ' ' 'suoloung aulkulls Auu lo osoul Ulug ol' posuoo '5uol Sull XXI ou L, 'autnovula., ouq onuſ suoſºulsum,I) usal, to sisuq 'u so poalas q ºutspuolloH Jo Squul ou', putoKoq pooumapu Suoissºul uuſsl.ulo (tou A 'puu 'LO ou') Jo uoſquisuu,10 požliouºut uu uqJA tornuſ) ºupſûods-Staolo out poppaold I 'Iodso; out, Jo SOIIIu Juulioduſ soul out, Jo ouo outlooq put ‘Āqumºsiluſ) Jo 00IAllos ou" on Kupuaa Josip quo Utopus uolijſſel Jo of unjuul u po"uolo QI odoungſ put uſsy uloºso AA quouliuoluº) Anq ‘ou!]soluđ puu qd Kägſ uſ Kuo qou ‘Aoſ' op)sºtto IIoII ou! Jo O(QIgſ ou? SuM XXII oul, "Alonsu Sjº Jo sopiuquad xis slu out, Jo 9JIl snośſlot out) uſ uous to A woutputſkoTV ouq Kq popdnooo oould out, Jo SSouquot. oul oº su asſau (Ivo uoſºsomb on , : 885 “d “XXII ou! Jo onſuA put osn Maulaqrſ ouq uo III q.tud go g-z ‘suo AS uſ 'duloſ) f ‘(u,\AloS ‘AA 'Jold Aq) (10).InqO ‘pg| Slim)ou Utno ‘ggSI “IqtunO ‘Āſoquiudos qsui qu : 87.8L ‘Igs[ ‘081.I “101.I ‘f60I '889 I —poſuodon KQuonbong uood suu (IoIQIpo sºul Jo Ooujold ouT, “['pºſ—ooo? pp ºppºps I uo [0]]]yI-'ullºCI Jo put ‘stºuy uo [o]]ly. Jo Jolotl').logI Jo “tutuo() ou', ‘touſ).UnJ ‘ooS '0ſ lif YUZSI JO WIVºIIIHS oul A'q qu'uoul sº oould outs out, quu') Sqsajäns AAQUII (zz/ -131 o'a) ‘AI tasouduitºus Ka pompans oould tº ‘uºp.tº)007/S uq(A q! Ajſ]uopſ pluo& oth M ‘('u IO; "It FZ) AAQUII Kot pošuoiſtuo trooq'suu"(I jizz'ſ L60) 6.2 rºyy) topºluosjö filoddis Aquàrom oul Sull loſuº juddištújº titºrºtidos jouðiðuouſ]uopſ outil, f . , tubuliss]]'opuoluluoo osso qoppa IIou släoſooqq turn tosold ‘sncluuo sºoop Ulºo smb : unpuuu.topu udopºpto onbuusdy cºoag.ſº) º on bluop tutºnuapos pu (g) : soptiºqou.In on I so Iluſ on Osount T soooº.1%) pu (#) : unpuoãIIIoquy oyoot utúl Áls SItópoo I AoN ulna (18U pº (g) tutputºutſ] -Uoo unloop|[o]sody luntoſuouſlson Utoqbqolong pú (3) : uupuapoids.Iod odoid utonºqūto A utope.IqoII pt (l) : (on.ºps3000-t on/ºp sººn) Klºssopoti uoAo put Ingosn St. XXT ouſ I, , ... : Ionsou () go dotsIQ splbA -lolyt: “uostºod utloſ Áq ‘(.3T ‘gg.91 ‘o:5p1.1QUIt:0) publjuq uſ pousſiquéſ q Jo uoſºppo puooos out, uſ du pouluns qsaq ‘sdelliod ‘ote XXT ou', oi uog -uoqqº Injo.180 Log II’uo Uloſt|A stupulo Snoºtba ou L . "I Agopold sº?07&ody up qo ostly ‘ºuts.tony gqºqoutdotd. oºmb ‘ouaq qso snºujold.Ioquy [poquoso St. A uois.[9A SITI', UIOUAA on ‘stop|T KquoAoS ou', ‘oºl Utoque &ng?..toº was uſ ‘Tuſuo(T snquo Apt, qosso SITenb qo smb ‘diagüooãºld tuopmb stroydoid uſ ſub tooſ snqūţds tuopy qo uſua smum, “If ºx III] snagua.II ‘ooutºsuſ top “go) solºsode out Jo 5uguouaid out pug Shaudoid ouq go s?uſq.IAA out, uqaw outſ ‘e up qſ 5uſould puts ‘uoſqb.IIdsuſ qoo.Iſp Jo XIIOAA ouſ, q1 UI 3upoos ‘puptuºuſ go uoſqbaſes out Ioy uoſºsuodsp out AICI out" uſ XIIIII g so “poſſ) go oottopſ Aoid Igoods où" Jo uox100 g S'g prooog ouo Uſqi A quiãºnqdaS ouq posſm.Id Kou(1 quuq quâyoA (Ions go poteoddu qi Jointſ) x100.1%) ou" Jo Stout; I out, ol, KUGUIoſongſ spliq UI poqºo.In . ouq go uois IoA quoquodup qsout ou? It'J Kq Sqoodso.I qşotu III sy. “JuſãºnqdoS poſſeo ‘J.O. ou? Jo UOISIOA X(99.1%) OUL–CIONVJAIOJINI ‘I “[(86T'ſ S.5ozłopſ up , UošunzhostaqūIoq!gſ pun qxoqLoqigſ, 'jig out, go quidol u Buſoq “1681 flizdſon) long top woffunzios.ionſ, pum 4a:07.00 = 1.00 : (006I ‘ojpſi(\tugo) ºoo...?) w? J.O onſ? 0% potºur wy. ‘allows ‘g II = ‘AS : woºpmºsp?uºſonºdoș ‘oſqso N = 4ss : woupn?S/7 wºffpngdoS 30/I– ‘TSS : op.105uT = 5urſ : L() go qxoJ. "q911={I} : LO Jo qxoJ, ‘Ip-9)—: 0191).It spu% uſ suoſqujao.1qqY] ‘oinqoloqrT IIIA "quiñonqdoS out Jo osſ, ‘HA 'suoſyggon?) ‘suoſs to A “sºdpiosnugº 'IA . ‘quſãon] doS out, Jo A.100s II “A 'suoſºp'ſ poquildſ “Aſ ‘puo:30I ouſ, Jo KIOºstºl put uſáſio III "outlo N 'Iſ ‘ooutºaodu I ‘I -"LNIK)Y(ſ)\L&ICIS ‘gokvs H. W. , 'SmIAO Jo 400] etſ, q'e epitopſgºdſ pſeſ qoſtſ& ‘sido qu .." OATSIO •op ou uodn ÅIonºpouluſ poAOIIoſ Iºdd S go IIvy ou', put, “uos s.5upſ out, Jo pubtutuoo ou', topun ‘SIICAA Sq oppsºno qsn'ſ Sex Aurig 'qºgſ ouſ, Jo dueo out, SoppuoqêN go ujio.1 outſ, uſ. AnistoAgun '8 Jo qqos otii sãA (, tunnoùoreddih umpiddo, stigo àu qoſt|A) Todd S qºlīq stu.III/6 (0g "IA MEI) Kuſić pub : allotſ, IyoAIoso.1 quo.13 epongAboxo Mºzzoupgúonqo N 4801 Sojºqs (6 ...I.) Smuop/qv SXIo9.1#) out, Aq poſſgo sna aſ so “creddis 40 pſioA ug|Antipogue out go | Lost:16) uoſquoiſſºluopſ Spud qsupgåV sp.tooo..I on 1 poſind ‘utoN utopſoilſ) out ‘sortiºns, K. ‘susoloq on 5uſplooov, ºrig º SI ‘cróI reSI XI 3 UT OT politogol St Sutº, KSSV oud Aq ūſ ūAItºudoS Jo oluqduo ouq put, ‘(re palſ XI a) utºbA.UbudoS go uoul oIoM eſtutulus oº poqu'u (d.sutºll Sqsſuoloo ouſ, 5uouTV. ‘IIquiz StºA Tºdd S go outsu Uuſiouns ou.I, subſ -Ioun S ou" Ka bºuqugſ-QI ‘soqutoS OU) Kol II ſh-q19ſ poulto) StºA UIoſ (IA ‘poi-um S out, Jo oſduion outſ, Jo Suſul outſ, up pulloy ubog o Aºti Shoſquº puts Squoul -muout otgumſøA Jo Anjºu unb of It'ſ V pupu Sugſ Jo GI'S SOIUI 9T ‘soqº.IIIdnçI out" uo tºldt, H-nq V qu ISSI uſ UIUSSuyſ pzuuLlo[I Áq polòAoos [p Sº poš -unS out, Jo Judd S 'qulluv Jo Judd IS, put poi -ums ouſ, Jo Judd IS, SIIoſºdytosuſ tutogouno ouſ uſ poſſeo “bruo(Koſugi Jo Kqo u "studd S OAq, ou L- ‘(mºdoſblºz V ‘rhpnodoghluq, Suu (I sodºssed utºpus I ou" uſ ; anpaodoºbag st6I uſ ‘a prinodoº.uog reşI up ‘agodpębus& ['anp SI LIN otou A] re'A UI ‘rh?nodoº.uog tal. I XI 3 uſ stºlſ ºf “rhynodoqbqºz sąuſyſ uſ sojussed où). It uſ Sull V XXI : GLIG) INIWAMWHIGIS “IOXVS II ‘V ‘q619 'd III “[OA ‘HVICIvaO ‘qū ‘touling ‘oaS ‘SAAoſ’ uttutor) to unzbuoxius V out, tuouſ pousſmäuſ' sºp Sº ‘uprºudoS St. UAoux quosold qu olt, SAAoſ Uſsueds out oouou ; SIIodsopſ Jo quuſ, Oq outbu ouq Jo KºſUp IIuſs oug Jo oouombos -uoo uſ KIqbqold ‘uſed S unpa pºtºudos poſſiluopp Ubuntuo'ſ go unj.It I, oùJ., “by [KSSV Jo Asºo out" on poobſd SI gplºdes ‘uoãIt's Jo SIGuut, où, up ‘ū5uouq ‘Iouſ IWI (ISV Jo quºd titouliou ouq up SUA Qoſīqsſp ou? quuq spuſ, UIOIJ Touq'83 Kgui o AA "gronolos Jo Anjo ouq on pou.Inqo.I ‘5upſ out, loouſ oº Ugo & snopaold oul uſ mp It'du's go Állunoo ouſ! O! ouoš pull ou.A ‘5up ouq go toogo. Ut, put boºp[guſo go toutoAoğ ou', ‘It’pV Jo Kºp (116 ouq ‘SnonotoS put Sntlooſquy Jo It:0A (1118 outſ, UI quuq soºqs (93 ‘Ig OIL ‘UIAI) uoſºdi.Iosuſ q'eq W ‘Iougout uſ uſuo I puts tºyoopeddbo uooAqoq put ‘ooutºsuſ oud up uſuo'ſ pub qd K3I u00Aqoq poubu sº uplºds Jo º où3 tuoqsm"T-1-USXI'UN put unqsſuſogſ q'e SidseqSKH SmºtºGI Jo Suoſºdytosuſ out, Uſ quot gºt KSSV Jo Stºo-ul.Iou out, uo.1] ouſto Kou() buſ, Oººoſpuſ on u00s pſnoA sonſſø Jou,I, ‘uoppetſ.It’sº go udyo.1 out uſ eplAssv pox{00118 ‘ſuuſ IN put ‘sopoſ\ ‘subſtouTulſ YI ouq ūqJA qJoouoo uţ ‘ou A ‘suoſqdſtosuſ ‘UKSSW out, Jo gplºdes out, SI pg.tp:/daS [038 p.ſ. OT ‘IoapUCI oos] Io pºtelſdoS ‘pºlºgudoS go publ out, up Kapaſºdºo uſ otoA ou A SAoſ Jo SXIgods or q O—"(0.40dsogſ 'wº '3pm. A : popdºg .0 ‘gpdoºrg () ‘90’odºſ, Vaſ ‘dāīl) qYHWHaKIS “HLſ)OITO;)?IVIN ‘S ‘OI 'spuaquſ toºl.IA IgoſſGIgſ ouſ, qºlīA uſqLA IIoA os spuodso.Ltoo oo'ed oul go uoſºnqs ouq uot A ‘uoſqooſqo smoptos tº soºnq(qsuoo Áfootºos qnd ‘ºutsºld.Ins sº a Ka Z oſquiv ou" Jo uoſququos -oido.1 ou.I. 'uoſºtºpunoy Sq, Jo p.1009.I ou o Abū osſe OMA qug : poſtod ó Ápûgo os qu poſsixo oAbū ol Iggſ, OAOId qoutigo oA q'eq.] Sośīn (18; ‘II ‘02279/S) ‘qū ol u%psso southauos Stoudel;oo3 oſqt TV º Uſoſ UAA ooué -qJoductſ out, UIOIJ pouſſoop Sou oogld out, “so Inquoo | otuos Ioy UG ouoš Sºu qau1 tºrqº.IV ‘S go uoſqui | -ndodop out, UQA ‘uouſ, ‘ĀIquoteddy 'ošūIIIA of tº |-losſut ‘e, poſ[go og Oq soatosop Áſuo q q.mq."poſità -ITIno IIoA SI puno.10 ÅIqumoo ou', ‘ wºunout ſº ſo? 19 ſqvouaq poqênqſs SI TegoCI, ; q Jo SAes (ggſ II ‘s/2009.47) poq SI(OAA "ugluo X go put out).I]No ouq q.8, oq on pſes spoould sºul (013 III) sm.00-70 ſoi, oud uſ os XII'duput I & Sø, oA.10s on K[oxIII “outſeGI quo.13 ou', pub qugurg.Uptºſſ on p.1050.I unſ.A uopygnqis sqi UIOIJ ‘oot.Id tº ‘poopu, ‘put, ‘ºn.but Ipupſ ſo qşūo OUIOU, No ou? ol “Iſiſts Jo qopulsip ou" uſ UAO) qsboo tº Totilo ouſ, ‘uouo X uſ bugs Igou ‘soq It Auſ H ouq go [0,\deo out, uouſ] go ouo—eſquity ‘S uſ ooutoniod -Uuſ Jo Soogld oA4 go out U ou', ‘Igº, uqLA ('80ſ/ſ; 'sof) ‘do ‘lous9.I.I. Jo ouſ ouſ oouis) poſſuopſ ÁIIIbuIpio St. oogld stuſ.J., 'uſuTumouſ utonsbºſ out, uqi A poſſguopi Alquoteddo put “soppugºloſ out! Koi poldmooo ÁIOqºlloq on 1 Jo quiſ G SG uoAH)—'og01 UE) -w - Hir-H- 4.38 SEPTUAGINT SEPTUAGINT ii. NAME:-The name ‘Septuagint’ is shortened from Secundum or intacta Septuaginta (interpretes or seniores), and is based on the legend that the translation of the OT from Hebrew into Greek was made by seventy, or more exactly seventy-two, elders or scholars, whom king Ptolemy Philadel- *. by the advice of his Tibrarian” Demetrius °halereus, sent for for this purpose, from the high priest Eleazar of Jerusalem. zozºro tovº 1830ſºnzoyro: stands in the subscription to Genesis in Codex B ; ºroºpo, s2}ogonzoy'ro. stands at the end of Proverbs in C; % Tów iſºokºzov'ro. #zhooris in the note of Q before Isaiah ; % rāv o' (or oft') pºwavºio (or izbork), and shorter ol o' (or º became a common expression, especially subsequent to the labours of Origen in textual criticism {...} Africanum, $ 5, rºw spºnvaſov wów $33owązov'ro. ; in Mt. xv. 14, rope, rows o'); see Hearapla, ed. Field, i. p. xlviiiff. ; and the “testimonia' at the end of Wend- land's edition of Aristeas. Augustine (de Civit. Dei, xviii. 42=Eugippius, p. 1018, lºnoell) writes: ‘post ille ś etian interpretes postulavit : et dati sunt septua- ginta duo, de singulis duodecim tribubus seni homines, linguae utriusque doctissimi, Hebraeae Scilicet atque Graeca, quorum interpretatio ut §.g.: vocetur, iam obtinuit consuetudo.’ Where and when the word ‘Septuagint' first makes its appearance in English we cannot tell.” On title-pages of editions it occurs subsequent to the editio Siactina of 1587: m raXava Šuaômkm kara Tovs egöopamkovra, Vetus Testamentatºm iuasta Sep- tºtaginta (in the reprint of Paris, 1628 : secundum A X). The London reprint of 1653 adds Inter- pretum, writing ea: versione Septuaginta Interpre- tum ; and this has been retained in all following reprints. An edition of Bagster (1821) is entitled, Secundum Septua- ginta Seniorwin interpretationem (=Irenaeus, iii. xxi. 2, #390&#- zov to apsoº-tsoot, in Latin septuaginta seniores), f The English form ‘Septuagint' occurs in the title of an edition of Bagster, as well as in that of the Cambridge edition of Swete (The OT in Greek according to the Septuagint), and the great Oxford Concordance of Hatch-Redpath (A Comcordance to the Sep- fwagint and the other §. Versions). The Dictionmaire de l'Académie Française 2.7 gives only the plural, Les Septamte, da version des Septamte, la traduction des § In English as in German it became common to use the word as singular, supplying ‘version,” critic and to the expositor, and its servicea are welcomed by students both of the Old Test. and of the New.” From this point of view, Prof. Ferd. Hitzig of Heidelberg, one of the acutest commentators on the OT, used to open his academical courses on OT exegesis with the question to his students: “Gentlemen, have you a Septuagint.” If not, sell whatever you have, and buy a jº. Even the student of early English cannot succeed without a knowledge of it. When he reads in king Aelfred the word to the serpent (Gn 314), “on dinre wannbe Omd on dimwm breostumn du scealt snican,’ he ought to know that the words in italics go back through the medium of the Old Latin Bible to the LXX, and that it is therefore out of place to print beside them the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, which rests on the Hebrew, as has been done by A. S. Cook, Biblical Quotations in Old English Prose Writers (Lond. 1898; cf. the notice of Max Foerster in Englische Studien, xxviii. p. 421). The English Church retained substantially the LXX in the Prayer-Book version of the Psalms and in her Liturgy.—No words of praise are spared by E. W. Grinfield (Apology): he calls the LXX the viaduct between the OT and NT, the vestibule of the Christian Church, the first interpreter of the OT and the sole canonical of the NT, the bond of union between Jews and Gentiles, the morning star before the sun of righteousness, the key of the sacred treasury, the light of the Alexandrian Pharos, the sacred amalgam ; he who studit 8 the LXX is declared to be in no danger of falling into neology (p. 173). Grinfield also rightly refers to the intro- duction of its study, by Maltby at Durham, Arnold at IRugby; to its recommendation, by great philologists like Walckenaër, Heinsius (P08 eacemplaria groect, “% * On book titles cf. W. Wall, The Use of the Septuagint Translation, 1730; Charles Hayes, A Vindication of the II istory of the Septuagint, 1736; Letters to at I'riend concerning the Septuagint, 1759; H. Owen, An Enquiry into the I’resent State of the §hi Version of the OT", 1709. Grinfield (Apology, . 157) uscs the adjective ‘Septuagintal MSS,' and calls Bp. Fº (p. 177) ‘the best Septuagintalist.’ - # The adjective “septuagintaviralis’ we have found in titles of dissertations since 1631, 1700, etc. 1 In Italian, “La Versione de' Settanta,’ ‘i Settanta.” ‘Ubersetzung,’” though of course the plural is also used, especially when Septuaginta is translated into the vernacular, ‘the Seventy,” “die Siebenzig.” Many scholars now prefer ‘the Alexandrian' or ‘the Greek version of the OT,” or ‘the OT in Greek.” . We retain here the familiar name ‘Sep- tuagint,’ for which ‘LXX’ has been hitherto the usual abbreviation, but for which the modern sign (ºr i is still more convenient. A frequent designation among the old Greek Writers was also # kovi) &Köoots, or merely h kotyń, ‘the common, the Vulgate edition,’ in contradis- tinction to the Hebrew text and the later Greek versions; cf., for instance, Basil, i. 447 D, on Is 2” &v roſs dutvºypéqous rºs kolvås éköögews oº Keitat Tajra, &XN Év tº 'Egpaak6 keluevov čk Töv Aoutrów perekopºlo 6 m. In the writings of Jerome h Kouvº has a more definite signification assigned to it, on which see p. 445°. Other designations are : ) ékk\mataoruki, Šköorus (Gregory of Nyssa, in Psalm. 8); tà divriypaſpa tºs ékk\matas (Origen); Tô huérepa divtlypaſpa (Eusebius, in Psalm. ed. Mai, 591). iii. ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE LEGEND.— The story that there were seventy (or rather seventy-two) translators was first told by Aristeas, who claims to have been one of the ambassadors sent by Philadelphus to the high priest Eleazar of Jerusalem, to ask from him the copy of the Law and the men to translate it. This interesting piece of literature was pub- lished first in Latin in the famous Roman 13ible of Suueynheym and Pannartz (1471, fol.), reprinted at Nurnberg, 1475; separately at Erfurt, 1483. The editio princeps of the Greek text was prepared by Simon Schard, printed at Basle 1561 ; subse- quent editions, 1610, 1691, 1692, 1705 (Hody), 1849 (Oikonomos), 1869 (Moritz Schmidt in Merx, Archiv, i.); all superseded by that of Mendelssohn- Wendland (Aristca ad Philocratem epistula . . . . Lipsiae, Teubner, 1900), and that of H. St. J. Thºgkerºy in the Appendix to Swete's Introduction to the OT" in Greek (Cambridge, 1900). L. Men- delssohn had begun to add a commentary, only a part of which appeared after his death, edited by M. Kraschennikow, Jurievi (ol. Dorpati), 1897. A German translation (by P. Wendland) opens the second volume of Die Apokryphen und I'seudepi- graphen des Alten Testaments ibersetzt. . . . ºt. herantsgegeben von E. Rawtzsch (Tübingen, 1900, ii. 1–31). * x Fresh investigations are necessary; for though it is now generally acknowledged that the letter is a literary fiction,-Constantine Oikonomos (Trept Twu o' epujuevrov tris Taxatas 6taðmkms, Bºla 6', Athens, 1844–1849, 4 vols.; cf. also E. W. Grinſield, An Apology for the Septuagint, in which its claims to Biblical and Camomical Authority are brigſly stated and vindicated, London, 1850) is the last defender of its genuineness, – scholars disagree entirely about its date and value. E. Schürer \laces it not later than c. 200 B.C. ; Herriot (on Thilo), c. 170–150; Wendland, between 96 and 93, nearer to 96; L. Colin (Neue Jahrbücher fit” dºs Jºlass. Altert. i. (1898) 521 ff.) doubts whether it was used by Philo; H. Willrich (Judaica, Göttin- gen, 1900, |. 111–130) brings its composition down to ‘later than A.D. 33.” Strange, above all, are the varieties of form * At one time it was common in German to speak of the ‘70 Dollmetscher'; cf. J. D. Michaelis, Programma worinº, e.g.0% seinen Collegiis iller die 70 Dollmetscher Nachº"::ht giebt (Gött. 1767); the translation of Owen's Jºng'ttin'/ (Unterstehung doºr gegenwärtigen Deschaffenheit der 70 Dollanetscher, 1772). Less- ing seems to have formed the noun, ‘Siebziger' (see Grimm, Deutsches Wörterbuch, x. 834); in Old German we read in lsidore, 7. 4, in dhero siibunzo trailungum = ‘in translatione I,\X.' # It is strange that Lic. Kabisch (ſteligionsbuch, i., (iâttingen 1900, p. 2) finds the sense of the name obscure, and thinks of connecting it with the legend of the 70 hidden (or apocryphal) books in 4 Ezra (2 Esdras). SEPTUAGINT SEPTUAGINT 439 grº- which the story assumes in the writings of Epi- phanius, though he refers to Aristeas as his authority. He makes the number of books in the Alexandrian Library ‘54,800 TAelw 3) éAágo w,’ Aristeas ‘more than 20 myriads’; he has two letters of Philadelphus, and in one of them the saying from Sir 20° 41* 0mgaupo.0 kekpuppévov Kal trmyńs éo ppaytogévms ris & pºeta év duºpotépots. He alone, and that only in the Syriac text as first published by Lagarde (Symmicta, ii. 148 ft.), states that it was “ the seventh year of Philadelphus, more or less,” when the translation took place. IIe makes the translators work by pairs in 36 different cells, and originated the statement, re- peated as late as 1587 in the preface to the Sixtina, that this happened ‘trecentis uno plus annis ante Christi adventum' (cf. Sw. p. 176; Wendland, 153, 159; Nestle, Sst. i. 12). Draeseke believed that Epiphanius drew from the lost chronicle of Justus of Tiberias, and that Augustine was dependent on º: but this lias been cefuted by Wendland (Itheinisches Museum 56, 1. 112 ft.). On the use made of this story by Philo, Josephus, and the ecclesiastical writers see Sw. 12–17, and especially the “testimonia’ in Wend- land's edition, pp. 85–166.” That the number 70 and the legend of their wonderful harmony may be due to $x 24", where (ſix reads kal Töv čtru)\ék- roy toſ. 'IopañN 095& 8vedºvngev ow8é eis, was first pointed out by Daniel Heinsius in the Aristarchus Sacer, ch. 10. As the year in which the translation originated, other ecclesiastical writers give the 2nd, 17th, 19th, or 20th year of Philadelphus; in the Chronicle of Iºusebius the MSS vary between the years 1734, 1735, 1736, or 1737 of Abraham (see Walton's Prolego- mena). As the day, the Jews name the 8th of Tebet ; according to the letter of Aristeas the arrival of the interpreters coincided with the day of a great naval victory of Philadelphus in the war against Antigonus, and was ordered to be celebrated for ever. Rabbinical Jews called that day the fast of darkness, for they regarded this translation as a national disaster, “like the day on which the golden calf, was made' (see D. S. Margoliouth, ‘The Calendar of the Synagogue,” in the Eagositor, Nov. 1900, p. 348 f.). Philo relates that in his time the Jews of Alexandria, kept an annual festival, to xoplov ore ºvvvouvres, év (; trpárov tá ràs épumvelas &#Napºpe, kal Taxatās évékey elepyeglas del véašovans etxaptatijo avtes tº 6eq9. He knows that the interpreters, before they began, asked God’s blessing on this undertaking, 6 6' étruvevet ra's etxaſs Éva to trºetov h kai to oup trav Yévos róv čv0p6trov *That the preservation of Aristeas goes back to the library of Causarea has been suggested by Wendland. It may have had a place in one of the Bible MSS issued by Eusebius and Pamphilus.--Add to the “testimonia’ collected by Mendelssohn- Wendland the strange statement from pseudo-Eusebius on the Star (publ. by W. Wright in Jowrm., of Sacred Literature, 1860, Vol. ix. 117, x. 150), that the version was made under a lcing plphpuns[5] (= Artaxerxes?); and the notice, translated from Greek into Syriac at the end of the Fourth Book of Kings in the Syro-Hexapla, that the men came from Tiberias (Origemis fragmenta, ed. Lagarde, 355; Bibliotheca Syriaca, 254). Cf. further the notice of F. Nau on ‘ Fragments d'une chronique Syriaque Maronite” (IRevue de l'Orient Chrétien, iv. (1899) 318), in which the names are given of the 72 translators who pro- duced 36 identical versions. Nau has not printed the names, See on the names: The Book of the Bee, by Salomo of 13asra, ed. by A. Wallis Budge (Amecdo'a. Oatomiensia, Semitic Series, vol. i. part il., Oxf. 1880, 4° p. 120 f.). The last but one of the inter- preters has the strange name 'Aſºlºr:; in the Greek text, onto’imx in one of the Syriac lists, Abbāyū in another. If this stands for the Latin name A vitus, the list would be late. 13ut this identi- fication is rather uncertain. An Arabic chronicle combines the two figures 72 and 70 by the supposition that two of the inter- preters died on the way. On the Jewish notices about the origin of the yersion and its (13) deviations from the Hebrew text, see the literature quoted in Urt, p. 63, and by Oiltonomos, ii. 558, iii. 43. Zosimus Panopolitanus (de Zythorwin confectione, ed. Gruner, 1814, p. 5) relates that Simon the high priest of Jerusalem sent to Ptolemy Lagi, "Epºv, *, *pºvšva's razorov rºw E820:30, iWAqviorrl z & oc i y vart a ri (Oikonomos, ii. 328). ðdeM10m xpmorópevow els étravóp0wouv 8tov pixo~0%0ts kal Trayká)\ous 5uatá-yplagu. This aspiration was fulfilled when the work became one of the chief aids to the spread of Christianity. As this was at the same time the first attempt made on a larger scale, in the domain of Graeco-Roman or Mediterranean culture, to translate a literary work from one language into another, it is the more interesting to ask whether this attempt, as the above story relates, was due to the literary interest felt by a bibliophile king— ‘ptAóka)\os kal pixóNoyos, as he is styled by Epiph- anius”—or to the wants of a religious community. The latter view now generally prevails (cf. Wend- land in I&autzsch, Pseudepigraphen, ii. 1; ZNTW i. 268). A third view is, that the undertaking was intended as an aid to Jewish propagandism. This explanation may find some support in the words of Philo (who expresses the hope that these laws will obscure those of the other nations, as the rising sun obscures the stars), and in the very first document which speaks of (ºr, namely the pro- logue of the Bk. of Sirach (compare the whole, especially d\\& kal rols ēkrös 6üvagóal toys pixoua- 600vras Xpmalwovs cival kai Aéyovras kal Ypáqovras). This last passage is also the first to speak of all three parts of the Hebrew Bible (v0.90s, irpoq’ſ rat, kal Tã dº a trátpua. 843Xla) as already extant in Greek; Aristeas, Philo, and Josephus restrict their language to the Law, a fact to which Jerome emphatically called attention. If the LXX version was due to the wants of the synagogue, it is alſ but certain that the Torah was the first part trans- lated. How soon and in what order the cºller parts of the OT were overtaken is not made out ; nor has even the question how many different hands may be distinguished in the present collec- tion yet been sufficiently investigated. Two books only contain a notice bearing on this point. (l) Esther (see Jacob, ZATPV, 1890, 241 ff. ; Willrich, Judaica, Gött. 1900, 2 ſº. ; art. ESTHER, vol. i. 744). Willrich thinks that the fourth year of Ptolemy and Cleopatra, in which a priest and Levite, Dositheus and his son Ptolemy, are said to have brought thv trpokeup.éumu èTwo Toxºv #v épao'av €ival kal épumveukévau Availplaxov II toxeuatov táv čv 'IepovaaXju (Est 11*), was not that of Philometor (B.C. 166–165) nor of Soter II. (B.C. 114), but that of Ptolemy XIV. (B.C. 48–47); but this seenis very doubtful. (2) The second note, which is equally obscure, stands at the end of Job (in Cod. A even twice, with strange variations): ottos épamvegetat ék Tàs Xuptakfis 8tº\ov (cf. art. JOB, vol. ii. 660, where it is translated, ‘this man is described in the Syriac book as living,” etc.). In accordance with the usage of the ancient Church, we include in this article not only those books, the original of which was or is in the Hebrew I3ible, but also those which were originally written in Greek, as the Wisdom of Solomon, or not received into all MSS or editions, as the Prayer of Manasses. In an appendix we shall refer briefly to similar literary productions, as the Psalms of Solomon, the 13k. of Enoch, and other “Pseudepi- grapha' (see p. 450”). As (Tº was the Bible of the Early Church, it has a most intricate and complicated history ; it seems practical to begin with the history of the printed text, and to work our way backward as far as possible. iv. PiriNTED EDITIONS.–Long before the first edition of the New Testament in Greek appeared in print, a Greek and Latin Psalter was printed in Wii. as first part of Ur (20th Sept. 1481), contain- ing among the Canticles at its end the Magnificat * On the notice of Aristobulus (Clement Alex. Strom. i. 22 Euseb. Praep. Ev. 18. 12), see Schürer 8, iii. 384-392. 440 SEPTUAGINT SEPTUAGINT and Benedictus from Lk 1**. On the following editions of the Greek Psalms (Venice, 1486; Aldus [without date, c. 1497]; the Polyglot Psalters of Justiniani, Genua, 1516, and Potken, Cologne, 1518), see Sst. iii. 7. 30–32. The first complete edition was the Complutensian #; of Cardinal Xinmenes (1514–17; the OT finished 10th July 1517), in which the Latin Vulgate is placed between the Hebrew on the left and (ºr on the right, ‘tanquam duos hinc et inde latrones, medium awtem. Jesum.’ See on it Sw, p. 171; Nestle, Introd. to Teatwal Criticism of NT', p. 1. On the ‘Spanish Greek' of this Bible, i.e. the places in which the editors translated passages missing in their Greek MSS for themselves into Latin, see Urt. 64, and Field's edition of 1859, Append. ; Ceriani on Cod. Marchalianus, Ezk 3327. Its text—best signature c-rests chiefly on the MSS lent by the Vatican, Ho 108, 248,” and a copy of the Venice MS Ho 68. The Complutensian was reprinted (1) by Arias Montanus in the Antwerp Polyglot of Plantin, 1569-72; (2) in Wolder's Polyglot, Hamburg, 1596; and (3) in the greatest of all, that of Michel le Jay, Paris, 1645. On (1) and (3) see Nestle, Introd. 10 f. e The second great Greek Bible was that of Aldus Manutius and his father-in-law Andreas Asolanus (1518, mense Februario), -signature a,-based, as the editor states, ‘multis vetustissimis exemplari- bus collatis’; as far as is ascertained as yet, on the Venice MSS 29, 68, 121. An interesting commen- tary on this edition is Steuchi Augustini Eugubini, VT'ad Heb. veritatem collata editione Septuaginta interprete, Ven. 1529, 4°. This was reprinted (1) 1520 by Joh. Lonicerus, Strassburg, in the Lutheran order, with the addition of 4 Mac. [ED. PR.] and various readings from IIo 44; (2) 1545, at Basle, with Preface of Melanchthon, various readings and restoration of the common order in Proverbs and Sirach; (3) 1550, at Basle; (4) in the Heidelberg Polyglot ‘in officina Santandreana,' edited by B. C. Bertram, 158(6]7 (new title-pages, 1599, 1616); (5) 1597, by Franciscus Junius (du Jon ; others say Fr. Sylburg), with altera- tions from c, and useful notes, the basis of the Concordance of Trommius; (6) 1687, by Nic. Glykas, Venice. The third and best edition was that printed at Rome, 1586 (most copies by pen, 1587; signature b), ‘auctoritate Sixti W. Pont. Max.,’ based chiefly on the Codex Vaticanus kat' é$oxiju (1209 = Ho II., now B), but making use of the preceding editions, a c 1526, 1545, 1572, and of the MSS Ho 16, 23, 51. The prefatory matter is reprinted (partially) by Breitinger, Tischendorf, and others, and recently by Swete, Introd. Useful are the ‘Scholia,” at the end of most chapters from the other Greek versions, and the Church Fathers; and an important com- plement is the Latin translation, published 1588, patched up by Flaminius Nobilius (and others) from the fragments of the Old Latin (vol. iii. 53*), with additional Notes to the Greek Text. Reprints : (1) Paris, 1028, by Joh. Morinus, together with the Latin of Nobilius, as even then copies were rare; (2) 10:53, London, R. Daniel, 4° and 8° (and Cambridge); (3) 1657, in the London Polyglot of Brian Walton, with useful additions (colla- tions from A D G, Ho G0, 75), and valuable Prolegomena, the latter reprinted by Wrangham, Camb. 1828, in 2 vols. ; (4) 1665, Cambridge, with the fine Preface of J. Pearson (see above); (5) 1683, Amsterd. f*; f (6) 1997, Lipsiae (prepared by Johannes Frick); (7) 1709, Franekerae, by Bos, source of many reprints; (8) 1725, Amsterd., by Mill” (facsimile of cod. G and variants col- lected by Vossius, Ho 133); (9) 1730, Lips., Reineccius *; (10) 1759–62, Halao “; (11) 1798–1827, IHolmes-Parsons (see below); (12) 1805, Oxford *, 3 vols. ; (13) 1817, Oxford *, 6 vols., with Pref. of J. G. [not B., as on the title] Carpzov, and variations from A ; (14) Londini (without date), in addibus Valpianis” (905 pp.); (15) 1821, Lond., Bagster f" (very small print, 585 pp.); (10) Lond., Bagster t” (without date, with an English translation, 1130 pp.); (17) 1822, Venice, Michel Glykys, 3 vols. (not seen); (18) 1824, Lipsia), van Ess,” and often ; 1887, with Prolegomena and Epilegomena; (19) 1831 (Glasguas) f"; 1843, Londini, Tegg; two very small vols., 607, 703 pp. f*; (20) 1839, * On this designation see below. ! Editions onlitting the scholia are marked *, omitting the Apocrypha t , no edition without the scholia is to be recom- mended, because they supply to those who cannot afford to procure Field's LIearapla a minor edition of the latter. Paris, Didot-Jager”, also Greek and Latin ; often ; (21) 1848, Oxford *, 3 vols.; 1875, innproved in 4 Mac.; the latter reprint is the basis of the Concordance of Hatch-Redpath ; (22) 1850, Lipsite, Tischendorf", 380, 787, the last two reprints corrected and enlarged by collations of E. Nestle; (23) 1874–76, Londini, Bibliºt Heaaglotta tº, ed. E. R. de Levante; $ (24) the latest Polyglot advertised from Paris, to be edited by F. Vigouroux, lº by Dilot, published by Roger & Chernovitz, has not een seen by the present writer. From notices in the periodi- cals (Vigouroux, l'Univers, 4th Nov. 1898; F. Nau, Jowrm. Asiat., May–June 1809, 545 ff. ; IFonck, Zeitschrift für Kath. Theol. xxiii. (1899) 174-180; P. Th. Calmes, IRB, 1900, 301, 302) it is apparent that it is only a mechanical reprint of the Greek column in the Polyglottembibel of Stier and Theile (1847–55), the text of which is based on unsound principles. A merit of its own belongs to the fourth great edition which was begun by §rnest Grabe (†1712), and appeared in 4 vols, fol. or 8 in 8° at the Oxford University Press, only the first (Qctateuch), 1797, and the fourth (Poetical books), 1709, during his lifetime, the second (Historical books), 1719, being finished by Fr. Lee, M.D., the third (Prophets), 1720, by W. Wigan, D.D., ‘ex antiquissimo codice Alexandrino accurate descriptum et ope aliorum exemplarium ac prlscorum scriptorum praesertim vero Hexaplaris editionis Origenianae emendatum atgue suppletum additis, Stepe asteriscorum et obelorum signis,' with useful Prolegomena. As the title indicates, Grabe followed a twofold plan : (1) to represent the text of the Codex Alex- andrinus, and (2) to make his text at the same time correspond with the Hebrew text. This he accomplished by the use of smaller type for the changed and supplemented passages, placing the readings of the Codex in the margins, and insert- ing the critical signs of Origen. Grabe's text was repeated (1) by Breitinger, Turici, 4 vols. 4°, 1730–32, compared with the Vatican ; (2) by JReineccius in the Biblia quadrilinguia, 1750, 1751; (3) in a Bible issued by the Holy Synod of Russia (Moscow, 1821), but without any attention to the meaning of the additions in small type, to the marginal readings and the critical signs, thus completely spoiling the work; and this is circulated bu' sºoyio.; rās &ylor &tas Stolzova as avvéðov recordiv rôy 'Pooravčv as rocão.1% (316.0%zz] 227& rows #330- £2%zov'ro. ix rod &; oićv rs &zpığā; $2800ivºro: &pxoſov 'AA'sézvēpivº zºlpoypt.gov, and was repeated, as the title states, (4) #2 row iv àozēz . . . ixturollivros &pxoſov 'AAsézvºpuyot Kóbazoº; in an edition of 4 vols. Sºf at Athens, 3ozmávº, whº v 'Ayyx, gº ärzipio's rā; aroo; 31&booty rās Xplortiocyazā; a.o.ubsicºs (1843, 46, 49, 50). The 5th edition, based on Grabe, is that which Fr. Field prepared for the same Society at Oxford, 1859, avoiding as much as possible the faults inherent in the conditions of the task enjoined on him : see his preface, and Lag. SSt. i. 5-8. The result, so far, is, that we have up to the present day not a single edition of Uſ, based upon sound critical principles; for even the two editions which remain to be mentioned have not yet at- tained this end. These two editions we owe to the two great universities of England—the Vetus Testamentum Graecum cum variis Lectionibus, ed. Robertus Holmes (. . . . editionem a It. H. incho- atam continuavit Jacobus Parsons), Qxonii, 1798– 1827, 5 vols. fol. ; and The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint, edited for the Syndics of the University Press by H. B. Swete (Cambridge, 1887–94,” 1895–99, 3 vols. 8°). As early as 1770, Joseph White published a letter to the Bishop of London, suggesting a plan for a new edition of the LXX. In 1788 l8. IHolmes appealed to the liberality of public bodies and private persons, and obtained such a response as enabled him to procure collations from all parts of Europe. On the history of this edition, see an appreciative article in the Church Quarterly IReview, April 1899, 102 ft., and Sw. 184ff. It was the greatest attempt ever made to bring together a critical apparatus; the list of MSS at the end of vol. v. numbers 311. Of Versions used were those in Arabic (several), Armenian, Bohemian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Georgian, Latin, Slavoniº, Syriac; further, the quotations of the ancient writers from Philo and Josephus downwards. In spite of some points in the plan and in the execution of the work, which are open to criticism, it is a unique monument of the love to learning of the editor and his nation, and remains a storehouse of materials, indispensable to § The edition London, 1837 (ex editione Holmesii et Lamberti Bos, in 2 vols.), quoted by Sw. 182, from Urt. .67, seeums identical with No. 1); whether the date 1819 given by Urt. 67, Sw. 182, for the edition of Valpy is correct, seems doubtful : it is taken from Graesse's Trésor, where editions are mention wi, Glasgow 1822, 18° (= No. 19), and London, 1827 (= No. 16?). SEPTUAGINT 'SEPTUAGINT 441 all who have to do with the OT in Greek.” The work as sold Judges:-De groeca LXX interpretwm versione Syntagma, at present is divided into 5 vols. fol. : I. (Pent.) 1798, II. (Jos, - || J. USSerii, Lond. 1655, 4°, in Ussher's Works, vol. vii.; Liber 2 Chron.) 1810, III, (Ezra-Cant.) 1823, IV. (Proph.) 1827, V. (Apocr.) 1827; but it does not seem to have been published in this order (see Jac. Annersfoordt, De variis lectionibus Holm- estanis locom'win quorumdan Pentatewchi Mosaici, Lugd. Bat. The text in the work is a reprint of b ; but, as it seems, after a copy of Bos, corrected, but not everywhere according to an original copy. Its value lies, therefore, exclusively in the apparatus. The advance that has been made in the course of the 19th cent. upon the work of Holmes-Parsons is due, on the one hand, to the discovery of new materials—for instance, the Codex Sinaiticus— which led to an enriching of the apparatus; on the other hand, to greater exactness in using them, which was promoted especially by the progress made in the reproduction of MSS by the various methods of photography. Of both advantages use was made in the Cam- bridge Septuagint (Sw. 188-190). The text is no longer that of b, but of B itself, given in the first ed. after the so-called (printed) facsimile-edition of 'Vercellone-Cozza, revised for the second by Dr. Nestle, after the photograph of the Codex. In the apparatus the variants are given of such uncial MSS as have been published in a similarly trustworthy way; above all of the Codices Alexandrinus, Sinaiti- cus, Ambrosianus, Marchalianus. This text will be repeated in the larger Cambridge Septuagint, the joint editorship of which is entrusted to A. E. rooke and N. McLean. Its apparatus will em- brace the evidence of all ...} MSS and of a considerable number of cursives selected after investigation, with the view of representing the different types of text ; the Old Latin, Egyptian, Syro-Hexaplar, and Armenian versions; and the quotations from Philo, Josephus, and the more important Christian Fathers. It is clear that the manual and even the larger edition are but a step towards the ideal of a truly critical edition. For the text is that of a single MS with all its faults, while in the manual edition the grossest blunders are corrected only occasion- ally (e.g. Gn 6' 1" Xaq, 10* >m0, 32° 36es for traíðes; but not, for instance, 36” 'IepovaaXiju for 'Iopaſ), 37* emopetſovro for étrovmpsûouro, etc.). The present writer cannot but repeat his wish (see Proceedings of the 9th International Oriental Congress held in London, ii. (1892) p. 57 ff.) that at all places where the text of the MS, and, in consequence, of the edition, is clearly false, the better readings might be placed on the outer margin. Thus the ad- vantages of Grabe's plan would be secured and its disadvantages avoided ; we should get at the same time a diplomatic reproduction of the MS, and a hint as to the true reading. The Octateuch, form- ing the first volume of the larger edition, may be expected, as we are informed (Sw. 189), in the course of a few years. Iº DITIONS OF SINGLE BOOKS:—A. CANONICAL Books :- Genesis:—Pentatewchus hebraice et growce, ed. G. A. Schu- mann, Lips. 1820, 8°, only part i. (Genesis); Gemesis groce e ſide editionis Siactinoe addita script wra, discrepamtia e libris manw scriptis a se collatis et editionibus Complutensi et Aldima ad- cwratissime emotata, ed. P. A. de Lagarde, Lips. 1S68 (of per- manent value for its Introduction and its accuracy; collations from ADEFGS, 29, 31, 44, 192, 130, 135, abo). Joshua :—Josua, Imperatoris II istorict illustrata atque ea:- plicata ab Andrea Masio, Antv. 1574, fol., with new title-page 1600 (valuable for its Introduction and its use of the Syro- Hexaplario Version). * Comp, on some faults in the new edition of the works of Philo, which would have been avoided by the vºye of Holmes- Parsons, Philologus, 1900, p. 250 if.; or see Ulysse Robert in his Preface to the Latin Heptateuch of Lyon (1900, p. xxxi). # To quote some of the examples pointed out in the paper nientioned— ls Sºl text ràºrpio, which is nonsense, for réro.zpz, ‘idols’; 1 lºs 440 cºrn for cººr; ; Ps 77 (78) 30 %, cºrºrov for ºrd, raorozv ; Sir 718 271 429 &buo.4%pov for buzºpov; Sir 10% zpio's for zºrío's, etc. Judicum Sec. LXX interpretes, ed. O. F. Fritzsche, Turici. 1867, 4°; P. de Lagarde, Septuaginta Studiem, i., 1891 (two texts of chs. 1-5); The Book of Judges in Greek according to the teact of Codea, Alea’amdrinus, edited . . . by A. E. Brooke and N. McLean, Camb. 1897. Ön a promised edition see G. F. Moore in the ‘Internat. Crit. Comm.’ on Judges, p. xlv. Ruth:—By John Drusius, ‘ad º complutense,' Franek. 1586, 8", 1632, 8°; by L. Bos, Jena, 1788, “secundum exemplar vaticanum.’ Psalms:—The Psalter is that book of the OT which was and is most used in the Church, especially in the Greek Church. In addition to the 32 editions mentioned in Sw. p. 192, there have come to the knowledge of the present writer editions of 1521, Venice (mentioned by Grabe, Prol. to Psalms, ch. iii. § 3, as lent to him by the Bp., of Ely; but perhaps this may be a misprint for 1524; see British Museum Catalogue of Bibles, col. 390); 1525, Venice; 1545, 4 editions from Basle, Paris, i. Venice; 1548, Basle; 1584, Antwerp ; 1605, Paris; 1652, London (different copies, with Yocarnpiov and YzATspiov on the title-page); 1673, Venice; 1700 [8.l. probably in Bucharest); 1706, in Montfaucon's Collectio mova, i.; 1740, Blanchini's Psalterium duplea: ; 1743, Venice; 1754, with the Commentary of Euthymius Zigabenus, reprinted 1857 in Migne's Patr. Gr. vol. 128; 1786, Paris ; 1798, Cº.; 1812, Baber, from Codex A ; 1820, Venice ; 1831 and 1835, London, Bible Society, with modern Greek; 1835, Smyrna; 1843, London, Biblia Ecclesiae Polyglotta ; 1855, Jerusalem; 1873, Rome (2 editions). Job:—From Codex A, by Patrick Young, in the Catema of Nicetas, 1637, Franeker, 1662 (63). Proverbs:–1564, Draconites (Polyglot). Esther:—Ussher, in his Symtagma, 1055, Works, vol. vii. (the two texts), repeated Leipzig, 1696; O. F. Fritzsche, Zürich, 1848, 1849 (two texts). Hosea :-Pareus, Heidelberg, 1605; Philippeaux, Paris, 1636. Joel:—Draconites, 1565. Amos:—Water, 1810, Halle. Jonas:—Münster, 1524; Artopous, 1543. Micah :—Draconites, 1565. Zechariah:—Draconites, 1565. Malachi:—Draconites, 1564; Hutter, 1601. Isaiah:—S. Münster, 1540, Polyglot ; J. Curter, 1580, Pro- copii Commentari. - Jeremiah:—S. Münster, 1540; G. L. Spohn, 1794, 1824. Lamentationſ:—ICyper, 1552, Libri tres de re gramm. Heb. (Polyglot). Ezekiel:—'Isºnzº A zoºroº rows o', Rome, 1840 (important). Daniel:—(a) The received text : Melanchthon, 1546; Wells, 1716. (b) The LXX text: Rome, 1772 (Simon de Magistris or A. Ricchinio), very important ; repeated Gottingae, 1773, 1774 ; Utrecht, 1775; Hahn, Lipsiae, 1845; new edition by Cozza, 1877; this text also in Holmes-Parsons, vol. iv. 1818; Oxf., 1848, 1875; Tischendorf, 1850; Swete. B. Apocrypha :—The first separate edition of the so-called Apocrypha appears to be that of Plantin, Antwerp, 1566, 4° : To Toy BigAlov (depos, 3 #3pola'r stºpsiy otz £orriv. This edition has the strange arrangement, that on the first three sheets the leaves are numbered and the lines counted on the margins, on the, fol- lowing sheets the pages and the verses. The same arrangement appears in the copies, which have the title : To roy BigAlov Azspoº, 3 #3pcziorzi ypotºv oëx sepiazs to ; Bibliorvm pars Groeca, Quce Hebraice mom imwenitur, Antwerpiac, 1584. A third edition, ‘cum interpretatione Latina ex Bibliis Complutensibus dep- rompta' #. pp.), followed in 1612. Oi [sic l] &arczpuçoi &igxoi ; Libri VT' apocryphi omnes Graece ad exemplar Vaticamun ememdatissime ea pressi. Accedit Oratio Manassis et Prologus incerti awctoris in Ecclesiasticum, Frankfurt, 1694. Later editions are : Halle, 1749, 1766 (IXircher); Leipzig, 1757 (Rein- eccius); Leipzig, 1804 (Augusti); Oxonii, 1805; Leipzig, 1837 §: London, 1871 (Greek and English); Leipzig, 1871 Fritzsche; best edition hitherto).” A part of the Apocrypha is given in Liber Tobia, Judith, Oratio Manassoe, Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus Groece et Latime, cwm. dictis Scriptwrov parallelis . . . et ad calcem Ecclesiastici positwm duplea, alphabetwm ethicum, Bem, Sira, Frankf. et Lips. 1691. Tobit:—J. Drusius, Franeker, 1591, 4° ; F. H. Reusch, Frei- burg, 1870, 4°. Judith:—A. Soholz, Commentar, Würzburg, 1887. Wisdom:—M. Roberti Holkoth. . . in librum, Sapientice . . . Salomonis praelectiones CCXIII. . . . cum inserto Graeco teatu . . . [ed. by J. Ryterus], 1586, fol. ; Joh. Faber, Coburg, 1601 ; in Greek, Latin, and Armenian, Venice, 1827; F. H. Reusch, Frei- burg, 1858; W. J. Deane, Oxf., 1881. Sirach :—See article SIRACII. Books of Maccabees:—Liber Hasmoma'07-wºm º vulgo prior Maccabocorum Graece ea; editione IRomand, et Latime e.g interpretatione J. Drusii, Franeker, 1600; Maccabocorunn liber I. Grovce sec. ea. Vat. ... recudi curavit P. J. Bruns, Helmstadii, 1784. For literature see Urt. 64 ft., Sw. 171–194. v. EARLIER HISTORY OF THE SEPTUAGINT. — Much more complicated is the earlier, 3. the earliest, history of Cir. Of its pre-Christian * other editions in the complete (Polyglot) Bibles of Plantin of 1584 ; 1613, 10, 15 ; Aureliae Allobrogorum, 1609; Christian Bened. Michaelis, Zullichavite, 1741, 40 (the latter the only com plete Bible in the original languages hitherto existing). 4:42 SEPTUAGINT SEPTUAGINT times we know next to nothing; the history of QR is almost entirely its history in the Church. A Hellenist, Demetrius, who lived, as it seems, under the fourth Ptolemy, and wrote trept rôv év tº 'Iovöalº 3aoixéwv,” is the first known to us who used (ſir. . The fragments preserved from other writers, such as Eupºlemus, Aristeas (the historian, not the author of ad Philocratem), Ezekiel, Aristobulus, are too small to show more than that these writers were acquainted with Qtr. More extensive is the use made of (ºr in such books as Wisdom (16” 12867), Sirach, 2 Maccabees (79), 4 Maccabees (1814), which became afterwards parts of (ºr, or in the Jewish portions of the §:/h. In the writings of Philo, which can be traced back only to the library of Origen, and have been transmitted to us probably exclusively by Christian copyists, the hº from the Law are very numerous; those rom the rest of the OT are few ; quotations from Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Lamenta- tions, Ezekiel, Daniel, are entirely absent. Yet it is difficult to get a clear impression of the Greek Bible he had before him. This is owing partly to the unsatisfactory state of his text in former editions, partly to the loose way in which he sometimes quotes the text: it is apparent, how- ever, that already his copy of QR cannot have been free from errors,f Equally unsatisfactory is a comparison of Jo- sephus; we must rest content with knowing, for instance, that for his description of the Restora- tion he used what is now . the First Book of Esdras (vol. i. of the present work, p. 760); but as to his relation to our chief MSS of the book we are uncertain.S Even the New Testament, with its great number of quotations, does not permit of any very definite statements, except that it proves again that textual corruption had already found its way into the copies used by the writers of the NT (cf. He 39 év 6okuaala, 12" evox)\m). Even then the situation must have been what is described as existing in his time by Origen—chiefly, it is true, with refer- ence to the MSS of the NT, but including also those of Cir- - vvv, & 32Aovéri aroxx}, yeyovsy % rāv &vriypétav 8tocºopé, tºrs & ro Écºſſuºlº; tº 3iv 2 p2péow airs &ro rôxºns ruvøv Adox|jago's 7%. 8top- tláztof rāv Žpo.goºgov sits zoºi &ro róv ro, ixvrol; bozoivºro, #9 tº buogudo's, ºrpoor,0:vrov 3, & posipoſºvºrov. This variety of texts, strange as it may appear, is not difficult to account for. (1) (ºr was liable to all the dangers connected with transmission to which literary works were exposed in the days * In Gn 253 he had the additional two sons of Dedan in his text, Itaguel and Nadbeel, and traced the descent of the wife of Moses to Raguel ; see Eus. Praep. Ev. ix. 29. # Not only earlier investigations into the quotations of Philo (Hornemann, 1773; Siegfried, 1873), but also the latest and excellent work of H. 7. Ryle (Philo and IIoly Scriptwre, London, 1895), were vitiated at the outset, because even Mangey's edition of Philo proved untrustworthy. To give one example. What was the manue of the scoond book of the Law in L'hilo's Dible? Ryle says (p. xxii): “Philo in one passage states that Moses gave to this book the title 'E:oxyayā. . . . . Elsewhere, however, he refers to it by its familiar Greek name "Ečobos (e.g. i. 474, 500, 638).” But in all these ºft we have now in the edition of Cohn-Wendland (iii. 4, 57,230) the reading.' E:ºxazá, as offered by the better class of MSS. also entitled 'Egozyayż, not"Ečoºoº. & & f A well-known instance is the reading rooteſ; in Gn 1519, which is found in all our MSS of G (for rocesſº, not 024'sſº, as Melanchthon put in his edition of 1545), presupposed already by Philo (the same insertion of p is illustrated by Codex F, spell- ing allozyzy for the third slo…o.w in Gn 49*...see SW.'s edition, p. 807); compare also his etymology of Boºpé% º 101*) = iw zºois, which presupposes Boxpo.z, a reading actually, found in 7 MSS of G, including the Lucianic ones, and in the Qºlytic version, § On other questions connected with the Bible of Josephus, see below, p. 446, note *. * fºr e > * * t | See on this passage A. D. Loman (in ThT vii. (1873] 233; he wishes to read, eſts &ºro &ox Uno.w.. r. º. 7, 2-0. #76 &ro Tºwa; Tivolv rãº) and Oikonomos (iv. 400; he proposes roi...ºne ruvav *, *z'qez, buopſ.). The poem of Ezekiel was ---wº before the invention of the printing-press. (2) These dangers were increased in the case of works which were frequently copied and used not only privately but also in public service. (3) (ºr is not an original text, but a translation, or rather a series of translations, and therefore much more exposed to alterations than an original text; for every reader possessed of some knowledge of Hebrew, or of a different exegetical tradition from that embodied in Ør, might change his text (cf. the changes introduced in many Miss of the Öſt from the quotations in the NT, e.g. in Ps 13° from Ro 3*), (4) If the situation was bad enough before, it became worse when other Greek versions of the OT, especially those of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, appeared and began to influence (R. At last a comparison of Qir with ſºil and the versions just named was carried out systemati- cally by Origen; but what appeared to him a safe- guard against the calamity that threatened the text turned out—not by his fault, but by that of later ignorance and laziness—the worst aggra- vation of it. Continuing the passage quoted above, Origen goes on to say— ºw why of v iv tors &vriypáçois rās IIwazi&; Alo,0%zn; 3totovío.V, 0.25 bºdytor, tºpowsy ixorozotºi, zpirºpia, 2pzoºsvo, rocis Xorcis #23&o saw rôv 2&p &ºp132AAowivov rope. Tºls of 31& rºy tºy &vri- »pagow 3.2%avío.V rºw zpioiv roizagasvol &ro rāy Aoiráv $2500 sov rá avvæðoy izuivals iºvačoºsv' zczi rivo. Aciv 2,383 to cºev iv rá, 'E364- 1zó º zii/zºvo., of roaçãºrs; cºrk ºrg.wºrn arsplexeiv, rivo. 3i &iº &otepiazov rooq'sſºczºv, ºvo. 8% ov.; or, º zººsvo, rope, roſs o' iz rôy Aotºrów iz860 toy ovºvo; 7% "E322.2% ºrporal/4xozºzºv' zoºl 3 *iv, 80yAéºvo; reoñrz, 2012, & 83 ºrpoozorru to rouotitov, & 300Agro. frupi ris ºrcºpo.8ozºic octºrów i Aº ‘rou%a'a. We can sympathize with his joy (6eoû 6.66wros) at having found this criterion, though he used it, according to our view, in the wrong direction. It is of lesser weight that he simply took the Hebrew MSS which were at his disposal, and the Greek versions that agreed with them, for the original text. Whence he got the former we are not in- formed,” though we hear something about his intercourse with a Jewish Patriarch called Jullus (Hillel ?);f but he acted on a more dangerous principle when he took what agreed with fit or the other versions for the true text of (ºr, instead of what differed from them. ; Animated by this principle, and instigated, it would appear, and ſhelped by his épyoãudºkrms, Ambrosius, Š he under- ‘º * Eus. (IIE vi. 16) writes: roorozárn 3% sha'ſ veto Tô 'Qolyāvel rāy (stov Ātywy &razpiéogiva ičárzou, as zoº rºw 'E3poºz yaºirro, izuo:Usſy, ré, re roº roi; 'Iowboxiouſ tºpogºvo.; a pororwarove & wroſs 'E32&ſay a rolzsſo's 222¢x; 27%& Plow roºroollow, &vuzvévozí ra r&; rāy ºrigov rzpix row: "E3boºzov'ro. 7&s i-p3.3 ypc.0%; ºpaczviv- zóray izöðvits, zzi rive., tipz; rope, rຠzollazo.{vuºvo.6 pºavaiz, ivoxxzºrroãorozs, rºv 'AzúAov zczi Xuºzážov ×osi Osoboriavos, sºupéiv, &; otz olº' &rollsv fix rurav govzów row réâzı A&vlovo002, x26vov als Qö; &vizvéoo.5 ºrpołyozzév. f Jerome, Apol. adv, 1&uf. l. ii. (from the 30 régºo; of Origen in Is.), and Montfaucon, Iſea apla. Orael, pp. 21, 79. Origen refers elsewhere to instructions he received from the Jewish side : for instance, from a Jewish convert (in Jer, 20, II orv. 20, Op. iii. 178). Nor do we know where he got his Greek text. It differs sometimes very strangely from that of his predecessor Clement. * & e f Comp, the significant oizíri in the scholion belonging to Origen's edition of Proverbs as published in Tischendorf's Notitia edit. codicis Sinaitici, p. 76, and by Qikonomos (repi Tøy o' iv. 903); %zois ol 33320i recozºwra, flºrois, ºval obz Kasivro ours roco& roſ: Xorºroſs pºzzyev'roºſ, otºrs v rá 'E322.2%. 3xxx rºok ºvoi. rol; o'. 22, 60'ots of &rrépio'zou ºrpáczºv'roºt faroit, oùrol Św Azºv tº "Egozizé, wai Tois Aotºrois pºwevtzi tºpov'ro, iv 8; toſs o' o ºx ru, with the third axiom of Lagarde (Anmerkwngen zur griechischen Übersetzung der Proverbiem, 1863, p. 3 = Mittheilungeºn, i. 21): ‘Wenn sich zwei Lesarten mebeneinander findon, von denen die eine den Masoretischen Text ausdrückt, die andrc nur aus einer von ihm abweichenden Urschrift erklärt, Werden lºann, so ist die letztere für ursprünglich Zu halten.' § Eus. (H1} vi. 18): 'Ev.roºrg, 2&i 'Aºpórios, r3 rà, Ovºv- Tívov ºppovăy cipio'sz's Toos tº Waro 'Qazivov; resogºvºyz, &x4|size #xeyzúsic, zoº &oºv Vºro Çotos zo, tavywallsig rºw, hºvoſºv tº 7% izºrtzºriz㺠dello?ožios toozzi's rºu X6%. 23.," 19% iºdivou, ºil aw) 'Q212.Ével, röy sh; r.s (siz, 20%&s wroºna&rov, wivºre &px?, "Aº- geogtap tº rò, º&Auorº rapopºvroſ 20.76% ºveiziº gº ºvadorporaß, oč zazī; 31& A&vay 22, to:22.2%rsov «tro Azóvov, &AA& 2xi &ºſlovo,7&- rait rāy arrºw xopnyiols, razvypo.go. Yºp < tailov, * in rā SEPTUAGINT SEPTUAGINT 443 took the greatest biblical work which Christian antiquity ever saw—the first Polyglot Ibible, the so-called Hexapla, and a smaller edition of it, the Tetrapla. In the first column he placed the Hebrew text in Hebrew letters, in the second the same in Greek transliteration ; then followed the version of Aquila, the Jew,-no doubt because it was the most literal one ; in the fourth column that of Sym- machus. Then followed the column of (3 with the critical marks; finally, the version of Theodotion, as being a recension of (5. For some biblical books, especially the poetical, he added a fifth, 8iath, and even a seventh version ; * so that in those parts there were seven, eight, and even nine columns. The Tetrapla. was an abridged edition,--whether later or earlier is not quite ºn-containing only Aquila, Symmachus, Q3, and Theodo- OIls Till quite recently Origen's great, work was known only from the description of Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerome, and other writers, and some specimens preserved in scholia of biblical MSS ; but in 1896 Giovanni Mercati discovered in a pal- impsest MS of the 10th cent. at Milan the first continuous fragments of a copy of the Hexapla. (Psalms). These helped us to understand what an enormous task it must have been to arrange the whole OT in such a way, and at the same time showed also how easily mistakes might arise in it, and whence the variants conne which are found in the statements about the Hexaplaric text. And now there has been published quite recently by C. Taylor another leaf from among the Hebrew- Greek Cairo Genizah Palimpsests from the Taylor- Schechter Collection (Camb. 1900, 4°), containing a fragment of Ps. 22. I’rom this double-leaf the outer columns and some lines of the top are cut away, but it is at least 200 years older than the MS discovered by Mercati, and confirms the view that the arrangement according to cola (Ötextbu té rpès kóNov), of which Eusebius speaks (HE vi. 16), consisted in this, that Origen generally placed only one Hebrew word, or at the most two, in one line, and was careful to see that the Greek corre- sponded to it exactly. Even so small a word as ºs i-, Hebrew, Ah in Greek, had a separate line. In the Cairo Palimpsest all the Hebrew lines, 105 in number, consisted—they are cut off, but we are quite certain about their extent—of only one word ; in the Milan-text this was the case with 10 out of 17, the rest contain two, none more than two. As a full |. of the Cairo Palimpsest contained 42 (or 43) limes, just as many as Codex B, which, when opened, * with its six columns the appearance of the Hexapla, a manuscript of the Hexapla. Psalter arranged like the preserved Cairo fragment must have filled about 450 leaves; for the Hebrew Psalter has about 19,000 Words. As the Psalter is, further, something like the 14th or 15th part of the Hebrew 18ible, the whole Hexapla ºw &piſºv repāray, Wroyoptſovri, xpévolº rerºx&évois &AA%aouf &pºsigov.rs; 316xloy24¢ol is owz žtrovs, && 22 ×poºl; it rô xzxx,ypatºv haznºvo.1, &v &révrov rºw biovgov táv šaritºsſay &200vov replavorſov ć 'Apºpéolo; ºro-parráoz ro ..... ºxlo'ºro. o.ºrov arpov’rps rsy firl r}v ráv Vroºvnº row oróvºrcély. It is true, lºusebius speaks here only of the commentaries of Origen 3 but 12piph: anius refers the help of Ambrosius also to the Hexapla, and ‘copyists’ (213Xuoypºol) and “type-girls' would be needed by Origen for this costly work even more than for his commen- taries, * Eusebius (IIE vi. 10) goes on after the words quoted p. 4429, note * : *@ 3, (the other versions besides Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion) 31& rºy &Ynxórz toº rivo: &p' slav otz slöðr, cºro touro £26voy, a sºvo, ro,6; &oo rºw 24, stool y Tà rpos.' Azrious Nixo~6x4, rºw 3: twº ripa roºs rérº", v 3 s ºv Tols ič zºoſ, távºy fºr& rx, incá'uovº rigorogo's 286tsis of ºcévoy Ti4+ raw, &AA& 22) #27 ºv ex} {g}}ºny rap2(six pºnysiocy, iri, Avić's 2001; asanºoroºl, as iv Ispizoſ hºpzºva; ; y rillº, zºrk rows Xpévov; 'Avrayſvov, row view X53%pov. Tºro... bk & régos tº tºrov ovvo.727&v, 81834, T6 ºrgös wäxoy, zai &vrºpoſsis &AA}^2.1%. Pººr& zwi, &brº tº 'Eºpºſay *147taff, rö, röy Asyogºvov Živ ščoºrxāv &vtſopo.co. x&roxiàolºrsv, lºſo; rºy 'Azúxov zoº Suww.ºzov zi Osoborſovo; #xborºv &poo, rà rāv ić)owązovro Šv toº retpotaois &ruxºroºziuéozº. # For the IIeb. Psalter the Massoretic numbering does not seem to be preserved, but for the Syriac Psalter the number of words is given as 19,834, of letters as 90,852, would have filled more than 6000 leaves or 12,000. pages. It is probable that these figures go beyond the real extent, for we may assume that other books were treated less, luxuriously than the Psalms. At all events, the Hexapla was much larger than even the latest estinate supposed.” These specimens,’t besides giving a glimpse of the whole, show at the same time that for the Church at large, and even for its most learned members, so costly a work was not necessary ; it was sufficient to copy the Ør column, and to place on its margins the most notable various renderings from the other versions. This was done partially already by Origen himself, and especially by his followers Pamplilus and Eusebius. Such manuscripts, more or less carefully copied by later copyists, trans- lated into Latin, Syriac, and Arabic, and excerpted by the commentators, are the sources from . hitherto our knowledge of the Hexapla has been derived, thanks to Drusius (1581, 1622), Nobilius (1587, 1588), Montfaucon (1713, 1769), and especially Fred. Field (1875, 2 vols.): see on this highly de- serving scholar Easpos. Times, viii. 160, 274, 325. The later fate of the original is unknown. Jerome saw and used it in the library of Caesarea;: perhaps it was destroyed by the invasion of the Arabs. A similar fate may have brought the codex, from which the Cairo-leaf was saved, into the hand of the Jew who used it in the eleventh cent. for a Hebrew liturgical book. In these specimens there was no occasion to apply either obelus or asterisk. In Gn 1 the first occasions to use the obelus occurred v.” -- kal éyéveto otºrwsX, v.” + kal eiðey 6 0eós &rt KaNöv X, v.” -- kal avviſix0m . . . # £mpáX. In v.v.” "the only document known which has preserved the obelus in the text is the Arabic version made from the Syriac ; on v.v.” and * Origen himself, Basil, and some scholia testify that the obelized passages were not found in the Hebrew. The first occasion to insert a piece with the asterisk occurred at the end of v.", where in 'n' had no equivalent in (ºr and Origen supplied >k kal éyévero oftws X, and so on. These are simple cases; but what was to be done when there was variation of order or difference of sense ? In the former case (different arrangement of ſtl and (ºr, as in Exodus, Proverbs, Jeremiah) Origen adopted a twofold course. If the difference was not too great, he let the text of every column follow its exemplar, but marked these passages by both signs at once, asterisk and obelus (ús Tapū Trāat paev pepôpeva, oùk év attoºs 6é Tótrous). Elsewhere of codices so gigantic as the Hexapla . . . * See Sw. p. 74: ‘It is difficult to conceive of a codex or series Its bulk would have been nearly five times as great as that of the Vatican or Sinaitic OT. It may be roughly estimated that the IIexapla, if written in the form of a codex, would have filled 3250 leaves or 6500 pages; and these figures are exclusive of the Quinta and Seacta, which may have swelled the total considerably. Even the Tetrapla would have exceeded 2000 leaves."—According to the edictum Diocletiani copyists were paid at the rate of 25 or 20 denarii for 100 lines, according to the quality of the writing. From the stichometrical lists of the Bible we know that the I’salter had 5100 lines, a complete OT about 80,000, a connplete IBible about 100,000. This would make 25,000 or 20,000 (lenarii for the copying of an ordinary Bible. In the time of Constantime, Epiphanius, when becoming monk, reserved from lois fortune for buying the divine and life-giving Scriptures º' yºu to accºro. (forty gold coins). # See p. 444; also the examples given by Field (i. p. xiv. from 2 K 234 in 7 and Ps 100 (110) 8 in 9 columns. f Sco de Vir. Ill. c. 54; commentarioli in Psalmos (ed. I)om Morin, Amecdota Mared soland, 1895 (iii. 1, p. 5): ‘nam #27% ove Origemis in Casariensibilliotheca relegens'; and p. 12 on Ps 48 ‘Id quod in plurimis codicibus invenitur, “et olei eorum,” cum vetustum Origenis IIexaplum Psalterium relegerem, quod ipsius manu fuerat emendatum, nec in hebrujo nec in ceteris editioni- bus mec apud ipsos quoque Septuaginto interpretes repperi." (All MSS have it, and the Syriac 1Iexapla has § It may have belonged to those books in his library which Acacius and Euzoius took care “in membranis instaurare,' iv goºo...tºols &vºysé- agallaſ, to transcribe from papyrus on vellum (Philomis opera, ed. Cohn-Wendland, i. p. iii.; Jerome, de Vir. Ill. c. 118; cf. 84, i.). 444 SEPTUAGINT SEPTUAGINT (for instance in Jer 25”) he followed the order of ſłł, as did Lucian, Chrysostom, and all modern editors of Polyglot Bibles. No doubt Origem would make a note on this different arrangement, but this is missing in the documents as we now have them. The obelus appears under various forms, mostly ~f~, --, but also with two dots T or +; or without any dot \,; so especially in the Codex Sarravianus, The form –– was called Amuvlakos, + ViroMºmpºvia Kos i their exact meaning is unknown, for what Epi- º says about their difference is nonsense (see Field, Proleg, lix.). The metobelus × (a mallet) on : signifies the end of the notation. As a specimen PS 22 (21) 20-?? FROM THE CAIRO PALIMPSEST.” - Y 16 Drew. In Uri' - º "ºº" Aula. Symmachus. (5 tiºn ible). (lost). & 20 ºns] & & © orv če orv Še orv Še k' tº e Q Finn." * @ e | IIIIII III III IIIIII tº e - ºx tº e - Aw'm A17 A47) e - tº prinn tº º e Awakpupms Atakpav Awakpuums tº º º *n\}; "N © a tº to Xuporºms plov ºyev'm pov rmv 8om9tav pov tº gº tº ºnny'? e - e. ets 3076tav Mov Trpos triv 80mólav plov eus tºw avtt)\mptu pov tº tº a ; Tºri * - e. O’TéUO'Oy O'Tre UO'Oy trpoaxes tº e - al Hºsn © Cº º pua at eše?\ov pua at tº ſº tº -lºnrº) e sº º atro Awaxatpms atro Awaxaup'ms atro poptºpatas tº tº º "e'El * & © Wuxmy Awov Tºmu WvXmv pov Tnv WvXmv gov ſº tº º Tºp © e e atro Xelpos: ek xelpos kat ek Xétpos ... nº tº e e KUVOS KUVOS KU1/OS tº tº e : "nºn- © tº - pºovaxmv plov Tnv pºovorºmra plov tºv plovoyev'm pov * * 22 yenn • e Q orwarov Aze orajorov Awe orajorov Aze tº tº "Ep to Q tº atro atoparos ek otoplatos ek orogatos tº º º **IN © º º \eovtos Aeovtos Xeovtos tº tº º •y\pp) tº e - Kat atro kepara/y Kat atro Keparaſv kat atro kepatav tº tº c D">] e - © pmkºtº Movokepwraju Awovokepwrov tº e tº [; ºnly tº - e. etorakovo'oy ſtov Tmu Kakwaiv plov tºmu ratreuvajoriv plov tº e tº Ps 46 (45) 1-8 FROM THE MILAN PALIMPSEST. 6/07/2000'0.9 * Whether or where the Quinta, Seacta, and Septima, which for this Psalm are expressly testifled, had found a place in this copy, cannot be ascertained ; see, on these versions for this Psalm, besides the testimonies collected by l'ield, Jerome (Amecdota, Maredsol. iii. p. 33): “quinta et &eacta editio : verba clamoris mei, v. 2.’—On the transcription of Tin" by III III, pipi, and its curious consequences, see a scholion of Jacob of Edessa in ZDMG xxxii. (1878) 465 ſº. Hebrew. dº. Aquila. Symmachus. Q5 Theodotion. 1 nsibb] \apaavaaroºm T(w) 1/UKOTOL(t)* €7ſtylktos" ets to TeXos T(*) 1/LKOTOL (v) "... T01; U1045 n-p ‘ja', [A]agum-kop tww vuwu Kope Tww vuwv Kope virep Twy vuov || rows vious Kope 1(ope npºy by a\ a Nuw8 etru veavuormtwv virep Twy awvw.v virep twu kpupuwu | Utrep twu kpupuwu -*ty oup C.O.A.C. wöm Waxplos wôm Jºos 2 :9 D'Hºw c)\welp. Xavov * e e e o 6eos muty o 0eos mucov Š o 0eos muww ly) ITDT) page ovo; eXtrus kat kparos | Tretrov6mats kat || karaqpuym Kat Kataqbvym KCLl to Xus ôvvapºts ôvvapºts Finly e{p 80m0eta 80m.9eta 60700s Bombos n\"\;=l 80 apw'0 ev 0)\typeauv ev 0)\typeauv ev 0)\t peat ev 0)\l peow - 6vpsûma 6Toºl aſ civ to tº supovorozug aſco.; "TNº, Nºj vepara Pºwó evpe6m + a poëpa evptorkopºevos a po- rats evpova'ats | evpé0m agoópa ôpa. muas a poëpa 8 15 9y aX. Xev. GTrt T.O.UTC) ðua Tovro Šua Touro ôua Touro Rºy Nº Xw- vupa. ov pognºmoroueffa ov pogº,0mgopaeba ov pogº)0moroueda ov pogn0morousſa •)"pril £aapºp ev ral avta)\\ao- |ev twº: avyxela 6at év twrapagoea (at ev Tw rapagoea (at , oreo 9at Fºx aaps ºymv 'ymv Tmu ‘ymv Tnvºymu Aw87&tiffs aſſoci tººl] ov8aparr Kat ev Taj orga)\- kat k\lveo-0at Kat pºetatiſeo 6at Kat ora)\evea'0au Neo'ſ)at Dºnn apt/4 opm opm opm opm in?-, BAeg ev Kapòta. ev Kapòua. ev Kapòua. ev Kapòua [pºp' td/ºt/4 6a)\ao'o ww 0a)\aoro ww 0a)\aora ww 0a)\ao'a ov — * In the MS Azvov came in the third column, replacing there Aquila's rendering. f MS, isy a frequent mistake, doubling the or, svos/wa. f MS toºls (from rau, see note f). § MS first-hand Muir, SEPTUAGINT SEPTUAGINT 445 *ºry of the use of these signs we may take Gn 34* from the Codex Sarravianus *— - KOLL T6 pterepovro Yo rmy ^ oapka tºms akpoğv- *NJ OTCLCLS CLUT (Ju : TOLy --- apomu >k travres effep >k Xopaevot rv\mu tro sk Aews avtov': eyeve . As it is of importance to have a view of the documents from which the G3 column of the Hexapla can be recovered, the pres- ent writer had drawn up a list of all MSS which trace back their origin to the IIexapla and Tetrapla, and designed stem- mata for them, but want of space forbids the printing of them here. One of the most important means is the Syriac version made by Paul of Tella in the year 017 (= p), and, where this is defective, the Arabic version made by Hårith ben Simān ben Shabāt so late as 1480 (see Praef. of Holmes, vol. i.). The Hexapla is expressly cited in still existing documents as the source for Ex., Josh., 1 Kings, Ezra, Esth., Prov., Cant., Lam., Is., Ezek. ; the Tetrapla for Gen., Josh., Ruth, Is., Ezek, Job, 12, Proph, Dam.; the Heptapla for 2 Kings. The 'Oxtoto #xiàov (Octapla) is occasionally quoted as having a different reading from the Tºpa- a Wºoy (Tetrapla) in a scholion on Ps 865 (Ø r? X14y for £2%rop 21ów). . Heptapla is used in p at 2 K 162; IIey'rocaréA1309 (not Terpoºoººoy) in Q at Is 324. See, for Genesis, Field on Gn 4756; for EX., Josh., Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Kings, Job, Prov., Eccles., Cant., 12 Proph., Is., Lam., the notes of p, for Ezra and Esther the notes in Cod, S, for Is. and Ezek, the notes in Q; for Ezek. and Dan, the Codex Chisianus. On the order of the biblical books in the IIexapla we are not perfectly informed ; in Q it is Octateuch, Kings, Chron., Ezr.(-Neh.), Judith, Tobit, Psalms, Job, Prov., Eccles., Cant., Wisd., Sirach, 12 Proph., Jer., Bar.., 12p. of Jer., Dan., Sus., Bel, Ezek., Isaiah. For Exodus a copy is attested, in which the Hebrew was compared by Eusebius with the Hebrew of the Samaritans. Seventeen, such passages are preserved in Q3, and 5 from Numbers.f. Curious is the expression wºrså%40worozy &@ 3 y stºp opes v #20 A&v (Tischendorf, Notitia, 122); the note in S at the end of Esther speaks of r3. Šázarx& 'Qptyévov; ºr' cºroſ, Stoplatºvo. At the end of Ex. Tº zozºrd. Tºg $2%asis #2 rà% are distinguished from a repov ščoºr Aoûv. In the note at the end of Proverbs (Sw. p. 75) for zoº ºréXuy cººr& zepf we must read zoº ºréxiv. &ºtozálpí, and again : by Pamphilus' own hand.’ Strange is the quotation of Origen on, La 117 (Op. iii. 252) 2&rk Xúzºzzov zoºi i r p & y & 28 o a y Töv 'Iºokºzov'ro. If the copies of the (ºr column of the Hexapla, which it was the task especially of Pamphilus and Eusebius to prepare, had been copied with all its marks, it would have been well; but later copyists neglected these completely, and produced thus what we may call krypto-Hearaplaric copies, com- pletely spoiling by this carelessness the value of (ºr — such a copy is found, for instance, in the Codex Alexandrinus for 1 and 2 Kings. At the same time we have no right to complain, seeing that in the 19th cent, the same process was re- peated in the case of Grabe's edition.: Now it is clear that if we were to succeed, by a comparison of those documents which go back directly or indirectly to the Hexapla, in restoring its (ſº column, we should have a Septuagintal text, but not the original one ; for, as indicated above, the principles on which Origen chose his text are not the true ones; moreover, it would appear that he even further introduced little changes, so as to make his text correspond to the Hebrew, for instance in the matter of proper names, Writing I’mpowv (Ex 6%) for Teóo wu, etc.S. We must therefore look for * Origen took this whole system of notation from the Alexan- drian critics of Homer, especially Aristarchus; see the passages quoted by Swete, p. 71, and the enumeration of the passages of Proverbs which varied in order from the Patmos codex, in Tischendorf's Notitia, p. 76. IIow inconvenient this was before the invention of numbering the verses and chapters may be seen there. e + On other passages (Gm 48 525 etc.), for which rô Soºcoºpertuzów is quoted, see l'ield, i.p. lxxxii ſt., and S. Kohn, ‘Samareitikon und Septuaginta’ in Momatsschrift für Wissenschaft des Juden- thums, N. F. i. [1804] 1–7, 49-07 ; ZI) MG, 1893, 650. Kohn believes that there was originally a complete Greck translation of the Samaritan Targum. f See above, p. 440b, on the Moscow and Athens reprints of Grabe's edition of the Codex Alexandrinus; and cf., for its dis- astrous results, e.g. Oikonomos, ii. 251, on the reading 0%pov and 2%pov in l’s 13115. * / º § Cf. I’s 114, where el; row révºrcz has nothing answering to it in Plebrew ; a scholion remarks that it szstro Ay tº orgaubi row o' wovov 24, 30Åas ; Up, 184, sah., Theodoret have for it is rºw olzov- p.tvny. - other sources. These have been found in the re- censions which Jerome mentions as being circulated in his times, besides the copies produced by Eusebius and Pamphilus. , Jerome, who was almost the only one who opposed the popular views about (ſº, had also the right insight into the consequences of Origen's labours in textual criticism, when he wrote to Augustine— “Et miror.guomodo LXX interpretum libros legas non puros ut ab eis editi Bunt, sed ab Qrigène emendatos sive corruptos per obelos et asteriscos. . . . Wis amator esse verus Septuaginta interpretum, non legas ea, qua) sub asteriscis sunt, imo rade de voluminibus, ut veterum tº fautorem probes. Quod si feceris, omnes ecclesiarum bibliothecas damnare cogeris. Wix emin. unus aut alter invenietur liber qui ista non habeat.” He mentions several times three sets of Bible texts as used in his time (Praf. in Paralip., adv. Iºwſ. ii. 27)— ‘Alexandria et AEgyptus in Septuaginta suis Hesychium laudat auctorem, Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani (var. lec. Juliani) martyris exemplaria, probat, mediae inter has provincia, Palaestinos (var. lec, -na) codices legunt quos ab Origene elabor- atos Eusebius et Pamphilus vulgaverunt ; tobusque orbis hac inter se trifaria varictate compugnat.' The Gothic priests, Sunnja and Fretela, who had addressed him about questions in textual criticism, he instructed in the year 403— “Aliam esse editionem quam Origenes et Caesariensis Eusebius omnesque Gracia) tractatores zolv%v, i.e. communem appellant atgue vulgatam, et a plerisque nunc Aovzlovés.” dicitur, aliam Septuaginta interpretum quae in #zarxois codicibus reperitur et a nobis in latinum sermonem fideliter versa est et Jérosolyma, atgue in Orientis ecclesiis decantatur . . . zow” autem ista, hoc est communis, editio ipsa est quie et Septuaginta, sed hoc interest inter utramgue quod zolv% pro logis et temporibus et pro volun- tate scriptorum vetus corrupta editio est, ea autem quae habetur in #ccºrxois et quam nos vertimus, ipsa est quae in cruditorum libris incorrupta et immaculata Septuagintainterpretum trans- latio reservatur.” About the person and the work of Hesychius we know very little. He may have been (not the lexicographer of the second half of the 4th cent., who was a pagan, but) the martyr-bishop mentioned by Eusebius, HE viii. 13, together with Phileas of Thmuis (Sw., 79 : ‘It is pleasant to think of the two episcopal confessors employing their enforced leisure in their Egyptian prison by revising the Scriptures for the use of their flocks, nearly at the same time that Pampllilus and Eusebius and Antoninus were working under similar conditions at Caesarea”). The fruit of his work is now sought for the Octateuch, in the MSS 44, 74, 76, 84, 106, 134, etc. (see N. McLean, JThSt., ii., Jan. 1901, b. 306); for the Prophets, at least for Isaiah and } y- º - - t * f * - º * the XII, in Q and its supporters, 26, 106, 198, 306 (see A. Ceriani, de codice Marchaliano, Romae, 1890, pp. 48 ft., 105 ft.). More clearly deſined is our information about Lucian and his work (see on him Sw. p. 80 ft.). Westcott-Hort came to the conclusion, that for the NT the growing diversity and confusion of Greek texts led to an authoritative revision at Antioch, which was at a later time subjected to a second authoritative revision, carrying out more completely the purposes of the first. Of known names, they wrote, Lucian's has a better claim than any other to be associated with the early Syrian revision. These revisers of the NT “evi- dently wished their text to be as far as possible easy, smooth, and complete, and for this purpose borrowed freely from all quarters, and as freely used the ſile to remove surviving asperities’ (ed. min. p. 557). This description agrees fully with our information about the Lucianic revision of the OT, and with the observations we can gather from the existing documents, in which it is found to sur- vive, for the Octateuch in 19, 82, 108, 118; in the Historical books 93 is to be added; in the Prophets 22, 36, 48, 51, 62, 90, 93, 144, 147, 233, 308. The Lucianic recension is of the highest value * Oikonomos, iv. 99, wishes to read Aovzlavus. 446 SEPTUAGINT SEPTUAGINT for the textual criticism of the Hebrew OT; for the Hebrew MSS, used by Lucian at Antioch, seem to have been different from those which were at Origen's disposal, further removed from the traditional Hebrew text ; but it must not be con- founded, as its editor P. de Lagarde was careful to warn us (see especially Mittheilungen, ii. 171), with the Septuagint. On the question, whether annong the materials used for his revision the Syriac version was also included, and the other, how his revision is related to the Latin versions, see Nestle, Introd. p. 182. * . The statement that his autograph copy in 3 columns was, after his martyrdom, found at Nicomedia, we see no reason to doubt (against Sw. p. 85).t No express statements emanating from later times are known to the present writer regarding attempts to revise (ſir. hat the emperor Constantine ordered 50 Bibles for his churches from Eusebius, and that Athanasius procured for Constans truktia róv 6elwu Ypaqāv, may be mentioned in this con- nexion. Later emperors and empresses showed their religious zeal partly by writing copies with their own hands. The history of (ſº passed on to the nations, which received it in the form of translations. vi. VERSIONS MADE FROM THE SEPTUAGINT.- If we are to trust the statement of Zosimus Pano- politanus (see Oikonomos, ii. 328), the Hebrew Bible was translated for Ptolemy at one and the same time into Greek and into Egyptian ; but Latin, not Egyptian, was probably the first language into which (ºr was translated. On the Latin versions of (ºr see the exhaustive article of H. A. A. Kennedy in vol. iii. p. 47 ff.: The most important addition to note is the publica- tion of Heptatewchi partis posterioris versio latina antiquissima e codice Ligdunensi par Ulysse Robert (Lyon, 1900, 4°). This discovery, already noticed by Kennedy (p. 49), called by McLean the most important event of the past decade in con- nexion with Sept. studies (JThSt., ii. 305), shows the miased character of the Latin Bible text, already acknowledged by Kennedy, in the most striking way; no Greek MS or group of MSS being known to which this Latin text adheres persistently. And the second, not less puzzling feature of these Latin texts becomes once more apparent, namely their variety. Cf., for instance, I)t 31 in the Lugdun- ensis], Monacensis], and Wfirceburgensis]. W.” Karáðpwpa. comestio L devoratio M interitus W. et tribulatio L et tribulationes W omitted altogether M. W.” kal épurXma:0évres kopfforoval et repleti recedent (=X&phoroval) L et satiati descendent ludentes M. (=Xopewa ovov, or ºral; outes) et saturati alienabuntur W. * E. Klostermann (Origemes' Werke, iii. p. xi) promises an in- vestigation on the Jeremiah text used by Origen, which agrees frequiently with the group of MSS which are considered as Lucianic. Adam Mez (Die Bibel des Josephus untersucht für Buch v.-vii. der Archäologie, Basel, 1895) notices that the Bible used by Josephus shows in Judges and Samuel many agreements with Lucianic readings, and presupposes, therefore, an “Ur- Lucian.” The paper on ‘Ilucian's recension of the Septuagint ’ (Chºwrch Quarterly Review, Jan. 1901, pp. 379–308) came to the knowledge of the present writer too late to be used for this article, f. On a copy going back to Basil, see Syncellus (Chromogr. p. 882): #2 #viº &vrºpéeq xiozy Żzpuſ?opºva, zoré ri ortlyºv 22) aporºſov, #2 tº v Kozigzpsio. £ićAtotºzº, iv. & 22) #Teriypocºrro, & 6 ºfty2, zoº. Usios Bozoixuos, tº #: @y $zsiyo &rºpé £a, & wrić2A&v 3topſ&rozºro. In this copy Syncellus found 28 (xxſ) years for the reign of foxes in 2 K 1527. This number is found to-day in the MSS 55, 56, 64, 119, 245, 246. # The influence which (5 exercised on the formation of the mediaeval Roman and even Teutonic languages through the medium of the Latin Bible version can be only hinted at. Even words of common life like canapé, cidº'e, find their origin ulti- mately in G. kal 0\lyus(-eus) In the Bk. of Judges the new text sides regularly with A against B; in some cases (1° 5*, *) it alone offers what seems to be the original reading (see McLean, l.c.). On Wisd., Sirach, Esth., Job, Judith, l and 2 Mac., Passio Maccabaeorum, Bar.., 3 Es., Cant., see Ph. Thielmann, “Bericht iiber das gesammelte handschriftliche Material zu einer kritischen Ausgabe der lateinischen Ueberset- zungen biblischer Bücher des alten Testamentes' (Sitzungsberichte der K. bayer. Akad. d. Wiss. 1899, Bd. ii. Heft 2, pp. 205–243). On the Egyptian versions see Forbes Robinson in vol. i. p. 668 ft. There is but one inmportant addition to mention—The earliest known Coptic Psalter, edited by Wallis Budge (Lond, 1898). R. E. Brightman (JThSt, ii. 275) has shown that it represents the complete Greek text, of which U contains fragments, and that it has some remark- able readings, which do not occur in the common Greek text but only in Latin documents, e.g. ēgaat- Asvgev diró $5xov in Ps 95", which is quoted from Justin onwards. Cf. further, Lieblein, ‘Thebansk- Koptick Oversaettelse af Davids 89.90 Psalme’ (Academy of Christiania, 1896); W. E. Crum, “Coptic Studies’ in Eg. Eacpl. I’. Rep. for 1897, 1898). On the Ethiopic versions see R. H. Charles in vol. i. p. 791. With the fact quoted there that the Ethiopic Bible at no time contained the books of Maccabees, compare the parallel fact that they are unknown also to the Canon in the 39th festal letter of Athanasius and in Codex B, which is con- nected by Rahlfs with Athanasius (GGN, 1899, i. p. 72). Scarcely any addition has been made to the Arabic versions since they were treated by F. C. Burkitt in vol. i. p. 136 ft. Of the Gothic version ascribed to Ulſilas, only a few fragments of the OT are extant, from Gn 5”, Ps 52%, Ezr 15. 16. 17 (not 28-49); but these are sufficient to show that Ulſilas, as might have been suspected, followed the recension used in Constan- tinople—that of Lucian. The best edition is that of tºº. (Upsala, 1854, 1857, 4°), the most con- venient that of Stamm-Heyne ("1896, in which, however, as in all, tho order in Ezra must be re- versed in the way indicated above), or E. Bernhardt, 1884.” I’or the literature see Sw. p. 116; Urt. 119–121. ‘a The recension of Lucian is the basis also of the Slavonic version (first printed at Ostrago, 1581). From the quotations in Holines (on Gen.) One might almost conclude that its present form is based on the Aldine edition of 1518, so frequently does it agree with it. For literature sec Urſ. }. 215 (Leskien); Sw. p. 120; Holmes, Praf, in ent. The Georgian version was used for Holmes (see Praef. in Pent.), but the first edition (Moscow, 1743) was made conformable to the Slavonic 13ible by the Prince Vakhusht, son of Vakhtang, king of Georgia. See Urt. p. 161 ; Sw. p. 120. The Armenian version (see the article of F. C. Conybeare in vol. i. p. 151) rivals, in importance for the textual criticism of (ſº, the Syriac, and will be used for the larger Cambridge edition of Úr. The version of the OT which came into common use in the jº churches was made from the Hebrew, though it occasionally under- went influences from (ſir (see art. SYRIAC W ERSIONS). But besides this common version (Peshitta), the zeal of this Church produced a translation of (ºr, prob- ably the most literal that ever appeared in any language, and therefore of the greatest importance for the textual critic. It was the work of one Paul, bishop of Tella dhe Mauzelath (Constantine * An American edition was published by G. H. Balg, Mil waukee, 1891. That of Massman is from 1855–1857. SEPTUAGINT SEPTUAGINT 44? Ǻmºsºm-º: in Mesopotamia), and was executed by him in Alexandria in the years 616–617. There he had at his disposal several MSS, which went back—with few intervening links—to the very Hexapla or Tetrapla of Origen ; hence the usual name of this version, the Syro - Hearaplar. Andrew du Maes (Masius, 1573; see on his merits Sst. i., 13–16) º a copy containing part of Deut., Josh., udges, 1 and 2 Sam., l and 2 Kings, Chron., Ezr., Esth., Judith, and part of Tobit. Unfortunately, this codex has disappeared ; but what, in all likeli- hood, is the second volume of it, is preserved at the Ambrosian Library at Milan, and was given to the world through the labours of Ceriani and a generous gift of Frederick l'ield (see above, p. 443°) as the Codex Syro-Hexaplaris Ambrosianus in a photo-lithographic facsimile edition as tom. vii. of the Monumenta sacra et profana (Milano, 1874, fol.); while the other parts that survived of this version (from Gen., Ex., Numb., Josh., Judges, 1 and 2 Kings) have been most carefully edited in the last work of P. de Lagarde ği. Syriaca & Paulo de Lagarde collecta, quae ad Philo- logiam Sacram pertiment, Gottingae, 1892, 4°, finished by A. Rahlfs). Of the former publications —see the list in Nestle, Litt. syr. p. 29f.-only that of Thomas Skat Rordam (Libri Judicum et lèuth secundum versionemv syriaco - heasaplarem, Hauniae, 1859–61, 4*) deserves mention, on account of the ‘Dissertatio de regulis grammaticis, quas secutus est Paulus Tellensis in Veteri Testamento ex Graeco Syriace vertendo’ (pp. 1–57), together with Field's Otium Norvicense, sive Tentamen de Iºeliquis Aquilae Symmachi et Theodotionise lingwa Syriaca in Graecºm convertendis, Oxon, 1864, 4°. On account of the MSS used by Paul, and the principles followed by him, this version forms our clief authority for the text of Origen’s recension. Q., the Arabic translation based on it see above, p. 445". For the literature see W. Wright, art. ‘Syriac Literature’ in Enciſc. Brit. . vol. xxii. = Short history, p. 18; Rield, Iſeacopla, i. p. lxviiff. ; Sw. 112 ft. ; Urt. 117. On other attempts to translate parts of (ºr into Syriac, by Polycarp in the 5th cent. (Psalms), Jacob of Edessa in the years 704–5, see Sw. p. 115 f.; Gwynn, Dict. Chr. Biog. iv. 433. On the fragments of translations in the so-called Palestinian dialect, we may refer to Sw., p. 114 f., and especially to l'. C. Burkitt (“Christian Pale- stinian Literature’ in JThSt., ii. 174 ft.). The frag- ments enumerated by Sw, p. 115, from Gen., Ex., Numb., 1 Sann., 1 Kings, Psalms, Prov., Job, Wisd., Amos, Micah, Joel, Jonah, Zech., Is., Jeremiah, have been augmented since by the publication of Palestinian Syriac texts from pal- impsest fragments in the Taylor-Schechter collec- tion, edited by A. S. Lewis and M. D. Gibson (Lond. 1900, 4°), containing portions of Numb., IDeut., Psalms, Is., Jer., and—as recognized by V. Ryssel—of Sirach (frag. xviii.). On the date and place of this whole literature see Burkitt, l.c. Up to the present day several of the Churches in which these various versions of Qir arose, have never emancipated themselves from them. But even in those parts where, as in the Latin West through Jerome, or in modern Europe through the influence of the Reformation, new Bible versions, based on the Hebrew original, came into use, there is still, in greater or less degree, an echo of (ºr to be heard through worship and theology. It may suffice to recall the l’rayer-Book version of the I’salms, or even the latest revision of the English Bible, in which it is not the names alone of the books of the OT from Genesis to Ecclesiasticus that tell of this first and most remarkable of all bibli- cal versions. . MATERIALS I'OR THIE IRESTORATION OF Qir.— The materials for the restoration of Qir are, as can be gathered from the preceding history, (1) manu- Scripts, (2) versions, (3) quotations. (1) Manuscripts.—The MSS used for the work of Holmes-Parsons are counted at the end of vol. v. as 311 ; I.-XIII., being uncial MSS, are designated by IRoman, the rest, being cursives, by Arabic figures. There are some mistakes in this list : 23, for instance, the Codex Venetus, is an uncial codex; others, counted under different numbers, have turned out to be parts of one and the same MS. Another system of designation, used by Lagarde and in the Cambridge Septuagint, is to denote the uncial MSS by the capital letters of the Latin (and Greek) alphabet ; for a particular class of MSS Lagarde used small letters of the Roman, Cormill (in Ezekiel) of the Greek alphabet. It will be the task of the large Cambridge Septuagint to introduce a system of notation that wiiſ be generally accepted ; meanwhile it is best to adhere for the uncials to the system of Lagarde-Swete, for the cursives to Holmes-Parsons, always keeping in mind that the sharp distinction between uncials and cursives is in no way justified. As to the contents, the MSS may be divided into those which contain the whole Bible (OT) or parts of it, the Octateuch,” the Historical, Poetical, and Prophetical books. Most frequent are MSS of the Psalms. The arrangement of these groups, and of the books within each group, varies greatly (see Sw, pp. 195—230 : “Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of the Books’). The books of Moses seem to stand at the head with no exception, and in all MSS the order seems to be the usual one, the inverted order, Nu. Lev. being attested only by Melito (Eus. HE iv. 26; Sw. p. 203), in the list published by Mommsen (Sw. p. 212), and by Leontius of Byzantium (Sw. p. 207). In Latin the third book is sometimes called Leviticum, the fifth Deuteronomius. Philo's designation of the latter, h ’Etruvoats, is taken from the book of Pinto so inscribed ; Judges he calls # rôv Kpupićtwv Big\os. The counting of four books of Kings or rather Kingdoms (Baat)\etáv) has been retained by the Latin Bible, partially also the name IIapa)\eutrópºeva for Chronicles. The form IIapaxeutróweval occurs not only in Gregory of Nazianzus and Leontius (see Sw., pp. 205, 207), but also in Origen (new Berlin edition, iii. 74, l. 15 ; not decisive év Tm Trpaºrm [Öevrépg] tdºv II., i. 341, ii. 374). On the other books and their names see Sw, p. 216 ; but note that the last books are gener- ally called r& Makkapaiká, books treating of (Judas) Maccabaeus; the extension of the name to the whole family, now generally in use, the Maccabees (plural), is not original. On the grouping of the books (Historical, including Pentateuch, Poetical, Prophetical) see Sw. p. 218; on their number, Sw. . 219; art. CANON in vol. i. p. 348 ft. ; on the internal order, Sw. p. 226. The statement of J. M. Fuller (Spectker's Commentary on the Apocrypha, i. 368), that the MSS ordered by Constantine from Eusebius were ‘the first complete Greek Bible,” and that it contained apparently the books of the Hebrew Canon and the Alexandrian version of the Apocrypha added as an Appendia, does not seem to rest on sure foundation. When Eusebius writes that he sent off the books év troXvrexés jorkmuévous Teixeot Tolororó kai tetpacroró, the most probable explanation of the much disputed closing words seems to be, that each Bible consisted of three or four volumes. In a note at the end of Esther in the Codex Sinaiticus it is stated that it * Greek MSS mostly count Gen.-Ruth as books 1-8, as 3xt&- Tsuzog; the Latin MSS Gen.-Judges as IIeptateuchtts ; the word IIexateuch, now so much in use that it has an article devoted to it in the present work, seems to be an innovation of tºe late 19th century. 448 SEPTUAGINT SEPTUAGINT was compared with a MS belonging to Pamphilus, which &px?iv pºv etxev diró ràs trptºrms róv Baauxelöv, els 63 thv 'Ea.0%p &\myev. From this it is probable that it was arranged, not like B, which inserts the seven Poetical books (the five Canonical + Wisdom and Sirach) between Ezra, and Esther, nor like A, in which the Prophets follow Chronicles, and after them Esther, but like S and N, in which Ezra and Esther follow immediately upon Chronicles. This would give a Bible of four volumes (Octateuch, Historical books, Prophetical books, Poetical books). As regards their age, the MSS range from the 3rd to the 16th cent. To the 3rd cent. is ascribed a scrap of papyrus in the British Museum, yield- ing the text of Gn 147 (Pap. ccxii. ; see Sw. p. 146) and the fragment of a Psalter (cont. Ps 127–15"), ‘the oldest Bible MS in any language in the British Museum and one of the oldest in existence anywhere' (see Facsimiles of Biblical Manuscripts | in the British Museum, edited by Fred. G. Kenyon, 1900, pl. i. Pap. ccxxx.). It is impossible to give here a list of the MSS of (J., or even of the uncials; some of them have been treated under separate articles; see the letters ANBCL ; we must refer to Sw. p. 122 ft. and the literature quoted there ; only some supple- mentary remarks may be offered— In A (Alexandrinus) the Psalter appears not to have been copied from the same original as the rest of the MS, but taken from a separate Church-Psalter (just as in the Aldine Bible of 1518). Hence the additions before and after the Psalms (letter of Athanasius, canon of morning and evering psalms, etc.; Canticles). It would be well to control its use in the Cambridge Septuagint by comparison once more with the original or a former . ; see, c.g., 1 Es 4* A + airów ; 2 Es 7" A has trpiórov, not trarpºšov). On the connexion of B (Vaticanus) with Athan- asius see Th. Zahn, Athanasius und der Bibel- kanon (Erlangen, 1901 : Sonderabdruck aus der Festschrift der Universität Erlangen zur Feier des . . . Prinzregenten Luitpold von Bayern), p. 33: “It must be seriously considered whether the famous Codex Vaticanus is not that Bible which was produced by Athanasius at the order of Constans at Rome about 340 through Alexandrian copyists’ (see Nestle, Introduction, p. 181, where in the note read “Constantius’ for “Constans’). Ceriani’s view, that B was written by a Western scribe, had been proposed already by Richard Simon (Hist. Crit. du W T, c. 32). That it contains the recension of Hesychius, was for the first time, as it seems, stated by Grabe ; Masius believed it was that of Lucian, Montfaucon that of Origen. On the text of Judges in this MS see below. S is a more convenient symbol than N for the Codex Sinaiticus, and is adopted in Swete. That the copyist who wrote the note at the end of Esther on the collation with the Codex of Pam- plilus is identical with the corrector N* is an im- portant hint for the restoration of the recension of Eusebius-Pamphilus. ID (Cottonianus). As this famous MS was reduced by ſire in 1731 to a heap of charred and shrivelled leaves, it would be worth while to make investiga- tions whether the collation made before that time by Wetstein (NT i. p. 134) is still in existence. On the relation of its pictures to the mosaics of San Marco in Venice, see J. T. Tikkanen, Die Gemesismosaiken von Sam Marco in Venedig und ihr Verhältnis zu dem. Miniaturem cler Cottomlibel, etc., Helsingfors, 1889, 4” (Acta Soc. Scient. Fenn. xvii.). G (Sarravianus). Add to the publications men- tioned by Sw. p. 137:—P. de Lagarde, Semitica, Zweites Heft, Gött. 1879 (vol. xxv. of the ‘Abhand- lungen,” etc. : “Die pariser blåtter des codex Sarravianus’). M (Coislinianus), collated by Wetstein (NT i. 134), for a great part by Lagarde (Symm. ii. 142) Anſcindigung, iii. 27; SSt. i. 8). Q (Marchalianus). The distinction ostablished by Ceriani between the origin of the text and of the marginal matter in this, MS, the latter only being Hexaplaric, is a great help for the classifica- tion of the MSS of (tr. On the 23 uncial MSS, or parts of such, which have not yet been used for any edition, and remain for the present without a symbolical letter or number, see Sw., 146 ft., 170. No. 14 (formerly in the possession of W. H. Heckler) has lately been acquired by the University of Heidelberg, and will be edited by Prof. G. Deissmann. On No. 6, the oldest biblical MS in the British Museum, see preceding column. The transition from the uncials to the cursives may be made by the MS E, which is now dispersed in Oxford, London, Cambridge (1 leaf), and St. Petersburg. It was brought by Tischendorf from the East in 1853 and 1859; the Oxford part written in uncials, the Cambridge leaf, which was kept, back by Tischendorf, making the transition from uncial to cursive writing, the rest in cursives. The whole recent history of this MS has been described by A. Rahlfs in GGN (not GGA as in I(enyon, Fac- similes, plate v.), 1898, 98–112 ; see also SW. 134 f.; Lagarde, SSt. i. 1–ll ; facsimile in Kenyon, pl. v. Most cursives await careful investigation ; some will repay it ; others may be discarded by it, as later copies of MSS still existing, like 33, 97, 238, which belong to one MS, and are copied from 87, or even as copied from printed editions. This we suspect to be the case with Ho 31 (Genesis with catena), at Vienna (Theol. Gr. 4) [on the date of this MS Holmes wrote, “videtur esse xiii. vel xiv. saeculi’; Sw. p. 149 (xiv.)”; Lagarde, Genesis grace, “sacculi xv. a me non collatus, sed inspectus tantum '; H. Achelis, “Hippolytstudien’ in TU, N. F. i. 4, p. 97, places it in the 16th cent.], and with 83, a Pentateuch at Lisbon (formerly Evora) of the 16th cent.” Both will turn out to be copied from the Aldine edition of 1518. See on the cursives the list of Sw. pp. 148–168, and note that 25 is at Munich in the ‘Staats- (not Stadt-) bibliothek’; 53 agrees in Numbers fre- quently with the Old Latin Codex Lugdunensis; 130 is by Lagarde called t, and ascribed to the 13th “att vid.’, Sw, “(; xi.)”; 93 in 3 columns, with 2 texts for Esther ; facsimile in Kenyon, pl. viii.; 155 “Cod. Meermanni ii.’ is now Bodl. misc. Gr. 204; 156 the only Greek MS containing in Ps 95 (96) 19 the addition a ligmo, in the form diró tº $0)\g. (—) A Psalter not mentioned by Sw. is in the Brit. Museum, Add. MS 19,352 A.D. 1066, valuable not only as a dated º of Greek writing of the 11th cent., but especially as an example of the best style of Byzantine decorative art, applied to the ornamentation of copies of the Scriptures [see Kenyon, Facsimiles, pl. vii., where Jesus Christ is enthroned between two cherubim (or rather Sera- phim) as illustration of Ps 79 (80) *]. On the Lectionaries, which must be classed among the MISS, see Sw. p. 168 f. Their value would be increased if the Ilectionary-system of the Greek Church is as old as has been contended for recently by C. R. Gregory, Teatkritik des Newen Testa- mentes, i. (1901), p. 327 ff. In spite of the great mass of witnesses thus used for the great work of Holmes-Parsons and later editions, their classification is still a º even in a book like that of Judges, where the differences are most marked. Compare the judg: ment of G. Moore (SBOT’, ‘Judges,’ p. 22): “A SEPTUAGINT SEPTUAGINT 449 complete stemma exhibiting the filiation of these MSS and recensions cannot be made from the colla- tions in HP’; we may even doubt the correctness of the remark added by Moore: “it would be comparatively easy if we possessed a few accurate collations of typical MSS properly arranged.’ Perhaps a good step ... this end would be to arrange complete lists of the singular and sub- singular readings of our oldest witnesses, as ABS, especially for B, because this MS serves as standard for the collations of the larger Cambridge Septua- gint. Another fact worth mentioning in this connexion is, that every new witness, in spite of the great number of MSS already collated and the still greater number of variations extracted from them, adds a new reading, even for the Psalms, for which some 120 MSS have been used for H.P. See, for instance, the spelling Tpooraxes instead of ºrphaxes first making its appearance in Kenyon, Facsimiles, plate v. Ps 79 (80)”. (2)(3) The same is the case with the Versions and Quotations. On these see above, §§ iv. and vi. As but few of the Greek Fathers are accessible in trustworthy editions, a large field waits here for patient and careful workers. But, even before these minutiaº be settled, (ºr can and must be used for that purpose for which it is of the greatest import- ance, namely the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. vii. USE OF (ſ:.” — The remark of Swete las already been quoted—that QR possesses a new and increasing importance in the field of biblical study (p. 437° n.f). Its value as a witness to the Hebrew text was recognized partially in the time of Origen and Jerome, and afresh in the days of the IRenais- sance and onwards from the 17th cent. ; but it can be fully acknowledged only by those who adopt the views maintained chiefly by Olshausen, Lagarde, and their followers, that all existing MSS of the Hebrew OT go back to a single official copy or re- cension, made up somewhere in Palestine, perhaps at Jamnia, about the 2nd cent. after Christ. To quote only one statement. G. Moore (SBOT, “Judges,’ p. 23) writes— “The other Ancient Versions (except (5]—the Latin of St. Jerome in its Vulgate form (3), the Syriac (5), and the Jewish Targum (U) are all based on the Palestinian Hebrew Standard Teact of the 2nd cemt. A.D., as are also the new Greek transla- tions of 'AX(), and the revisions of (5 after these, and in the main the translation found [for Judges) in Q313VBm N [i.e. B and its allies]. The pre-hexaplaric (5 alone represents a IIebrew teast older than the official revision made in the school of ſk. Aqiba.’ In other words, (ºr represents for us (1) the exegetical tradition, or at least the exegetical opinions of a Jewish school, or — if that name asserts too much — of individual scholars more than 2000 years before our time; it is the oldest commentary on the Hebrew Bible in existence ; (2) when re-translated into Hebrew — with the necessary precautions, of course—it represents for us the Hebrew MS (or MSS) lying before its authors, which is 1000 years older than the oldest MS at present at our disposal, and 300 years older than the one to which all of our Hebrew MSS go back. In the first instance, it is sufficient to recall the great number of hºtpaa legomena which occur in the limited range of Old Hebrew literature. In the second place, we learn first that the palaeo- graphical character of the pre-Massoretic MSS was very different from ours: few matres lectionis, no vowels, no littcrat finales, no separation of words, so that even in liturgical books there was uncertainty about those points (cf. Ps. 105 (106) 7 dvagalvoures=Dºy for Dºg); perhaps abbreviation * Cf. for the following, Sw. ch. v. “Tho Septuagint as a Version,’ pp. 314-341. VOL. IV.-29 strokes for n, D., n ; see Lagarde, Mittheilungen, i. 21 ; Fel. Perles, Analekten (1895, pp. 4–35). The second fact that comes to light from a com- parison of (ºr and ſti is, that there is a great difference between particular books or sets of books in the OT. This arises partly from the circumstance that all the books are not due to the same translators, but still more from the different character of the text lying before them. That Isaiah, for instance, found an interpreter not worthy of this book, was remarked long ago by Zwingli; the translator of Job, says Swete, p. 316, was perhaps more familiar with Greek pagan literature than with Semitic poetry; where the grandson of Jesus Sirach made his mistakes, we can judge better now than before. But more im- portant is the fact that already the Hebrew texts used by the translators differed in varying degrees from the Massoretic text. The differences between (ºr and ſet can be tabu- lated as touching the sequence or the subject- matter. The differences of the subject-matter are, of course, of greater interest ; they are of a three- fold character—additions, omissions, variations. On the differences of sequence see Sw. pp. 231– 242. There are unimportant differences in Gn 31. 36. 47, Ex 20 (order of commandments); Nu 1. 6. 26, Jos 9. 19 (vol. ii. p. 782); great differences in Ex 35–40, 3 Regn. 4. 5. 6. 7. 10. 11, Pr 15. 20. 24, Jer 25–41. On Ex. see vol. i. p. 810 f.; on Kings, ii. 862 ft. ; on Prov., Sw. p. 241 ; on Jer., vol. iii. p. 573 f.).” Very awkward is the different number- ing of the Psalms. On the difference in the subject-matter see Sw. 242 ft. If we were to have a complete edition of Origen’s Hexapla with its critical signs, it would be convenient to see at a glance the onlissions and additions. The Law offers the smallest number of dif- ferences; but besides some famous additions, as Gn 4° 6téA6apevels to trešlov, the second Katváv (who has been erased in Cod. A 109°) 10% 24 1112, 19 (1 Ch 1” A)—his addition, in connexion with other variations, made the whole chronology of the world different, see vol. i. p. 397 ff.; Oikonomos, iii. 703–835—there are smaller additions of interest, as 8 sons of Japheth for 7 in Gn 10; 11 nations for 10 in Gn 1519. 30 (the addition of the Ejaſot, either overlooked by Origen or wanting in his copy); 5 sons of Dedan for 3 in 25°; 13 heinous offences for 12 in Dt 27 (on v." see Grinfield, Apology, pp. xii, 191). sº, On Joshua, which does not seem to have been translated together with the Pentateuch, see vol. ii. p. 781 ff., and Bennett (SBOT). On the word Tyaſaos—or yawrös ; this is the accentuation of B" —Oikonomos, ii. 495 ft., 551, has 40 pages. l'or Judges, e.g. 16**, it is sufficient to refer to G. Moore. The chapters l Regn. (Samuel) 17. 18 furnish a good example of how much difference of opinion still prevails. What Kuenen and Wellhausen call a harmonistic omission on the part of (ºr, is con- sidered by others as a later interpolation in ſtil. That J preserved in 3 Regn. (1 K) 8** a quo- tation from the Book of Jashar (see vol. ii. p. 551), and, with it, what Kittel (IIotndkom.) styles the oldest more explicit confession of Jahweh in Israel, should alone be sufficient to prove its importance. For the 13ook of l’salms even cursive MSS of (ſº enrich our knowledge about the liturgical use of the Psalms (see Sw. 250); in the alphabetic psalm 145 the missing letter J is restored, perhaps only * B. Pick in The (Americ.) Independent (1897, p. 1273) writes on Cornill's edition of Jeremiah (in SBOT'): ' If I have counted right, no less than 1821 words have thus been eliminated from the text ; and it is surprising that none of these relegated pas- sages concern any of the quotations from Jer. in the NT.’ 450 SEPTUAGINT SEPTUAGINT by conjecture. . The addition to Ps 13° quoted in Ro 3* is omitted by A and 95 cursives out of 105. Already Jerome declared the codices of (ºr which contain it, to be interpolated from Ro 3. If this be so, the agreement of NB, on which for the NT Westcott-Hort laid so much stress, is of Ilo great value at least for the Psalms; * on the other hand, it is to the credit of these MSS if they have preserved a text similar to that in the hands of St. Paul.—On Ps 151 see Oikonomos, iii. 634 f.; on the ecclesiastical Canticles and the Prayer of Manasses among them, Nestle, Sst. iii. 6 ft.; and note that this piece has not been utilized for the Greek Concordances of Trommius and Hatch- Redpath (cf. Gvešixviaoros, divvirógratos, dcTekros). On Proverbs Lagarde's early book of 1863 is still useful. Whether the shorter form of Job, in which, according to Jerome's reckoning, “septingenti ferme aut octingenti versus desunt,” preserved a primitive form, or is, on the contrary, the effect, of abbreviation, see vol. ii. p. 164; and correct there the statement from Origen, that sometimes 16 or 19 verses were missing, into 14 or 15 (Ea:- pository Times, x. 523; Sw. 255). On Esther see vol. ii. p. 774; the Greek of the book reminds one of 2 Mac. (cf. Tpura)\tripios); on Jeremiah see ii. 572; and cf. i. 252 as to the identity of language in Jer. and Baruch, which book in all MSS of (5 is immediately connected with Jer. and Lamentations. On the heading of the latter see vol. iii. p. 22. On Daniel see i. 557. Dn 11” is the only passage where the name of the 'Poplatou occurs in a translation from the Hebrew (for tº as in Üſ onk Nu 24*). The affinity of the Greek of this book with that of 1 Esdras has been justly pointed out in i. 761. In Jeremiah, Esther, and Daniel (ºr offers con- siderable passages not to be found in ſtl ; but in addition to these Qir has preserved whole books, Some of them of the º historical or theo- logical interest, which are not to be found in the Hebrew Canon, partly because they were origin- ally written in Greek, partly for unknown reasons. The number of these books varies greatly in the still existing documents; of others only the titles have survived ; a certain number remained known through the medium of the mediaeval Bible as ‘Apocrypha, 'even in the Protestant Churches. On these see art. APOCRYPHA, vol. i. p. 111 ff., and the special articles, as BARUCH, i. 251; + BEL AND THE DRAGON, 276; ESDRAS, FIRST AND SECONI), 757, 763; : JEREMY, EPISTLE OF, vol. ii. p. 578; JUDITH, 822; MACCABEES, BOOKS OF (i.-v.), vol. iii. p. 187; MANASSES, PRAYER OF, 232; further, SIRACH, THREE CHILDREN (SONG OF THE), SUSANNA, WISDOM OF SOLOMON. That the collection of these books, though it is * Swete's statement, that Origen marked the passage with an okelus, lacks reliable testimony; the words of Jerome are curious : “in hebraico non haberi mec esse in 8eptuaginta inter- Arrettbw8, 8ed in editione vulgata, quae grace zolyn dicitur et in toto orbe diversa est.’ The words in italics are onlitted in Field's quotation from ed. Vall. iv. 668. # The E.; fact that on the margin of the Syro-Hexaplaric text of Baruch there are 3 notes stating that certain words in 117.2% are not found in the Hebrew, which has been quoted for a Hebrew origin of this part of the book (i. 252; Św. 275, n. 3, from Bevan in Encyc. Bibl. i. 494), is in contradiction to the remark at the head of the book, that the whole was obelized by Origen, and finds a very simple solution. For these notes do not refer to the text of Baruch, but of the Hebrew OT quoted by Baruch 29 from Dt 2898. Origen called attention to the fact that the generalizing “every man’ &v0sorov in Bar 23 has no tº's 19°N to correspond in Dt 2809. Thus these notes are a token of the great care which Origen bestowed on his Hexapla. # Qn the statement of Sw., p. , 265, and Thackeray (DB, Vºl. i. p. 758), that Cod. A entitles both books ſpºt, cf. 'Nestle, Marginalien (1893), p. 28 f., where it is shown that this is merely due to the knife of the English bookbinder, who cut, º in both cases the first line of the title Expozº (or Erºpa.) % 9 || - transmitted to us almost exclusively through the Church, began to form itself in pre-Christian times, is clear from the contents (see vol. i. 117, iii. 35). A trace that (it differed from jºl in its order and extent may be found in Josephus; for he uses not only the Greek Esdras and the Additions to Esther, but follows also the order of (Jº (not ſtil) when he counts 5 books of Moses, 13 Prophetical and 4 Poetical books, placing, apº. Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther (from the Hagioglºphº) after Kings (see Strack, “I Canon des X'ſ. in PIRE3 ix. 752). On some lists of other Apocryphal books see Sw. p. 281 ; the Catalogue of the Sixty Books begins after the canonical and so-called “apocryphal’ books (the two Wisdoms, etc.): Kal &ra étrökpupa''Aöáp, 'Evéx, Aduex, IIarplápxat, IIpoo’evXī, ‘Iwo hºp, 'EX646, Ataffijkm Movgéws,'AváAmyas M. etc. It is an interesting uestion, whether a trace of this apocryphal tradi- tion is not to be found already in Sirach (49**). l'or, after he has gone through the whole literature of the ÖT down to Zorobabel and Nehemias, he suddenly returns to Enoch, Joseph, Shem, Seth, and Adam. In an appendix to the Cambridge Septuagint at least two of these books have found a place—the Psalms of Solomon (the apparatus being much en- larged in the 2nd ed. (iii. 765 ft.)) and the Greek fragments of the Book of Enoch (for the first time added in the 2nd ed. (iii. 789 ft.)). On the Psalms of Solomon cf. the German translation of Kittel in I(autzsch, Die Pseudepigraphem, 127–148; on Enoch, the new Berlin edition, Das Buch. Henoch, heraus- gegeben von Dr. Joh. Flemming und Dr. L. Rader- macher, 1901. Much to be welcomed would be a collection of the OT apocrypha as sketched by Sw. p.285, including amongst other remains the Itest of the Words of Baruch, the Apocalypse of Baruch, the Testament of Abraham, parts of the Oracula. Sibyllina, the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs, the Latin Ascension of Isaiah (with the new Greek lºragments published by Grenfell - Hunt in The Amherst Papyri, part i. 1900; see on it F. C. Burkitt, The Classical Review, xiv. 457-459); per- haps also the Latin versions of 4 Esdras, Assump- tion of Moses, Book of Jubilees. All these additions and omissions cover but the smaller part of the differences between jià and (ºr ; far more numerous are the variations in the proper sense of the word, the passages where (ºr offers a reading different from ſti. On this point cf. Sw. part ii, ch. v. ‘The Septuagint as a Version,” and jart iii. ch. iv. ‘The Greek Versions as aids to iblical Study.’ A thorough, accurate, and cautious comparison between ſtl and (ſix will exhibit these variations. The comparison must be cautious, else there is the risk of stating variations where there are none, and it must be accurate and thorough, else real variations might be overlooked. In the first place, care must be taken to eliminate as much as possible from Gr all intra-Greek corrup- tions, i.e. clerical errors, that sprang up in the course of transmission of the Greek text, and it is a mistake of many Commentaries to rest content to take the text of the small Cambridge Septuagint as the standard, as former scholars used to acquiesco in that of the Sixtina. Take as example the latest German Commentary on Genesis, that of Gunkel (Göttingen, 1901), and the very first note touching the textual criticism of this book. It concerns the use of the Divine names in ch. 2, and runs : “mi" Rººs is found in Genesis in Hebrew only in chs. 2.3 (LXX, differing from the Hebrew, has in 2%. 7...". 19.” ô 0eós).” Now, this is true of the Codex Alexan- drinus : if Gunkel had used the editio Sixtina, he would have had to add vv.” ”; and if we are still more circumspect, as commentators ought to be, and resort to Philo, Field’s Hearapla, the collations of SEPTUAGINT SEPTUAGINT 451 Holmes, the versions as witnesses for (ºr, we must add further v."; i.e. not 5 times, but 8 times, (ſº omits mºi' in this chapter, and has it only twice (vv.”. 1").” The second care must be to observe the practice of these translators; cf. Sw, p. 325: “The Alexandrian translators, while loyal to their original, sometimes even to a fault, manifest nothing like the slavish adherence to the letter with which Aquila has been charged. They often amplify and occasionally omit ; they render the same Hebrew words by more than one Greek equivalent, even in the same context ; they intro- duce metaphors or grammatical constructions which have no . in the Hebrew text, and probably at no time }. a place there, or they abandon figures of speech where they exist in the original.” There is no mention here of the fact especially urged by I'rankel, that the translators j. Some sort of exegetical tradition (L. Prankel, Vorstudien zw der Septuaginta, 1841; Ueber den Einſluss der paltistinischen. Eacegese auf die alewandrinische IIermeneutik, 1851). We must further bear in mind that the translators were accustomed to the Aramaic speech rather than to the Hebrew. To the examples quoted by Sw. p. 319, add, for in- stance, Ps 59 (60)* Prin=&\irls, 140 (141)* DJ'nïyl- eūčoklaus atróv. Already Jerome remarked on this word in Ee 114 myn = irpoalpeaus : ‘non hebraicum sermonem expresserunt, sed syrum.” On meanings attached to Hebrew roots known to us only from Arabic see Sw., p. 498, Ps 83 (84) 7 500 et, Dn 742 (LXX) éöö0m = Wiby. A glance into modern commentaries or the ‘Critical Notes” after the Hebrew text in SIBOT will show the importance of Úſt in this direction, No conscientious commentator on the Hebrew OT can dispense with constant reference to Øſt. We quote some examples from the first chapter of some books in SBOT'— In Gn 1 Ball replaces cºpp by mº-avazºv: but he, too, has overlooked the interesting variant in v.10 (like all commen- taries [to our knowledge, Dillmann, Spurrell, Holzinger, Gunkel), except T. G. Meintel, Critische Polyglottem-Conferenzen tiber das erste Buch Mose, 1790; a work of praiseworthy in- dustry), (I) giving the sing, nº, CŞ the pl. &ex&s, i.e. n #º, the latter being conſirmed by Ps 135 (136) 8, where (II) has the lural, C5 #ovo, ov the singular. The same difference occurs 22 (5 ‘his works’); and that this is not unintentional, is shown by the Targum Jonathan, which understands the passage of those 10 §§ rous works which God is said by rabbinical wit to have created. In Lv 1 Driver receives readings of (5 into the text in vv.2.7.8, 16; in Nu 1 Paterson in v. 14 ºnly n for ºnly", (II). For Jos I it is sufficient to quote Bennett's remark on v.2 : “In this and other cases glosses, etc., not found in G are probably glosses later than the MS from which (5 was translated, and therefore better treated as variations of the text.” - A remark on, Judges by Moore has already been quoted; in 110 he reads "p?pyri for Dyn ; one witness of C3 and the Coptic offering the dowblet wºrö 'roſſ Aczot, 'ApºczX%x. The original read- ing, the simple Amalec, has been found since, for the first time, in the Latin Lugdunensis, published by U. Robert, On Samuel, after what has been done by Thenius, Wellhausen, Driver, I(lostermann, Budde, H. P. Smith, any word is super- fluous; but the question may be asked, whether one would have found, e.g., in 1 S 124 the true reading tº ſ $n nº for Dºn nº by mere conjecture without the help of the versions (iv £260%, rotºrſovt.). And if we had hit on it in this way, we should not have had the same confidence in its truth as we have now, when it is attested by the oldest witness attainable. As far as we have seen, in every part of the SBOT that has appeared as yet, one or more readings from QB have been received tnto the teact in the first chapter by such different scholars as Cormill, Toy, Wellhausen, Siegfried, Kamphausen, Guthe, Kittel. But how much remains to be done may be illustrated by two examples from 1 Oh 1. On V." IXittel remarks: “U + EXuaro, ; it has crept in 'My error from v.7 afuer l)' (cf. (BI),’ overlooking the * Even in v. 16 it is omitted by a few witnesses (Cod, 37, Ambrosius), but Augustine testifles to it, saying expressly : ‘Nullo modo vacare arbitror . . . º: ab ipso (livini libri huius exordio . . . usque ad hunc locum, musquam positum est l)ominus Deus, sed tantummodo Deus: nunc vero ubi ad id ventum est . . . ita Scriptura locuta est : Et Sumpsit Duminus Deus,' fact that CB has “Elisa” among the sons of Japheth already in Gn 10%. Again, in v.32 Kittel omits to mention the additional names Raguel and Nabdeel, offered by many witnesses, just as in Genesis. If carefully compared with ſil), (5 twrms out to be the most valuable aid for the ea planation of the Lebrew Bible. But ſº is not less indispensable to the study o the NT": see on this point Sw. pp. 450–457; Pearson's judgment (at the head of this article); Thayer's art. LANGUAGE OF THE NT, vol. iii. p. 40. To quote only one example: âyatriſtós inſ povoyev'ſs both correspond in Ør to Heb. Tº ; the one occurs in the Synoptic Gospels, the other in John. Nor can the student of Ecclesiastical Literature succeed without familiarity with Qir (see Sw. pt. iii. ch. v. “Influence of the LXX on Christian Litera- ture,’ p. 461 ff.). The doctrinal as well as the devotional writings are full of its influence. Take a book like Brightman's Liturgies, Eastern and Westerm, where the quotations are printed in black type, or an edition like that of the Apostolic Constitutions by Lagarde, which gives at iſ. foot of the text the references to the biblical pas- Sages; the index of the latter shows more quota- tions from the OT than from the NT. Even many works of Christian art cannot be understood without recourse to (Jr. Cf. I). Kauf- mann, “Brrors in the Septuagint and the Vulgate from which Illustrations and Sculptures derived their origin' (JQI: xi. 163–166). If we speak of the firmament, we do so because (ºr used a repéopa, considering the heavens as frozen water. One side of the importance of (ºr, which Pearson was not yet able to appreciate, lies in the value it has for Semitic philology, apart from the exegesis of the OT. The system of Hebrew vocalization is an invention of about the 7th cent. A.D. ; how the words were pronounced in the time of Christ, or Isaiah, or king Mesha,-(ºr calls him Maga, see vol. iii. p. 349,-or David, or Moses, we do not know. Our oldest witness is again the transliteration of proper names alid other words in Qft. Whether nouns of the form #2 melek were still heard as monosyllables (malk), can be ascertained by the help of Cir. To have pointed out this importance of (ºr is one of the merits of Lagarde (Uebersicht, etc.); the Supplement to the Concordance of Hatch- Iłedpath (Fasc. i., containing a Concordance to the Proper Names occurring in the Septuagint, 1900) helps much to facilitate studies in this direc- tion. These transliterations have, vice vers(?, their bearing on the question of Greek pronunciation; see some remarks in this direction by Kittel (SBOT, “Chronicles,’ p. 52 f.) and Macke, Erasmus oder Reuchlin (Siegburg, Progr. 1900). On the place which (ºr occupies in the history ſ the Greek Language, philologists now judge much more favourably than twenty years ago; cf. ch. iv. in Sw. 280–314, “the Greek of the Septuagint,’ and add to the literature quoted there, p. 314, a reference to Iv. Rorsunskie, Perevod LXX (Moskoa, 1878, 704 pp.), in Russian : The version of the Septuagint and its importance in the history o Greek Language and Literature ; further, Thayer's art. LANGUAGE OF THE NT, vol. iii. p. 36 fl. ; and Paul Kretschmer, “Die Entstehung der Koine’ (Sitzungsb. d. JViener Ak., phil. hist. Rºl., vol. 143, and separately, 1900); Albert Thumb, Die griech- ische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Beurtheilung der Kouvº), Strass- burg, 1901 (cf. Ed. Schwyzer in Newe Jahrb. 1901, } 233 ff.); Oikonomos, ii. 914 ft. ; Grinfield, 146; I. A. A. Kennedy, “lvecent l'esearch in the Lan- guage of the NT’ (Expos. Times, xii. 341, 455, 557); J. H. Moulton (ib. p. 362 in the notice of G. A. Deissmann, Bible Studies ; Authorized Tr. by Alexander Grieve ; I'dinburgh, Clark, 1901 *). * Interesting are the philological remarks of Origen (new ed.) ii. 367, ris Y&p rors' Exxâvoy X.2%go, to rà i v wt $ov ºrpoozyopiº. . . 452 SEPTUAGINT SEPTUAGINT If the use and importance of Qir are such even in the unsatisfactory condition in which it lies at present before us, how much more will these be acknowledged when we have a better edition of it. In such an edition, also, the accessory matter will demand due attention, the capitula- tion, lections, etc. (see Sw, pp. 342–366, *Text- divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, Catema”). (a) In careful MSS of the classics (as in those of Demosthenes, Herodotus) the lines have been counted by hundreds or by fifties, and their total stated at the end, because the copyists were paid according to their number, the normal line or a rizos being the Homeric hexameter of 16 syllables or 37 to 38 letters on an average.” This has been introduced into Bible MSS. One of the copyists of B, for instance, preserved on the margins the numbers from the MS which he copied ; so did Paul of Tella from the copy which, he translated (616) into Syriac. Afterwards the numbers were gathered into sticho- metrical lists; the most important of those lists are that in the Codex Claromontanus, the one first published by Mommsen, and that of Nicephorus; see Sanday, Studia Biblica, iii. 266; Sw. 346; Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, 1893, pp. 310–327, 363; C. H. Turner in JThSt, ii. (Jan. 1901) 236. For books like Sirach and Job (with asterisks, 2200; without, 1600 stichi) these lists are especially valuable. (b) Jerome introduced into his Latin Bible the custom of writing the text according to sense-lines, zóxcº or zów.octor, “quod in Demosthene et Tullio solet fieri'; the same was done for the Greek Dodeka propheton by Hesychius of Jerusalem, who at the same time divided the text into chapters. (c) Such a capitulation is found already in some of our oldest MSS, as ABS ; for several books B gives even a double capitula- tion, dividing, for instance, Proverbs into 61 and 16, Eccles. into 25 and 7, Canticles into 40 and 5 chapters. Likewise the Syriac Hea:apla (apparently from the copy from which it was taken) has in Joshua 52 and 11, Judges 65 and 7, 3 Regn. 105 and 18 chapters. In the same version and several Greek MSS summaries, rirâou or x8%xotice, are added, and lists of them refixed to the books (Sw. p. 354). The “Synopsis' ascribed to Jhrysostom is, to a large extent, nothing but a collection of Such zspºxo~12. The 88 chapters into which Hesychius divide Isaiah have been published lately by M. Faulhaber (Hesychii Hierosolymitani Interpretatio Isaiae prophetae, Friburgi, 1900). These capitulations may become important hints for the classification of MSS. In Canticles the summaries assume the character of stage directions ; see Er. Klostermann, “Eine alte Rollenverteilung zum Hohenliede’ (ZATW xix. (1899) 158—162, from Cod. V). (d) The beginning and the end of the Lessons, which were read in Church already in the times of Origen and still earlier, were marked with &px?, and réAo;, the occasion sometimes being added on which the lesson was read (Sw. p. 350). An early specimen was the copy from which Paul of Tella made his VerS1 OI!. On the division of the Psalter into 20 220ſorºo: to see Sw. p. 359, or any printed Greek Church-Psalter. Interesting is the different numbering of the Commandments of the Decalogue in AB (see Sw, p. 365), and the division of the Book of the Covenant (Ex 20–23) into 77 sections in the Codex Zittaviensis (II. A. Redpath in Eagos. Times, viii. 383). All these particulars must be attended to in a future edition, somewhat in the same way as in the edition of Jerome's Latin NT published by Wordsworth-White; but the chief difficulty is about the constitution of the text. For some books, as Judges, Esther, Tobit, it will be indis- pensable to give parallel texts. In the closing chapter of his Introduction, Swete has sketched some of the lines on which a future edition must be prepared. But before this great work can be finished, and for the benefit of all who cannot afford to procure it, it seems desirable to put together, either on the outer margins of the minor edition or in an Appendia, those emendations of the errors of B which are certain or all but certain. Still better would be a Commentary on (Jr, which is as urgently needed as a Grammar and a Leacicon. I &vrì rot is ra. 3ro, biča, ; iii. 159, i22&ow oi kº 'E32&top.oſ. ipºm- vsørºyriz, Aº. supóvtt, Tºy xià, zººray rap' "EXXzrºy &vºritaz- 2.Évo.1 &s $or’ &2.Aoy ºrožňºv 22) Toºray zoº ºrgaroizzival Tºv i r poºr o- :#"; v. But this very word is found in Cicero, ad Attic, * By a happy fortune the lines in the Greek NT of the Würtemberg Bible Society at Stuttgart agree as closely as possible with the length of the ancient arrizou ; see Nestle, Introduction, p. 49. # Take some examples at haphazard. In 3 Regn. 1810 all texts (MSS, etc.) give zoº twºrpaq’sy rºy Bozorixáſzv (‘and he burnt the kingdom'). (ID has yºm (“he took an oath of the king- dom'). This is correct ; the translator mistook it for yºri) APPENDIY : THE LATER GR, VERSIONS.—The question whether (it was used also in Palestine in the synagogues, has been answered affirmatively and negatively. At all events after (ºr had passed into the hands of the Church, and an official Heb. text, different from the old one, had received the approbation of the Rabbis, attempts were made among the Jews at new translations. From Justin we learn that the Jews declared (ºr to be wrong in some details (uh etvai év twortv &\móñ), and that they tried new translations (atrol émyeloitat retpárrat). Irenaeus mentions two who dared such a thing in his time (dis &vuot pagu Töv plebeppamweiſew to)\p&vt ov Tàs ypaq,4s)—Theodotion of Ephesus and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. Origen was so zealous as to procure both these translations and, in addition, that of Symmachus and parts of three more. With those materials he composed his Hexapla (see above). And all that we knew till quite recently of these translations — apart from a few Talmudic translations from Aquila— we owed to Origen. It was only in 1897 that the first fragments of a separate copy of Aquila were found among the palimpsests of the Taylor- Schechter collection ; but even those may go back to the library of Origen. For brevity’s sake we must refer to Sw. pp. 29–58. (1) The version of Aquila, according to one tradi- tion Trev6eptôms or rev6epós of the emperor Hadrian, superintendent of the building of Ælia Capitolina, won for Christianity, but finally Pºp. of R. Akiba, is the most literal imaginable. By the emperor Justinian it was ordered that no other was to be used in the Jewish synagogues. It is therefore possible that the copy of which fragments were found among the Hebrew-Greek palimpsests from Cairo, and which is ascribed to the 6th cent., may have been a synagogue copy. But as it has been used for Jewish purposes apparently by the same time and hand which turned the fragments of Origen's Hexapla to the same use, both Greek MSS may have come from the same quarter; and of the Hexapla it is the more probable that it came from Christian hands, because fragments of Greek MSS of the NT were found along with them. See, besides the publication of Burkitt, Taylor's new book mentioned above. On plates. iii-viii it contains portions of Ps. 90–92. 96–98. 102. 103. Another small but interesting fragment of Aquila (mentioned by Sw. p. 170, postscript) has been published by Grenfell-Hunt in The Amherst Papyri, part i. (Lond. 1900, pp. 30, 31). On the top of a letter from Rome, written probably be- tween 250 and 285 A.D., an uncial hand of the late 3rd or, more probably, early 4th cent. has written part of the first verse of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and a more cursive hand, apparently about the time of Constantine, the first 5 verses of Genesis in Øſt, followed by the version of Aquila. These two biblical fragments may therefore claim “to be amongst the earliest known, and the Genesis frag- ment is the oldest authority for the first 5 verses.’ In the Aquila fragment the beginning of V." and the end of v." are here recorded for the first time. The Hebrew text which was translated by Aquila agrees very closely with ſºl; but it is interesting to observe that, of his few variations, some at least have the support of still existing Hebrew MSS. The tetragrammaton mT is written in the old Hebrew letters. The version seems to have covered the whole of the Hebrew canon. (‘and he satisfied, iwirazzi). Again, we have in 1011 #w rviſºr, 2uptov for oºz y ºry, zºolos, the latter (2%los) being read in A. A commentary would have further the task of calling attention to the interpunction ; cf. Ps 44 (45)7, where it is a question whether there must be a comma before and after 6 (léog, or in v.8 after #: ge, or in Is 61, after Éxplaiv ºf and &riazzºziv ºt. In 18 710 &re,0s, is in the Concordance of Hatch-Itcdpath referred tº & réiſ)4%, while it is a verb, etc. SEPTUAGINT SEPTUAGINT 453 (ſº ; Strange is the statement of Origen on Lamenta- tions (new edition, iii. 256): "Eköoorus 6é 'AkWXa kal 6eoãottovos év toſs 0pſivots of péperat, p.6vov 6é Xupp.4xov kal Tów ‘E6öopańkovra, especially when we compare the same author's remark on 4” (p. 276): Ó Sé 'Akº as épm Tueſ wa wukräpov huſºv, 2%auaxos 3& Tvoj p. h. (see Field, ii, 743 ff.). (2) Theodotion's work—on his date see Sw. p. 42 f., and Th. Zahn, PRE" ix. 403 (on Irenaeus)— was rather a revision of (ºr than an independent version, the revision being made on the whole upon the basis of ſºil. For a specimen of it see Jer 40** and the Bk. of Daniel, where it replaced the original see S. R. Driver, The Book of Daniel, in the Cambridge Bible for Schools, 1900, pp. xviii, xcviii-c. The statement that his version seems to have in- cluded Baruch (Dict. Chr. Biog. iv. 44; Sw. p. 44, etc.) is to be corrected after the explanation given above, p. 450, note ". Cf. on Theodotion (whose name has the same meaning as that of the Tar- gumist Jonathan), Ralılfs in GGN, 1898, p. 109. (3) The works of Symmachus, including a Com- mentary on St. Matthew,” Origen got from a Christian woman, Juliana," who had received them from the author himself. If Aquila is the most important of the three because of his literal- ness, Symm. is in many respects the most interest- ing for his attempt to produce good Greek and for many of his interpretations; cf. Gn 147 &Krugev 6 0eós rêv ćiv0pwtrov čv elkövt 6taqbópºp” &p0uov [6 0eós] ëkrugev atrów with 1 S 281* (Nestle, Marginalien, (4) Besides these versions of the whole of the OT, Origen had at his disposal for single books two or three other versions, which from their place in the Hexapla got the designations Quinta (e' tréatri)), Seacta (s' éktm), Septimat (; Bpm). As to whence and when he obtained them, tradition varies (see Sw. p. 53 fl.): one at Nicopolis near Actium, the other at Jericho ; one under Caracalla, the other under Alexander Severus. One at least is reported to have been found év Tlöots ; from this and from the expression of Eusebius, ovK otö' 50ev ěk Tuvav pluxāv rôv trg)\at Xav0avowa as Xpávov ćis pàos &vtzveta as, it has been concluded that they were, perhaps, hidden during a time of persecution, and that the one found at Nicopolis may have been a relic of the early Christianity of Epirus (see Sw. p. 55, quoting from Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 432). But triboº--see SW. p. 53, n. 2—are mentioned elsewhere, as used for preserving books instead of cista, or capsas. Jerome attributes both to Jewish translators; but they seem rather to be due to Christians. The author of the Quinta is charac- terized by Field as omnium elegantissimts. Which of the books of the OT were preserved in them is not quite clear; in the Quintº at all events 4 Regn., Job, Psalms, Canticles, Minor Prophets; in the Secta also Job, Psalms, Canticles, Hab 3. A kind of version sometimes seems to be quoted as & Xºpos (see SYRIAC VERSIONS) and 6 'Eppatos ; but under the latter designation are to be under- stood Greek quotations from the Hebrew, due to such authors as were acquainted with that lan- gllage. The so-called Graecus Venetus, a version of part of the OT, preserved in a single MS of the 14th or 15th cent. at Venice, is interesting as the Work * On the hope that this work was still in existence in the 10th cent, see Urt, p. 83. On the sect of the Symmachiani see Philastrius, de haires, c. 145 : “haretici alii qui Theodotionis et Symmachi ibidem interpretationem diverso modo sequumtur,” and the remark of the same writer, c. 115: ‘est hioresis, quie iterum post Aquilam triginla hominum º accipit, non illorum tºº. septuaginta duorum qui integre inviolated ue de Trinitiate sentientes ecclesite catholicæ funda- menta certissima tradiderunt interpretantes scripturas sacras." # The tombstone of a certain Juliana from Antioch, who died at Gerasa, has been found there by Merrill ; see I: B, 1895, 380; Schürer, GJ V8 ii. 143 m., 332. —-A of a mediaeval Jew, perhaps a certain Elisseus at the court of Murad I. at Adrianople in the 2nd half of the 14th cent. : it attempts to give the Hebrew in Attic Greek and the Aramaic parts of Daniel in the Doric dialect, and renders mn" by ôvtwriffs, oùowriffs, Övrovpyös. See the edition of O. v. Gebhardt (Leipzig, 1875, with a Preface by Franz Delitzsch ; Sw. p. 56). The Greek, column of the Hebrew - Chaldee- Spanish-Greek Polyglot of the Pentateuch, printed at Constantinople in Hebrew characters (1547), has been transliterated and printed separately (1897) by D. C. Hesseling, and described by Lazăre Belléli (Paris, 1897, La version néogrecque du Pentateuche Polyglotte). It is of interest for the student of ſº Greek, and so are the translations of the whole Bible or of parts of it into modern Greek; but they do not fall within the scope of the present article. Of the OT as a whole the Catalogue of the British Museum mentions but one edition in modern Greek (London, 1840, by H. D. Leeves, assisted by N. Bambas). middle of the 17th cent. LITERATURE. —At the end of the article on the Greek Bible Versions (PIRE 3 iii. 2) = Urt. 80) the present writer has given a list of about 280–300 books and articles treating of these versions from 1601 up to 1897 in chronological order. Swete gives in his Introduction, at the end of most chapters, liberary references, amounting to about 600 in number. The first list (p. 27) em- braces a mere fraction of the vast literature selected for the purpose of representing the progress of knowledge since the It begins with the Critica Sacra of S. Cappellw8, 1051 ; Pearson's Proefatio and Ussher's Syntaſjºna, 1655; the Prolegomena of Brian Walton, 1657. It is impossible to repeat these lists here. A few remarks must suſlice. The most copious work on Q3 that appeared in the 19th cent. is that of Constantine Oiltonomos rapi rāy of $pwavevröy, 4 vols., Athens, 1844, 1845, 1846, 1849, more than 3700 pages. Though it starts from wrong premises (canonical and inspired character of C5), it contains much useful information ; in vol. iii. 130 pages are devoted to the difference of chronology between (II) and (5, in the last vol. 170 pages to the quotations of the NT, 325 para- graphs to a list of the writers who used or praised (5. The author may be compared to Grinfield, whose Apoloſſy for the Septuagint (Lond. 1850) is equally wrong in its principles, but still useful. Of Jewish books L. Frankel's Worslºwdien zw der Septuaginta (Leipzig, 1841) and Ueber dem 1, inſluss der paldistinischen. Eacegese auf die alea'amdrinische IIermeneutik (1851), are not superseded. A standard work for all times remains, H. Hody, de biblion-wºm, teactibus originalibus, Oxf. 1705. On the views of the ancient Church, especially Jerome and Augustine, it is useful to compare P. Wendland, “Zur filtesten Geschichte der Bibel in der Rirche” (ZN TW [1900] 267 ff.). On Augustine see also Joh. Haussleiter, Der Aufbaw der altchrist- lichen Litteratur, Line kritische Unterswellung melist Studien zu Cyprian, Victorinus wºnd Augustin (IBerlin, 1808 = GGA, 1898, v. 337–379). Of all the scholars of the 10th cent. none has done more in this field than Paul de Lagarde (1827–1891). Of his publications which bear directly or indirectly on Q3, note: Libri apocryphi syriace 1861, Constitutiones Apostolicce 1862, Ammerkungen zur griechischem. Uebersetzung der 7°roverbiem 1803, Clementina, 1865 (Preface), Pentatewch kopwisch 1867, Materialien zum Pentatewch 1867 (here the notice on the original copy of (II)), Gemesis grace and IIieronymi quoustiones in Gen. 1S68, Omomastica sacra, 1870, 21SS7, Psalteriwmv. Hieronymi, 1874, Psalterium, memnºphilicum, 1875, Symmicta, i. and ii., Semitica ii. 1879, Orientalia ii., Peteris testamnemti ab Origene recensiti fragment q. 1880, Amiciindigung einer neuen Ausgabe der griechischen Ubersetzung 1882, Librorum veteris testament canonicorum pars prior grace 1883 (cf. GGA, 1883, 1249–52), Aºgyptiaca 1883, Millheilungen i.-iy, 1884, 1887, 1889, 1891, Probe eimer mewen, Ausgabe der lat. Uebersetzungeºn des A T 1885, Catemac cegypt. 1886, Specimen move edit, psalterit graci 1887, SeptuagintaStudien i.-iii., 1891, Bibliotheca, Syriaca, quae ad philologian sacram pertiment, 1892, Psalterii gract quinquaffena prima 1892. Among the MSS he left there is a complete collection of the biblical quotations of Augustine (13,176 from OT and 29,540 from NT, now in the University ilibrary of Göttingen), MS Iagarde 34, and others; see Urt. p. 77. No other scholar can be mentioned beside him. g Among articles in lºncyclopedias add : Iloberg, ‘Septuaginta" in Wetzer-Welte's Encyklopaedie” xi. (1809) 147-159. To Sw. p. 56 (Lit. on IIexapla) add the first attempt to collect their fragments made by J. Driesschus (= Drusius) tº psalmos IDavid is veterum, interpretttan. fragmeuſa, Antw. 1581 ; the enlarged edition of the collection of Nobilius in the Latin translation of the editio Siactina (Rome, 1588, reprinted by P. Morinus, 1624, see above, p. 440°); 13ahrdt's abridgment of Montfaucon's II estapla (Lips. 1769, 2 vols.). & To Sw. p. 108 (Coptic version) add : J. Goettsberger, ‘Die syro-lºoptischen Bibelcitate aus den Scholien des 1}arhebräus' (ZATW Xxi. (1901] 128-140). * * * * ...To Sw, p. 110 (Ethiopic) add : Osw. Iºramer, Die at thiopische iibersetzung des Zacharias cine Worstudie zur Geschichte und I\ritik des Septuaginlateates, erstes lieſt, Leipzig, 1898. 454 SEPULCHRE SEPULCHRE To Sw, p. 119 (Armenian) add: J. Goettsberger, “Die syro- Armenischen . . . Bibelcitate . . . des Barhebräus' (ZATW xxi. [1901] 101–127). To Sw, p. 280 (Canon) add: H. L. Strack, art. ‘Kanon des Alten Testamentes' (PRE3 ix. 741-767). To Sw, p. 268 (Canonical Books), on Ecclesiastes, add: Dill- mann, ... On Canticles: Wilh. Riedel, Die Awslegung des Hohenlićdes, ###. 1898, pp., 105-109, Die Hass, der griech. Ubersetzun, des BIL. On Daniel : Riessler, Das Buch Daniel : Teatkritische Untersuchung., Stuttgart, 1899, pp. 52–59, where the close relation between the LXX of Dan, and 1 Esdras is recognized, ..To Sw, p. 285 º Books) add : W. J. Moulton, ‘āber die. Uberlieferung und den textkritischen Wert des dritten Ezra-Buches [ZATW, 1899, ii., 209ff, ; , 1900, i. 1 ff.). Judith: Willrich, ‘lºsther und Judith,' in Judaica, Göttingen, 1900, 1-39. On Tobit : M. Löhr, ‘Alexandrinus und Sinaiticus zum Buche Tobit' (ZATIVXx. [1900] 248-263). On Maccabees: B. Niese, Kritik der beiden Makkabáerbücher, Berlin, 1900 (reprint of two articles in Hermes, xxxv, 268–307, 458–527); * Wilfrich, ſºon Kyrene und das ii Makkabāerbuch,” in Judaica, pp. - Lºſ U, Sw, p. 880 on Philo, Note in addition to the W. mentioned (87.4 n. 3) from the Philologus the answer of Wendland-Cohn, §. 521-536, and the rejoinder in vol. lx, pp. 274–279. On osephus the earlier, treatises of Spittler {#5 and J. G. Scharfenberg (1780) still deserve mention. Öikonomos has a ©hapter of 90, pages, 67.2% ºrozoic roi; &pzzio's idvisois woqois &rºpzº yyao r^ 3 ipºvsto rày 6, ii. 76ff. . Sw.,p. 404 (Quotations in the NT). The extent of these quota- tions has been estimated by Spearman in the anonymous Letter on the Septuagint (1759) as equal in length to Ps. 119 ; by Grinfleld (1850) as twice that length or the extent of Mark. The first collection seems to be in the Greek Testament of R. Stephen (1550), about 250 pº the first treatment of these quotations in England by Bishop Wettenhall, Scriptwre 4 whentic and Faith Certain (1668); further, Randolph, The Prophecies and other Texts cited in the NT, 1782, 1827; 'Grin- fºld, p. 142. On Hühn see Eagos. Times, May 1901, 355. Of Dittmar, Vetw8 Testamentum in Novo, a second part is in course of preparation. Sw, p. 477 (Influence of G5 on Christian Literature). See Oikonomos, vol. iv. E.B. NESTLE. SEPULCHRE (Tºp ‘grave,” nºnp ‘burying-place’ [Mishn. #3, tº “burial lairs or niches’]; Gr. avāua, Pºvmpelow tomb,' ‘monument,’ rāqos “sepulchre”) is represented in Scripture, and particularly in OT, not only by these Hebrew and Greek equivalents, but also by words and phrases which are synonym. ous. It is the pit (ºn * 38%), the stones of the pit (m: "His Is 14*), a man’s house (n: Is 1418), his everlasting house. (Bºy, nº Ec. 12%), the house of assemblage for all living (nºſ 95% Tºp nº Job 3023), and field of burial (nºn; nº. 2 Ch 26%). Of the terms used for the grave by the later Judaism none is more significant than the house of the living (bºrn nº), and this is the euphemism by which the burying-place of the dead is now generally designated by modern Jews. “We are the dead, they are the living,’t was the remark actually made to the present writer by an aged Rabbi in Smyrna, whose office it was to attend at the burial of his Jewish kinsmen, and see them laid tº their last rest. The ancient Egyptians thought of the departed as the living, and called the coffin the chest of the living. The Egyptian conception of the grave as the everlast- taly house was not, however, inconsistent with a strongly cherished hope of resurrection. But there was no expectation amºng the Jews of a return to earthly life in the original body, such as prevailed among the Egyptians and led among them to the embalming and preservation of the dead. The later literature of Judaism speaks rather of a general resurrection, when the souls of the departed shall enter into new bodies and live on in them. The terms employed to describe the grave are * Niese begins with the remark, that the origin of the common text, in Holmes - Parsons, Tischendorf, etc., was apparently agº.idental and, arbitrary (‘offenbar ziemiich zufiliig und willkürlich ent standen ł Išautzsch, Apokryphen, p. 32, gives ‘ all 3 32d. V. und aus nicht näher bezeichneten Minuskelcodices’ ; Fritzsche, Libri apºcryphi,. p. xix, ‘nescio, unde desumptus,’ Now take the edition of 1588, where Nobilius remarks on 1.Mac 4” “Addendum est ex codice quem potissinum in his libris &equutt sunnus et multis aliis of rip; 'Iotözy”; on 84 ‘delendum est, ea auctoritate codicum, quog sequwti summus ct vulgatio illud ºvos, quod in multis antecedit et in nostram editionem per typographi incuriam irrepsit.” These and similar pºsages, cºnfirm the present writer's suggestion (see Sw, p. 181, n. 2), that, besides the Aldine edition, Cod. Ho 14) has been used for the Sixtine edition. To these there must perhaps bo added 64 (93). f it is natural to connect such an expression with the argu- ment which Jesus summined up in the memorable words, “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living' (Mk 1227.) Cf. also the striking words 4 Mac 162 “Those who die on behalf of God live unto God, as do Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” …sº used often to describe the Underworld where the dead live on, The gathering-place of the departed in the world beyond is, as above, the pit (Is 3818), the nether parts of the earth (Is 44*), Sheol and Abaddon (Job 26%, Pr. 15”), the pit of destruction (Ps 55*), the place ſ silence (Ps 94.17 11517), the land of darkness and of the shadow of death (Job 10”). “Hence,’ says Dr. Salmond,” ‘the distinction is occasionally sunk in the OT, and it became Confused in the later usage of the Targums. But that Sheol denotes a definite realm of the dead, and is not identical with the grave, appears from the usage of the term, and is recognized by the ancient Versions. It is to Sheol that Jacob speaks of going to join the son whose death he mourns, but of whose burial he knows nothing. It is Sheol that swallows up Korah and his §§ alive. That a common habitation of the dead like the Suálu of the Babylonians, the Hades of the Greeks, the Orcus of the Romans, is meant, is indicated also by the fact that the expressions to be gathered to one's people or to one's fathers, to go to one's fathers, to sleep with one's fathers, are used in cases like those of Abraham, Jacob, Aaron, Moses, David, and others, where the temporary or permanent resting-places were far removed from the ancestral graves.” A touching illustration of the father looking forward to a meeting in another world with a departed child is David's Ismail go to him, but he shall not return to me’ (2 S 12*). But while Sheol is thus ‘the house of assemblage for all living,’ it was in the sepulchre of his fathers, in the ancestral burying-place and with his departed kindred, that the ancient Israelite desired to be buried. And there can be no doubt that the wish to be reunited with parents and children in Sheol had to do with the desire to be buried in the family sepulchre. ‘The object of burial, not merely in a grave but in the family grave, was to introduce the departed into the Society of his kinsfolk and ancestors. In tho earliest times this society was supposed to exist either in the iºni, grave or in its immediate neighbourhood. “Bury me not, I pray thee, in §. said the dying Jacob to Joseph, “but I will lie with my fathers, and thou shalt carry me out of Egypt and bury me in their burying-place’ (Gn 49*.*, cf. Joseph’s burial, Jos 24*). And nothing could be more pathetic in this reference than the request of Barzillai, who declined king David’s invitation to live with him at court, and said, ‘Let thy servant, I pray thee, turn back again, that I may die in mine own city, by the grave of my father and my mother’ (2 S 1997 RV). It was a duty of piety to see the bones of the dead placed in the family sepulchre, as David did for the bones of Saul and his sons (2 S 21*); and it was the proper punishment of disobedience to the command of Jehovah that a man’s carcass should not come into the sepulchre of his fathers (1 K 13%). To be deprived of burial was the last indignity and the greatest of calamities; the spirits of the unburied dead were believed to wander restlessly abroad, or to lie in recesses of the pit, if they were admitted into Sheol at all (Ezk 32*, Is 14*). I'or this reason the possibility of death at Sea was regarded with horror. So, too, no vengeance upon enemies could be more cruel than to throw their bodies to the dogs, or to allow them to rot upon the battleſield, or to be left as a prey to the fowls of heaven and the beasts of the field (Ezk 39°, 2 K 9°). Of Jason, who ‘slaughtered his own citizens without mercy,” it is said (2 Mac 5"), “he that had cast out a multitude unburied had none to mourn for him, nor had he any funeral at all, or place in the sepulchre of his fathers.’ Dut the humane prescription of the law of Moses was that the criminal hanged upon the gallows should be buried, and buried at all hazards, on the day of execution (Dt 21*); and in the case of the enemies of Israel captured and hung we find the law precisely carried out (Jos 8* 10*). The treat. * Christian J}octrine of Immortality, p. 100 [1001 ed. p. 161]. tºº. Charles, Dschatology: Llebrew, Jewish, and Christian, D. & SEPULCHRE SEPULCHRE 455 ment of the body of Jesus (Jn 1991), and the burial of John the Baptist (Mt 141*), and of Stephen (Ac 8%), by their friends are later illustrations. Even suicides received the ordinary rites of burial, as is seen in the case of Ahithophel (2 S 17*). It was the duty of any one who found a corpse in the open field to give it burial (To 11828, cf. 1 S 2110); and it is creditable to Jewish feeling that the bodies of the Gentile dead were allowed to rest in the Jewish burying-place side by side with Jewish remains.” Into the family grave only members of the family were admitted. In the Nabataean sepul- chral inscriptions + a curse is pronounced upon the man who defiles or sells a grave, or who buries in it any who are not members of the family. And the famous inscription on the tomb of Eshmun- azar, king of Sidon, pronounces doom upon any who may disturb his repose, or open or carry off his coffin for the sake of treasure, may they have no rest among the departed, may they be buried in no grave, and may they have no prosperity in their city ºf The family grave was holy ground and a permanent possession. The family might lose their estate, but never the ancestral tomb; for in selling land no Jew could dispose of the burying-place, to the use of which his descendants were entitled to all time. Š When the Jewish people came to be dispersed among the rations it was an object of solicitude and ambition to be buried in the sacred soil of Canaan. “Whoever,’ says the Talmud, “is buried in Palestine is as if he were buried under the altar.” And again : “Whoever is interred in Babylonia is as well off as if he lay in Palestine, and whoever is buried in Palestine lies the same as under the altar.’ || About the 3rd cent. it became “a pious custom to be buried in Judaea's holy carth, to which was attributed an expiatory power. The resurrection was con- fidently expected to take place in that country, which it was also believed would be the scene of the coming of the Messiah. Those who had died in unhallowed countries would roll about in the light loose earth until they reached the Holy Land, where they could be revivified. In place of living inhabitants who were continually decreasing, Judaea, was becoming every day more thickly populated with corpses. The Holy Land, which had formerly been an immense temple, inspiring great deeds and noble thoughts, was now a holy grave which could render nothing holy but death.'" Burial was the universal mode of disposing of the dead at all periods of Jewish history [see BURIAL]. Burning, which was the Babylonian and Roman usage, was among the Jews a death punishment inflicted for aggravated transgressions rather than a mode of disposing of the dead (Gn 382, Lv 2014 219, Jos 7”, l K 13%, 2 K 23%). Even when criminals had suffered the last penalty of the law by stoning or burning, or where, as in the case of Saul and his sons, slain in battle, necessity required that their bodies should be burned (1 S 31*, *), their remains or ashes were provided with a resting-place in the bosom of the earth.** There was great variety in the choice of a burying-place among the Jews, at least in the earliest times. Abraham buried Sarah in the cave of the field of Machpelah (Gn 23"); Deborah, Rebekah's nurse, was buried under an oak (Gn 35°); Jacob buried Rachel (see, above, p. 193") by the wayside (Gn 3519); they buried Joshua ‘in the border of his inheritance in Timnath-serah, which is in Mt. Ephraim ' (Jos 24”); and the men of Jabesh- . buried the bones of Saul and his sons under a terebinth (1 Ch 10”). Burial in the open street or at cross roads was expressly forbidden by the enactments of later times. There does not appear to be evidence in the Scripture his- * Hamburger, I&E, vol. i. 476. # Studia Biblica, i. 212 ſſ. f Levy, “Phönizische Studien," p. 2. § Tristram, Eastern Customs in Bible Lands, p. 100 | Hamburger, l.c. p. 475. * Graetz, History of the Jews, vol. ii. 548 (American edition). ** Cf. Hamburger, ‘Feuerbestattung Kler Toten,’ Supplement. Band, Abt. ii. 40. tory to warrant the statement that the family grave was originally in the house.” This belongs, So far as it appears to have been the case, to a later time, and is represented as an exceptional honour reserved for kings, prophets, and other outstanding personages (1 S 25", 1 K 2*, 2 K 2118, 2 Ch 3329). in Babylonia and Assyria, at all events, ‘only members of the royal family were permitted to be buried within the precincts of the town. Their bodies might be burned and entombed in one of the many palaces of the country. We are told of one king, for instance, that he was burned or buried in the palace of Sargon; of another, that he was burned in his own palace. The practice throws light on what we read in the Books of Kings; there, too, we are told that Manasseh “was buried in the garden of his own house” (2K21*), and Amon in the “garden of Uzza,” (2 K 21*). Private burial in the palaces they had inhabited when alive was a privilege reserved for the kings alone.’t The sepulchres set apart for the kings of Judah (nº ninhp) are specially mentioned (2 Ch 21” 24” 28”). Not all the kings were privileged to re- ceive interment in the royal mausoleum. Neither Joash nor Jehoram was buried in the sepulchres of the kings (2 Ch 21” 24”), whilst Jehoiada was accorded the honour “because he had done good in Israel and towards God and his house’ (2 Ch 24"). The remains of Uzziah were not admitted to the sepulchres of the kings, but were interred in ‘the field of burial which belonged to the kings, be- cause they said he was a leper’ (2 Ch 26”). It is not possible to locate ‘the sepulchres of the kings’ in Jerusalem. It seems to be implied in a state- ment of the º Ezekiel (437-9) that certain kings of Judah were buried close to the temple, if not actually within its precincts; and though there is no record of such a thing in the historical books, the statement is justified by the fact that the royal palaces, within which some of them were interred, and the first temple, stood virtually within the same enclosure. There were also common burying-places called ‘the graves of the children of the people’ (2 K23", Jer 26*), into which the dead were sometimes cast in dishonour and contempt. To prepare for himself a tomb in his lifetime has been the custom of every right-thinking Jew from early times down to the present day. Shebna, whose Jewish origin, however, is doubtful (Is 22*), Asa (2 Ch 16*), Joseph of Arimathasa (Mt. 27"), are instances in point. The custom was not con- fined to the Jews, for we find it followed by the Pharaohs, who built pyramids to receive their remains, by Eshmunazar, by the Caliphs, and others. Of the sepulchres and sepulchral monuments of the ancient Hebrews and the later Jews it is pos- sible now to give an adequate description and a fairly complete history. e owe this to the labours —often skilled labours—of residents and travellers in Palestine, and especially to the organized and jersevering efforts of the Palestine Fspioration }. and the kindred German Palästina-Verein. The sepulchral remains of Western Palestine, in tºº. have been in many cases carefully examined and measured and described, with plans and sketches, in the Reports and Memoirs of these societies. We can now classify the sepulchral remains according to the type which they repre- sent, and even, with some measure of certainty, assign them to the period to which they belong, to the l’hoenician or Hebrew, Jewish, Herodian, Roman, Byzantine, Saracenic, or Crusading periods. There are three principal types of ancient tombs * So R. H. Charles, Iºschatology, p. 32. * + sayce, Social Life among the Assyrians and Babylonians, p. 67. 156 SEPULCHRE SEPULCHRE found in Western Palestine : * (i.) Rock - hewn Tombs; (ii.) Masonry Tombs; (iii.) Sarcophagi. i. ROCK-HEWN TOMBS.—These are by far the most numerous, and they are found in many varieties. They are also the earliest in date. The soft limestone ranges of Western Palestine and Syria were honeycombed with natural caves, admit- ting of easy enlargement and adaptation. They haſ been available for the shelter of the living before being used for the reception of the deat (1 S 221 24*). The usual form of Hebrew tomb in the earliest period took advantage of these caverns in the soft strata of limestone. In this the Hebrews copied the Phoenicians, whose prin- ciple of architecture, Renan tells us," was the carved rock, not the column, as with the Greeks; but in point of architectural taste and skill they were far behind their masters. In striking con- trast to the Egyptian sepulchral monuments, massive pyramids and vast underground chambers, —the #. tomb, whether single or more com- plex, was marked by extreme simplicity. In fact, simplicity of construction and absence of archi- tectural ornament are the surest notes of the antiquity of a Hebrew sepulchre. No less remark- able is the contrast between the inscriptions and wall-paintings on Egyptian tombs—as at Beni- Hassan and elsewhere—and the plain and un- adorned simplicity of Hebrew tombs, which until a late period are entirely devoid of inscriptions. In some cases tombs are found singly on the hill- sides, as though individuals chose to have their last resting-place in their own vineyard, like Joseph of Arimathasa, who had his own new tomb in his garden. More often they form a regular burying- ground or cemetery. Tombs of notable person- ages, like the so-called Tomb of Joshua, have gener- ally other tombs around them, the desire being strong among all Orientals to be laid near to some holy man or national hero. (1) The simplest form of rock-hewn tomb is that in which a grave has been sunk in the surface of the rock to receive the body, and fitted with a slab, let in round the mouth, to cover it, the cover being sometimes flush with the flat surface of the rock, and sometimes raised and ornamented like the lid of a sarcophagus. (2) Another º: form of tomb is an excava- tion driven into the face of a rock — called jº, plural Dº-just large enough to receive a corpse, the mouth being closed by a rough stone slab. (3) The most common description of tomb is that in which a number of kokim are grouped together in one or more chambers of the same excavation. These, again, are in three varieties: (a) A sepulchre consisting of a matural cavern in one of the softer strata of limestone, having ſcokim cut in its sides with their beds on a level with the floor, the mouths of these being closed by rough stone slabs, either made to fit close, or only resting against the perforated face of rock. (b) A sepulchre where a square or oblong chamber has been cut in the rock, and kokim ranged along three of its sides, their mouths closed by neatly dressed stone slabs ſitting closely, the entrance to the chamber itself being by a low Square opening, fitted with a slab in the same manner, or with a stone door turning on a socket linge, and secured by bolts on the inside. In this kind of tomb there is usually a bench running in front of the kokim, and raised from 1 ft. 6 in. to 3 ft. above the floor of the excavated chamber. (c) A sepulchre in which one entrance leads into a number of chambers, each containing kokim. Such tombs generally have a * We follow Sir Charles Wilson's classification : see The Swa-vey of Western Palestine, Volume of Special l’apers, p. 280 f.; and PEI'St, 1869, p. 66 if., where there are useful plans. # Mission de Phérvicie, p. 822. sort of porch or vestibule hewn in the rock, the front of the roof being often supported by pillars of natural rock surmounted by a frieze, and bear- ing other kinds of ornamentation. From this porch a low door leads into an antechamber, with or without tombs, from which access is obtained to the tomb chambers, all of which have raised benches running in front of the kokim openings. Some of the chambers have, instead of kokim, arched •ecesses (arcosolia) cut out in their sides, in which the body was laid, or perhaps a sarcophagus placed. The so-called Tomb of Joshua at Tibneh, on the Toman road from Antipatris to Jerusalem, is of this class. It is prominent among the nine tombs that make the rock cemetery of the place, and has a portico supported on rude pieces of rock with very simple capitals. There are niches for over two hundred lamps, arranged in vertical rows, giving the appearance of an ornamental pattern, and all smoke-blacked. ‘Entering the low door,” says Conder, “we find the interior chamber to be a square with five locatli, not very perfectly cut, on their sides. The whole is quite unornamented, except by four very rough brackets supporting the flat roof. On becoming accustomed to the dark- ness, one perceives that the central loculus at the back forms a little passage about 7 ft. long, 2 ft. 6 in. high, and 3 ft. 4 in. broad, through which one creeps into a second but smaller clamber, 9.ft. 3 in. by 8 ft. 1 in., and 5 ft. 5 in. high. In this, opposite the entrance, a single loculus runs at right angles to the wall, and a single niche is cut on the left for a lamp.’” Conder (PEFSt, 1878, p. 31) classifies the rock-cut tombs as follows:–1. Hokim tombs. 2. Loculw8 tombs. 3. Sunk tombs. The first two classes he believes to be of Hebrew and Jewish origin, but the third more likely to be Christian of the Byzan- tine period. The word kok and its plural kokim designate the pigeon-holes or tunnels running in from the side of a sepulchral chamber, each having room for a corpse and nothing more. The designation loculus (locus in Sepulchro) is applied to the shelf, or trough, or bench receptacle for the º which is of later use than the kokim. In many tombs which have been examined there is a mixture of both kokim, and loculi, indi- cating a transition period about the Christian era or earlier. “The kokim, tonibs,’ Conder explains, “are those which have parallel tunnels running in, three or four side by side, from the walls of a rectangular chamber. The bodies lay with their feet towards the chamber, and stone pillars for raising the heads are often found at the farther end. The kokim vary in '#umber from one or two up to fifteens or twenty, and are of various lengths, from 3 or 4 to 7 ft. There is no system of orientation, and the enbrance door is in the face of the cliff, the chamber within, being directed according to the lie of the rock. This kind of tomb is certainly the most ancient in the country, for the kokim are sometimes destroyed in enlarging the tomb on a different system.' These tombs were used by the Jews. This is proved by a rare Hebrew inscription, by a representation of the seven-branched golden candlestick, and by the fact that some of them are sacred to modern Jews as the tombs of their ancestors, and that their measurements agree with the pre- scriptions in the Talmud. The kokim are not sufficiently large, as a rule, to admit of the supposition that the bodies were embalmed or swathed in bandages like those which make the Egyptian mummy so bulky when preserved untouched. There is nothing in the sepulchral remains of Palestine any more than in the Bible itself }. lead us to believe that the embalming of the dead was a Hebrew custom (Conder, Syrian Stone Lore, p. 133). For another classification of tombs see Benzinger, 116b. Arch. p. 225, which follows Tobler's in SłVP, Volume of Specia! Papers, p. 288 f. We have seen that the simple tombs belong to the earlier period, and that the portico at the entrance, with its ornaments, is usually a mote of more recent origin. It is to the Herodian Age that the ancient tombs on the east side of the Kidron Valley, Absalom's Pillar (possibly the tomb of Alexander Jannaeus), the Tombs of St. James and Zechariah, and the monolith known as the Egyptian Tomb, are to be assigned. The so-called Tomb of St. James, now known as the Tomb of the Bene Hazir, with its Aramaic text, Doric pillars, and triglyphs, and inner chamber containing ſcokim, is perhaps the earliest of the group, and belongs to the 1st cent. D.C. The others are prob * PEI'St, 1873, p. 145. SEPULCHRE SEPULCHRE 457 ably later. The fine monument to the north of Jerusalem, commonly called the Tombs of the Rings, but known to the natives as Kubür es- Salatin (Tombs of the Sultans), has been identi- fied, by Robinson as the tomb of Helena, queen of Adiabene. It contains that mixture of kokim and loculi which would seem to date it on the border of the Christian era. In one of the lower chambers of the tonb was found a sarcophagus with an Aramaic inscription containing the words Sara Meleka. It is not impossible that this was the native name of Helena herself, and that the remains found in the sarcophagus were her own. ii. MASONRY TOMBS.—These are rarely found in Palestine, and they are later than the rock-hewn sepulchres. They are confined to the northern portion of the country. The most famous are described by Sir Charles Wilson (SWP 283). He mentions — (1) a building at Kedes (Kedesh- naphtali), 34 ft. 4 in. Square, with a doorway on its southern side leading to a chamber containing ſcokim, which have been used for interments down to a late period ; (2) two tombs at Tell Hum (one of the possible sites for Capernaum), the one of which has 26 kokim, and, being subter- ranean, is closed with a door of basalt, the other of which has loculi, and is built of coursed basaltic rubble; (3) a fine tomb at Malal, near Nazareth, with 4 kokim and attached semi-pillars of the Ionic order outside; (4) a square tomb at TeiàSir with three loculi, a domed roof, and pilasters on each side ; (5) the remains of a building at Ain el B'ainell, which had stone over rock-cut tombs. To these Conder has added four more, three of them at or near Jerusalem. iii. SARCOPHAGI.-Between the 6th and the 4th cent. B.C. the Phoenicians buried in sarcophagi called anthropoid, having a human head and even an entire recumbent form on the lid, the body of the sarcophagus being shaped like a mummy case. Such is the famous tomb of Eshmunazar with the celebrated Phoenician inscription. In the great discovery of sepulchral remains made at Beyrout some years ago, sarcophagi, mummy shaped, some in white and some in black marble, were found. Among the sarcophagi discovered in the excava- tions was a splendid sarcophagus in black stone resembling that of Eshmunazar, and bearing an inscription purporting that it is the tomb of Tab- mith, priest of Ashtoreth and king of the Sidonians, son of Eshmunazar. Some of those sarcophagi were made of pottery, recalling the slipper-shaped glazed earthen coffins found by Loftus * on the ancient Babylonian mounds at Warka. Although the Hebrews copied from the Phoenicians in their rock-hewn tombs, they did not follow them largely in the use of sarcophagi. We have already men- tioned the sarcophagus of queen Sara found in the Tomb of the Kings. Of others found in Palestine, those discovered at Kedes are the most ornamented. The material out of which they are hewn is hard white limestone, almost like marble, and the workmanship is excellent. Some of them had been made for two bodies laid in º: directions, and at the bottom of the locult were small raised pillars to receive the heads. With the exception of those great anthropoid surcophagi, there is nothing to show a very marked distinction between the Hebrew and Phoenician tombs from the earliest to the latest age. The history of the sepulchres found in Phoenigia agrees perfectly with the chronological series which has been established independently in Palestine." In the Greek age monuments erected oyer tombs became common, the tombs beneath being rock-cut. In such cases there is a combination of * W. K. Loftus, Chaldaea and Susiana, p. 202. ł (Jonder, Syrian Stove Lore, p. 97. the masonry, and sarcophagus type of tombs. Hiram's Tomb,” about three miles from modern Tyre, containing a tomb or sarcophagus formed out of a huge lock and emplaced on a pedestal made of three courses of grey limestone, most probably belongs to this period ; and tomb towers containing sarcophagi are to be found throughout Syria. At Palmyra those structures consist some. times of four or five storeys. Tombstones and Sculptured sepulchres have been found at Rabbath- ammon, in , Eastern Palestine, belonging to the age of the Antonines, but are to be classed among pagan funerary monuments. Sometimes solid monuments were erected near tombs like the A ammºtat el-Hirmil, east of the Jordan—a solid tower in two storeys, with pyramidal roof and bas- reliefs representing the hunting of the stag, the bear, and the wild boar, which date, it is supposed, from the 3rd or 4th cent. Of sepulchral monu- ments we have a notable example in the mauso- leum erected at Modin by Simon the Maccabee for his father and his brother. ‘Simon,’ says the writer (1 Mac 13”), “built a monument upon the sepulchres of his father and his brethren, and raised it aloft to the sight, with polished stone behind and before. And he set up seven pyramids, one over against another, for his father and his mother and his four brethren. And for these he made cunning devices, setting about them great pillars, and upon the pillar; he fashioned all manner of arms for a perpetual memory, and beside the arms ships carved, that they should be seen of all that ...] on the sea.” Of this famous structure all trace has been lost since the 4th cent., and its site has not yet been identiſied. (See MODIN). In this connexion we recall the stinging words of Jesus describing the Pharisees as whited sepulchres, outwardly beautiful, but inwardly full of the bones of the dead—as building the tombs of the prophets and garnishing the sepulchres of the righteous, but being of a totally different spirit from those they seemed to honour (Mt 23”. **). Whited sepulchres were evidently sepulchral erections whitewashed or plastered over to render them conspicuous, and to preserve passers-by from the ceremonial defilement they might contract by approaching them. That some such distinguish- ing mark was necessary we gather from a similar saying in St. Luke's Gospel, in which Jesus describes the scribes and Pharisees as ‘graves which appear not (Lk 11*). The reference in this passage must be to the humbler class of graves simply dug in the earth, and with no monument of any kind to mark the spot. At the present day the white- washed slabs covering Mohammedan graves around Jerusalem glitter in the sunshine and easily attract notice. (See for cairns or stones heaped on graves art. BURIAL). There are two sepulchres in particular which must always have a special interest to the Bible student, and which are both alike enveloped in a certain degree of mystery—the cave of Mach- pelaſ, the burial-place of Sarah, Abraham, Isaac and Rebekah, Jacob and Leah ; and the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, where the body of Jesus was laid and remained for ‘three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” As regards the grave of the patriarchs, now covered by the mosque at Hebron, see art. MACHPELAH [cf. also §. Sermons in the lºst (pp. 141–169) and PEFS: for 1882 (pp. 193–214)]. Touching the Holy Sepulchre for which Saracens and Crusaders contended, and regarding whose site heated con- troversies still rage, it seems in possible to attain to certainty. The tradition of more than fifteen centuries located it within the Church of the Holy * See it figured in Syrian Stone Lore, p. 93. [58 SERAH SERAPHIM Sepulchre. This tradition has been called in question since the days of Robinson. Its truth would require the site to have been without the wall of the city, for it is said that “Jesus bear- ing the cross went forth unto the place called the place of a skull” (Jn 1917. 18), and that ‘He suffered without the gate” (He 131°). But the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is not only near the very heart of the city as it is now occupied, but it must always have been within the line of the second wall. The latter contention is opposed, however, among recent authorities by Conrad Schick, who, after having resisted the traditional site for nearly forty years, has been led to accept it as the true site. He professes * to have ascertained by excavations and measurements that Calvary and the tomb in the garden where Jesus was laid were without the line of the wall though very close to it, just as we read in Jn 1999. The site favoured by recent authorities is a knoll of rock of rounded form and covered with shallow soil and grass, just outside the north wall of the city, and a little distance from the Damascus Gate. Under it is the cave called ‘Jeremiah's Grotto,” and there are two holes in the face of the steep and rocky bank terminating the knoll, which look like the sockets of eyes in a skull. Dr. Selah Merrill, long United States Consul in Jerusalem, the late General Gordon, the late Sir J. W. Dawson, and Colonel Conder, f have given their support to this site (see art. JERUSALEM, vol. ii. p. 596", and cf. Survey of Western Palestine, vol. on Jerusalem, pp. 429–438). Thomson,t after examining all the evidence on both sides, attained to no certainty as to the site: “Far better,’ he says, “rest contented with the undoubted fact that somewhere without the walls of this limited plat- form of the Holy City the Son of Man was lifted up, “that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have eternal life.”” LITERATURE.—Keil, Bib. Arch. ii. 199 f.; Benzinger, Heb. Arch. pp. 163 ff., 224–227; Stade, G VI i. pp. 14, 15ff.; Schwally, Da8 Leben mach dem. Tode, pp. 54–66; Conder, Syrian Stone Dore ; R. H. Charles, Eschatology : Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian ; Thomson, Lamd and Book; Bliss, Ea:cavations at Jerus.; SkyP, vols. i. and iv.; PEI'St, passinn; ZDPV, passim. THOMAS NICOL. SERAH (nny).—A daughter of Asher, Gn 467 (A X4ap, D Xàppa), Nu 26"(*) (B Kápa, B*AF Xàpa, AV Sarah), 1 Ch 7” (B 2ópe, A 2&pat). SERAIAH (nºy, nºw, LXX Xapatas or Xapatá).— 1. Scribe or secretary in the reign of David, 2 S 8" (B 'Aod, A Xapalas). In 2 S 2029 he is called Sheya (Keré Riv), Keth. Rºº), B "Imoroſis, A. 'Ioroijs. In 1 K 4° the name appears as Shisha. Nºw (B Xagá, A 2eto'd). This form or Shasha would be restored else- where by Thenius, Wellhausen, and Stade ; while Klostermann prefers the form Shavsha. Nºw (13 'I'moroús, N Xotºs, A Xovač), which is found in 1 Ch 18". 2. High priest in the reign of Zedekiah. He was put to death with other distinguished captives by order of Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah, 2 K 2518. 21, Jer 52**". He is mentioned in the list of high pº 1 Ch 6*. Ezra, claimed descent from him, £zr 7” (1 Es 8% Azaraias, 2 Es 11 Saraias). His name also occurs in 1 Es 5° Saraias. 3. One of ‘the cap- tains of the forces’ who joined Gedaliah at Mizpah after his appointment, as governor by Nebuchad- nezzar, 2 K 25*, Jer 40°. The text of Kings is evi- dently abridged from that of Jeremiah. The epithet ‘the Netophathite’ applied to his father in Kings really belongs to a dº. person. 4. Second son of Kenaz, and brother of Othniel, 1 Ch 44%. 14. He was father of Joab, who was the ‘father' of the * PEI'St, 1893, p. 110 fſ. f II and book to the Bible, p. 355. f The Land and the Book (Southern Palestine and Jeru- salem). Valley of Craftsmen, cf. Neh 11”. 5. Grandfather of Jehu, a prince of Simeon, 1 Ch 49%. 6. One of the twelve ſ: who returned with Zerubbabel, Ezr 2°. In the corresponding list, Neh 77, he is called Azariah (1 Es 5° Zaraias). , 7. A priestly clan, probably named after the high priest of No. 2. This course of priests was first in order in the times of Zerubbabel (Neh 12°, l Es 58), Joiakim (Neh 12”), and Nehemiah (Neh 10°). This family is noted as one of those that settled in Jerusalem (Neh 11*). . In the corresponding list, 1 Ch 9”, Azariah is substituted. “Very probably they were father and son, and the two lists have Selected different names to represent the priestly house, cf. 1 Ch 7” (Ryle). 8. One of the three princes whom Jehoiakim sent to apprehend Jere- miah and Baruch (Jer 36”). 9. Son of Neriah and brother of Baruch, Jer 51*. He held the office of Tºp Ty (AV “a quiet prince,’ m. “ or prince of Me- nucha, or chief chamberlain'; RV “chief chamber- lain,” m. º: The Vulg. tr. princeps prophetiae; the Targ. (Rºn an) and LXX (dpxov ôtºpov), followed by Grätz and Cheyne, read ‘in command over (the) gifts,’ i.e. ninjº-my. In this official capacity he attended Zedekiah when that prince went to Babylon to pay homage to Nebuchadnezzar. Like his brother Baruch, he was a friend of Jere- miah ; and the prophet having written in a book the denunciations against Babylon that are now contained in Jer 50–51°, entrusted the volume to Seraiah, and bade him on his arrival at Babylon to read the prophecies, publicly, as it would seem, and then with à. symbolic action of a prophet to cast the book into the Euphrates and proclaim, ‘Thus shall Babylon sink, and shall not rise again because of the evil that I will bring upon her.’ This scene suggested to St. John the imagery of Rev 1821. N. J. D. WHITE. SERAPHIM (D'º'; Xepaqelu and Xepaqelv; sera- phim).-The seraphim are an order of celestial beings referred to only in Is 64-7. In his vision of J" the prophet sees them as attendants of the heavenly court, ministers of the ideal sanctuary. They are apparently human in form—they have faces, hands, and feet (vv.”"); each of them has three pairs of wings (v.”); they stand or hover above J" as He sits upon His throne (v.”); , and they proclaim. His holiness in antiphonal chant (v.9). Opinion varies as to the origin of the word and the conception. Gesenius was doubtful, but thought it best to connect the term with the Arab. A sº z —º ‘to be noble,” thus viewing the Seraphim as the princes or nobles of the heavenly court. A considerable number of Jewish writers, such as Abulwalid and Kimchi, derived the word from Thy, regarding the seraphim as bright or Shining angels. But Thy means ‘to burn,’ not ‘to shing,’ and ac- cordingly others have supposed the word to denote the ardent love or burning zeal of the Divine attendants. The verbal root, however, is not in- transitive, but active ; it means not to glow with heat, but to consume with fire. Hence the Seraphim would have rather to be regarded as agents of burification by fire. This is in accordance with s 6", where one of the spirits is represented as carrying celestial fire from off the altar to purify the lips of the prophet and purge away his sin (but See Dillm.-Kittel, ad loc.). It is now usual to bring the prophet's conception into relation with popular Hebrew mythology, The saràph of Nu 21", Dt 8" is a “fiery,’ i.e. venomous, serpent, which bites the Israelites in the desert (see SERPENT). In Is 14” 30" allusion is made to a “flying ſiery serpent’ (Sârâph), which has its home in the desert between Palestine and SERAR SERPENT 459 Egypt. The latter is certainly a creation of popu- lar imagination. As the analogous cherub was primarily a personification of the thundercloud, so the Seraph was of the serpent-like lightning. Now just as a psalmist represents J” as making the flaming fire His ministers (Ps 104*), so the prophet seize; the popular notion of the Seraph and trans- fers iſ, to the realm of pure spiritual ideas. Not a trace of the serpentine form is left in his conception. His seraphim are the guardians of J”s holiness, who keep the profane and unclean at a distance, and purge from defilement that which is to be taken into J"'s service. By means of this splendid symbolism the prophet vividly expresses the truth that “J” is a consuming fire’ (Dt 4”, He 12”). Another view has been started by Dillm.-Kittel and Marti owing to the discovery in an Egyptian tomb of the 12th dynasty at Beni-Hassan, of two winged griffin figures placed as guardians at the entrance. The griffin is represented in Demotic by the word sergſ, and Marti suggests that the seraphim in Isaiah’s vision are to be thought of as guarding the threshold of the temple.” The ‘living creatures’ of Rev 4”, which are partly like Ezekiel’s cherubim, resemble Isaiah’s seraphim in possessing six wings and in proclaiming the Trisagion. But Cheyne has remarked that ‘the popular notion of the seraphim as angels is, of course, to be rejected. They are, indeed, more like Titans than placid Gabriels or Raphaels’ (Prophecies of Isaiah, i. 32). The similarity of the word seraph to the Egyp- tian Serapis led Hitzig and others to identify the two. This idea has found little acceptance (cf., against it, Dillm.-Kittel, Jes. ad loc.), and still less has Knobel’s suggestion that Seraphim is a false reading for Dºnny, an imaginary Heb. word meaning ‘ministers.’ LITERATURE.-See art. CHERUBIM, and cf. the Comm. on Isaiah, esp. Cheyne, Dillm.-IXiº-el, and Marti. J. STRACHAN. SERAR (Xepdp, AV Aserer), 1 Es 5*=Sisera, Ezr 2%, Neh 75%. SERED (Tb).—A son of Zebulun, Gn 4614 (AXépé8, D"Eapeč), Nu 26*(*) (BA Xàpeå). SERGIUS PAULUS.—See PAULUS (SERGIUs). SERJEANTS is used in Ac 16** as an approxi- mate English rendering of pagö00xot (= ‘rod- bearers’), which represents in Greek the Latin lictores, officials whose duty it was to attend the Iłoman magistrates, to execute their orders, and especially to administer the punishments of scourg- ing or beheading. I'or this purpose they carried, as their mark of office, the fasces, a bundle of rods with an axe inserted. At Philippi they were attached to the otpatmyot, i.e. the duºtºnviri, or prattores, who administered justice in that Itoman colony (Marquart, i. 475 fl.); but who found on this occasion that by summarily inflicting stripes and imprisonment, without due trial, they had violated the rights of Roman citizens, and so had to undo, as best they might, the effects of the rash action for which they, rather than their instruments the lictors, were responsible. WILLIAM P. DICKSON. SERON (Säpov).-‘The commander of the host of Syria,’ (6 &pxov Tijs 5uváuews >uptas), who was de- feated by Judas Maccabaeus at Beth-horon, 1 Mac 318: *; Jos. Amt. XII. vii. 1. SERPENT. – Eight Heb. words are used for * On the Egyptian custom of keeping a live snake in the larger temples as the representative of the tutelary demon, see Cheyne's ‘Isaiah' in PB p. 13), where the famous Black Granite Serpent of Athribitis is figured. Serpent. One Gr. word only (extóva, “the viper’), which is not used in the LXX, occurs in the §. 1, 197, nākāsh, is supposed by some (identifying roots wri) and wn?) to mean ‘the hisser.” It is generić for a serpent or snake. The Arab. equivalent hanash is clearly the same word, with a trans- osition of the first two radicals. Its meaning is, however, far more general than that of the Heb. term. The root signifies ‘to hunt or capture.” Hamash is defined “anything that is hunted or caught or captured, of birds or flying things, or venomous or noxious reptiles, such as scorpions and Serpents, or vermin, such as hedgehogs and lizards, and the rat and mouse, and any animal the head of which resembles that of a serpent.’ It even includes the common fly. But, in popular usage at the present day, it is applied to serpents only. 2. "AE tannºn, plur. D'yº tannin’m. This, which is usually tr. ‘dragon,’ sometimes otherwise (see DRAGON, 4), is tr. ‘ serpent’ in AV and RV of Ex 7". " " [v.” RV m ‘Heb, tannin, any large reptile’], and in RV of Ps 91* (AV ‘dragon”). It is inter- esting to note that while P in the above passages of Exodus uses tannin for the creature into which Moses’ rod was changed, E in ch. 4" (cf. 71% [? It]) uses māhāsh. The LXX tr. tannán by Öpákov and māhāsh by 8%ts. It would have been better if our versions had preserved a similar distinction in terms. 3. Ryº's 'epheh. The Arab. af'a is defined as ‘a certain serpent of a malignant kind, spotted white and black, slender in the neck, broad in the head. It is said that it will not quit its place.” There is nothing in this description which fixes the species or even genus of the serpent referred to. V and IRV tr. ºth in the three places in which it occurs (Job 20", Is 30° 59') “viper,’ LXX tºpus, &oirls, 3aot)\lakos. Tristram believes that this may be Echis arenicola, Boie. - 4. nivºry ‘akshitbh, dairls, aspis (Ps 140°), AV and RV ‘adder.’ St. Paul, quoting the passage in Ro 3* according to the LXX, gives dairls= ‘asp.’ 5. Inº pethem. This word occurs 6 times (Dt 32°, Job 2014. 19, AV and RV asp’; Ps 584, AV and RV ‘adder,’ AVm ‘asp’; 9113 AV and RV ‘adder,’ AVm ‘asp’; Is 11° AV and RV ‘asp’). In all of these the LXX has āq Tls, except Job 2010 where it gives épákwu, and Ps 91” where it has 8aat)\lakos. These discrepancies of translation, ancient and modern; show the uncertainty as to the serpent intended by pethon. 'Agirls seems to have been the equivalent in Gr. of more than one species. The repeated mention of the venomousness of the pether, and the allusion to its being used in the tricks of serpent charmers (Ps 5S°), led Tristram to think that the animal intended is the Egyp. cobra, Naja haje, I., on the ground that snake charmers usually have one or more cobras. It is common to see a cobra, on each side of a winged globe, in the attitude of striking, chiselled over the doors of Egyp. temples. The Eng. ‘asp’ is derived from the Gr. . Lat. aspis. It is usually understood in those languages of the Vipera aspis, L 6. yºy zephſ', 'yºx ziph'énê. These words occur 5 times (l’r 23* I,XX kepāorrms, AV and l&W ‘adder,’ AVm “cockatrice,” l{Vm “basilisk’; Is 11° 14” ékyova dairlöwv, AV “cockatrice,’ m. ‘adder,’ l{V “basilisk,’ m. ‘adder”; 59° dairls, AV “cockatrice,’ m. ‘adder,’ RV “basilisk,’ m. ‘adder'; Jer 8” 0ava- rojvras = “deadly,’ AV “cockatrices,’ RV “basilisks,’ m. ‘adders’). The meaning of the root of the Heb. word is unknown, and hence gives no clue to the species intended. Doth cockatrice and basilisk are fabulous. Neither the LXX nor our translators have been able to ſix on any species. 7. Peº shēphiphºn (Gn 49" adder,’ AVm arrow- snake’ [given by IRV in Is 34” for kippóz, AW great owl’; see Owil, RV m ‘horned snake,’ LXX &vka- 160 SERPENT SERPENT CHAIRMING 6ijuevos = ‘one in ambush’). By general consent this serpent has been identified with Cerastes Hassel- quistii, Strauch, the hormed serpent, a desert species of the most venomous kind, ... hides in depres- sions in the way, as those made by a camel's foot. This would explain the allusion to biting ‘the horse's heels.’ It is a foot or 18 in. long, of a sandy colour, with brown or blackish spots. It has a pair of horn-like processes above the eyes. The Arabs of the desert call it sheffén, which, though not classical, seems to be a survival of its ancient name. 8. Tºy saràph, “fiery serpent,’ from a Heb. root signifying ‘to burn,” hence poisonous from inflam- mation. It is usually an adjective to other words signifying serpent, as māhāsh (Nu 21° LXX 6ava- Todvtas), but also appears as a substantive (Nu 21°, Is 14° 30' LXX Sqºs, dairls?). The ‘ſiery serpents’ (Nu 21**), which were sent to torment the Israelites in the desert, may have been any or all of the venomous species of et-Tih, as the cobra, the cerastes or sand snake. The “fiery flying serpent’ (Is 14° 30'), Tºyº Ty saràph méophēph, is probably to be understood of some fabulous serpentine cred. ture with wings, such as are sculptured on Egyptian monuments; but the expression flying may have been intended to indicate the rapid darting with which a venomous snake strikes its prey. One of the snakes of Syria, called by the Arabs 'akd-el- jawz, is also called et-tayyárah, because of its arrow-like, darting motion. 9. "Extóva is used only in the NT, and is trº * viper’ (Mt 37 12* 23*, Lk 37, Ac 28°). It is prob- ably generic for poisonous snakes. Tristram thinks that the one which fastened on St. Paul's hand may have been Vipera aspis, L., which, although now extinct in Malta, whence venomous serpents have entirely disappeared, may have been there in the apostle's day. A review of the above critical analysis shows (1) that the translators have been at little pains to render the Heb. terms by the same Gr. and Eng. words in different places; (2) that to only one Heb. word, Shēphiphon, is it possible to give a scientific In 8,1110 j any degree of certainty. Of another, ethen, the most probable but not certain equivalent is the cobra. Of the others, three, ‘akshºbh, zepha or ziph'6mi, and 'eph'eh, are wholly uncertain or indefinite ; one, tannin, had perhaps better be trº, as elsewhere, ‘dragon ’; one, nãhāsh, is generic ; and one, Sáráph, is primarily of adjective not sub- stantive force. The following is a list of the principal venomous serpents in Palestine and Syria, and Sinai : Daboid, acanthina, Gray, a nocturnal species, large enough to swallow a hare ; Cerastes Hasselquistii, Strauch, the horned snake ; Naja haje, L., the Egyp. cobra, a very deadly species; Echis arenicola, Boie, also extremely § ; Vipera, Euphratica, Martin, and V. ammodytas, L., both widely diffused and highly poisonous. Besides the above there are numerous species of non-venomous snakes, among which are Zamenis viridiſlavus, Dum. et Dibr., a species of a greenish-yellow to tobacco-leaf colour, often 6 ft. long, the variety carbonarints, Bonap., being black; Z. dahlil, of a bluish colour mottled with black spots, and various species of Ablabes, Coluber, etc.; in all, 27 non-venomous kinds. It is probable that the Hebrews regarded all snakes with abliorrence, and that the common people º most or all of them to be venomous. The reputation of the serpent has always been double. It was the emblem of Mercury and AEsculapius. A serpent, to this day, figures on devices and badges pertaining to the healing art. The Phoenicians worshipped the serpent, and the Chinese do so now. 'he Egyptians also wor- shipped Kneph under this form. They embalmed the bodies of serpents. The Scripture allusions to the wisdom of the serpent are two : Mt 10%, which refers to its caution in avoiding danger, and Gn 3* **, in which guile and malice are plainly in- tended (cf. 2 Coll”, Rev 12°). Heathen mythology also attributed to the serpent such qualities of diabolism. And just as Israel came to worship the brazen serpent, which, according to tradition, was made to remind them of the venom and de- stroying properties of its prototype (2 K 18"), so the heathen have come to worship the creature they most fear. This is not to be wondered at, as all heathen worship is a compound of super- stition and fear. Most of the Scripture allusions to the serpent are to its evil qualities. It is treacherous (Dan is a serpent in the way, Gn 49"); venomous (Ps 58'); skulking (Th; bariah, Job 26”, AV ‘crooked,” RV ‘swift,” m. “fleeing' or “glid- ing'; Is 27", AV “piercing,” m. ‘crossing like a bar,’ RV ‘swift,” m. “gliding' or ‘fleeing'; the expression seems to refer to its habit of skulking noiselessly away); * crooked (ſnºpy, Is 27", RVm ‘winding,” referring to the wavy motion with which he glides out of danger); it bites (Pr 23”, Ec 10°. ", Am 5”). Christ compares the scribes and Pharisees to serpents (Mt 23° dºpets; cf. the remarkable phrase yevvijuara éxióvãv in Mt 37 12*). The power to take up and tread on serpents un- harmed was promised to the disciples (“Mk’ 16”, Lk 10”). On the whole subject of the serpent of Gn 3 and the NT reference to that marrative, see artt, FALL and SATAN. The mystery of the serpent’s motion did not escape Agur (Pr 30”), and only in modern times have we fully understood its solution. The fact that serpents are produced from eggs is also noted (Is 59°). They were tamed (Ja 37). Siracli alludes to those bitten by Serpents, presum- ably poisonous (12”). G. E. POST. SERPENT CHARMING.. It is said in Jer 817 ‘I will send serpents, cockatrices, among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall bite you’; and in Ps 58° “they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth his ear, which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.’ The refer- ence here is clearly not to any species as distin- guished from other serpents, but to individuals not amenable to a general law. It need not be taken literally, as it may be that any Snake, pro- perly charmed, would be subject to the mysterious fascination of the cunning masters of the art. The object being to show the extreme malignity of the wicked, a case beyond the range of experience is invoked to point the moral. Were it a normal thing for a pethen not to be capable of being charmed, the comparison would lose its force. An uncharmable serpent is a monstrosity. The stop- ping of the ears is clearly wilful. To attempt to explain this literally by the fable of the snake applying one ear to the ground, and stopping the other with its tail (Rabbi Solomon), is childish. The snake has no external ear to stop, and no tympanic cavity. The only tenable explanation is that the moral monsters, so graphically de- scribed by the psalmist, are comparable to such. an exception “as a (not the) deaf adder,’ etc. The art of charming serpents is a very ancient one, and has been brought to a high state of per. fection in Egypt and India. The apparatus is very simple. It consists of a shrill pipe or gang of pipes, and a basket or bags in which the snakes already trained are kept. These are of various species, some highly venomous, others harmless. The former have their fangs extracted, or else the lower jaw sewn to the upper with silk thread on silver wire. When the piper has played a shrill * On the supposed mythological allusions in Job 2618 and Is 271 see the Comm. ad loc., and Gunkel, Schöpfwng w. Chaos, esp. p. 45 f. SERUG. SERVANT, SLAVE, SLAVERY 461 air, the Snakes crawl out of the basket or bag, and, coiling the tail end of their bodies, erect their heads, and sway backwards and forwards. The charmer winds some of them around his body or arms or legs. Mishaps sometimes occur to the charmer with serpents which have not yet had their fangs extracted. Lane (Mod. Egyptians, 461) tells of a charmer who had a venomous snake brought to him from the desert. He put it in a basket, and kept it several days to weaken it. He then put his hand into the basket to withdraw it in order to extract its fangs, when the snake bit him on the thumb. His arm swelled and turned black, and in a few hours he died. Some serpent charmers pretend to have the faculty of discovering serpents in a house or ruin, or in the rocks or fields, and luring them by their music, so that they can catch them. Doubtless in many cases the snake is introduced into the place by the charmer or his confederates; yet it is undeniable that, in broad daylight and surrounded by keen-eyed spectators, he does cause serpents to emerge from their holes or dens, and so fascinates them by the music that they become subject to his will. Sometimes he grasps a serpent by the nape of its neck, and bites pieces out of its head and neck. G. E. POST. SERUG (linky, Xepoºx).-Son of Reu and father of Nahor, Gn 11”. º. 28, Lk 3°. Ethnologically the name is that of Sarnºff, a district and city north of Haran (see Dillm. Gen. ad loc. and the authorities quoted there). SERVANT, SLAYE, SLAVERY.— i. The hired servant. ii. The slave. . Name and meaning. . Origin of slavery. . Slavery and ancient civilization. . Slavery in ancient pre-exilian Israel. . Legislation respecting slaves: (A) pre-exilian, (B) post- exilian, (C) compensation for injury to slaves, (D) runaway slaves. 6. Status of female slaves. 7. Price of slaves. 8. History of slavery from Jeremiah onwards. 9 0 i . Christian attitude to slavery. . Religious use of the term “slave' (‘servant'). Literature. l i. Hired Servant.—The word employed in Hebrew for a servant who worked for hire, a hired servant, is nºw, a term also employed in Jer 46” for a mercenary soldier. Such a hired servant was, however, free to render such service or not as he pleased. There was no constraint over his activity except for the stipulated time and mode of it, for . payment or wages (nºw) was received. It is very difficult to determine what place the hired servant or workman filled in the earlier period of Israel’s pre-exilian history. There are no regula: tions about him in the primitive compend of laws called the Book of the Covenant (Ex 21–23). The wild followers whom Abimelech hired (Jg 9°) scarcely come under this category, and the same remark applies to the priest hired by Micah (Jg 184). But it is otherwise when we come to the more developed code of the Book of Deuteronomy, which reflects a more advanced state of civilization. There we find distinct provision made that the hired servant is to be º regularly every evening (Dt 24°) before sunset, and this rule is made, to apply to both Hebrew and foreign labourer alike. In the post-exilian legislation contained in the Book of Leviticus (19*) this instruction, is main- tained in full force. In fact, in post-exilian times an eſort becomes clearly apparent in legislation to make the lot of the slave approximate to that of the hired servant (Ly 25"). In the post-exilian literature the references to the hired servant are not infrequent. See the Lexicons, s. Tºw. The Greek. equivalent is ulo 60s, aloºwrós. The former is the term employed in Lk 1517. 19. The difference be- tween the relation of the nºw or hired servant to the Hebrew household and that of the slave (Tºy), or of the stranger or resident alien (º), was that the relation of the hired servant was looser ; see FAMILY. ii. Slaye.—1. NAME AND MEANING.—The ordi- nary Heb. equivalent of ‘servant’ was the word which properly designates slave, Tay, 'ebed, a word common to all Semitic languages, including Sabaean. It is, however, seldom found in Assyro-Babylonian, in which the equivalent more frequently used is ardu. The Gr. equivalent is 600Xos (also 6epārav, traſs, olkérms). The word Ty is as common in Phoenician as in Hebrew, and enters into Phoen. proper names (compounded with the name of deity precisely as in Heb.). See Bloch, Phönicisches Glossar, pp. 47, 48, both pages being entirely filled with examples. The Tel el-Amarna, tablets give us further evidence of Canaanite names of the 15th cent. (circ.), viz. 'Abd-Addi, 'Abd-Uraš, 'Abd-AŠirta, 'Abd-Milki, etc. l'or similar names compounded with 'Abd (fem. Amat) in Arabic, see Welſhausen, Ičeste”, pp. 2–4. The verbal root of the substantive Tay connotes fundamentally the idea of working. In primitive life this meant chiefly the tilling of the soil (Gn 2° 3° 44, 2 S 919). Then it came to be specially associated with the conception of working for (Heb. ?) another. . Accordingly, the subst. Tºg is based on this special meaning, and therefore signifies one who labours for another and remains permanently subject to this relationship. This is, in fact, the cardinal distinction between a free man whose activity is not restricted by any compulsion to serve the interests of another, and the slave whose activity is so restricted. 2. ORIGIN OF SLAVERY.—Slavery was probably a necessary element in all ancient industrial life. Slavery arises from two main causes, viz. Want and War. Privation and famine compel a man, a family, or a clan to accept terms of service and maintenance from others to which under normal conditions they would never submit. War, a yet more potent cause, brings in its train foreign captives who are forced to enter a lot of subjection to the will of their conquerors. War, moreover, carries in its track desolation of house and home and of all means of subsistence. Whole populations are rendered des- titute, and flee for protection and maintenance to some friendly but alien race, and thus voluntarily enter into the position of bond-slaves as a refuge from famine and death. ‘The greatest of all divi- sions,’ says Tylor,” “that between freeman and slave, appears as soon as the barbaric warrior spares the life of his enemy when he has him down, and brings him home to drudge for him and till the soil. How low in civilization this begins appears by a slave-caste forbidden to bear arms forming part of several of the lower American tribes.” We shall presently see how this condition of slavery belonged to the old - world life of ancient Heb. Society, where the male and female slave rank next above the ox and the ass. The terms used for both were sometimes closely similar, and indicated that they were regarded as property that had been acquired. The oxen were ...i y the Hebrew his myºp, his acquired property ºr possessions (Lat. occulium, Gr. Krâvos). The slave, on the other hand, was his purchased possession or 'pp. nipp (Gn 1719. 18. 28, Ex 124 21*). Tylor (ib.) thinks that the hired labourer arose out of the more ancient slave, the hired servant out of the ancient servus. “The master at first let out his slaves to work for his profit, and them free men found it to their advantage to work for their own profit, so that there grew up the great wage-earning class.’ The - * Anthropology, p. 434 f. - 462 SERVANT, SLAVE, SLAVERY SERVANT, SLAVE, SLAVERY reader will not fail to note that this theory is confirmed by the results of critical inquiry in the OT, for at the commencement of this article we showed good grounds for believing that the nºw or hired servant hardly appears in the earlier stages of pre-exilian Hebrew º 3. SLAVERY AND ANCIENT CIVILIZATION.—It can hardly admit of doubt that the advance of early human society in the arts of life was largely aided by the institution of slavery. Through slave labour, agriculture and industrial life progressed, wealth accumulated, and leisure was given to priests, scribes, philosophers, and literati to reflect and raise the level of human intelligence. What modern machinery accomplishes for man now, slave-labour accomplished then. In a word, early civilization rested upon slavery as a basis. With- out servile toil such vast structures as the pyra- mids and the sphinx of Gizell would never have been reared. This is confirmed by the tradition of Heb. bondmen employed by the Egyp. Pharaoh in the erection of his granaries (Ex 1***). And when we turn to the Assyr. monuments the same features of slave-labour powerfully impress us. The Assyrian empire, unlike the Babylonian, was essentially military, and the captives obtained by foreign conquest were employed in executing the laborious task of dragging colossal monuments into position. The vivid reliefs discovered at Kouyunjik, portrayed in Layard’s Nineveh and Babylon (pp. 25, 27), clearly exemplify the character of those heavy tasks executed in an almost tropical climate. We see the Assyrian king superintend- ing the removal of an enormous bull. Several hundreds of slaves, provided with a rope which asses over their shoulders, are struggling in a ong succession that ascends in single file up a steep declivity, dragging into position an immense bull which has been landed from the river. By that river it has evidently been conveyed from the stone quarries where it has been hewn and probably shaped. . . Other slaves are portrayed carrying saws, picks, and shovels. A pair of them are dragging along by a rope, passing over the shoulder of each, a cart laden with planks or levers. At intervals a task-master can be seen wielding a stick. But slaves were employed not only in the more laborious forms of manual exertion, but also in the arts requiring manual dexterity and artistic skill. According to Wilkinson (i. p. 457), the monuments testify that the Egyptian male and female musi- cians and dancers were slaves, just as we know to have been the case in ancient Greece and Rome. The maidens who formed the chorus of the Helene of Euripides were slaves brought to the Egyptian market by Phoenician traders. . In Egyptian banquets the men were attended by slaves, while the women were waited upon by handmaids who were female slaves. ‘An upper maidservant or a white slave had the office of handing the wine or whatever refreshment was offered to the ladies who were present at a banquet, and a black woman followed her in an inferior capacity to receive an empty cup.’ Female slaves are easily recognized in Egyptian portrayals. For they were not per- it. to wear the same dress as the ladies, and their hair was adjusted in a different fashion. We find it tied at the back of the head into a kind of loop or arranged in long plaits at the back, while eight or nine others hang down on either side of the neck and face. Also they wore a long tight gown tied at the neck, with short close sleeves reaching nearly to the elbow, or they wore a long ioose roſe thrown over it. On the other hand the lowest menials, i.e. the men-slaves who toiled in the country, wore ‘rough skirts of matting which they were wont to seat with a piece of ñº." (Lepsius, Wilkinson), while those who were com- . to adopt a more active mode of life wore nothing but a simple fringed girdle, like that which is still worn by many African tribes, “a narrow strip of stuff with a few ribbons or the end of the strip itself hanging down in front.’ Under the New Empire we even find that the young slaves who served wealthy nobles at feasts wore, as their only article of .. a strip of leather which passed between the legs, and was held up by an embroidered belt (Erman). 4. SLAVERY IN ANCIENT PRE-IXILIAN ISRAEL. — In the primitive social conditions of ancient Israel the different ranks of the community moved º and freely amongst each other and came into hourly contact. The courtesies and etiquette of life, especially in salutations and meals, were certainly not neglected ; yet the gulfs created between class and class by our highly developed modern civilization were, fortunately for human happiness, then unknown. In the #. presented to us in the Books of Judges and Samuel we find high and low equally engaged in pastoral or agri- cultural employment. We are reminded of the genial state of society in Ithaca, as depicted in the Odyssey. When the deputies of Jabesh-gilead came in quest of Saul, they found the Benjamite chief and Israel’s future łº, returning with a yoke of oxen from his field (1 S 11"). We associate Saul with the figure of the Roman Cincinnatus summoned straight from the plough to assume the office of dictator. Thus, in that early and simple Hebrew civiliza- tion, slavery was free from half the terrors with which the later Roman civilization and the con- ditions of our modern life have invested it. It cannot be said that in the earlier pre-exilian days the lot of a Hebrew bond-slave among his countrymen was oppressive or even irksome. The description given by Doughty of slavery in the remoter parts of Arabia, corresponds in many par- ticulars with the conditions of the early Hebrew bond-servant (Arabia. Deserta, i. p. 554)— “The condition of the slave is always tolerable and is often happy in Arabia ; bred up as poor brothers of the sons of the household, they are a manner of God's wards of the pious Mohammedan householder who is ammy [properly “my uncle”) of their servitude and abºy (“my father”). . . . It is not many years “if their houselord fears Allah” before he will give thern their liberty; and then he sends them not away empty; but in upland Arabia (where only substantial persons are slave-holders) the good man will marry out his free servants, male and female, endowing them with somewhat of his own substance, whether camels or palm-stems.’ We shall note the close parallel between the latter part of this extract and the details of Hebrew usage prescribed in the Book of Deuteronomy. A slave could attain to a high position in his master’s household. He might even become his heir in default of offspring (Gn 15*, *). The im- portant place filled by the slave Eliezer, though a foreigner (Damascene), in the household of Abra- ham, is not without parallels in the narratives of antiquity. The Hebrew captive Joseph becomes the prime-minister of Pharaoh. In 1 Ch 2* we read the interesting fact that Sheshan in default of male issue married one of his daughters to the Egyptian (?) slave Jarha'. In case of an emergency, the master of a household might seek counsel from his slave as from a trusted friend. Abigail has recourse to one of Nabal's slaves for advice in order to appease David’s anger (1 S 25*). A homely episode of this character occurs in the life of Saul (1 S 9°-1", belonging to the older stratum of the narrative called by Budde G ; cf. Richter w. Samuel, p. 169 ft.). Saul, in his baffled search for his father's lost asses, turns at length for counsel to his slave. The slave gives the right advice, and directs his master's steps to the seer Samuel. A SERVANT, SLAVE, SLAVERY SERVANT, SLAVE, SLAVERY 463 fee is requisite for the consultation, and the slave lends his master a quarter of a shekel (about 8%d.). Saul, in response to his slave's advice, says, “Your advice is good : come, let us go.” This vivid narra- tive reminds us of Gn 24 (J; according to Ball J%, but ICuenen regards it as Jº), in which Abraham sends Eliezer on an important mission to secure a wife for his son, and exhibits in the clearest manner the confidential relations which subsisted between the head of a household or the sheikh of a clan and his slave. From the above narrative respecting Saul, in which he borrows a small sum from his slave, we gather the significant hint that slaves might even be the owners of property. The position of a slave in a household would largely depend on his origin, viz. whether of He- brew or of foreign nationality. In the latter case his situation would certainly not be so favourable, unless indeed, as in the case of Eliezer, he had been born and bred in the household, and thus came to be incorporated in the clan to which he was locally attached, sharing in its hospitality and protection, and taking his due part in its sacra. The position of a recently purchased slave taken captive in war would be far different. In a Roman or Greek household he would be set to do the most menial tasks of drudgery; and his place in a Hebrew family would be similar, º not so forlorn. The Canaanites, as we learn from Jg 1*, *, *, *, were employed in hard task-work (Dp). These lower employments are described in Dt 29* as gathering firewood and drawing water. The laws respecting warfare in Dt 20" prescribe that the inhabitants of those cities which surrendered voluntarily to Israel should be taken as slaves, while in case of resistance the male inhabitants were to be slain with the Sword, and the women and children with the cattle were to be taken as a prey (cf. Nu 3.1171.2%), In the time of David, through his numerous foreign wars, there came to be a large number of these foreign helots engaged in laborious task-work (pp). From 2S 20° we gather that it became necessary to appoint an officer to superintend this special department of national life, viz. the Thy by (Gn 4919) or forced service exacted from the slave-labourer. This was probably true of the reign of David's successor Solomon (1 K 9°), who did not find it necessary to exact any bond-service from Hebrews (save for the special work mentioned in 52709)".), since the foreign slaves abundantly sufficed for all needs. Indeed, slaves of foreign origin were very numerous in the East, and this became especially true in the 9th and following centuries. Assyrian inscriptions and portrayals abundantly testify to the barbarous practices . prevailed in ancient Asiatic warfare when cities were stormed and sacked. We know from numerous inscriptions that a large number of the prisoners” were carried away captive. Many of these, of whom female captives constituted a considerable proportion, would inevitably find their way to foreign markets. The great mercantile Canaanite or Phoenician peoples, who had their cele- brated emporia of commerce at Tyre and Sidon, shared with the Philistines the unenviable notoriety of being the chief slave-dealing race of antiquity. Thus in the middle of the 8th cent. Amos brings this accusation against the Philistines, who passed on their captive Israelites to the Edomites (Am 10). We may conjecture that the last-named sold them again to traders who shipped them from Elath for foreign shores and markets. It is nearly certain that these traders would be Phoenicians, for ‘trader’ and “Phoenician’ (Canaanite) were almost synonym- ous terms in those days (Hos 127, Is 238) and later (Zeph 1”, Ezk 17", Pr 31*). Hence the same pro- }. brings a similar charge against the Phoenicians ecause they forgot the covenant of ‘brethren” which subsisted between Phoenicia and Israel from the days of Solomon (Am 1" ").”. In post-exilian times Joel (3ſ Heb. 4]") denounced both these nations for selling the captives of Jerusalem beyond seas to the sons of Javan, i.e. to the Greek populations which covered the western shores of Asia Minor. In contrast with the forlorn, though far from hopeless, lot of a foreign slave in a Hebrew house- j. the condition of a home-born and Israelite slave would be far more tolerable. The Hebrew slave frequently came into his unfortunate position through the exigencies of the harsh laws of debt (see DEBT) which prevailed then and prevail still in Oriental countries. This is clearly shown in Lv 25* *, which exhibits the case of a man volun- tarily entering the state of servitude in order to dis- charge the debts which his poverty and embarrass- ments had contracted. During the regal period Canaanite civilization had spread and had become absorbed by the Hebrew inhabitants, the population of towns had increased, and the power of the ric! landowning class was seriously felt. The creditor became sometimes so harsh and exacting, that, if the father died, the sons might be sold into slavery to pay his debt (2 K 4*). These social evils must have been aggravated in the 9th cent. B.C., when the Syrian wars desolated the borders of both Ephraim and Judah, and the small farmers lost their crops and cattle through the ravages, of the invader (cf. Is 17, Jer 6”), and were driven to borrow at the oppressive rate of even 20 per cent. It is not surprising, therefore, that the miserable lot of the oppressed peasantry awakened both the pity and indignation of the prophets of the 8th cent., who rebuked the overbearing avarice of the wealthy landowner. Amos upbraids the harsh greditor who sells his helpless victim into slavery for a paltry debt equivalent in value to a pair of sandals (Am 2" 8"). A generation later Isaiah de- nounces the aggravated evils of his own time, the accumulation of the smaller properties consequent on the dispossession of the smaller owner (Is 55). Meanwhile wealth increased with rapid strides in spite of the Assyrian invasions. . In the days of Amos the nobles lived in luxury in their summer and winter houses (Am 3", cf. ch. 6). In the Northern kingdom houses were erected of hºwn stone instead of the common brick, and of cºdal in place of the common sycamore (Is 919). ‘‘the land was full of silver and gold, and there was no end to the treasures’ (27). Young foreign slaves were sold into Israel in considerable numbers.; 5. LEGISLATION RESPECTING SLAVES. — This is * For a different interpretation of the “covenant of brothers,' See Driver, Joel and Amnos, p. 137. t “A young family is sometimes an insupportable burden to poor parents. Hence it is not a very rare occurrence in lºgypt for children to be publicly carried about for sale by their mothers or by women employed by the fathers; but this very seldom happens except in cases of great distress’ (Lane, Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptiºns, p. 205). f So we should probably understand the doubtful passage Is 200, which runs in the Hebrew p"Bºy" Dºnji T'2" tº ‘ and they abound in young foreign (slaves).' . It is probably rendered with fair correctness by the LXX xxi răzvoz roaX& &XX&ovaz iysváUn cºrols. That the Hiph'il of p5ty probably meant ‘abound' is conſirmed by the Aram. “Clºn CO effusus est, satis ſuit, and * The Assyrian term was $allatw (9%) and kišittw (kišidtw, root Twº). The former term, characteristically enough, is in- clusive of spoil generally (iiglath-pileser I. Prism Insc. col. ii. 80, iii. 66, 85 [B.o. 1100]). But the meaning is only too clear in Asurnasirabal's Annals, i. 108 (c. 880 B.C.), where we read that he stormed the fortress of Hulai, and III M Šallasunu ima isati aśrup, “I consumed with fire 300) of their captives and left not one soul alive,'—kišittu, on the other hand, means definitely war-captives. These were employed by Esarhaddon in building temples (Prism Inscc. A and O, gol. iv. 44–46). Respecting º, in Babylonia, see Tiele, Bab.-48syr. Gesch. (ISSS) ii. p. 500 ft. d y I(al in 1 K 2010. Moreover, this meaning harmonizes with in ºn and Rººm in the context. £64 SERVANT, SLAVE, SLAVERY SERVANT, SLAVE, SLAVERY to be found in all three codes of the Torah, viz. (a) the Book of the Covenant in Ex 211-11 ; (b) its subsequent development in the Deuteronomic legislation in Dt. 15”; (c) lastly, in the post- exilian Book of Leviticus (P) in Lv 2539-hº. All these, except Lv 25*.*, deal with the conditions of a Hebrew slave in the possession of a master of the same nationality, and not with the case of a foreign slave. This must be considered separately. A. We shall deal, first, with the pre-exilian legis- lation contained in the two sections (a) and (b). The period of service is fixed as six years; in the seventh there is the year of release. The question has been asked whether the six years may not be regarded as a maacimum period. . It is certainly uite possible that when, as in the case of debt, the sum to be earned by service could be worked out in a shorter term, the six-years’ period might be abridged, but we have insufficient data in the OT to guide us on this point. The legislation appears to contemplate six years as the ieast period for which service could be entered. So Rabbis in their interpretations have inferred. Jacob's seven years’ bondage to Laban (Gn 29*) seems to point to a somewhat iºn: tradition. It is evident that the six-years' period corresponds to the six days of work followed by the day of Sabbath rest. So with agricultural land, which in the seventh year is to lie fallow. Jer 34* is interesting and sig- nificant, since it shows that these laws respecting slaves were constantly violated by the owners. In the pre-exilian legislation the special cases are duly provided for. But this is more particularly true of the earlier ºpºd of laws ë. of the Covenant). In Ex 21* * the case of a man who enters bond-service unmarried is distinguished from that of a married man. Under the latter case there are two varieties. If the marriage took place prior to the term of service, husband and wife become free together. But if the slave marries one of the slave-girls in his master's household, the wife and the children born to him by her do not accompany the husband in his year of release. This last stipu- lation is not mentioned in the Deuteronomic legis- lation. Are we to understand that the express provisions of the earlier, legislation are tacitly assumed in the later ? This is scarcely probable, since (1) the Deuteronomic legislation consistently repeats the earlier provisions of the Book of the Covenant, when adopted into its own code. Their omission, when tacitly understood, would have greatly abbreviated the later legislation in its written form. (2) We note a striking contrast between the express provision in Dt 15” (viz. that the ceremony described in Ex 21", Dt 15'7" should apply to women as well) and the hard injunction of Ex 217 that the daughter who is sold as a bond- woman shall not go free as the bondman does. It is true that the case here º is that of concubinage ; but, as Driver in his commentary pertinently observes, the terms in I}t 15” are quite general, and we are not therefore justified in intro- ducing exceptions out of the earlier legislation. The code of Deuteronomy is evidently separated from the Book of the Covenant by several centuries during which the Hebrew race advanced both socially and politically. The humanitarian ten- dency which was already conspicuous in the more rimitive legislation had advanced still further. t may even be true, as Driver suggests, that Deuteronomy belongs to an age . So far advanced on that of the earlier code that the case no longer practically occurred of a woman being sold into slavery for concubinage, or at all eyents, this was not contemplated or recognized. This could hardly have been true at a date earlier than B.C. 622. It sometimes, perhaps not infrequently, happened that a slave loved his master, or was łº by the strong motives which the sustenance and pro- tection of his master's home afforded, not to avail himself of the opportunity of the seventh year of release. Under º terms of the earlier legislation, a wife, married when her husband was living in bond- age in his master's household, and the family reared under these conditions could not pass into freedom with the man when the seventh year of release had come. This would furnish an even stronger in- ducement not to avail himself of the freedom which the seventh year permitted. The master would then take the slave and bring him to God (i.e. to the local priest in the nearest sanctuary"), and bore through his ear in token of the fact that the slave was now the property of his master in perpetuity (Ex 2.1%). This should not be understood to mean merely until the year of jubilee, as Josephus (Amt. IV. viii. 28) and Rashi assume, since this would introduce an arbitrary qualification. The year of jubilee, as we shall have subsequent occasion to see, belongs to a later stage of national life. The growing humanitarian tendency which is characteristic of the Deuteronomic legislation shows itself in the addition of an express stipu- lation (Dt 15**) that the master on releasing his slave was to provide him liberally from his flocks, his corn, and his wine + (cf. the modern Arabian usage cited from Doughty, above, p. 462"). The special case must now be considered of a father selling his daughter into slavery to another. To this the 13ook of the Covenant refers (Ex 217-11). This was done under the stipulation that the maiden should become the master's concubine or that of his son. If she fail to please her master (or his son) who has destined her for himself (read \9 with Kéré in place of Nº), she shall be redeemed [by her father or some near relative]. . Under no circumstances is she to be sold into the hands of a foreigner. If she be the concubine of the master's son, she is to be treated as a daughter of the master's household. But if another woman is married, she is in no way to be defrauded of her food, dress, or conjugal rights. If any of these three rights of food, dress, etc., be not preserved intact, she may claim her freedom and depart without any redemption money being paid as compensa- tion. As already stated, the case of a concubine- slave does not arise in the Deuteronomic code. Budde in ZATW, 1891, p. 100 f., discusses the difficultics of Ex 218-11. After remarking that Dt 1512, 17 indicates an advance in civilization, he compares. Lv 1920, which, however, contem- plates a different set of conditions. , Budde suggests an ingeni- ous emendation of the doubtful Tiy" Nº news into Fyº, sº hºn ‘provided that he has not known her (carnally)." The LXX # wºrö 220a, woxoyńorozºro, “has promised or pledged herself to him,’ appears to sustain the reading of the Kéré, We might, on the other hand, also render the #. text (Kéré) “to, whom [one] has destined her.” W. It. Smith, however, in Z4 TW, 1892, p. 102, supports Budde's reading of FWT, and makes the further suggestion that sº did not originally stand in the text, which was simply Tytº hºwn. This involved a primitive usage * This is the view taken by most commentators ; B'nºsiſ-98 does not mean ‘to the judges,’ as Dillm. Seems disposed to understand it. For Jg 58, 1 S 225 (see Löhr, ad loc.), and Ex 227.8. 28 are passages where Dºnºs should be rendered by “God’ not ‘judges,” God being regarded as the fountain of true justice, who spoke through the priest and witnessed the transaction. Hence LXX ºrpo, to xpiržplay row Utoº. Nowack would under- stand by Dºn's here the ‘family ancestors’ (cf. 1 S 2813, Is 810). The slave was taken to the family sanctuary and adopted per- manently into the possessions of the family. But this is a far- fetched theory, and the employment of D'nºx in a code of legislation in a sense so exceptional is certainly improbable; The boring of the ear (probably the right ear, LV 8*.14%. 17) was also practised by other Oriental peoples, e.g. the Mesºpo- tamians (Juven. i. 104), Arabs (Petronius, Sgt. 102), Izydians (Xenoph. Anab. III. i. 3i), and Carthaginians (Plautus, Poemul. v. ii. 21). For other parallels consult Dillm. on Ex. 21%. , . # This humane Deuteronomic law was fully maintained in the later Jewish usage. According to Kiddushin 17, the Worth of these parting gifts to the released slave must amount to 30 8claim or 78 shillings (Hamburger). SERVANT, SLAVE, SLAVERY SERVANT, SLAVE, SLAVERY 465 whereby the heir (or son) inherited marital rights (Kinghip and Marriage, p. 89 f.). The story of Absalon, shows that this might occur even in the lifetime of the father without shock- ing public feeling. But to the later Jewish ideas this was abhorrent. Hence the insertion of sº into the text. Subse- quently another textual tradition arose through the rºy": of v.9, which caused nyl" to be corrected to HTy", which found its way into our Massoretic text. Nº of the Kethto thus re- mained unintelligible, and it was extremely easy for the Jewish scholars to assume that here as in so many passages it stands in place of 19. The reading Flyn" hºw is confirmed by (1) the phrase TH Tinn, which obviously presupposes sexual intercourse, (2) best explains "j"yin Tyn.—If we accept W. R. Smith's emendation, it would seem to show that the Book of the Covenant arose considerably earlier than the 8th cent. For in Am 27 the prophet denounces the profanation of the “holy name’ by the intercourse of father and son with the same paramour (cf. Gn 35% (P), 494). Here the Ty may probably refer to the Tºp of some local high place. The Sentiment which underlies the verse is unmistakable. B. The post-ea'ilian legislation of the Book of Leviticus (25*"), was distinct, and was designed to meet the special conditions of the post-exilian times. The institution of the year of JUBILEE now takes the place of the old pre-exilian law respect- ing the seventh year of release. An express dis- tinction is made between Hebrew slaves and foreigners. The latter are to be slaves for life, and do not come under the operation of the law of jubilee, whereby the Hebrew slave with his family in the fiftieth year passed out of bondage and returned to his own kindred and to his own inherited property, where he was enabled to main- tain himself and his family in freedom. The older biblical scholars attempted to reconcile the Levitical legislation with the older codes. Thus Saalschütz held the view that the legislation of Exodus and Deut, re- ferred to the tribes related to the Hebrews, while the law of jubilee applied to Israelites only. But this distinction is an artificial ‘Nothbehelf,’ and the same remark applies to Dill- mann's attempt to harmonize Levit, with the earlier legislation by assuming that the former was designed to secure to those who had not made use of their right of release in the seventh year through utter impoverishment, that they should not be slaves for ever, but obtain their release in the fiftieth.—But both these theories are based on a failure to recognize that the Levitical regulations were a completely new constructive effort to settle the conditions of Hebrew bond-service. It is not by any means clear how far the slave benefited by the new conditions. Indeed the old Deuteronomic law seems more favourable, if the year of jº. was over six years distant. The object of the new law seems to have been to fix a universally valid date of release, and thus to unite the lot of the individual to the collective life of the nation. Moreover, an express injunction was made (v."7"), that Hebrew slaves should be re- deemed from bondage to a foreign owner by the nearest kin (first brothers, then uncle or cousin), so that a foreign master had not the unconditional right of possession towards the Hebrew slave until the year of jubilee. The slave was, if possible, to be redeemed before that time, the price of re- demption being regulated by (1) the original sum of purchase; (2) the distance of the year of jubilee. We thus find that the fundamental principle was recognized that the Hebrew slave was rather to be regarded as a hired workman, and the price of his purchase or redemption was to be considered as a kind of hire paid for in advance. The Hebrew master was, moreover, exhorted to treat him rather as a brother, or a “hired servant ' and ‘sojourner’ (vv.º. 40). The condition of foreign (i.e. non-Hebrew) slaves has been already referred to, and will now be con- sidered in further detail. The captive taken in war naturally bore a somewhat heavier lot than the Hebrew slave who had passed into that con- dition by impoverishment or debt. But there were mitigations even in the lot of a foreign slave. A foreign captive woman taken in war and made a VOL. IV.-3O concubine was to be treated with a certain defer- ence by her captor (Dt 211"). The fact that the slaves of the household were circumcised meant much. They were thereby received into a re- ligious community, and, by taking part in its sacra, shared in its protection. Thus from Dt 12” tº 16”. 14 we learn that they partook of the passover and other sacrificial meals, and, as we can easily infer from Ex. 20", they enjoyed their Sabbath rest from toil in common with their Hebrew masters. According to Rabbinic tradi- tion a slave could not be compulsorily circumcised, and, if he was circumcised, he was not to be sold to a foreigner, i.e. he was treated as though he were a Hebrew and not a foreign slave. But if he refused circumcision, he was to be sold after the expiration of a year. On the other hand, if before entering service he made the express stipu- lation that he was not to be º, he might remain in bondage for an indefinite period; see Mielziner, Die Verhältnisse der Sklaven bei den alten Hebråern, p. 58. C. Compensation for injury to slaves. – The earliest code of legislation sought to protect the Hebrew slave from maltreatment, and the rules we find on this subject (Ex 21* * * *) are very explicit on the whole. Smiting a slave so as to entail loss of eye or tooth entitled the slave to complete enfranchisement, and, in case death im- mediately ensued, a sure vengeance for such an act would be taken. If, however, the slave sur- vived for a day or two before his death, the punish- ment of his loss by death was considered penalty enough, for the money-value of the slave was the measure of the master’s loss. We note here some vagueness as to what the ‘sure vengeance’ (v.”), to be wreaked on the slave-owner who murdered his slave, was to be. We cannot fail to remark that the expression falls considerably short of the explicit language of v.”, where the murder of a free Hebrew citizen is to receive the death penalty as its award. When we turn to the post-exilian legislation we observe the contrast. In Lv 24” 4 all distinctions and special provisos are swept aside. Even the national barriers were discarded in this case by the post- exilian Jew. Bond and free came under the same law as well as the foreigner and Jew. Every murdered man’s death was avenged by death. D. Law respecting runaway slaves.—The benefi- cent legislation in Deuteronomy on this subject is based on the sacred rights of hospitality which we find not only among primitive Semitic nations,” but also in ancient Greece. It runs : “Thou shalt not deliver up a slave to his master, who escapes to thee from his master. With thee shall he abide in thy midst in the place that he chooses, in any one of thy cities that he likes.” It may therefore be readily inferred that the recovery of a runaway slave in ancient Israel was far from easy. This we know to have been the case (cf. 1 K 2*). This was another circumstance that tended to mitigate the slaves' lot, by making it incumbent on the owner of slaves to make the conditions of their life tolerable. 6. STATUS OF FEMALE SLAVES.—This varied considerably. As in the case of male slaves, the lot of the foreigner was not so favourable as that of a Hebrew or home-born slave. Yet, on the whole, even the foreign captive might enjoy a osition of comparative comfort. The humane tºo. of Dü, 21” ordained that a foreign captive woman taken in war and made a concubine * Respecting this law of the GER see RS2 p. 76, ‘From the earliest times of Semitic life the lawlessness of the desert, in which every stranger is an enemy, has been tempered with the principle that the guest is inviolable. A man is safe in the midst of enemies as soon as he enters a tent or even touches the tent-rope’; cf. also p. 270. 466 SERVANT, SLAVE, SLAVERY SERVANT, SLAVE, SLAVERY was to be treated with a certain chivalrous de- ference, the respite of a month being allowed her by her captor. Note the position of the captive Israelite maiden in the Syrian general’s house- hold, 2 K 5*, the confidential relations that sub- sisted between her and her mistress, and the sympathy, displayed by the former with her master's disease. The genial treatment of foreign slaves in pre-exilian times º pºiled among other Semitic races besides the Hebrews. A Hebrew female slave is described by various terms, according to the position she held. If she became the concubine of her master or of his son, she was designated by the more dignified term sº a 3. mºs (Assyr. amtu, Syr. lAsol, Arab. à..", Phoen. y (2 non ; in fact the word is common to all Semitic languages, rendered in LXX by 600Xm or 0epátratva). Under the adverse circumstances brought about by poverty, to which reference has already been #. it not infrequently happened that the daughter could not be disposed of as freeborn in ordinary marriage, because the utter poverty of the parents constituted a social barrier. But if the daughter was dowered with good looks, she could easily be sold as a slave, and the price she would obtain might not fall far short of the ordinary mohar or purchase - money of a free woman, which in the 7th cent. amounted to 50 shekels, or nearly £7 (Dt 22*). Under any cir- cumstances the transaction in primitive Israel would not have differed essentially from that which took place when a marriage was contracted with a free woman for whom purchase-money called móhar was paid as though she were a chattel.” She would thus take her place as a concubine, and, if she bore children, her position sensibly improved. But if, as in the case of Hagar, she was simply the property of her mis- tress, and was introduced into this relation, the rights of the mistress might impose somewhat galling restraints. Accordingly, she might be called mºs, as the concubine who bore children to her master, and entitled to the rights of a married woman (see above), or, by the inferior designation of a mºtº or “bond-slave,” called upon to do menial tasks (Gn 16°, cf. on the other hand 21”, where Sarah herself calls Hagar riſes f), since she still remained under the control of the freeborn and superior wife (16%). Tºš is the expression which a woman does not hesitate, in the ordinary etiquette of social intercourse, to employ respect- ing herself when she is addressing a superior. This corresponds to the expression Ty employed by a man under similar circumstances. This dis- tinction in the rank and dignity of the two terms is made clear in the speech of Abigail to David in 1 S 25*. With true womanly dignity and courtesy combined she calls herself nºs, and yet consents to become a nºw and do the menial task of Washing the feet of David's slaves. It was to the nºw that the labórious duty was assigned of grinding at the mill. This is the word used to designate the slave-girl behind the millstones in Ex 11", where the term is employed to describe the lower end of the social scale. The LXX render—600Nm, 0epáraiva, and oikérts. There is another interesting word employed in Hebrew to express slave-concubine, viz. tº (wº). No ºry Semitic etymology can * See art. MARRIAGE, vol. iii. p. 270b, under “ Dowry,’ and quotation from Tristram's Eastern Custom8, ib. f Similarly in Gn 30 Bilhah is called by Rachel in her conver- sation with Jacob “my 'ümáh,’ while in the narrative she is described as her shiphhah. This chapter is an intricate com- plex of J and E. It is impossible to say that either document shows a preference for one expression over the other, though in ch, 21 E prefers the title Tºps for Hagar. , Asia during several centuries was .* be found for the word, and its form strongly suggests a Greek origin tra)\\akts (tráNAaš, cf. Latin pelãº. The Greek race was called D. by the ancient Semites. It is found in the Race-table Gn 10* * (P) and in the Assyr. inscriptions of Sargon and in the Tel el-Amarna tablets. See art, JAVAN. The term therefore originally meant a foreign slave-concubine (cf. Is 2" and footnote above, p. 463). The references Gn 35*, Jg 19, 2S 15" 20% seem to suggest that the pilleges. WąS of a lower class and lax in morals. 7. PRICE OF SLAVES.—According to the Book of the Covenant (Ex 21”) this was 30 shelvels, or about £4, 5s., which was evidently the average price in the pre-exilian period. The money-value would of course vary with the slave's age and physical condition. Joseph’s brethren were con- tent with 20 shekels when he was sold to the Midianite (Ishmaelite) traders (Gn 37°8). This was due to his youth. . According to the post- exilian Jewish legislation (Lv 27*), 20 silver shekels (nearly £3) was the sum fixed for the redemption of slaves between 5 and 20 years old. We find the same price (§ maneh) paid for a slave from Suri mentioned in a very early contract- tablet of Babylonia.” The ordinary price, how- ever, for an adult slave prevailing in Western that stated in Ex 21*, viz. 30 shekels. This, according to the most probable computation of the money-value of a homer and a lethech, was the price paid for his wife by the prophet Hosea (3°). See Nowack, ad loc. This was nearly the amount paid by Ptolemy Philadelphus for every Jewish . in Egypt that he redeemed, viz, 120 drachmae (about 3.4\t In 2 Mac 89: " we read that Nicanor attempted to defray the IRoman tribute of 2000 talents by the sale of Jews at the rate of 90 per talent. This shows that the same value º in the 2nd cent. B.C. Nor can we forget that for 30 shekels our Lord was sold by His traitor- disciple to the Jewish authorities (cf. Zec ll”). When we turn to the clay documents of Baby- lonia, we find like sums and even lower paid for a slave. The values also range in special cases much higher. Thus in the time of Nebuchadnezzar we hear of a woman, Sakinna, and her daughter, a little girl of 3 years of age, being sold for 35 shekels [or nearly £5]. In another case a husband and his wife fetch 55 shekels [or about £7, 10s.] (Sayce). Mr. Pinches has transcribed a contract- tablet, in which a slave is sold for 23 manehs of silver, or more than £22; ; while, according to Tiele, a slave might even cost as much as £95.5 In both these last instances the slave must have been E.}} valuable, probably owing to his possession of skilled qualifications. 8. SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF SLAVERY FROM THE DAYS OF JEREMIAH. —In Jer 34* we read of the unsuccessful attempt which was made in the reign of Zedekiah to carry out the provisions of the Deuteronomic code respecting the seventh year of release, the philanthropic efforts of the king being thwarted ! the avarice of the owners. On the other hand, Nehemiah's strenuous endeavours in the years that followed the return from exile were crowned with better success. Acting in the spirit of the new Levitical legislation (LV 25*), the Jewish slaves of foreign masters were re- deemed, and the rich were persuaded to forego at least a portion of their rights of usury through which the whole trouble of bondage to a foreigner was brought about. ‘We have borrowed money to pay the royal tribute upon our fields and our * Schrader, II B iv. p. 44 (iii.). # Jos. Amt. XII. ii. 3. t IIelo'aica, viii. p. 134ff. § Bab.-488/r. Gesch. p. 507. SERVANT, SLAVE, SLAVERY SERVANT, SLAVE, SLAVERY 467 *—- vineyards . . . and, lo l we reduce our sons and our daughters to slavery, and it is not in our power to help it; for other men have our fields and our vineyards' (Neh 5*). Nehemiah's request, that the fields, vineyards, oliveyards, and houses should be restored, was complied with. Doubtless in later times there was full scope for the operation o: this injunction to redeem the Israelite slave from bondage to a foreign master, for we read that in the wars of the Ptolemies and the Seleucidae large numbers of Jewish captives were taken (1 Mac 3", 2 Mac 811). It would be an interesting object of investigation to endeavour to determine how far the philan- thropic tendencies of Nehemiah and of the post- exilian legislation were influenced by the humane civilization of Babylonia. That that civilization was humane is º attested in the OT. Jere- miah's advice to the Jewish captives in Babylonia, ‘Build ye houses, and dwell in them; plant gardens, and eat the fruit of them ; take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters” . . . (Jer 29" "), would have been impracticable under any other than an enlightened and humane polity. And the fact that large numbers of Jewish residents preferred to remain in the land of exile instead of availing themselves of the edict of Cyrus to return to their own land, is a significant hint in the same direc- tion. Babylonia, as Sayce has pointed out, was a land where agricultural pursuits were carried on, 8,S l Il º by industrious, peace-loving freedmen (not by slaves, as in Assyria, where the pursuits preferred by the conquering race were trade and war). In many instances we learn from the clay documents of purchase or sale that mother and child were sold together. Indeed, rights were accorded to women in lº property superior to those of their Hebrew sisters in pre-exilian Canaan. ‘The ancient Accadian law ordered, that if children had been born to slaves whom the former owner had sold while still keeping a claim upon them, he should, in buying them back, take the children as well at the rate of 1% shekels each' (Sayce, Social Life among the Assyrians and Babylonians, p. 79). The number of slaves in Palestine at any time down to the 1st cent. A.D. was probably small in comparison with that which was to be found in ancient Greece or in Iłome in the later days of the Republic. From the report of a census made in B.C. 300, the male citizens of Athens numbered 45,000, and the slaves B50,000. It must be confessed, however, that the accuracy of this computation might be questioned. That the number was very considerable cannot be denied. I'or even the poorest citizen had a slave for his household, and a great number were employed in the occupations of balking, cooking, tailoring, etc. The father of Demosthenes possessed 50 slaves. Others owned many more (cf. Xenoph. Vect. 4. §§ 14, 15). They were em- ployed in workshops or mines.—In ancient Rome large portions of the ager publicws began to be held by patricians as the Roman State extended its confines. These land-possessions were cultivated to a large extent by slaves (cf. Liv. vi. 12). Thus slaves increased in number, º the poorer class of freemen and peasant proprietors, and in the Licinian Rogations (B.G. 367) a provision became necessary that a certain number of freemen should be employed on every estate. In the later days of the Republic, and under the first emperors, the number of household slaves increased greatly (cf. , Juv. Sat. iii. 141). Horace seems to regard ten slaves as a moderate number for a person in comfortable circumstances to lºeep (Sat. I. iii. 12, vi. 7). These would be largely supplied from the vast number of captives taken in war. From Caos. BG iii. 10 we gather that slave-dealers followed in the track of an army, and after a victory, when a sale of slaves took place (swb coroma vendidit), purchased at a cheap rate. The treatment of slaves became more inhuman both in Greece and Rome as their number increased. In some respects their position in Athens was worse than it was in Rome. For in Athens the manumission of slaves did not take place so fre- uently as in Rome. Moreover, their position as manumitted slaves (&ºr; Asúſlepot) was inferior to that which they enjoyed in Rome; for instead of becoming citizens they passed into the condition of more pºroizou, and were obliged to honour their former master as their patron (orpoo to ra;), and, if they neglected certain duties which they owed towards him, might even forfeit their modifled condition of freedom. Even Aristotle regards a slave as a mere possession or chattel (xºriº), or all ºvzov $pyovov, an instrument endowed with life (Eth. Nic. viii. 13, portion. JPol. i. 4). The bad treatment of Greek slaves is evidenced by the fact that they often mutinied º Legg. vi. 777 C). The insurrections, under the Republic in Italy and Sicily attained formidable proportions. The two servile revolts in Sicily in B.C. 135 and 102 taxed all the resources of Rome, and were with difficulty suppressed, while the rebellion under Spartacus, carried devastation through the Italian peninsula (B.C. 73–71). Nor are we in any degree surprised when we take account of the harsh penalties inflicted on slaves by their Roman masters, e.g. working in chains and fetters (Plautus, Most. I. i. 18; Terence, Photºn. II. i. 10), suspension by the hands while heavy weights were tied to the feet (Plautus, A8im. II. ii. 81). e read also of hard labour in the ergas- tulum, and of such harsh pººl. as the furca, crºwa, and notatio (or branding inflicted on runaway slaves). Even ladies treated their slave attendants harshly in the days of the Empire, as Martial and Juvenal testify, (Juven. Sat. vi. 219 ft., 492; Mart. I'pig. ii. 66; cf. Ovid, Am. i. 14, 15). Varro, in his de Re Rustica (i. 71), expressly classes slaves with beasts of burden ; and even the gentle and refined Cicero feels constrained to apologize to his friend Atticus, for feeling “more than a º: rief’ for the death of his slave Sositheus * (Ep. ad ttic. i. 12). But as we enter Jewish society we pass into a new and happier world. In the first place, the number of slaves was far smaller in relative pro- At the return of the exiles there were 42,360 Hebrew freemen, and only 7337 slaves, or one slave to 5'72 freemen. The teachers of the Talmud looked with disfavour on the ownership of many slaves. The more slaves, so much the more thieving ; the more female slaves, so much the more unchastity (cf. Babà inez'4 60b). The Essenes and Therapeutae did not tolerate slavery, as being contrary to man's dignity (Philo, ii. 458, 482). The later literature of the OT reveals the humane attitude of Judaism towards the slave, and the religious basis on which it rested, The latter is vividly expressed in Job 31*. Humane and gentle treatment of a slave from his early youth will engender a filial feeling in him towards his master (Pr 29**). On the other hand, it was clearly realized that there were dangers from undue laxity. “Set thy servant to work, and thou shalt find rest; Leave his hands idle, and he will seek liberty . . . Send him to labour, that he be not idle ; For idleness teacheth much mischief' (Sir 3325.27). And the same writer advises even severe disciplin- ary measures— ‘Yoke and thong will bow the weak: And for an evil servant there are racks and tortures' (v.26). It is necessary to bear the last passage in mind if we are to gain a true and complete picture of this aspect of Jewish social life (cf. Mt 25°, Lk 12", the latter passage showing that very severe corporal chastisement, falling short of loss of limb or life, might be meted out to an “evil servant”). Accord- ing to the Mishna (Yadaim iv. 7), it was a subject of discussion among Pharisees and Sadducees as to whether a slave who had committed an injury on another was himself responsible or his master. According to the contention of the Pharisees, the master was not responsible, though he was respon- sible if the injury were committed by his ox. Thus the Pharisees (in contrast with the Roman Varro above cited) emphasized the distinction between an unreasoning brute and a slave. They argued, moreover, that a slave might otherwise easily wreak his spite on his master by committing an injury on another which the master had to pay. According to Babá kammó (viii. 4), the slave, if he committed an injury on another, was liable to make compensation when he obtained his release. Respecting the conditions of release of Gentile slaves owned by a Jewish, master we have not many data to guide us; see above, under 513, ad fin. Every facility was aflorded for the manumission of * “Me plus quam servi mors dehere videbatur commoyernt.’ # We are led to suspect that these sterner traits of Jewish treatment reflect Graco-Roman influence. 468 SERVANT, SLAVE, SLAVERY SERVANT, SLAVE, SLAVERY rv Gentile slaves. According to the prescriptions of the Talmud, the Gentile slave received release through (1) redemption purchase (Maimonides, 'Abadin, v. 2), (2) letters of manumission (ib. 3), (3) testamentary disposition, (4) silent recognition of his freedom (Peah, iii. 8), (5) by becoming a Jew (i.e. a proselyte), (6) by marriage with a free woman, etc. (Hamburger). In Schürer, GJV 8 (iii. p. 53), interesting details are furnished respecting the influence of Greek legal procedure on Jewish practice in the release of slaves. The act of release took place iri ris ºrpooravči;, i.e. in the synagogue before the assembled congregation (probably with some reference to Ex. 219; see above). Full freedom was granted to the slave, zopic is [= sk] rºw ºr º (la'araízº re zoº ºrporeoprepāoria; [cf. ºrpoozoºprºpsy in Ac 242.46 11464, Ro 1212, Col 42], i.e. with the exception of regu- lar ...? in the synagogue to which the slave was bound. Accordingly, this mode of release in a sacred place involved a definite pledge on the part of the released slave to honour its religious usages. We have a parallel in Hellenic custom, whereby the procedure took place in a temple, and consisted in a fictitious sale of the slave by the master to the deity, the slave himself bringing the purchase-money. This did not in reality make the emancipated slave into a temple servant. He became actually free, and only morally appropriated by the deity. These facts are certified by documents discovered at Panti- capaum and Gorgippia (cf. Schürer, ib. p. 18). The same tradi- tion passed into the Christian Church in the eastern provinces of the Roman empire, and was called manumissio in ecclesia ; See Schürer, p. 53, footn. 53. The treatment of slaves in the Jewish household was not only humane, but under a good and pious master it would be even brotherly. Of the most distinguished personages it is related that they readily feasted their slaves with the same food of which they themselves partook, addressed old slaves as ‘father’ or ‘mother,’ and regarded their death as that of a beloved relative (Bera/ch0th 16b ; Kethubóth 61 ; Jerus. Babá kammó 6).” Acc. to Berakhóth, passim, slaves are placed with women and children in exemption from Shema' and wearing phylacteries, though bound in other matters of ritual. 9. THE CHRISTIAN ATTITUDE TO SLAVERY. —This may best be described as the religious attitude of Judaism expanded to the dimensions of Christ's gospel of universal redemptive love to man. With its advent new powers had entered into the world— new conceptions of human duties and relationships. All these lie implicit in Christ's Gospel of the Kingdom. “To the poor the gospel is preached ” (Mt 11"). St. Paul expressed the new consciousness in the words: “All are sons by faith in Christ Jesus . . . As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. . . . There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free . . . for ye are all one in Christ Jesus’ (Gal 3**, cf. Col. 3". "). And so the doors were thrown open wide to a world that yearned for salvation. “The kingdom of God with its sublime universalism offers its invitation to all men as children of a heavenly Father, and binds those who follow His call into a Society. . . . In the Christian Church the poor man found the civic rights of the Divine king- dom accorded to him without reserve as God's own child. . . . To the slaves, that lowest and most unhappy class of Graeco- Roman society, the rights of man were restored. In the Church they heard the magic tones of the words: “Ye are men for whom also Christ has died ; redeemed, to whom the same osition belongs in the kingdom of God as to your masters.” asters also heard in the Church the solemn admonition that they were the brethren of their slaves, since both had taken upon themselves by voluntary choice the yoke of obedience to ë. (1 Co 721ſt, Eph Gºlf.). When Paul uttered thoughts like these in his letter to Philemon, in which he interceded for the runaway slave of the latter, he was writing the charter of enhancipation for the many millions of slaves who were held down by a minority in a degrading bondage.’t * On the humane treatment of slaves by Moslems see Lane's Arabian Nights, vol. i. p. 64 fº. (ch. i. note 13). Nevertheless, we are told that “a master may even kill his own slave with impunity for any offence, and he incurs but a slight punishment (as imprisonment for a period at the discretion of the judge) if he kills him wantonly ’ (p. 63). # Mangold, 11tumanität und Christenthwm, Rede beinn An- tritt, des Rectorats der Rheinischen I'riederich Wilhelms Uni- versität, am 18 October 1870. Bonn, Adolph Marcus. ** Nevertheless, the Church issued no authoritative mandate that masters were to liberate their slaves. On the contrary, obedience to masters was incul cated (Eph.6", cf. parallels), as well as forbearance to slaves (v.").” The leaven was to work slowly and surely, without external compulsion by ecclesias- tical authority, through eighteen centuries, until in the 19th cent. º was abolished in all the territories of Christian European peoples. In the 20th the leaven will work its course in society to yet larger issues - 10. RELIGIOUS USE OF THE TERM ‘SLAVE’ (‘SER- VANT’).—The word ‘servant’ or “slave' is constantly employed in the etiquette of daily intercourse in ancient Semitic Society and among Arab popula- tions at the present day. ‘Thy servant” (or if a woman, “thy handmaid’) is the language of ordi- nary courtesy employed by an individual, when he speaks of himself, in addressing a superior or even an equal. In relation to God, this term is universally used by the worshipper. The root Thy expresses the dependent relation of subordination and obedience on the part of the individual to his Divine patron and Lord. And it has been shown, under ii. 1, how constantly this expression enters into proper, names compounded with the name of deity, whether Canaanite or Hebrew. That collective and idealized Israel was so desig- nated is especially apparent in Deutero-Isaiah. The term had been already ºplºye; in Ezk 2828 37”, and also in Jer 30” 46*. The passages in which the expression occurs in its most charac- teristic form within the collection designated by the term Deutero-Isaiah (chs. 40–56) are specially called the ‘servant’ passages, and are regarded by most critics as distinct in authorship, viz. 42** 491-0 504-9 5218–5312. The portrayal of the servant in these four sections is distinct from that which prevails in the rest of Deutero-Isaiah. In the former the servant is idealized, personal and sinless. He is Jehovah's disciple, chosen to minister to the heathen as well as to his own people (490), going about his own mission with quietness (422.8 ſ.37), suffering like Jeremiah and Job through the scorn of the unfaithful, and so offering a Pºlº for the guilt of his race (534-0). On the other hand, in the rest of Deutero-Isaiah, the ‘servant Jacob’ is blind, deaf, a prisoner plundered, despised, full of sin, though chosen by God, pro- tected and destined for a glorious future. Yet these two por- trayals have their essential features in common. Accordingly, ‘servant (or slave) of Jehovah,’ as a religious term applied to Israel, is a name of honour. Israel is chosen as God's messenger as well as servant. In fact the difference between Jacob as God's #8, p and as His own personal slave, called to a high and honourable mission, is very slight. The two expressions stand in parallelism in 4219. The servant is the chosen one in whom God takes pleasure. We are reminded of the relationship of Abraham to God as the ‘friend of God' (2 Ch 207, Ja 223, cf. Rorán, sur. 4124). See, further, art. ISAIAII, and Smend, A Tliche IReligiongesch.2 p. 352 f. In fact the º is con- stantly employed in the OT as a name for God's messengers, especially the prophets (Am 37, Jer 7° 254.20% etc.), of. Rev. 107 1118. It is used of Moses (I)t 345, Jos 11), of Isaiah (Is 209). Furthermore, it is used of the Messiah in Zec 38, and of the angels in Job 418 (on the other hand, in Ps 10321 1044 the term employed is Dºnnyn, which properly expresses honourable, voluntary, and, moreover, priestly service to God). * It should not be forgotten that the distinction between bond and free is cancelled, according to St. Paul's conception, only in Christ, i.e. within the confines of the redecnn.cd 80ciety—the Church. Outside the Church the distinction might still prevail, and even be regarded as valid, St. Paul hardly contemplat': a any reorganization of society that does not rest on redemption and sanctification of individual life as a basis. In that outside world St. Paul might conceivably still regard Roman lºw as a quasi rozºzyoyás, and hold that slavery, as a human institutiºn, under certain guarantees, might be under temporary Divine sanction. Modern missionaries of the Cross in heathendorn, with its more primitive social conditions, have been compelled to adopt this view. º # It can scarcely be held that either of these latter passages is genuine. In Cornill's text (SBOT) they are relegated to the foot of the page. e i But see Budde, Die sogenannten. Ebed-Jahwo-Liedor, 1900. Marti also argues against separating the conceptions in the Servant-passages from the rest of Deutero-Isaiah ; see his com- mentary, p. 289 i.; so also Cornill in Theolog Itundschau, Now 1900. - SESIS SET 469 The transition from this OT use to the NT application of the corresponding term 600\os is very slight. It is applied to himself by Symeon (Lk 2") in his prayer to God (Nunc Dimittis), Who is consistently addressed as Öeatrórms (a master of slaves, cf. Ac 4*, Rev 6”), and similarly the Virgin Mary speaks of herself as God’s 600Xm (nips), Lk 138. _ This term St. Paul, in the introduction to his Epistles, not infrequently uses with reference to himself (Ro 1", Ph. I’); and that it is employed as an honourable designation, like the Tºg of Ezekiel and Deutero - Isaiah, is evident from the corre- sponding use of dirógroxos in 1,00r., 2 Cor., Gal., Eph., and Col. (equivalent to Tºp, see above). The relation . service to God is one of freedom and Sonship (vio9eala), as we learn from Ro 8*. We have been emancipated from the older relationship to the law, which was one of fear and constraint, Summed up in Ro 8”, in the phrase truegua Sov)\etas . . . els ºpó8ov. These two contrasted states of relationship, belonging respectively to the new covenant of freedom and to the old covenant of bondage to the law, are compared by way of allegory to Isaac, Son of the freewoman Sarah, and Ishmael, son of the bond-slave (travölakm) Hagar. The one is represented by the heavenly Jerusalem and the other by Mount Sinai (Gal 491–51). By His death Christ has freed us from subjection to bond- age throughout our life through fear of death (äe 2*). Obviously, such a relationship of free, loving service to Christ is not adequately expressed by 6ovXela. The slave has no proper cognizance of his master's thoughts, but Christ has conſided all His Father's purposes of love to His disciples. * Henceforth I do not call you servants (slaves), but I have called you friends’ (Jn 15”). LITERATURE. — Nowack, IIeb. Arch. and the corresponding work of Benzinger; Ewald, Alterthümerb, pp. 280–288 (Eng. tr. }; 210 ft.); the articles on Slaves in PIRE, in Riehm’s II WB, and in Hamburger's IRE; Mielziner, Die Verhältnisse der Sklaven bei den altem IIebråerm ; Mandl, Das Sklavenpecht des A.T. All these have been duly utilized in the present article. Suggestive for the OT is ch. vi. on ‘Society, Morals,' etc., in McCurdy, HPM ii. 168 ft. On Graeco-Roman Society cf. Smith's Dict. of Gr. and IRom. Amt.8, and the Comcise Dict. by Warre Cornish (from which materials have been drawn). Other works have been referred to in the course of the article. On Arab slavery see Lane's Arabian Nights, ch. i. note 13; on slavery in the light of Christian ethics See Jul. IVöstlin, Christliche Ethik, pp. 318, 400 ff.: Lightfoot, Philemom (Introd.). OWEN C. WHITEHOUSE. SESIS (B Xegels, A Xeorgets), 1 Es 9* = Shashai, EZT 1040. SESTHEL (Xea&#X), 1 Es 9” = Bezalel of the sons of Pallath-moab, Ezr 10°. SET.-The Eng. verb to “set' is properly a causative form of ‘sit,” but it has been confused with ‘sit” (partly through spelling both “set’), and, like oilº, monosyl. verbs, has come to be used very freely. 1. Observe the foll. passages: Gn 30” “And he set three days’ journey betwixt himself and Jacob’ (Wye. “And putte a space of thre daies weye betwixt,’ 1388 “settide the space of weie of thre daies betwixt '); Ex 19” “And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about ’ (Wyc. ‘ordeyn termes,’ 1388 “sette termes’; Tind. * sett marks rounde aboute the people’) : Ps 73° ‘Surely thou didst set them in slippery places”; Sir 100 “Such an one setteth his own soul to sale’ (rºv gavroſ, puxilv Škirpaktou Touet); Lk 7° ‘ I also am a man set under authority' (Tagorčuevos); He 12" “the race that is set before us’ (Töv Tpokeluévov hutu &yöva); 129 “for the joy that was set before him (ávri Tàs Tpokeſpuévns atriº Xapās). 2. To ‘be set is sometimes used as an equiºlent for to “sit,” like Scot. ‘be seated,’ as Llº 7” Rhem. “As she knew that he was set downe in the Pharisees house.’ So Dn 7” “The judgment was set (an, Nº", LXX Kpltiptov čkáðugé, Vulg. judicium Sedit, Wye. “ the dom sate’); Sir 3829 Who is alway carefully set at his work’; Mt 51 ‘When he was set, his disciples came unto him”; 27.10; Lk 29. ‘This child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel’ (keirau); Jn 13” ‘So after he had washed their feet . . . and was set down again '; Ph 1” “I am set for the defence of the gospel” (ketuat); He 8"; Rev 3* ‘To him that overcometh will I grant to sit (kaffloat) with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down (éká0aa) with my father in his throne.’ 3. To set means to arrange in proper order, in 2 Ch 207 “Set yourselves, stand ye still,’ Ps 22 ‘The kings of the earth set, themselves’ (agºn", Driver [Par. Psalt.], “take their stand”), Ca, 513 “His eyes are . . . . fitly set,’ Is 3* “Instead of well set hair, baldness.’ Cf. Ex 257 Tindale, ‘Onix stones and sett stones for the Ephod’; Chaucer, Duchesse, 828– “So had she Surmounted hem alle of beaute, Of maner and of comlinesse, Of stature and wel set gladnesse.” 4. The sense of ‘fix,” “determine,’ arises natur- ally from the original idea of ‘cause to stand.” Thus Noh 20 “It pleased the king to send me ; and I set him a time ’; so Gn 17* “At this set time in the next year’ (cf. 21%, Ex 9"); ‘set office’ (Tºps), 1 Ch 9*.*.*, 2 Ch 311b. 18; and esp. ‘set feast (as the tr. of Tyin, lit. ‘appointed time' [of sacred seasons]) Lv 13* RW (7 such are enumerated in this ch.), Nu 10” (RV) 29* al. Cf. Judgement of the Symode at Dort, p. 4, ‘Hee hath chosen in Christ unto salvation a set number of certaine men, neither better nor more worthy then others.” 5. The following phrases are mostly biblical : (1) Set one’s hand to, I)t 23” “In all that thou settest thine hand to (RV ‘puttest thine hand unto ?), 28°. Cf. Ac 12" Rheni. “And at the same time Herod the king set his handes, to afflicte certaine of the Church.” (2) Sct one's heart to, Ex 7” “Neither did he set his heart to this also (RW “lay even this to heart,” RV m “JHeb. set his heart even to this’); Dt 32" “Set your hearts unto all the words which I testify among you this day’; 1 Ch 22” “Now set your heart and your soul to seek the Lord your God'; Job 7” “What is man . . . that thou shouldest set thine heart upon him 2'; Ps 78° “A generation that set not their heart aright '; Jer 31”. “Set thine heart toward the highway’; Dn 6” “Then the king . . . set his heart on Daniel to deliver him.’ Cf. 1 Ch 29° ‘I have set my aflection to the house of my God.” (3) Set one's face. This is one of the many Hebraisms in which the ‘face' plays its part. It has two meanings: (a) Turn towards with (t purpose or resolution, determine, Nu 24 “But he set his face toward the wilderness’; 2 K 12” “And Hazael set his face to go up to Jerusalem'; Ezk 21” “Go thee one way or other . . . whitherso- ever thy face is set'; Jer 42* “If ye wholly set your faces to enter into Egypt,’ 42" ; Lk 9” “He stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem'. (Tö Tpógarov čariptoev). (b) To take up an antagonistic position, Lv 1719 “I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood,' 20% "" ; Jer 21" ‘For I have set my face against this city for evil’; Ezk 62 “Son of man, set thy face toward the mountains of Israel, and prophesy against them,' 1317 157 2010 212 25, 28%l 29° 35° 38°. (4) To set eyes on, Ac 13", is not as now to catch a glimpse of,” but to “fix one's eyes upon '. “Then Saul (who is also called Paul), filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him ' (ärevioas eis avTöv, RV ‘fastened his eyes on him '). #70 SET SEVENEH 6. The verb to “set’ is used with certain adverbs in a sense that is antiquated or Hebraistic : (1) Set at, that is, ‘valued at,’ 2 K 12" “The money that every man is set at' (IRV ‘the money of the persons for whom each man is rated,” RVm ‘Heb. each man the money of the souls of his estima- tion”). Cf. Lv 27° Tind. ‘Yf any man will geve a synguler vowe unto the Lorde acordynge to the value of his soule, then shall the male from XX. yere unto lx, be set at fyftie_sycles of Sylver’; and Shaks. Hamlet, I. iv. 67—“I do not set my life at a pin's fee.” (2) Set at nought, i.e. despise, treat with contempt, or mockery, Pr 1* “But ye have set at nought all my counsel,” Mk 9”, Lk 23*, Ac 411 1997, Ro 1419. (3) Set by, i.e. esteem, 2 Mac {* “Not setting by the honours of their fathers, but liking the glory of the [Grecians] best of all' (év obôsvi tuffégevoi, RV “making of no account'). Cf. Ps 154 Pr. Bk. “He that setteth not by hym selfe, but maketh moche of them that fear the Lorde’; Ridley, Works, 27, ‘Lest I should seem to set by mine own conceit, more than is meet'; Babees Book, P. 72– “He that good manners seemes to lack, No wyse man doth set by : Wythout condicions vertuous, Thou art not worth a flye.” So set much by, 1 S 18” “His name was much set by,” 26* bis ; cf. 1 P 34 Tind. “With a meke and a quyet sprete, which sprete is before God a thinge moche set by.” So also set little by or set light by, Dt 27.1% “Cursed be he that setteth light º his father or his mother’; Ezk 227, Jth 11”. Cf. Jer 50” Cov. “She shall be the least set by amonge the nacions’; Tindale, Eajpos. p. 229, “Called the least, that is to say, shall be little set by and despised : called great, that is to say, shall be much set by and had in reverence.” Even set at light is found in the margin of 2S 19°. Cf. Fisher, A Spiritual Consolation (in Morley's Eng. Religion, p. 140), “Such as we set but at light, full greatl shall be weighed in the presence of his most high Majesty’; Knox, Hist. 49, ‘Perchance this hand of God will make them now to magnifie and reverence that word which before (for the fear of men) they set at light price.’ (4) Set forth. This §: has various meanings: (a) Begin a journey, u 29 “These shall first set forth'; Ac 21”. “We went aboard, and set forth (&vºx.0mpev, I&V ‘set sail’). Cf. Bunyan, Holy War, 68, “The time, therefore, of his setting forth being now expired, he addressed himself for his march '; . Diary, 172, ‘Sa, parting from Berwik, hartlie recommendit to the blessing and grace of God, be manie godlie men and women, and be sum sett and convoyet a guid way on our jorney, we cam that night to Anweik.” (b) Bring forward or cause to be seen, Ps 141* ‘Let my prayer be set forth before thee as incense” (ſºn, lxx karevövv6ºrw, Vulg. dirigatur); IEzk 27” “They hanged the shield and helmet in thee; they set forth thy comeliness’ (ºny, LXX £60kaw); Dn 11” ” “And he shall set forth a great multitude” (Tºpy); Am 8” “When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn ? and the sabbath, that we may set forth wheat 2' (n;-mºnt, AVnn and RVm ‘open’); Lk 1. ‘To set forth in order a declaration of those things” (àvaráš- acréat); Ro 3” “Whom God hath set forth to be a ropitiation’ (6v Tpoé9ero à 0eós, AV m ‘forgordained,’ RWim ‘purposed '); 1 Co 4" ‘For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last’ (&tréðeláev); Gal 31 ‘Before whose eyes Jesus Christ liath been evidently set forth ' (Tpoeypſºpm, RV “ was openly set forth '); Jude 7 ‘Even as Sodom and Gomorrha. . . . are set forth for an example’ (Tp3.ccurat Seiyua). Cf. Pr. Bk. Eachort. to Confession, 'When we assemble and meet together . . . to * —º w set forth His most worthy praise, to hear His most holy word'; Shaks. King John, II. i. 295— *Up higher to the plain, where we'll set forth In best appointment all our regiments.’ The same phrase is used technically of placing food before one, Jn 21° “Every man at the begin- ning doth set forth good wine” (rl6mow). (c) Praisº, Sir ll heading ‘We may not vaunt or set forth our- selves.” Cf. Pr. Bk. 1549 (Canticle foll. Te Dewm), “Speak good of the Lord; praise him, and set him up for ever’; and Shaks. Lucrece, 34– “Beauty itself doth of itself persuade The eyes of men without an orator: What needeth then apologies be made To set forth that which is so singular?' (5) Set forward. See Forward in vol. ii. p. 60. (6) Set on means: (a) Place on table, Gn 43* * “And he washed his face . . . and said, Set on bread”; Bel 14 “Set on the meat, and make ready the wine.” (b) Incite or urge to some course of action, Jer 38” “Thy friends have set thee on, and have prevailed against thee' (Tºnºn); 43°. “But Baruch the son of Neriah setteth thee on against us” (nºp). (c) As a ptcp. bent on, Ex 32” “They are set on mischief.’ (d) To attack, Ac 1819 “No man shall set on thee to hurt thee” (étraffia'etal orot). (7) Set to, meaning affiac, of a seal, Jn 3” “He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true’ (éorqpáytoev). Cf. Ex 21”. Tind. ‘Yf he be sette to a summe of money, then he shall geve for the delyveraunce off his lyfe, accordynge to all that is put unto him '; Adams, Works, i. 18, “In testimony whereof I have set to my hand, and sent it you as a token of the gratitude of my heart.” (8) Set up, meaning establish, Mal 315 “They that work wickedness are set up.’ J. HASTINGS. SETH (ng), i.e. Shēth ; LXX and NTX;0 [in 1 Ch 11 A has Xàs]).—The third son of Adam, Gn 4” (J) 5* (P), 1 Ch 12, Lk 3*. In the first of these pas- sages J assigns a characteristic etymology for the name, Eve being made to say “God hath set (Shāth) for me another seed instead of Abel,’ for which reason she called him Shēth (i.e. ‘Setting' or “slip,” Dillm.). In Sir 491" Seth is coupled with Shem as “glorified among men,” . A heretical Jewish Sect, whose tenets afterwards found acceptance in Chris- tian Gnostic circles, derived its name from Seth. These Sethians or Sethites held (like other Gnostics, Jewish and Christian) that the material universe was the creation of angels and not of the Supreme Dynamis, to whom Seth owed his birth. Theo- doret (Haer. Fab. i. 14) appears to identify them with the Ophites: 276tavol offs 'Optavot's 'Ogbtras tives évouáčovat. Some of the Jewish Sethites believed Seth to have been the Messiah, and later Gnostics held that Jesus Christ was a re-incarnation of Seth. For further information as to this sect and its relations to the Ophites and Cainites (a subject beyond the scope of this art.), see Friedländer, Der vorchristliche jūdische Gnosticismºts, 1898, p. 18 ft. ; Preuschem, Die apokr. gmost. Adamschriſten, 1960, passimo ; and cf. Epiphanius (ſtdv. Mºtºr. xxxix.), pseudo-Tertull. (viii.), and Philast. (iii.). : J. A. SELBIE. SETHUR (ninº, Xaffoºp). —The Asherite spy, Nu 1318 (14). SETTLE (my).-See TEMPLE, p. 710°n. SEVEN, SEVENTY. —See NUMBER, vol. iii, pp. 562 f., 565". SEVENEH (nºp; Gr. Xvivm, Syene ; Egyp. Swn, Dem. Swne, Copt. coyan [Swan] ; Arab. .." [Aswan).-A city on the east bank of the Nile see i SEVER SHAARAIM 471 .* immediately above the First Cataract, the southern frontier post of §: For some distance north of Aswan the cultivable portion of the Nile Valley is extremely narrow. At Aswan the hills draw in rapidly on either side, and the town is built against a rocky barrier of sandstone supported by a dyke of granite that crosses the Nile and forms the cataract. Here there is no cultivation on either bank beyond that of a few palm trees and tiny patches of garden ; but the little island of Elephantine in the middle of the stream opposite Aswan is almost clothed with vegetation, and formed the ancient capital of the first nome of Upper Egypt. West of the river are cliffs, shrouded with sand, but pierced by countless tombs of the former inhabitants of the island. Elephantime-Syene must have formed an almost ideal frontier fortress. Immediately above this point the narrow passage of the Nile was rendered dangerous and very tedious for boats by the rocks and islands and rushing currents of the cataract. On the west bank there is not even a path; the adventurous sightseer must clamber over the rocks; on the east bank there was only one clear road, and this led through a long narrow defile arallel to the river into the open ground opposite E. Elephantine, the island, was the secure metropolis of the district, the residence of the governor, and the centre of the local cult of the cataract gods. Its name in Egyptian was 'bw, ‘elephant,’ demotic yb (Img), a name which seems to have been applied not only to the island but also to the surrounding district, including the quarries of granite. Syene itself was probably considered as only a mainland suburb of Eºiſ. * Wine of Swn' is mentioned in very early inscriptions, but it is doubtful whether the reference is to Syene. In the Egyptian inscriptions the name of the town is known only at a very late date ; its temple is of Ptolemaic age. Gradually the im- portance of Elephantine waned, and that of Syene grew ; with the fall of paganism even the name § (Elephantine) was given up and that of Swan took its place. It is remarkable that Ezekiel enploys the name Sweneh and not Yéb for the southern frontier ; the references are Ezk 29" 30% ; the reading of RVm ‘from Migdol to Syene' is the best. (See MIGDOL). Herodotus often refers to 'EXeqautlvm. In ii. 30 he speaks of Ele- phantine, Daphnae near Pelusium, and Marea as the garrison cities respectively against the Ethi- opians, against the Syrians and Arabs, and against Libya. His only reference to Syene is in ii. 28, where he mentions ‘hills between (sic) Syene and Elephantine’ in a fantastic passage which is no guide to facts; his geography in tipper Egypt is always faulty. F. LL. GRIFFITH. SEWER.—The verbs to “sever’ and to “separate’ both come from Lat. separatre, the former through Old Fr. sevrer, the latter directly. The form ‘sever’ now expresses a sharper stroke than “separate,’ but in older Eng. no distinction was observed between them. All the verbs trº ‘sever’ in AV are also trºl “separate,’ Cf. Bacon, Adv. of Ilearn. ii. 367, “We see the chaff may and ought to be severed from the corn in the ear’; and l&hem. NT (note on Ac 10”), “But when Heretikes began to rise from among the Christians, who lº. Christ's name and sundry Articles of faith as true believers doe, the name Christian was to common to sever the Heretikes from true faithful men : and thereupon the Apostles by the holy Ghost inposed this name Catholike upon the 13eleevers | which in al points were obedient to the Churches doctrine.’ J. HASTINGS. SEVERAL.-Just as “sever’ in AV means to separate, so “several' means separate, distinct, at 2 K. 15” . He was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house'; Mt. 25” to every man according to his several ability.’ So sever- ally, 1 Co 1211" dividing to every man severally as he will.’ Cf. Dt 7" Tind. ‘The Lorde thy God hath chosen the to be a severall people unto him silf’; Tymme, Calvin's Genesis, 882 (Gn 4928), “Every one of them blessed he, with a severall blessing’; Ridley, Works, 390, “Our own servants were taken from us before and . . . we each one appointed to be º in several places”; Calder- wood, Hist. 107, ‘Their [elders] office is as well severally, as conjunctly, to watch diligently over the flock committed to their charge.” J. HASTINGs. SHAALABBIN ("aby"; B XaXagelv, A. XaXauety; Vulg. Selebin). — A town of Dan mentioned be. tween Irshemesh (Beth-shemesh) and Aijalon (Jos 19°). It is apparently the same place as Sha ALBIM. C. W. WILSON. SHAALBIM (Dºgw; in Joshua LXX BA have 9a)\agely, in 1 Kings B has Bu6a)\apel, A. XaAa3elp. ; Vulg. Salabim, Salobin).-A town mentioned with Mt. Heres and Aijalon as being occupied by the Amorites who had driven the Danites into the hills (Jg 1°). It was, with Makaz and Beth- shemesh, in the district of one of Solomon's commissariat officers (1 K 49); and if it be the same place as Shaalabbin, it is mentioned with Aijalon and Beth-shemesh in Jos 19°. It is prob- ably identical with Shaalbon, the home of one of David’s heroes. Eusebius and Jerome (Onom. s. XaAa3elv, Salabim) identify it with Salaba, a large village in the territory of Sebaste; but this is too far north of Aijalon. Elsewhere (Com. ad Ezek. 48) Jerome mentions ‘the towers of Aijalon, and Selebi, and Emmaus' in connexion with Joppa and the territory of Dan. From this Conder (PEF Mem. iii. 52) identifies Shaalbim with Selbit, about 8 miles N. of Beth-shemesh, 3 miles N.W. of Aijalon, and 2 miles N. of Emmaus. Possibly (see Driver, Teat, of Sam. 54) Shaalbim should be read for Shaalim in 1 S 9°. C. W. WILSON. SHAALBONITE, THE (ºygn; in 2 S 6 x axo- 60welrms ; in 1 Ch B 6 "Opei, A. o XaXagovt; de Salboni).-Eliahba, the Shaalbomite, one of David's heroes (2 S 23*, 1 Ch 11”), was a native of Shaal- bon, — a place not mentioned elsewhere. See SHAALBIM. C. W. WILSON. SHAALIM, THE LAND OF (nºw-ºns; B rºs yńs 'Eaoakéu, A. T. Y. XaaXelu ; terra Salim). —Saul, when searching for his father's asses, passed through the land of Shaalim (1 S 9") after he had traversed the hill-country of Ephraim, and the land of Shalishah, and before he reached the ‘land of Jemini” (RV and AV ‘land of the Benjamites’) —probably Fº of the territory of Benjamin. If Saul started from Gibeah, and Shalishah was, as seems probable, in the western hills (see SHALISHAH), the land of Shaalim must have been a portion of the hill-country east of Lydda, and not far from the boundary of Benjamin. It is possible, how- ever, that Shaalim is a textual error for Shaalbim of Jg 1°, Jos 19%. See Driver, Text of Sam. p. 54. C. W. WILSON. SHAAPH (nyw).—1. The son of Jahdai, a Caleb. ite, 1 Ch 27. 2. A son of Caleb by his concubine Maacah, 1 Ch 2". In both passages 13 has 24-yae, >4 yaq), SHAARAIM (Dynyº); Sakapelſ, ; Saraim, Saarim). —1. A town of Judah, in the Shephélah (lowland), mentioned (Jos 15") in the same group with Adullam, Socol, and Azekah. It was unknown to Eusebius (Onom. S. Sapaeiv). Conder (PEF 472 SHAASHGAZ SHALLUM Mem. iii. 194) suggests Khurbet S'a?reh, west of Beit 'Atab ; others identify it with Zakariya (Riehm, H WB). Shaaraim is perhaps mentioned again in the pursuit of the Philistines after the death of Goliath (1 S 17*), when ‘the wounded Philistines fell down by the way to Shaaraim (RVm ‘the two gates’), even unto Gath and Ekron.” The meaning of the word is ‘two gates,’ and the LXX takes it in this passage to mean the gates of Gath and Ekron. See, further, art. GAI, and Wellh. Sam. ad loc. 2. A town of Simeon (1 Ch 4*) which appears as Sharuhen in Jos 19°, and as Shilhim in Jos 15°. It was situated in the Negeb, and was possibly the same place as the Canaanite ‘fortress of the land of Sharuana,’ mentioned in the annals of Thothmes III. (RP ii. 38). This indicates that the form Sharwhen is correct. C. W. WILSON. SHAASHGAZ (rºyº).-A chamberlain of king Ahasuerus, Est 21°. The LXX reads Tat, the same name as it gives to the official referred to in vv.**. See HEGAI. SHABBETHAI ("pāv;). — A Levite who opposed the action of Ezra in the matter of the |. marriages, Ezr 10” (B Xaga.0al, A Kabgabal)= SABRATEUS of 1 Es 9*. He is mentioned also, along with other Levites, in Neh 87 (LXX om.), as explaining the law to the people (in 1 Es 9° SABATEUS); and in 11” (BAN” om., Nº. " Xo38a– 6atos) as one of ‘the chiefs of the Levites who had ººight of the outward business of the house of God.” SHACHIA (nºw, so Baer; the MSS show the variants TFW, Tºy, Nºw, Tºng, the last being sup- ported by the Syr. and the LXX [B >aguá, A 2e3vá, but Luc. 2extá), while the forms in 5 instead of a can claim the support of the Vulg. Sechia).- A son of Shaharaim, a Benjamite, 1 Ch 8”. SHADDAI.-See art. GoD, vol. ii. p. 199°. SHADRACH (HTV, Xeópáx).—The name given to Hananiah, one of Daniel’s companions, by the 3rince of the eunuchs, Dn 17. It is related in n 3 how Shadrach, along with Meshach (Mishael) and Abed-nego (Azariah), all of whom had been advanced to high offices (2*), resisted the command to pay homage to Nebuchadnezzar's golden image, how all three were in consequence cast into a fiery furnace, and how they were miraculously iii. See HANANIAH, No. 2, and THREE CHILDREN (SONG OF THE). The etymology of the name Shadrach is un- certain. I'rd. Delitzsch (Lib. Dan. xii.) suggests that it is a variation of the Bab. Sudur-Aku, ‘command of the moon-god,' comparing the Assyr. Tém-ilu =9R-Dye, and the Heb. inºps. This view is pronounced by Schrader (KAT” 429 [COT ii. 125]) to have “considerable probability.’ J. A. SELIBIE. SHAGE (N: ; B 20Xá, A Xayſ).-The father of Jonathan, one of David's heroes, 1 Ch 11”. See AGEE and SHAMMAH, No. 3. SHAHARAIM (Dºric ; B XaapſiA, A Xaapſu).-A Benjamite who is said to have begotten children in the ‘field of Moab.” after he had sent away two wives, Hushim and Baara, 1 Ch 8° (RVm). The passage is obscure. SHAHAZUMAH ("pisig Rethibh ; AV Shaha- zimah, after ſeré Tºxº; B XaAelu karū 0áAaaaav, A 2ao'etuá0, Sehesima).-A town allotted to Issachar, which was apparently between Mt. Tabor and the Jordan (Jos 19°). Its site was unknown to –ºm Eusebius and Jerome (Onom. s. Xao upid, Sasima), and it has not yet been identified. C. W. WILSON. SHALEM (nºw ; els XaXiu ; in Salem).-Accord- ing to AW (cf. Luther's translation), which follows the LXX, the Pesh., and the Vulg., “Shalem' (Gn 33*) is a proper name, and considered to be a town near Shechem. Eusebius and Jerome (Onom.) believed Shalem and Shechem to be the same place. But if Shalem was a town, it must have been Sálim, 4 miles east of Nablus (Shechem). In Gn 28° phy; bé-shālem is translated ‘in peace,’ and in Gn 33” we should probably translate “in peace to the city of Shechem,’ as in RV which follows the Targums of Onkelos and pseudo-Jonathan, the Samaritan Codex, the Arabic Version, and the great Jewish and other commentators of modern times. See Dillm. ad loc. C. W. WILSON. SHALISHAH, THE LAND of (nºw-ris; B # yń XeXxd, A # yì XaXiao'd ; terra Salisa).-Saul, when searching for his father's asses, passed through the ‘land of Shalishah’ (1 S 9") after crossing the ‘hill-country of Ephraim, and before reaching the ‘land of Shaalim.” Leaving Gibeah he must have crossed Mt. Ephraim in a northerly direction, and the ‘land of Shalishah’ must consequently have been in the western hills. Baal-shalishah (2 K 4*), which was very probably in the land of Shalishah, is said by %. and Jerome (Omom. s. Batóoraptord 9, Bethsalisa) to have been in the Thamnitic toparchy, 15 M.P. north of Lydda. This points to Khurbet Sirisia, or, according to Conder (PEF Mem. ii. 285), to Khurbet Kefr Thilth. See SHAALIM. C. W. WILSON. SHALLECHETH, THE GATE (nºw yº; # tróAn traaroqoptov ; porta qua ducit). —One of the gates of the ‘house of Jehovah' which Solomon was to build after the death of David (1 Ch 22). It is mentioned only in 1 Ch 26", in a list of the gate- keepers (AV ‘porters’) of the sacred enclosure as settled by David. The gate was on the west side of the outer court, behind the temple buildings, and apparently, at, or near, the head of the ramp or causeway (nºpº) which led up to the sanctuary from the ravine which Josephus calls the Tyropoeon Valley. It has been suggested (cf. Smith's DB, s.v.) that the causeway was at ‘Wilson's Arch '; but, in the uncertainty which still exists with regard to the site of the temple, and the condition of the hill in the time of Solomon, this can only be re- garded as speculation. Some authorities (e.g. Riehm [HWB], Speaker's Com.), from the meaning of the word Shallecheth, ‘casting forth,’ consider the gate to be that by which the ashes and the oſſal of the victims were thrown out. It is, however, probable that the refuse of the temple was carried out on the east or south side, and burned, or other- wise disposed of, in the Kidron Valley. The LXX rendering, ‘Gate of the Pastophoriom,’ appears to point to a building with chambers, of which there were several round the outer enclosure of the temple. C. W. WILSON. SHALLUM (nºw and pºw).-1. One of the kings of Israel, 2 K. 1519-1" (Xe)\oſu). He headed a con- spiracy against Zechariah, the last king of Jehu's dynasty, murdered him, and usurped his throne (c. 740 B.C.). After the short period of a month, he himself fell a victim to MENAHEM (see vol. iii. p. 34.0"). 2. It is not improbable that in Jer 22” (>eXXía) Dºw (AV and RV ‘Shallum') is meant to be an epithet, ‘the requited one,’ applied to Jehoahaz, or it may be that Shallum was the original name of the latter (see JEHOAHAZ, No. 2). The Chronicler takes (perhaps from this passage) Shallum as a proper name, and makes him tha SHALLUN SHAME 473 fourth son of Josiah, 1 Ch 3” (B XaXoºp, A XaX- Aotu). 3. The husband (or son, LXX in 2 Kings) of HULDAH the prophetess, 2 K 22* (B 2e)\\hu, A Xe)\\otſu), 2 Ch 34” (BA XeX\ſu). 4. A Judahite, 1 Ch 2" (B XaXotſu, A in v.49 XaX\otſu). 5. A de- scendant of Simeon, 1 Ch 4” (XaXéu). 6. A high priest, son of Zadok, 1 Ch 6* * (B XaX&p, A XeX- Xotº), Ezr 7” (B Xe)\ota, A XeX\otu)= SALEM of 1 Es 84 and SALEMAS of 2 Es 1%. 7. A son of Naphtali, 1 Ch 7” (B XaAwudºv, A 2éNAoûu), called in Gn 46% and Nu 26* Shillem (nºw ; in former passage A. Xv)\\ffu, in latter B XeX\}, A, 2ex\ſig), with the gentilic name Shillemites ('bºn; B & XeX\muel, A & 2éA\mul), Nu 26". 8. The eponym of a family of gatekeepers, 1 Ch 9.7% (B 2a)\tºu, A first time XaX\tºu), Ezr 2* = Neh 7” (B XaXoču, A 2e)\\009), called in l Es 5*SALUM, and (possibly) in Neh 12” MESHULLAM. 9. A Korahite gate- keeper, 1 Ch 9” (B XaAwatºv, A. XaX&p) * (BA XaXúp.), called in 26* * * MESHIELEMIAH and in 26* SIIELEMIAH. It is not at all unlikely that this name should be identified with the preceding. 10. Rather of Jehizkiah, an Ephraimite chief, 2 Ch 28” (Xe)\ſu), 11. One of the porters who had married a foreign wife, Ezr 10* (B TeXAffa, N Taux- Xetu, A 20\\hu). 12. One of the sons of Bani who had committed the same offence, Ezr 10” (B XaXoºp, A Xe)\\oºp). 13. The son of Hallohesh, ruler of a district of Jerusalem. He and his daughters are recorded to have assisted in the repairing of the wall, Neh 3” (B XaXoču, A 2&AAoûu, N O&Aoûu). 14. The uncle of Jeremiah, Jer 32 [Gr. 39]7 (XaX&p.). 15. Father of Maaseiah, the keeper of the threshold, Jer 35 [Gr. 42]* (2e)\tºp.). J. A. SELBIE. SHALLUN (ºv).-The son of Col-hozeh, the ruler of the district of Mizpah, who took part in the repair of the wall and gates of Jerusalem, Neh 319 (LXX om.). SHALMAI.-See SALMAI. SHAIMAN (pºw).—Hos 1014 (only) ‘as Shalman spoiled Beth-arbel in the day of battle.’ The identity of Shalman and of BETH-ARBEL (which see) are both doubtful. The former name may be a contraction of Shalmaneser, although the pro- phet’s language, implying some event fresh in the memory of his hearers, does not suit the reign of Shalmaneser II. (B.C. 860–825) or even Shalmaneser III. (783–773). If Shalmaneser IV. (727–722) be referred to, the words must be a later gloss (so Wellhausen, K. Proph. ad loc.). To the sug- gestion of Schrader (KAT” 441 [COT ii. 140]) that the reference may be to an incursion (cf. 2 k 15°) of the Moabite king Salamant, mentioned in Tiglath-pileser's great triumphal inscription (II Rawl. 67, line 60), both ellh. and Nowack object that such an occurrence would have been too insignificant to supply material for the pro- phet's comparison. The versions give us no help, the LXX B reproducing ºsans nä pºv IV; by ºs āpxwu [i.e. ny for Tøj XaXapuśv čk rod oikov 'Iepoğoãu (A ’Iepošćax), while the Vulg. has sicut vastatus est Salmama a domo ejus qui judicavit Baal, think- ing apparently of the slaughter of Zalmunna by Gideon (Jerubbaal), Jg 8. J. A. SELDIE. SHALMANESER (ºpsipºv, XaXagavaradp, Sal- manasar). —The name is abbreviated from Assyr. Sulman-asaridu, “the god Sulman (of peace) is chief.” In 2 K 17° it is said that “Shalmaneser, king of Assyria,’ came up against Hoshea of Samaria, who submitted at first, but afterwards, being detected in a conspiracy to revolt with the aid of the Egyptians, was deposed and imprisoned. Shalmaneser then besieged Samaria, B.C. 725. This was Shalmaneser IV. of the Assyr. monuments, whose original name was Ululá, which he changed to Shalmaneser when he seized the throne (on the 25th day of Tebet, B.C. 727) after the death of Tiglath-pileser III. He seems to have been 2. successful general, and to have had no hereditary rights to the crown. Josephus (Ant. Ix. xiv. 2), uoting from Menander, states that he attacked Slulteus of Tyre, and, though the Assyrian fleet of 60 vessels was destroyed by the Tyrian fleet of 12, the city was closely invested on the land side. Shalmaneser died at the beginning of the month Tebeth during the siege of Samaria, B.C. 722, after a reign of only 5 years. See, also, art. SHALMAN. A. H. SAYCE. SHAMA (yº); B Xapabá, A Xapp.4).-One of David's heroes, 1 Ch 11*. SHAMBLES.—1 Co 10” “Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat” (Gr. 94ke)\\ov, from Lat. 'macellum, a provision market). The word ‘sham- bles’ is now used of the slaughter-house, but for- merly, according to its origin, denoted the place where the meat was sold. It is the Anglo-Sax. Scamel, a stool, from Lat. Scamellum, a little stool or bench. Cf. Congreve, Juvenal's Satires, xi.- “Many there are of the same wretched Kind, Whom their despairing Creditors may find Lurking in Shambles; where with borrowed Coin They buy choice Meats.” J. HASTINGS. SHAME (Heb. tha ‘to be ashamed,’ nga ‘shame,’ also other words; Gr. aloxºvi), āripula, etc.).--In the biblical use of the word ‘shame' there is a blending of several meanings: besides the sense of shame Pºpº. felt for oneself (Job 11°, Lk 14°, 2Th 314) or for another (Ezr 99, Pr 10° 17°, 2 Co 9°), there is included the feeling of disappointment (Job 6*, Ps 35", Jer 14° 22*; cf. Ro 5') or deception (Ps 14%, Jer 2*), the experience of disaster (Job 8*, Ps 40”) or disgrace (including reproach, rebuke, or insult) (Jg 187, Ru 21", Job 1619 19°, Ps 22° 35' 697, Pr 25", Ph 319); and thus are combined the sub- jective sense, the inward feeling, and the objective, its outward cause. This feeling is ascribed figur- atively to a fountain (Hos 13°), Lebanon (Is 33°), the sun (Is 24*), and a vessel (Ro 9%, 2 Ti 2*). Shame is awakened by the exposure of some parts of the body uncovered literally (compare Gn 2* with 37 9-0-27, Ex 32*, 2 S 6° 10°, Is 20°, Mic lil), or figur- atively (Is 478, Jer 13*, Nah 3%, Itev 31° 16'9), by outrage on a woman's person (2 S 13”), by dis- honouring treatment of the body (Is 50", Mk 12", Lk 2011, 1 Th 2°), as crucifixion (He 6° 12°), and even by the appearance of a cºe (1 Co 15°). Poverty may make ashamed (Pr 13°, 1 Co 11”), so beggary (Lk 16”), defeat in battle (2 Ch 32*, Ps 44" 89"), or even disease (Nu 12*). A wicked wife (Prl?"), or a bad child (Pr 10° 29*), may cause shame. Shame arises from any breach of acknow- ledged rules of propriety, as a woman's being shaven (1 Coll"), or speaking in church (1 Co 14”), or a man’s having long hair (1 Co 11”). Sins so unseemly are found among men, that not only the ractice of them awakens shame (Ro 1* * 6*, ude 19), but even the very sight or mention of them (Ezk 1697, Eph 5”). Among the sins, men. tioned as bringing shame are folly (Pr 3° 14° 18'"), refusal of instruction (bºr 13°), ignorance of truth of God (1 Co 15%), quarrelsomeness (Prº5°, 1 Co 6°), haste in speech (Pr 18°), riot (Pr 28"), idleness (Pr 10°), wilfulness (Prº29"), lying (Pr. 13"), dis- honesty (2 Co 4*; cf. RV and AV), theft (Jer 2*), disrespect to parents (Pr 19°), ingratitude (1 Co 4*), pride (Pr 11”). - wº Shame in one or other of its senses is regarded as the Divine punishment of sin, which God threatens (Ps 1328, Jer 23" 46”), and which the pious in OT #74 SHAMEFACEDNESS SHAMMAH are sure will, in answer to prayer, fall on His and their enemies (Ps 61° 44' 53° 70° 8617). On the other hand, God promises (Ps, 37°), and the pious are assured, that this experience will either not be theirs at all (Ps 25° 3117 34° 69° 11981), or if ever theirs, that they will be delivered from it (Is 29* 54* 617, Jl 2*). Even God’s chosen people may be exposed to disgrace and disaster, making them first of all ashamed of their state (2 Ch 30”, Jer 12° 14''), and then truly ashamed of the sin that has brought it on them (Ezr 9", Jer 31°, Ezk 16", Hos 10°); but sometimes it is long before this feeling is aroused (Jer 3° 6” 89.1%). Fidelity to God's cause, may, however, also bring shame (Ps 44* 697). The sin that most surely is followed b shame is idolatry (Is 1” 427449.451", Jer 171° 481*, Hos 47 10%), or alliance with idolators (Gn 34”, Ezr 99). The idol itself is shameful (Jer 3* 1119, HQs 9”; perhaps Hos 47 reading with Targ. Pesh. ‘ they have exchanged their glory for infamy’; cf. Jer 2" and Ps 106”), and its worship shameful, *hºps because often licentious (see Cheyne on Hos 47 and 919). Worthy of mote in this connexion is the change of the names Eshbaal (1 Ch 8°), Meribbaal (1 Ch 8*), Jerubbaal (Jg 6”), to Ish- bosheth (2 S 29), Mephibosheth (2 S 4*), and Jerub- besheth (2 S 11”). lthough the alterations show the prophetic editor's aversion to idolatry, yet, the names in their original form are not necessarily a proof of idolatry, as the name Baal may be used as a title of J" (Hos 219). Akin to the sin of idolatry was trust in any foreign alliances for safety instead of in J", and this too brings ‘shame,’ i.e. disappoint- ment (Is 20° 308. 9, Jer 280; cf. Ezr 8*). See, further, Driver, Par. Psalt. (Glossary. s. ‘abashed,’ ‘ashamed '). In NT the sense of shame is often mentioned by St. Paul. He is not ashamed of the gospel (Ro 116), of his converts (2 Co 7”; cf. 9"), of his hope (Ro 5°), of his faith (Ro 9° 10'), of his trials (Ph 14", 2 Ti 11°), of his boasting (2 Co 10°). Onesiphorus was not ashamed of Paul’s chain (2 Ti 1"), and Timothy is called on not to be ashamed of the witness of the Lord, or of Paul His prisoner (2 Ti 19). The unruly are to be brought to shame by exclusion from the church (2Th 31*). While the enemies of Christ are #. to shame (Lk 1397), and the false accusers of is disciples (Tit 28, 1 P 31°), they, although slandered and ill-treated (2 Co 6°), need not be ashamed to suffer for His name (1 P 419); for, if they are ashamed of Him now, He will be ashamed of them in the day of judgment (Mk 8*, Lk 9"); but if they are faithful they need not fear shame in that day (1 Jn 2*), for Christ is not ashamed to call the sanctified brethren (He 2"), and God is not ashamed to be called the God of those who seek a better country (He 11”); but the wicked and unbelieving shall awake to shame (Dn 12”; cf. Jn 5*). A. E. GARVIE. SHAMEFACEDNESS.—The adj. ‘shamefaced ' occurs in Sir 2610, 29 321° 41.1%. 24, and the subst. ‘shamefacedness’ in Sir 411", 1 Ti 29. But in the 1611 editions, and for some time after, the spelling is always ‘shamefast’ and ‘shamefastness.’ Davies says he has not found ‘shamefaced,’ ‘shamefaced- ness’ earlier than 1661. Trench (On A V of NT, p. 66) says: “Shamefastness is formed upon shamefast, that is, fast or established in honourable shame. To change this into shamefacedness is to allow all the meaning and force of the word to run to the surface, to leave it ethically a far inferior word, and marks an unfaithful guardianship of the text, both on their part who first introduced, and theirs who have so long allowed, the change.’ And 1)avies (Bible English, p. 12), after describing ‘shamefastness as “that modesty which is fast or rooted in the character,’ adds, “The change is the more to be regretted because 8hannefacedness is seldom employed now in a very good sense; it has come rather to describe an awkward diſſidence, such as we sometimes call sheepishness.’ Hut the confusion between ‘shamefastness' and ‘shamefacedness’ is as old as 1011. Shaks, does not use the hubst., but he has the adj. twice : in III IIemºry VI. IV. viii. 53, Aº ‘shamefaced' is the only spelling; in Rich. III. I. iv. 142, the folio has ‘shamefaced,’ the quartos ‘shamefast.” In the Rhemish NT (note on Lk 2400) we read, ‘S. Augustine saith that Christ him self not without cause would have his sign to be fixed in our foreheads as in the Sgat of shamefastnes, that a Christian man should not be ashamed of the reproach of Christ,' which shows how the confusion could arise, And James Melvill (Diary, 79) uses the word ‘shamefastness’ practically in the modern sense of ‘shamefacedness,’ ‘Yit my guid God, of his free grace, and love towards me, a vean, vyll, corrupt youthe; partlie, by his fear wrought in my heart, partlie by necessar occupation in my calling, and partlie be a certean schamfastnes of a bashfull nature, quhilk he pat in me, sa keipit me that I was nocht overcome nor miscaried be na woman offensivlio to his kirk, nor grievuslie to my conscience, in blotting of my bodie.” For the proper sense of ‘shamefastness," cf. ên. Doctor's Tale, 55– “Shamefast she was in mayden's shamefastnesse'; Spenser, FQ II. ix.43– “She is the fountain of your modestee: You shamefast are, but Shamefastnes it selfe is shee'; Elyot, Governour, i. 51 —“The moste necessary thinges to be observed by a master in his diséiples or scholars . . . is sham- fastnes and praise. By shamfastnes, as it were with a bridell, they rule as well theyr dedes as their appetites.” J. HASTINGS. SHAMGAR (nºw), Xapsydp).-Son of Anath, and }. in the south of Israel between Ehud and eborah. He slew 600 Philistines with an ox- goad (Jg 3* 5"). The name is Assyr. like Samgar- nebo (Jer 39°), and is a shortened form of some such name as Sumgir-Bel, ‘be gracious, O Bel,’ with the divine name omitted. Anath is also the Assyr.-Bab. Anatu, the wife of the god Anu (see, however, BABYLONIA, vol. i. p. 215°), unless we are to read Ben-anath, ‘the son of Anatu,” which is the name of a Canaanite in one of the Tel el- Amarna tablets. The names show that Bab. influence lingered in the south of Palestine for some time after the period of the Tel el-Amarna tablets, when Bab. names were not uncommon there (see Moore's Judges, p. 106). A. H. SAYCE. SHAMHUTH (ninºv); B XaXad;0, A Xaua&9).—The fifth captain for the fifth month, 1 Ch 27°. He is called the IZRAHITE (B 6 'Eopäe, A 6'IešpaéA), and is the same as Shammoth the Harorite (a scribal error for Harodite) of 1 Ch 11” and Shammah the HARODITE of 2 S 23*. SHAMIR (tºw, 22.9%).-A Kohathite, son of Micah, 1 Ch 24”. t SHAMIR (nºw); XaAelp; Samir).-The name of two places in Palestine. 1. (A : Xaqeip) A town in the hill-country of Judah (Jos 15°), which is mentioned in the same group with Jattir and Socoh. Eusebius and Jerome from the reading of A alter the name to Shaphir (see Nowack, Kl. Proph. on Mic 1"). Conder (PEF Mem., iii. 262) identifies it with Rhurbet Sómerah, which lies west of Dębir, and in this agrees with Guérin (Judée, iii. 364, ‘Sumra, ’). 2. (A Xapid peta) The home and burial-place of Tola, a man of Issachar, who judged Israel for twenty-three years (Jg 10” ”). , Shamir was in Mt. Ephraim, and Schwarz (151) identifies, it with Sanita', a picturesquely situated village between Samaria and En-gannin (Jenin). C. W. WILSON, SHAMLAI.—See SALMAI. SHAMMA (nºw); B Xep.4, A Xapped).--An Asherite, 1 Ch 787. g SHAMMAH (nºw).—1. The son of Reuel the son of Esau, and a tribal chief (ºs) of Edom (Gn 36” ” [Xoué, in v.” D >oual], 1 Ch 1” [B 2006, A Xoupé]). 2. (B in 1 S 16", 2 S 13° Xauá, 2 S 13", 1 Ch 29 207 Xapad, 2 S 21” Xepeel; A in 1 S 16" 17* Xapp.4, 1 Ch 21° Xauaid, 1 Ch 207 Xapads) The third son of Jesse and brother of IDavid. Like his two elder SHAMMAH SHAPHAN 475 r— brothers, he joined Saul's forces in the campaign against the Philistines, and was with the Israelite army in the valley of Elah when David overcame Goliath (1 S 17*). According to a later writer, he was present at the anointing of David by Samuel (1 S 16***). He was the father of Jonadab, the friend and adviser of Amnon (2 S 13*), and also of that Jonathan whose exploit against a Philistine giant is recorded in 2 S 21*. His name is variously given as Shammah (nºw 1 S 16" 171°), Shimeah (nºw 2 S 13* *), Shimei (whº, Kërë nºw 2 S 21*), and Shimea (Nymy 1 Ch 28.207). 3. (2 S 23* B Xapatá, AXappeds; 23* B Xapºváv, A. 2aplvás ; 1 Ch 11* B XaXá, A Xayºff) The son of AGEE, a Hararite (read ºnlin in 2 S 2311, see v.3°, 1 Ch 11*), one of David's famous ‘Three.” The Special act of bravery to which he owed his position is briefly recorded in 2 S 2311, 19. The Philistines, in the course of a foray, had driven the Israelites from a field of lentils (1 Ch 11” barley) at Lehi (read nºn; to Lehi (Jg 15°) for nºn', to the troop (?), SO most moderns; see Driver, ad loc.). The Israelites fled before the enemy, but Shammah held his ground, and by his courageous stand brought about a victory for Israel. The succeed- ing incident which is narrated in 2 S 23*, viz. the well-known exploit of David’s three mighty men, who broke through the hosts of the Philistines and brought him water from the well of Beth- lehem, has been frequently ascribed to Shammah and the two other members of ‘the Three'; but the three heroes who performed this feat are clearly stated in v.” to belong to ‘the Thirty.’ Since no previous mention has been made of ‘the Thirty,’ it is probable that vv. 18-17" are not in their original place, and that y.º. really forms the continuation of vv.8-1° (so Wellh., Driver). In the parallel narrative (1 Ch 11.1%.) Shammah is not || mentioned by name, and the exploit which made his name famous is wrongly ascribed to Eleazar the son of Dodo. Klostermann plausibly suggests that the incorrect reading in v.” ‘’into a troop' (n.º) represents an original ‘to battle' (nº), and that the Chronicler accidentally passed from this phrase in v." to the same phrase in v.”, omitting thc intervening narrative. According to the most probable reading of 2 S 23* * Shammah was the father of Jonathan, one of David’s ‘Thirty.” In this passage the word son has been accidentally omitted, and we must restore ‘Jonathan the son of Shammah” (Tºgº, Djin, so Driver, Budde, Kittel, klost., Löhr); the parallel passage (1 Ch 11”) gives ‘Jonathan the son of Shage’ (39-1. Inji'), but the reading ‘Shammah' (for Shage) is confirmed by Lucian (Xapató). Possibly Shāgé ("JW) has arisen from a confusion with 'Agé’ (NJN) in 2 S 23". Wellhausen (Teact d. B. Sam. p. 216) prefers the reading of the Chronicler (Njºy or ":W-13), and supposes that Jonathan the Hararite was the son of Shage (which he would restore in v.” for Agee) and brother of Shammah. Kloster- mann, adopting the reading of Lucian in 2 S. 23" ('HXà = nºs), identifies Shammah with Shimei the son of Elah, one of Solomon's twelve monthly officers (1 K 4”). 4. (2 S 23* B Xavuá, A Xaupal ; 1 Ch 11” B Xaua (60, A Xaud,0; 27° B XaXad,0, A Xapad,0) A Harodite, i.e. probably a native of 'Ain-harod (see HAROD), one of ‘the Thirty,’ and captain of Solomon's fifth monthly course. In the parallel lists he is called “Shammoth the Harorite” (1 Ch 11” ºnqn nºv; ; read ºntº the Harodite) and “Shamhuth the Izrahite” (1 Ch 27° nºr mºnt). Since the lists of heroes given in 2 S 23 and 1 Ch 11 are admittedly in confusion, it is possible that (3) and (4) are identical, and that the obscure “Hararite” (2 S 23* *) is a mistake for “Harodite.’ J. F. STENNING. SHAMMAI ("ºv). —1. A Jerahmeelite, 1 Ch 22, (B 2642, A 2&ppal). In v.” the LXX runs the Heb. ºv' 'n' (‘brother of Shammai’) together as 'Axetorápas (B) or 'Axto app.4 (A). 2. The ‘son’ of Reken and ‘father’ of Maon, 1 Ch 2“t. (B Xapat, A 2&ppal). 3. A Judahite, 1 Ch 4" (B Xépév, A. 2éppal). See GENEALOGY, IV. 54. sººnwork—see SHAMHUTH, and SHAMMAH O. 4's SHAMMUA (gºv).-1. The Reubenite spy, Nu 13° (B Xauovº, A 2dpa)\tº\). 2. One of David’s sons, 2 S 5* (B Xappods, A Xappoſe), 1 Ch 14" (B Xapida, A 2dpipiaoû, N Xapuatá); called in 1 Ch 3" Shimea (Nºnº ; B 24pav, A 2011a6). 3. A Levite, Neh 1137 (Xauovel) = SHEMAIAH, No. 6. 4. The head of a priestly family, Neh 12” (BAN" om., Nº" " Xvapºoije). - SHAMSHERAI ("nºnv'; B'Iopagapuá, AXaparapuá). —A Benjamite, 1 Ch 8*. SHAPE.-In AV, as in earlier English generally, ‘shane' is less definite and less material than now. In Wis 18 the mod, meaning is nearly approached, “Not seeing their shape’ (uopph, Vulg. figura), but even there it is “outward form' generally. In Lk 3” “The Holy Ghost descended in a ºfty shane like a dove upon him,” the meaning is simply ‘ appearance” (Gr. orwuarukº etàet, RV ‘in a bodily form '); so Jn 5” (eiðos, RV form'). The only other occurrence is Rev 97 ‘The shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle’ (rá čuoud gara, RV m ‘the likenesses’). Cf. Shaks. Hamlet, I. ii. 80—“All forms, moods, shapes of grief' (folios ‘shews’); Jul. Caºs. II. i. 253– “It will not let you eat, nor talk, nor sleep : And, could it work so much upon your shape As it hath much prevailed on your condition, I should not know you, Brutus.” In Rhem. NT Mk 1613 is trø “And after this he appeared in another shape to two of them walking,’ and on this word there is a note, ‘Christ though he have but one corporal shape, natural to his person, yet by his omnipotencie he may be in whatsoever forme, and appears in the likenesse of any other man or creature, as he list. Therefore let no man think it strange, that he may be under the forme of bread in the B. Sacrament.” The old pass, ptcp. of the verb, “shapen,’ is found in Ps 51°. So Tind. uses the old past tense “shope” in Gn 27 ‘Then the Lorde God shope man, even of the moulde of the erth.” J. HASTINGS. SHAPHAM (nºw); B Xagór, 1 Ch 51°. SHAPHAN (HV) “coney or rock-badger'; LXX Xapáv, Xaq q.4v, Xeqqºv ; Vulg. Sapham : on this name as evidence that ‘superstition of the totem kind had still a hold on Israelites in the last years of the independence of the kingdom of Judah,” see W. R. Smith in the Journal of Philology, 1880, p. 75, and Gray, HPN p. 103).-1. Scribe or finance minister (Ewald) in the reign of Josiah. He is brought prominently before us in the story of the discovery of ‘the book of the law' in the temple, 2 K 22*, 2 Ch 34*. The system of raising money for the repairs of the tennple which had been instituted by Jehoash (2 N 12), seems from this narrative to have been in regular opera- tion since that time. The money chest which had been set up by Jehoiada was emptied periodically under the supervision of the high priest and of the king's scribe. It was on one of these occasions that HILKIAH communicated to Shaphan his great discovery of ‘the book of the law.” The Chronicler Xaçãp).—A Gadite, 176 SHAREZER SHAPHAT (2 Ch 34°) represents Shaphan as having been accompanied § two other officials. In any case it was to Shaphan that Hilkiah entrusted the precious volume, and it was from Shaphan’s lips that Josiah heard the words that so deeply moved him. Shaphan also formed one of the deputation that subsequently visited the prophetess HULDAH. Assuming that this was the Shaphan who was father of Ahikam (2 K 2219, 2 Ch 34”, Jer 26*), he was grandfather of Gedaliah (2 K 25*, Jer 39* 40*.*.* 41° 43°). The only objection to this sup- position lies in the fact that Ahikam seems to take precedence of his father. It is, of course, W. e that he may have filled a higher office. Whatever the truth may be concerning Shaphan's connexion with the discovery of ‘the book of the law,’ it is at least certain that he belonged to the party of reform whose inspiration was derived from that book, and who were friendly to Jere- miah. One of his sons, Ahikam, º the prophet from the fury of the hostile priests and prophets (Jer 26*). Another, Elasah, was one of the two whom Jeremiah employed to carry his letter to the captives in Babylon (Jer 29°). From the windows of the chamber of yet another son, Gemariah, Baruch read “the words of the LORD in the ears of the people’ (Jer 36”), words which were given still further publicity by the action of Gemariah's son, Micaiah (vv.” ”). And when the last agony of Jerusalem was over, it was with Shaphan's grandson, Gedaliah, that the aged pro- phet found an honoured asylum (Jer 39*). 2. Father of Jaazaniah, who was ringleader in idolatry of the seventy ancients of the house of Israel, as seen by Ezekiel (8*). N. J. D. WHITE. SHAPHAT (bºw).-1. The Simeonite spy, Nu 13” (BA Xaqāt, F Xaqāv). 2. The father of the pro- plmet Elisha, 1 K 191% (B Xaq,46, A 2&qār) * (BA Saqlār), 2 K 311 (B "Iwataqºd.6, A Xaqār) 6” (B on., Xaq,47). 3. A name in the royal genealogy of Judah, 1 Ch 3° (B Saqbā6, A Xaqāt). 4. A Gadite, 1 Ch 51° (LXX [? confusing with nED] 6 ypauſarevs). 5. On 2 of David’s herdmen, 1 Ch 27* (B 2wººdv, A 2009&r). SHAPHIR (nºw); LXX kaAós; Vulg. pulchra).- One of the towns or villages—none of them very far from Eleutheropolis—which the prophet Micah addressed (Mic lº). According to Eusebius and Jerome (Onom. Xaqelp, Saphir), it was a village of Judah in the hill-country between Eleuthero- polis and Ascalon. Robinson (BIEP” ii. 34, note), van de Velde (S. and P. 159), and Conder, doubt- fully (PEF Mem. ii. 413), identify Shaphir with one of three mud villages, called es-Sitáfir, which stand near each other about 3% miles S.E. of Esdūd, Ashdod. This appears, to be the place referred to in the Onomasticom, but the identifica- tion is uncertain. On the possible identity of Shaphir with Shamir of Jos 15° see Nowack on Mic 111. C. W. WILSON. SHARAI ("nº ; B Xaptoſ, A 'Apoſ, N: Xapoße).—One of the sons of Bani, who had married a foreign wife, Ezr 1049. SHARAR.—See SACAR. SHAREZER (nylºv [see Baer, ad loc.]; Xapárap, BA in 2 K 1997 and Zec 7°, B in Is 37*; Xapága, Luc. in 2 Kings, NAQ in Isaiah. In its original Assyrian form the name is probably - $º-ºſsur, ‘protect the prince’; in meaning, a prayer addressed to some god whose name is onlitted. Bel-Sharušur, Marduk-sharuster, and similar Assyrian Ilames are then unabbreviated parallels. It has been suggested that the full name of the Sharezer of 2 K 19 [= Is _ºf – 37] was Nergal-sharušwr, a Babylonian name which occurs in Jer 39° [NERGAL-SHAREZER]. The origin of the conjecture is an untenable identification of Sharezer with the Nergilus of the historian Aby- denus [see below]. In Zec 7” the complete name is very probably Bel-sharezer). 1. In conjunction with a brother, ADRAMMELECH, named as the assassin of the Assyrian king Senna- cherib (2 K 1997 = Is 37*). The murderers are described as Sen.’s sons, and the scene of the assassination is given as the temple of NISROCH. According to the Babylonian Chronicle, Sen. was killed during an insurrection, and the date was towards the close of the year 681 (20th Tebeth). The other records of the assassination are an in- scription of Nabuna'id, an extract from Polyhistol (Berosus) in Eusebius, and another from Abydenus. These agree, with the Chronicle in stating that Sen. was killed by one of his sons. They contain no reference to the complicity of two sons. Even Abydenus is explicit in saying that one son was the murderer.” Of the two names given by the Hebrew narrative, that of Sharezer is most affected by this preponderance of negative testimony. Adrammelech has the support of the names Adramelus and Ardumuzanus (Ardumusanus), which are given by Abydenus and Polyhistor respectively. One of Sen.’s sons, also, has a name (Aššur-šum-ušabși) which is said to be cap- able of readings approximately the same as these variants (Scheil in ZA xi. 425–27). There is nothing of a definite character to be said on the other side in favour of Sharezer. Yet the nega- tive argument is so much e silentio that an explana- tion of the appearance of the name in the Hebrew text is pressingly required before an error can be granted. W. M. Müller imagines too improbable a history. He supposes that Adrammelech was “Assyrianized 'into Sharezer by some archaeologist. Adrammelech was regarded as a translation, Shar- ezer was a retranslation put alongside of it in the text (ZAT'W xvii. 332). It can only be said, mean- time, that Sharezer's name, his part in the assassi- nation of Sen., and his relationship to the king, all rest on the authority of the Hebrew narrative. The revolt, in which Sen.’s inurder was an inci- dent, was obviously designed to secure the throne for the rebel(s), and to prevent the accession of the designated heir Esarhaddon. In this it failed. Esarhaddon triumphed within six weeks, by the second of Adar, although for an unknown reason he did not formally assume the crown until three and a half months later (18th Sivan). The murderers fled to Armenia, according to the OT narrative. There was likely to be a welcome for such exiles there. The fragment of Abydenus says that Esar- haddon put Adramelus to death. * “Qwi a ſilio A dramelo est interemptw8.” By a transposition of this sentence and the preceding, an attempt has been made to bring a certain Nergilus there mentioned into Some con- nexion with the assassination of Sennacherib. But, even, then he is neither Sen.'s son nor his assassin. It is inadmissible to read the statement regarding him in the light of the weaker rather than of the stronger testimony. The supposition that Nergilus is Sharezer is a conjecture from an emended text (supporters of the hypothesis are named in Schrader, COT ii. 16). Equally possible, and even more probable, is the suggestion that the sentence “deinceps tutem post eum Nergi lug ºregnavit’ is a reference to the Babylonian king. Nergal-usheáib, This identification is made by Winckler (ZA ii. 392 ſ.). But it is easier to suppose that the context is imperfect than to adont his combination with another context. e w # Sar-etir-Ağur is a son of Sen. whose name might be identi- fled with Sharezer (Winckler, Allor. I'orsch., 2nd Series (1898], i. 59). It can also be urged that Polyhistor and Abydenus may have got their names of the assassin from the Heb. Adrammelech. Moses of Chorene gives more positive testi- mony, but is not sufficiently reliable. He names two assass'ns. In the Whistons' Latin version (London, 1730) the forms, are Adramelus, or Argamozanus and Sanasarus (i. 22). ...Their settlement in Armenia is the occasion of their being mention .i. Boscawen's recent identiſcation (IBab. and On'. Record, viii. 259 f.) secms to depend too much on a resemblance to the conjectural form Nergal-8harezer. SHARON SHARON 477 2. One who consulted the spiritual heads of the Jewish community on the question whether the fast, observed on the anniversary of the burning of the pre-exilic temple was appropriate after its restoration (Zec 7”). purport of the verse, is very uncertain. subject and Sharezer and the others messengers from Bethel. Such a personification seems without parallel in prose. AV follows Vulg. in making “Bethel' accusative of direction and ºr..." to the house of God.” But the temple is never called béth-'él. The difficulty is removed by finding in these letters the Divine name which, according to analogy, is required to complete the compound Šar-w8wr. The text may origin- ally have read Bel-Sharezer (Siegfried-Stade, H WB). The n may be accounted for as a dittography of N in the early Hebrew character.” After this correction has been made, v.9 Suggests that the author of the inquiry is one individual, namely (Bel-) Sharezer. Regen-melech and the others are then messengers whom he sent. Sharezer's question is explained by the new situation which the restoration of the temple created. Since Zechariah addresses his reply to the “people of the land,’ it may be argued that Sharezer was spokesman on their behalf. But v.” more naturally expresses individual perplexity. V.” implies that the inquiry came from outside the community in Jerusalem. The question itself comes naturally from one who is not in touch with movements in the capital; it is artificial and un- likely when regarded as an attempt to bring logal discussions to an issue (Nowack’s view). Zechariah addresses the lº and the whole Jewish com- munity (‘ º e of the land,’ as Hag 2*). The priests are doubtless named because “instruc- tion’ (tórāh) had been asked of them, and formally they have yet to reply (in v.” the words “and to the prophets’ may be an insertion, anticipating the fact that actually Zechariah comes forward to reply). The people also are addressed, to secure for the prophet's words a wider currency. Babylon is more likely to have been Sharezer's home than any part of Judah. His Babylonian name, Bel-sharusur, is one argument ; the formality of his deputation another. The hypo- thesis accounts most simply for the purpose and motive of the inquiry. It does justice also to all the points of the narrative. The primary object of Sharezer's deputation (v.2) was to offer sacrifices at the restored sanctuary (‘to entreat the favour of the Lord'). The question to the priests was incidental to this main }. although prompted by the same good news. Thus early he spiritual authority of Jerusalem was acknowledged by the diaspora. The incident is dated in the year 518 (v.l.). The temple was completed in 516 (Ezr (515); its restoration had commenced in 520 (Hag 119). Either the news which reached Babylon anticipated the complete restoration midway (assum- ing the dates to be correct); , or the rebuilding was so far advanced as to justify Sharezer in taking action. It is noteworthy that Zechariah’s prophecy (v.v."-7) has no special application to the circum- stances of the time. It depreciates or disavows the practice of fasting as such. Zec 81* * seems more appropriate as a reply to Sharezer's envoys. LITERATURE. –On 2 K 1997: Schrader, COT" ii. 13–17; Winck- ler, Z.A. ii. (1887) 392–90 ; , Johns, 12a:pos. Times, vii. (April 1896). For Polyhistor and Abydemus see Eusebius, ed. Schoene, i. 27 and i. 35 ; the Rab. Chron, tr. by Winckler in Teactbuch z. A T, 1802; and Nabuna'id, by Messerschmidt, Stele Nabwn- a'id'8, Berlin, 1806. W. B. STEVENSON. SHARON.—1. (Anºn [with art.], prob, for nºr ‘the level,” “the plain,” from he to be level; LXX in 1 Ch 27”, Ch. 2) to Teótov, but in Is 33° 35° 6510 6 Öpupads [see below]) the name applied in Scripture to that part of the Maritime l’lain which stretches from Joppa to Mt. Carmel (55 miles). It is of an undulating character, none of its hills exceeding 250–300 feet in height. The following streams cross it in their course to the Mediterranean : Nahr * Marti simply detaches, '6l from béth and joins it to Sharezer : ‘the family of El-Sharezer' (SK, 1892, p. 732). G, A. Smith adopts El-Sharezer, but supposes “J” to be wanting after bêth : ‘to the temple of J’’ (Twelve Prophets). Tho gºº. construction of v.2, and consequently the : r RV makes “Bethel'' —4 es-Zerkó (the Crocodile River), Nahr Mefjér (the Dead River of the Crusaders), Wahr Iskanderāneh (their Salt River), Nahr el-Fólik (their Rochetaille). The plain proper, between the Crocodile River and Joppa, Yagigs in breadth from 8 to 12 miles. The LXX, as above noted, reproduces ºn in three passages by & 3pupós, a term which is applied to Sharon also by Josephus (BJ I. xiii. 2; in Amt. XIV. xiii. 3, plur. ol āpuol) and Strabo (xvi. : Öpupos Auéyas ris). This designation is very appropriate to a district which has still a large oak wood at its northern extremity, and which, even so late as Crusading times, would have appeared from the top of Mt. Ebal as a vast forest of oaks from coast to mountain (HGHL' 122).” The Crusaders called it the Forest of Assur (Winsauf, Itin. Ricardi, iv. 16); it is the enchanted forest of Tasso (Gerus. Liberata, ii and xiii); it was called by Napoleon the IForest of Miksi (from the modern village of Miksich). The southern half of the plain is, and must always have been, far more cultivated than its northern portion. Throughout its whole extent it is gay with myriads of brightly coloured flowers. The beauty and the fertility of Sharon give point to Is 35°, where the “glory of Lebanon” is coupled with the “excellency (nºn “splendour' [see Driver, Daniel, p. 33]) of Carmel and Sharon,” the special allusion perhaps being to the magnificence of its oak forests. e have the opposite picture in Is 33", where “Lebanon is ashamed and withereth away, Sharon is like the (waste) Arabah, and Bashan and Carmel shake off their leaves.” Again, in Is 65" the description of the restoration of Israel contains this feature: ‘Sharon shall be a pasturage for flocks.” In 1 Ch 27° we read of Shitrai the Sharonite (ºn'yū, 6 ×aptov(e)trºs), who was over king David's flocks that fed in Sharon. The excellence of the pasturage, the superiority of the cattle and the wine of Sharon, are celebrated by Jerome (Comm. on Is 33 and 65) and the Talmud (Bab. Menahoth 87a, Shabbath 70a). Its pottery and the bricks used for building are repeatedly referred to in the Mishna as of very inferior tº. the instability of the houses in Sharon being proverbial (see references in Neubauer, Geog. du Talm. 48 f.). Neubauer appears to be right, (against Graetz, Gesch. d. Juden?, iii. 182) in contending that it is the inhabitants of the maritime Sharon and not of the Galilasan Saromas [see below], on whose behalf a special petition is said to have been intro- duced into the high priest's prayer for the people on the Day of Atonement. This petition ran : ‘May God watch over the inhabitants of Sharon, that they be not buried in the ruins of their houses.’ The Shulammite compares herself to the ‘rose [an unfortunate rendering ; nºiſ is the white marcissus, see Cheyne on Is 35' and cf. art. RosB above] of Sharon’ and the ‘lily [prob. some flower § a red colour] of the (Jordan) valleys’ (pºppy), a 21. There is some doubt as to the identity of the Sharon of Jos 12” [where read Îing” pºs ºp ‘king of Aphek in Sharon’; see LASSHARON]. It has been proposed (e.g. by IDillm. ad loc.) to find here the Saromas which Eusebius (Onomast. 296. 6) says was the name given to the region between Mt. Tabor and Tiberias—a statement confirmed by the name Sarôma still attaching to a ruin on this plateau (PEF Mem. vol. i. sheet vi.). This pro- posal appears, however, to be unnecessary, especi- ally in view of the evidence (see . G. A. Smith, IIGHL*350, 40l f., and s.v. “Aphek’ in Encyc. Bibl.) in favour of the existence of an Aphek in the maritine Sharon (cf. W. R. Smith, OT'JCº. 273, 435, and s.v. “Aphek’ in Encyc, Bibl.; H. P. Smith, Samuel, 31. Buhl, GAP 212 f., 218, leaves it un- * It is not at all likely that the title & 3pwººds is due to any connexion, real or supposed, between the Ileb, shºrdn and the Gr. o.o.paris, a very rare term for an oak (Pliny, H.N. iv. 5, quoted by Iteland, Pal. 100). 478 SHARONITE SHAVSHA decided whether it is the maritime or the Galilaean Sharon that is meant in Jos 12*). The only NT reference to Sharon is Ac 9° (à 2aptów, whence AV Saron), in connexion with St. Peter's stay at Lydda. For further details regard- ing Sharon see Bulil, GAP 103 ff.; and G. A. Smith, HGHL* 147 ff., where a full account is given of its strategic importance and the part it played in post- biblical history. 2. (ſin) [without art.]; B Teplápa, A Xapaſv) 1 Ch 5*. This Sharon (|| Gilead and Bashan) is prob- ably the same as the Mishôr (also from root nº), or elevated plateau between the Arnon and the Jabbok (Dt 310 48, Jos 139, 16, 17.2, 20°, Jer 488. 21, 2 Ch 26"). See vol. iii. p. 309", footnote, and p. 893°, s. 5. J. A. SELBIE. SHARONITE.-See preceding article. SHARUHEN (Innº; ol āypol atrów ; Sareon).—-A town in Judah which was allotted to Simeon (Jos 19°). It appears as Shilhim in 15” and as Shaaraim in 1 Ch 4*; see SHAARAIM (2). SHASHAI ("wº ; BA Xeoret, Luc. Xevorelp).—One of the sons of Bani who had married a foreign wife, Ezr 10+0=SESIS of 1 Es 98*. SHASHAK (puſº).-The eponym of a Benjamite family, 1 Ch 8*. (B Xokº)” (B Xavijk; in both pas- sages A has Xava #k, Luc. 210.4x). SHAUL (ºxy, XaoûA).—1. A kin 36°7t. [JE]= 1 Ch 148t. He belonged to ‘Rehoboth by the River.’ See REHOBOTH. 2. A son of Simeon, Gn 4619 (R](A Xauovă), D*XaoûA, B deest), Ex 61%, Nu 2619 [both P], 1 Ch 4*. The clan of which he is the eponym was of mixed Isr., and Can. descent, hence Shaul is called in Gn 46” and Ex 6” “the son of the Canaanitess.’ See GENE- ALOGY, II. 2. In Nu 26” the patronymic Shaulites (*nyn, 6%uos & Xaouxet) occurs. 3. An ancestor of Samuel, 1 Ch 6*(9) (called in v.” (*) Joel. See JoEL, No. 3). SHAYEH, THE WALE of (my ppy : A Thy kot)\46a thv Xatºmy, Dr. K. T. Xavi) ; vallis Save).-A broad valley ('émek), known also as ‘the king's vale’ (Gn 147), which was near Salem. It is apparently the same place as ‘the king's dale' (ºr Bºy 2 S18°), in which Absalom set up a pillar or monument. According to Josephus (Amt. VII. X. 3), this monu- ment was two stadia from Jerusalem. If the view that Salem was Jerusalem be correct, the valley of Shaveh was possibly the broad open head of the valley of Hinnom which, lower down, contracts to a ravine. See SALEM. C. W. WILSON. SHAVEH-KIRIATHAIM (Dºnºhp my; ev Xaux, rfi tróAet ; Save Cariathaim).—A place in which Chedor- laomer smote the Emin (Gn 14°). If the reading in AVm and RVm ‘the plain of Kiriathaim” be correct, the spot must have been near Kiriathaim (Jer 48l. 9", Ezk 25°) in Moab, which has been identi- fied with el-Kureiyāt between Dibon and Medeba. C. W. WILSON. SHAYING.--Two Heb. words are used with this meaning, 11, ‘cut off,’ ‘shear” (wool, 1 S.25"), “shave (one’s head, Job 12", Mic 1"); nº to make smooth or bald, to shave or shear (Nu 6”. “, Dt 21” etc.). The ancient Egyptians, according to Wilkinson (Anc. Egyp.), considered shaving the hair, not of the head only but of the whole body, necessary to cleanliness. Joseph, when summoned to the resence of Pharaoh, “shaved himself and changed É. raiment,’ Gn 41*. The same custom is ob- served by many Hindu sects at the present time. In cases of mourning the hair was allowed to of Edom, Gn grow. Among the Israelites the custom was different. The hair seems to have been allowed to grow to a moderate length, and to have been cut at intervals. Absalom, we are told (2 S 14*), polled his head every year. The beard was held sacred among the Israelites, as it is to this day among the Arabs; and the insult that Hanun, king of the Ammonites, offered to the ambassadors of David, by shaving half of their beards (2 S 10"), could be atoned for only by the conquest and slavery of the Ammonites. The Nazirites were commanded to let no razor pass upon their heads, but to allow the hair to grow. hen the time fixed by their vow had expired, or if they were accidentally defiled, then they were commanded to shave the whole head (Nu 6*, *, *). In Syria the priests and monks of the Greek Orthodox and Greek Catholic Churches never allow the hair of the head or beard to be cut even in sickness. Many Christian parents dedicate a child to a particular saint for a certain period of time, and during that period the hair of the child is never cut. These children are distinguished from others by their black clothes as well as their long hair. Among the Israelites and Arabs shav- ing the head was a sign of mourning (Job 12", Dt 21”, Ezk 44”), and with the neighbouring nations it was the custom to shave the ‘corners of the beard, which the Israelites were expressly forbidden to do (Lv 21"). (See CUTTINGS IN THE FLESH, vol. i. p. 537"; and for shaving of the head as a sacrificial act, W. R. Smith, RS 306). W. CARSLAW. SHAVSHA (Nºv. In 2S 202, Köthib sºv, Köré Nº, EV Sheva, are proved to be in error by LXX. Similar to the Köré, however, are B Xagá of 1 K 4” and BA Xov8á of 1 K 2*. Of LXX forms given below, 'Imaoûs =’Ioroijs is a familiar name read for one unfamiliar, perhaps under the influence of a ditto- graphy from the preceding kal).--Royal or State secretary in king David's reign (1 Ch 18% B "I'moods, A and Luc. 20uad, N. 200s ; 2 S 20° B "I'moods, A 'Io'oùs, Luc. 20voró). 2 S 815-18 is a third passage containing a list of David's officers of State. In MT Seraiah now stands in place of Shavsha. But the list of 1 Chron. is dependgnt on that of 2 Sam., is identical with it except in this one particular, and most probably has º the original reading...B 'Acé seems to be a trace of the older text. 1 IK 43 and 246h may be counted against Seraiah (see below). This name seems to have obtained cur- rency in the 7th century. It may be supposed that the familiar Hºnw is a misreading of the possibly foreign name Nty)w. The office held by Shavsha is one of a group created by the monarchy in Israel... It dates, how- ever, from the time of David, like others of a similar character, for Saul’s “kingdom was not an organized State. It was David who made it so. When he ranged himself among the princes of southern Syria. This position forced on him the creation of certain offices of State. The occa- sions, for instance, of communication and corres- ondence with neighbouring States multiplied. 'he example of contemporary princes suggested the appointment of a State secretary. . Other prospects of usefulness must have commended the precedent. In these circumstances Shaysha was appointed first holder of the office, as it seems. It is noteworthy that of all those who are named in the best list of David's officers of State (1 Ch 1814-17 =2 S 819-18) he is the only one whose father is unmentioned. Possibly he did not belong to a family of standing in the country, like the others. Possibly he was a foreigner. If foreign correspondence were in a foreign language it ma not have been easy to find a Hebrew with the necessary qualifications. T)avid was not in- disposed to have foreigners round his person (see art, I'OREIGNER, vol. ii. p. 50°). Shavsha's name may be Aramaean. I’oreign extraction would SHEAL. SHEBA 479 sº--— account for the name of one of his sons being Elihoreph (1 K 4°). It seems to indicate his wor- ship of a god other than J". In Solomon’s reign there were two secretaries of State, º and Ahijah. They are called sons” of Shisha (1 K 4°). Although the evidence for the correct form of this name is very divergent (B2a34, A 2eto 4, Luc. Xaqāt), it may be identified with Shavsha. Others of Solomon’s chief officers of State were sons of those who held similar office under David. . If Shaysha was chosen secretary because Aramaic was his native tongue, it is speci- ally likely that his children would inherit this qualification and be chosen for a similar reason. There is a second list of Solomon's officers in the LXX (B) text of 1 K2*. In it Shavsha (BA Xow8á, Luc. Xovgå) is given as Solomon's secretary. Ben- zinger (on 1 K 4) has made the attractive suggestion that this list names those in office during the earlier part of Solomon's reign. It would then be evidence that Shavsha continued for a time Solomon's secretary, died during Solomon's reign, and was then succeeded by his sons. But there does not seem to be evidence to establish this view of the two lists. It is probable that they are duplicates, and that in 1 K 2* the names of the sons have dropped out before the word Shavsha. W. B. STEVENSON. SHEAL ($83), B XaXoviá, A 224A), Ezr 10*.—One of the sons of Bani, who had married a “strange’ wife; called Jasaelus in 1 Es 9”. SHEALTIEL (bs"Rºsy ; in Hag 11%. 14 22 ºn Rºw; LXX and NT always XaXa.04%, hence Salathiel of 1 Es 55.48, 50 6°, AV of Mt ilā and I.k 327).—The father of ZERUBBABEL, Ezr 3** 5*, Neh 12, Hag 1]. 19. 142*.*. According to 1 Ch 37 Shealtiel was the eldest son of king Jeconiah. In v.” the MT makes Pedaiah (a brother of Shealtiel) the father of Zerubbabel ; but DA of LXX read here also XaXa 01.j\, although Lucian has pačawā. SHEARIAH (nºny;).—A descendant of Saul, 1 Ch 8” (BA Xapaud, Luc. Xepuá) 9” (BA Xaptd, Luc. 2aapuá). r SHEARING-HOUSE, THE (bºyhº py nº ; B Batóá- ka0 tºw troup.évov, A Batódkač T. T.; Vulg. camera astorwm ; RV tr. ‘shearing-house [lit. binding- house,” cf. Gn 22°] of the shepherds,’ RVm ‘house of gathering [so Targ. but improbable], of the shepherds’).-A place at which Jehu, on his way from Jezreel to Samaria, met and slew the brethren of Ahaziah, king of Judah (2 K 101*, *). Eusebius and Jerome (Omomi. S. Bauðakó0) place the shearing- house in the Great Plain (Esdraelon), 15 M. P. from Legio; and in this position, 3 m. east of Jemim, is the village of Beit 1Xàd (Robinson, BRP” ii. 316). This is possibly the site of the shearing-house (Conder, PEF Mem. ii. 83). C. W. WILSON. SHEAR-JASHUB (aw), is: ‘a remnant shall re- turn,’ LXX & kata)\cup()eis "Iagoû8, Is 7°).—A symboli- cal name given to a son of Isaiah to signify the return of the remnant to God after the punishment at the hands of the Assyrians. See 8*10*.*, and cf. 714 81-4. SHEBA (ysty).—1. A Benjamite who headed a new revolt against David immediately after the suppression of Absalom's rebellion. He was be- sieged by Joab in Abel-beth-maacah, whose in- habitants were persuaded to procure their own safety by casting the head of the rebel from the battlements of the city (2 S 2011. * 10, 19. ºit: ; B uni- formly 248ée, A occasionally "Agee). See, further, * LXX ‘son,’ applying to Ahijah only. art. DAVID, vol. i. p. 570°. 2. A Gadite, 1 Ch 51° (B 2é8ee, A. 268a0e, Luc. 243ee). SHEBA (N3%), more correctly Saba (LXX Xagá, Jos. 24.3as), the name of a race (the Sabaeans) several times mentioned in the OT.. In the genealogical tables it is given three pedigrees (Gn 107 son of Ramah, cf. Ezk 27”, where these two names are juxtaposed ; Gn 10° Son of Yoktan, and juxta- posed with Hazarmaveth [Hadramaut]; Gn 25° son of Yokshan). Ezekiel (27*) mentions Eden (Aden), Haran (Hirran), and Canneh (Kanneh) as connected with it ; and of these places the first two are known to be in S. Arabia. At the time of Israel's highest prosperity, Solomon was visited by the queen of Saba (1 K 101*), an event which gave rise to a number of legends, none of them perhaps of high antiquity in the form wherein we ossess them. The Sabaeans were known to the sraelites as exporters of gold (Is 60%, Ps 72°), precious stones (Ezk l.c.), perfumes (Jer 649, Isaiah and Ezekiel), and perhaps slaves (Jl 4(3)*). In the Blº. of Job (6*), there is an allusion to their trading caravans, with at least a suggestion that their capital was Tema (Tayma); and also to their raiding other Arab tribes (11%). Till the attention of Orientalists was called by Wellsted and Cruttenden to certain inscriptions discovered by them in S. Arabia, our knowledge of Saba was confined to the meagre and often unintelligible matter collected by the Greek ge- ographers and Pliny. But since the middle of the century large finds of inscriptions have been made in various parts of Arabia, in the old Arabic character (of which a copy was given by the Arabic bibliographer Al-Nadim, in his Fihrist, A.D. 978), and dealing with Saba and various in- stitutions connected with it. The attempt made in England to deciplier these inscriptions was utterly incompetent ; but German scholars were more successful, and the honour of having founded the study of Sabaean is shared by Rödiger and Osiander, whose papers in the ZDMG, vols. xx. and xxi., laid the basis for the right understand- ing of these texts. A full and accurate account of the literature of the subject down to 1891 was given by Fr. Hommel in his Süd-Arabische Chres- tomathie, Munich, 1893. Next in importance to the collection published by Osiander was that brought back, by Halévy, and edited by him in the Journal Asiatique, Série 6, vol. ix. ; since then great finds have been made by Glaser in his vari- ous journeys in S. Arabia, not many of which have as yet been given to the public. In the fourth part of the CIS, edited by J. and H. Derenbourg, of which three fasciculi (containing 308 inscriptions) have as yet appeared (1889–1900), the material for the study º be eventually re- corded in the most trustworthy form ; at present the works of the eight or nine scholars who pur- Sue it (esp. Derenbourg, Glaser, Halévy, Hommel, Mordtmann, D. H. Müller, Praetorius, Winckler) are all indispensable. - Besides inscriptions, considerable finds of coins have also been made. The first Sabaean coin ever interpreted was described in the Revºte Numis- matique, 1868, pp. 169–176; but for this part of the subject the most important stage was marked by the work of Schlumberger (Le trésor de San'a, Paris, 1880), who gave an account of some 200 coins that had been discovered at Sana'a, and pur- chased by him of a dealer in Constantinople, Many of these coins contained the monograms of kings whose names also figure in inscriptions ; whence, though these signs were puzzling at first, they have all since been interpreted : a list of the monograms, with their interpretations, is given by D. H. Müller in his Burgen u. Schlösser, ii. p. 995, 480 SHEBA SHEBA The date of the coins described by Schlumberger was fixed by him, on numismatic grounds (i.e. the evolution of the style from Attic, Seleucid, and Iłoman models), at from about B.C. 150 to A.D. 150, and, while he derived the style of the art from the sources named, he regarded the weight as fixed by Persian models. The purity of the silver and the accuracy of the weight were greatly admired by this numismatist ; other coins that have been dis- covered are described by Mordtmann, Wiener Numismatische Zeitschrift, 1880, pp. 289–320. The researches of Glaser and others were also rewarded # the discovery of a variety of other objects, illustrative of Sabaean civilization, of which de- scriptions have been given by Mordtmann (Himyar. ische Inschriftem in den königlichen Museen zw Berlin, 1893) and others (e.g. Derenbourg, Les Monuments Sabéens du Musée d’Archéologie de Marseille, 1899; D. H. Müller, Siidarabische Al- terthümer im Kunsthistorischen Hofmuseum, Wien, 1899; Hommel, “Die siidarab. Altertünner des Wiener Hofmuseums,’ in Aufsätze u. Abhand- lungen, ii., 1900). Finally, the works of the S. Arabian geographer and archaeologer Hamdani (Abu Muhammad Al- Hasan) have been brought to Europe, his Descrip- tion of the Arabic Peninsula in a number of copies, and his Iklil in portions; both these works have been edited by D. H. Müller, the former at Leiden, 1891, the latter in the Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akademie, Ph.-Hist. Kl. xciv.,xcvii., and in Müller's Siidarab. Alterthümer, p. 8 ff. The lexicon of Neshwan the Himyarite, which is of some value for the interpretation of the texts, is as yet un- published. In the following paragraphs a few of the chief results of the study will be collected. [The following abbreviations recur below: A A == Glaser's Abessinier in Arabiem (Munich, 1895); III = Himyarische Inschriften ; MM = Mordtmann and Müller's Sabäische Demk- máler; MVAS = Mittheil, d. worderas. Gesellschaft; SA = Müller's Südarabische Alterthümer). i. HISTORY. — On this subject an authentic chronicle of a few pages could give us more in- formation than all the inscriptions together; it is, however, clear that they cover an enormous length of time—it can scarcely be made less than 1300 ears. The dated inscriptions of the mound at Marib (published by Glaser, MVAS, No. 6) are of the 5th and 6th cents. A.D., one of them being Christian and another perhaps Jewish ; and the final destruction of the Sabaean State is known to have taken place in the 6th cent. A.D. On the other hand, º: name of Ithamara, the Sabaean, occurring in the inscriptions of Sargon of B.C. 715 (ed. Winckler, p. 97), was identified with justice by Lenormant with the Yetha'amara of the Sabaean inscriptions. That name belongs to no fewer than six Sabaean potentates (Glaser, AA p. 29); and there seems no probability that Sar- gon's contemporary is the first of these. The in- scriptions, however, are not divided equally over this vast expanse of time; so far as they are at F." accessible, it is only for the period just efore and just after the commencement of our era that they render the writing of a continuous chronicle possible ; an attempt of this sort has been made by H. Winckler, “Die Inschriften des Alhan Nahfan (MVAS, No. 5), perhaps without conspicuous success. The greater number of the texts published are devoid of political interest, and indeed emanate from members of two fami- lies or clans, the Bakilites of ‘Amran, and their leaders the Banu Marthad, and the Hashidites of Na'it, and their leaders the Banu Hamdan. These great families are said to exist still in S. Arabia. in the neighbourhood of their ancestral seats (Mordtmann in MM p 9). Saba is the name of a nation or political unit, A <\ … • * not of a city, though the classical writers speak repeatedly of a city Šaba. The Arabic etymologists derive its name from sabá, ‘to take captive' ; but they might with greater probability have derived it from the Sabaean verb saba’a, “he raided”; and indeed in CIS 84. 3, the Sabaeans are mentioned as normal raiders, somewhat as in Job 1". The Sabaean name for “nation’ is khums, ‘a fifth,’ and it is applied by them to other nations as well as to their own, e.g. “the two Khums, Saba and Himyar’ (MM 5). These nations or ‘fifths’ were divided into “tribes' * (shi'b), which again were sometimes divided into ‘thirds” (CIS 187, where Derenbourg gives us the names of two ‘thirds’ of the tribe Sama'i), and sometimes perhaps ‘tenths’ (CIS 128). There might be some ground for suspecting that the word fifth implies the original existence of five nations who shared S. Arabia between them ; at the latest period of the inscriptions, Saba has swallowed the others up. In these the kings style themselves kings of Saba, Dhu Raidam, Haqramaut, and Yamanet. The earliest king who assumed this title was, according to Glaser (AA p. 31), Shammir Yuharish, about A.D. 281 (others would place him some 200 years before). Before this he and his predecessors called themselves kings of Saba and Dhu Raidan, a title which implies the conquest of Raidan, which the combinations of Glaser and H. Winckler place about B.C. 70. Prior to this last date the kings style themselves sometimes malik (“king’), sometimes mulcarrib, a word of uncertain meaning, but of a root which forms an element in many proper names, and is the source of Makorabah, the old name for Mecca. It is customary to place the Mukarrib period before the Malik period, and it is certainly noticeable that Sargon does not bestow the title “king’ on his Sabaean contemporary, though the Assyrians are ordinarily rather lavish with the title. , Naturally, such a point could not be settled without better documents than are at our disposal. The residence of the king was at Maryab or Marib (in Beled Al- Jihaf), and sometimes at Ghaiman. But Marib had also a king of its own, probably dependent on the kings of Saba, since in CIS 37, 7 the two are mentioned simultaneously; and kings of Kamna (SA 12) and other places are mentioned. In the time of Eratosthenes (B.C. 240) Saba was one of four nations which shared S. Arabia between them—Minaeans with capital Karna, Sabaeans with capital Maryab, Kattabanians with capital Tamna, and Hadramaut with capital Katabanon. The Greek writer adds that these were all monarchies, but that they were not hereditary, the succession falling to the first male born to one of the leading families after a king's accession. How such a system would work it is impossible to conjecture; but a study of the texts makes it certain that Iºratosthenes' account contains some truth, though he may have omitted important details. So about the time of the Aelius Gallus expedition (B.C. 24) we find kings of the Hamdanide family preceded and followed by kings of another family. , Alhan Nahfan seems to disclaim the title “king of Saba’ himself, while giving it to his two sons (AA 42. 1), though he allows it to be given him by others (ib. 24), and in another inscription (HI 2698) appears as a subject of the then king of Saba, and in yet another (CIS 2, 10) is called simply Hamdanite and Bata'ite by the men who put up a votive tablet for help received in his service. Quite similarly Il-Sharh (Elisaros), who in some inscriptions figures as king of Saba and Son of a king of Saba, in others is called Kabir of Akyan, a title of which the import is not known, but * This name (tribe) is also sometimes applied to Saba (SA p. § The term “ſifth ' is also found in other diviv’ons (ib. P. e SHEBA SHEBA 481 w- which seems to have been combined with some- thing like royal functions (AA 82 and 105). What we should infer from these facts is that the king- ship was held by the leading families in some sort of rotation. This inference is further supported by the nature of the kings' names, which do not appear to differ in form from those of other eminent men; they are ordinarily, though not always, double, consisting apparently of a name and an epithet (rarely of a name and two epithets), and are ordinarily retained unaltered by those persons twho figure in different inscriptions as kings and in some other capacity. Finally, the fact that the inscriptions often speak of ‘the kings of Saba,’ and that as many as three appear as kings simul- taneously, implies that the sense which attached to the word “king’ in this community was different from that which attached to it elsewhere. And this not only explaims the great number of the kings who figure in the inscriptions, – Müller (Burgen, ii. pp. 982–986) counted 33, and some have since been added to the number, but har- monizes with the fact that Sargon does not give the Sabaean the title “king.’ Besides the kings, there were eponymous magis- trates, after whom the years were named, till the adoption of an era, which Glaser fixes at B.C. 115 (A.A. p. 29; Gesch. i. 3), whereas others regard it as the Seleucid era (see CIS p. 18); the text CIS 46 seems to date “in the year 386 from the year of Mubill son of Abu-Hubb,” an era of which nothing is at present known. . The tribes of which the Sabaean community consisted had sometimes their kings (as the Sam'ai, CIS 37), but more often chieftains called kawl (in Arabic kail); another title is kabir (“great'), which in one case appears to be given to the eponymous magistrate (CIS 80), but is also held by the king Il-Sharh, probably before his accession (CIS 46). Since, however, this personage has a ‘minister’ (muktawi, AA p. 105), while lie is still kabir, we clearly cannot yet settle the precise meaning of these terms. A dis- tinction which pervades the inscriptions is that between ‘lords” and ‘men,’ analogous to that be- tween “royalties’ and “men” which is found in the Phoenician inscriptions: probably the former were what Eratosthenes calls ‘distinguished,’ i.e. quali- fied to participate in the sovereignty. In most of the votive . the author prays the god for the favour of his lords, who sometimes are the whole of a family, sometimes one or more members of it. A difficult constitutional term is that rendered “heirs' or ‘co-heirs' (CIS 95. 5) in the same con- text in which ‘lords’ usually figures; and indeed the number of terms which imply some unknown status or caste is very ...hº. The state of society seems in general to have borne some resemblance to that of feudal Europe. The great families possessed towers and castles, the building of which is commemorated in many inscriptions; and the word bait, which in ordinary Semitic means ‘house,” would seem with this com- munity to have meant ‘tower.’ The Iklil of the archaeologer Hamdani contains a description of these feudal dwellings, portions of which are still to be seen. The right to build a castle was sometimes given by the head of a family (CIS 145, 153), sometimes by a king (CIS 172); in some of the texts ample details (not as a rule intelligible) are given of the manner in which the building was carried out (CIS 17, 29, 40), and these seem to have involved measurements of land and technical distributions of it. In each case the building is put under the protection of a deity. Many of the texts also commemorate renewals, repairs, the digging of wells and other domestic operations, in all of which the deity had some share. Owing to a far larger portion of S. Arabia being VOI. IV.-3 I and ficticus. under cultivation in ancient times than now, the extent of territory covered by these feudal estates was very great, and, as we have seen, ere the final extinction of the Sabaean State by the Abyssinians in the 6th cent. it had swallowed up the other States in its neighbourhood. Hence the inscriptions which tell of its former glories are found all over South Arabia, except perhaps in Hadramaut, and some even in the far north of the peninsula. Many indeed have been transplanted from the buildings which they originally adorned to distant towns, but of the vast extent of the country which at certain times was subject to the Sabaeans there can be no doubt. Certain episodes of the reign of Allian Nalifan, as mentioned above, have been enucleated from his inscriptions by Glaser (AA) and Winckler (l.c.); but even in these results there is much that is problematic, and little that is sharply defined ; while for the rest of Sabaean history the inscrip- tions which have as yet been published contain far less material. Arabic writers have only vague recollections of certain events of great importance, such as the bursting of the dam at Marib, which they strangely fancy led to the ruin of the State, and of a few names and words of the old language; even the well-informed Hamdani has only fables Hence for a history of Saba the materials are still wanting. ii. §ºist of goods said to come from Saba in Is 60° bears a striking likeness to that given by Sargon (l.c.): ‘Gold, precious stones, ivory, perfumes of all sorts, horses, camels,’ and the gold and perfumes were associated with Saba by classical writers also. It is remarkable that gold and perfume were called by the same name in Saba ; #. the suggestion of D. H. Müller, that dhahrzb meant perfume as well as gold, has been conſirmed by a document brought to light by Count Landberg (SA p. 30). The inscriptions reveal a lavish use of gold, if indeed the precious metal be meant thereby. Allian Nahfan offers thirty statues of gold at once (AA p. 42), and numerous inscriptions commemorate the employ- ment of this metal for images of gods and of animals (e.g. camels and gazelles, iſł 1). Other gifts were of silver, called, in this language, sinf; and a variety of objects used for devotional pur- poses is enumerated by Allian Nahfan (l.c.), not many of which can at present be identified with certainty. Perfumes are also mentioned with considerable frequency, and various sorts are enu- merated. D. H. Müller has devoted many pages to the description of them (Burgom, ii. 975; MM 26; SA 48). The greater number of the texts deal not with the commercial side of the Sabaeans’ life (though there may be allusions to that), but with the agricultural and military sides. Prayers for crops and vegetables are mixed with º: for male children. The sorts of fruits which they desire to thrive are sometimes enumerated. In some we learn a little of the artificial system of irrigation whereby the fertility of the fields was maintained. But more commemorate successful raids, or successful repulses of raids by other tribes; and once it would seem a disaster conse- quent on delay in the fulfilment of a vow is commemorated (CIS 81). The position of women would appear to have been liº inferior to that of men, } we may judge by the number of texts in which they figure as authors or joint-authors of inscriptions. One woman (CIS 179) appears to be called mistress of a castle; and, though a queen of Saba has not apparently been discovered in the inscriptions, queens of other Arabian tribes occur, both in Arabian and Assyrian texts (T). H. Müller, Epigraphische Denkmäler ants Arabien, p. 3). The honourable title ‘consort,' by which they are often 482 SHEBA SHEBA valled, confirms this. There are, however, texts which imply the practice of concubinage, though not, apparently, of polygamy. . It is observable that the women make offerings to the same gods as the men, describe themselves by similar family names, and profess to have received similar benefits. The Sabaean art, which in some respects is highly praised by experts, appears to have been greatly affected at different times by contemporaneous civilizations, i.e. those of Assyria, Persia, Greece, Rome, and Parthia ; and the formulae of the inscriptions appear here and there to exhibit Assyrian influence. The caligraphy of the in- scriptions, especially those first brought to Europe, has won much admiration ; the alphabet in which they are written varies somewhat in different }laces (see especially D. H. Müller, Epigraphische enkmäler, ad fin.), but the present writer sees no reason to doubt that it represents the earliest form of the Semitic alphabet, whence the others are derived, partly by the suppression of a number of unnecessary signs. The excessive vigour with which the consonants are pronounced in S. Arabia, on which several writers have commented, would make that the likeliest country for the invention of a system of writing in which the consonant was the element. iii. RELIGION. — The greater number of the tablets at present accessible are dedicated to two deities, Il-Makkil, and Ta'lab. The latter appears to have been a specially Hamdanite deity, and is ordinarily described as Ta'lab of Riyam. He is called not “god,” but shayyám, “patron' or “pro- tector,’ a title which is also given to Wadd (H} 7), who is sometimes ascribed to Kibab (ib. also in CIS 30) and Khatban (CIS 293), and Hajar (‘stone’; CIS 49–69). The former of these ‘pat- rons’ also figures in pre-Islamic antiquity. If we may judge by the honours lavished on Ta'lab, the position of ‘patron’ can have been little inferior to that of god. The god of the Bakil was Il-Makkih, probably ‘the hearing god,” whose name seems connected with a verb WKH, which figures often in the votive tablets. Different forms of Il-Makkil, were worshipped in different sanctuaries. The places with which he is most frequently associated are Awam in Alwa (on which see especially AA p. 16 ft.), Hirran, and 'Irran. Next in importance to him was probably Athtar, the male form of Ashtoreth, often called Sharkan, which is thought to mean ‘Oriental.’ He had a divided person- ality: in CIS 293 no fewer than four forms of him are mentioned simultaneously — Athtar lord of Thanain, Atlitar lord of Ta’ailuk (?), Athtar lord of Jumdan, and Athtar Sharkan. Two other deities whose names are of interest are Sami' (CIS 282) and Kawim (CIS 194), which seem to be per- petuated in the epithets ‘the Hearing’ and ‘the Sustaining,’ which the Koran gives to Allah. Con- siderable popularity was also enjoyed by Ramman (who figures in the Bible as Rimmon), sometimes called lord of Alam of Ashkur (CIS 140, by a Himyarite). The sun was also much worshipped, and is ascribed to a number of places (e.g. Darrat, CIS 293. 2; other places 40, 132, 294), and also to particular tribes and persons, e.g. “Il-Makkih and their sun” (CIS 143. 5), and indeed the plural ‘their suns’ is of occasional occurrence, implying that the sun was regarded as of divided person- ality, like Athtar. The Sabaean worship of the sun was sufficiently famous to be known to the author of the Koran (xxvii. 24). A similar deity is Dhu Sannai, ‘lord of Heaven,' ascribed to Bakir (MM I); and there are some goddesses whose names are similarly formed—Dhat Ilima, Dhat 13a dan (CIS 41 etc.). Other gods are called Bashir (“bringer of good tidings,’ CIS 41. 3), Haubas (172, names, after which the god was often called. etc.), Rahman (‘merciful,” perhaps of monotheistie times, CIS 6), Kainan (8) and others whose name is thought to signify water-nymphs (153, etc.). This pantheon appears to resemble that of the Italians before Greek influence: the gods were to Some extent hypostases of operations or objects, and there was supposed to be some special merit in enumerating them. Of this last process the terminations of many inscriptions offer illustra- tions. The more important of their temples had T]he offerings to them consisted, as we have seen, of lavish gifts to the temples; but sacrifices of the ordinary sort (CIS 290) and offerings of incense (194) also form the subject of allusions. Sometimes it took the form of self-presentation on the part of the worshipper, whatever may have been the import of that act. The earliest instance is said to be in a bustrophedon inscription (ZDMG xxii. 425), and the most elaborate, that contained in the inscription of Hadakan (CIS. 37), in which the author declares that he puts the god in possession of himself, his family, his and their property, and all the property belonging to his clan. If the inscription HI 2678 (p. 26) be rightly interpreted by Mordtmann, this act could be performed re- peatedly; and the inscr. CIS 126 would probably explain it more clearly, if we knew the meaning of the words. The plan of erecting stones in honour of the gods also finds illustration (CIS 100); and most of the texts we have are musmads, or tablets dedicated to the gods, sometimes with other offerings. The office of priest (wns) seems some- times to have been united with that of tribal head (CIS 41. 1), but at other times was probably dele- gated to humbler individuals. That pilgrimages were made in honour of the gods appears from the month Dhu Hijjat or Mahajjat ; the former of which is the only month-name which the Sabaeans share with the Moslems (the Sabaean twelve are enumerated by Müller in MM 51). Prayers are ordinarily designated by the common Semitic word for petition, but the other word (amlā), which occurs often, perhaps implies stereotyped formulae. From the inscr. CIS 126 it would appear that the gods were also appeased by certain forms of per- sonal abstinence, and from one of those edited by Winckler (l.c.) it might appear that they had some share in the administration of justice. The Sabaeans also had certain ideas of ceremonial purity, violation of which had to be atoned for !. public acknowledgment on tablets placed in temples: some curious specimens of these are given in SA pp. 20–25. iv. LANGUAGE.-Of the S. Arabian inscriptions, a few are couched in a dialect scarcely distinguish- able from classical Arabic. This is the case with the texts dealing with ceremonial purity, to which reference has been made. The Sabaean texts seein to resemble most closely the dialect known as Ethiopic; and indeed Ethiopic may be regarded as the form of Sabaean first given literary shape by Christian missionaries, although, unless the dates on the Marib inscriptions (Glaser, M WAS 6) are absolutely misleading, Sabaean must have con- tinued in use for a century or two after the com- mencement of Ethiopic literature. Owing to the absence of vowels, we know little of the pronun- ciation or the grammatical ſinesse of Sabrean 3, but it clearly differed from the classical Arabic idiom in many particulars; in some of which it pre- served what classical Arabic lost, while more often it seems to represent a later stage of development than the latter. Its alphabet retains a sibilant lost to Arabic ; and in certain cases the weak letters have still consonantal value in Sabaean (as in Ethiopic) where they have lost it in Arabic. Instead of the preſixed article which governs SHEBA SHEBNA 483 *A f : * * * K. . {{. LV Arabic syntax, Sabaean has an affix, similar to that in use in Aramaic ; both of which bear a curious likeness to the A+haemiarrsystem. For the nºvation which in Arabic supplies, to some ex- tent, the place of an indefinite article, Sabaean has mimation. Probably in this matter Arabic retains the older termination, whereas the two languages may have developed or borrowed their definite articles independently. The employment of the dual would appear to have been as regular in Sabaean as in Arabic, though the mode of express- ing it differed somewhat. The Sabaean syntax has also some remarkable peculiarities, to which nothing in Arabic corresponds, though they might be illustrated from Hebrew. We have already seen (in art. LANGUAGE OF THE OT) that, like Ethiopic, Sabaean occasionally agrees in its vocabu- lary with Canaanitish against Arabic; and there are also cases in which it agrees remarkably with the Aramaic vocabulary, although in the most striking of these (see CIS 79) the common words 9,10 perhaps borrowed from Aramaic, since the in- scription shows signs of having been written by a foreigner. Though there is still much about both grammar and vocabulary that is obscure, the progress made in the study since Osiander's time compares favourably with that achieved in other regions of epigraphy. - D. S. MARGOLIOUTH. SHEBA (vily; BX4000, A 243ee; Sabee). —A town, according to AW, which was allotted to Simeon (Jos 19°), and is mentioned between Beersheba and Moladah. This was apparently the view of Euse- bius and Jerome (Omom. S. Xagé). RW, however, and the edition of 1611, read “Beersheba or Sheba'; and this is in agreement with the number of towns (13) said to have been allotted to Simeon (Jos 19%"), and with the omission of Sheba from the list in 1 Ch 4*. It is not unlikely that yag) is due to dittography from yaw nsin, or it may be a corruption of yov) (cf. LXX B) of Jos 15°. So Dillm. ad loc. C. W. WILSON. SHEBANIAH (nº ; in 1 Ch 15% inº).-1. The name of a Levite or a Levitical family that took part in the religious services which followed the reading of the Law, Neh 9” (B Xapaguá, A Xaxavić, N Xapačvá)" (LXX om.). The name appears in Neh 10% amongst those who sealed the covenant (B Xagavić, NA Xe(Savić, Luc. [in both verses] Xexevias). 2. A priest or Levite who sealed the covenant, Neh 10*(B'E8avel, A Xegavl, Iluc. Bavatas) 121*(BN*A om., N° "Sexextoſ, Luc. Sexevtas). See SHECANIAH, No. 8. 3. Another Levite who sealed the cove- nant, Neh 10” (BA 2egavić, Luc. Xagavtas). 4. A priest in David's time, 1 Ch 15*(B Xopºvić, N >06vetá, A 2008évvá, Luc. Xagavvá). SHEBARIM (Dºnjºn, with art. ; ka? [Luc. §ws] ovvérptibav attoºs; Sabarim).-A place mentioned (Jos 7") in the description of the pursuit of the Israelites by the men of Ai. It Vm (so also Keil, Joswa) tr. hash-Shébârâm by “the quarries,” a ren- dering which Steuernagel (in Nowack's Halkomm.) is also inclined to accept. The place was on the descent from Ai to the Jordan Valley, but the name has not been recovered. The LXX (cf. Pesh. and Targ. Dyn-ty) does not recognize a proper name, but takes the meaning to be “[they pursued them] till they were broken,’ i.e. completely routed and mostly destroyed. See, further, Dillm. ad loc. W. WILSON. SHEBAT.—Zec 17. See SEBAT and TIME. SHEBER (nay; B Sá6ep, A Sé6ep, Iuc. X480p).— A son of Caleb by his concubine Maacah, 1 Ch 28, SHEBNA (nºny, in 2 K 1818. * myng SHEBNAH ; LXX 26p was [in Is 36% B 268was, and so Q", in 36°]):-A major-domo or palace-governor of king Hezekiah, against whom is directed one of the recorded utterances of Isaiah (Is 2215-20). The prophet's language implies that Shebna possessed wealth and high position. His chariots and their splendour drew remark (v.”). He had begun the construction of a tomb such as princes made for themselves (v.”). The office he held was domestic in origin, but had become one of the highest in the State. Control of the royal household and man. agement of the affairs of the palace brought the holder of the office into intinuate relations with the king, and placed in his hands the dispensing of much favour and patronage. The palace guards were probably under his control, so that the im- portant element of a certain military power was added to his position. Isaiah refers to the suprem- acy of his authority in the palace (v.”). He also inplies that the office (as as in Gn 45°) had duties beyond the palace precincts, in Jerusalem and even in Judah (v.”). When Jerusalem was threatened by the Assyrian king, the holder of this office was one of three chosen by Hezekiah to negotiate for him (2 K 18 f.). The palace-governor, in short, was one of the principal ministers of State. The full significance of Isaiah's prediction re- garding Shebna is apparent only if it be remem- bered, firstly, that he was a foreigner, and, secondly, that he was just then constructing for himself a tomb which should be his monument and resting- place. It was probably on a day when he was viewing º the progress of this work that the prophet came to him with his disturbing, disconcerting message. He will not rest in the sepulchre he is making, He has not even found, as he had thought, an adopted country. He will be cast out from the land of Judah, and die and be buried far away from the tomb he is preparing. The simplest way of regarding Isaiah's message is to take it as a special case of the warning, “He putteth down the mighty from their scat, he exalteth them of low degree.” Shebna's pride, his arrogant splendour, and his conſidence in the future are marked features in his character as it is presented to us. His fate is not represented as retribution for what he has done. Rather, it is the contrast between his present haughty inde- pendence and his future humiliation which exposes him to rebuke and brings upon him the prophet's warning. It might be argued that the application of the words “my servant’ to his successor (v.20), and the evidence of v.18, imply that he had transgressed J's law. It is ecrtainly probable that a man of Shebna's spirit would in his position be guilty of conduct which Isaiah elsewhere resents. But the prophecy does not denounce judgment on him for this reason. It has been suggested that Shebna's policy was not in accordance with Isaiah's, that he was one of those who instigated the king to a breach with Assyria. This also is possible, but is merely conjecture. I’ven the interpretation of the ‘large country’ of v.18 as Assyria is no Support. The date of the prophecy may be inferred from 2 K 18 f. (= Is 36 f.), where Eliakim appears as holder of the office of major-domo. That was in the year B.C. 701. Some time before this, accord- ingly, Shebna had been removed from his office. The prophecy was delivered still earlier. The argument implies, in accordance with , Is. 22*, that Eliakim's tenure of office followed Shebna's (see ELIAKIM). Iłut this same narrative mentions also a certain “Shebna, the scribe’ (2 K 18* * * 194–Is 36°, 11. * 37°). It is unlikely that there was more than one Shebna among Hezekiah's officers of State. The subject of Isaiah's prophecy appears, accordingly, to have held, later on, the office of royal secretary. One of two conclusions may be drawn : either the prophecy was unfulfilled in 701; or there is a mistake in describing it as directed against Shebna. A third view has been maintained, to the effect that change of office from major-domo to secretary is degradation equivalent to fulfilment of the prediction. There is not, however, sufficient proof that the office of State secretary was lower than that of governor of the palace, 13ut, besides, Isaiah foretells as Shebna's fate much more than loss of office. Thut, indeed, is merely part (484 SHEBUEL SHECHEM of the implication of a sentence of exile and banishment. Loss of office, or rather transference to another office, is by no means the same as exile. Isaiah mentions it as a part of Shebna's misfortune. . It is less easy to decide between the alternatives which remain. If the spirit and essence of Isaiah's prophecy be considered, Shebna's change of office was not in the slightest degree its fulfilment. This conclusion may be declared im- possible on theological grounds. But Shebna's history did not end with the year 701. His exile may have come after that date. Delay in the fulfilment of the prediction or premature anticipation of its fulfilment is all that need be assumed. The alternative conclusion is that the governor of the palace in Is 22 is wrongly named Shebna. In support of this it may be argued (Duhm, ad loc., and others) that the last clause of v.15 is in its wrong place, was originally an editorial heading to the section, and may be in error. The words ‘against (by) Shebna the palace-governor' certainly read like a heading and leave an improved text when removed from their present position. But the suggestion that an editor took the name from 2 K 18 is improbable, since, (1) Shebna is secretary there, and (2) the identification creates evidence against the fulfilment of the prediction. The difficulty, therefore, that Shebna was royal secretary in 701 remains the only reason for eliminating the name from IS 2215. The designation 25 in Is 2215 has not been referred to. The title occurs only here in the OT.” In 1 K 12, 4 the fen.inine is used (AVm ‘cherisher'). In a Phoenician inscription about 30 years older than Isaiah's prophecy (?) (CIS i. p. 25) it is used º in the Sense of city-governor.f This may be its mean- ng here. It harmonizes sufficiently with the designation of Shebna as palace-governor. The domestic office may have in- cluded the other (cf. v.21). The cognate in Assyr, denotes ‘governor’ (Del. H WB s. 20). W. B. STEVENSON. SHEBUEL (ºak).-1. A son of Gershom and grandson of Moses, 1 Ch 23" (BA Sov3aº, Luc. Xouğtº). He was ‘ruler over the treasuries,’ 26* (B 'Iwfix, A 20vſłań, Luc. 2081%N). He is called in 24” Shubael (ºw; B 'IwćašA, A Xov8a;N, Luc. 20w8tº\), which is prob. the original form of the name (see Gray, HPN 310). 2. A son of Heman, 1 Ch 25' (BA Xouëaffx, Luc. Xov8wij}\), called in v.” Shubael (LXX as in v.*). SHEGANIAH (nº; ; in 1 Ch 24, 2 Ch 311, nº). —1. A descendant of Zerubbabel, 1 Ch 321. * (B 2éxévić, A and Luc. Xexevtas, which is the reading of Luc. also in all the following passages). It is probably the same Shecaniah who is named in Ezr 8” (B Xavaxiá, A Xaxavić); see Ryle, ad loc. 2. Ac- cording to the MT of Ezr 8”, “the sons of Sheca- niah 'were amongst those who returned with Ezra; but a name appears to have dropped out of the text, and we should read ‘of the sons of Zattu, Shecaniah the son of Jahaziel' (cf. 1 Es 832 of the sons of Zathoes, Sechenias the son of Jezelus'). Ezr 8* is wanting in B; A has &mo viðv Zaſłońs 2exovias. 3. Chief of the tently course of priests, l, Ch 24” (B. 'Iaxaviá, A 2ekević). 4. A priest in the reign of Hezekiah, 2 Ch 311" (BA Sexovias). 5. A contemporary of Ezra, who supported him in his action in connexion with the foreign marriages, Ezr 10° (Xexeutas). 6. The father of Shemaiah, ‘the keeper of the east gate,’ Neh 3” (B Exeva, RA 2éxeviá). It is possible that he and No. 1 are identical. 7. The father-in-law of Tobiah the Ammonite, Neh 6° (Xexeviá). 8. The eponym of a family which returned with Zerubbabel, Neh 123 (Žexéviá). . It is the same name which, by inter- “hange of a and 2, appears as Shebaniah (see SHEBANIAH, No. 2) in Neh 10, 1214. SHECHEM. — 1. (p.5%) Gn 3310 342. 4 etc. See HAMOR. 2. (p.59, 20xeſ) the name of a Manassite clan, Nu 26* (*) (the Shechemites ºpº'º, ömuðs 6 2uxeſ.(ee)!), Jos 17°, 1 Ch 7”. The various con- ficting schemes. by which these three passages (P, J, and the Chronicler) connect Shechem with Manasseh are discussed in art. MANAssBII, vol. iii. p. 231 f. - " . .. Cheyne (ºsitº, ix. [1800) p. 454) would read this word ºiso in 2 S 8' 2029, 1 K 49 (1 Ch 1817), but see art, PRIESTs AND LEVITEs, p. 73b. I§oºd and go translated by Winckler, Geschichte Israels, - —r SHECHEM (n; ‘shoulder”; Xuxéu, h >lkºpa (1 K 12*), rà Xixtua (Jos 24*), Xºklpa, XàXw (Jos 24” ”), 2ticuov, 2.Ériua (Joseph.); Sichem, Sicina. (Jerome, Onom.)).-There are two views with regard to the name. One, held by Eusebius (Onom. s. 2uxéu), is that Shechem, the son of Hamor, ‘the Hivite, the prince of the land’ (Gn 338. 19), gave his name to the town. In this case the name is used in Gn 12" by anticipation. The other view is that Shechem received his name from the town, which was so called from the shéchém, “ saddle,” or ‘shoulder’ (cf. Gn 48*), between Ebal and Gerizim, which separates the waters of the Mediterranean from those of the Dead Sea. The latter supposi- tion is the more probable. The name occurs in the ‘Travels of a Mohar,’ if Max Müller's reading, ‘ Mountain of Sakama,’—the mountain of Sichen, i.e. Ebal or Gerizim, be correct (Asien ºt. Europ. p. 394). Eusebius and Jerome (Omom.) held the view that Shechem was formerly called Salem; but this opinion is apparently based on a wrong interpre- tation of Gn 338 (see SHALEM). The position of Shechem is clearly indicated in the Bible. It was west of Jordan; in the territory allotted to Joseph (see Gn 48*, where ‘portion' is the translation of Shēchém); in the hill-country of Ephraim (AV Mount Ephraim), within the limits of the tribe of Ephraim (Jos 207 21”, 1 K 12*, 1 Ch 607 728, cf. Jos 177), and immedi- ately below Gerizim (Jg 97). It was beyond Shiloh on the high road from jerus, to the north (Jg 2119), to the west of Michmethath (Jos 177), and not very far from Dothan (Gn 3719-17). The evidence outside the Bible is decisive : Josephus distinctly says (Ant. IV. viii. 44) that Shechem was between Ebal and Gerizim. Eusebius (Onom. S. Xuxéu, Aovčá, Tépé6tv90s) places it in the suburbs of, or close to, Neapolis; whilst Jerome (Ep. Paw. xvi.), Epiphanius (adv. Har. iii. 1055), and later writers identify it with Neapolis, the present Nóblus. Shechem is supposed to have been destroyed during the Jewish ar, and to have been rebuilt by Vespasian, who named it Flavia Neapolis. It is so ... on coins (Eckhel, Doc. Num. iii. 433), and by Justin Martyr, who was a native. Josephus says (BJ IV. viii. 1) that Neapolis was anciently called Mabortha, or Mabartha-a name which Pliny gives (HN v. 13) in the form Mamortha. This word has been variously explained. Iteland conjectures (Dis. Mis. i. 138–140) that the readings should be corrected from coins which have Morthia—the classical form, according to his view, of Moreh. Tomkins (A bra- ham , and his Age, p. 90) connects Mabortha, Morthia, with Martu, the Sumerian form of the name Amorite, and takes it as evidence of a pre- Semitic occupation of the site. He quotes the view of Sayce, who sees Martu in ‘the terebinth of Moreh.” Ritter (Pal. 646) considers that the name refers to the ‘pass’ or valley in which the town is situated. Olshausen, Ritter (as above), Guérin (Samſtric, i. 420), and Riehm (H WI3) take it to mean a ‘thoroughfare,” or place of ‘passage’ or ‘crossing’ (Rºnnyp ma'aibartà) — a name very applicable to a town situated in the natural pas- sage or valley from the Mediterranean to the Jordan, or on the caravan road from Judaea to Galilee. Neubauer (Géog. du Talm. 169) sees in the word a corruption of the Aramaean sninno (mabārakhta), “blessed town,” and supports his view by the statement in the Talmud that the Samaritans called their mountains ‘the mountains of blessing.’ When Abram entered the land of Canaan, he camped by the oak (AV ‘plain,” RV m ‘terebinth') of Moreh, at or near ‘the place of Shechem ’ (AV Sichem), and there built ‘an altar unto the IOI:D (Gn 12%. 7). Some authorities maintain, from the expression ‘place of Shechem,” that the city did SHECHEM SHECHEM 485 not then exist; but the word ‘place' (Gesen. Lew.) is applied to inhabited towns in Gn 18” 19” and 29*. It is also most unlikely that the Canaanites, who were ‘then in the land,” would have overlooked or neglected to occupy a well-watered site which Fº So many natural advantages. The oak of oreh, or a successor, is apparently mentioned as ‘the oak which was by Shechen' (Gn 35%), ‘the oak that was in the sanctuary of the Lord’ (Jos 24”), ‘the oak of the pillar that was in Shechem’ (Jg 9"). “The oak of Meonenim' (Jg 9” “the diviners’ tree') is possibly also the tree of Gn 12", but, Moore thinks, not of Jg 9". When Jacob ‘came from Paddan-aram,” Shechem was a Hivite city under the rule of Hamor the father of Shechem. . The patriarch pitched his tent to the east of the city on ground which he afterwards purchased from Hamor, and bequeathed to the children of Joseph. Here Jacob erected an altar, and sunk a well for his family and cattle; and here Joseph was buried (Gn 33** 34” 48*, Jos 24*, Jn 4.0. 14, Ac 71%). The size of the ‘parcel’ is unknown, but it possibly included the oak beneath which Jacob concealed the gods and trinkets of his household before moving to Bethel (Gn 35°). From the account of the capture and pillage of Shechem, perhaps alluded to in Gn 48*, and of the events which followed the defilement of Dinah, it would appear that the Shechemites were a peaceful, un- circumcised people, who possessed sheep, oxen, and other wealth (Gn 3410 ºr *** ; Jos. Amt. I. xxi. 1). The massacre of the Shechemites (if indeed it belongs to the patriarchal period, but see arts. HAMOR, SIMEON) does not seem to have aroused the ill-will of the surrounding tribes, for, whilst Jacob lived at Hebron, his sons pastured his flocks at Shechem in peace (Gn 37**). Shechem acquired additional importance and sanctity from the promulgation of the Law in its immediate neighbourhood (Dt 2719-14, Jos 898-30); and from the renewal of the covenant with God when Joshua, towards the close of his life, gathered all the tribes of Israel to Shechem and set up a reat stone, as a witness, under ‘the oak that was in (AV by) the sanctuary of the LORD? (Jos 24” ”). Joshua made Shechem a city of refuge, and gave it to the Levites (Jos 207 21*, 1 Ch 697; cf. Hos 69 (RV); Jos. Amt. V. i. 24). Yet under the Judges we find a temple of Baal-berith in or near the town (Jg 9**), and the population is plainly Canaanite. After Gideon's death, the men of Shechem made Abimelech, his son by a Shechenite concubine, king by the oak (IRV ‘plain') of ‘the pillar that was in Shechem ’; and it was during, or immedi- ately after, the ceremony that Jotham delivered his parable of the trees from Mount Gerizim (Jg 8" 91-9, 0-20). When Abimelech had reigned three years the Shechemites rose against him, but he soon re- took the city, and, after destroying it, Sowed the site with salt. He also set fire to and burned the temple of Baal-berith, in which a portion of the garrison had taken refuge (Jg 9”; Jos. Amt. V. vii. 4). In consequence of its central position and sacred associations, all Israel assembled at Shechem to make Rehoboam king (1 K 12", 2 Ch 10°); but the great disruption followed, and the ten tribes revolted, and made Jeroboam their king. Jeroboam rebuilt or fortiſied the town, and built himself a palace there (1 K 12”; Jos. Amt. VIII. viii. 4). The position, however, was not a strong one, and the capital of the new kingdom was first moved to Tirzah and then to Samaria—sites more capable of defence against the attack of an enemy. hen Samaria became the political and religious centre of the Northern Kºº. Shechem lost its import- ance, and it is not once mentioned during the monarchy. The town was, however, inhabited after the fall of Jerusalem (Jer 41°), and became the chief town of the Samaritans (Sir 50%; Jos. 47t. XI. viii. 6). About B.C. 132 it was taken by John Hyrcanus, and the temple on Mt. Gerizim destroyed (Jos. Amt. XIII. ix. 1 ; BJ I. ii. 6). Shechem was probably destroyed during the Jewish War, and its place taken by Flavia. Nea- polis, built by Vespasian a short distance to the west of the ancient site. Coins struck at Neapolis during the reign of Antoninus Pius represent Geri- zim with a large temple on its summit, approached by many steps cut or built in the side of the moun- tain. This temple, according to the Samaritan Chronicle, Dion Cassius (xv. 12), and Damascius (Phot. Bibl. p. 1055), was built by Hadrian, and dedicated to Jupiter. In the reign of Zeno the Samaritans attacked (A.D. 474) the Christians at Pentecost, and wounded the bishop, Terebinthus, whose name was perhaps taken from the terebinth or oak of Moreh. In consequence of this, the emperor deprived the Samaritans of Gerizim and gave the mountain to the Christians, who built a church on it which they dedicated to the Virgin. Justinian afterwards surrounded the church with a strong wall, and rebuilt five churches in Neapolis which the Samaritans had destroyed (Procop. De Adif, v. 7). The only known bishops of Neapolis are Germanus, who attended the Councils of Ancyra and Nicaea, Terebinthus, Procopius, Ammonas, and Joannes, who was present at the Council of Jerusalem (A.D. 536). In 1184 Náblus was pillaged by Saladin, and in 1834 by the soldiers of Ibrahim Pasha. In 1202 and again in 1837 the town suffered greatly from severe earthquakes. Near the centre of Palestine the range of hills which traverses the country from north to south is pierced º a remarkable pass—the only one conspicuous from the sea. The pass, which lies between Ebal and Gerizim, is the Vale of Shechem. The valley rises gradually eastward to a grand natural amphitheatre, with its southern end re- cessed in Gerizim and its northern in Ebal. Here the gently swelling ground of the arena separates the waters of the Mediterranean from those of the Dead Sea ; and here, in all probability, was held ‘the great inaugural service of all Israel on taking possession of the country.” Eastward of the water- parting, the ground falls gradually between Ebal and Gerizim to the rich level plain of el-Mukhna; and near the spot where the valley merges into the plain are the traditional sites of Jacob’s Well and Joseph's Tomb. The beauty of the Vale of §. and its exuberant fertility have often been described. The soft colouring of the land- scape, the fresh green of the gardens that slope down on either side, the grey olive trees, the joyous notes of the numerous birds of song, and the “mighty burst of waters from the flank of Gerizim,' make the vale the most beautiful spot in Central and Southern Palestine. Amidst this wealth of verdure, clinging as it were to the lower slopes of Gerizim, lies Nāblus (Neapolis), the ‘little Da- mascus’ of the old Arab writers, and a little to the east, between the modern town and the water- parting, probably lay Shechem. The natural attractiveness of the locality, its central position on the highland road from north to south, and the facilities for communication on the one hand with Sharon and the Mediterranean, and on the other with the Jordan Valley and the trans-Jordanic regions, marked it out as a place of importance from the remotest period. A trade route, to which allusion is made in Hos 6°, and which the l’salmist may have had in his mind when he connected Shechem with the valley of Succoth (Ps 60" 1087), ran at a very early date from the coast districts, ast. Shechem to Gilead. The connexion with the istricts east of Jordan remained almost to the present day, for, until recently, Gilead was gov- 486 SHECHEM SHEEP erned from Náblus, which is still the connecting link between the telegraph system east and west of Jordan. The modern town contains three clıurches built by the Crusaders which are now mosques, the synagogue of the Samaritans, and a few fragments of the Roman city. Immediately outside the town, on the S.W., there is a small mosque on the traditional site of Jacob’s mourning when Joseph’s coat was brought to him. In the minaret close by there is a stone with a Samaritan inscription containing the Ten Commandments. Environs.—There are three spots in the neigh- bourhood of Shechem which require some notice : the Well of Jacob, the Tomb of Joseph, and the site of the ‘oak” of Moreh. A tradition that goes back to the early part of the 4th cent., anã in which Jews, Samaritans, Christians, and Moslems agree, identifies Jacob's Well with Bir Y'alcáb. This well, sometimes called Bir es-Samarieh, “well of the Samaritan ' (woman), is situated in the level plain of el-Mukhna, about 15 m. from Núblus on the road to Jerus., and a little beyond the village of Baláta. The well is sunk to a great depth, #. through alluvial soil and partly through imestone, so as to secure, even in exceptionally dry seasons, a supply of water. By its construction in his own ‘parcel’ of ground, the patriarch, with great prudence and forethought, made himself in- dependent of the springs which probably belonged to the Shechemite villagers, and avoided those quarrels about water which are so common in a country where the population is partly sedentary and partly nomadic. Eusebius (Onom.) and the Bordeaux Pilgrim (A.D. 333) mention the well in connexion with Sychar, a place which they distin- guish from Sichem and Neapolis. Jerome (Onom.) adds that there was a church at the well which was visited by St. Paula (Ep. Paul. xvi.). Antoninus Martyr (A.D. 570), Arculfus (A.D. 670), and Willi- bald (A. D. 754), mention the well and church, and Arculfus adds that the church was cruciform, the well being in the centre. The church was appar- ently destroyed before the arrival of the Crusaders and rebuilt in the 12th cent. It was again destroyed after the battle of Hattin, and remained a heap of rubbish until a few years ago, when it became the property of the Greek Church, and its foundations were uncovered by excavation. The stone on which our Lord sat is said to have been taken to Con- stantinople in the reign of Justinian (see SYCHAR). Jewish, Samaritan, and Christian tradition iden- tifies the Tomb of Joseph with a modern building, called Kabr Yūsuf, situated in the plain about + m. north of Jacob's Well. Moslem traditions vary —one accepting the Kabr. Yūsuf, another placing the tomb in the cemetery Rijal el-'Amººd at the foot of Gerizim. The latter place was apparently shown to Maundrell (A.D. 1697). Eusebius, the Bordeaux Pilgrim, and Jerome (Onom.) place the tomb to the east of Neapolis and close to Sichem. Jerome elsewhere (Jºp. Paul. xvi.) says that St. Paula, after leaving Jacob's Well, visited the ‘tombs of the twelve patriarchs.” The tradition that the twelve sons of Jacob were buried at Shechem rests on the words of St. Stephen (Ac 7”. 1"). Josephus (Ant. II. viii. 2) says they were buried at Hebron. Nearly all later writers refer to the tomb without distinctly indicating its position ; but all Jewish travellers place it in the immediate neighbourhood of the village of Baláta. Two sites have been suggested for the ‘oak” of Moreh. At the foot of Gerizin, in the recess which forms part of the natural amphitheatre already described, there is a small, well-kept cemetery, with a mosque, a courtyard, a well, and several tombs of which one is the tomb of Sheikh Yūsuf. The place is called Rijal el-'Amſtd, ‘the men of the 3olumn,” or simply el-Amtid, ‘the column.’ Here, according to one tradition, Joseph and his brethren were buried, or, according to another, several Jewish prophets. A third tradition finds in it the spot where Jacob buried the idols of his household, whilst the Samaritans believe it to be the place where Joshua set up a great stone under the ‘oak' that was in the sanctuary of the LORD (Jos 24*). The other site is Baláta, a small hamlet with a beautiful spring, not far from Jacob's Well. The village is mentioned in the Samaritan Book of Joshua under its present name, which contains the radicals of the Aramaic word for ‘oak.' The place is also, apparently, that mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome (Omom.) as Balants (translated by them “oak’) near Joseph’s Tomb, and identified by them with the oak of Shechem. . LITERATURE. –Descriptions of Náblus and its environs, and of the importance of Shechem in the history of the Jews, will be found in PEI' Mem., ii. 172–178, 203, etc.; Stanley, SP p. 233, etc.; Smith, HGHIL 332, etc.; Guérin, Samarie, i. p. 372, etc.; Iłobinson, BIRP2 iii. p. 96, etc.; Wilson, PEI'St. 1873, p. 66, etc. C. W. WILSON. SHEDEUR (ms"Tº ; the first part of the word is probably lºw Shaddai, cf. Gray, IIPN, 169, 197): —The father of Elizur, the chief of Reuben, Nu 1. 219 (B and Luc. in both Xeówoºp, A 'Eówoºp) 7” (B'Eötoroup, B*AF Xeówootp) 10° (2eówoºp). SHEEP.—The generic name for “sheep’ is iss zón (properly ‘small cattle'). The unit is expressed by ny sch, which also applies to goats. 7's 'ay?! signifies “a ram’; ‘’In rāhāl, a ewe'; vaz hebhes (fem. kibhsah and kabhsah), or by transposition aty? Jºesebh (Lv 37, fem. kisbah), ‘a (yearling) lamb’; Tºp täleh (1 S 7°), and he kar (Ps 37°), ‘a young lamb.’ See, further, LAMB. The sheep, as supplying most of the wants of a pastoral people, was their chief possession, and a measure of i. wealth and prosperity. Job had 7000 head of sheep at first, then 14,000 (Job 1' 42*). Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Esau had vast flocks of them. Sheep furnished their owners with cloth- ing, milk, butter, cheese, meat, and a medium of exchange. The king of Moab (see art. MESIIA) paid an annual tribute of 100,000 lambs and the stºme number of rams to the king of Israel (2 K 8"). Reuben took from the sons of Ishmael 250,000 sheep (1 Ch 5”). Solomon sacrificed 120,000 sheep at the dedication of the temple (1 IS 8"). His household consumed 100 sheep a day (1 K 4*). The Israelites entered Egypt as shepherds (Gn 471-9), and left it with much cattle (Ex 12*). The same regions which furnished the vast flocks in ancient times are still noted for their sheep. All the plateaus east of the Jordan, and the moun- tains of Palestine and Syria, are pasture-grounds for innumerable flocks and herds. In the spring, when the ewes bring forth their young, the succulent grasses furnish suitable nourishment. Later on, when the rain has ceased, the sheep still nibble the dried herbage and stubble, and flourish where to a Western eye all is barren desert. They require water but once a day, and, where they cannot get it from perennial streams as the Leontes, the Orontes, the Jordan, the Yermuk, the Zerka (Jabbok), the Zerka-Ma'in, the Mujib (Arnon), etc., they find it in the innumerable wells, folln- tains, and cisterns known to the Arabs. The descendants of the same shepherds who tended ſlocks in Bible days, still occupy the great sheep- walks of Palestine. The male of sheep, as of other animals, was usually chosen for sacrifice, as being the repre- sentative sex, and because the female was reserved for breeding. The leper, however, offered two he- lambs and one ewe (LV 14"). Similarly, while the sin-offering of a ruler was a male kid, that of ong of the common people was a female kid or lamb SHEEP SHEKINAH 487 (Lv 4***). The idea of sacrifice has not dis- appeared wholly, even from Islám. On important occasions, as the opening of a new road, or the erection of an important building, sheep are sacri- ficed, and their flesh given to the poor. There is a “Feast of the Sacrifice’ at Mecca every year, in connexion with the haj, when many thousands of sheep and other animals are killed, and their flesh distributed among the poor. The milk of sheep is especially mentioned (Dt 32", 1 Co 97). Wool was and is a staple of commerce (2 K 3%, Ezk 27*). It is very frequently mentioned. The priests had the first of the clip (Dt 18%). Good housewives spun it and wove it (Pr31*). Sheep-shearing was a festival (Gn 311938”, l S 25, 2 S 13**7). The ram has long recurved horns, which were used for trumpets (Jos 6") and oil-flasks (1 S 16"). They are now used as powder-horns. Rams' skins, dyed red, were used in the construction of the tabernacle (Ex 26*). Sheep skins were and are fashioned into a baggy kind of coat (He 11”). Such a garment is the protection of every Syrian shepherd against the wind and rain. The broad-tailed breed of sheep, now universal in Palestine and Syria, was prob, there from ancient times. The immense tail is a great desideratum. It is the ‘rump’ of Ex 29*, Lv3" (IRV ‘fat tail”). It furnishes as much as 10 pounds of pure fat. This is tried out, usually mixed with fine morsels of lean, about as large as a white bean, and packed away in earthen jars for winter use. This mixture is the main reliance of the peasants of Lebanon in the way of animal food for several months of each year. . It is called kawramah. To increase the amount of adipose matter in the tail, the sheep is fattened by forced feeding with mulberry leaves. A bolus of these leaves is made up by the woman or girl in charge, and crammed between the teeth of the animal, which is then compelled to masticate and swallow it. Towards the middle of October the sheep become so fat that they are often unable to stand. The care of sheep is a subject of frequent allu- sion in Scripture. They are exposed to the vicissi- tudes of weather, winter and summer, frost and drought, in the immense treeless plains where they are most raised (Gn 31*); to the attacks of beasts and robbers (v.”, l S 17*, Jn 10" " "). The shep- herd leads (not drives) them to pasture and water (Ps 23. 77° 78° 801); protects them at the risk of his life (Jn 10”). To keep them from the cold and rain and beasts, he collects them in caves (I S 24") or enclosures built of rough stones (Nu 32*, Jg 5*, Zeph 2", Jn 10'). The sheep know the shepherd, and heed his voice (Jn 10°). It is one of the most interesting spectacles to see a number of flocks of thirsty sheep brought by their several shepherds to be watered at a fountain. Each flock, in obedi- ence to the call of its own shepherd, lies down, awaiting its turn. The shepherd of one flock calls his sheep in squads, draws water for them, pours it into the troughs, and, when the squad has done, orders it away by sounds which the sheep perfectly understand, and calls up another Squad. When the whole of one flock is watered, its shepherd signals to it, and the sheep rise, and move leisurely away, while another flock comes in a similar manner to the troughs, and so on, until all the flocks are watered. The sheep never make any mistake as to who whistles to them or calls them. “They know not the voice of strangers’ (Jn 10"). Sometimes they are called by mannes (v.”). It was such a scene that greeted Jacob's eyes when he fell in love with Itachel at first sight (Gn 29**). Moses met his wife and her sisters at the water- ing troughs (Ex 27”). The shepherd often carries the smaller lambs in his bosom, or under his arm, or in the folds of his cloak (Is 40"). Dogs are indis- pensable to shepherds (Job 30"). They protect the flock from wild animals and robbers. They are the unkempt, Savage, shaggy originals of the city dogs of the East. They help to keep the sheep together like the Scotch collies. Syrian sheep are usually white (Ps 147", Is 1*, Dn 7"), but some are brown (Gn 30%-49, RV ‘black”). No animal mentioned in Scripture compares in symbolical interest and importance with the . It is alluded to about 500 times. The people of God are His sheep (Ps 957 100°, Jn 2116-w), and His ministers pastors," i.e. shepherds (Jer 23, Eph 4”; cf. our Lord’s charge to St. Peter Jn 211olſ.; See art. PETER, vol. iii. p. 761). Christ is the Good Shepherd (Jn 10”), and ‘the Lamb (6 duvês) of God, which taketh away the sins of the world’ (Jn 120). The song of the redeemed is ‘the song of Moses and the Lamb' (Rey 15°), of the law and the gos- bel. Satan and his hosts “made war with the amb,” and the Lamb overcame (17*). The last act of the drama of redemption is ‘the marriage of the Lamb’ (Rev 19° 21”. 14), and thereafter ‘God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple' (v.”), and ‘the Lamb is the light thereof.” (v.”). Those who are written in ‘the Lamb's book of life' (v.”) enter into His rest. The last vision of Revelation is “the throne of God and the Lamb” (Tö dpulov, 22*). G. E. POST. SHEEP FOLD.—See FOLD and SHEEP. SHEEP GATE, Neh 31.8° 1289.-See JERUSALEM, vol. ii. p. 593. For the Sheep Gate (AV Sheep Market ; Gr. h Tpobarakā [sc. TúXm as in LXX of OT passages]) of Jn 5*, see ib. and art. BETHESDA. SHEERAH (nº).-A ‘daughter’ of Ephraim, who, according to the MT of 1 Ch 7”, built the two Beth-horons and a place of doubtful identity + called Uzzen-sheerah (Tsºn = ‘portion [? lit. something weighed] of Sheerah”). In v.”, while A and Luc. recognize a proper name in Tsº, B, reading ap- parently Tisº instead of Hºst; nº (A Kat # 99 yarīp atroß Saapá, Luc. Xapad), renders kal év ékelvous roſs KaraXoltous, and makes Ephraim himself the builder of the upper and the lower Beth-horon. In v.” the LXX gives quite a different turn to the passage. Instead of the place-name Uzzen-sheerah, it reads Kal viol'Ośāv Xempá (= Tºº HN º. J. A. SELBI.E. SHEHARIAH (nºnrº; B and Luc. Xapatá, A Xaapuá).—A Benjamite, 1 Ch 8*. SHEKEL.-See artt. MONEY and WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. SHEKINAH (Heb. nyº; “that which dwells or resides’). —The word, as well as the conception, originated after the close of the Hebrew Canon, and is characteristic of Judaistic theology, though the conception occurs also, with deeper connota- tion, in NT writings. The word is never, used except of God ; and implies what we should designate ‘the Divine Presence,” or ‘the Divine Manifestation.” The two most remarkable features of Judaistic theology were its development of the doctrine of Divine ‘aloofness,’ and the way in which it them sought to bridge the chasm which it had created between God and man. It was felt to be an indignity to God that He should be supposed to have direct contact with inert matter, and im- mediate intercourse with sinful man ; and He was gradually pushed further away from His world. The transcendence of God, and His exemption * The same misleading tr. occurs also in Jer 28 810 1021 1716 2222232, 4, in all of which RV alters to “shepherd.' # It is identitled in Bartholonnew-Smith's map of Palestine (1901) with Beit Sira, a little to the S.W. of the lower Beth-horon. 188 SHERINAH SHEKINAH from all limitations, was insisted on with increas- ing vigour, until it reached the me plus ultra in Philo, who maintains that to assign any quality to God would be to limit Hina ; and that }. is the absolutely unlimited, since He is eternal, un- changeable, simple substance. ‘Of God, we can only say that He is, not what He is (Drummond, Philo Jud. ii. 23–30). Having thus undeified God, in their endeavour to dehumanize Him, the object of philosophic Jews was to posit some one or more intermediary, Hypostases, who might occupy the jlace which had previously been assigned to God, in the world of matter and of mind. Of these the most prominent were the Metatron, the Word, the Spirit, Wisdom, and the Shekinah. It is the last of these which now calls for investigation. In the Hebrew religion, even in its least de- veloped form, Jellovah is always the God of heaven as well as of earth. In times of storm, God was very near and very real to the Hebrews. They conceived of Jehovah as sitting on the storm- cloud, which they designated an? : “He rode upon a cherub and did ſº He flew swiftly on the wings of the wind’ (Ps. 18"): and the brilliance gleaming forth behind and through the black cloud was con- ceived to be due to the very presence of God : the light being the body or garment of God. When ‘the Lord of (the heavenly) hosts’ was described as dwelling in the midst of the earthly ‘hosts’ of His favoured people, we are told that cherubim. overlaid with gold were prepared for His throne ; and that a brilliance shining behind and through clouds was His mundane manifestation, as He is also seen in the clouds of heaven (Ex 40**). On the summit of Sinai a cloud rested six days, amid which the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire, and Moses entered into the midst of the cloud (Ex 24”). And when the tabernacle was finished, “the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle” (Ex 40*). ‘By day the cloud was upon the tabernacle, and there was fire therein by night’ (Ex 4098). It was these celestial and terrestrial phenomena which suggested to the Jew the conception of the Shekinall. The desideratum was to find some- thing which is Divine but is not God. God was very far away; literally ‘beyond all knowledge and all thought’; yet. He rules the world mediately, if not immediately; and being a monotheist the Jew could not let go his belief—that only that which is Divine can rule the world. This, then, was the problem : to discover a mediator, or medi- ators, Divine, but not God. How can this be made thinkable 7 Well, the wind (rºtah) is the breath of God, whether in the zephyr or the storm; and if so, it is Divine. So thought the Jew ; and in course of time the rºtah, which first meant ‘ breath' or ‘wind,” was supposed to be endowed , with the attributes of God — power, wisdom, holiness—and then “spirit' becomes its more appropriate rendering. God's rºal, is thus Divine---an effluence from Deity—and is thus fitted to be intermediary between God and the world of nature and nuan. Further, there was the Divine Word. The sacred Hebrew books assigned great importance to Divine utterances or words. * God said, “Let light be *; and light was (Gn 1%). It was a peculiarity of the ancient world to ascribe causal efficiency to an uttered word, as is seen in the potency ascribed to magical formulae. When later Judaism expounded such passages as the one we have just quoted, it assigned to the uttered word a 㺠efficacy in the physical realm. The very words ‘Let there be light 'were to them a vera causa in the natural sphere, and were instrumental in causing the light to come into being ; as Zec 5" speaks of an uttered ‘curse' entering a house and ‘consuming its timbers and its stones,” An utterance of God is something Divine : as potent as God Himself, and therefore “Word” lends itself to Jewish philosophy as a suitable expression for a Divine intermediary between God and the world. This helps us to understand how Judaism came to its conception of the Shekinah. The glory in the storm-cloud, in and over the tabernacle, is a manifestation of God. The brilliance is not God; for it was a matter of fixed Jewish belief that God is invisible, and yet the brilliance is an effluence from Deity. When the Jew had banished God from his universe, the recorded manifestation of the Divine Presence in the ark and elsewhere seemed to him a tertintºn . quid between God and Nature: Divine, but separable in thought from God. The word Shekinah is used very often in the Jewish Targums. It does not indicate the radi- 8.11Ce Ol' brilliance, but the central cause of the radiance. This centre was conceived to be Divine. The Heb. Scriptures often speak of ‘the glory' of the Lord, but, with one exception (Zec 2"), the Tar- gumists never use the word Shekinah to translate the Heb, word for “glory.’ They understood Tiny to be the effulgence of the substantial glory, i.e. of the Shekinah. The Shekinah is used in the Targums as the equivalent for the Divine Being, not for His glory. A good illustration of this occurs in Is 60°, where the Heb. reads, “The LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen §. thee,” and the Targ. renders, “In thee the S ekinah of the LORD shall dwell, and his glory shall be revealed upon thee.’ Whenever the Heb. text would seem to impose any limitations of space upon God, the Targ. substitutes for “God,” “his Shekinah.” In every instance where God is said to dwell in a place, the Targ. renders that God “causes his Shekinah to dwell' there (Gm 9”, Ex 25829", 1 K 6* 8°, Zec 8°). Every expression which would in any sense localize God, is scrupu- lously altered by º the Targumists, who believed that the Shekinah can be localized, but not the omnipresent God. When Jacob says (Gn 28"), “God is in this place,’ Targ., renders, “The glory of the Shekinah of J" is in this place.’ So Hab 2" “The Lord is in his holy temple,’ becomes “J” was pleased to cause his Shekinah to dwell,' etc. When J” is said to “sit upon the cherubim (1 S 4°, 2 S 6°) the Targ. must needs read, ‘the Shekinah of J’’ for “J” '; and Jerusalem is the place where J” causes His Shekinah to dwell (1 K 8** 14*, Ps 74°). Similarly, when the Heb. text says that any one saw God, or that God appeared to any one, the Targ. can only permit the glory of the Shekinah of J" to be visible to mortal man (Is 6* ‘My eyes have seen the glory of the Shekinah of the King of the world'; cf. Ex 3", Ezk 1", LV 9). The Targumist even shrinks from saying that J" is or dwells in heaven. The Heaven of Heavens cannot contain God; and therefore it is not God, but His Shekinah, which can be localized, even in heaven. Is 33° “He dwelleth on high,’ becomes in Targ. ‘He has placed his Shekinah in the lofty heaven’ (cf. Is 32° 38'"). In Dt 4” “J” is God in heaven above and on earth beneath,’ Onk. renders “God, whose Shekinah is (Targ. Jerus. ‘dwells’) in heaven above, and who rules on earth beneath '; so Dt 3*. tº e If a rigorous conception of God's ubiquity for- bade His dwelling in a place, so also must it pre: clude His removal from a place. When Hos 5* says, “J”, has withdrawn himself, from them,' Târg. reads “J” has removed his Shekinah from them.” This phrase is also used of God's hiding his face” (Is 817 5717 59°, Jer 33"), and ‘hiding his eyes” (Is il"). The words ‘Thou art a God that hidest thyself” (Is 45*) are rendered, “Thou hast SHEKINAH SIHEKINAH 489 ºsmºsºm laced thy Shekinah in the lofty fastness.” Hab 34. It was the belief of the Jews that the glory of the LORD did not dwell in the Most Holy Place in the second Temple. The Talmud (Yonna 9b) explains this on the ground that God only dwells in the tents of Shem; not of Japheth, of whom Cyrus was a descendant. This was deplored, and the promises of more intimate fellowship to be enjoyed by the Church in the Messianic age are in the Targ. all made to predict the presence of the Shekinah (JI 3 (4)” “I will place ". Shekinah in Zion’; so Ezk 437.9, Hag 1829, Zec 21"). It would be difficult among all these passages from the Targum to point to one in which activity or personality is assigned to the Shekinah. Under the conception that ‘God is Light,’ the Skekinah is God’s mere ‘manifestation-form.’ When we Pºis, however, from the Targ. to the Midrash and Salmud, the Shekinah ceases to be inactive, and has functions assigned to it which belong rather to the Logos or the Spirit. Lv 26* “I will walk among you, and be your God,” becomes in Targ. Cf. ºf will Fº the glory of my Shekinah among ou, and my Memra (word) shall be with you.’ )t 12" Targ. Jerus. “The place which the Memra of J" shall choose to place his Shekinah there’; but in Midr. and Talm. the Memra almost dis- uppears, and His functions are assigned to the Shekinah. We find in Pesac/vim, 73 that it was the Shekinah which spoke to Amos and the pro- bhets; and the expression Tiº morp (‘a Psalm of }. ’) means that the Shekinah came down upon David, and he then spake forth the Psalm (Pes. 114). The Shekinah is, in the Talmud, regularl the source of inspiration. The reason why Eli mistook Hannah's grief for inebriety was that the Shekinah had departed from him. The Mishna was given through Moses under the auspices of the Shekinah. Pirke Aboth iii. 3 uses Shekinah in the Christian sense of the word Spirit : “When- ever two men sit together and are occupied with words of the Torah, the Shekinah is with them.’ In the Talmud (Berakhoth, 6a) the number is raised to “ten.” The Shekinah is always present in synagogues, in Schools, and in the homes of the pious (Sota 17a). “He that eats with the Wise enjoys the Shekinah’ (Weber, 182 (*188]). We have seen that it was usually taught that the Shekinah was not visible in the second Temple. Yoma 1 mentions the Shekinah in a list of things absent from it. But others teach that the She- kinah is inseparable from Israel. When Israel was in Babylon the Shekinah was there. The Shekinah was under the yoke, when Israel so suffered. Wherever Israel is scattered, the She- kinah dwells. When Titus destroyed the Temple, the Shekinah could not desert it, and it is still there behind the remaining western wall (Weber, 60 [*62]). The activity of the Shekinah was conceived to extend not only to earth, but to Sheol. There were some of the Rabbis who held the doctrine now known as ‘final restoration.’ R. Joshua ben Levi was one of these. He believed that the bound in Gehinnom will one day see the Messiah, and all who bear the mark of the covenant will loose their chains and ascend from the darkness. But in Bereshith Rabba to Gn 44° the Shekinah is the deliverer. It affirms that the wicked Jews now ‘bound in Gehinnom will ascend out of hell, with the Shelcimah at their head’ (Weber, 351 [* 368]). We turn now to the NT where the word Ryº occurs both transliterated and translated. There can be no reasonable doubt that the Greek word a kºmuſ (- ‘tabernacle’) was from its resemblance in sound and meaning used by bilingual Jews for the Heb. Shekimah ; e.g. in Rev 21° ‘Belmold the orkmv% of God is with men, and he will tabernacle (a.kmudget) with them.” The allusion is equally clear in Jn 1* “The Logos . tabernacled (ºkºvowev) among us, and we beheld his glory.’— The conception of the Shekinah appears in Greek dress under the word 66;a. In several instances ôóða is used of Deity or a manifestation-form of Deity, and thus shows itself to be the equivalent of Shekinah. . We will first cite one or two pas- sages from the Apocrypha. In Enoch 14” we Tead, “And the Great §. sat thereon, and his raiment shone more brightly than the sun'; Enoch 102” “The angels will seek to hide them- selves from the presence of the Great Glory’; To 3" ‘The prayer of both was heard before the glory of the Great One,’ 8vºrtov Tijs 60% ms toº MeyāNov [Query: Since Tobit was translated from a Senlitic source, is it not likely, with Enoch before us, that the Greek ought to be évêtriov Tàs 66&ms ris prey&Ams: ‘before the Great Glory’?]; Sir 17” “Their eyes saw the majesty of the º In the NT there are several instances in which §§§a is used as more or less the equivalent of Shekinah. In Ro 9", where St. Paul is enumerat- ing, with patriotic fervour, the privileges of the Jew, and amongst others mentions ‘the giving of the law and ‘the glory,’ he evidently means ‘the Shekinah-glory': as in He 9” “the cherubim of glory’ means ‘the cherubim on which the She- kinah was enthroned.’ So in He l" when the Son of God is said to be the effulgence of the glory’ (not “of his glory') it seems probable that the Shekinah was intended, in the sense of ‘the mani- fested Deity.’ The personality of the Shekinah is implied in 2 P 1", where we read (translating literally), “when such a voice was borne in to him by (Üró) the majestic glory.’ The word: Utró denotes the agent. , ‘The glory’ is the speaker: as in Targ. Jerus. of Gn,28° the glory of J” says, ‘I am the God of Abraham'; and as is possibly implied in Mt. 17” “A bright cloud overshadowed them, and there came a voice out of the cloud.’ 2 Mac 2°, in anticipating the fulfilment of OT prophecy, says, “The glory of the LORD shall be sun and the cloud.’ There are three other NT passages where an allusion to the Shekinah is probable, though exegetes are divided on the matter. Ro 64 “Christ was raised from the dead by means of (6tá) the glory of the Father.’ ‘Glory' may of course here mean “glorious power,’ as commentators say ; but, with the passage from the Midrash before us, in which the Shekinah is said to release cap- tives frosa Sheol, it seems to the present writer º that St. Paul was thinking of the She- Kinah piercing with its radiance the gloom of Sheol, and co-operating with God to release the Divine captive from the power of Satan and ‘the gates of Sheol.’ The second disputed passage is 1 P 4” rô Tâs 65;ms kal Tó too 0600 trueijua, which RV renders, “The (Spirit) of glory and the Spirit of God,” where 13engel is probably correct in re- garding 6%ms as an appellation of Christ. If this be so, it helps to elucidate our third passage, viz. Ja 2" thv triotiv too kvptov hºw "Imoroú Xpta toû Tijs ôºms, which Mayor correctly renders, “the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Shekinah.” The context refers to an assembly of Christians, where the Shekinall was believed to be present. Thus interpreted, the passage blends together Mt 18" and the words cited above from Pirke Aboth, iden- tifying Jesus with the Shekinah. LITERATURE. –Weber, Lehrem des Talmud [2nd ed. under title Jüd. Theol. awf Grund des Talmud, etc.); Gfrórer, Urchº-istenthum, i. 301 ff.; Langen, Judenthum zur Zeit Christi. 201 ff.; Levy's and Buxtorf's Lexicons ; C. Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Faihers?, p. 33. J. T. MARSHALL. 490 SHELAH SHEMAIAH SHELAH (nº).-1. The youngest son of Judah by Shua, Gn 38%. ii. 14. * 4619 (A >7X&M, Luc. XiX&p.), R. 26” (19) (BA and Luc. Xm Nøv, R Xm Núp.), 1 Ch 28 (2 m) dºv) 4” (BA XmY&p, Luc. 2m)\tºv). He gave his name to the family of the Shelanites (ºn, 6%uos & 27Awy(s)|), Nu 26° 0%. Probably “the Shelanite’ should be read also for ‘the Shilonite” (ºn or ºn) of Neh 11° (Luc. 2m),wvel, B Amàové, N AmAwvel, A 'HAwvl) and 1 Ch 9” (2m), wV(e)t). 2. (nº) the son or (LXX) grandson of Arpachshad and father of Eber, Gn 10** 1118 (12) iſ 19, 1 Ch 1* * (XaXá, Luc. in Gn 10” in second occurrence XaXás), Lk 3*(XaXá). SHELAH, THE Pool of (nºn nºn: ; B koxvu}}0pa Töv kwótwv, N + Tot 24), wäu, Luc. # kpāvm rod XiXaváp. ; Piscina Siloe).-This name occurs only in Neh 3”, where it is given in AV as “Siloah.” “Shelah’ is probably a corrupt form of Siloam, the modern Silwān. See SILOAM, POOL OF. Perhaps in Neh 3” we should punctuate ºn as in Is 8". C. W. WILSON. SHELANITES.—See SHIELAH. One of the sons of Bani, who married a “strange’ wife in the time of Ezra, Ezr 10”; called Selemias in 1 Es 9”. 2. (B TeXepud, N TeXepalas) Father of Hamaniah, who restored part of the wall of Jeru- salem, Neh 3”. His son is perhaps ‘Hananiah, one of the apothecaries’ (Neh 3°, AV ‘son of one of the ... i.e. makers of perfumes, who restored another portion of the wall. 3. A priest who was appointed by Nehemiah to be one of the treasurers over the treasuries, to distribute the Levitical tithes, Neh 13”. 4. The father of Jehucal or Jucal in the time of Zedekiah, Jer 379, 38%; in the latter passage his name appears in the longer form inſp;|. 5. The father of Irijah, the captain of the ward who arrested Jeremiah as a deserter to the Chaldaeans, Jer 37*. 6. (in pºly, B XaXauetá, A Xe- \epuá) 1 Ch 26* = Meshelemiah, Meshullam, or Shallum, the head of a family of porters. 7. An- other of the sons of Bani who married a “strange’ wife in the time of Ezra, Ezr 10*. 8. Ancestor of the Jehudi who lived in the time of Jehoiakim, Jer 36*. 9. (LXX om.) Son of Abdeel, and one of those sent by Jehoiakim to take Baruch and Jeremiah, Jer 36”. H. ST. J. THACKERAY. SHELEPH (nºw [pause]; LXX A XaXáq). —Son of Joktan, Gn 10”, 1 Ch 129. The word is evi- dently identical with the Arabic salaf, salif, etc., which figure as the names of several places in Arabia; Yakut mentions a place called “the two Salafs,” º; for it a verse of a pre-Moham- medan poet ; places called Salf, Salif, and Salafah are noticed in the S. Arabian geography of Ham- dani ; and a province called Salifis mentioned by Mukaddasi among those of Yemen (p. 90). The Arabic genealogists further discovered a sub- division of the Himyarites which had the name Sulaf, and which they identified with the son of Joktan (Taj al-'arus, vi. 143). The Arabic salaf means simply ‘ancestor,’ while Salif or silf means “a sister's husband’; there would therefore be no improbability in the name in the text being not geographical but personal. Some further guesses are recorded by Dillmann (Genesis, ad loc.), D. S. MARGOLIOUTH. SHELESH (0%); B >epi, A 2ex\ffs, Luc. 2éAsa). —An Asherite, 1 Ch 7”. SHELOMI (rºy; B 2.eXegel [Xeg sup ras B", AF 2eXept). —I’ather of an Asherite prince, Nu 3427. SHELOMITH (nº ; in Ezr 810 nº).—1. The mother of the man who was stoned to death for having blasphemed “the Name,” Lv 24” (B”AF XaXwpieló, Luc. 20.2/ult). 2. I)aughter of Zerub- babel, 1 Ch 3" (B XaXage9el, A XaXage61, Luc. XaX&pató). 3. One of the ‘sons of Izhar,’ 1 Ch 23.8 (B XaXopató0, A 20 Novuò0, Luc. XaAwulo), called in 24” Shelomoth. 4. The name of a family whose representatives returned with Ezra, Ezr 819 (B 2a)\etpot,0, Luc. 2a)\tud,0). It is probable that a name has dropped out of the !, and that we should read ‘of the sons of Bani, Shelomitlı the son of Josiphiah’ (cf. A* diró viðv Baavi XexeºuoVö, and l Es 8” “ of the sons of Banias, Salimoth son of Josaphias’). SHELOMOTH (nipº).-1. An Izharite, 1 Ch 24” (BA XaAwad,0, Luc. XaAwpató) = Shelomith of 23*. 2. A descendant of Moses, 1 Ch 26*[Keré nºby)*.* (in the last Heb. nº, BA in all XaXopº6, Luc. in first two XaXapató, in last XaXajputé). 3. A Gershomite, 1 Ch 23° (Keré nº ; B'AAwpºetó, A XaAwpieló, Luc. 2a)\wpulê). SHELUMIEL (ºsºphy, a name exhibiting a late and artificial formation [Gray, HPN 200]; LXX XaXapwij\).--Prince of the tribe of Simeon, Nu 1" 2” 79%. 41 101° (cf. Jºh 8'). See also SHEMUEL. SHEM.—See HAM and JAPHETH. SHEMA (yry).-1. A Reubenite, 1 Ch 58 (BA 24a a, Luc. Xepeel). See SHIMEI, No. 8. 2. One of the heads of ‘fathers’ houses’ in Aijalon who put to flight the inhabitants of Gath, 1 Ch 8” (BA Xàpia, Luc. Xapad). He is called in v.” Shimei. 3. One of those who stood at Ezra's right hand, at the reading of the law, Neh 8* (2apatas). He is called in 1 Es 9° SAMMUS. SHEMA (ypt; ; A Xapad, Luc. Xouá).—A town of Judah, situated in the Negeb or South, and men- tioned between Amann and Moladah (Jos 15*). Some authorities suppose it to be the same place as Sheba (Jos 19°), being a corruption of that name. On the other hand, if Sheba, and Beersheba be identical (see SHEBA), this cannot be the case, for Shema, and Beersheba are both found in the list of towns in Jos 15. The site is unknown. It is probably this. Shema which appears in 1 Ch 2* as a ‘son’ of Hebron. SHEMAAH (Hypºn; B'Apá, A Xaugé, Luc. 'Aagá). —A Benjamite, father, according to MT, of Ahiezer and Joash, but, according to the LXX (vićs = }; instead of ºil), of Joash alone, 1 Ch 12”. SHEMAIAH (nypy; in 2 Ch 11° 17° 31' 35", Jer 26” 29* 361° Hyby ; “J” has heard'). - Of the twenty-four persons who bore this name, only four can be certainly said to have belonged to other than prophetical or priestly families. 1. B >appalas, A Xapatas (2 Ch 12" "). A prophet who with AIIIJAII guided the revolution which deprived Rehoboam of the ten tribes. According to the MT, he does not come on the scene unti Itehoboam was on the point of leading a vast ºy against the revolters. He then appears (1 K 12*, 2 Ch 11*) to give the Divine sanction to the re- bellion. ‘Thus saith the LORD . . . this thing is from me.’ Dut the second Greek account, which omits all mention of Ahijah in this connexion, introduces Shennaiah at the assembly at Shechem, before the people entered into negotiations with Itelloboam. “The word of the Lord came to Shemaiah the Enlamite (cf. Jer 29* LXX), saying, Take to thee a new cloke which hath not gone into water, and rend it into twelve pieces; and thou shalt give it to Jeroboam, and shalt Bay unto him, SHEMAIAH SHEMER 491 Thus saith the Lord, take to thee twelve pieces to cover thee. And Jeroboam took them, and Shema- iah said, Thus saith the Lord concerning the ten tribes of Israel” (1 K 12*). This is evidently another version of the story told of Ahijah, 1 K 11”. Thele is another mention of Shemaiah in 2 Ch 12”, in which he points the moral of the invasion of Shishak, and at the same time announces the mitigation of it in view of the repentance of Rehoboam. The Chronicler also cites “the history of Shemaiah the prophet’ as an , authority for the reign of Iłehoboam, 2 Ch 12". 2. Son of Shecaniah (1 Ch 3° Xapatá); ap- parently a descendant of Zerubbabel. It is tempt- ing to identify him with ‘the keeper of the east gate,’ who helped to repair the j under Nehe- miah (Neh 3* BA Xapuatá, N Xepetá). On the other hand, Ryle conjectures that the latter was a Levite, and that “the east gate was the eastern approach to the temple precincts.” Lord A. Hervey (Geneal. p. 107) would remove the opening words of 1 Ch 3°, and read Shimei for the second Shemaiah, see v.”. 3. A Simeonite (1 Ch 4” B 2.up.edºv, A. Xapatas), perhaps identical with the Shimei of 1 Ch 42%. 27. 4. A Reubenite (1 Ch 5* B Xepteel, A Xepelv), called Shema in v.º. 5. A Merarite Levite (1 Ch 914, Neh 11” Xauaid), one of those who dwelt in Jeru- salem. 6. A Levite of the family of Jeduthun, father of Obadiah or Abda (1 Ch 91% B Xapſeud, A 2aplas, called Shammua in Neh 1147). 7. Head of the Levitical Kohathite clan of Elizapham in the time of David (1 Ch 15° E 2auatas, A Xepeatá, N Xapaéas ; v.” B Xapatas, A Xepetas, N Xapat). He is possibly identical with—8. The scribe (1 Ch 24% I} >apatas, A Xappatas), the son of Nethanel, who registered the names of the priestly courses. 9. A IKorahite Levite, eldest son of Obed-edom (1 Ch 26* * B Xauatas, A Xaucias ; v.7 B Xapat, A Xepletd.). 10. A Levite (2 Ch 17° 13 Xauočas, A Xapovías), one of the commission employed by Jehoshaphat to teach the book of the law in Judah. 11. A Levite of the family of Jeduthun in the reign of Heze- kiah (2 Ch 29* B Xapatós, A Xapºelas), one of those who took a leading part in the purifying of the temple. He is possibly identical with 12, one of those who were “over the freewill offerings of God’ (2 Ch 31* Xepeel). 13. One of ‘the chiefs of the Levites’ (2 Ch 35° 2awalas; ‘ captains over thousands,’ 1 Es 1” where he is called Samaias). 14. One of the ‘chief men’ sent by Ezra to fetch Levites and Nothinim (Ezr 8* Xauaid, A Xepted ; Maasmas, Samaias, 1 Es 8* *); º the same as — 15. A member of the family of Adonikam, (Ezr 8* B Xapuatá, A Xapaetó ; Samaias, 1 Es 8”). 16. 17. Two of those who had married foreign wives, a priest and a layman respectively (Ezr 10* Xauaid, v.” B Sagaud, N >epted, A Xapatas; Sameus, Sabbeus, 1 Es 9*.*). 18. A prophet (Neh 61%-44 B Xepest, A Xepel) who had been hired by Sanballat and Tobiah “to put Nellemiah in fear.” His father's name, Delaiah (see 1 Ch 24*), would suggest that he belonged to a priestly house. The circumstance is evidently mentioned by Nehemiah as a typical one. The governor's answer to Shennaiah’s sug- gestion indicates that his design was at once to bring Nehemiah into contempt as a coward, and also to expose him to the charge of sacrilege, which would be certainly raised if he, a layman, were to intrude where priests alone might tread. 19. One of the 24 courses of priests, 16th under Zerubbabel (Neh 12" NA Xepetas), 15th under Joiakim (Neh 121° NA Xepend), and 21st under Nellemiah (Neh 10° Xauaid). It is probably this clan, and not an individual, that is mentioned as taking part in the ceremonies at the dedication of the wall (Neh 12* BN Xapaud, A Xapatas). 20. Probably a Levite, descendant of Asaph (Neh 12” Xapatá). , 21. Probably a Levitical clan of singers that took part in the dedication ceremonies (Neh 12" 2dpatá; y.* N* * * >egetas). We may sup- pose that half of it went in one procession and half in the other. 22. Father of the prophet Urijah (Jer 26 [Gr. 33].” BA 2apatas, N. Maoréas). 23. A § at Babylon, one of those who had been rought into captivity with Jehoiachin (Jer 29 [Gr. 36]** Xapauds, N: Xapeds). He is called ‘the NEHELAMITE’ (which see). He belonged to the # opposed to Jeremiah, and it is evident that, ike HANANIAH (Jer 28), he had predicted a speedy termination to the Captivity. Enraged at the letter of Jeremiah, in which the exiles had been counselled to acquiesce cheerfully in a prolonged stay in Babylon, Shemaiah sent letters to Jeru- salem taxing Zephaniah the second priest and the other ecclesiastical authorities with supineness, in that they did not visit Jeremiah with the punish- ment due to a false prophet. It would seem from this that it was the special duty of the ‘second riest' to enforce order in the temple (see art. PRIESTS AND LEVITES, p. 74"). “Jehoiada, the priest’ may possibly be the name of Zephaniah’s predecessor in the office of ‘second priest,’ or more probably he may be the great high priest of that name whose zeal in God’s service Shemaiah bids Zephaniah emulate. The punishment denounced against Shennaiah for this action was even more severe, according to Hebrew ideas, than that awarded to Hananiah. The latter was visited in his own person with premature death, but Shemaiah was punished not only with exclusion by death from such blessings as might fall to the lot of the exiles in Babylon, but with the complete excision of his family. 24. I’ather of Delaiah, who was one of the princes in the reign of Zedekiah (Jer 36 [Gr. 43]*BA Xexeptas, N. ×eóektas). - N. J. D. WHITE. SHEMARIAH (nºpy and Tºpy).-1. A Benjamite warrior who joined David at Ziklag, 1 Ch 12” (B Xagapatá, NA Xapapuá, Luc. 2dpaptas). 2. A son of Rehoboam, 2 Ch 11” (Xapaptas). 3. One of the sons of Harim who had married a foreign wife, Ezr 10” (B Xauapeud, NA Xauapuá, Luc. Xauaptas). 4. One of the sons of Bani who had committed the same offence, Ezr 10” (B Xapapeud, A 20papetas, Luc. 2apuaplas). SHEMEBER (hºspy).-King of ZEBoIIM, one of the five kings defeated by Chedorlaomer, Gn 14% (A 2vſ.68op, Luc. Xuuðp, Syr. ;- , Josephus Xuup,680pos). The Samaritan has T-Net, which may have arisen from a confusion between n and n, or may be due to an attempt to play upon the name. It has even been suggested (cf. Ball in S130T) that the name in the text may have originated from a marginal gloss TiN De (“name lost'). SHEMED.—See SHEMER, No. 4. SHEMER (nply). — 1. The owner of the hill purchased by Omri, upon which SAMARIA was afterwards built, 1 K 16” (Séump, Luc. Séap mp). Difficulties both etymological and historical attach to the statement in the same passage that the name Samaria (inºt') was derived from an indi- vidual instead of a clan name (but see Kittel, Könige, ad loc.), and that it was first given to the place by Omri (see Stade in ZATW v. (1885) 160 ſi.). 2. A Merarite, 1 Ch 6*(*) (>4pp mp). 3. An Asherite, 1 Ch 7” (B X&ºpºmp, A and Luc. X&ºmp), called in v.” Shomer (cf. the names 'Ebed and "Obed). 4. A 13enjamite, 1 Ch 8* (13 Sijamp, A Séup.mp, Luc. Sauaij\). The Heb. MSS show here sonne confusion between n and T as the final letter of the name. The AV (Shamed) and RV ! J2 SHEMIDA SHESHACH (Shemed) retain the reading of the Geneva version, which is based on the Vulg. Samad, SHEMIDA (y"pº).-A “son” of Gilead, according to Nu 26” [P] (Xvuaép); called in Jos 17* [JE] a ‘son’ of Manassell (B 2vuapelp, A >epapaé, Luc. Xapuãaé); his descendants are enumerated in 1 Ch 7” (2epºſe)tpá, Luc. Xapeu54). The gentilic name Shemidaites ("yºpºp, 6 ×vuaep(s)|) occurs in Nu 26*. See, further, art. MANASSEH, vol. iii. p. 231 f. SHEMINITH.—See art. PsALMs, p. 154°. SHEMIRAMOTH (nicºpy; in 2 Ch 178 K&thibh, mpºnpo, ; 26p.(e)tpap,00). — The name of a Levitical family. In 1 Ch 15* * 16" Shemiramoth appears in the list of the members of David's choirs, while in 2 Ch 17° the same name occurs annongst the Levites sent by Jelloshaphat to teach in the cities of Judah. In both cases a guild or family rather than an individual is probably to be thought of. SHEMUEL (ºsp;|, the name which, following the LXX and Vulg., is, in the case of the prophet, transliterated in EW Samuel [AV has Shemuel in 1 Ch 6*; on the derivation and meaning of the name see art. SAMUEL, and Gray, HPN 200, n. 3]). —1. The Simeonite appointed to assist in the divid- ing of the land, Nu 34*. It is not improbable that the MT should be corrected to ºsº (Shelumiel), the form in 10 212 780. 41 1019. The LXX in all the six passages has XaXapuix. 2. Grandson of Issachar, 1 Ch 7” (B 'Ioapovij\, A and Luc. 2apovăA). SHEN (ºn hash-shān, the ‘tooth” or ‘crag"; tºs traXatās; Sen).--A well-known place, ‘the Shen,’ named with Mizpah to indicate the position of the stone, called ɺ. which , was set up by Samuel to commemorate the defeat of the Philis- times (1 S 7”). The site is unknown. It is not im- probable, however, that the LXX ràs traXatās puts us on the track of the original reading, nº or Tºy, (Jeshanah, 2 Ch 13"). So Wellh., Driver, Budde, et al.; cf. art. EBENEZER. C. W. WILSON. SHENAZZÄR (Tysº; BA Xavegåp, Luc. Xavagdp). — A son of Jeconiah, 1 Ch 3°. See, further, SHESHRAZZAR. SHEOL.—See ESCHATOLOGY, HADEs, and HELL. SHEPHAM (Dº); Xetrºpépap; Sephama).-A place on the eastern boundary of the Promised Land (Nu 3419. 11), and apparently to the north of Riblah, now Ribleh, between Ba'albek and Homs. The site has not yet been identified. In the Targum of Dseudo-Jonathan the name is rendered by Apameia, ut this place is much too far to the north. Per- haps Zabdi, the Shiphmite, one of David’s house- hold who was “over the increase of the vineyards for the wine-cellars’ (1 Ch 27”),—was a native of Shepham. So Siegfried-Stade, who would vocalize º; instead of 'ºw. But see SIPHMOTII. C. W. WILSON. SHEPHATIAH (nº and nº ‘Jah has judged’). —1. One of David's sons, 2 S 3" (B Xagaretá, A 2aº affed, Luc. 2a partas) = 1 Ch 3° (B and Luc. as before, A_2a4battas). 2. A family of which 372 re- resentatives returned with Zerubbabel, Ezr 24 (B Aaróp, A and Luc. 2aqaruā) = Neh 7" (Xaqaruā), and 84 besides their head with Ezra, Ezr 88 (Xaqar(e)a). The name appears in 1 Es 5” as SAPHAT and in 894 as SAPHATIAS. 3. A family of the ‘sons of Solo- mon's servants,’ Ezr 2” – Neh 7” (Xaqar(e)tā). 4. The eponym of a Judahite family, Neh 11" (BA Xaqaruā, Luc. 2aqpartas). 5. The º of a Benjamite family, 1 Ch 9° (Xaghattá). Either this or the pre- ceding should perhaps be identified with No. 2 above. 6. A contemporary of Jeremiah, Jer 38 [Gr. 45]” (BAN Xaqavlas, Q” Xaq,47, Qing Xaqatlas). 7. A Benjamite warrior who joined David at Ziklag, 1 Ch 12” (Xaqarvá, Luc, Xagatías). 8. A Simeonite prince, l, Ch 27* (Xaq attas). 9. A son of king elloshaphat, 2 Ch 21” (2a4bar(e)las). J. A. SELBI.E. SHEPHELAH.—See PLAIN, vol. iii. p. 893 f. SHEPHER.—Mount Shepher (nºw ng) is a station in the journeyings of the children of Israel, men. tioned only Nu 33**. Nothing is known about its position. In both verses her) being in pause is pointed Shapher, the form that appears in AV. The LXX in B Luc. has Xoºxp, takim no account of “mount,’ which is represented in A by 'Aporºpzp an X&por&q&p, and in F by "Aporºzl); Vulg. has Sepher. The word (which means ‘beauty') occurs (as a moun) only in Gn 492, “giving goodly words” (words of beauty or elegance); but see Dillmann or Spurrell, ad loc., for an alternative * of this verse. !. CHAPMAN. SHEPHERD,-See SHEEP. SHEPHI (º; B 266, A 2004p, Luc. 2arpet), 1 Cll 1*; or SHEPH0 (5%); A X&p, D >wſpáv, E X&p, Luc. 204)&v), Gn 36”.—A Horite chief. SHEPHUPHAM (nº); BA Xopav, Luc. Xopav), Nu 26* (*); or SHEPHUPHAN (ºSy; B >wſpappék, A >wººdv, Luc. Xetrºpäu), 1 Ch 8”. –The eponym of a Benjamite family. The name appears in Gn 46” as MUPPIM and in 1 Ch 7”. 10 261" as Shuppim. The proper form of the name must remain doubtful. The gentilic Shupiiamites (ºn, BA 6 Xavºpav(e)t, Luc. & Xopavl) appears in Nu 26*(*). SHERD.—See POTSHERD. SHEREBIAH (nºng). —One of the Levites who joined Ezra at the river Ahava, Ezr 8* (LXX on.). Along with eleven others, he was put in charge of the silver and gold and the vessels for the temple, v.” (BA Xapacá, Luc. Xapaglas). He assisted lºzra in the exposition of the law, Neh 87; took part in the public confession and thanksgiving, 9"; and sealed the covenant, 10” (”) (B Zapaguá). He is named also in 12* *. In all these last passages except 10*(*) BA have Xapagia, Luc. Xapagias. The name appears in 1 Es 8” as ASEBEDIAS, v.” ESERE- BIAS, and 9” SARABIAS. SHERESH (0-y; B Xojpos, A X3pos, Ll.c. Pápes, ‘Pópos). —The name of a Manassite clan, 1 Ch 7”. See MANASSEH, vol. iii. p. 232°. SHERIFF.—In Dn 32.8 “sheriffs’ is the EV tr. of Aram. Nººn, a word of quite uncertain meaning. Devan and Driver regard it as improbable that it has any connexion with the Arab. 'afta ‘to notify a decision of the law’ (ptcp. mufti, ‘a jurisconsult’). This supposed connexion probably underlies the RVm ‘lawyers.” Bevan thinks it possible that the word may be a mutilated form of some Persian title ending in pat “chief.’ I’or an account of other conjectures see Driver or Prince, ad loc. Perhaps Theod. and LXX render by ol étr' ééovováju, but it is impossible to be certain, as their text contains only seven names of officials as against eight in the Aramaic text. J. A. SELBI.E. SHESHACH (tw/g). — This name, which occurs only in Jer 25 (32) * 51 (28) * (LXX om. in both passages), is generally taken to be a designation of Babylon (cf. the parallelism in the latter pas- sage : “How is Sheshach taken, and the praise of all the earth surprised How is Babylon become a desolation among the nations !’). It is probable, in fact, that Sheshach is simply a cryptical way of writing Babel. By the device known as Atbash SHESHAI SHESHIBAZZAR 493 (wnns) whereby s = n, a = v, and so on, the last letter of the Heb. alphabet being substituted for the first, the second last for the second, etc., Tww would be written for ban. An example of the same thing should probably be discovered in pp 5% of Jer 51 (28)”, which apparently has been substituted for an original Dºwn (LXX XaXáalovs). See, further, A. Berliner, Beiträge zur Heb. Gramm. aus Tal- mud und Midrasch, pp. 12–14. It is right to add that lºrd. Delitzsch º 214 ft.) rejects this explanation of Sheshach, holding that it represents Šiš-kā-KI of an ancient Bab. regal register, which may have stood for a quarter or division (perhaps Borsippa) of the city of Babylon (cf. Lauth in PSBA, 1881, p. 47 f.). Schrader (KAT'? 415 [COT ii. 108 f.]) objects that the name quoted by Delitzsch is not found in the later Bab. literature (dating from the time of Nebuchadnezzar), and that even the reading of the name is by no means settled. J. A. SELBIE. SHESHAI ("ºg). —A clan, possibly of Aramaic origin, resident in Hebron at the time of the Hebrew conquest and driven thence by Caleb (Nu 13” B >eaſa'el, A Xepel ; Jos 15* B Xova'el, A Xovaal ; Jg 110 B Xeorget, A Te001). See, further, Ahiman, No. 1. SHESHAN (Wg). —A Jerahmeelite, who, having no sons, gave his daughter in marriage to his Egyptian slave Jarha, 1 Ch 29%. 84. " (A has Xava &v, Luc. Xuardu, throughout ; B has 2004, in v.**, elsewhere 2007&v). SHESHBAZZAR (hyºſº). —There is some uncer- tainty as to the correct form of this name, and still more as to the identity of the man who bears it in the MT. Ezr 18 B X282 vozoºp, A Socorozſºčororoºpoº, Luc. Sozoro:3ozoa.pnº, which is read by Luc. throughout Ezra. ,, 111 B om., A Xzoro.320-a-0%p. ,, 51* B B2220.6%p, A Xozaroſłoºoooºooº. ,, 516 ... B X2002» «p, A Xozoroz8&orrºp. 1 Es 212 (11) B Xcºvo, woºo-o-opos, A Xozvoz8&ororopos, which is read by A throughout 1 ISGras, Luc. Sooro. 32Accord ºpac. 215 (14) B Sozvºjºcoſororozpos, Luc. Xzoro.82× 0.ororozpo;. 618 (17) B X2829&ororopos, Luc. Xzaro.92xo.co-oºpzº. 620(10) B Xovo:3%aroopoº, Luc. Xzoo.82Xzoo ºpzº. Josephus exhibits a similar variety: 'Agiza’apos, 328&npos, 22 vo:3&o-opos, Xo:3&vºoroo:pos. The above variations (apart from Baºyao &p and 2apgayáp) may be reduced to two types: (1) Shesh- bazzar or Sasab(al)azzar, (2) Sanabazzar. If we adopt the first of these, the name may stand for Bab. Samaš-bil [or -bal] -užntr, “O sun-god protect the lord [or the son]’; so van Hoonacker (Zorobot- bel, 43; Nouvelles études, 30; cf. Academy, 30th Jan. 1892), followed by Wellhausen (IJG* 158 n.), Cheyne (Academy, 6th Feb. 1892), Ryle (Ezra and Nchemiah in Camb. Bible, 32), Sayce (HCM 539), et al. The Sanabazzar type, again, may represent an original Sim-bal-algur, ‘O moon-god protect the son ’; so esp. Ed. Meyer (Entstehung des Juden- thatmºs, 77), cf. also Sayce (l.c.). Sheshbazzar is mentioned in Ezr 1* * (the work of the Chronicler, who has just quoted what pur- ports to be an edict of Cyrus authorizing the return of the Jews and the rebuilding of the tº. as entrusted by Cyrus with the vessels of the house of the LORD which had been carried away by Nebuchadnezzar, and which were now to be re- stored. These vessels are said to have been brought up by Sheshbazzar ‘when they of the captivity were brought up from Babylon unto Jerusalem' (cf. 1 Es 21%. 1"). The same particulars regarding him are repeated in 5" " (where, the Chronicler uses an Aramaic source, which professes to contain a transcript of the letter of Tattenai and others to I)arius), in which he bears the familiar Bab.-Assyr. title pellah (‘governor’), and is said, further, to have laid the foundations of the temple (cf. 1 Es 6**). It is probably * Sheshbazzar also that is called in Ezr 2" (= Neh 7"), Neh 7" by the Persian title tirshāthā. It is a very difficult question whether Sheshbazzar is to be identified with Zerubbabel. Their identit was commonly accepted till lately, and has still the support of weighty names, but the tendency of modern scholars: is to deny it. In favour of the identification (which appears to be made by Jos. Ant. XI. i. 3) the two strongest arguments are (a) the occurrence elsewhere (e.g. 2 K 23* 247, Dn 17) of double names, and (b) the fact that the laying of the foundation of the temple which in Ezr 3° is ascribed to Zerubbabel is in 51% ascribed to Sheshbazzar. But in answer to (a) it may be urged that the case of Daniel and his companions is not strictl arallel, for there we have native names (Daniel, #. etc.) and foreign names (Belteshazzar, Shadrach, etc.), whereas Zerubbabel (which see) and Sheshbazzar are in all probability both foreign (sc. Babylonian) names. The names in 2 K 2394 24/7 really furnish an argument against identifying Sheshb. with Zerubbabel. It is true that in Eliakim - Jehoiakim and Mattaniah-Zedekiah we have two couples of Hebrew names, but the author of these passages at least takes care to let us know that Eliakim is identical with Jehoiakim, and Mattaniah with Zedekiah, just as in Jg 7" we read * Jerubbaal which is Gideon,’ and in Dn 22° 419 ‘Daniel whose name was Belteshazzar.” In view of the usage elsewhere, it is surely strange (and van Hoonacker's argument, with all its skill and ingenuity, does not, to our mind, remove the strangeness) that in Ezr 3° there is not a hint by the Chronicler that Zerubbabel, who then comes upon the scene for the first time, is identical with Sheshbazzar, who had been mentioned in 18. More- over, it is hard to believe (and here again van Hoomacker's argument appears to us unconvincing) that Zerubbabel could be spoken of in 5° and Shesh- bazzar in 5*, * in the way they are, if the two mames stood for one and the same person. Š As to (b), reason will be shown in art. ZERUB- BABEL for suspecting that Ezr 3° and 5" both ante- date the laying of the foundation of the temple, transferring it from the second year of Darius Hystaspis (B.C. 520) to the second year of Cyrus (537). But whatever view be held as to that, the identity of Sheshb. with Zerub. does not appear to us to follow from a comparison of 38 with 51%. All that we need to assume is that the two returned from Babylon at the same time, and that Sheshb. was the official head (pchah) of the community, while Zerub, was the moving spirit in the rebuild- ing of the temple, whatever may have been the date when this work was undertaken. If Ezr 3° (the Chronicler’s own account) and 5" (a professedly official account) be historical, they contain the names, respectively, of the actual (Zerubbabel) and the official (Sheshbazzar) founders of the temple. Assuming, now, that the two names designate two different men, was Sheshbaggar a foreigner or * Unless one holds with Kosters that the list of names in this passage really belongs to Nehemiah's time, and that the tirshºtthá is Nehemiah himself. † Notably van lioonacker (Zorobabel et le second temple, 29 ſº. ; cf. his Nowvelles études sur la restauration. Juive, 30, also ‘Notes sur l'hist. de la restauration Juive’ in RB, Jan. 1001, p. 7 ſ.) and Ryle (Ezra and Nehemiah, xxxi. 12 f.). Ruenen (Onderzoek 2 (1887), 437, 468, 503) was also at one time disposed to favour the identification, although latterly he abandoned it. See next note. f Stade (GVI ii. 98 ſº.), Ruenen (Gesam. Abhandl. 218 ff.), Ronan (Hist, dw peuple d'Israël, iii. 519 f.), Smend (Listem etc., 10), Kosters (Iſet herstel van Israël, 32ff.), Wellh. (IJG 3 15S), Sayce (IICM 539), and many others. § We refrain from citing, as an argument against the identifl- cation, the occurrence of the two names together in 1 Es 618 (17) (Zopog&6=A 2xi Xozvojºa.org%), because it is probable that the ilrst of these names is interpolated (note the following sing. pronoun ovrò). 494 SHETH SHEW a Jew? It has been contended (by de Saulcy, Stade, et al.) that he was a Persian. But his Babylonian name does not increase the probability of this view, and the appointment of a Jew, to head the return and to act as pehah of Judah would be º in harmony with the policy of Cyrus towards the conquered races of the empire he had over- thrown. Hence the view has lately been gaining ground that he was a Jew (Ed. Meyer, Wellh., Cheyne, et al.). It is a tempting suggestion, although of course it has not been made out, that Sheshbazzar is the SHENAZZAR of 1 Ch 31°, one of Jelloiachin's sons and uncle of Zerubbabel (Imbert, Renan, Kosters, Ed. Meyer, et al.).” If this were so, it would justify the epithet “prince of Judah’ (niºn', nºt) applied to him in Ezr 1°, a title which those who take him to be a foreigner have to ex- plain as due to a mistake (Kuenen) or an intentional transformation on the º of the Chronicler. The nephew rather than the uncle appears from the first to have played the leading rôle, and his ser- vices, tºil; in connexion with the rebuilding of the temple, gave him such a place in the memo- ries of his countrymen that in Ezr 2% (= Neh 77) Zerubbabel stands at the head of the list, while Sheshbazzar [may the heathenish character of his name have also given offence to the puritan zealots who compiled the list 3) is not mentioned at all. How long Sheshbazzar held office is uncertain, but at all events in the second year of Darius Hystaspis (B.C. 520) he had given place to Zerub- babel, who is known from contemporary evidence (Hag 11. * 2°) to have been then pelah of Judah. See, further, ZERUBBABEL, and the Literature cited at end of that article. J. A. SELBIE. SHETH.-In Nu 2417 (only) AV and RVm tr. ng a ‘children (sons) of Sheth’ (LXX Xà0, Vulg. Seth), but there can be little doubt that the correct tr. is that of RV, ‘Sons of tumult.’ In that case ng would stand for nity (from root TNU), and would be = |\sº of the parallel passage Jer 48* (AV and RV " tumultuous ones’). G. Hoffmann (ZA TW iii. 97) takes nº to be a textual error for lºny, which he supposes in both these passages as well as in Am 2* (ağıp ſixty; nº.3) to be a Moabite place-name, perhaps that of the acropolis of Ar. See, further, Dillm. on Nu 24/7. SHETHAR (ºny, BN Luc. Xapa'affaios, A Xapéo- 6eos).—One of the seven princes who ‘sat first in the kingdom' and had the right of access to the royal presence (Est 1*, cf. ADMATHA). The deriva- tion and meaning of the name, which is presumably Persian, cannot be determined. SHETHAR-BOZENAI ("Jā ‘inº [meaning doubt- ful]).—Named along with TATTENAI and others in connexion with the correspondence with Darius about the rebuilding of the temple, Ezr 5*" 6". " (B Xa.0appovčavá except in G* 2a9apgovčáv ; A Xa.0appovšaval in 5’ 6”, Xadapgovšáums in 5", 2a0ap- Bovšavé in 6"; Luc. , throughout €apſ3ovšavaſos), called in l Es 6%. 7. * 7” SATHRABUZANES. SHEWA.—1. (N}; ; B Xaoğ, A Xaoº, Luc. Xové) A son of Caleb by his concubine, Maacah, 1 Ch 249. See Wellh. de Gentibus, 18, note 1. 2. See SHAVSHA. SHEW.—Both verb and subst. (always spelt ‘shew,’ the modern spelling ‘show had not yet come in ; both are found in early copies of Hooker, though “shew' is even then most frequent) are used in AV with greater freedom than now. For the verb we find : 1. Make to see (or of * It is scarcely worth montioning that a Jewish tradition (Jalkut on Ezr 1) identifies Sheshbazzar with Daniel. * things make to be seen), literally, as now. Thus Ex 33** I beseech thee, shew me thy glory’; Jn 14° ‘I,ord, shew us the l’atller.’ So Bacon, Essays, “Of Death' (Gold. Treas. ed. p. 6), ‘Groames and Convulsions, and a #ºf Face, and Friends weeping, and Blackes, and Obsequies, and the like, shew Death terrible.” 2. Make to be seen figura- tively, declare, reveal (cf. Driver, Daniel, pp. 18 f., 47; Par. Psalt. 481). Thus 1 S 2217 ‘They knew when he fled, and did not shew it to me’ (b. Nº 'Jisºns, LXX ovk direkáAvyav Tó, ºrtov uoy; Vulg. non indicaverunt milli; löV ‘did not disclose it to me'); Job 32” “Hearken to me; I also will shew mine opinion’; Ps 19° ‘Night unto night sheweth knowledge”; Sir 37” “There is one that sheweth wisdom in words, and is hated”; 1 Co 11” “Ye do shew (Karayyá)\\ers, RV ‘ye proclaim') the Lord's death till he come’; 15* “I shew you a mystery’ (Aéyw, lèW ‘I tell’). Cf. Shaks. All's Well, IV. i. 93— - ‘O, let me live 1 And all the secrets of our camp I'll show.” 3. To give or do something to one—a natural exten- sion of the general sense cause to appear. Thus Ac 4” “The man was above forty years old, on whom this miracle of healing was shewed (Gr. éyé yévet, edd. Yeyövel, RV “was wrought'); 24” ‘Felix, willing to shew the Jews a pleasure, left Paul bound (0éAwu te xápitas [edd. xápiral Karg- 0éadai, RV ‘desiring to gain favour with '). Cf. Babees Book, 2– “And eke, o lady myn, Facecial My penne thow guyde, and helpe unto me shewe.’ The subst, means: 1. Outward appearance, Is 39 “The shew of their countenance É. witness against them ’ (Dº nºiſ, RV m ‘their respecting of persons’); Sir 43’ “The beauty of heaven, with his glorious shew’ (év Špáuatt ööğms, I&V ‘in the spectacle of its glory'); Gal 6” “As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh ' (etirpoo- wirfig’at). Cf. Pref. to A V, “Some peradventure would have no varietie of sences to be set in the margine, lest the authoritie of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that shew of uncer- taintie, should somewhat be shaken’; and Drayton, Sol. Song, ch. 5– * His eies be like to doves' On rivers' banks below, Ywasht with millº, whose collours are Most gallant to the shew.’ 2. Spectacle, Col 2" “He made a shew of them º (éðetypad rugev čv trappmata). Cf. Ezk 12" Cov., “Hyde thy face that thou see not the earth, for I have made the ashew token unto the house of Israel.” 3. Semblance, Ps 39" ‘Surely every man walketh in a vain shew’ (Rºyā, RVm ſimplying false etym. connexion] ‘ as a shadow ’); Col 2* “which things have indeed a shew of wisdom ' (Aóyov orogºtas). Cf. Fuller, Holy State, 158, “Travell not too early before thy judgement be risen, lest thou observest rather shews than substance, marking alone pageants, pictures, beautifuli buildings,' etc. 4. I’retence, Lk 2047 ‘Which devour widows’ houses, and for a shew make long prayers’ (trpo- qāoret, RV ‘for a pretence’). Cf. Purchas, Pilgrim- age, 386, ‘In shew to keepe the straits, in deed to expect the event’; and Paraph. 25"— ‘Who can his generation tell? From prison see him led ! With impious shew of law condemn’d And number'd with the dead.' Shewing is used as a subst. in Lk 1" ‘Till the day of his showing unto Israel’ (8ws huépas āua- 6effews atroſ). The Eng. word is quite unusual, and is simply a literaſ tr. (after Vulg. Ostensio and w; “schewynge’) of the Gr. &váðetéus, which does not occur elsewhere in NT. On com- paring Lk 10" ‘The Lord appointed (ávéðetéev) other SHEWIBREAD SHEWIBREAD 495 seventy also,” and Ac 1”. “Shew (äváðelftov) whether of these two thou hast chosen,’ we see that the reference is to the entrance of John on his public ministry. J. HASTINGS. SHEWBREAD.—‘Shewbread,” formed apparently on the pattern of Luther's Schawbrot, is the tr., first adopted by Tindale, of the Heb. D'JP(n) nº “bread of the presence [of J"],’ of which, accord- ingly, the more correct tr. is that proposed by RVm, viz. ‘presence-bread.” It has been usual hitherto to assign the introduction of the term ‘shewbread’ to Coverdale (see, e.g., Plummer's Luke, 107). But it is found as early as 1520 in Tindale's New Testa- ment, He 92 “and the shewe breed which is called wholy” (Offor’s reprint). Curiously enough, Tindale not only uses other render- ings in the Gospels (‘the halowed loves,” Mt 124, Mk 220 ; ‘loves of halowed breed,” Llr 64), but retains the same inconsistency in his revised edition of 1534, after he had adopted “shewbred' in his Pentateuch of 1530. In the latter on its first occurrence (Ex 2590) he adds the marginal note: “Shewbred, because it was alway in the presence and sight of the Lorde' (see Mombert's reprint, in loc.). Wyclif had naturally followed the Vulgate (see below) with ‘breed of proposicioun.” . The Protestant translators and revisers who succeeded Tindale give “shew- bread” in OT, “shewe loves,” “shewbreads,’ and “shewbread' in NT, the last by the end of the 16th cent, being ſirmly estab- lished in both Testaments º Rheims version, however, retain- ing 'loaves of proposition'). i. NOMENCLATURE. –On the occasion of the ear- liest historical mention of the presence - bread (nºn, Dº 1 S 21" [Iteb. 7]), it is also termed ‘holy bread ' (vip Dih ib. 5: ".. [0, 7] RV ; AV “hallowed bread '). The former term is that used through- out the Priests’ Code (P) of the Pentateuch, with the addition of the name ‘continual bread (Tipº", Nu 47) ; cf. “bread' only Ex 40°). In the post-exilic period we meet with another desig- nation, viz. ‘the pile-bread ' (nºnyº Dnº. 1 Ch 9” 23.9, Neh 1098, but with the terms reversed 2 Ch 1311, cf. He 9” ; also nonyn alone 2 Ch 2*). This name is due to the fact that the loaves were arranged upon the table in two piles (nipºlyp Lv 24%; this, the rendering of RV m, suits the facts better than the ‘rows' of the text of EV). The tr. varies considerably in the Gr. versions, the most literal rendering of the older designation is àprot Toº Tpogºrov 1 S 21", 2 Es 20” (but cf. Aquila's tip. Tpoor&Twu), dip. &vátriot Ex 25", ol āp. of Tpokélpwevot Ex 398; elsewhere most frequently dip. Tſis irpo- 0éorea's, “ loaves of the setting forth.’ This, the term used in the Gospels (Mt 12°, Mk 2*, Lk 6"), reflects the later Hebrew designation above men- tioned (cf. trport.0éval in LXX to render Thy ‘to set in order,’ ‘set forth' [a meal upon a table]).” The variant # Tp(0eats T. dprov (He 9°) follows 2 Ch 13”, 2 Mac 10”. Still another rendering, ol āp. Tijs trpool- qopås, is confined to some MSS of the Greek of 1 K 748 (Lucian has Tpoôéaews). The Vulgate also re- flects both the Hebrew designations with panis facierum (cf. Aquila, above) and panis proposi- tionis. The table of shewbread has likewise in Hebrew a twofold nomenclature : in P Dºn in?: ‘the pres- ence-table' (Nu 47), but in Chronicles nºngºn "w (2 Ch 2018); in both we also find mſſºn "c ‘the pure table’ (Lv 24", 2 Ch 13"), probably because over- laid with pure gold. For other designations now disguised in MT see next section. ii. THE SIIEWRREAD IN THE PRE-EXILIC PERIOD. —The earliest historical mention of the shewbread occurs in the account of I)avid's flight from Saul, in which he secures for his young men, under conditions that are somewhat obscure, the use of the shew bread from the sanctuary at NOI (1 S 21*). It is here described, as we have seen, both as ‘presence-bread ' (v.".[7]) and as ‘holy’ or “sacred bread' (v.v.". "[* "l), in opposition to ordi- * Codex Bezio (I)) has ºrporſigsoº, with which comp, ºrport,0ávez, for ºrportU. in some MSS of the LXX (passim). See for D's read- ing, Nestle, Introd. to Teat. Criticism of Gr. NT' (1901), 237. nary or unconsecrated bread (ºn). The incident appears to have happened on the day on which the loaves were removed to be replaced by fresh or ‘hot bread” (pH 57% v." [7]). It must not be inferred from this narrative that the regu. lation of the Priests’ Code, by which the stale shewbread was the exclusive perquisite of the priests, was already in force, although this, naturally, is the standpoint of NT times (see Mt 12* and paralls.). Ahimelech, in requiring and receiving the assurance that David's young men were ceremonially “clean' (see art. UNCLEANNESS), seems to have taken all the precautions then deemed necessary. The narrative is further of value as giving us a clear indication of the meaning originally attaching to the expression ‘presence-bread,” for the loaves are here ex- pressly said to have been ‘ removed from the presence of Jº' (" "Hºp D"Tºº MT, v.7; cf. the similar expression Ex 2530). We next meet with the rite in connexion with Solomon's temple, among the furniture of which is mentioned in our present text ‘ the table where- upon the shewbread was’ (1 K 748 RV). This table is here further said to have been ‘ of gold,” by which we are to understand from the context ‘ of solid gold’ (cf. Ex 25* in LXX, and Josephus’ [Ant. VIII. iii. 7] description of the temple). But it is well known that in this section of the Book of Kings the original narrative has been overlaid with accretions of all sorts, mostly, if not entirely, post-exilic ; these are due to the idea of this later time, that the interior decoration of Solomon's temple, and the materials of its furniture, could in no respect have been inferior to those of the tabernacle of P. See Stade's classical essay, ‘I)er Text des Berichtes ueber Salomo's Bauten,” in ZAT'W, 1883, 129–177, reproduced in his Akad. Ičeden w. Abhandlungen (1899), 143 ff. Stade's results have been accepted in the main by all recent scholars. Thus he shows that the original of 1 K 6* * probably read somewhat as is still given in the middle clause of the better Gr. text of A (étrolmarev 0 valuaa Tiptov Kéðpov. . . kata trpſ owtrov toº 6.a3ip), viz. ºn tº ris map ºwn ‘and he [Solomon.] made an altar of cedar-wood (to stand) in front of the sanctuary (the “Holy of Holies’ of P).” Whether we should retain or discard the words and overlaid it with gold,’ is of minor import- 30, Il CC. The altar, therefore, of v.20b is not to be understood of the altar of incense, which first appears in the latest stratum of P (see TABERNACLI), but, as in the passage of Ezekiel presently to be considered, of the table of shewbread. The express mention of the latter by name in 1 K 748b is also part of an admittedly late addition to the original text (see authorities cited in foot- note). The same desire to enhance the glory of the Solomonic temple is usually assigned as the ground for the tradition fol- lowed by the Chronicler, who states that Solomon provided the necessary gold for ten tables of shewbread (1 Ch 2816; cf. 2 Ch 48. 19). This writer, however, is not consistent, for elsewhere we read of ‘the ordering of the shewbread upon the pure table (2 Ch 1311).” In his account, further, of the cleansing of the temple under Hezekiah, only ‘the table of shewbread, with all the vessels thereof' is mentioned (ib. 2918), a view of the case which is undoubtedly to be regarded as alone in accordance with the facts of history. This table fell a prey to the flames which con- sumed the temple in the 19th year of Nebu: chadrezzar (2 K 25°, Jer 52*). The tale related by the Byzantine chronicler (Syncellus, 409), that it was aniong the furniture concealed by Jeremiah on Mount Pisgah, is but a later addition to the earlier form of the same fable, which we already find in 2 Mac 2". Notwithstanding these un- certainties, the continuance of the rite under the monarchy is sufficiently assured. iii. THE POST-ExILIC PERIOD.—Ezekiel in his sketch of the ideal sanctuary likewise contem- plates the lº. of the rite, for in a passage of his book, which on all hands is regarded as * See besides Stade, op. cit, the Commentaries of Kittel and Benzinger, esp. the latter's Introduction, p. xvi f., where an interesting study will be found of the gradual growth of the accretions with which 1 K (ilºl is now overgrown ; also burney's art. KINGs in the present work, yol. ii. 863", and his Noles on the IIebrew Teat of the Books of Ringb, in loc. £96 SHEWIBREAD SHEWIBREAD corrupt, but capable with the help of the LXX of easy emendation, we read thus (as emended) : “In front of the sanctuary [this also = P's ‘Holy of Holies'] was something like an altar of wood, three cubits in height, and the length thereof two cubits, and the breadth two cubits; and it had corners, and its base and its sides were of wood. And he said unto me: This is the table that is before J"' (Ezk 41* *; so substantially Cornill and all recent commentators). Here, then, we have not the altar of incense, but once more the table of shewbread. The twofold circumstance that it is here expressly termed an altar, and is of plain wood without a gold covering, is a strong argument in favour of Stade's restoration of the text of 1 K, discussed above. Ezekiel’s table of shewbread resembled in its general outline the similar altar- tables so often seen on the Assyrian monuments (see last section); its height was half as much again as its length, and in section it formed a square of at least 3 ft. in the side. The projec- tions or ‘horns” were, no doubt, similar to those of the Assyrian altars (see, e.g., l’errot and Chipiez, History of Art in Chaldea and Assyria, i. pp. 143, 255, etc.). In the temple of Zerubbabel, consecrated in the 6th year of Darius (B.C. 516), the table of shew- bread, we may safely infer, had its place in the outer sanctuary, although we have no information as to whether or not it was modelled on Ezekiel’s altar-table. After the introduction of the Priests’ Code it may have been remodelled according to the instructions there given (Ex 25*); we may at least, with some measure of certainty, suppose that it was then overlaid with gold, since Antiochus Epiphanes, when he carried off the spoils of the temple (1 Mac 1°), would scarcely have taken the trouble to remove a plain wooden altar. The well- informed author of 1 Maccabees, in the passage cited, includes among the spoils not only the table itself, but ‘the flagons and chalices and censers of gold' used in the ritual of the table (see for these art. TABERNACLE, section on Table of Shewbread). The provision of the shewbread, it should be added, was one of the objects to which were de- voted the proceeds of the tax of one-third of a shekel instituted by Nehemiah (10°, cf. Jos. Ant. III. x. 7, § 255). Here attention may be called to two non-canonical Jewish writers who allude to the subject of this article. The earlier of the two is Pºlº, whose date is usually assumed to be the 3rd cent. B.c. (Schürer, GJ V3 iii. 465 ; but Willrich, Jºden w. Griechen, etc., 20 f., argues for a date in the Macca- bacan period). This writer, in a passage preserved for us by Josephus (c. A pion, i. 22), describes the second temple as ‘a large ediſloe wherein is an altar (£opods), and a candelabrum (Auxvíov), both of gold, two talents in weight.” The former term, in the light of what has been said above with regard to the altar-tables of Solomon and Ezekiel, we must identify with the table of shewbread. The other writer referred to is pseudo- Aristeas, whose date falls within the century 200–100 B.C. In his famous letter, purporting to give an account of the origin of the Alexandrian version of the OT, he gives the rein to a lively imagination in his description of a shewbread table of unex. ampled magnificence—all of gold and precious gems, and of unsurpassed artistic workmanship—which Ptolemy Philadelphus is said to have presented to the temple at Jerusalem (see Wendland's or Thackeray's edition of Aristeas' letter — tr. by the former in Kautzsch's Apokr/phem w. Pseudepigraphem, ii. 6 f.). This table is admitted to have had no existence outside the pages of Aristeas. To resume the thread of our narrative, we find that on the re-dedication of the temple (B.C. 165) Judas Maccabaeus had new furniture made, includ- ing the shewbread table (1 Mac 4"), now, we may be sure, constructed in entire conformity to the re- quirements of Ex 25*,-upon which the loaves were duly set forth (v.”). This table continued in use till the destruction of the temple by Titus in A.D. 70. Rescued from the blazing pile, it figured along with the golden candlestick and a roll of the law in the triumph awarded to the victorious general (Jos, B.J VII. v. 3–7, esp. 5, § 148), Thereafter, these were all deposited by Vespasian in his newly built temple of Peace (ib. v. 7), while a representation of the triumph formed a conspicu- ous part of the decoration on the Arch of Titus, erected subsequently. Tew remains of classical antiquity have been so frequently reproduced as the panel of the arch on j are depicted the table and the candlestick, borne aloft on the shoulders of the Roman veterans (see illustration under MUSIC, vol. iii. p. 462). Both seem to have remained in Rome, till the sack of the city by Genseric, king of the Vandals, in 455, by whom they were transferred to Carthage, the site of the new Vandal capital in Africa. From Carthage they were transferred to Constantinople by Beli- sarius, in whose triumph they again figured. On this occasion a Jew, it is said, working on the º: awe felt by Justinian for these sacred relics, induced the emperor to send them back to Jerusalem. They probably perished finally in the sack of Jerusalem by Chrosroes, the Persian, in 614 (see Reinach, “L’Arc de Titus,’ in REJ 20, p. lxxxv f., in book form, 1890; Knight, The Arch of Titus, 112 ff.). * iv. PREPARATION OF THE SHEWBREAD.—Accord- ing to the express testimony of Josephus (Amt. III. vi. 6), the Mishna, and later J . writers, the shewbread was unleavened. Nor does there seem to be any valid ground for the assertion, frequently made by recent writers, that it was otherwise in more primitive times. The absence of leaven best suits the undoubted antiquity of the rite, and, moreover, is confirmed by §. abylonian practice of offering ‘sweet' (i.e. unleavened) bread on the tables of the gods (see below). The material in all periods was of the finest of the flour (Lv 24"), which was obtained, according to Menahoth (vi. 7), by sifting the flour eleven times. The kneading and firing of the loaves in the time of the Chronicler was the duty of the ‘sons of the Kolhathites,’ a Levitical guild (1 Ch 9°); in the closing days of the second temple their preparation fell to the house or family of Garmu (Yôma iii. 11, Shekal. viii. 1). The quantity of flour prescribed by the Priests’ Code }. each loaf (nºr hallä) was ‘two tenth - parts of an ephah’ (Lv 24" RV), which — reckoning the cphah roughly at a bushel—repre- sents about $ths of a peck (c. 7+ litres), a quantity sufficient to produce a loaf of considerable dimen- sions, recalling the loaves which gave their name to the Delian festival of the Meya)\&pria. In the earlier period, at least, the loaves were laid upon the table while still hot (1 S 21"). The later regulations required that they should be arranged in two piles (nºnyp, see sect. i., above). On the top of each pile, apparently,–on the table between the piles, according to another tradition,-- stood a censer containing ‘pure frankincense for a memorial (Tºls, for which see comm. on LV 247), even an offering by fire unto the LORD.’ Alex- andrian writers give salt in addition (Lv l.c. in LXX ; hence, doubtless, Philo, Vit. Mos. ii. 151). The stale loaves, by the same regulations, were removed and fresh loaves substituted every Sab. bath. According to Sukka (v. 7 f.), one half went to the outgoing division of priests, the other to the incoming division, by whom they were consumed within the sacred precincts.” In order to avoid repetition, further examination of the details given by post - biblical Jewish writers—many of them clearly wide of the mark — regarding the shape and size of the loaves and their arrangement on the table, as well as regarding the nature and purpose of the vessels mentioned, Ex 25", Nu 4°, is reserved for the section on P's table of * It is a mere conjecture that the shewbread was originally burned (Stade, Akademn. Itedem, cto., 180, note 15). SHIBAH SHIELD 49? shewbread and its vessels in the general article TABERNACI.I. v. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RITE. — The rite of ‘the presence-bread’ is one of the fairly numerous survivals from the pre-Mosaic stage of the religion of the Hebrews, and goes back ultimately to the naïve conception that the god, like his worshippers, required and actually partook of material nourish- ment. No doubt, as W. R. Smith has pointed out, this idea ‘is too crude to subsist without modifica- tion beyond the savage state of society’ (RS' 212). ln the case of the shewbread, it may be suggested that the odour of the ‘hot bread” (ph Dº I S. 21° 17') was regarded in ancient times as a “sweet savour,” like the smell of the sacrifice to J" (Gn 8”, Lv 23*). In any case the custom of presenting solid food on a table as an oblation to a god is too widespread among the peoples of antiquity to permit of doubt as to the origin of the rite among the Hebrews. The lectigtermia, which the Romans borrowed from the Greeks, afford the most familiar illustration of this practice (see Smith's Dict. of Gr. and 180m. Antiqs. 3 s.v.). In the OT itself we hear of Jeremiah's contemporaries kneading cakes for the queen of heaven (Jer 718), and, at a later date, of the table which even Jews spread to Fortune (GAD, Is 6511 RV). In the religious literature of the ancient Babylonians, again, particularly in the ritual tablets to which the attention of scholars has lately been turned, we find numerous references to the various items of food and drink to be presented to the deities of the Babylonian pantheon. The tables or altars, also, on which the food was set out are frequently represented on the monuments (see, e.g., Benzinger, Heb. Arch. 387; Riehm's II WB2 i. 143, etc.). And not only so, but, as Zimmern has recently shown, the loaves of sweet or unleavened bread thus presented are, frequently at least, of the number of 12, 24, or even as many as 36 (see the reff, in Zimmern's Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Babylon. Iteligion, 1901, p. 94 f.), These numbers, we can hardly doubt, have an astronomical significance, 12 being the number of the signs of the Zodiac, 24 the stations of the moon, and 36 those of the planets (see 2 K 235 RVm, Job 3832, and art. BABYLONIA in vol. i. p. 218m). The knowledge of this ancient practice of offering food on the tables of the gods survived to a late period ; see Epist. of Jeremy, v.20ſ, and the fragment of Bel and the Dragon (esp. v. 11; note also that the food of Bel comprised “twelve great measures of fine flour'). Hence, if the loaves of the presence- bread were 12 in number from the earliest times, though of this we have no early testimony, we should have another of the rapidly increasing instances of early Babylonian influence in the West (cf. Josephus' association of the 12 loaves with the 12 mionths, Ant. III. vii. 7). While, however, it must be admitted that the rite of the presence-bread had its origin in the circle of ideas just set forth, it is not less evident that, as taken up and preserved by the religious guides of Israel, the rite acquired a new and higher significance. The bread was no longer thought of as Jº's food (" Dº) in the sense attached to it in an earlier age, but as a concrete expression of the fact that J" was the source of every material blessing. As the ‘continual bread’ (Trn Đnh Nu 47), it became the standing expression of the nation's gratitude to the Giver of all for the bounties of His provi- dence. The number twelve was later brought into connexion with the number of the tribes of Israel (cf. Lv 248), and thus, Sabbath by Sabbath, the priestly representatives of the nation renewed this outward and visible acknowledgment of man's continual dependence º God. The presence of the shewbread in the developed ritual, therefore, was not without a real and worthy significance. It may here be added, in a word, that the explana- tion of the shewbread hitherto in vogue among the disciples of Bühr, according to which the “bread of the face' was so named because it is through par- taking thereof that man attains to the sight of God, accords neither with the true signification of the term, nor with the history of the rite. A. R. S. KENNEDY. SHIBAH (Hynº; LXX 8pkos [O.L. iuramentum]; A q. Symm. TXmagovis [Vulg., abundantial).-The well dug by Isaac, from which l8eer-sheba took its name, Gn 26* (J, who apparently makes Whº = nºn; ‘oath’). The well, according to this view, derived its name from the “swearing' (v.”) of the VOL. IV.-32 oath by which Isaac, on the one part, and Abinnelech, with his friend Ahuzzath, and his chief captain Phicol, on the other, ratified the covenant they had made (v.V.**). According to another account, Gn 21* (E), the well was dug by Abraham, and Beer-Sheba, was so called because it was there that he and Abimelech “sware both of them.” In the latter passage there is also manifestly a play upon the word yag ‘seven,' seven lambs having been used (v.”) in the ceremony. For a description of the existing wells see ISEER-SHEBA, and add to Literature: Gautier, Expos. Times, 1899, pp. 328 f., 478 f.; and esp. G. L. Robinson, Bibl. World, Apl. 1901, pp. 247-255 (with plan and photos.): an abstract at the end of Driver's Joel and Amos.”. C. W. WILSON. SHIBBOLETH (nºw), Jg 12%.—The Ephraimite fugitives at the Jordan-fords betrayed themselves by pronouncing this word sibbóleth (nºap) — an interesting proof of the difference in dialect which distinguished the western tribes from those on the east of Jordan. By confusion of sounds shibboleth (nºne) would become sibbóleth (nºw), and so sibbóleth (nºap); see Wright, Comp. Gram. p. 58. Etymologically D ($) is quite distinct from w (s),” but the two are not infrequently confounded in Heb., e.g. ww2 and by:, lib, Ps 44” and lºw, 2 S 1°, mºny for mºrp Ec 117 etc.; by using D (s) rather than w (s), the author of Jg 12" simply wished to make the sound as distinct from c. º as possible. In illustration of this peculiarity of the Ephraimite speech, it may be noted that the Heb. 19 (sh) as a rule=the Arab. Cº. (s), e.g. 97%, S-º-; and vice versa, the Heb. 9 (s)= Arab. L* (sh), e.g. Nºw, 3. / e A. - º - º - - Us”. Rimhi, in his commentary, in loc., mentions another local peculiarity in the pronunciation of the sibilant : the people of Sarepta sounded w (sh) as n (th); so frequently Heb. w (sh) = Arab. J. 5 (th) = Aram. 2. (th). The Gr. versions of the passage are interesting : B elºrëy 3% Xt&xvs. 22 o' zczrit,0uvºv toº A&Azoroz, ciro; ; A sizzº's 3% orévſzkºz. zcz, zz7%0vvo. v z. t.A. In both, the lºphraimites' reply is omitted. “Lucian’ (ed. Lagarde): tºro, tº 8% ºv0%z. zoº ºrov Xrºxvg 2.T.A. Codd. 54, 59, 75, 82 (Moore, M): eſroºts 3% avyſſop.o. 22. Aéyovre; orđyſzºo, où 20.7%%lluvoxy 2.7. A. By orºvſzºo is meant ‘watchword,” “countersign'; see 2 Mac S23 1315. The Gr. versions, of course, could not imitate the change of the Heb. sibilants, as the Targ. and Syr. do. Vulg. Dic ergo : Scibboleth, quod interpretatur spica. Qui respondebat: Sibboleth, cademn liltera spicam ea:primere non valens. The meaning of the word is unimportant ; it may be either ‘ear of wheat ' (Assyr. Štúbultat), Gn 41*, Is 17° etc., or ‘flood,” “stream,” Is 2712, Ps 69*. 19. In the latter sense, which is suitable to the context, the word appears only in late passages; in this ancient story it would probably be understood ‘ear.’ Marquart (ZATW, 1888, 151 ff.) attempts to prove that the Ephraimites did not pronounce tº (sh) as by (s) (cf. the name of their chief town pºpe Shömeröm, Samaria), and that by (s) could not pass into D (s) in old Hebrew. He thinks that the Gileadites said nºne (shibboleth) and meant ‘flood,” but the Iphraimites said nºn (thibbóleth) and meant ‘ear’ (cf. sºn Jerus. Targ. Gn 410ft). This n (th) was represented by D (cf. 'I and Bibl. Aram. "T) for want of a closer equivalent. But Marquart's arguments are not convincing, and hay: not gener- ally been accepted. We have no means of knowi g what the Ephraimite dialect was. For parallels from European history see art. JEPIITHAII, vol. ii. p. 568 m. G. A. COOKE. SHIELD (or BUCKLER) is EV tr. in OT of the following Heb, words. 1. (Most commonly) jº māgān, a small round shield, a buckler; the Gr * The exact relation between the two sounds is still undeter. mined ; see Ges.-l'autzsch, Ileb. Gr. p. 30, n. 2 (Eng. ed.). 498 SHIELD SHIHOR, do trls and Lat. clipews. 2. my zinnäh, a large oval or rectangular shield. 3. nº solvéráh, “buckler,’ only in Ps 91 [90]"; the word, however, is prob- ably a participle (LXX kvk\tºget); tr. with a i. emendation, ‘His truth is an encompassing shield.” 4. Tº kidón, 'shield,’ 1 S 17* AV, target” v." AW, similarly LXX; RV correctly ‘javelin.’ 5. nº shēlātimī, ‘shields,’ 2S 87=1 Ch 18, 2K 1119– 2 Ch 23°, Ca. 4", Jer 51*, Ezk 27” (only in these places, and only in the plur.), more correctly ‘suits of armour,” Jer 51* RVm (see Eapository Times, x. (1898) 43 ff.). Hºg, 'digălâh, usually tr. ‘ wagon,’ means in Ps 46" [Heb,”] perhaps ‘shield’ (So LXX, Vulg., Targ.); EV, Jerome (Psalter. intacta Heb.), Peshitta, “chariots.” In the NT ‘shield' occurs once, Eph 6", as tr. of 99peds, the large Rom. shield. 1. Material and Construction.—The material of which the shields known to the Hebrews were commonly made can only be inferred. , Solomon §º. 200 “targets” (ny, i.e. large shields) and 00 “shields’ (ºp, i.e. bucklers), which were either made of gold or else heavily overlaid with gold (1 K 101° 17). When these were carried off by Shishak, Rehoboam made “brazen' (bronze) shields to take their place (ib. 14**7). The ‘shields’ found among the treasures of Hezekiah were also i. made of one of the preciºus metals, or at east adorned with it (2 Ch 32”).” Both the golden shields and the bronze were probably used only for state ceremonial : the war shield was doubtless either like the Roman scutum of leather stretched over a wooden frame, or like the Persian yéppov of wickerwork. That shields were largely composed of some inflammable substance may be inferred from such passages as Ezk 39°, Ps 46° [45"] LXX (cf. Is 9° RV). A shield was overlaid with plates, perhaps of bronze (cf. Job 41* RVm, where the scales of the crocodile are compared with the lates of a shield); it was also furnished with a Joss (cf. Job 15"), such as is shown on the Assyr. reliefs, passim. The Assyr. shields were highly convex and sometimes round, sometimes irregular in shape, i.e. rectangular at the foot (for planting firmly against the ground), but pointed at the top. 2. Use.—The shield was kept in a case when not in use (Is 22°; cf. Aristophanes, Ach. 574, and Euripides, Amdr. 617). It was anointed before battle to make its surface slippery (Is 21°; cf. Driver on 2 S 1%, who quotes Vergil, AEm. vii. 626). In battle it sometimes had a ‘red” appear- ance (Nall 2° [*]), either because it was dyed red (A. B. Davidson, ad loc.), or because it was over- laid with burnished copper (Nowack, Heb. Archdio- logie, i. 364), or again because the leather itself might be described as ‘red,’ Dins 'didóm being ºplied to the colour of the human skin (La 47). The large shield was much used in sieges as a stationary screen, from behind which the garrison on the walls might be assailed with arrows (2 K 1999- Is 37°, Sir 37° Heb.). A large shield was sometimes carried in battle by an attendant in front of his master (1 S 17* Heb., LXX [A and Luc.], Peshitta, a verse om. in LXX B, but probably genuine). In times of peace shields were hung in armouries, to the admiration of bellolders (Ca. 4”, Ezk 271"). 3. Metaphorical use of the term ‘shield.”—In the OT God’s favour (Ps 5” [19]) and His faithfulness (Ps 91* [90°]) are compared to a shield, cf. ‘the shield of thy salvation’ (Ps 18* [17"). By a still bolder metaphor in several other places God Himself is . the ‘shield' (pp) of }. people or of His saints: Gn 151, Dt 33°, Ps 39 [4] 18%. 30 173. 91) 33 [32].” 5911 [5812] 849. 11 [8319. 12] 1159-11 [1137-19), Pr 27 30” [24*]. In all these passages the LXX tr. Þp either by Útrepao triarás (once Ps 34 by duri)\ffuTrap) or by some form of the verb Útrep- agm tºw. The Peshitta follows a similar course. It * But see note ad loc. in the Camb. Bible. faith is the Christian's vital defence. ct-Tih. is true that ºp taken as Hiphil partic. of pi is a bossible momen agentis, but it is probable that, the Heb, metaphor was too bold for the Gr. and Syr. translators. Thus in Ps 84” [83°] the Heb. and Aq. give ‘The LORD is a sun and shield,’ while the # (followed by the Vulg.) timidly paraphrases ëAeov Kal &\}0elav dyatrā Kūptos. Symm. (if rightly given in l'ield) is also timid, #Xtov yap kal Utrepao- truguèv Kºptos (a transitive verb, probably 6doei from the next clause, being understood). Jerome (Psalter. iuxta Heb,) gives ‘Sol et scutum Dominus’ here, and ‘clipeus’ in some other places quoted above, but in Ps 590 (1*) 115°-il (17-19) he has “pro- tector’ (= ‘trepaatriotis). Ben Sira (51*09) Heb.) writes, ‘Give thanks to the Shield of Abraham’ (in allusion to Gn 15'). In the one passage of the NT in which ‘shield” occurs, the word is metaphorically applied to Christian faith (Eph 6" diva)\agövres róv 0wpeov Tijs Tto rews, summemtes scutum fidei). In 1 Th 5° the apostle had urged his converts to put on 6&paka trio rews kai &yátrms, ‘a coat of mail of faith and love ' (see BREASTPLATE); but during his Roman imprisonment his imagination was struck with the great Iłoman shield, and he changed his metaphor, without, however, abandoming the thought that In the OT (Ps 91 [90] *) God’s faithfulness is man's shield; in the NT the identification of faith with the shield gives us the necessary complementary thought that on man's side faith is needed in order that God’s proffered protection may be embraced. W. EMERY ISARNES. SHIGGAION, SHIGIONOTH.—See art. PSALMS, p. 154* f. SHIHOR (ninº, nºmy, Thw). — A word meaning ‘black” or “turbid,” from nºw to be black (Ca, 1°). 1. In 1 Ch 13° Shihor of Egypt (8pta. Alyūtrov; Sihor AEgypti) and the entering in of Hamath are j as the southern and northern limits of the kingdom of Israel in the time of David. The same (or similar) linits recur in 1 K. 8", where ‘the wädy (mahal) of Egypt’ takes the place of ‘Shillor of Egypt.” In Jos 13° (à &olkyros ?) karū trpógwrov Aiyúirtov, fluvius turbidus) the southern limit of the land that had not been conquered when Joshua was grown old is said to have been ‘the Shihor which is before Egypt,’ and the northern one was the entering in of Hamath (v.”). Elsewhere the S.W. limit of the Promised Land is ‘the wady of Iºgypt’: Nu 34%. 8; cf. Ezk 4719. 20 48' 2. 8, and see EGYPT (RIVER OF). Tho southern boundary of Judah, also, which corresponded with that of the Promised Land, ‘went out at the wady (mahal) of Egypt, and the goings out of the border were at the sea' (Jos 15°). In the same chapter (v.”) the territory of Judah is said to have extended ‘unto the wady of Egypt and the great sea.’. In each of the above passages the malval referred to as forming the southern boundary of the Promised Land is the same, and it must have been a well-known and well-defined feature. Such a feature is found in the W4dy el-'Arish, which, with its many branches, drains nearly the whole of the desert The ‘mahal of Egypt’ (2 K 247, Is 27*) and the ‘trorapués of Egypt' (J th 1") are also of course the W4dy el-'Arish. In Isaiah the LXX reads 'Puyokopo"pav, now el-'Arish. Whether, however, this is the same as the Shihor is disputed. It is so taken by some (e.g. Knobel, Keil, König [Filmf mewe arab. Landschaftsmamen im AT, 1902, p. 37]), but Del. (Parald. 31 l) and Dillm. regard it as the casternmost or Pelusiac arm of the Nile ; while, according to I3rugsch [Stein inschrift it. Bibelwort, 153], it is Shi-Hor, or the ‘Horus canal,” mentioned in lists of the Ptolemaic period as flowing by the border-city of Thiru or Tar (see under SHUR). HIVNaIT-HOHIHS 667 THOTIIHS -STITU.I oth unpw sonnud IIoun uſ son!!ouis I ou" on Uolloo)01(t tº otl ol (such) Iſo poi,Litto SI q III] ‘olouſ) III)s sl Miu ouq : Mollus qu sqsoud out, suos ow] slu butu III (1:3 XI I ‘ºff. I jo) H-I S I uſ 'soaſ A Su outou utou) pollutio pun: ‘utiouſ) polluqduo ‘spat Kouſ A ou? III (Ioulow out) loy qu'A Sup&I “sonjuuſuo: I out’, ‘o) pollogo.1 UIoIstood tuluor).Iud out) uo : (#6 ‘Asp) I ‘ūIIoAA ‘go), sunootſ Jo ojuuuſ tºllſ, ou, (to) ul puu ‘J “CI) to ‘(fift; or:3 x&I), 5uitountºu I go ojuultjūd, où" GIſ uſ polluo si quil A Jo tulloy Áltuo ut: opuſ podolo Aop 0Aull on stuoddu a-U S I uſ puu ‘poollunoquitou out luo.II stuſ.[5]!d Kol popuolju uooq Āpuoiſt, oaut Kutu qſ (ſinou) “IntAlsoſ oju IIIA ſuool tº uttuq otolu KIpluu outſ, stuſ, qu uood oa'ull o') (1:6 ºf ‘tuoulooulS Jo quill oXIII) suoos ‘go uoxlods si quolu A up suito) ou" UIO.U. ovipuſ on “suoy out) : (a138 org[ xq. ‘Jo) Sosn.Ioud où uſ ooutºp O' quo Sultuoo uoiſ US go suoppuu ouiſ, Jo puts ‘IOUTIS uſ KIIthuutº plot "ofiului.15IId stºlºſ; Jo Jºol ºf lºsſ ºf oophould puu äuſ -loop snoſiſ Io.ſ Jo oiu's oAp) ſuild tº on sm soonpo.1qui --Juopout; Aluſultoo sº ‘Iz-GI ºf Josh,Uud louno otuos ū?IAA osuo ouſ, oci Kutu to Aonºu A ‘uoul AA—ra-gūz; 5 ſº Jo oaſ) ul.Itºu ou.I., (F-I S I) Ionut S go offu ouq III] (, "IoIRIS (Iſ St.A. poſſ) go osmou ouq quitº out, où) Utt, 1881 iſ Jo) sojpuſ ouſ, Jo poſiod out quouinolul Aluuqouts ‘ISI Iudiouſld ou', odoº ponuſuoo qI (I zt tº FIG 1961 ISI ‘....Iſ or 6.88[ SOſ) sodil) ou? (too/A) -aq QoI Ka put oth poppa Ip untisoſ ‘uoniput" on 5uſploo.ou “Oslº otou A put, ‘pouolºuqs olo A Buſqoout Jo quon put XI.10 out, “[ušII*) duratioſ Iolyu ‘ûopulaw qu gods out, so A qI 'ulouſoatis Jo S softul aſ ‘tutº -IIdºl go Áloquioq on 1 III Kül TI (outsi Jo Kuons!!! Joll.Ugo out up Kıluonbony pouoguouſ sy. (IoIRIS ‘(9p–ff ‘gº,to Aſ qual, “topuo O : IIoI, oùn go utúd a UIntA ‘018–198 iſ ºutoſſ, T.I. : gz—Iz, (318i) ºn ‘aq.tºttº S ‘uitºu º uſ stunoſ).It'd louqing oos) Áluostul pooj Jo JII nq ‘olumbs q1 18 ‘onjºo'duu Ks tº oouo uoo oAgú Oq stuoos (IoIRIAA ºutp|Inq ū ‘sſuſ, Jo GI'S SpX 00g ottlos ‘put footº Nuo ouſ) e Ág populis ‘on.bsolu posus ſp IIulus tº SI olouq IIoI, où, Jo qooy ºf 'S où" TV ‘oſqisſ A olt; ‘oppax qJ OI quoqu ‘puoſ Tuopout, uu Jo Soot; 14 “SI'S ouſ) uo IIoI, où juſAgo"I (Aoſoq oos) <nqouts quotout, oùn go on is out, Sºw spun qūuſ, polnºooſuoo uooq Stu q : xloo.1 out, Jo 3:o Áluśno.I u.Aoû uood Suu ‘‘S Oq ‘N utioU ’dy 08 pub “AA on “I tuo.U. "J 00F outos “ol’īub.lpenb Ig(nào.Lty Jo pup tº ‘suſul ou" Jo 'N out, uo ‘IIIu oug Jo do, oud Aologſ 'pont'Apºſuo KIOAyyou so A qi oouo quitº Aous ‘IIo,I, où, Jo sopis out uo oſqisſ A III)s ‘soot.I.Ioq Jo Soot.I] out" qua poſtoddesſp oatsu IIoIITIS go (tº priz 3ſ) split Kouſ A oil,I, , 'ditios 5uſdols ouo KIIujoodso ‘soluſ, 5umpusn.I.O on XIoud oºp Kutu qolu A K.Iuosgu go squoulātly otoqq put otoli UAIA “ofºulſ. A utopout tº go sosnou pou Inl out", utúl otouſ juſt(qou go SqSISuoo ops on I, IoquA Jo 5uilds ouſ; a sp. olouq ‘IIo,I, out, utoly oſſu qmoqū ‘‘gſ out, uo Kolſua out go pºol out qu : soluondos quo - Moot Kubu out, UQIIIA Jo Sopis out uſ ‘KoIIgA doop tº st’N on 1 uo &pg|AA on 1 : AA on “I uloly %y 006 put, “So, 'N IIIoly II).jūol uſ qJ 00SI ouds SI sput,4s (IUIſoS (IoIUAA UO [[o], otiſ, ‘poulogºuouſ sn'ſ uſe [d ou" sprea -on todó 41 8ſ ‘S out, tio ÁIuo , : Soo.11-51, Aoy tº liq A JoAo pollop ‘ouonsoluiſ Áo.13 Jo SIIIu. Kajol put orgq Aq uſ quus SI q. ‘N put ºf out uO, 'uoismſooš Sqſ SI uUIſoS go uoſquinqſs Icinquu oug uſ ornºgoy oIqbooſiou qsoul ou.I. 'uu IIoS go 'AA'N'N Soſiuſ 8 at I& 5 ſº go uptigioT oud KInuoppao ‘upºn T-72 Jo “I oLºqi I G pub ‘uyºtog Jo 'N Soſiuſ OI quiod b qu pºol qāyú out, utoſol IIIA out 'AA out, on stu', UAop 5uſo? put, ‘uuſſos ÁpûAA out stini IIoI, oud go 'N : IIUIſoS go ous pount out, sº torua go quittius où uo ‘IIo,I, popuno.1 oituſ ouſ, ‘uyºyogi Jo GI'N' Soiſtu #6 qu ‘turn otojoq 5uſsºr oas IIIA ou ‘uguſt IIulus tº Sosso to put split Muqtou suinq “aſy, snuinſ, qº ‘tion() put ‘oiſtu a quoqū Ioy qušpt ouq on suuin oil gº ‘(Iſtiſs Iuou) uyºyogi Jo N soiſtu 8 ºnoqu qu : “smºoſ’ uloly SoHutt OT qu (Io-qqoq) uſhrogſ sossmd où ‘(uotloous quotout, ou?) sulqūN on spuji uopu A puol []iou quo.15 oun fluoro SKouinoſ Aou º où.) St. uoſºdilosop spun uq A º Spuo(lso.I.too tº/10s Utopoul out, Jo uoſº Isott on J, "Itſuoqorſ Jo Iquos out, uo put, ‘uouloous on lo-II]o; I uloly du ü)005 quuſ, KuAušiū out, Jo opps qsuo oilº uo ‘Io-UQogſ Jo (1).tou out, uo, oll ol prºs sſ Q1 SSouaqu -uſtu Iullsnun (IQſAA poqi.losop ‘arlz, iſ uſ ‘SI (IoIIIS Jo uoſqunqis out.I., -(acovlº (I tº ºr at Iz, Şſ’ ‘movlag ‘owls XXII : &l ‘swolls toºſuoilus, 6.4ſ, oilºuai, où, St. ‘ĀII tºut; i.10 : 4,4L [“..It Nou outſ; oos] otób us) ‘à.4% ooſitiº ‘āq, Soulſ, 8 ‘à4 KIIunsu) HOTIHS ‘WVOTIS pub IIVISIHS 00S-‘HWOIIHS "L ‘ON ‘WſhTTVHS oos – “SGILIINGITIIHS ‘INGITIIHS "NOSTIAA 'AA 'O ‘WITVS oos "crg Uſ Jo uouoV put tuſſo S où, otº UTV put uſulius quuſ, posoddus Kisuoouo.ua uood struſ q ‘XXII out! Jo Suſpto.1 oun uo.II ‘(Z ‘ON “INIVMVVHS oos) uſed gous Kq itſ UIO I uſ pub ‘uoumagus KQ uox10" spoon1d Sqſ (661 sof) uootups O) polloIIb su/Aoq Jo qSII oug uſ 'polo Adoo.I uooq qoA qou Sull puu (2070S. “povoz ‘s ºutowo) ouolo ( pua Suſqosnº Oq ūAOuxium Su A olis out,L (zºg I soſ) uſ V puu (IJouqo'I uooAqoq pouoguou si qoſul. A ‘ûnoS Mo “qoão N out uſ “utºpuſ go uso) W — (ittººs 3In A : th93\?g V ‘ºvº& I XXII : 6.4.0) INIHTIHS ‘sostºo upon too ÁIIIo ouſ, ove (IIUIO IO) (IºTIV (or gr8 XI a) put (tuoſtrušºv “g I XI I) UIOIt’sq V. ‘ſult US Sopºsogſ suitou qsoil,lºo out, Jo soluuttuns out, up poutºu od Oq lounty sºloulou -uoomb ou? Ioſ Ignsuum SI qI (1603 (Iſ) a ‘craz, XI I) quuduusouloſ Jo udyot out up touqou-uoomb su.A oùA ‘ūgquzV oyſ AA st's V 3 (IIM Jo Iount, I-()39W3& II]oq uſ on I ‘pvpx?& Säuſ XI I uſ V 133rlsz SłupyL I uſ g| ‘73\p& 'uo.IIIO 3 uſ Vgſ : áºl.) IHTIHS “NOSTIAA 'AA 'O "[oouqºſ Jo Aso A-ūnos Solyma # quoqu SI put ‘(pypsºſ) popuSV pub (ºppugoſ) Iooliduſ uooAqoq soul oogld spun ºnq : tºo,to:/ns 490.lºv/XI UAIA qi poſſiluopi (gz, 'd pupAſ ‘Aq.(1) JøIqo,I, ('til IIICI Os) u/AOUXIum sp. on is ou.I., "vuo. -07/09S ('vuou()) oudioſ’ ‘apdoxog ('wtow0) Supdosmºſ ‘wo.tvoº'ſ S. uloy ouq Seu UIn3.It I, out,L (rigſ soſ.) [oouquſ 5uſoq prowlsoA oogld qxoti out ‘upſtrugſ quno WI put uoixiºſ uooAqoq pouoſhuou ‘uſepmſ. Jo Autºpunoq u.touliou out, uo oopſd V—‘(pwo.uſoas : paddox V. V. ‘9%Nog g : áčL!!). NoMELXIXIIHS “NOSTIAA 'AA 'O ‘oºtoz-29 tº/oA out up punoy IIIqs ore Kouq—: q up Soupooo.10 otoA otouſ, osmºGood to AII spun on uoAI3 uooq oAbū Kutu (grö Loſ ‘88z. SI) of N ot(1 go sourcu out go ouo ‘40’ſyſs ('70 ?9 “uuguu IIICI ‘Iloyſ Os) goſuould go ‘Āuſld on 5uſploooo ‘ĀIeputioq ūIoltºnos ou?–(61 °A ‘Āundi : 3 Ax ‘g Ax 'A ‘Kuloſold jo) uoſiopooo.IO JoAII out, UQA poſſinuopp u000 Sou (IoIt|A ‘p:/.(22-22 Jº/OAT ouſ, Xiaoqoid qsoul SpA (Iqbuqi-JouTuS out,L "Iºmos ou! O! Kūſ ūoſtſ AA “(tr.I Soſ) toGI populouſ Ious V go Kröpunoq out, qsſºu A “ſoutuo go unlou ouj oq SpºtoAoAoû ‘SnIogſ ou.L ‘olov go unnos ojºqiſ a —‘wºntº AI tº/oA ou'l Aou-‘(6I ‘A uſ[d) SmIogſ ou? TºpM Agguopſ Kou() (IoTuA “IoAII SSüß ouſ), ugou oq Sp10A out uox10" oAbu Soſºplotſºng outos pub .*oqūA, SI undugſ"I go 5ugutout alſ.I. JoAII tº od on liqtuq II-Iou!"IS topisuoo Stoyuquouvuoo utopou qug : S000Id qouſgsp oAq od O1 (Iqbuq"I put, IouTuS 0x100 ("utowo) ouotoſ put, Sniqosmºſ (p:6I Soſ') popuoq -xo Ious V Jo A.1011.I.101 out, UſogūAA on ‘Iou.Ibo ‘Jo qqnos out on KIAuotºddo put, ‘Idou ounquog to inquu V—"(/?pupqoT 20 to ſo?S : V ºx doloz V. ‘0papgow to 4673& 64 aſ ‘ſhºulu Attu) H.LWNaII - HOHIHS “NOSTIAA 'AA ‘O "((pp?q.tn? on 50) apll, I dogſ, siz Moſ) , Ion IIIS Jo S.I.000A out, UI put, , ; (sm?? W “[ug ºr 'AA oos : Guu. IITIA postlyuoo ſºul] acovºgolan ordillo 682 SI), 10q11S Jo poos out, up 3TIN out, AIuſºq Loo sº louſ US ‘z — 500 SHILOH SHILOH times; a pilgrimage is made to it ‘from year to year’ (nº pºp 1° 21° (cf. 121]; so Ex 13”, Jg 1140 21*), for purposes of sacrifice, at the ‘coming round of the days’ (1*, cf. Ex 34”), i.e. at the arrival of the new year, when the pilgrimage of Ingathering (Tpsû in Ex. l.c.) was held ; IElkanah and his household go up to it regularly (1*, 2*) from their .*.iii. (see RAMAH, 6) either at Râm-allah, 12 miles to the S.W., or at Beit Rima, , 12 miles to the W. ; and the youthful Samuel is presented there to Jahweh, to minister before Him (1*2" etc.). The sanctuary in which the ark is, is however no longer, as in the Pent., a ‘tabernacle’ or ‘tent” (958); it is a fixed structure, a “temple" (ºr 1939) or ‘house’ (17. *), with a ‘door-post” (núin 19) and ‘doors” (ninº. 3"): see, further, TABERNACLE. The representation in 1 S 1–4, taken as a whole, points to the existence of a more considerable religious centre, and a more fully organized system of religious observ- ances, than appear to be implied by the terms of Jg 21*-*. The sanctuary of Shiloh is not, however, after 1 S 1–4, again referred to in the history; and it seems in fact that, shortly after the events narrated in these chapters, it was de- stroyed, probably by the Philistines; in ch. 22(v.” cf. with 14”), it may be observed, the priesthood settled formerly at Shiloh appears at Nob. The recollec- tion of this disaster was so vividly impressed upon the people's memory that long afterwards Jeremiah could refer to it as a token of what J’ might do then to His temple in Jerusalem (Jer 7” “But go ye now to my place [i.e. my sacred place], which was in Shiloh, where I caused my name to dwell at the first, and see what I did to it for the wicked- ness of my people Israel,” v.24; 26% ‘I will make this house like Shiloh,’ v.9); and it is alluded to also by a late psalmist (Ps 78° “He forsook the dwelling-place of Shiloh, the tent he had caused to dwell among men’). It is indeed very possible that the narrative of this disaster formed the original sequel of 1 S 4”–7", and that when the Book of Samuel assumed its present form it was omitted to make room for 7°–8. Shiloh itself, however, continued to be inhabited ; for the pro- phet Alijah, who promised Jeroboam the kingdom of the ten tribes, was a native of it (1 K 11” 1216 [=2 Ch 101°] 15”; cf. 2 Ch 9”); and Jeroboam's wife went there to consult him when her husband was ill (1 K 14* *): see also Jer 41°. Though a few mediaeval writers were acquainted with the site of Shiloh (Moore, Judges, p. 451 m.), it was practically un- known from the time of Jerome till it was rediscovered by Robinson, BIRP. ii. 208–270. Cf. Stanley, SP 231–3. Jerome Speaks of the remains of an altar as just visible there : Epi- taph. I’aulae (iv. 2, p. 670, ed. Bened.), “Quid marrem Silo, in qua, altare dirutum, hodieque monstratur?”; Comm. on Zeph 114 (iii. 1655), “vix altaris fundamenta monstrantur.” S. R. DRIVER, SHILOH (nºw, Sam. Hºw), Gn 4910. – i. In ex- amining the yarious interpretations that have been given of this passage, it will be convenient to take first those adopted by AV and RV, or admitted into RV m. There are four of them. (1) “Until Shiloh come.’—This rendering did not appear in any translation of the Bible before the 16th cent., though some authority for it might have been found in a fanciful Talm. passage. The Wyclif VSS followed the Vulg. (qui mittend us est, reading apparently nºv): “till he come that shall be (or is to be) sent.’ Coverdale's Bible of 1535 has “till the worthye come.’ Seb. Münster's version (1534) was the first to treat the word as a name: quousque veniat Sºlo. John Iłogers (1537) has “until Sylo come.’ Matthew, Taverner, the Great Bible, and the Bishops' Bible all adopt it : “till Shiloh come.” The diſticulty in the way of this rendering is to find a meaning for Shiloh as a designation of the Messiah. The only indication of a desire to make -g it a proper name *. in the Talm, passage alluded to above, Samh.98b : “Rab said, The woºd was created only for the sake of David ; Samuel said, It was for the sake of Moses; R. Yochanan said, It was only for the sake of the Messiah. What is his name? Those of the school of R. Shila, say, Shiloh is his name, as it is said “Until Shiloh come.” Those of the school of R. Yannai say, Yinnon is his name, as it is said (Ps 72), Before the sun let his name be propagated (yinmön). Those of the school of R. Chaninah sºy, haninah is his name, as it is said (Jer 16”), lºor I will give you no favour (hanima).” This attempt to connect the Messiah’s name with that of some favourite teacher, of course renders the passage worthless as an authority. Even as a title Shiloh cannot be legitimately supported. It has been taken as an abstract noun put for a concrete, “till rest (or a rest- or peace- giver) come.’ This interpretation has been adopted y Water, Justi, Rosenmüller, Winer, Baumgarten- Crusius, Hengstenberg, Reinke, Gesenius (Lea:.), Murphy, and others, though many of these writers understand by the peace-giver Solomon or some other earthly ruler, not the Messiah. But the philological difficulties in its way are very great. The form nºw presupposes a verb ºw or ºv, which does not exist. It cannot be legitimately derived from nº. Besides, this verb is so often associated with the idea of careless, worldly ease, that a title of the Messiah is not very likely to have been derived from it. A different justification of Shiloh = Messiah is attempted, in the Targum pseudo-Jonathan, and the MT nºw may rest on it. It makes it mean “his son.” But there is no Heb. word ºw. Even could these difficulties be surmounted, a greater one remains in the way of the AV and fiv rendering. The announcement of the Messiah by name or title is out of place in a patriarchal blessing. Even a late editor would not so glar- ingly have violated the proprieties of time. The absence of NT reference is also strongly against such an interpretation. (2) “Until he come to Shiloh.” This has much in its favour. Shiloh, whereyer else it occurs, denotes the Ephraimite town. It is natural to take it so here. The construction of the sentence and the parallelism both suggest this rendering. In 1 S 41° the very phrase occurs, 5% Nan. Taken so, the clause is understood to refer to the assembling of Israel as a nation at Shiloh (Jos 18'), when Judah may be supposed to have lost the pre-eminence or ºil. held by it in the wanderings (Nu 10”, Jg 1° ", Jos 15). This interpretation does not necessarily affect the Messianic character of the whole passage, though it no longer attaches the thought to the word Shilol). The view is undoubtedly an attractive one. We see Judah, the honoured of his brethren, marching in triumphal progress to the national sanctuary, and there laying down the emblems of authority in order to enjoy the fruits of peace, while the nations around bow submissive to his sway. And if, as seems not unlikely, an effort was made to constitute Shiloh a political as well as a religious centre, thus anticipating Jerus., this interpretation becomes still more attractive. - The objections to it are twofold. I'irst, bag and pphº seem to suggest sovereignty rather than mere tribal pre-eminence (see art. LAWGIVER, vol. iii. ). 83"). The historical diſliculty is still greater. o particular place is assigned to Judah in the histories in connexion with Shiloh. Indeed its rôle took it, not to Shiloh, but to Hebron and its neighbourhood. To obviate this difficulty some commentators supply a general subject to the verb, ‘till one or the people come.’ Dut, even so, an SHILOH SHIMEATH 501 objection remains. It is out of keeping with the spirit of the patriarchal blessings to affix a limit to the prosperity of a tribe. In the case of Judal) jº. we should expect a further outlook, and it seems too violent to explain ‘Judah will lead till Canaan is subdued and after.” [Cf., however, the use of Ty in Ps 110° 1128; see Oaf, Heb. Lea. s. Ty, II. lb). Many good names, however, support the render- ing just discussed. Among them are Eichhorn, Herder, Ewald, Bleek, Delitzsch, Dillmann [pro- visionally ; , but thinking (so also Holz.) that a really satisfactory explanation is not to be found], S. Davidson, Strack (and Rödiger, Thes, giving pro- minence to the idea of peace or rest in Shiloh). Influenced by the objections stated above, Hitzig, Tuch, and G. Baur would translate "A-Ty as long as, on the analogy of Hor. 0d., iii. 30. (7–9); cf. Verg. Aºn. ix. 446–449. But Shiloh had been destroyed long before Judah obtained real supremacy. It is as a fallen rival to Jerusalem that prophets allude to the place, (3) “Until that which is his shall come.” This follows the reading nº, a poetical equivalent of * nºs. It was presumably the reading of the LXX (and Theod.), who render §ws &v čAffm Tä, ätrokeſpuéva aúró, “till the things reserved for him come.’ This is adopted, with some hesitation, by Driver. But, as Dillm. Says, tº for the relative in an apparently Judaean text would be very strange. The inde- terminate expression of the Messianic hope is in its favour. (4) “Until he come whose it is.’ This follows a variant reading of LXX (; ātröketrat, a reading lend- ing itself so readily to Christian exegesis that we do not wonder at its adoption by the l’athers, e.g. Justin, Ap. i. 32 (supplying shortly after to BagiNetov), Ignat. Phil. (longer form), Iren. IV. X. 2, Origen (frequently). It was adopted also by Only elos (‘the Messiah, whose is the kingdom'), the Peshitta, and Sa'adya (10th cent.). The ren- dering is, however, a doubtful one, though it is adopted by Gunkel; for the subject ‘it’ (NIT) is missing: Šaj version is a paraphrase which may or may not be legitimate. Ezk 21” (Heb.) presents a somewhat similar phrase is nº Na Ty bººn; but the subject in the relative clause is here expressed. Still, whether original or not, this reading seems to express a right sense; cf. (6) below. ii. Other suggestions are—(1) ‘Till tranquillity come.’ This assumes the existence of a very possible nº or nº = peace. But it, leaves the sentence without an explanation of \º, and the barallelism suffers. It has the support of lieuss, Knobel, Friedländer. (2) “Till he comes to peacefulness or a place of rest” (also nºt). So Kurtz, Oehler, and Perowne. (3) ‘Till he comes to that which is his own.” So Orelli (Alttest. Weiss. von d. Vollemdung des Gottesreiches, 1882, p. 137 ff. [= OT Proph. 117 ſl.]), comparing Dt 337; and apparently 13all. (4) Lagarde (Omom. Sacra, 1870, ii. 96), compar- ing Mal 3", conjectures, as Matthew Hiller had done before him, nºs; = his desired one. This is accepted by Bickell (Carm. VT Mctrice, 1882, p. 188). I)river objects that the word savours of Syr. rather than Heb., and that the sense asked is not suitable here. (5) Wellhausen, in his Geschichte, p. 375 (1878), threw out the suggestion that ºn was a gloss explanatory of nº. ‘Till he come to whom is the obedience,” etc. But this destroys the parallelism and the symmetry of the verse. (6) Wellh. (Comp. 321), abandoning (5), thinks that the verse denotes in some way an ideal limit of time, the coming of the Messiah, and pre- Rupposes (as in fact the terms of vv.* * do likewise) the Davidic monarchy [he does not say clearly how he understands nºw]. This view of the pas- sage certainly seems correct. In spite of the diffi- cuſties connected with nºw, the words do seem to refer to the transition of the power of Judah into the hands of an ideal ruler. (7) Cheyne (Isaiah, ii. [1884] Essay iv.) thinks the text was once fuller, and would read nº nº or Dys". (8) Neubauer, Athenaum, May 30th, 1885, pro- poses to read Dºw, i.e. Jerusalem, ‘until he come to Salem' (cf. Ball), with allusion to the establish- ment of the Davidic kingdom. This, of course, implies that baw has the meaning “leader's staff,” not ‘sceptre’ (cf. p. 500° bottom). It may be noticed that the Messianic tone of the passage is independent of the reading of this clause, being conveyed by the clause succeeding it. IITERATURF. — Besides above citations and references see Driver in Camb. Journal of Phil. vol. xiv. No. 27, 1885 (synopsis and explanation of Rabbin. and other interpretations), and Expositor, 3rd series, vol. ii. [1885) p. 10 f. : S. Davidson, Introd. to OT', vol. i. ; Kurtz, Hint. Old Covenant, vol. ii.; the Comm. on Gn 4910; and the hist. and exeg. discussion in G. Baur, Alttest. Weissagwng (1861), 227–290. A. S. AGLEN. SHILONITE (ºy; in 2 Ch 929 ºw; 1019, Neh 11% jº). —Gentilic name from SHILOH (which see ad imit. p. 449"). It is applied in the OT to 1. AHIJAII (see vol. i. p. 56"). 2. A Judahite family, settled at Jerusalem after the Exile, Neh 11° (A wrongly Shiloni), 1 Ch 9°. In these last two Sassages we should prob. read ºff Shelanite (cf. u 26”), i.e. descendant of SHIELAH, one of the sons of Judah. The LXX readings are : B >7Aw- veſtms (1 K 1149 121° 1529, 2 Ch 9” 101*), Xºj)\oveſ (1 Ch 9°), AmAwwé (Neh 11°); A (in the same three groups of passages, respectively) X m\wulrns, XmYwvi, 'HAwut ; Luc. (in Neh 11”) >m\ovel. SHILSHAH (nºw ; BAXaXeigá, Luc. Sexeprév).— An Asherite, 1 Ch 7”. SHIMEA (Nyºtº).-1. See SHAMMUA, No. 2. 2. A Merarite, 1 Ch 6” (”) (B Sowed, A Sapad, Luc. Xapad). 3. A Gershonite, 1 Ch 6” (*) (Sepad). 4. See SHAMMAH, No. 2. SHIMEAH (nºw ; B >epad, A Saueá, Luc. Sauaā). —A descendant of Jehiel the ‘father’ of Gibeon, 1 Ch 8”, called in 9” Shimean (DSM); BN Luc. Xapaé, A Xapiá). SHIMEAM.––See SHIMEAII. SHIMEATH (nymy or nynº; LXX in 2 Kings 'Iepová0, B in 2 Chron. Xapad, A Sap160, Luc. Sapado). —One of the murderers of king Joash of Judah is called son of Shimeath (2 K 12” (Heb. *), 2 Ch 24*). His own name in 1 Kings is given as Jozſtcar. But the evidence of 2 Chron., and in a less degree the witness of Heb. MSS, suggest that the name was originally Jehozabad (see JOZACAIR). This is the name of the second assassin also. It is there- fore significant that in the text of 2 Chron. the one is nynºn and the other nºnpuºli. It becomes highly probable that the historian named one assassin only, and that a second has been created by dittography and textual corruption. If so, Shimeath is probably the original of the variants Shomer, Shimrith, and Shimeſtth. In the present text of 2 Chron. Shinneath is plainly a woman, an Ammonitess. But in the light of the º here maintained there is equal reason to adopt the alternative ‘ Moabite' from the following ... and the one throws doubt on the other. Probably Shimeath's Ammonite nationality belongs to a later amplification of the narrative. It is then most natural to suppose that the father of Jozacar (Jehozabad) was named Shimeath, and not his mother. you ‘to hear ' is the root of a number of 502 SHIMEATHITES SHIMON roper names, both in Hebrew and the cognate anguages (Shimea, Shimei, etc.). - W. B. STEVENSON. SHIMEATHITES (nºnymy; BA Xaga.0tela, Luc. 2a1a6elu). —A minor subdivision of the Calebites (1 Ch 2*). They are represented as belonging to that section or generation which inhabited districts near Jerusalem. They appear to be a dependency of Bethlehem as the text stands (cf. v.”). Possibly they are named as one of the “families of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez.” In that case it is unlikely that the name is derived from the name of a place. The Vulgate does not transcribe, it tº: Yesonantes. Wellh. (de Gentibus, 1870) implicitly suggests the meaning ‘traditionists’ (p. 30). This would no doubt stamp the record as a description of the post- exilic distribution of the population of Judah (vv,” according to Wellh.’s conjecture). Simi- larly, but in appearance less logically, the state- ment : camentes (Vulg. tr. of “Tirathites’) et resonantes ideo scribwntur eo quod assidue in Lege Dei et in Prophetis versabantwr (Jerome, Opera, ed. Vallar.” iii. 855). But the Shimeathites may be distinct from the ‘families of the scribes,’ and the name may denote the inhabitants of a locality other than Jabez. The state of the text even suggests that they were a dependency of some other town than Bethlehem, now unnamed. It is not clear who are designated ‘Kenites” by the last clause of v.". The Kenites were closely allied to the Calebites. See, further, Wellh. de Gentibºts; also art. GENEALOGY, § IV. 39. W. B. STEVENSON. SHIMEI ("yº); B >egeet always, A Xepet always except in Samuel and Kings).--1. Second son of Gershon, Ex 617, Nu 318. 21, 1 Ch 617 237. 19. In Zec 12” “the family of the Shimeites’ (pu)\}, toº 2vºted v) is specified merely as a typical instance of a division of the tribe of Levi, which would mourn §. from the other divisions. In 1 Ch 23" Shimei must be a mistake for one of the sons of Libni or Ladan mentioned in the previous verse. 2. “A man of the family of the house of Saul,’ 2 S 16°-14 1916-28, 1 K 28, 9.80m. He is called son of Gera, by which it is probably meant that he was descended from Gera, son or grandson of Benjamin (Gn 46*, 1 Ch 8%. "). The incident so graphically described in 2 S 16"" must not be regarded as an isolated outrage committed by an individual acting on a momentary impulse. Its true significance will be seen when it is taken in connexion with the rebellion of SHEBA a Benjamite (2S 20), which occurred very shortly afterwards. The Benjamites never quite forgave David for his having prevailed over the house of Saul ; and later on, when the great Schism took place, the most important of the Benjamite towns, such as Bethel and Jericho, sided against the Davidic dynasty. David cer- tainly was not directly responsible for the death either of Abner or of Islibosheth (2 S 3°7'4"), but his complicity in their murders may very possibly have been suspected by Saul's adherents. It would be remembered, too, that I)avid's men had origin- ally formed a division of the Philistine army (1 S281 29*) that killed Saul and his three sons, and more recently seven of Saul’s sons had been sacrificed by the Gibeonites with David’s sanction (2 S 21"). When the king was returning in triumph, Shimei was among the first to greet him, ‘the first of all the house of Joseph.” Josephus (Ant. VII. xi. 2) says that he assisted Zilba, and the men of Judah in laying a bridge of boats over the river Jordan. In any case he poured forth an abject apology for his past misconduct, and obtained a promise that his |. would not be forfeited for it. As David's strong sense of submission to God’s will had previously made him restrain Abishai from taking summary vengeance on the insulter, so now, realizing that by the mercy of God he was beginning his reign afresh, he felt that it was fitting that the occasion should be marked by the customary exhibition of royal clemency (cf. 1 S 11*, 2 K 25”). Perhaps David never forgot that “grievous curse,” every letter of which was signifi- cant, as was afterwards said (Jerome, Qu. Heb.), or forgave the utterer of it ; and a late (?) writer in iić2 records that years afterwards he recalled it in his dying charge to Solomon, and bade him devise some means whereby Shimei's hoar head might be brought down to the grave with blood. This narrative, if taken as historical (which Wellh., Stade, and others deny it to be), has given rise to much discussion. It has often been urged that, in acting as he did, 1)avid “kept the word of promise to the ear, and broke it to the hope.’ Let it at once be acknowledged that the spirit of David, # he gave the charge ascribed to him, was not that of Christ. Is there not an anachronism involved in the supposition that it should be 7 But, even apart from that, it does not seem likely that David's promise, as recorded by the historian, ‘Thou shalt not die,” or, as recollected by himself, ‘I will not Fº thee to death with the sword” (“non te interficiam gladio scq lingua,” Jerome, Qu. Heb.), could have been understood by Shinnei as an un- conditional one; and in fact, however strongly we may con- demn David's unforgiving spirit, it cannot be denied that Shinnei's execution was solely due to his own folly. " IIis blood was upon his own head.’ It should be noted that, in the agree- ment that Solomon made with him, ‘the brook Kidron’ (1 K 297) is to be understood as meaning the city boundaries in any direc- tion. Shimei would not cross the IXidron when going to Gath. 3. An eminent man who remained loyal to David when Adonijah rebelled (1 K 18). It is very uncertain who he was, Jos. (Ant. VII. xiv. 4) vaguely calls him “David’s friend.’ Jerome (Qu. IIeb. in loc.) identifies him with No. 2. Other con- jectures are that he was the same as No. 4 or No. 5. 4. A brother of David (2 S 21*), otherwise known as SHAMMAH (1 S 16" 17*), Shimeah (2 S 13°), and Shimea (1 Ch 21° 207). 5. The son of Ela, one of Solomon’s commissariat officers. His district was Benjamin (1 K 4”). 6. Brother of Zerubbabel (1 Ch 3", B om.). 7. º grandson of Simeon (1 Ch 4* *7). He had six- teen sons and six daughters, and is specially noted as having been the most prolific of all his tribe. 8. A Reubenite, son of Joel (1 Cla 5°. A has Xeuelv in the first occurrence of the name); possibly the same as Shema in v.* 9. B Xopael, a Levite, Son of Merari (1 Ch 6”). 10. A Levite, in the pedi- gree of Asaph, David’s precentor (1 Ch 6”). He is onnitted in v.”. 11. A Benjamite chief, 1 Ch 8*. See SHEMA, No. 2. 12. B'Epweet, son of Jeduthun, who gave his name to the tenth course of Levites (1 Ch 2517). His name is omitted in MT of v.”, but the LXX has it there after “Jeshaiah.” 13. The IRamatllite (1 Ch 27”), one of David's officers. He was “over the vineyards.” 14. A Levite “of the sons of Heman,’ in the reign of Hezekiah (2 Ch 2014); one of those who took a leading part in the purification of the temple. Perhaps the same person is meant in 2 Ch 31* **, where he is the second Levitical superintendent over the “oblations and titles’ which were stored in the house of the Lord. 16. A Levite (Ezr 10” BA Xapot!, S Xapaoû6; 1 Es 9% Semeis). 16. A layman ‘of the sons of Hashum” (Ezr 10”, l Es 9” Semei). 17. A layman ‘ of the sons of Bani” (Ezr 10°, 1 Es 9* Someis). These last three are in the list of those who married foreign wives. 18. A Benjamite in the pedigree of Mordecai (Est 2%), called in Ad, Est 11° Semeias. N. J. D. WIMITE. SHIMEON (ºvºv), the name that appears else- where as Simcom). —One of the sons of Harim, who had married a foreign wife, Ezr 10”; ISA Xepedºv, Luc. Xv/edºv. SHIMON (i\pi/; B Xepudºv, A. Xepeudºv, Luc. Xapal), —The eponym of a Judahite family, 1 Ch 4”. SHIMRATH SHINAR 503 SHIMRATH (nºw); BA Xauapá9, Luc. Xapape!).- A Benjamite, 1 Ch 8*. SHIMRI ("n").—1. A Simeonite, 1 Ch 4” (B Xapap, A 20p aplas, Luc. 2dpapel). 2. The father of 'one of David's heroes, 1 Ch 11” (B Xapept, A and Luc. 2apap!). 3. The eponym of a family of gatekeepers, 1 Ch 26” (BA pu)\ággovres [translating, as if nºv], Luc. Xapap!). 4. A Levite, 2 Ch 29” (B Xapſ?pel, A and Luc. 2048pl). SHIMRITH.—See SHIMEATH. SHIMRON (ºnly).-The fourth son of Issachar, Gn 46” (A Xapſ3péu, D Xapſ?pdv, Luc. 2apſ3p& Kal Xapgplv), Nu 26*(*) (B" Xapuapāu, B*F Xappāp, A 'Apppáv, Luc. 'Apºpáp.), 1 Ch 7" (B 2épepúv, A. Xappapu, Luc. Xougpév). The gentilic name Shim- ronites (ºn ; B" Xapapavel, B* Xappapºel, A 'Apºgpapel, Luc. 'Apºgpapai) occurs in Nu 26*(*). SHIMRON (inpw ‘watch-height”; B Xuuočv, A Xepºptºv (Jos 1919), A Xopeptów (11*), A Xapºptºv (12”); Semeron, Semron).—One of the towns whose kings Jabin, king of Hazor, called to his assistance when he heard of Joshua’s conquest of Southern Palestine (Jos 111). It was afterwards allotted to the tribe of Zebulun (Jos 19°). Its site is un- known ; Dillm. enumerates various conjectures. Neubauer (Géog. du Talmud, p. 189) identifies it, very improbably, with the Simonia (Nºpp) of the Talmud, the Simonias of Josephus (Vit. § 24), now Semºnich, a small village, 5 miles west of Nazareth, and not far from Bethlehem (Beit Lahºn), which is mentioned with it in Jos 19° (PEF Mem. i. 339). Riehm (HPVB) considers a site so far south in Lower Galilee unlikely, and would identify it with es-Semeiriyeh, a village about 3 miles north of Acre, and not far from I(afr Yasif. C. W. WILSON. SHIMRON - MERON (Annº ºnly; B >vuoſºv . Map.pd;0, A Xappeºu . . . Pao'yá . . . Mapúv ; Simcron Maron). — A Canaanite town, west of Jordan, whose king was amongst those whom Joshua smote (Jos 12*). Comparing its position in the list with that of Shimron in the list given in Jos 11”, it seems probable that the two places are identical. The LXX treat Shimron and Meron As two places, and in this they are followed by Eusebius (Onom.). Possibly Shimron-meron was the full name of Shimron. Schrader (KAT” p. 163; cf. Del. Paradics, 286 f.) identifies it with Samsimuruna, a Canaanite royal city mentioned in inscriptions of Sennacherib, kº. and Assurbanipal, and places, it at es-Semeiriyeh, following Socin (in 13aedeker’s Pal.). See also SIIIMRON. C. W. WILSON, * @ SHIMSHAI (wnw).—The scribe or secretary of Relium, Ezr 48 %. 17. * (B Xapaad, Sapaé, Xapeals, 2apegå ; A lias Xaporal and Luc. Sauaias through- out). He is called in 1 Es 2" SAMELLIUS. SHIN (vi) and SIN (ty). —The twenty-first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and as such employed in the 119th Psalm to designate the 21st part, each verse of which in Heb. begins with this letter in one or other of its two forms. These are trans- literated in this Dictionary by sh and s respeotively. On the question when the two forms of the letter began to be distinguished by the so-called dia- critical point, and for a strong plea in favour of the order shim-sin, instead of the customary sin- shim, in Heb. Grammars and Dictionarics, see Nestle in Tramsactions of the IXth and XIth International Congress of Orientalists (Semitic section). SHINAB (nºw), Xevvadp, Sennaab).-The king of Admah who was attacked by Chedorlaomer and his allies (Gn 14*). The name has been supposed (cf. Frd. Delitzsch, Paradies, 294) to be the same as that of Sanibu who is mentioned by Tiglath- pileser III. as king of Ammon. The reading, how- ever, is quite uncertain, the LXX form having the Support also of the Sam. "Nºw. SHINAR (nylº; LXX Xevvačp, E 2evadp Gn 141; 'yń Xevadip [Theod. Xevvadp] Dn 1%; Sennaar).-The name given, in the OT, to the country known as Iłabylonia, elsewhere called Babel or land of Babel ('érez Bäbel), from the name of its clief city. In Gn 10” it is described as the district in which were situated the four great cities of Babylonia, namely, Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, which were the beginning of Nimrod's kingdom, and in Gn 11° it is spoken of as a place where there was a plain, wherein early migrants in the east settled, founded the city Babel or Babylon, and built a tower, afterwards known as ‘the Tower of Babel.” In Is 11" the Heb. Shim'ar is rendered by the LXX as “Babylonia,’ and in Zec 5" by “the land of Babylon,' thus showing that the two terms were practically synonymous. To all appearance Ellasar or Larsa, and the district of which it was capital, does not seem to have been included in this term (Gn 14” 9). In Syriac Senſar was used of the country around I3aghdad (Ges. s.v.). The most common explanation of the word Shinar is, that it is derived from an earlier form of the Babylonian Sumer, a dialectic form of an as yet unfound non-Semitic Senger, just as dimmer is the dialectic form of the non-Semitic dimgir, “god.’ It cannot be said, however, that this explanation, plausible as it seems to be, is entirely satisfactory, Jensen objects (ZICSF ii. 419) that Sumer stands for south Babylonia, whilst Shinar, on the con- trary, indicates the north, and he puts forward for consideration, whether Tindir, the name of the city of Babylon as the ‘Seat of Life, may not go back to an original form Singar (Singir), comparing, for the interchange between d and g, agar and its dialectic form adar. Like most of Jensen’s pro- Yosals, this is suggestive, but at the same time hardly convincing. Hommel, in the art. BABY- LONIA (vol. i. p. 224%), derives Shinar from Ki- Imgir, through the intermediate, forms Shimgar, Shºwmir (=Sumer), and Shimºir, Ki-Imgir being an older form of Ki-Ingi, “the region of Ingi,’ which was rendered Summer by the Semitic babylonians. It will thus be seen that he does not recognize the force of Jensen’s objection with regard to the geographical position. One thing, however, is certain, and that is, that the Heb. Shin'ar to all appearance represents, the whole of Babylonia, excepting the district of which Larsa was the capital (see above). This being the case, it corresponds with the Kingi-Ura of the non- Semitic texts, which is translated in the bilingual inscriptions by the expression “Sumer and Akkad' —that is to say, not only N. Babylonia, but S. Babylonia also. The question, therefore, naturally arises, whether a modification of Hommel’s theory would not furnish the best explanation. That k changed, in the non-Semitic idiom, into S, is proved by the post-position for ‘to,” which was pronounced either lºw or Św. This would produce the form Singi- Ura, from which the Heb. Shim'ar (Simºir) might easily have been derived." It is noteworthy that, from the geographical point of view, such an ex- blanation of the word would leave nothing to be desired. The latest or one of the latest identifications of Shinar is with Šamlar of the Tcl el-Amarna tablets (Winckler 25 = London * At least one compound group indicates the possible value of Ši for the character R1, whilst two others suggest that of esse, 504 SHINAR SHINAR No. 5). This, however, requires much further light before it can be admitted into the pounds of likely theories. The only Statement with regard to Sambar made by the letter in question is a reference, to gifts which the king of Hatti (Heth, the Hittites) and the king of Sanbar had made to the writer, the king of Alašia. W. Max Müller (Asien whd Europa, p. 279) identifies Sanbar with Xiyycºpº, the modern Sinjar. Sumer, generally regarded as the Babylonian original of Shinar, is usually found coupled with the name of the sister- province Akkad, of which the Accad of Gn 1010 was the capital. As stated above, the two provinces together are called Kingi- Ura in the non-Semitic insgriptions, rendered, in the bilingual §. by the words matt Sw-me-ri w Ak-ka-di-i, “the land of Sumer, and Akkad.’ The first component of the non-Semitic equivalent, Kingi (also written Kemgi), is explained as matu, ‘country,’ and Ura as Akkadi, or Akkad. Iſingi therefore meant country’ par eacellence—in fact, in the bilingual inscrip- tion of Salmaš-šum-ukin (5 R. 62, 40ab), kingi-Ura is translated by the words and t Akkadi, “the land of Akkad.” The original language of the country of Shinar was to all appearance non-Semitic, and it is very likely that, as already indicated, the Heb. word in question may be derived from that idiom. It is true that several Assyriologists (notably Halévy, the leader of the school) regard this language as being more or less artificial (see art. ACCAD); but that it should be so is hardly likely, the idiom in question (often called Akkadian in England, and generally called Sumerian on the Continent) differ. ing considerably from Semitic Babylonian, not only in words, but also in grammatical forms. Among the chief differences may be cited the use of suffixes instead of prefixes to express the pre- positions (éat-mi-Św or éa-ni-ku, ‘to his house,” lit. ‘house-his-to'), the use of long strings of verbal yº suffixes, or infixes (in man-lal for inna-in- al, ‘it he weighed,’ gab-indaria, “he opposed,” lit. “breast-him-with-(he)-set ’), the use of compound words (ki-dur, ‘seat,’ lit. ‘place-(of)-sitting,’ (lu)- gubba-igi, “attendant,’ lit. “ (man) standing before, štt-bat, “ sabbath,” lit. “heart-rest,’ $a-lula, “heart- joy,' and many others), and the numerical system, which goes up to 5, and then begins a new series, combining the numbers of the first (4S for ia-aš, ‘five-one = “six,’ mima for it-anima, ‘five-two’- ‘seven,” etc.). The objection that this ancient idiom cannot be a real language, but only a system of writing, because the sanie or similar words occur in it and in Semitic Babylonian, is easily explained away by the fact that, when two nationalities live together, in close intercourse, words and phrases are extensively borrowed on both sides: and this was certainly the case here. In support of the contention that there was another race and another language in the land of Shinar than the Semitic, may be cited the fact that the oldest sculptures give, to all appearance, examples of a race not possessing the Semitic type of the later Babylonians. but one diſſering con- siderably from it. The Semitic inhabitants of Shinar were thick - set and muscular, as the cylinder-seals of Semitic work and the later monu- ments, such as the boundary-stone with the bas- relief of king Marduk-nadinahi, show. The type of at least one section of the non-Semitic inhabit- ants, on the other hand, was slim and spare, and is illustrated by the bronze statuettes of the time of king Gudea (c. 2700 B.C.), representing a kneeling figure holding what is º, regarded as a fire- stick; the human figures found in bas-reliefs from Lagaš; and those on a large number of cylinder- Seals. It would, moreover, seem that the ancient inhabitants of Shinar were accustomed to do a thing which the Semites do only under foreign influence, namely, shave the hair from the face and head. This is shown not only by the heads of statues and statuettes from Tel-loli (the ancient Lagaš), but also from numerous cylinder - seals and impressions of cylinder - seals of the later Akkadian (or Sumerian) period, in which an offi- cial is represented being introduced to the god whom he worshipped. The god himself, however, -A tº generally wears a beard. Whether they regarded the heads of their divinities as being shaved or not is uncertain, as they are commonly represented wearing hats. In connexion with this may be mentioned, that the great majority of the names of the deities of the Babylonian pantheon are non-Semitic, and this shows what a preponderating influence that part of the population must have had, Indeed the religious system of the Assyro-Babylonians was probably to a great extent alien, and the comparatively few Semitic divine names which are found are to all appearance often applied to deities which were at first non-Semitic. As to the order of precedence of the two races— the non-Semites .. the Semites—in occupying the country, we have no certain information. It is worthy of note, however, that Nimrod, the founder of the great cities of the land of Shinar, is represented as a son of Cush (Gn 10°), and that in Gn 11” the name Shinar is spoken of as if it existed before the foundation of Babylon and its tower, in other words, both passages suggest that the non-Semitic occupation of Shinar preceded that of the Semites. This seems also to be confirmed by the indications of the ancient monuments of the country. The figures of non-Semitic type, for the most part, precede those of the Semitic period in tººl order; the earliest inscriptions are in the language which the majority of Assyriolo- gists regard as the non-Semitic (Sunierian or Akka- dian) idiom ; the contract-tablets of the dynasty of Ur, called by Radau the fourth, are written in it, as are also, wholly or partly, numbers of tablets of the dynasty of Babylon (that to which Ham- murabi belonged), though Semitic Babylonian at this period begins to take its place. The Semitic renderings of the early non-Semitic texts are some- times as much of the nature of glosses as of real translations, for they are written, where possible, in the blank spaces left for that purpose between the beginning and the end of the lines of the original text.” When not arranged thus, the non- Semitic text of these bilingual tablets occupies the first, third, and remaining alternate lines of the inscription, or the left-hand (or first) column. The early languages of Shinar (Sumerian or Akkadian) are mentioned more than once in the inscriptions of Babylonia and Assyria. Thus the tablet S. 1190 is described as containing ‘two Sumerian incantations used (seemingly) for the stilling of a weeping child’; another fragment says “the tongue of Sumer (? assumed) the likeness (of the tongue) of Ak(kad)”; whilst a third informs us that ‘Akkad is above, Šu(mer below),’ but what this refers to is doubtful,-perhaps the position of the tablets of each dialect on the library shelves, or in the rooms. The tablet K. 11,856, a fragment which refers to ‘the great tablet - house,’ states that ‘ the tongue of Akkad is in the third . . .” (? room, space, division). What these disconnected statements refer to in reality will probably for some time be a matter for discussion, but the existence of other languages than Semitic Dalby- lonian in Shinar or ancient Babylonia can no longer be doubted. To the above indications that this was the case may be added the fact that Sumer was called also kuro Eme-laba, ‘the land of the noble (or pure) tongue,’ as well as Kingi. The bilingual lists of Babylonia and Assyria distinguish the two dialects, but do not mention by what name the 8tandard idiom (probably the older of the two) was known. The other, º called by modern scholars ‘the dialect,' is distin- guishcq in the bilingual lists by the term emne-hala, generally translated ‘tongue (of) the woman,’ or “women's tongue,' per- haps so called because it was softer, being more affected by phonetic decay. The possibility that this refers to women of a conquered race taken as wives by the conquerors has been sug- gested, but seems unlikely. To all appearance the non-Semitic idiom and its * The tablet inscribed with the bilingual story of the Creation is written almost wholly in this way, and has therefore the appearance of a text in three columns. SHION SHIPS 505 dialect gave way to Semitic Babylonian about the time of the dynasty to which Hammurabi belonged, but when it finally ceased to be spoken is not known. Compositions were probably made in it from time to time until a very late date. This is shown by the existence of a bilingual hymn con- taining the name of Aššur-bani - flpli or Assur- banipal, though the text bears the appearance of an ancient composition into which that king's name has been introduced. His brother Šamaš- šum-ukin (Saosduchinos), king of Babylonia, how- ever, seems to have had original compositions in this old language made for him, as in the case of the text referred to above (5 R. pl. 62). It is noteworthy that all these late inscriptions, made when the non-Sennitic idiom was a dead language, are in the “dialect.’ There is not much doubt that Semitic Babylonian was the language of the country from about B.C. 2000 onwards, and con- tinued in use until about the Christian era. Besides the archaic historical inscriptions, of which the best examples come from the lºrench excavations at Tel-loh ; the brick-inscriptions, of which most really ancient Babylonian sites furnish many examples ; and numerous short inscriptions on cylinder-seals, the bulk of the non - Semitic literature of Shinar consists of incantations, hymns, and penitential psalms. Several interest- ing but fragmentary historical inscriptions exist (accompanied by translations into the Semitic idiom), together with the remains of a chrono- logical text supposed to be that made use of by Berosus in his ºy. It is also worthy of note that several fragments of a glossary of the Semitic story of the Creation (art. DABY LONIA, vol. i. p. 220", and NIMROD, vol. iii. p. 523), or the story of 13el and the Dragon, imply that that composi- cion existed in the old language of Shimar, and that it was a “ dialectic” text. Classiſied lists of words, without Semitic translation, are also found. In all probability, however, many other inscrip- tions known only in their Semitic dress are ji. of non-Semitic origin. For an account of these, as also for a description of the country, its history, etc., see the article DABYLONIA. LITERATURE, -— Radau, Early Babylonian History; Lenor- mant, ſtudes Accadiennes, ii. 8, p. 70; Schrader, KAT'2 118 ſº., IKeilinusch). 10. Geschichtsforschwng, 296, 533; Weissbach, Zur Lösung der Swmerischem. I'rage, Leipzig, 1807; Pinches, ‘Lan- guages of the IEarly Inhabitants of Mesopotamia' in JIRAS, 1884, p. 301 ff., “Sumerian or Cryptography, ib. 1900, p. 75 ft., 343, 344, 551, 552; and the works mentioned at the end of the articles ACCAD and BABYLONIA. T. G. PINCHES. SHION (isºº); B Xuwwé, A Xeudy; Seon).-A town of Issachar (Jos 19°) mentioned between Hapha- raim and Anaharath. Eusebius and Jerome (Onom.) place it near Mount Tabor. Its identification by Eli Smith with Aytºn esh-Sh'aim, about 3 miles east of Nazareth, has been very generally accepted. C. W. WILSON. SHIPHI ("yºu); B XaqāA, A Sepelv, Luc. 20%el). —A Simeonite prince, 1 Ch 4" ("). SHIPHMITE.—See SHIEPHAM and SIPIIMOTH, SHIPHRAH (nºw) ; LXX Xetrºpopá, the rendering also of nºby Zippūrāh, in Ex. 2”).--One of the two Hebrew midwives, Ex 1” (E). The name is prob- ably connected with the root new ‘to be beautiful' (Balentsch in Nowack's Halkom.). It is unlikely that it is a Hebraized form of an Egyptian name. See, further, Dillm.-Ryssel, ad loc. SHIPHTAN (lºw ; B Xaga.04, A Xaga.0áu, F Xaqaráv, Luc. [X]aqabā).-An Ephraimite prince, Nu 34*. SHIPS and BOATS (nº, Hypº [only Jon 1*], "y; vaſs [only Ac 27”], TAotov, TNotáptov, akāqºm [only Ac 27* * *]).—These are often referred to in the Bible, but to a very small extent in connexion with Israelitish history. In OT the most im- portant instances connected with this people are the building of the fleet of Solomon at the port of Ezion-geber, at the head of the AElanitic arm of the Red Sea (1 K 94"); and another undertaking of a similar kind in the reign of Jehoshaphat, which had a disastrous result (1 K 22*). In NT we have the voyages of St. Paul, especially the last into Italy (Ac 27).” The voyage of Jonah belongs to another category. The Phoenicians were by far the most successful navigators of ancient times; and the history of the art of º amongst Eastern nations can be very clearly followed in connexion with the history of this remarkable people (see GREAT SEA). Originally settled on the shores of the Erythraean Sea (Persian Gulf),t they had become familiar with navigation in a rude form before their migration to the shores of the Mediterranean about B.C. 1500, and carried with them the art of shipbuilding to their new home.f. Perhaps in both countries this art did not extend beyond the construction of rafts, or canoes hollowed out of trunks of trees (Monoacyla); but as time went on these would give place to boats, built with a keel, and ribs covered with canvas and daubed with pitch. The models of boats found amongst Phoe- nician remains are of a very rude and simple form. § I’rom a Cyprian model, represented by Count L. di Cesnola, and believed to be of early Phoenician date, the ships appear to have con- sisted of a hull of wood with a high curved stern and an upright bow ; from the centre rose a mast not very high, supporting a yard-arm for carrying a sail; from the stern projected two steering oars with broad shovel-shaped blades passing through the timbers of the ship. The use of sails was º preceded for a long period by that of O8),TS. boat of large size is represented on cer- tain coins, regarded by some as l’hoenician, by others as belonging to Cilicia, in which the bow is low, the stern elevated and accompanied by steering oars. It was impelled by one bank of oars, such as was called by the Greeks a “tria- conter’ or “penteconter,’ and it was destitute of a mast." About B.C. 700 a great advance seems to have been made in navigation by the Phoenicians, owing to the introduction of two sets of oarsmen seated on benches at different levels, and using double banks of oars; these were called by the Greeks ‘biremes’; and, at a later period, a further ad- vance was made by the introduction of a mast and sail, somewhat of the shape of a “square-sail’ of our own times. These ships must have resem- bled the Chinese junks of the present day. The Phoenician ships described by Herodotus were of two kinds: those used in war, and those employed in mercantile traffic. The former were broad of, beam, and impelled both by oars and sails. The sails were, from their shape, of use only when sailing before the wind. The War vessels were those which the Greeks called tria- conters and penteconters, each iºlºle by fifteen to twenty-five oars on either side. They were long open boats in which the oarsmen sat all on the same level; each galley was armed at its head with a sharp metal spike or beak, intended for * On the Sea of Galilee, in the time of our Lord, small trading vessels and ſishing boats appear to have been very numerous, and some of the most interesting events in II is life are con: nected with this lake and the sailors on its waters (Mt S* Mk 436, Lk 51-11, Jn 622 214-14). # Ilerod. i. 2, vii. 89. t I’liny, II N vii. 56. § l'errot et Chipiez, IIist, de l'Art, iii. 517. e e | Cosmola, Cyprus, pl. xlv. *|| Rawlinson, Phoenicia, 273 506 SHIPS SHITRAI ramming." Afterwards these were superseded by biremes, which were decked, had masts and sails, and double banks of oarsmen. Later still, tri- remes, impelled by three banks of oarsmen, came into use ; and about the end of the 6th cent. B.C. boats with additional banks of oars were invented. † lºor some centuries the Phoenicians confined their navigation to the shores of the Mediterranean, Propontis, and Euxine ; but before the time of Solomon (c. B.C. 930) they had launched out into the deep, had passed the pillars of Hercules, and opened a trade with Tartessus (Tarshish) on the Atlantic coast of Spain. Coasting along Africa, they had visited the Senegal and Gambia ; and, in the opposite direction, had crossed the Bay of Biscay, and the English Channel, and opened a trade for tin with the Cassiterides. It is no less certain that they reached the Canaries (Fortunate Islands), lying 170 miles off the coast of Africa. In Ezk 27 we have an eloquent description of the glories of Tyre and Sidon, and the construction of their ships. The Greeks.-Ships with four ranks of oarsmen were first constructed by the Greeks about the year B.C. 400, when Dionysius I. of Syracuse built the first quadriremes (retpipeus), with which he had probably become acquainted through the Car- thaginians.: After the time of Alexander the Great, ships with four, five, and even more ranks of rowers became general; and, according to Poly- bius, the first Punic war was chiefly carried on with quinqueremes. Š Assyrian.—While the Phoenicians were making º in naval architecture, their old neigh- yours and probably rivals, the Babylonians and Assyrians, were also at work in the same direc- tion, but not to any important extent. As Raw- linson observes, it is only as fresh-water sailors that the Assyrians come within the category of navigators at all. They left the navigation of the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean to the Baby- lonians and Phoenicians, contenting themselves with the profits without sharing the dangers of sea voyages; their attention being concentrated on the navigation of their two great rivers—the Tigris and Euphrates. This was effected at first by rafts of timber supported on inflated skins; and these are still in use on the rivers of Meso- potamia." Bas-reliefs from the most ancient jº. of Nimroud show two kinds of boats : the arger contains the king in his chariot with his attendants, and is navigated by two men.” It is considered by Rawlinson to have resembled in structure the Welsh coracle, round in form and made of wicker - work covered with skins and smeared over with bitumen. To have carried such heavy loads they must have been of large size. The smaller was used for the conveyance of merchandise. In the sculptures of Sargon, who reigned from B.C. 722-705, we have a representation of a ship * These were probably the kind of boats in use amongst the Grecks in Homer's time, in which he represents the descent of the Grecian warriors on the coast of Ilium (Iliad, i. 360, ii. 585, 630; Smith's Dict. Greek and Itornam Antiquities, art. ‘Naves,” 783 (1849), in which the subject is very fully treated). t The Phoenicians had a practice of placing at the bow of their boats the figure of some monstrous form gaudily painted, in order to strike terror into the natives whose country they were invading. We seem to have something of the kind in the case of the Greek ships invading Asia Minor, “Twelve ships with scarlet bows' (Iliad, ii. 739). 1 Pliny, LIN vii. 5. 7; Diodor. xiv. 41, 42. § Polybius, i. 63; Haltaus, Geschichte Itoms im Zeitalter der Punischer Kriege, Leipzig, 007 (1840). | A meient Monarchies, i. 544. "I Layard, Nineveh, ii. 96; Rawlinson, Anc. Mon. i. 545. A representation of such a raft carrying blocks of stone for build- ing, taken from IXouyunjik, is given ib. p. 338. The raft is impelled by two oarsmen. ** I b. p. 546. Iłoats sinnilar to these are also described by Herodotus, i. c. 104. of a more advanced type. Here four rowers stand. ing to their oars impel a vessel, having a figure. head of a horse, and for the stern the tail of a fish ; but it is possible that this vessel may have belonged to an invading force, not that of the Assyrian inhabitants.” The sculptures of Kouyunjik represent ships in great perfection. One of these represents a naval battle, as may be gathered from the introduction of marine forms, such as star-fish and jelly-fish, not found in rivers. Layard recognizes in these vessels a resemblance to those used to a compara- tively late period by the inhabitants of the cities of Tyre and Sidon on the Syrian coast.' . That the Chaldaeans were skilful shipbuilders, and were proud of their attainments in this art, may be gathered from the statement in Isaiah (43*), where they are referred to as rejoicing in their ships.j. Christian era.-The ships, in NT times, chiefly belonging to the IRomans, were galleys impelled by oarsmen and using square sails. They were sometimes of large size; that which carried St. Paul containing in all 276 souls, besides cargo. § Their timbers were so badly put together, that when subjected to the strain arising from a storm, they required to be undergirded (or braced) by means of strong ropes; and they seldom ventured far out of sight of land, or some º into which they could be run in stress of weather. E. HULL. SHISHA.—See SIIAVSHA. SHISHAK (Pºw) [in 1 K 142*, Kéth. pºt), Kéré pººl, Xova'ak(e)lu).-Shishak is Sheshonk I., the first king of the 22nd or Bubastite Dynasty. He belonged to an important family of chiefs of Libyan mercenaries, who by degrees attained to very high position. His grandfather married a princess named Mehtenusecht, doubtless of the 21st or Tanite Dynasty. The successors of Sheshonk were much attached to Bubastis, and his dynasty is named Bubastite by Manetho ; but it is doubtful whether he himself had much con- nexion with that city. In his 21st year he began building a new court in the great temple of ICarnak, and close to it caused to be sculptured a representation of himself sacrificing figures sym- bolic of the conquered cities in Palestine. In all, 156 place - names were thus recorded, and most of them are still legible. There are few inſportant cities amongst them. They include Rabbath and Hapharaim in Issachar, and Mahanaim on the east of the Jordan, besides towns in Judaea, l’rom the biblical account (1 K 14”), it had been con- cluded that Shishak attacked only the kingdom of Rehoboam and spared that of Jeroboam, who had lived many years in exile in Egypt ; but this interpretation is not necessary. Since Ramses III. no Pharaoh had ventured to transport an army across the eastern desert and to attack Palestine. Later, even Taharka and Psammetichus did not go so far; only Necho went farther. But Sheshonk’s expedition was insignificant compared to the ex- peditions of the 18th dynasty. For the absence of the title ‘ Pharaoh’ in the biblical record see above, vol. iii. p. 819. LiTºrtATURE.—For Shishak's campaign against Judah see W. Max Müller, Asien w. I'wropa, 106 ſ. ; Blau in ZDM1(; xv. 233 ff.; Meyer, Gesch, i. 385 f.; Stade, Gesch. i. 353 f.; Maspero, Struggle of the Nations, 772 ft.; Driver in Hogarth's Authority and Archaeology, 87 f. F. L.L. GRIFFITH. SHITRAI (nºw K&thibh, env Kéré ; I2 "Agaprals, A Lug. 2drpat). —A, Sharonite who was over king David's herds that fed in SHARON, 1 Ch 27*. * Layard, Nineveh, ii. 383. t Layard, vol. ii. 384, 385. f RW ‘In the ships of their rejoicing.” § Ac 2707. SHITTAH TREE SHOBAI 507 SHITTAH TREE (nºw shittah, trºos, spina, Is 4119 RV ‘acacia tree'); SHITTIM WOOD (nºw-ºxy 'digá-shittºm, {V}\a doſetra, ligma setim, Ex 25%. 19. 1 26*, * 271. ", Dt 108 IRV acacia wood’).—Shittäh. is modified from Shintáh, as hittáh, “wheat,” from hintáh. The cognate Arab. equivalent for Shintáh is sonſ, a name identical with the old Egyp, name of this tree, and is, like it, generic for Acacia, but particularly applied to A. Nilotica, Del. The desert acacia, of which the Ark of the Covenant, and the boards, tables, etc. of the Tabernacle were made, is no doubt A. Seyal, Del., and A. tortilis, Hayne, if the two be not, as we suspect, varieties of the same species. Both are called seyyál. Say! means ‘torrent,’ and prob, the ellipsis ‘tree' sºft be supplied. It is the torrent tree, i.e. the char- acteristic tree of the desert widis of Sinai, et-Tih, and the Dead Sea. The comus of these trees resembles that of the apple. It is about 15–25 ft. high, and a little broader than its height. It has stiff, thorny branches, bipinnate leaves with leaf- lets 1–2 lines long, and # line broad, and more or less spirally twisted, necklace-shape pods, 3–4 in. long. Its wood is heavier than water, exceedingly hard, of fine grain, the sap-wood yellow, the heart- wood brown. It is not attacked by insects. It was therefore eminently suited for furniture such as that for which it was employed, in a climate where insects commit such ravages as in the desert and in Palestine. These trees must have been very numerous in ancient times, perhaps filling most of the desert valleys, and growing in clefts of the rocks on the now bare mountain sides. Even now, after they have been so extensively cut by the charcoal burners, there are large numbers of them. They form quite a characteristic feature of the desert landscape. The trunks are now not infrequently 2 ft. thick, and old trees may have been much thicker, quite sufficiently so to supply planks 10 cubits long and 1% wide (Ex 36”). If any difficulty existed on this point, it would be easily met by supposing that the planks were joined. Arab. carpenters do this now very cleverly in Egypt and Syria. Besides the wood, so valuable on account of its durability and the excellent charcoal which can be made from it, the tree yields the famous ‘gum arabic in considerable quantities. Its astringent bark is used for tanning yellow leather. A number of places were named from this tree, as SHITTIM (Jos 2' al.), perhaps the modern Ghor es-Saisab(\m, where there are still plenty of acacia trees, and ABFL-SIIITTIM (Nu 33"), i.e. the Plain of the Acacials, which is the same as the above. The Valley (ºn; ‘wädy’) of Shittim (JI 3 (4)*) may have been Une lower part of the Wädy en-Nár, the continuation of Kidron, into which flows the water from the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. This, as all the valleys debouching on to the Dead Sea, would naturally have acacia trees growing in it. (+. E. I’OST. SHITTIM (nºn always with def. art. ‘the acacias,’ see preceding article).--One of the limits of the camping-ground of the children of Israel in the plains of Niomb, Nu 33” (here only it is called ABEi-SHITTIM). According to Nu 25' the anger of the Lord was there kindled against Israel for joining himself unto Baal-peor. The i. WOl'O sent out from Shittin (Jos 2"), and from thence the children of Israel moved to Jordan before crossing the river (Jos 3"). These are the only places where the word occurs in the Hexateuch. The LXX in the last three passages has Sattelu in 13 (vis omitted in A of Jos 2'). In Nu 33" BeNard in 13 and BeNa’attip. in A are renderings of Abel-Shittim. The word occurs twice in the Prophets : (1) Mic 6" ‘from Shittim unto Gilgal.’ By soule this is regarded as a gloss; others suggest that a part of the text has been lost here—“[remember that which I did] from Shittin unto Gilgal'—with refer. ence to the wonders manifested at the passage of the Jordan. (2) J1 3” “the valley of Shittim.’ The Heb. word here used for “valley’ (ºr, “wady’; see BROOK) is never applied to the broad open, space immediately N. of the Dead Sea in º Shittim was situated. The idea in the passage is similar to that in Ezk 47°, Zec 14°, and Rev 221—waters (of life) issuing from the house of God would reach the Eastern (the Dead) and the Western (the Medi- terranean) seas. The ordinary course of waters from Jerusalem to the Dend Sea would be along the Wädy Sitti Mariam and Wädy en-N4r, the ancient Kidron called "DJ 2 S 15* (cf. Driver, ad loc., in Camb. Bible for Schools and Colleges). The LXX rendering in both these passages is rāy orzoſway. It has been proposed (the suggestion is as old as Jerome) to read orzívoy, and then the translators would have considered the shittah-tree as equivalent to the mastick-tree (orzivos, Pistachia- lentiscus), a tree common in Mediterranean countries. The agreement between , these two passages, and their variation from the renderings jū the Hex., are noteworthy (cf. Ityssel on Mic 60). A. T. CHAPMAN. SHIZA (RPV); B Xat{é, A Xex4, N Xefá, Luc. Xu'at). —The father of a Reubenite chief, l Ch 1142. SHOA (yºu); B Xové, AXo36; tyranni).-Apparentl a race-name. It is mentioned in connexion with the Babylonians, Chaldaeans, PEKOD, KOA, and all the Assyrians (Ezk 23*), whose relations with Jeru- salem had been intimate, and who were to come up and sit in judgment upon her. According to Schrader (KAT’” p. 425), Shoa is the Assyrian Sutt!, the name of a people who are constantly associated in the inscriptions with the Kutt!. The land of Sutt! is identified by Delitzsch (Par. p. 233, etc.) with the district that extends eastward from the Tigris to the southern declivities of the Medo-Elamite mountains. C. W. WILSON. SHOBAB (nºw).—1. One of David's sons, 2 S 514 (B >w8á8, A Sw8aôáv, Luc. *Isaa’egāv), 1 Ch 3" (B Xagóv, A Luc. Sw8á8), 14" (B 'Iologoãp [i.e. Djith ‘and Shobam '''), A Xagó9, Luc. Xagić). 2. A Calebite, 1 Ch 2* (B 'Iago06, A X w(343, Luc. Xov6á3). - SHOBACH (Tºtº; B Sw8ák, A Sagák ; Sobach).— A general in the army of Hadadezer, king of Syria, at the time of the war with Ammon (2 S 10"). He is not mentioned as taking part in the battle near Rabbah, where Joab and Abishai routed the combined forces of Ammon and Syria, and we may infer that he did not become ‘captain of the host of Hadadezer” until after that event. The victory of Joab does not seem to have been fol- lowed up (see IRABBAH), and before long the Syrians again prepared to attack the newly- founded kingdom of Israel. For this purpose Hadadezer gathered all the forces at his com- mand, even the distant tribes from ‘beyond the river’’: the latter were led by Shobach, who was apparently placed in command of the whole Syrian army. In the engagement that ensued at Helam on the east of Jordan, David commanded the Israelite army in person, and utterly defeated the Syrians. Shobach was mortally, wounded in the battle, and his fall doubtless contributed to the rout of the Syrians (2S 101*). In the parallel narrative (1 Ch 1919. 18) his name is given as Shophach (Hºw ; B >wſpáp and Saqā0, A 294,43 and Sofláx, N* 'Evoqāp, Nº"? 'Eaw$4x). J. F. STENNING. SHOBAI (ºbi).-A family of gatekeepers, Ezr 2* (B 'Apaoſ, A Luc. Swgat) = Neh 7” (B >apel, A Xabal, Luc. Xopal). 508 SHOBAL SHOPHACH SHOBAL (97%).—1. A “son” of Seir the Horite, and one of the “dukes’ of the Horites, Gn 36”. * * (>w8áX)=1 Ch 198. " (BA Sofláx, Luc. Xov6áN). 2. A Calebite family in the tribe of Judah. This Shobal is called in 1 Ch 4” ” (BA Xougá\, Luc. Xw3áA) a ‘son’ of Judah, and in 2" (B >w8áp, A XagáX, Luc. Xaw34)” (BA 2008áX, Luc. Xagá) “son” of Caleb and ‘father’ of Kiriath -jearin. The name is probably to be connected, if not identified, with No. 1; see Wellh. de Gentibus, etc. 39. SHOBEK (prº; BA Xagik, Luc. Xaw3elp).— One of the chiefs of the people who sealed the covenant, Nell 1024 (25). SHOBI (ºbſ; Ošegget; Sobi).—From 2 S 17*. we learn that Shobi the son of Nahash of Rabbah of the children of Ammon, together with two other influential and wealthy landowners of the trans- Jordanic country, came to meet David, when he fled from Absalom, at Mahanaim, bringing with them large quantities of stores and provisions for the Israelite army. It seems, however, very doubtful whether such a person as Shobi ever existed. His name is not mentioned elsewhere, and it is difficult to reconcile this action on the art of a son of Nahash with the insults offered oy Hanun the son of Nahash, king of Ammon, to David’s ambassadors (2 S 101*), and with the sub- sequent war between Israel and Ammon, which resulted in the siege and capture of Rabbah. S. A. Cook (AJSL xviii. 3, p. 155 f.) suggests very plausibly that we should read ‘Nahash, etc., brought (ºrij Nºn), in place of ‘Shobi the son of Nahash,” etc. (ºnyl: 'ith). This emendation restores a natural construction to the verse at the expense of the words “Shobi son of ’: in its pres- ent form the construction is involved and un- usual (see Driver, ad loc.). If, however, Cook's emendation is accepted, it is difficult to resist his further contention that the section dealing with the Ammonite war (2 S 101–111 12**) has been misplaced, and that it should follow and not pre- cede chs. 13–20. J. F. STENNING. SHOE (by, na'al, gavčáXtov, Üróðmua).-The ma'al of the modern Arabic shoe means the sole, thus indicating the sandal character of the ancient Heb. na'al, usually tr. ‘shoe.” Similarly, the Gr. term Viróðmua means something tied on or under the foot, that is, a sandal. Sandals must have varied in material and appearance according to the station and occupation of the wearer, those of shepherds being strongly made as a protection against thorns and rocks, while those worn by women of rank would be of a lighter and more ornamental pattern (Ca, 7”). Cf. art. DRESS, vol. i. p. 627. The shoes of the present day in Syria exhibit various transition forms, from the single strap of leather or embroidered cloth over the toes, and the leather sheath for the front of the foot, to the complete upper in different colours of leather, and covering the whole foot. Sandals of the original form are still worn by Beda win and monks. Peasants when on a journey prefer to press down the leather at the heel-end of the shoe, and thus make them more loose and open, like the sandals of primitive times. In this way also the dust of the road can from time to time be shaken out without the trouble of removing the shoe. The act of repudiation mentioned in Mt 10”, Mk 6", Lk 9' 10", Ac 13", meant, along with the implied release from all moral responsibility, that the connexion thus dissolved was one of defilement find worthlessness. 1. Putting on and removal of shoes.—From the Oriental habit of sitting and moving about in the house with the feet uncovered, the possession of shoes became one of the essential requirements foa a journey, and the wearing of them one of the symbols of travel (Ex 12”). The Gibeonites drew attention to their feet bandaged with rags in order to keep their out-worn Sandals together and protect their feet (Jos 9°. "). A similar appearance is presented by Turkish troops at the present day when returning from a punitive expedition against the Arabs of the desert. In the parable of the Prodigal Son the absence of shoes is noted (Lk 15*). In the apostolic injunction to have the feet ‘shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace’ (Eph 6*), the symbol of travel is introduced among the leading truths of the Christian life, making progress one of the permanent features of the Christian Church. As Oriental peasant life has always been in villages and not in solitary houses, the shoes were constantly covered with dust and defiled with mud and refuse, and consequently were left at the door of the house. This custom, beginning with ordinary comfort and cleanliness, received a new emphasis when the entrance was into a house of prayer and into the presence of One who required cleanliness of heart. Hence the removal of the shoes on holy ground (Ex 3", Jos 5*, Is 20°, Ac 7*). The custom is still observed in Oriental churches and mosques. It was the inevitable result of such connexions that any reference to the shoe and the thong or latchet that passed through the sandal loops was one of implied inferiority and contempt (Mk 17, Jn 197, Ac 13”). “You are my shoe l’ ‘You are under my shoe l’ are exclamations of abuse often heard in the streets of Oriental villages and towns. 2. The shoe of witness (Dt 25%. 1", Ru 47 °).—From the latter passage we learn that it was an ancient custom in Israel, when property was sold or any right given up, to take off the sandal and hand it to the purchaser or the person to whom the right was transferred. In the former passage the hus- band's brother allows his sandal to be taken off by the widow, who at the same time reproaches him both by act and word for renouncing an honourable privilege and duty. The removal of the shoe |. a sort of documentary evidence. The bossession of one shoe by the widow was to her #. a bill of divorce to a betrothed or married woman, setting her free to marry another; and the possession of the corresponding shoe by the man remained his protective proof that all claims had been formally settled. - 3. ‘Upon Edom will I cast my shoe” (Ps 60°= 1089). —From the context the leading idea in this expression appears to be that of taking possession of or claiming as one's own. Possibly the casting of the shoe upon a piece of land may have been a legal symbol, similar to that considered above, of a claim to ownership. Or the meaning may be, “ Unto Edom do I cast my shoe,’ Edom being then represented as the slave to whom his master tosses his sandals (see Driver, Par. Psalt. p. 169). Duhm also suggests that the allusions to Edom and Moab are designedly contemptuous, the latter being represented as a washing-basin for the feet, while }. is thought of as a kind of corner into which dirty shoes may be cast. The ‘shoes” (AV and I&V m) of Dt 33” should be ‘bolts' or ‘bars’ (RV). The Heb. is ºwyp (cf. Şıyıp of Ca 5%, Neh 39.0, 18. 14.1%). G. M. MACKIE. SHOHAM (prieſ [on this word see art. ONYX]; B 'Igoúp, A ’Iagoóp, Luc. 'Iegorép). —A Merarite, 1 Ch 24*7. - SHOMER.—1. 1 Ch 732, 2. 2 IK 129". See SH IMEATH. SHOPHACH.-See SHORACII. See SHEMER, No. 3, SHOSHANNIM SHUMATHITES 509 SHOSHANNIM, SHOSHANNIM EDUTH.—See PSALMS, p. 155". SHOWEL.—1. [v], only in plur. D'yº (from root Fly' = “sweep together,’ with collat, idea of carrying away, Is 28" [only]), occurs 9 times (Ex 27° 38°, Nu 414 [all P], 1 K 740. 19, 2 K 2514, 2 Ch 41.1%, Jer 52*), always in a list of utensils belonging to the tabernacle or the temple. There is no reason to doubt that shovels for removing the ashes from the altar are meant (cf. AV m note at Jer 52*). The LXX has in 1 K 740, 40 (20.31) Uspa 40-rosiº (‘tongs or pincers' for taking hold of hot metal or coals), in 2 K 2514 it transliterates lºgosºv (so I3; A strangely iu.6%tto.). In the other passages of the LXX either the Heb, word is not represented at all, or it is difficult to say what stands for it in the Gr. text, which differs from the MT both in the order and in the number of utensils mentioned. 2. nnn Is 30” [only]. This stands for the broad, shallow winnowing shovel (the irrijov of Mt 3”, Lk 317; cf. the use of the Gr. word [not found in LXX] in Hom. Il. xiii. 588; Aeschyl. Fr. 194; Sophocl. Fr. 931 ; Theocr. vii. 156) with which corn after threshing was thrown up against the wind to clear it of the chaff. It is to be distin- guished from the Tp (Arab. midrā) mentioned along with it in Is 30% (elsewhere only Jer, 157 fig. of winnowing, i.e. chastising, the people),” which was a fork with 5 or 6 prongs, used in the process of winnowing, along with the nºn, in the way described in art. AGRICULTURE, vol. i. p. 51", where both instruments are figured (cf. Wetzstein ap. Del. Jes.” 707 ff.). The EV of Is 30% would therefore be improved by reading ‘winnowed with the shovel and with the fork’ for ‘winnowed with the shovel and with the fan.’ The word ‘fan,’ which is misleading at best, ought, if retained in our version at all, to be used for nºn, not for Tºp. J. A. SELBIE. SHREWD.—Sir 819 only, “Open not thine heart to every man, lest he requite thee with a shrewd turn' (kai wº divaſhepéra oot xàptu : the sense, says Bissell, is given correctly by AV, xáptu meaning here “an ill turn'; but I.V renders literally, “And let him not return thee a favour.” [Is ‘shrewd a tr. of pewóñ, which is read before x&pty in some good MSS and by the Lat. falsam gratiam 3). The Eng. word ‘shrewd' is a participial adj. meaning “malicious, originally the ptop. of shrewen, to curse. The verb ghrewen was formed from the subst. ‘shrew,’ an Anglo-Sax. word, meaning a scolding or cursing person, usually a woman. In Shaks. ‘shrewd' has the general sense of “bad”; it is applied to the contents of a paper, to news, to days and nights. The modern sense of ‘clever' perhaps occurs in Troil. and Cress. I. ii. 200–$ He has a shrewd wit, I can tell you.’ But the usual meaning is ‘sharp-tongued,’ ‘shrewish,’ as in Match Ado, IL. i. 20, ‘Thou wilt never get thee a husband, if thou be so shrewd of thy tongue.’ The expression in Sirach (a ‘shrewd turn') occurs in All's Well, III. v. '71 and Henry VIII. V. iii. 178. So Latimer, Seven Sermons, 06, ‘The greatest man in a realme can not so hurte a judge as the poore wyddow, suche a shrewede turne she can do him. J. HASTINGS. SHRINE.-See under DIANA, vol. i. p. 606". SHROUD.—Coming from the Anglo-Sax, scrud, a garment (connected with shred, as a portion town off for some purpose), “shroud' meant originally any piece of clothing. Thus Piors Plowman, Piol. 2– “I shone me in shroudes as I a shepe ſ = shepherd] were, In habite as an heremite unholy of workes’; * The vorb Nini in the sense of “fan,’ ‘winnow,” “sift,' occurs (in Qal and Piel) as follows: Ru 39, Is 30° 4110 (mountains as object), Jer 411 (ſg. of purification, | haſ') 157 (fig., see albove), Ps 1303 (fig., “thou siftest [or winnowest, i.e. scrutinizest nar- rowly] my path and my couch,'-Driver, Par. Psalt. ad loc.). Elsewhere the root has the sense of ‘scatter,” “disperse' (Qal, Piel) or “be scattered” (Niph., Pual). and Chapman, Odysseys, vi. 274– “Give my nakedness Some shroud to shelter it, if to these seas Linen or woollen you have brought to cleanse.” But the meaning was soon restricted to clothing for the dead, a winding-sheet. So usually in * , 2 2 tº tº ps Shaks., as Love's Labour's Lost, v. ii. 479– “Die when you will, a smock shall be your shroud.” There was, however, a side application of the word, to express covering or shelter of any kind. Thus Milton, Comus, 147— “Run to your shrouds, within these brakes and trees ; and PL x. 1067— ‘The winds Blow moist and lºeen, shattering the graceful locks Of these fair spreading trees: which bids us seek Some better shroud, some better warmth to cherish Our limbs benumb’d.” This is the meaning of the word in Ezk 31°, its only occurrence in AV, ‘Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud’ (Heb. ºn, a thicket or forest ; LXX omits; Vulg. from dibus memorosus). J. HASTINGs. SHUA (whº).-The father of Judah’s Canaanite wife, Gm 38” “ (A Xava, Luc. 200e), who appears º 1 Ch 2" (RV) as Bath-shua (B 0uyármp Ajas, . . . Xavas, Luc. . . . 20%). SHUAH (nºt). — A son of Abraham and Keturah, Gn 25°, 1 Ch 1” (A Swiſe, Luc. Xode, B in latter passage 20e). The tribe represented by this name may perhaps be the Suchu of the cuneiform in- scriptions, on the right bank of the Euphrates south of Carchemish (so Dillm., Holzinger, et al.). BILDAD the Shuhite ("IRºn) of Job 2" (6 Xavyatov. Túpavvos) 8° 18'25'42" (6 Xavy(e)ltms) is prob. intended to be thought of as belonging to this tribe. SHUAL (ºw; B XovXá, A XováA, Luc. Xováv).— An Asherite, 1 Ch 7”. SHUAL, THE LAND OF (ºw ºns ‘the land of the jackal’; 13 # 20 yd), Luc. # yń XoyáA).—When the Tºhilistines encamped at Michmash, they sent out three foraging parties. One of these “turned unto the way that leadeth to Ophrah, unto the land of Shual” (1 S 13”). Another party went westward towards Beth-horon, and the third apparently east- ward toward the wilderness. The road to Ophrah must have run northward between the last two routes, and the ‘land of Shual’ must consequently have been to the north of Michmash (Mukhmas), and not far from Ophrah, which is very generally identified with the village ct-Taiyibeh, to the east of Bethel (PEI” Mcm. ii. 293). C. W. WILSON. SHUBAEL.—See SHEBUEL. SHUHAH (nºt). — A brother of Chelub (i.e. CALEB), 1 Ch 49*. Instead of “Chelub the brother of Shuhah,’ LXX BA read XaX&p trarjip 'Aaxd, “Caleb, father of Ascha, ' (i.e. A cus Ali, Jos 15'9", Jg 1*, 1 Ch 2"); Luc. has XaX&p 6 déexpós Sová. SHUHAM (Dºc).-A son of Dan, Nu 26° (B Sauet, Sapaetóñ, F Saput, Luc. Xapaé), called in Gn 46* HUSHIM. The gentilic name Shuhamites (pºu'ſ ; 13 & Xapel, A & Saueiðml, lº & Xapal, Luc. 6 Xapel) also occurs in Nu 26*. SHUHITE. –See SHUAIſ. SHULAMMITE.—See SONG OF SONGS. SHUMATHITES ("nººn ; B 'Haapa delu, A 'Hoaua. 510 SHUNAMIMITE SHUSHAN 6elv, Luc. & Xapabl). — One of the families of Kiriath-jearim, I Ch. 2”. . Nothing is known of this family, or the origin of its name. SHUNAMMITE.-See next article. SHUNEM (nºw) ; in Joshua B Xovváv, A. Xovváu, Luc. 2vviſ, ; in 1 Sam. B and Luc. 2014 v, A Twvapāv; in 2 Kings B Xoup.4v, B*** Luc. 2004v, A* * 2wvág, Aº Xuwpidu). — A place-name men- tioned three times in the OT (Jos 1918, 1 S 28°, 2 K 4°). In Joshua it is named in the enumeration of the towns and villages belonging to Issachar. Eusebius-Jerome identify it with a village 5 Roman miles south of Tabor, in their time called 20vXàu (Lag. Onon.” pp. 183, 284). There is still a hamlet in this same locality named Súlem or Sólam. It lies on the slopes of Jebel Dahi, the hill which faces Jezreel from the north. It looks across to Gilboa, which bounds the southern side of the valley that lies at the foot of Jebel Dahi. It has therefore been identified with the camping- ground of the Philistines before their victory over Šami (1 S 28"). Saul's army is supposed to have occupied the ground at the foot of Gilboa. If so, the valley lay between the hostile armies. . It runs eastward from Jezreel (Zer'ān) to the Jordan. Shunem is almost at its N.W. extremity. The district is described in Robinson, BIRP. iii. 168 ft. There is precedent for distinguishing the Shunem of 2 K 48 from that already identified. Eusebius-Jerome say it was a place in the territory of Sebaste (Samaria), iv Špiot; S., within the district of Akrabatta (Lag. Onom.2 pp. 184, 285). They give Sanim as the later name. If Akrabatta is the ‘toparchy.’ earlier known as part of Judaea, lying considerably south-east of Samaria, it is too far from Carmel to be very probable. But even Sólam is not within the easy reach of Carmel implied by v.22ſ. The statement that Elisha frequently passed Shunen (y.9) gives more help than any other in determining its situa- tion. It seems to imply that Shunem was a Fº near his home or on the direct road to a locality which he frequented. Now Samaria was Elisha's home (632 53.9, cf., 225), and Carmel appears to have been a favourite resort and the destination of his journeys when he passed through Shunem (423, cf. 229). But Sólam is 8 or 9 hours from Samaria, and decidedly off the road from there to Carmel. The claim of Sanim should there- fore perhaps be left open. Whether it was near Samaria or not, if it lay on the way to Carmel the situation would be more appropriate than that of Sólam. Near Taanach a place Sálim is marked on the maps. It is not far from the eastern ex- tremity of Carmel, and might be made a stopping-place on the way from Samaria. An inhabitant of Shunem is a Shumammite (nº nºw ; B 260p.ave?rus, A (in Kings generally) 20upav- trms, Luc. 20pavirus), perhaps also called a Shulam- mite (see SONG OF SONGS, p. 532"). The vowel of the second syllable is in both cases a, as it is in the oldest spellings of the place-name also (LXX and the Egyptian transcription Shanama. [Shanmål given by W. M. Müller, Asien u. Europa, p. 170). The interchange of the l and the n is further ex- emplified in the modern name Sôlam compared with Shunem. The former may be a variant which existed even in biblical times. Two women are designated Shunammites in the Old Testament. One is ABISIIAG (1 K 1* * 217. 91. 29). The other is simply named ‘the Shunammite' (2 K 4” ”, *). She is one of those who play a part in the history of ELISHA (2 K 4” 81-0). #. own history is interesting as a picture of domestic and social life, and particularly as an example of the position a Hebrew woman might occupy at the head of a household. Her power of initiative and freedom to act are prominent features in the narrative. It would almost appear as if she were proprietor of the land which belonged to the family, or perhaps rather an heiress Who liad brought wealth to her husband (4° ‘a great woman,’ cf. 1 S.25°, 2 K 4”8%). It has been supposed that by the date of the events recorded in ch. 8 she was a widow. Even in these circumstances her in- dependence is notable. W. B. STEVENSON. SHUNI ("Ac). —A son of Gad, Gn 4610 (A Savvis, D and Luc. Xavvels), Nu 26*(*) (B Xovvet, AF Xovvi, Luc. 20vvl). The gentilic name Shunites ('yūji-) also occurs in the latter passage. SHUPHAM, SHUPHAMITES, SHUPPIM.–See MUPPIM and SHEPHUPHAM. SHUR (nic); LXX usually Xoup, but Gn 258 Sounx, 1 S. 15” Aao'oup, 27° a confused doublet -youp Tereuxur- Mévov).-The name of a place, or district, on the N.E. border of Egypt. It is mentioned Gn 167 (where the angel #. Hagar ‘by the fountain on the way to Shur’), 20' (Abraham dwelt “between Kadesh and Shur, and sojourned in Gerar’), 25* (the Ishmaelites dwelt ‘from Havilah—prob. N.E. Arabia—unto Shur that is in front of—i.e. east of —Egypt”; cf. 1 S 157 278), and Ex 15” (where the Israelites, after the passage of the Red Sea, go out into ‘the wilderness of Shur,’ i.e. the wilderness bordering upon it). The ‘way to Shur’ was no doubt the principal caravan route leading from Hebron in: IBeersheba into Egypt, and having close to it (Gn 16”) the well Beer-lahai-roi. Though the general position of Shur is thus clear, the precise meaning of the expression is, however, uncertain. A line of fortresses, if not, as others think, an actual wall (anbu), had been built at a very early date, as a defence against invaders from the East ; * and as the Heb. Tº means a wall, it has been often thought that this is what the term denotes. Others, starting from the same meaning of ‘Shur,’ have supposed it to denote a long range of white cliffs, running parallel with the coast, some 12–14 miles E. of the Gulf of Suez, now called Jebel er-Rálhah, which at a distance presents the appearance of a wall (so F. W. Holland in Recovery of Jerus. 527; Porter in Kitto, iii. 1079 f.; Palmer, Desert of Eacodus, i. 38 f., and others): it is said, indeed, that this range is still called by the Arabs Jebel es-Sūr (Rowlands in Williams’ Holy City, i. 465). It is, however, some objection to both these views that nºw is an Aramaic (Ezr 4* * *) rather than a Heb. word (it occurs in Heb. only in poetry, and there but rarely, Gn 49*, Ps 18*=2S 22"), and also that it has not the art. (as is usual with topographical terms possessing an appellative force, e.g. Tºyſ, jīnyn). The most important of the border fortresses referred to above was Taº-ru (Tor), the Selle of the classical writers, often mentioned as the starting- oint of military expeditions (Ebers, l.c. 80 f.; Maspero, l.c. 75 [map), 201 m. 4, and esp. Struggle of the Nations, 122 f., 370, 371 f.;: Erman, 537), now Tell Abū-Séfell, 20 miles S. of Port Said ; and W. M. Müller (PSBA x. [1888], 476, As. w. Eur. 102) would identify this fortress with Shur, supposing ‘Shur’ (wall) to be its original name, represented in Egyp. by Ta-ru (Tor).S S. R. DRIVER, SHUSHAN (lºw), Xojoa, Xovgåv).—The Susa (Ad. Est 11°) of the Greeks, now Sus or Shush in S.W. Persia, between the Shapur and the river * Maspero, Dawn of Civil. 351 f. It is mentioned in the Flight of Sinuhit, under Usertesen I. (B.G. 2758–2714, Petrie); ibid. 469 m., 471 ; Petrie, #. Tales, i. 100 f.; W. M. Müller, A8, w. I'wr. 43 f.; Sayce, HICM 203; Hogarth, Awth. and Arch. 57 f. See also Ebers, Aeg. u. die Bb. Mose's, 78-82; Trumbull, Hadesh-Barnea, 44 f. The names and destinations of persons passing these fortresses were taken down by officers: see Erman, Life in Amcient Egypt, 537 f.; Hogarth, l.c. 00. # Brugsch, Hist, of Egypt, ed. 1891, p. 97 ; Sayce, EIIII 187; Trumbull, 40, 57. Dillm. also thinks it probable. f With representations (from Karnak) of Seti I. returning to it in triumph after his Syrian expedition, in the course of which he is said to have annihilated the Shasu (Bedawin) ‘from the fortress of Ta-ru, as far as Pa-Kan'ana' [prob, a little S. of IIebron] (Brugsch, l.c. 24.4; Hogarth, 58). § Hommel conjectures that Shur is abbreviated from A'shūr § Gn 25%), the name of a tribe mentioned by the side of Egypt and Gaza) in two Minayan inscriptions (A IIT' 238–45, 249, 252, 253). But see ICônig, I'ilmf mewe arab. Landschaftsmannen, 17 f. SHUSHAN SIBRAIM 511 of Dizful (the ancient Koprates). It was for many centuries the capital of Elam, and after- wards one of the three capitals of the Persian empire, and is sometimes described as standing on the Choaspes (Hdt. v. 49 ; Strab. xv. 3. 4), Sometimes, on the Eulaeus (Arr. Earp. Alea’. vii. 7; Ptol. vi. 3; Plin. HN vi. 27). This was due to the fact that the Choaspes (now the Ker- khah) originally bifurcated at Pai Pul, 20 miles above Susa, its right branch following its present course, while the left branch flowed east of Susa, absorbing the Shapur 12 miles to the South and afterwards joining the Pasitigris (now the Karun). The ruins of Susa were excavated by Williams and Loftus in 1851–1852, and more re- cently by Dieulafoy and de Morgan. They covered a space about 6000 ft. long from E. to W., by 4500 ft. broad from N., to S. ... The greater part of them, however, cover the buildings of the Persian, not of the Elamite, city. On the west is the high mound which marks the site of the Elamite cita- del. East of it are the remains of the palace of Darius Hystaspis, and immediately to th. north the ruins of §. Apadana, or audience-chamber, also the work of Darius, which was restored by Artaxerxes Longimanus after a fire, and again by Artax. Mnemon. The walls of the Apadana and palace were adorned with exquisite friezes of enam- elled brick, much of which is now in the Louvre. Susa is probably referred to in Bab. documents of the age of the second dynasty of Ur (c. B.C. 2400) under the name of Sas and Sisa, which is stated to be a city of Elam, but the native name was Susun. This seems to be connected with the words suse-ti and Sassa, which in the older and later Susian dialects signified ‘former,’ and so would mean ‘the old’ city. In the early days of Bab. history, however, the chief city of Elam was not Susa, but Anzan. Already in B.C. 2285, Kudur-Nankhundi, king of Elam, carried away the image of the goddess Nana from Erech to Susa. Susa, however, has been shown by the recent exca- vations of de Morgan to have still been at this time a province of Babylonia, inhabited by a Semitic population. It was not until after the rise of the Kassite Dynasty in Babylonia that the kings of Anzan made themselves masters of it. From this time forward Susa was the capital of the non - Semitic Elamite sovereigns, many of whose names have been recorded in the inscrip- tions of Babylonia as well as in those of Elam itself. These latter, though written in the Bab. cuneiform characters, are in the agglutinative lan- guage of Elam, which was closely allied to the Amardian or Neo-Susian dialect of the second column of the Achaemenian inscriptions, and is still but partially deciphered. About B.C. 647, after a long and desperate struggle, the Elamite forces were annihilated by the Assyr. army of Assurbanipal, and Susa was captured and razed to the ground. The images of its gods and kings were taken to Assyria, and the monuments of its former princes were destroyed, the bones of their occupants being scattered to the winds. When Susa rose again from its ashes we do not know ; Xenophon (Cyr. viii. 6. 22) and Strabo (xv. 3. 2) state that Cyrus made it his capital (see also Hat. iii. 30.65, 70); but its palace, according to inscriptions found on the site, was built by Darius Hystaspis. In Dn 8” the prophet is said to have had a vision “at ś the palace’ in ‘the third year of Bel- shazzar,’ but Belshazzar never actually reigned over Babylonia. An account of the palace in the time of Xerxes is given in Est 1°7. When Susa was entered by Alexander the Great, he found in it twelve millions sterling and the Persian regalia. (Arr. Eap. Alea’. iii. 16). After the rise of the kingdom of the Seleucids, Susa gradually fell into decay, being superseded by Babylon and Seleucia. When the kingdom of the Sassanids was conquered by the Arabs, the site of Susa was finally deserted. (Loftus, Chaldaea and Susiana, 1857; Dieulafoy, La Perse, la Chaldée et la Susiane, 1887, L’Acropole de Suse, 1890; Billerbeck, Susa, 1893; de Morgan, Délégation en Perse, vol. ii., containing the Semitic inscriptions found at Susa, edited by Scheil, 1900). A. H. SAYCE. SHUSHANCHITES (Nºvº); B >ovovyaxalot, A Xovo avaxatov).—The Shushanchites or inhabitants of SHUSHAN (Susa) are mentioned in Ezr 4" amongst the colonists settled by OSNAPPAR (Assurbanipal) in Samaria (cf. ICAT’’ 375 f. , 610 f.). SHUSHAN EDUTH.—See PsALMs, p. 155°. SHUTHELAH (nºnw; B XovráXa in Numbers, 2004Xa6 in 1 Chronicles; A 600 ovgåXa and 0ov- oróXa in Numbers, Xa,04\a and 2004Xe in 1 Chron- icles; Vulg. Suthala ; gentilic name Shuthelah- ites inhniºn; B 6 Sovra)\ael, A & Govoraxat). —In Nu 26” (P) Shuthelah, Becher, and Tahan are given as the clans of Ephraim, and lºran as a ‘son’ or subdivision of Shuthelah. In the LXX Becher is omitted, Tahan becomes Tanach, and Eran (iny) becomes Eden (Ty). The parallel passage 1 Ch 7” has been variously altered and expanded ; instead of a list of three co-ordinate clans and one subdivision, MT has a genealogy beginning with Ephraim and extending to Joshua, into which is inserted an episode concerning certain descendants of Ephraim (for which see BERIAH). Instead of Shuthelah, Becher, and Tahan as clans of Ephraim we have Shuthelah as the son, Bered the grand- son, Tahath the great-grandson of Ephraim. As the genealogy proceeds the names repeat them- Selves. There is a second Shuthelah, and the “and Telah' (nºm) of v.” is probably a torso of a third. Tahath occurs again in v.”, and Tahan of v.” is a variant of Tahath. Eleadah and Elead (v.”) are variants of the same name ; Zabad is a variant of ‘and Bered.” Ladan (iny") may be a variant of Elead (Tylºs), and also represent the ‘to Eran' (iny”) of Numbers. Thus in v.” ‘Shuthelah . . Eleadah,” (v.”*) “[Tahath] . . Elead,” (v.”) “[Shu]Tſh]elah . . . Ladan,’ we seem to have three versions of the same genealogy variously supple- mented, all three, perhaps, ultimately based on Nu 2690-97, combined § Some other source, in which Ezer and Elead were subdivisions of the clan Shuthelah. Cf. GENEALOGY, VII. 4. LXX B has for v.20f. “And the sons of Ephraim : Sothalath. The Sons of Laada, Noome his son, Zabed his son, the men of Gath,” etc. The omissions may be due to the carelessness of scribes, but it is also possible that the names onlitted by LXX were a very late addition to MT. W. H. BENNETT. SHUTTLE.—Only Job 70 “My days are swifter than a weaver's shuttle’ (ITN, prop. ‘loom '; cf. Jg 16* [the only other occurrence of the Heb. word] and Moore's note there). See art. WEAVING. SIA (Nºt), Neh 7", or SIAHA (Nºt), Ezr 2* = The name of a family of Nethinin (called in 1 Es 5* SUA) who returned with Zerubbabel. LXX in Neh 747 : B 'Azović, A Socić, N 'Iolorović, Luc. 'Ialoios; in Ezr 244: B Xoºx, Avid 'Aro.6., Luc. 'Iwo ſo.s. SIBBECAI.-See MERUNNAI. SIBBOLETH.—See SHIBBOLETII. SIBMAH (nºny; Segapá, in Jer, woepnua; Sabama Sibama).-See SEIAM. SIBRAIM (Dºnip; B >egpáp, A Seºpáp, Q Xeºpaip. ; 512 SICCUTH SIGN Sabarim).-One of the points on the ideal northern boundary of the Holy Land, described by Ezekiel, was to be ‘Sibrain which is between the border of Damascus and the border of Hamath' (Ezk 47"). Its site is uncertain. Von Kasteren (13uhl, 67) would identify it plausibly with Khurbet Som- bariye, between Merj'Ayyun and Hermon. C. W. WILSON. SICCUTH.—See CHIUN and REPHAN. SICKLE stands in EW of OT for two Heb. words, the distinction between which is not ap- parent.—1. vºlſ. Dt 16° 23*; 2. ºp (cf. Aram. magaltă, Arab, manºjal) Jer 50 (27)", Jl 4 (3) * (fig. of judgment). The LXX in all these pas- sages has 6péravov, which is also the NT word for ‘sickle” (Mk 429, Rev 1414, 15. 16, 17. 18 vis, 19). See, further, art. AGRICULTURE, and ſig, in vol. i. p. 50". SICYON (Xukvěv, Xvkvěv, or Xvkudºv).—This name occurs in a list of places in 1 Mac 15*, to which Lucius, the consul, on behalf of the IRomans, wrote (B.C. 139) to beg them to be friendly to the Jews, and to deliver up to Simon the high priest an fugitives from the Jews that had taken refuge wº, them. All the places mentioned in this passage were constantly visited by the trading vessels from Syria on their way to Italy. The matter of the letter is most probably authentic, though the form cannot be correct. Sicyon is a town on the Gulf of Corinth, a few miles to the N.W. of Corinth. The name seems to mean ‘ cucumber-town.” The town stood ori- ginally on the shore with an acropolis above it, and this latter formed the town in the time of the Maccabees. In their time it was always to be found on the side of the Romans, and the direction of the Isthmian games was assigned by them to the inhabitants of Sicyon, though afterwards they were deprived of it. It º to have been the centre of Roman power for that part of the world. H. A. REDPATH. SIDDIM, WALE OF (pºlyn pry; LXX # pápay; (or kot)\ds) # &Avkſ ; Onk. Sam. vale of fields [i.e. D'Tiyūj; on Aq. Theod. see l'ield. The meaning of D'ſ: is obscure ; a connexion with Arab. Sidd, ‘dam,” ‘mound’ (Conder, Tent Work,208), is very doubtful). —The place in which the kings of the five cities of the '...}}. joined battle with Chedorlalomer and his allies (Gn 14**); said in v.4% to be full of wells of BITUMEN (which see). In v.” it is identified with the Salt Sea, ; but this (if the entire sea is meant) is geologically impossible; for the DEAD SEA existed ages before the time of Abraham : either therefore the clause v.” is a late and in- correct gloss, or the reference (if the narrative is historical) is to the shallow S. part of the Dead Sea (from the peninsula el-Lisām S.-wards), where, in the time of Abraham, there may have been dry land. This view, already allowed by Nöldeke in 1869, has also been adopted by the two geologists who have written most recently upon the subject. Blanckenhorn, in an elaborate geological study ‘On the Origin and History of the Dead Sea.” v2. DPV, 1896, 1–59), says (pp. 51–53) that to the ‘critical geologist the matter is “extremely simple': at the beginning of the post-glacial period what is now the shallow S. part of the Dead Sea. was fertile soil (like the present Ghor es-Safiyeh, at its S. E. corner [see ZOAR]); but an earthquake took place, which caused a subsidence of the ground, and overthrew all the cities except Zoar ; the ‘Vale of Siddim ' was engulphed by the S. |. of the Dead Sea, and the site of the four cities ecame the present Saline morass (6 m. broad by 10 long), es-Sebkha,” S. of the Dead Sea ; h a tradi- * The word ‘Sebkha' means 8alt and watery ground. t Against the view that these cities were at the North end of tion of this prehistoric event is preserved in Gn 19, where it is connected with t; history of Lot. I3]anckenhorn considers that this earthquake was “telºtonic,” i.e. connected with a dislocation of the earth’s crust, taking place at a ‘fault' (such as ass along both the E. and the W. sides of the Dead Sea).” Diener, in a criticism of his article,'" while agreeing that it was an earthquake which destroyed the four cities, regards it not as ‘tektonic,” but rather as a local subsidence, accom- panied by an effusion of underground water, which may well have taken place in the age of Abraham (pp. 13–16, 22); as a parallel he quotes the earth- Quake near Lake Baikal (in Central Asia) in 1862, which broke up a large area of the adjacent alluvial soil, so that it sank, and the lake covered it. Blanckenhorn in his reply (ZDPV, 1898, H. 2, pp. 65–83) maintains (pp. 70–76) that this view is improbable, and inconsistent with the fact that all the conditions for a “tektonic’ earthquake are present in the Jordan Valley; and he supports his opinion by quotations from two high geological authorities, Süss and Hörmes. Which of these two views is the more probable, a writer who is no geologist is naturally not in a position to say ; perhaps some one º conversant with the geology of the district could explain whether it might not be possible to combine them, or, in other words, to suppose that the ‘tektonic ’ dislocation, producing the broader features of the S. end of the Dead Sea, took lº at the beginning of the post- glacial period, while the local subsidence, producing the submergence of the ‘Vale of Siddim under the present lagoon, and overthrowing the four cities, may have followed long afterwards, in the days of Abraham.j: S. R. DRIVER, SIDE (>167; Side).—One of the towns to which the Roman Senate sent letters in favour of Simon Maccabaeus and the Jews (1 Mac 15*). It was colonized by Cyme, surrendered to Alexander, be- came the chief port of the pirates, who used it as a market to dispose of their plunder, and was an important town under the Roman emperers. It was closely connected with Aradus in 1°hoenicia, and the men of Side apd Aradus fought side by side in the fleet of Antiochus the Great when it was defeated by the Ithodians off the harbour of Side. The town occupied a low triangular pro- montory on the coast of Pamphylia. It had two harbours, and was strongly fortified. The ruins, now known as Eski Adalia, are about 10 miles east of the Koupri Su, the river Eurymedon, and are extensive and interesting. They include the remains of a very large theatre, the city walls and their gates, temples, a nymphaeum, streets with covered porticoes, etc. (Murray, IIbk. to Asia Minor, p. 173). J. W. WILSON. SIDON, SIDONIANS.—See ZIDON, ZIDONIANS. SIGN (n\N, a muetov, signum) is used throughout the Bible of any symbol or token, but more especi- ally of such as mark the relation of man to God and the providential care which God lavishes upon men. The rainbow was the first sign of this (Gn 91%) as the token of a Divine covenant. The Jews, from the beginning of their chequered history, counted themselves God’s chosen people ; and the Dead Sea, see vol. iii. p. 151a, b, and art. Z9AR ; it is at the S.W. corner of the Dead Sea, also, that, according to Blancken- horn (pp. 50, 53, and Proſll iv, in Tafel iv.), bituinen deposità (cf. Gn i410) are particularly abundant. * See Blanckenhorn's Geol. map. # Mitth. der kais. köm. Geogr. Ges. in Wiem, 1897, pp. 1-22. t Prof. Hull does not seem either in his 1°10'1" Memoir on the Geol. of Arabia, Petraea and Palestime or in Mount Seir (pp. 100 ft., 133) to have discussed the special question of the forma- tion of the Sebkha. Iłlanckenhorn (1898, p. 75) denies that it is a purely alluvial formation. SIGNET" SIHON 513 wººl *& sº- circumcision was the sign of the covenant relation in which a Jew stood to the God of Abraham (Gn 17”, Ro 4*). Living under the direct rule of J", they looked for signs of His power and pledges of His care at every crisis of their fortunes. Such were the plagues of Egypt (Ex 10°); such was the visitation vouchsafed to Gideon (Jg 617); such were the events by which Saul was assured of his future dignity as king (1 S 107). The prophets frequently allege their forecasts of the future as signs that their message is from J" (Is 744 387, Jer 44*, Ezk 14*). St. Paul’s observation that ‘Jews ask for signs’ (I Co., 1*) is abundantly illustrated by the Gospels (Mt. 1298 16, Lk 11.10: 29, Jn 4*); they demanded of Christ credentials of His authority to speak in the name of God. It will be observed that a sign need not necessarily be miraculous (see 1 S 2", and esp. Is 8* 20° where the expression sign and wonder is applied to events which were only extraordinary because unexpected); the dis- tinction between natural and supernatural pheno- mena was not clearly conceived by the simple piety of the Jews." But (although John did no sign, Jn 10") a sign is closely associated with the idea. of prophetical prediction and warning. That was the motive of º sign of Jonah (Mt 12*). A sign was given to the shepherds (Llº 2°); Simeon de- clared that Jesus Himself was els a muetov &vri)\eyó- pºevou (Lk 2"). Christ's miraculous works are spoken of all through St. John's Gospel as His signs (Jn 3° 4” etc.); they are the signs of one who declares “His almighty power most chiefly in showing mercy and pity.’ So signs were wrought in His name by the apostles (Mk 16”, Ac 4"), by Stephen (Ac 6°), and by Philip (Ac 8% "); and the Signs of an pºstle are claimed by St. Paul (2 Co 12”, cf. Ac 15°). And, though we may not recog- nize them when they come, the end of the present dispensation shall be ushered in by signs (Mt 24", Lk 2129, 2 Th 29, Rev 12, 1318 15, 1614 1920). To seek a sign is not necessarily a mark of faithlessness (see Jn 6”); on the contrary, faith will naturally look for such tokens of the §. protection. It is the demand for prodigies, tépata, which is the mark of an ill-instructed and undisciplined mind (Jn 4*). See MIRACLE, NATURE. J. H. BERNARD. SIGNET.-In the early days of civilization the art of writing was practically limited to a class of pro- fessional scribes. Every one outside that class, from the king downwards, needed a signet to authenticate the documents with which he was concerned. Hero- dotus, i. 195, says of the Babylonians, org/pmºyöa Śē ékagros éxet. An immense number of these seals have come down to us, Egypt and Assyria, being the two great sources from which, directly or by imitation, the leading types have been derived. One of the earliest and most persistent forms is that of the scarab, originating in Egypt, but imi- tated by the Phoenicians and others. These scarabs were often made of clay or steatite, and bore the owner's name on the flat side. Another very early variety is the Assyrian and Babylonian cylinder of jasper, chalcedony, or other stone, # of an inch to iš inches long and from $ inch to 1 in diam., pierced longitudinally, and worn on a linen or woollem cord round the neck. Ball (JLight from the East, p. 24) figures some of these, which are said to range from D.C. 4500 downwards. The name of the owner and of the deity whom he specially. Worshipped were engraved on them ; sacred emblems and scenes are also common, such as a god slaying a lion, a tree guarded by genii. Comical signets, with the device on the broad end and the attachment at the top, * At Ex 70 the LXX translates nºb a wonder, by ornºzsiov, show- ing that there was no very sharp distinction between oºzilov and Tipo, ; ; cf. also Llr 238. See Trench, Miracles, pp. 1–6, for the subject of this article. VOL. IV.-33 have also come down to us from very early ages. Amongst what are classified as ‘Hittite” gems there are several other shapes; some almost hemi- spherical, with hole near the top; some nearly annular; a few stone rings ; tablets with a device on the lower side ; lenticular gems; square or polygonal tablets, with a design on each side seals with handles. Some very ancient Greek signets are gold rings with large bezels, on which are designs that originated in Assyria, or Egypt, In the AEgean Islands and elsewhere engraved beam-shaped pebbles of various materials have been found, to which the names ‘island’ or ‘lenticular ’ gems were given. The signets found in Palestine are mainly oval in form. Such of them as bear a device, in addition to a name, are either of Phoen. workmanship or imitations thereof. And the Phoe- nicians themselves were under the influence of Babylonian or Egyptian craftsmen. Amongst the designs may be mentioned the Phoenician palm- leaf, a border of pomegranates, a bull, a worshipper whose attire reminds us of the Egyptian priests, a winged circle. The matter on which the signet was pressed was wax or prepared clay. There is &Lll ºil. to the latter at Job 38", and excellent illustrations are to be found in the photographs of jar-sealings given by Flinders Petrie in Boyal Tombs of the First Dynasty. Judah’s signet (Dºn, nºnh Gn 3818. *) is worn by a cord (ºniº) round his neck, as the inhabitants of the Arabian towns wear their seal-rings still. He gives it as a pledge, because it was the one thing which could be proved to belong to him, and would serve to identify him. Pharaoh (Gn 41*) took off his signet-ring (ngap) from his hand and put it on J oseph's ; it was the Egyptian custom to wear the signet on the finger (cf. Jer 22*). Joseph was now enabled to sign decrees on behalf of the king. Jer 22*, Hag 2*, Sir 17° 49* indicate the value of the rings in question. Sir 38” shows that in the 2nd cent. before Christ the seal engravers must have occupied a prominent place amongst the artisans of the day. 2 Ti 2" refers either to the two in- scriptions which were sometimes engraved on two sides of a seal, or to the authentication of a docu- ment by each party aſfixing his signature. Such passages as 2 Es 2*, To 9% imply that the signet was used as a mark of proprietorship. When Darius (IOn 617) seals the den with his own signet (spy) and that of his lords, and when the Jewish authorities (Mt. 27") “made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone,’ the idea was that if the impres- sion was broken the fact could not be hidden, for the culprits would not be able to reproduce the stamp. In this connexion it should be remembered that one of Solon’s laws forbade gem engravers to keep an impression of any gem they had sold, lest another should be made exactly like it (Diog. Laert. i. 57, in Middleton, Engraved Gems, p. 22). Greek and Roman letter-writers were also so much afraid of their letters being tampered with, that at the close of the epistle they often described the seal. See also RING and SEAL. J. TAYLOR. SIHON (imp and \mp, cf. for the ending jºy: IBA Xmaïv, Luc. Sudºv ; Vulg. Sehom). —A king of the Amorites defeated by the Israelites at Jahaz after crossing the Arnon. This battle marks the commencement of the struggle for the possession of the land, and the end of the journeyings past friendly tribes with which Israel was forbidden to contend. The account of Sihon's defeat is given in Nu 21*-*, and is followed by a poetical extract from an older source commemorating a defeat of Moab. The account is repeated in IOt. 2” [with the additional statement that the country was treated as DTI (see CURSE)], and in Jg ll”. References are made to Sihon's defeat and the 514 SILAS SILAS assignment of the land in Nu 3228, Dt 143*. G 440. 47 297 313, Jos 210 91° 12° 1319. 21. 27, 1 K 419, Neh 922, Ps 135* 136°. “Sihon * in Jer 48* is in parallelism with ‘Heshbon,’ and equivalent to the city of Sihon. In these passages the name of Sihon occurs almost invariably in close connexion with that of Og, king of Basham. The territories of these two kings became the inheritance of Israel on the E. of the Jordan, and were assigned to Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh. According to Nu 21” the Amorite king Sihon had, before the coming of Israel, taken from the Moabites the portion of their kingdom lying to the N. of the Arnon. For the criticism of this passage and of the song in Nu 21”, and discussion of the wars of Sihon against Moab and Israel, see art, MOAB in vol. iii. p. 409 f. A. T. CHAPMAN. SILAS (X/\as, in Acts), SILVANUS (XaXovavós, in Epp.).”—A prophet and leading member (iryoſuevos) of the primitive church of Jerusalem (Ac 15*, *), who seems to have possessed the Roman citizenshipf (16”). He was sent as a delegate of that church to Antioch, along with Judas Barsabbas as colleague, and in company with Paul and Barnabas, in order to convey to the converted Gentiles of Syria and Cilicia a brotherly greeting, and the epistle which embodied the decrees of the Council of Jerusalem ; and also to “tell them the same things by mouth,” with any necessary explanations (Ac 15**). Silas, as well as Judas, remained at Antioch ‘for some time,’ and, in the exercise of the gift of ‘prophecy,’ ‘ exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them ’ (15*). Thereafter fe returned to Jerusalem ; ; but, prior to St. Paul's Second Mis- sionary Journey, Silas came again to Antioch, perhaps along with St. Peter, on the occasion of the latter's visit recorded in Gal 2", or at St. Paul’s invitation after the rupture with Barnabas (Ag 15”). St. Paul's choice of Silas as missionary colleague (1549) was º ºgº in view of the projected tour “through Syria and Cilicia,” (15"), to the Gentile Christians, for which Silas had been accredited by the church of Jeru- salem (15*). If Silas possessed the Roman citizen- ship, this may also have led, in part, to his being selected, in view of missionary ‘perils from the Gentiles,’ as well as from the Jews. The accept- ance of St. Paul’s invitation by a leading member of the church of Jerusalem, even after the apostle's ecclesiastical as well as personal difference (Gal 2*) with Barnabas, the trusted ambassador of that church (Ac ll”), testifies to the fulness of conſidence reposed at that time in St. Paul by the more liberal Jewish Christians. In company with St. Paul, Silas journeyed not only through Syria and Cilicia, but in Lycaonia, Phrygia, Galatia, and the Troad (Ac 16-8). He crossed over with the apostle to Macedonia, shared his varied experiences at Philippi (16”),S accom- panied him to Thessalonica, and thence to Beroea, where he remained with Timotheus after St. Paul's departure for Athens (17*). He rejoined St. Paul, .*. not at Athens, as originally had been intended (17*), but (owing probably to the apostle's early departure from that city) at Corinth (18").” His evangelistic service there is referred to in 2 Co. 1". In the two letters, sent by St. Paul from Corinth to the Thessalonians, Silvanus is associated with him in the opening Salutations. His name then disappears from the history. That he did not leave Corinth in company with St. Paul appears to be indicated by Ac 1818, and by the absence of all reference to him in the record of the remaining stages of St. Paul's Second Missionary Journey (1819m). That he did not Settle at Corinth, in permanent charge of the church there (as Suggested by pseudo-Doroth., who calls him bishop of Corinth),? may be inferred from the omission of any greeting to him in 1 and 2 Cor., and also from the fact that both Timotheus and Titus act as º of St. Paul in Corinth a few years later (1 Co 417, 2 Co 88 1218). Probably Silas left Corinth during St. Paul’s protracted sojourn of 18 months (Ac 1811). He may not have been prepared for longer absence from Jerusalem. More- over, at Corinth, where the Jewish element in the church was weak (Ac 180), St. Paul does not seem to have felt bound to impose the decrees of the Jerusalem Council (1 Co 8). These decrees were intended, immediately at least, for the churches of Syria and Cilicia; they were “delivered for to keep' in Lycaonia (Ac 164); but at Corinth the circumstances were dif- ferent. We can readily understand, however, that the bearer of the Council's communication might deem it improper for him to take part in any deliberate disregard of the Council's compromise between liberty and restriction, and would feel constrained, without any personal quarrel, to separate from one who went beyond what Silas's own fellow-churchmen of Jerusalem would approve. The addition of Timotheus, also, to the missionary party, and the strong personal attachment of St. Paul to him, may have caused Silas to feel that he was no longer indispensable to the apostle, and may thus have loosened the tie between the two men. Beyond question, the attitude of the Jewish Christians towards St. #. changed considerably prior to the Third Missionary Journey. It was about this time that the Judaistic counter-mission to Galatia and elsewhere originated ; and the same broadened ecclesiastical policy of St. Paul, which aroused the hostility of the narrower party in Jerusalem, probably also cooled, to some extent, the cordiality previously subsisting between the apostle and the more liberal section to which Silas belonged. † It is highly probable, although not certain, that the Silas or §. who was St. Paul’s associate is the Silvanus referred to in 1 P 5* as the bearer § of St. Peter's Epistle from Rome | to the Christians of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. The separation of Silas from St. Paul would naturally lead to the resumption of the former's intimate relations with St. Peter, between whom and Silas, as both Jewish Christians of liberal views on the whole, there would be full sympathy; and the description of St. Peter's Silvanus as ‘a faithful brother ' to the Christians in the above- named provinces, fits in with the experience of St. Paul's colleague, who, long before, had visited a portion, at least, of the churches now addressed by St. Peter, and would be probably known by repute to all. More than ten years had passed since Silvanus had parted from St. Paul. The apostle's last visit to Jerusalem, his charitable errand, his * Silas may be a contraction of Silvanus (cf. Apollos from Apollonius), or the original name (perh. =wbw 1 ch 785, but see Zahn, Jºinl. i. 22 f.), of which Silvanus is a Latinized form. Several \ſcrsons called Silas are mentioned by Josephus (Amt. xiv. iii. 2, xviii. vi. 7; Vita, 17). The identity of Silas and the Silvanus of 1 Th 11, 2 Th 11, and 2 Co 119, is generally accepted (cf. Ac 171 189); although pseudo-Doroth, (6th cent.) in his Xºy- 2022 wo, represents thern as separate individuals; and Weizsäcker, with some hesitation (Apost. Age, i. 292 f.), suggests, without reasonable grounds, that the author of Acts has substituted Silas of Jerusalem for the Pauline Silvanus, ‘in order to signalize the apostle's connexion with the primitive Church.” # So Ev. III vii. 361; Mey. Comm. ; Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 176; McGiffert, Ap. Age, 242, etc. On the other side, see Wendt (Commºn.), who regards the inclusion of Silas with St. Paul in Ac 1637ſ, as due to “inaccuracy for the sake of brevity.’ t Ac 1534 is prob. an interpolation ; it is not found in NAB. § l'or vindication of the credibility of Ac 1(25-34 (assailed on internal grounds by Weizs., Wendt, and B. Weiss) see Giesekke in SK, 1898, p. 348 ſº., and Iºap. Times, March 1898, p. 274 f. * It is possible, however, that Silas (as well as Timotheus) may have come to Athens, and returned to Macedonia for some special purpose. 1 Th 31ſ, is not decisive on the point. Silas and Timotheus are probably the brethren referred to in 2 Co 110 as having brought from Macedonia what supplied St. Paul's needs. # The same designation is given to Silas in the bºráſzynºwo, or Memnorial of Peter and Pawl (a compilation, ascribed to the 0th cent., but embodying more ancient material ; see Lipsius, Ayok. Apost. ii. 9, 10). The testimony, however, of both documents is discredited by their representation of Silvanus as bishop of Thessalonica, apparently owing to 1 Th 11, 2 Th 11. f This coolness is perhaps suggested by the summary manner in which St. Paul’s visit to Jerusalem is referred to in Ac 1822 (see I’arrar's Life of St. Paul, ii. p. 5); and it manifests itself, on that apostle's side, in the somewhat disparaging tone of 3al 20, written from Ephesus during St. Paul's Third Journey. § Possibly, but not necessarily, the amanuensis also of St. Peter (see vol. iii. p. 790, and Ewald, III vii. 464). | The Babylon of 1 P 513 is usually interpreted as me' uning Ronze (see vol. i. 213 f., iii. 760). SILK SILOAM 51? conciliatory attitude on that occasion, and his subsequent sufferings for the truth, had doubt- less improved the relations between him and Jewish believers (Ac 21. 2417). The majority of St. Paul’s extant letters, moreover, had prob- ably by this time come into circulation, and pro- duced a favourable impression on Hebrew Chris- tians. In l Peter extensive use is made of Pauline ideas, and phraseology, especially those of the Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians (see vol. iii. 788). Accordingly, since at the time when l Peter was written St. Paul either was a prisoner at Iłome, or had recently suffered martyrdom, the mission of Silvanus, as representative of both apostles, may have been part of an Apostolical eirenicom, expressly designed to undo, in Galatia and in Asia Minor as a whole, the effect of earlier rivalry and friction between the Pauline and the Jewish parties in primitive Christendom. (See vol. iii. p. 791). The names of both Silas and Silvanus are included, as different individuals, in the list of the ‘Seventy’ compiled by pseudo-Dorotheos. The position of Silas as a hyotſuevos of the church at Jerusalem renders it fairly probable that in this instance the catalogue is correct. For the con- jecture that Silas is the author of Hebrews (Böhme, ynster) there appears to be no foundation. The adoption of the name Silvanus by Constantine, the founder of the pseudo-Pauline Paulician heresy in the 7th cent., indicates a conviction that Silas remained faithful essentially to Pauline views. LITERATURE.—Acta Sanct. 13th July (xxx. 452); Cellarius, de Sila ; Ilipsius, Apok. Apgesch. i. p. 203, ii. 9 f., iii. 277 ff. ; Ewald, HI vii. 361 ff., 464; Weizsäcker, Apost. Age (Index); McGiffert, Apost. Age, pp. 230-242, 426. H. COWAN. SILK.—See DRESS in vol. i. p. 624*. SILLA (Rºp; B Taa)\\d, A Taa\\d.6; Sela).-Joash was murdered “at (AW ‘in ') the house of Millo, on the way that goeth down to Silla,” (2 K 12”). Millo was possibly either the acropolis of Mount Zion or one of its towers, and Silla was, appar- ently, in the valley below. There is no clue to its position. It has been suggested, from the reading of the LXX, that the Hebrew mame may, origin- ally, have commenced with gai ‘ravine,’ as in the case of Ge-hinnom. For other conjectures see Benzinger in I(wrzer IIdcom. ad loc. C. W. WILSON. SILOAM. A place mentioned, apparently, four times in Scripture: (1) Is 8" “the waters of Shiloah’ (nºn ‘shooting forth' or “sent forth’; B Set\wáſ, A XiXoãp. ; Luc., Aq., Symm., Theod. XiXéoé ; Vulg. Siloe). (2) Neh 3" “the pool of Siloah' (IRV Shelah, nºn; BA KoMuggſºpa Töv koğtov : * piscina Siloe). (3) Jn 97 ‘the pool of . Siloam ” (K. Tod XiXw3A ; matatoria Siloe). (4) Lk 13" “the tower in Siloam ” (à trºpyos év tº XiXaváu ; turris in Siloe). The Rabbis and early Jewish travellers use the word with the article (nºwn hash-Shilóal) as in the I3ible. Josephus gives the name as Xt)\wá, XXavās, and XiXaváp. ; the Greek Fathers have XiXaváp. ; and the Ilatin Fathers, following the Vulgate, have Siloe and Syloe; Arabic 'A in Silveſtm. Excepting the statement in Neh 3" that the wall of the ‘pool of the Shelah' was close to the king's gardens, which were on the south side of Jerusalem, and the fair inference that the wall of the pool formed part of the fortifications of the * Shelah is possibly a corrupt form of the earlier Shilóah, due to a change in the pronunciation, or in the spelling of the word during the period that intervened between Isaiah and Nehemiah. The meaning of shelah in Hebrew is “dart,' but in Talmudic Hebrew ‘skin’; and the LXX adopted the latter interpretation. They and the earlier Rabbis . to have regarded the pool of the Shelah, or of the “sheep-skins,' as being distinct from the pool of Siloam. —w city, the Bible gives no indication of position. Josephus, on the other hand, distinctly states (BJ V. iv. 1) that the spring (Trnºyi) of Siloam was at the end or mouth of the Tyropocon ravine, which * the hill of the upper city and the lower hill. This position is indicated in other passages (BJ II. xvi. 2; V. iv. 2, vi. 1, xii. 2; VI. viii. 5), and agrees with the statements of Jerome, who writes of the ſons Siloe as flowing “in radicibus Montis Moria,’ (in Matt. 10), and ‘ad radices Montis Zion' (in Is. 8"); and also as watering the #ºrdens of Hinnom and Tophet (in Jer, 8. 19932%). The Bordeaux Pilgrim (A.D. 333) and all later pilgrims place Siloam near the mouth of the valley that runs through the midst of Jerusalem, and there is every reason, to believe that its general position is represented by the present 'Ain Silwdºn and Birket Silwan. The Birket Silwdºn, situated in the narrowest part of the Tyropocon ravine, is an artificial pool, which receives its supply of water, by transmission through a rock-hewn tunnel, from the 'Ain. Sitti Mariam, or Fountain of the Virgin—an inter- mittent spring in the Valley of the kidron. A little below the B. Silwdºn, at the very mouth of the ravine, which is here closed by a dam of masonry, there is a second and larger pool, known as the Birket el-Hamra. This pool, long filled with soil, and now an open cess-pit, received the surplus waters of Siloam before they were utilized in the irrigation of the gardens which once filled the open space below the junction of the Tyropocon with the Valley of the Kidron. The Fountain of the Virgin, the only true spring at Jerusalem, is very generally identified with GIHON, and the changes made in the distribu- tion of its waters are intimately connected with the history of Siloam.” After the capture of Jeru- salem by the Hebrews, possibly during the reign of Solomon, the water of the spring was impounded in a reservoir in the Kidron Valley, and used for irrigating the king’s gardens, which filled the valley to the south. This reservoir, the site of which is lost, is called by Josephus (B.J. v. iv. 2) ‘Solomon’s Pool.” After a time the water was carried by a rock-hewn conduit (discovered by Dr. Schick, PEFSt, 1886, p. 197 f.; 1891, p. 13 ff.) down the west side of the Kidron Valley, and through the extremity of Mt. Morial, to a pool in the Tyroposon, so that it might be more accessible to dwellers in the lower parts of the city. To this conduit, with its slight fall and gently flowing stream, Isaiah possibly referred when he compared (Is 8") ‘the waters of Shiloah that go softly –typical of the unseen working of God and of the prosperity that would follow the confidence in Jehovah which he was urging upon the people—with the turbulent waters of the mighty Euphrates overflowing their banks,—an emblem of the overwhelming violence of the great world-power, Assyria, with which the people were seeking alliance. At a later period the winding rock-hewn tunnel which connects the l’ountain of the Virgin with the Birket Siladdºn was made, and the water of the spring was collected in the two reservoirs in the Tyropoeon Valley. The execution of this remark- able work may be ascribed with much probability to Hezekiah, who, prior to the Assyrian invasion, stopped ‘the upper spring of the waters of Gihon, . brought it straight down to (or on) the West side of the city of IDavid' (2 Ch 32", cf. 2 Ch 32", Sir 4817). In ju. 1880 a Hebrew inscription (see Literature at end) in old Semitic characters was discovered on the east side of the tunnel, about 25 ft. from its exit at Siloam. The inscription records that the tunnel was excavated from both * The Targ. Jon., Pesh., and Arab. WSS read ‘Shiloah' for “Gillon’ in 1 K 18, 516 SILOAM siLVER ends, that the workmen met in the middle, and that the length was 1200 cubits.” There is no name of any king, and this, with the absence of a date, seems to indicate that the inscription was cut by one of the workmen º and had no official character. The form of the letters is not opposed to the view that the tunnel was made during the reign of Hezekiah. The serpentine course of the tunnel is attributed by Clermont-Ganneau (Les Tombeaua de David et des rois de Juda et le Tunnel-Aqueduc de Siloe, 1897) to the prior exist- ence of the rock-hewn tombs of the kings, which he places immediately north of the great southern bend. The view that this curve is due to design, and not to accident or bad workmanship, is sup- ported by the existence of shafts from the surface which determined its direction at two important points (PEFSt, 1882, plan, p. 123). Excavation has shown that the present Birket Silwdºn has been constructed within the limits of the ancient pool of Siloam. The original pool measured 71 ft. from N. to S. and 75 ft. from E. to W., and was for the most part excavated in the rock. A flight of rock-hewn steps led down to it from the city, and it could be emptied by a sluice- gate at its southern end. After the return from the Captivity, possibly during the reign of Herod, a covered arcade, 12 ft. wide, 22% ft. high, and roofed with large flat slabs of stone, was erected in the pool, and ran round its four sides. This was prob- ably the condition of the pool when Christ told the blind man (Jn 97) to go and wash in the pool of Siloam (which is by interpretation, Sent).’t In the 5th cent. a three-aisled church was built, with its high altar directly above the point at which the stream issued from the tunnel, and its south aisle over the northern arcade of the ool. The church was entered from the north, on which side here were an atrium, and a narthex with a ſlight of steps leading down to the level of the north aisle. It appears to have been the work of the empress Eudocia, who is said to have included the º of Siloam within the city wall. In the reign of Justinian the basilica was converted into a domed church, t which is noticed by Antoninus Martyr (c. 570), the only pilgrim who mentions a church at Siloam. § The church must after- wards have been destroyed, probably during the Persian invasion (614), for it is not again mentioned (Bliss, Ea:cavations at Jerusalem, pp. 132-210; Guthe, “Ausgrabungen bei Jeru- salem,” in ZDPV v. p. 52 f.). The larger pool, Birket el-Hamra, has not been completely examined, but excavation has shown that it is partially cut in the rock, and that the dam of masonry at its lower end, which has a thickness of 20 to 8 ft., and is strengthened by buttresses, is at one point 44 ft. high. The con- struction of the dam, and the manner in which its masonry is bonded into the rock at either end, shows that, like the dam of the Birket Israël, it formed part of the defences of the city (Bliss, l.c.). The pool is probably the work of Hezekiah, and referred to (Is 22") as the mikveh, or ‘ditch (IRV reservoir) between the two walls for the waters of the old pool.” The dam is apparently the wall of the ‘pool (bërëkhah) of the Shelah' repaired by Shallum (Neh 3”). This pool is mentioned by the I}ordeaux Pilgrini, by Antoninus Martyr, and other pilgrims, and, in the Middle Ages, it was frequently called Natatoria Siloe, to distinguish it from the upper pool of Siloam. The tunnel and * Conder, in his very complete description of the tunnel (PER'St, 1882, p. 122 f.), gives its length as 1706.8 ft., or, º. 1200 cubits of 17 in., and states that the point, of junction was 944 ft. from the Siloam end. See also PEI'Men. ‘Jerusalem," p. 345. # On the play upon the meaning of the word, and on the rallelism between ‘the sent one’ and ‘the sent water,’ see asil on Is 8. f The position of the church with regard to the pool is not unlike that of St. Mary in probatica, in the Pool of Bethesda, near the Church of St. Anne. § The church is also mentioned in the life of St. Peter the Iberian (400–488). | This name is derived from the hard red cement full of pounded pottery which is used for lining cisterns, and is locally callel hairtra. the pools are possibly referred to in 2 Ch 32, la 22°, and Sir 48 * The water of Siloam is described by Josephus as being sweet and abundant (BJ W. iv. 1); and by the Rabbis, who attributed digestive properties to it, as being clear and sweet. On the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, water from the spring was poured upon the altar (Neubauer, Géog. du Talmud, p. 145f.). In 985 Mukaddasi, a native of Jerusalem, calls the water ‘fairly good '; but the author of the Marasid (c. 1300) says that it was then no longer sweet. Writers of the 15th and 16th cents. call it brackish but wholesome. As the spring depends upon the annual rainfall for its supply, the water, which percolates through vast accumulations of refuse, must to a certain extent be impure, but it is still used for drinking pur- poses § the villagers of Silwān and by the poor of Jerusalem. In consequence of the miracle wrought on the blind man, the water and pool are held in much honour by Jews, Christians, and Moslems. Healing properties, especially in the case of eye diseases, have been attributed to the water from the early days of Christianity, and numerous legends have gathered round it. Chris- tians believed that it came from Shiloh or from Mt. Zion ; Moslems, that on the night of 'Arafat it came underground from the holy well, Zemzem, at Mecca. A small perennial stream flows from the Fountain of the Virgin to the Pool of Siloam, and its volume is increased, at uncertain times, by a sudden rush of water from the spring. The Bordeaux Pilgrim, Jerome (in Is. 8°), and most of the pilgrims, write of the increased flow as periodic; but in reality it varies greatly, and is dependent upon the rainfall and the season. During a wet winter the stream swells two or three times a day, whilst in summer the rise takes place only once in two or three days. All knowledge of the tunnel through which the stream runs was lost for several centuries, and it was first rediscovered in the 13th cent. It may perhaps even be inferred from the silence of Josephus that the Fountain of the Virgin was unknown to him, and that it was first opened, after its closure by Hezekiah, some centuries later. ‘s After the capture of Jerusalem by the Arabs a village º up in the valley below the pool. In 1047 Nasir-i-Khusrau foun an endowed hospital, with salaried physicians, and many build- ings, erected for charitable º'. near the spring. J2arly in the 12th cent. there was a small monastery at Siloam, but about 1300 the buildings were in ruins, and the irrigated gardens, which had been bequeathed by one of the Rhalifs to the poor of Jerusalem, had disappeared. By the middle of the 17th cent. the pools were filled with rubbish, and the tradition, which had lingered into the 16th cent., that a church dedicated to the Salvator illuminator had once stood above the mouth of the tunnel, was lost. The village of Siloam, Iſefr Silvém, on the left bank of the Kidron Valley, at the foot of the Mount of Olives, is of comparatively recent growth. Christian anchorites, and afterwards Moslems, are alluded to as living in the caves; but Quaresmius, in the 17th cent., is the first to distinctly mention the village by its present name (Guy le Strange, Pal. wnder the Moslems; Tobler, Die Siloahquelle wind der Oelberg; I’.P. Text Society translations). The ‘tower in Siloam (Lk 13’), of which nothing further is known, may have been one of the towers in the city wall near the pool. LITERATURE.—The principal authorities for the site and the description of the º have been cited in the article. For the inscription and its bearing on the history of the Heb. alphabet, see esp. Driver, Teact of Samuel, p. 14 f. (with facsimile, tran- scription, and translation); Weir, Short Ilist. of the Heb. Teact of OT, 9 f.; Euting in Ges.-Kautzsch's IIeb. Grann. ; Socin (plate 8 in ZD1° V iv., and, in an annended form, Die Siloah in- schrift, Freiburg, 1800); Lidzbarski, II and b. d. Mordsem. Jºpi, graphik, 1898; cf. Cheyne in I’B, ‘Isaiah,' 143. C. W. WILSON. SILWANUS.—See SILAS. SILVER º [Aram. Appl. dpywpos, &pyūptov) comes next to gold in the list of precious metals. Its ºLGIATIS IQ |NOTHINIS ouq m ionov Joſun oun uoaq poll ou Agu, equnusuſ on suuou Iojuitaru ouq qtuq posoddus uood Sull q ‘osodund spun log poqoolos sº wooltſ?S quill oolitºs -tumouo out tuo. I (ºf us)) uſuiſito;I IqA uniqol ppm.o.A. Koun quu, Aquinoos su d'Ajºl uſ slou 10.1Q syu go ono uſuqop on poului.10.10p udosof uoul AM SI pouonuoul si uoouis udu A uodu uoysuooo tou]o otl.I. ‘(Sitſia.I.) No.I.IVIS ...it uſ oºloonddu on Moos IIulis ow oathuluuu sun go ooutolyſujis Iuo, ou,I, outs oul sku.Aſu hous quodputºs osotiw ‘soºtnos Iuloaos uouj u awulp out put 'oluosqo oit. Alons out go slºop oud, (#8 ur)) unuſ(I loºsis stu Jo Inoudustp ou, Joy oiuoAol uſ sonſuoudou.S ou? poloussuu oAbu on plus sº ou Aoſſ tougold slu (ITIA uoſqoun ſuoo ul 'stsouak) Jo Moog out uſ populo.1 out, uootu,S Jo Klonsul out up squopiouſ OAA) ÁluO (200 ºtt?"/S) uootups outru syu polluo ous put ‘osſu uos stu% out uo.A13 orogo.Ioun uquiſ on ‘pontºll tutº I quuq (outp:/s) putou (Jull (Iºlo'ſ ou', osmºoo;I ‘prus Ito'I, quuſ, s].Iodol puu (, Itou , =) &6 uo.U q so Aſtop ÁII'uo -InspIonoultuo “cº-reſ;z, u}) uſ ‘ſ’ ‘u Aouxtun si “outsu ou, Jo uomº uoſ).Iušis Iuuji to ouſ, squo Ao II* qu lo ‘Āšoloui Kho ou.I, cºffz, u}) ‘ūto'I put, qoouſ go uos puooos ouſ I, "P-go post si outtu ‘qo H out,L (‘ºw? pu ‘(NOWIS) ISI.I.S.I.I “It oos) wou?S UI log (Mool{)) loqui sqi uſ ‘dso ‘savoſ out, 1s5uoulu outsu uouuloo V--"(uoeu&S ‘LN uſ poAo(duo ÁII ansm tutoſ A&I oouou A ‘493mas J.N puu XXII : ſhāſūl) NOKIWIS ‘lāgī ‘d III IOA uſ XSINOIN oos-onlTHATIs ‘xfor ILV.I SSIWVſ. "U OSI ‘son ºnbºw F on.07s, Motor ‘stroAoſ’ put topoluos : "Iſ Izz ‘snoyarſ &nozoo.ter ſo “lsº II ‘It’ſ [oGI : U fgg ‘ſ “soyo.(poso ºr ‘tion littiuſ I : S9: ‘ll “olo “pampm/° ‘p??tºp.tºpS up 7.1 ſº ſo ‘ºsy II ‘zoidſuſ) put qo.I.iod : Pſ)3 iſ “ſodow?AI ‘plukurI : L0; “Adſitºr Juonow W up aſ 'I ‘uutu,13] : IS ‘83 III.xxx AIH ‘Āuſld : 6 Apºxx “smºg Alod—'aunlvuqJITI ‘A&INOIN oos ojo -Utoo put Kotta.[Ino IITIA poºooutloo Suoſºsomb loſſ ‘(0.9 loſ’ ‘ar I SI) uoplºloſ.1000p Iu.toul Joy Louduqou o SI BSO.Up 04 pou.In 19ALIS (or S# SI OSIt go ‘org9 S.I) Snooqūšii otſ, go ouſldiosºp ou? Ioy ornišij e sº to AIts go ºuTuſſal ou.I. (gal sq) pot) go sp.IoMA ou? Oslº org St. ‘to AIIs band O] ssousnoſooid log polºduloo AIºuanbolg out, uomon.Insuſ put ulopsiAA to AIIs Tú1A polo Aoo sºuTA, st; also scſ up podilosop st qūānuns uſ soAop go ojound ou.I, iggi ou IN I ‘rigi 1&I U1ſ uſ prodø/Cdp Jo quolu Alubo ouſ, SI, oyed to AIS, ‘(473.10×oda&dp = &Ll, ost, olou A ‘gro leſ’ ‘augot, • gºº º * AT 4 - | > Gr [. º º Hºunº, Ay) .º (r.1.I 3 ſ. c is I,) Sill, Jo ‘I) ou? sº solſ|yoda/-0p XXII u. I ‘Joquiou juſpºol p sea snj.140uio(I Kep sºlutid “S UI HoſtIAA go ‘susou dº qu qJolo syuq go punj u St.A olou.J., (solºyoda,00p) raóI ov puts (soºxodn/Cdp) ag| SIAA uſ pouoguouſ out, suqus IoAIIS ‘pouoſquouſ sy subuoyſ out KQ sougui Usſued Souq go uoſqşInbou out 68 ouTV. I uſ ... solºid onuſ peoids, 5uloq 10AIIs aun on KII bloods 5uſ.I.Iojo.1 soñessed osot(q go puoods out ‘FIL& XIZSI ‘GOI loſ’ ‘tz6 UO z uſ [b]otti out go oo.Inos où, St: poutsu sº usſus.It I, "GITU.IV uloly 10AIts pouſeqqo uouioios Aoû sIIoq r16 (IO z to AIIs go , Sso1p, où0 old tuouq (111A pourquod sophy,Induſ ou? put SIB) out louqo osoul.I., "solo onliuqou Louqo ouq 5uouro pºol go ouoso ºf où) uo pºul SI systiqduo Iºſoods sojussed osotiſ, Jo qīoq ul 'ra-ziza Xizº; tıy put (SSOIqJuly sº poquoso.Idol si q odou.A.) og-sºo loſ VI SSºuTug Iºſoods UTIA poquosop sº qI ‘ologg [*IN ‘dgI ooz ‘rgå 1:13 gli Id uſ oº populſº sp3uſugoi go S$ooold ou', put, ‘Sz, qoſ uſ on poliogo.1 out, sougui 19AIS (rzóI ov) susou dºſ qt pIos put opeuſ KIošiuſ tº IoM “bugſ(I go old tuoq au Jo stopoul to “sougtus, 19AIIS (rigZ Idſ "solnqoyd, gºſz, u}) ,ºsio.Aoſ,) Squou -bulo put (atop SI) supetto Ioy posu Staw Tuqour spill, ‘(ºff u})) Ioalis Jo StºA duo 5upuſ App sudosof, "(oró II, 3). Sosnou out AIId KūqIdoA go ornquing *(q go died elow put, ‘(uyssod l n N) 5uptaIIo 9A190A Jo tulog tº elow 10AIIs go slossa A •oſduioq euq go sIossoA pologs on 1 Jo Augu go put ‘sqsoud out, jo Słoduiniq oliº Jo (’oqo ‘SNooit ‘sqollſ; “sqoxioos) orotiu -loq'u I, ou, Jo Shi'ud snoi.10A Jo Iulloquul out, St.A QI "I unpº pontºld to to Alls Jo opulu oloA SIop| , “Snp st; to Ali's dri duou, on prºs out: (a11z, qoſ) utiuſ boxloſ A ou', puts (86 ooz) 01&I, OS (1109 SI), to AIIs §ul Iq IIIAA I uo.II Ioy, ‘osſutold out uſ poq losop SI tuolusuioſ' polloqso.1 out, Jo quuq puu (ºrlf IIS ‘trol XI I) tuottism.toſ uſ otions su lujº) uold st; to Alls 5uſ XIºul slui Kot poquoi put si uoulolos go unlºow ot.I. *oquqi.In put “Uods ‘ūquo A Jo Shunooot! uſ poq’s -lounuo AIAuulsuoo luoqi ut, sº to AIS (or orga, u})) uuuuuq V go ouſ) out, on Mouq sooj; oiſutuoxo go uiny poul tº su oluqdl.los up to AHS Jo uomº uoul out.I. ‘lºodg log (sg. XII) oiussud oud uſ split, 1s . Io AIIs Jo oooº...I., "Aouout, 'I', uoqJo Sp aondº/Cdp LN puu ºly up Kitt IIuſ S 'sºul IIoalis, (ca.1 sl) oouo puu toolid, poliopuol KII buoysuooo osſo sy qI AGI ut . Kouou, put, ‘YXT Kq aoidº.dp 14 ÁInuonbong sº Čál, LO uſ oouo H ouxº oil] odojoq SAOIqoH ou? §uoua u, wouxtun Huſoq oduujoo ‘(I| 8I} d III 'loa ‘x&INoIN oos) qušioA Kq pouoxloo, sº qSIU qu put, “Kouo.I.Luo Jo uloſ ÁII'uo uti Su A to AIIS - ‘IoAIIs put ploß Jo Koſſm pozºrd Kūlāyū tº sm w (num.170270 ºuT “[so- lo] aodlyavſ, IK)) attosy untiqd K3I *II, ‘.10AIIş Jo qušio AA sqi south £1 on on IgA uſ [unbo pIo; soxluut (G6 ‘III) sulopolo H. 'Io AI1s Jo quuq soulſ, a su ploš Jo ouſta outſ, pox iſ qd Kººl uſ Soua IV Jo SAATI ou I, pIO3 uuuq olqūuſua oloul soul!') 0I pouoxloo, sºw to AIIs tºgul V quopout; up quun stuoddo q soprotuuTušV jo quoudely tº tuo, I squoq ouſ, up souo uopioi, utún lovel out, Slooſqo JoAIIs put ‘suoºd IIosuſ out up ploš otojoq pouo (Quouſ SKUAAU8 SI to AIIs qd K5 I uſ 'soot. Id ouos uſ proš on to AIIs log oouologold tº go uoAo put ‘qs.III q.8 sºlour oAAq ouq uoo.wqoq Kotuloidus Iog oùn.Iqs a Jo Suoſºtoppuſ oiu oilou.J. outbooq splua- -loqJu qi qu (Il too.Itzos StºA to AIIs ‘soo.Inos oſquis V og poqoilºso. St. A Kiddus ou? Sº 3uol SW ‘south Tuolou'u up poſit A JoAIIs put ploš Jo Son IgA oAI]t'Iol ou.I, ‘ound º, ouq juſAuo! ‘Ioaſis uoqout out utoly quâIoM Sq Āq poquiudos IIoſt A “Suſs, MAtoq tº u.Ioy Oq JoAIIs ouſ, uſ solºſ.Ind -Up ou? (IqAA lº pºol outſ, ounqolodiuoq (ISIII t; q V SSooo..ICI ouſ, Oq Iºuasso SbA pºol go quu? UIolu A go ‘solo oil [0]ou tou?o uq(A 5uoſo Suſqlous Áq spunoduoo Sqſ UIoly pouſtºdo SbA 10AUS ‘sutºyoſuotid out, uo.IJ IO Intº) uoq Iºdotuſ ou" go ÁIddins IIoun poAIlop oatsu Kou ou A “subosniqQI ou? Kg it up posm uooq ĀIsnopaold pou 31 (15mouſ, ‘KIts, I uſ Ingºuold outsooq qşūj JoAIIs quuq tuoul go uoissossod pouyuqqo subuoyſ oud uou A stay qi puts ‘subjugåullqipO out, Jo sput it out, uſ qs.III q'e otow olouq sºupſ.IOAA ou.I. 'uſ'ud S uoly pouyuqqo otoA 10AII's go soliddus quepunqu qsoul out, qug smudgI put ooglu,I, up souTui osſu olow olotſ.I. 'suounv on unſuoA Jo ootnos (IoII '8 poAold put, ‘ooting -q.Ioduiſ oſquitopisuoo go otoaw boy!"V uſ tum].Inurſ Jo sougui to AIts oilſ, odoing uſ 'sotuſ, utopout uſ quoulu to Aot) USplin,I, ou, Aq quino.IAA uooq oatsu suojo.1 osottº, Jo SouTu ou I, ‘snquo, I uſ QQ KIV uo.IJ quinold 10AIIs out, Jo Oouol [ooxo [upoods où" on S.Iajol (198 II '77) touroH 'u'u'lspiny put ºuoui.IV go supununou ou? III sº souſ, quoroug uſ qi go ootnos ojºuls V Iºdiouſld ou,I, ‘olo Jo tuitoy ouds uo.1, ponotºxo od on SKUAIt qsouto Stu puts ‘oºls oAntu out uſ punoy Álorui si loAUS ‘Sqoſquq guittu V-Io Io,I, ouq uſ pouoſquouſ º SI qI soºnqII put, ‘Suti.IASSW ‘suuſq -dAşçı quoroup on] Jo supuuo.1 ouq 3uoup ooliop -IAo uſ AIIºnbo SI IoAIS ‘osuooAIN qu uugutoſ[[IoS Kq punoy otoA qi go optuſ SQuoubulo put, sIoSSoA. ‘sosodind go KhojúA quot; 0 on qmd sº touroH iſ: stºoddu Iuqoul SIU.I., "soulſ, op.101sºulald ol Moud of; spubl oſq191 pug Itoi SSuſo uſ to AIIs Jo osn put of pol -Aoux otiſ, diſsuutuxāoa onslato Ioſ Inſionaui oquºins Kimjoods p q àxiºuſ iſoſia toxin oth pub ‘Āq[1]omp ‘Āquiſquoiſou ‘o.14smſ onju A quuſiſſid “uois -olloo on ooutºsiso, Jo Solºlodoid STI tuong KIA.Iud put, ‘Āqi UGI eaſyGIUduoo Sqſ tuoly ÁI].16d Sosiid onto. * * 518 SIMEON SIMEON tragedy that led to Joseph’s servitude in Egypt. The truculent character of Simeon, as vouched for by the massacre at Shechem, might also be sup- posed to furnish the justification for his severe treatment; but it is questionable whether the narrator (E) of his detention in Egypt had any such reference in his mind, seeing that among the sources of Gn 34 E has no place, and consequently he may have been ignorant of that story. It is more probable that in Gn 42* Simeon the second son of Jacob is detained as a hostage rather than Reuben the firstborºt, because the latter, according to E (Gn 37*), had acted a more friendly part than the rest of Joseph's brethren, and had sought to deliver him out of their hands. The rape of Dinah and the massacre of the Shechemites were commemorated in verse by the Jewish or Samaritan poet Theodotus § 200 B.C.). It is instructive to compare the jº ment passed upon the act of the two brothers in Gn 49 (cf. 34.30) with what we find in some of the literary P. of post- exilian Judaism. Words of disapproval and severe censure give place in the latter to hearty approval and warm eulogy. The con- trast is strikingly displayed in the Book of Judith, whose heroine belongs to the tribe of Simeon, and whose estimate of the char- acter and conduct of her progenitor is as different from that ascribed to Jacob in Genesis as her language is offensive to good taste (Jth 92f ; cf. Book of Jubilees, ch. 30). 2. The great-grandfather of Judas Maccabaeus, 1 Mac 2". 3. An ancestor of Jesus, Lk 3”. 4. The ‘righteous and devout' (6tratos kal evXaffis) man who took the infant Jesus in his arms and blessed Him, on the occasion of the presentation in the temple (Ll 2*). The notion that this Simeon is to be identified with a Rabbi who was the son of Hillel and the father of Gamaliel I. is as precarious as the apocryphal legends about his two sons Charinus and Leucius; see NICODEMUS (GOSPEL OF). The very existence of a Rabbi Simon ben Hillel is doubtful (see Schürer, HJP II. i. 363), and in any case he was not, as late legends assert, plesident of the Sanhedrin, an office which in the time of Christ was always held by the high priest (see SANHEDRIN, p. 401). If the Simeon of St. Luke had been Hillel’s son, is it conceivable that he would have been introduced simply as “a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon'? 5. prophet and teacher at Antioch, whose surname was NIGER (Ac 13), 6. Ac 15", 2 P 1" (RVm). See PETER (SIMON), vol. iii. p. 756. J. A. SELBIE. SIMEON (TRIBE). —The history of this tribe, which theoretically traced its descent to the second son of Jacob and Leah, is involved in considerable obscurity. From the fact that Shaul, the eponym. ous head of one of its families, is called “the son of the Canaanitish woman’ (Gn 4619, Ex 6”), we may infer that it contained a considerable admix- ture of non-Israelitish elements. From Jg 1° 17 we learn that, at the beginning of the conquest of Canaan, Simeon joined his forces with those of Judah. It was probably not long thereafter that Simeon and Levi together sought to gain a settle- ment in Mount Ephraim, which was then occupied by the Canaanites. Such at least is a plausible interpretation of the tradition which underlies the narrative of Gn 34. Upon any theory it is difficult to disentangle the details of that story, for the chapter in question is, in its present form, not homogeneous, and the different narratives date from different periods, and are inspired by different motives (cf. artt, HAMOR, and JACOB in vol. ii, p. 530 f.). None of these narratives is at all º to pre-Mosaic times, and there is much plausibility in the theory of Wellhausen, that we have hero a reminiscence of an attempt on the part of Dinah bat-Leah (a branch of Simeon) and the other Simeonites, in conjunction with Levi, to possess themselves of the town of Shechem by treacher. ously taking advantage of the friendly relations - V was a that had hitherto subsisted between them and the Canaanites. Whatever degree of success may have attended the enterprise at first, its ultinate consequences were most disastrous, for the Canaanites of the surrounding districts appear to have attacked and practically annihilated the invaders (cf. Moore, Judges, 240). This explains the insignificance or the entire absence of Simeon in the subsequent history of Israel. The shattered remnants of this tribe, which had begun its warlike activity in alliance with Judah, now fell back upon the latter for protection and a share of the land (Jos 19°). In the Song of Deborah (Jp. 5), in which the tribes of Israel are praised or blamed according to the part they had played in the º: both Judah and Simeon are passed over—Judah probably because at this period it pursued its own aims in complete separation from the northern tribes (cf. Gn 38), Simeon because it was practically part of Judah. The absence of Simeon in the Blessing of Moses (Dt 33) has been felt to be more surprising, and various explanations have been offered, or attempts made to supply the omission. A and some other MSS of the LXX, indeed, insert Simrveon in v.0D “Let Reuben live and not die, and let Simeon be many in mumben’’ (>vºid v šara roxbs iv &pitº). This, however, may be simply a deliberate correction of the text, devoid of any support from Heb. MSS. Other solutions of the difficulty have been proposed by Kohler (Der Segem. Jacob's, 5) and Graetz (Gesch. d. Jºwden, 11. i. 486 f.) which have been accepted with modifications by Heil- rin (Hist, Poetry of the Hebrew8, i. 113 ff.) and Bacon (Triple Tradition of the Ea:odw8, 270 f.). Founding upon the unnatural shortness of the blessing of Judah, and the character of Levi's blessing, which seems too warlike for a non-secular tribe, Kohler conjectures that v.7 has fallen out of its place and should follow v. 10, so that ww.7, 11 would form the blessing of Judah. Graetz boldly substitutes “Simeon’ for ‘Judah” in v.7, a method of procedure which is approved by Heilprim and Bacon as far as v.7a is concerned, while at the same time they change the order of the verses as Kohler proposed. We thus obtain (v.7a) as the blessing of Simeon, “Hear, O Jehovah, the voice of Simeon, and bring him to his people’ (the latter prayer perhaps referring to the Simeonites who, according to 1 Ch 442ſ., found a settlement in Mt. Seir). The blessing of Judah would then be contained in v.7b “Judah with his hands contends,” etc., and v. 11 ‘Bless, Lord, his substance,” etc.—But, however plausible these explana- tions may be, there will probably be little hesitation in assenting to the judgment of Dillmann (approved by Driver), that the corrections of the text which they involve are ‘too violent” to be probable. The death-blow which Simeon received so early in his career is quite sufficient to account for the non-mention of him in Dt 33, even if we ascribe a considerable antiquity to that chapter. The early decadence of this tribe is implied also in the priestly narrative of the Hexateuch, for while at the first census (Nu 1*) Simeon counted 59,300, at the second (26*) it had fallen to 22,200. Knowing the methods and the motives of the Chronicler, we can of course attach no import- ance to his introducing the tribe of Simeon as numerous in the time of David (1 Ch 12”), especi- ally when we observe that elsewhere even he is compelled to acknowledge its feebleness (1 Ch 4”). The question has been needlessly raised, To which of the two divisions did the tribe of Simeon attach itself at the disruption of the kingdom ? The truth is that long before that event this tribe had ceased to have any independent existence, having been practically absorbed by Judah. The Chron- icler, indeed, perhaps in order to make up the number ten, appears to reckon Simeon as belong- ing to the N. kingdom (2 Ch 15' 34"; cf. Ezk 48*, *, *, Itev 77). There is probably more founda- tion for the tradition which he has lº. of conquests made by Simeonites in the time of Hezekiah (1 Ch 4*). The list of the sons of Simeon is given in Gn 461° and Ex 618. A different list appears in 1 Ch 4*, Which is practically identical with another in Nu 261%-44, Simeon’s towns are named in Jos 19°-" and (with the exception of some deviations due prob- ably to copyists’ errors) in 1 Ch 4*. All these towns are in Jos 15** * reckoned to Judah, and to the same tribe are elsewhere reckoned such of them as Ziklag (1 S 27"), Hormall (1 S 3(ſ"), and Beersheba (1 K 19°). This is in perfect harmony with the conclusion already reached, that Simeon was absorbed by Judah ; and this same couclusion SIMILITUDE SIMION 519 is strengthened by the circumstance that after the return from the Exile there is no mention of Simeonites, but only of Judahites as dwelling in any of the above cities (Neh 11*). ... In addition to what is contained in the OT, the Pal.-Jewish literature supplies a multitude of details regarding the tribe of Simeon and its eponymous head (cf. especially Test. of Twelve Patr. and Bk. of Jubilee8). These stories are too manifestly apocryphal to merit serious consideration; and the basis is not imore substantial upon which Dozy (de 18raélieten, te Mekka) builds his theory that the sanctuary at Mecca was founded by Simeonites in the time of David. In his important monograph, der Stamm Simeon (Meissen, 1866), Graf not only rejects this opinion as wholly devoid of historical support, but subjects to a searching examination the attempt of Movers and Hitzig to discover other OT allusions besides those of the Chronicler to Simeonite conquests and settlements outside l’alestine. The words of Mic 116 “The glory of Israel shall come even unto Adullam' have been, strangely enough, connected with the history, in 1 Ch 434-19. The exegesis by which this result is reached is exceedingly strained, and the interpretation also involves, what was not the case, that Simeon belonged to the N. Ringdom. Equally unsuccessful is the attempt to prove that it is the Simeonites of Mt. Seir who put the question in Is 2111 (‘Watchman, what of the night?'). The title of the oracle, “Burden of Dumah,' has been sought to be connected with the DUMAII of Gn 2514, mentioned as a family of the Ishmaelites side by side with Mibsam and Mishma, which last are in 1 Ch 425 the names of Simeonite families. The latter circumstance may legitimately be urged in favour of the proba- bility of large admixtures of Ishmaelite as well as Can. elements in the tribe of Simeon. But none of the localities known to us by the name Dumah will suit the topographical necessities of Is 2111ſ, and it is far more probable that Toni is a textual error for DYTN (Cheyne in SBOT'; Marti, Jes. ad loc.), or that Dunnah § silence') is in this instance a symbolical designation of Edom, Del., Dillm., and many others). Side by side with Dumah we find in Gn 2514 Massa, to which Hitzig ſinds a reference in Prš01 311. By an emendation of the text he makes the former read, ‘Words of Agur, the son of the queen of Massa,’ while the latter is rendered “Words of (to) Lemuel, king of Massa, which his mother taught him.’ Hitzig endeavours to connect Massa, with the Simeonite settlement in Mt. Seir ; but the very most that the evidence entitles us to infer is that there may have been an Ishmaelite kingdom of Massa, and that its queen, like the queen of Sheba, may have had a traditional reputation for wisdom. That this kingdom, however, had any connexion with the Simeonites of 1 Ch 442 is not proved, and is on many grounds unlikely. LITERATURE.—Especially Graf's monograph, der Stamm Simeon; cf. also his Gesch. BB. d. A T', 221; Kuenen, Gesam. Abha.ndl. 255 ft. ; Wellh. Compos. d. LIea:.2 312 ft., 353 f., IJG 335 f.; Stade, G VI i. 154; Ewald, Hist. ii. 287 f.; Gractz, Gesch. d. Juden, II. i. 486 f.; Kittel, Hist. of Hebrews, ii. 69; the Commentaries of Del., Dillm., Gunkel, and IIolzinger on Genesis, and of Dillm., Driver, Steuernagel, and Bertholet on Dewt. ; see also Moore, Judges, 12, 30, 240 f. J. A. SELBIE. SIMILITUDE, as used in AV, usually means “image’ or “likeness.’ Cf. Gn 1* Tind. ‘Let us make man in our symilitude and after Oure lyck- nesse,” and Ezk 8° Cov. (where the Heb. is nºnſ), “The symilitude stretched out an honde, and toke me by the hayrie lockes off my heade.” The words so tra are (1) nºnſ (Ps 106° 144*), for which see under PATTERN ; (2) Hypº (Nu 12°, Dt 41° 10.1%), for which see under IMAGE ; and (3) nip (2 Ch 4°, Dn 10"), which is usually trº ‘likeness.’ The last is the only word trº ‘similitude’ in RV. The words tr" ‘similitude’ in NT are : Öpolwua (Ro 5*), Öpolworts (Ja 3")," and Ögotörms (He 7”); in each case IV substitutes “likeness.’ See under PATTERN. But ‘similitude occurs once in the sense of illustration, parable, proverb: Hos 12" ‘I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes’ (TATS, from nº [the root of n\pi] ‘ to be like,” Piel “to liken'). Cf. Mt 13° Tind. “And he spake many thynges to them in similitudes '; He 9” Tind. “Which was a similitude for the tyme then present ’; and Lk 4” Rhem. ‘Certes, you wil say to me this similitude, Physicion, cure they self.” J. HASTINGs. SIMON (Slugu), one of the commonest names amongst the Jews, is a later (Greek) form of SIMEON (cf. Ac 15", where St. James, in referring to St. Peter, uses the archaic form of his name). This form is naturally confined to the Apocr. and NT. J * For the distinction between 8pcologic and slzów see Mayor on a 39. i. IN THE APOCRYPHA.—The name belongs to— 1. Simon I., the high priest who succeeded Onias I. during the Ptolemaic domination (c. 300 B.C.). According to Josephus (Amt. XII. ii. 5) he obtained the surname of ‘the Just’ (6 6tkatos), a designation intended, probably, to emphasize his strict legalism in opposition to the ń. tendency of the majority of the high priests of the Greek period. In Pirke Aboth (i. 2) he is said to have been one of the last of the Great Synagogue, and the saying is attributed to him : ‘On three things the world is stayed, on the Torah, on the Worship [cf. ) Aarpeta in IRo 9"], and on the bestowal of Kind- messes’ (Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers”, p. 12). It is very doubtful, however, whether Josephus is right in identifying Simon I, , with Simon the Just. Herzfeld (ii. 189 ft., 377 f.) and others claim the title for —2. Simon II. (Jos. Ant. XII. iv. 10), the successor of Onias II. (c. 220 B.C.). The same doubt exists as to the subject of the panegyric contained in Sir 50*. He is designated simply ‘Simon the son of Onias the high priest,’ a title applicable either to Simon I. or to Simon II. The graphic description, however, contained in this passage leaves the impression on one's mind that Ben Sira (c. 180 B.C.) is speaking of an elder contemporary (Simon II.) of his own rather than of a high priest who had died a century before (Cheyne, Job and Solomon, 180; see, further, Kuenen, Gesam. A bhandl. 153 f.; Schürer, G.J. V.“ ii. 355 f. [HJP II. i. 355 f.]; Graetz, ‘Simon der }erechte und seine Zeit,” in Ilſomatsschrift, 1857, pp. 45–56). 3. A temple official who, out of ill-will to the high priest ONIAS III., suggested to SELEU- CUS IV. the plundering of the temple treasury, 2 Mac 3*. See HELIOI) ORUS. 4. Simon the Mac- cabee.—See MACCABEES, vol. iii. p. 185. 5. l Es 9*. See CIIOSAMEUS. - ii. IN THE NT.--1. The Apostle Peter.—See PETER (SIMON). 2. See SIMON MAGUS. 3. Another of the apostles, Simon the CANANAEAN (which see). 4. A brother of Jesus (Mt 13", Mk 6°). It is very doubtful whether he should be identified with the Symeon who is said to have succeeded James ‘the Lord’s brother’ as bishop of Jerusalem (Euseb. HE iii. 11, iv. 22), and to have suffered martyrdom under Trajan (ib. iii. 32). Hegesippus, whom Euseb. professes to quote, describes this Symeon as son of Clopas, and calls him dive pués of the Lord, while James and Jude are spoken of as the Lord’s d6s), pot. See art. BRETHREN OF THE LORD, vol. i. pp. 320”, 321°. 5. Simon the leper,’ in whose house a woman anointed Jesus, .Mt. 26", Mk 14*. The question of the identity of our Lord's host and the cognate questions connected with the incident of the anointing are exhaustively discussed in art. MARY, vol. iii. p. 27.9 ft. 6. A Pharisee who invited Jesus to eat with him, Lk 7*. On this occasion we read that a woman that was “a sinner' (&papTw).ós) anointed Jesus’ feet. For the relation of this incident to the narratives of Mt 26, Mk 14, and Jn 12, see, again, art. MARY as just cited, and cf. Bruce, Parabolic Teaching of Christ, 250 fl. 7. The father (?) of JUDAS ISCARIOT, In all the passages (Jn 6' 13**) where this Simon is named, the Greek text ('Iotſdas Xiuwuos, “Judas of Sinion’) leaves it uncertain what was his relation- ship to the traitor, but the EV “Judas the son of Simon' is probably correct. It is very precarious to identify Simon Iscariot (Jn 6” 13*) with Simon the Cananaean. 8. A Cyrenian, who was compelled by the Itoman soldiers to bear the cross of Jesus (Mt. 2732, Mk 1521, Lk 23'"). He is described by St. Mark as the father of ALEXANDER and RUFUS, names evidently well known in the early Christian Church. The story in the Gospels was perverted by some of the Dogetic sects, the Basilidians going the length of maintaining that Simon not only 520 SIMON MAGUS SIMON MAGUS bore the cross, but was actually crucified in mis- take for Jesus. 9. The tanner, with whom St. Peter lodged at Joppa (Ac 9° 10%. 17. *). J. A. SELBIE. SIMON MAGUS.—The name usually given for the sake of distinction to that Simon who is men- tioned in only one place in the NT, but to whom, both in Patristic literature and in modern criticism, the part assigned is very considerable. There are some features in the story of the NT which excite our curiosity; the early Fathers have detailed accounts of his false teaching, and give him the doubtful honour of being the first of the heresi- archs, the source and spring of all later heresy; early Christian romance writers embellished his history with many wonderful details, and made him the antagonist of Simon Peter, both in verbal disputations and in the exhibition of magical arts; while a school of modern critics has found in his career and the stories concerning him the chief support for a far-reaching reconstruction of our conceptions of early Christianity. In order to obtain a sound basis for our investigations, it will be useful after examining the account in the NT to go carefully through the Patristic evidence in chronological order, and after that consider the fuller narratives of uncertain date contained in the Clementine literature and Apocryphal Acts. We shall thus be in a better position to estimate the force and value of modern criticism, and be able to offer a probable explanation of the various difficulties that the problem presents. i. Simon in the New Testament. ii. Simon in Patristic literature to A.D. 400. iii. The Clementine literature and Apocryphal Acts. iv. Modern critical views. v. The growth of the legend. vi. The affinities of Simon's system. vii. Simon Magus and simony. viii. Simon Magus and the Faust legend. Literature. i. SIMON IN THE NT. – In Ac 85-94, where the preaching of Philip in Samaria is described, we are told that “there was a certain man called Simon, which beforetime in the city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one '(\é yov eival riva éavròu péyav). All the people followed him, and described him as ‘that power of God which is called great (oërós éa ruv # 60yapus row 0eoû # ka)\ov- pévm ueyáAm). When the rest of the city was con- verted, Simon also believed and was baptized, and continued with Philip, amazed at his miracles. When Peter and John came down, they laid hands on the converts, who received the Holy Ghost. Simon then offered Peter money, saying, ‘Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.” Peter sternly re- buked him. “ Thy money perish with thee . . . thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter . . . thou art in the ill of bitterness, and the bond of iniquity.’ Simon entreated him to pray the Lord that none of those things might come upon him. It will be more convenient to postpone comments on this passage until we have collected further in- formation on the subject. ii. PATRISTIC EVIDENCE. –The earliest informa- tion outside the NT comes from Justin Martyr, c. 15) (Apol. i. 26, 56 [cf. Eus. HE ii. 13. 14); Dial. 120). He tells us that Simon was a Samaritan, of the village of Gitta ; he came to IRome in the time of Claudius Caesar; by the power of the demons he worked miracles, and was honoured in Rome as a god, so that a statue was erected in his honour by order of the Senate and people, between the two bridges, bearing the inscription SIMONI DEC) SANCTO. Almost all the Samaritans and a few of other nations honour him as the first god (ºrpºros fleós). He took about with him a woman called to those in it, and so among men he appeared as a man. Helena, who had formerly been a prostitute, and whom he is said to have called the first conception (Tptºrm évvoua) which came forth from him. He is described as God above “all rule and authority and power.” We also gather that Justin looked upon him as the originator of heresy and the source whence all later heresies were derived. As regards one part of this story an interesting discovery has been made. In the year 1574 there was dug up in the place indicated by Justin, namely, in the island of the Tiber, a marble frag- ment, apparently the base of a statue, with the inscription SEMONI SANCO DEO RIDIO. It is now generally agreed that Justin mistook a statue dedicated to a Sabine deity for one dedi. cated to Simon (Gruter, Imsc. Amt. i. p. 95, n. 5), although whether the mistake was his own or was earlier than himself we cannot say. But nothing in this mistake need invalidate his testimony about Simon in Samaria. Justin himself was a Samaritan; he draws attention at least once (Dial. 120; cf. Apol. ii. 15) to the fact that he nad spoken the truth to lais own disadvantage. On the subject of the sect which called itself after the name of Simon he must be taken as first-hand evidence. And there are strong grounds for thinking that we have a fuller account which emanates from him. Accounts of Simon Magus are contained in the following heresiological works : Irenaeus (I. xvi.), pseudo-Tertullian (i.), Hippolytus (Refutatio, vi.), Philaster (29), Epiphanius (Panarion, 21). Of these, that in Hippolytus’ Itefutatio consists of two parts; that from $7 to § 18, containing extracts from a work called ñ uéyáAm dirópagus, ‘the Great Revelation,’ presents a different system from that found elsewhere, and will be noticed further on ; that in § 19 and $ 20 is derived from the same source from which the greater part of the matter in all the other heresiologists comes. It is now gener- ally agreed, and probably on good grounds, that this common source was a treatise (0 ºutaypa) on heresies written by Justin and referred to by him- self (Apol. i. 26). The following is the account put together from these different sources:— Simon was said to have taught that he was the highest God, the most elevated virtue (ºv wrip révroz bºwo, wiv). He carried about with him Helena, who he said was the first conception of his mind, the mother of all, by whom he con- ceived in his mind to create the angels and archangels. She was also called Wisdom (robiz), according to pseudo-Tertullian, and Holy Spirit and Prunicus (reočvizos), according to Epi- phanius. She, knowing her father's wish, leapt forth from him and created the angels and powers by whom this world and man were created. She was unable to return to her father because of the envy and desire of those whom she had created, and suffered contumely, and was compelled to assume huuman form. She passed through the centuries, as it were, from one vessel to another, transmigrating from one female form to another. She was the Helen about whom, the Trojan war was fought ; the wooden horse representing the ignorance of the nations. After that she passed from form to form, and lastly became a prostitute in a brothel at Tyre : she was, the lost sheep. But since the rulers of the world ruled it ill, and in order to redeem her, the Supreme Power descended to the lower world. He passed through the regions ruled by the principalities and powers, in each region maling himself º 0 appeared among the Jews as the Son, in Samaria as the Father, in other nations as the Holy Spirit. In Judaea, he had seemed to suffer, but had not. He allowed himself to be called by whatsoever names men liked. IIe thus succeeded in saving Helena, as she expected. IIe brought man to a knowledge of himself, and liberated the world and those who were his from the rule of those who had made the world. The Jewish pro- phecies, he said, were inspired by the angels who made the world. Therefore those who had hope in him and Helent need no longer care for them, but might freely do as they would, for men were saved according to his grace and not according to good works. There was no real difference between good and bad, they were merely accidental distinctions mado by the creators of the world. The morality of the sect, was, we are told, in accordance with these principles. Their priests (m/stici sacerdotes) lived lascivious lives, used magic and incantations, made philtres, had familiar spirits, and had images of Simoil and Helena made in the form of Zeus and Athena. Iſegesippus (c. 180), in a corrupt passage quoted by Eus. iv. 22, speaks of Simon, from whom Game SIMON MAGUS SIMON MAGUS 52A the Simonians; Cleobius, whence the Cleobians; and Dositheus, whence the Dositheans; and Gor- thacus, whence the Gortheni ; and Masbotheus, whence the Masbotheans—from these, he says, came the followers of Menander; and he then enu- merates the later heretics. It would be interesting to know if this heretical genealogy is independent of Justin. Tertullian (c. 200) does not seem to have any original information. He knows the story about the statue (Apol. 13). He gives a long account of Simon’s system, derived apparently from Irenaeus (de Anima, 34). He says that even in his own day the presumption of the sect of Simon is so great that they even presume to raise the souls of the prophets from the lower regions (Ecce hodie eiusdem Simonis h(ereticos tamta presumptio artis eactollit, ut elitºm propheta.rum animas ab inferis movere se spon- deamt). Clement of Alexandria (c. 200) gives us little information about Simon. There is a chronological remark in Strom. vii. 17 which is quite inexplicable, and in Strom. ii. 11 he tells us that the followers of Simon wish to be made like the ‘Standing One whom they worship. In Hippolytus (Refutatio, vi. 7–18) (c. 230 A.D.) extracts are given from a work which evidently described a somewhat different system, and was called ‘the Great Revelation.’ The ſirst principle, according to this, is called & répc.viro; 3%vowls, it is fire or silence ; the fire is of two sorts, £2, spów and zpvrtów, that which is hidden being the secret principle which causes that which is open, The world is derived from the unborn fire (ysvyatºs ič &yszyżrov); first came six roots in pairs, male and female, viz. vov; and rivolo, gov% and ovoºdoº, Xoy toº.6s and $v0%zats. Corresponding to these are six visible or realized counterparts of pov6; and y?, ºxios and a 5x4 va, &%p and U}op. A large part of the work is devoted to proving the system by an allegorical use of the OT, but it is interesting to notice that there are elonments derived from Aristotle, especi- ally the distinction which runs through the whole of 3%vºws and $vépytto. Simon calls himself 6 o'rés, 6 o'ro's, 6 otzorézsvos, implying his pre-existence and his immortality. A short ex- tract will be sufficient to show the character of the book : “To you then I say what I say, and I write what, I write. The writ- ing is this. There are two offshoots of the complete Alºons, having neither beginning nor end, from one root, which is the invisible, incomprehensible ſº silence, of which the one is manifested from above, which is the great power, the intellect of the universe, that administers all things, the male principle ; but the other is from below, vast thought, the female principle, generative of all things. Whenge corresponding to one another they form a pair (orvévyi oº), and they reveal the middle space as an atmosphere which cannot be comprehended, having neither beginning nor end. IBut in this is the father who hears and nourishes all things that have beginning and end. This is he who stood, who standeth, who will stand, being a bisexual power, the reflex of the pre-existent, unlimited power which math neither beginning nor end, being in solitude; for from this the thought which pre-existed in solitude came forth and became twain.” Besides the extracts from this book, Hippolytus also tells us (vi. 20) that Simon went as far as Rome, where he seduced many by his magical arts, but was opposed by Peter. This is the earliest refer- ence to a contest with St. Peter at Rome, unless the notice in 1°hilaster (see below) was derived from the earlier treatise of Hippolytus, in which case it would belong to the close of the 2nd cent. Hippolytus goes on to give an account of his death, diflerent from any that we have in other sources. At the end of his life Simon stated that if he were buried alive he would rise on the third day. IIe ordered his disciples to dig a grave and to bury him. They did as they were ordered, ‘ but he remained away even to the present day. For he was not the Christ.’ Origen (c. 249 A.D.), in the contra Celsum, v. 62, tells us that Celsus, enumerating all the Christian heretics, speaks of Simonians who, worshipping Flelena, or a teacher Helenus, are called Heleniani. Origen points out that Celsus has onlitted to notice that the Simonians never confess Jesus as the Son of God, but say that Simon is the power of God. In vi. 11 Origen points out that Simon has no followers, and Dositieus not more than thirty. He adds that this is all the more marvellous, as Simon had taken away for his disciples the danger of death, saying that to sacrifice to idols was a matter of indifference. In the same work (i. 57) We are told that Simon has not thirty followers, or that that is an exaggerated number. Commodian (c. 250), in Carm. apol. p. 613, speak- ing of beasts which have had the power of speech by the power of God, tells us of the dog which St. Peter made to speak to Simon. This story is found in the Apocryphal Acts. The author of the treatise de Rebaptismate, ch. 16 (c. 260 A.D.), tells us of followers of Simon who make fire appear in the water when they baptize. In the Syriac Didascalia (end of 3rd cent.), vi. 8 and 9 (Lagarde, Syriac text, and in Bunsen, Ama- lecta Antemicana, ii. p. 325), we have a reference to Simon and Cleobius and others of his followers, and an account of the final destruction of Simon in the contest with l’eter at Rome. As this work is almost inaccessible, and its evidence is import- ant, the following extracts are given in full : *— Syriac, p. 100, l. 18 “(Concerning Simon the sorcerer). For the beginning of heresies was on this wise. Satan clothed him- Self with Simon, a man who was a sorcerer, and of old time was his servant. And when we, by the gift of the Lord our God, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, were doing powers of heal. ing in Jerusalem, and by means of the laying on of hands, the communication of the Holy Spirit was given to those who presented themselves, then he brought to us much silver, and desired that, as he had deprived Adam of the knowledge of life by the eating of the tree, so also he might deprive us of the gift of God by the gift of silver, and might seize our understand- ings by the gift of riches, in order that we might give to him in exchange for silver the power of the IIoly Spirit. And we were all troubled about this. Then Peter looked at Satan, who was dwelling in Simon, and said to him, “Thy silver shall go with thee to destruction, and thou shalt not have part in this matter.”” P. l01 ‘(Concerning false apostles). But when we divided to the twelve parts for all the world, and went forth among the Gentiles in all the world, to preach the word, then Satan wrought and disturbed the people to send after us false apostles for the refutation of the word. And he sent out from the people one whose name was Cleobius, and joined him to Simon, and also others after them. They of the house of Simon followed me, Peter, and came to corrupt the word. And when he was in Rome he disturbed the Church [much], and turned away many. And showed himself as though flying. And he laid hold of the Gentiles, terrifying them by the power of the working of his Sorceries. And in one of the days I went and saw him flying in the air. Then I rose up and said, “By the power of the name of Jesus I cut away thy powers.” And he fell, and the ankle of his foot was broken. And then many tºrned away from him. But others who were worthy of him clave to him. And thus first was established and became that heresy of his. And also by means of other false apostles,' etc. (Brackets as in Syriac text). Arnobius (c. 310, contra Gemtes, ii. 12) knows of the story of the contest of Simon and Peter at Rome, ‘I’or they had seen,” he says, “the chariot of Simon Magus and the four flaming horses scattered by the mouth of Peter, and disappearing at the name of Christ.’ He had been lurled down, and his legs broken ; then, taken to Brunda, worn out with tortures and with shame, he had again thrown himself down from a lofty summit. Jºusebius (c. 324 A.D., H.E. ii. 13. 14) gives an account of Simon drawn from Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, and embellished with somewhat strong vituperative language. He then goes on to refer to a contest with l’eter, first in Judaea, then in Rome. ‘Forthwith,” he says, “the above-mentioned impostor was smitten in the eyes of his mind by a Divine and wonderful light, and when first he had been convicted in Judæn by the Apostle Peter of the evil deeds he had committed, he departed in ſlight on a great journey over the sea from the East to the West, thinking in this way only he would be able to live as he wished.” He tells us that he came to lºome, was assisted there * The writer is indebted for these extracts to the Rev. W. C. Allem of lºxeter College, Oxford, who is engaged on a trauslation of the Syriac. The passage is also contained in the Latin Prag ment, xxxii. 522 SIMON MAGUs SIMON MAGUS by the devil, obtained great influence, and was honoured by a Statue. But during the reign of Claudius, Peter himself came there. “And when the Divine word thus made its dwelling there, the power of Simon and the man himself were immedi: ately quenched.” Eusebius and the author of the Syriac Didascalia quoted above are the first writers who speak of both a contest in Judaea and also one in Rome; but there does not seem to be any reason for thinking that either of them had any other source for the former than the Acts of the Apostles. We do not know Eusebius' source for the overthrow of Simon by Peter, and his language is curiously ambiguous. Probably he is giving the common story, drawn from mere apocryphal writing, the worthlessness of which he knows quite well. This makes him avoid both a quotation and direct details. Cyril of Jerusalem (c., 347, Cat. vi. 14, 15) gives an account based upon the Acts and Justin. He also gives an account of the destruction of Simon when he attempted to fly. It is interesting, as we shall see, to notice that he ascribes the final catastrophe to the joint agency of Peter and Paul, showing that he possessed a story which contained the mannes of them both. The work de excidio Hierosolym. iii. 2 (A.D. 368), ascribed to Hegesippus, but probably by Ambrose, gives an account of a contest at Rome of Peter and Paul with Simon. It narrates a considerable number of incidents contained in the Latin Acts. Philaster (c. 380 A.D.), in his account of heresies (Har. xxix.), knows of the contest at Rome with Peter before Nero. He tells us that Simon fled from Jerusalem to escape Peter, and came to Iłome, and then narrates §. contest. If this came from his source, the early treatise of Hippolytus, it would throw the evidence for it into the 2nd cent. ; but as it is absent in the parallel passage of Epiphanius, and as Hippolytus in his later treatise knows the story in another form, it is not prob- able that it did. Jerome (in Matt. 24") (387 A.D.) tells us that Simon said, “Ego sum sermo Dei, ego sum spe- jº, ego paracletus, ego onnipotens, ego omnia €1. The Apostolic Constitutions, which date from Antioch about the year 400, give the legend of Simon Magus in what we may call its complete form (vi. 7–9)— The source of all heresy is Simon of Gitta. First of all, the story in the Acts is given. Then comes an account of all the false teachers who went forth into the world. Then of the contest between Simon and Peter at Caesarea, where the companions of Peter were Zacchaous the publican, and Barnabas, and Nicetas and Aquila, brothers of Clement, ‘bishop and citizen of Rome, who had been the disciple of Paul and co-apostle and helper in the ;. They discoursed for three days con- cerning prophecy and the unity of the Godhead. Then Simon, being defeated, fled into Italy. Then comes an account of the contest at Rome of the 8ame character as we shall come across shortly in the Apocryphal Acts. This account is very much fuller than the narra- tive contained in the Syriac Didascalia, written probably rather more than a century earlier, and seems to inply a considerable growth of the legend. As will shortly be seen, it implies a knowledge of the Clementine literature in some form, and of the - Alſº Acts. n reviewing this catena of passages certain points become clear. During the 2nd cent. all the information, as far as we know, that existed about Simon, is derived from the Acts of the Apostles and the writings of Justin. There seems to be no knowledge of the contest with Peter at Rome, although Justin believed that Simon had visited tome. In the 3rd cent. we begin to get an account of the contest with Peter, which we find in Hippolytus, Commodian, the authors of the Syriac Didascalia, and Aurelius. Eusebius and the Did- ascalia contain this legend, with an account of a contest in Palestine, but do not imply any hing beyond the narrative of the Acts of the Apostles; Cyril's account seems of much the same character. It is not until we reach the close of the 4th cent. that we find in the Apostolic Constitutions what We may call the completed legend, combining the stories which, as we shall see, are derived from the Clementine literature with those derived from the Apocryphal Acts and the narrative in the Acts of the Apostles. The contrast between the earlier Didascalia and the later Constitutions is from this point of view most instructive. We are now in a position to study the fuller legends. iii. THE CLEMENTINE LITERATURE AND APOC- RYPHAL ACTS.—(a) THE CLEMENTINE HOMILLES AND RECOGNITIONS.—These are two forms of what appear to be an early Christian romance, containing the story of the wanderings of Clement in search of truth, the preaching and missionary journeys of Peter, his contest with Simon Magus, and the re- union of Clement with the lost members of his family—his father, mother, and two brothers. The Ičecognitions we possess only in a translation made by Rufinus about the year 400; the Homilies con- tain a somewhat different form of the same story in Greek. There are also a Syriac version and later epitomes which need not trouble us. Neither the Recognitions nor the Homilies contain the story in its original form, both presenting later features; and there is no accepted opinion concerning the date or the sources of the book. But the completed Work must belong to a time when the controversy with Marcion's teaching and the preservation of the Divine plovapxta were of interest in the Church, i.e. to the early part of the 3rd cent, ; and some of the Sources may be earlier. The earliest quotations come from Origen (c. 230). The work is clearly not Orthodox in doctrine, but presents Ebionite features tinged with the Gnosticism it combats. We will give the account contained in the Homilies, stating at the conclusion the main differences in the narrative of the Recognitions. The IIomilies begin with an account of Clement, of his early religious ...; of the desire that he had to hear of the new prophet, and of his meeting with Peter at Caesarea in Palestine. He finds that Peter is, on the next day, to dispute with a certain Simon of Gitta (Blc. i.). The history of Simon is then related by Aquila and Nicetas, who had formerly been his oupils. His father's name was Antonius, his mother's, Rachel. Ie was a Samaritan of the village of Gitta or Gitthae, six miles from Samaria. Ie was educated at Alexandria, and skilled in the wisdom of the Greeks and in magic. He wishes to be con- sidered the highest virtue (&l ord, rº, rus *::::::: higher than the Creator of the world. He calls himself the Standing One (6' Earás), as signifying that he will always be firmly established (6): 8% otzoré- wayo; &i,), and having no cause of corruption in him. The Creator of the world is not the highest God, nor will the dead 19e raised. IIe denies Jerusalem and substitutes Mt. Gerizinn. He puts himself in the place of Christ. He perverts the Law by his own interpretation of it. ... He was the chief of , the disciples of John the Hemerobaptist. As our Lord had 12 apostles symbolizing the 12 months of the year, so John had 30, of whom one was a woman named Helena, thus symbolizing the 29} days in a month. The death of John occurred during the absence of Simon in Alexandria, and Dositheus succeeded to his place. Simon, on his return, desiring the headship, pre- .d. to be a disciple, and then accused Dositheus of not delivering the teaching correctly. Dositheus then attempted to beat him with a rod, whereupon Simon became a cloud of smoke. Dositheus, knowing that he was not himself the ‘Standing One,” said, “If you are the Standing One, I will worship you.” Simon claims that he is, becomes head of the sect, and Dositheus shortly afterwards dies. Simon, taking Helena with him, goes albout disturbing the people. Helena, he says, had come down from the highest heavens; was mistress (zupícºw), the All-mother, and Wisdom Gºrº, ovoio. v zoº oropſcºv); for her sake the Greeks and barbarians fought, having formed an image of the truth, for she was really then with the highest God. To aid him in his magical arts, he had killed a boy, and separated the soul from his body, and made an image which he kept concealed in an inner room by which he divined. A description is given of his miracles. He made statues walk He appears wrapped in fire without being burnt. He is able to fly, to make bread out of stones. He becomes a serpent or a goat. He shows two faces. He can open and shut doors. He makes vessels in his house which wait upon him, without its appearing how they are moved (Bk. ii.). After some delay, during which Peter has explained he SIMON MAGUS SIMON MAGUS 523 A- w-- ºr mystical meaning of Scripture, the disputes between him and Simon take place ; Simon undertaking to prove from the Scriptures that there is more than one God, and that he whom Peter called God is not the highest God, for he is without foresight, imperfect, incomplete, and exposed to every form of human passion (iii. 38). The disputations last three days. Qn the fourth day it was found that Simon had fled by night to Tyre, and was there deceiving the people by his magic (iii. 58). Clement, Nicetas, and Aquila are sent on to Tyre, and Simon flees to Sidon, leaving some of his disciples (iv. 6), who, at Tyre, discuss with Clement the Greek fables concerning the gods (Bks. iv. - vi.). Peter comes to Tyre and Sidon, when Simon #. on to Berytus. Peter follows him, and after a slight altercation Simon goes to Tripolis. Peter again follows (Bk. vii.) him, and Simon ſlees into Syria. At Tripolis Peter remains a long time. There Clement is baptized, and then they go on towards Antioch in Syria by Orthosia and Antaradus (viii.-xi.). Then comes the story of Clement's family (xii.-xv.), and they go on by Batania), Paltus and Gabala to Laodicea. To Laodicea comes Simon from Antioch, and , a long dispute takes place between him and Peter concerning the unity of the Godhead and the existence of evil (xvi,-xix.). Then Faustus, the newly-discovered father of Glement, goes to see Simon. Simon by his magical arts succeeds in making the face of Faustus like his own, and then departs to Antioch, where he accuses Peter of being a magician. Cornelius the centurion has been ordered by the emperor to arrest all magicians. It is for this reason that Simon has changed the face of Faustus, and he escapes to Judaea. Faustus then goes to Antioch, and uses the appearance which Simon hag given him to destroy the latter's influence. The people think that he is Simon. In Simon's name he recants, confesses his deceit and impostures, and Peter is sent for to come to Antioch. The main differences which concern us in the IRecognitions are as follow : Nº is said about Simon being a pupil of John. Helena is called Luna (arºvº). Simon says that Rachel was not really his mother, but that he had previously been conceived by a virgin. The main difference in the book is one of order: instead of two disputes between Peter and Simon—one at Capsarea, the other at Laodicea—we have one dispute at Cubs area, and there most of the matters discussed in the Homi- lies at Laodicea are placed by this editor (ii. 10–72, iii. 12–48). Reference is made (iii. (3) to Simon having said that he would go to Rome, and that there he would be looked on as a god and honoured with statues, and in iii. 64 it is said that he had been there. The voyage along the Syrian coast-line is treated very shortly, in iv.-vi. we have discourses of Peter, in vii.-ix, the story of Clement. Then at the end of X. Simon comes on the stage again, we have the same story as at the close of the Honnilies, only that the father of Clement is called, not I'austus but Faustinianus. It will be noticed that this work seems to fall very easily into separate elements. Blos. i. and vii.-x. 51 are concerned with the story of Clement. Bks. ii. and iii. with the story of the contest of Simon and Peter. Blºs. iv.-vi. with sermons of l’eter. Bk. x. 52 ft. contains the concluding story concerning Simon, which hardly fits in with this version of the history. The journey along the Phoenician coast is very much attenuated, and there are suggestions that originally Simon went straight to Iłome after the contest at Caesarea. (b) TIIE LEGENDARY ACTS OF ST. PETER AND ST. PA UL.—The story of Simon in these Acts differs from that in the Clementine literature. Both alike are concerned with contests between Simon Magus and Simon Peter; but while the latter place the scene of the contest in Syria, the Acts place it in Iłome. The legends appear in two forms: the one is that contained in the Actus Petri cum Simone, a document of Gnostic origin, beiieved to have belonged to the collection known as Leucian ; the other is the Acts of Peter and Paul (Tpdésus Töv dytav diroo TóXav IIérpov Kal IIaúNov). (1) According to the Actus Petri cum Simone, after St. Paul had left Rome, a stir arose in that city, about a man called Simon, who was at Aricia, who had worked many miracles, and said he was the great power (magmann, virtutem) of God, and without God did nothing. He receives a summons : “Thou art in Italy God, thou art the saviour of the lèomans ; hasten quickly to lºome.’ IHe promises to come the next day at the geventh hour, flying through the air at the city gate. At the appointed time smoke is seen approaching, and suddenly Simon appears in the midst. The brethren are in a state of , great consternation because Paul is away, and they are left without any to comfort them, and the greater number fall away. Mean- while the twelve years of Peter's sojourn in Jerusalem are fulfilled, and Christ bids him go to IRome, for Simon, whom he had driven out of Judaya, had anticipated him there. We may pass over the account of Peter's voyage and arrival in Rome. IIe ſinds Simon living in the house of Marcellus, a Roman senator of great philanthropy, whom he had perverted by his magic. When feter hears of the manner in which Marcellus has been deceived, he begins an attack on Simon, describing him as a “ravening wolf, stealing the sheep which are not his.’ It was he who inspired Judas to betray Christ, and hardened the hcart of Herod and Caiaphas. He then goes to the house of Simon. Being refused admittance, he looses a dog and bids him carry a message. The dog goes in, raises his forefeet, and in a loud voice bids Simon come forth. Marcellus at once recognizes his sin, and, going out, falls at Peter's feet and asks pardon. He explains how he had been persuaded to erect a statue SIMONI IVVENI DIEO : “To Simon, the youthful god.’ 1'urther conversations of Simon and of Peter with the dog follow ; then it, having fulfilled its mission, dies. Peter then turns a dead Sardine into a live fish, and Marcellus, overpowered by these miracles, with the help of his servant turns Simon out of his house. Simon then goes to Peter's home. Peter sends him a message by means of an infant seven months old, who speaks and bids him ioave Rome, and lºeep silence until the following Sabbath. Peter them narrates the story of how he had rescued a woman named Eubola from Simon in Palestine. Further mir- acles and discourses of Peter are narrated, and the night before the contest is spent in prayer and fasting. On the day of the contest all Rome comes together, the Senators, the prefect, and the officers. First comes a verbal disputation, and in the speech of Peter we notice apparently a Gnostic tendency. The contest begins by Simon making a young man die by his word. An interruption occurs. A woman rushes in saying that her son is dead, and some young men are sent to fetch him. Peter then raises the young man whom Simon had put to death, a favourite of the emperor, and the son of the widow who had been brought to him. Again, the mother of a certain senator, Nicostrates, asks Peter to heal her son. The dead body is brought. Peter challenges Simon, to raise it. Simon makes it seem to move, but Peter really raises it. All the people then follow Peter. Simon still tries to deceive the people by pretended miracles, but Peter exposes him. As no one believes him, he explains that he is going to God : “Men of lèome, do you think that Peter has shown himself stronger than me, and has overcome me? And do you follow him? You are deceived. To-morrow, leaving you impious and godless men, I will fly to God, whose power I am, having been weakened. . If, then, you have fallen, I am he that standeth (6 'Earás), and I go to the Father, and will say to him, “Me, the Standing One, thy son, they wished to overthrow ; but having refused to agree with them, I have come to thyself.” The people come together to see him fly. He appears flying over Rome. Peter prays, and he falls down, having his leg broken in three places. The people stone him, and all follow Peter. Simon is taken to Aricia, and then to Terracina, where he dies. (2) The Acta Petri et Pauli occur in two forms, the Moº- Túptov Tów &yíoy &roo różav IIšºpov zoº TIo, ºxov and the T26. #61; roy &ºiaw &roovćAay IJärpov zł IIzúAov, but the variations between them do not affect the story of Simon. The main point of difference between this story and that which we have just narrated is that St. Paul is here made the companion of St. Peter instead of being represented as having left l'ome. Owing to the success of the preaching of Peter and Paul, the Jews and priests stir up Simon against Peter. Simon is sum- moned before Nero, and by his miracles convinces Nero of the truth of his claims to be Son of God, and Nero orders Peter and l'aul to be brought before him. The contest is first one of words, in which St. Peter quotes a letter of Pontius Pilate about our Lord, then it passes into miracles. Each challenges the other to say what is in their thoughts. Peter blesses and breaks a loaf of bread, and has it prepared to give to the dogs which Simon sends against him to devour him, thus disclosing that he knew what was in Simon's thoughts. Simon then demands that a lofty tower should be erected. Nero remem- bers how once Simon had appeared to raise himself from the dead after he had been ki. three days, and still cxpects his victory. This Simon had done by making the executioner who had been sent to execute him cut off the head of a ram instead of his own. At this point there is inserted a conversa- tion between Nero and Paul, and then a dispute on the subject of circumcision. Then comes the final test. While Paul prays, it is the part of Peter to oppose Simon. Simon starts flying. Peter then says, “I adjure you, angels of Satan, who bear him to the air to deceive the hearts of the unbelievers, by God the creator of all, and Jesus Christ, whom on this day He raised from the dead, from this hour no longer bear him, but let him go.” He then falls and dies. ... Nero puts Peter and Paul in §§ but keeps the body of Simon to see if it will rise on the third day. It, Wiie noticed in this narrative that the part played by St. Paul is clearly subordinate. His name and his action might really be omitted without serious injury, to , the , narrative. This suggests that very probably the story in its original form came from a source similar to the Actus Petri cuir, Simone, in which St. Paul is entirely absent. iv. MoDERN CRITICAL VIEWS.—We have now gone sufficiently minutely through all the Yºrious vicissitudes which the legends about Simon Magus experienced during the early centuries, and can pass to some equally curious developments of modern criticism. • º There is no doubt that the Clementime litera- ture is to some extent Ebionite in character, and might naturally contain anti-Pauline teach- ing. Starting from this point of view, Baur dis’ covered certain passages in which Simon repre 524 SIMON MAGUs SIMON MAGUS sented, or seemed to represent, St. Paul. He then propounded the view that Simon the Sa- maritan was not a historical character, but a term of reproach invented for the Apostle Paul. The contest between Simon Peter and Simon Magus really represented the original conflict of Peter and Paul. Wherever Simon Magus occurs we should read Paul. At first it was clearly under- stood who this person designated as Simon the Samaritan really was, but as the two parties more and more came together the original meaning was forgotten, and hence we find, even in a book like the Acts of the Apostles, written in a con- ciliatory interest, fragments of the old contest still embedded. But we have to recognize that the whole of our accepted history of early Chris- tianity is really a conventional ecclesiastical legend, and the real history of the period must be disentangled from the Clementine literature. It is marvellous with what ingenuity the parallel was worked out when once the idea was started. Simon called himself the great power of God. Paul claims that he lived by the power of God. (2 Co 12° 13'). When Simon offers money to buy the power of conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost, this is an allusion to Paul, who by his contributions for the poor saints at Jerusalem was attempting to obtain the apostleship. Peter telling Simon that he has neither part nor lot in this matter, is really Peter telling Paul that he has not the k\ſipos Tſis à troot.oxfis. Lipsius, who had worked out this theory in the most ingenious manner, did so mainly in con- nexion with his researches into the early history of the story of St. Peter's martyrdom at Rome. The original idea of Peter having visited Rome was Ebionite. “The tradition of Peter’s presence in Rome, which, unhistorical as it is, can only be explained by an anti - Pauline interest, is most universally connected in the most ancient records with his relation to Simon’ (Zeller, Acts of the Apostles, i. p. 267, Eng. tr.). Rome must be claimed for true Christianity and the Jewish prince of the apostles, so a story was invented describing the manner in which Peter had visited Rome and there won a great victory over the false apostle, the Samaritan, i.e. Paul. Ultimately, the Roman Church realized how important for their prestige was the visit of Peter to Rome and his martyrdom there, and they adopted this legend in a Catholic sense, Peter and Paul being represented as the first founders of the Roman Church. The diffi- culty about this theory is that in the documents which we possess the Catholic theory is really the oldest, and therefore it is necessary to invent an early Ebionite Acts of Peter which contain the Ebionite form of the legend. This, according to Lipsius, was the common source of the Simon legend and the Apocryphal Acts, and he devoted great ingenuity to reconstructing it in accordance with his theory. , 13ut in his later works Lipsius has given up much of his former theory, although he still holds to the existence of early Ebionite Acts of Peter. This theory of the identity of Simon Magus and the Apostle Paul is gradually ceasing to be held, and many scholars summarily dismiss it ; it is, however, we notice, still accepted by Schmiedel (Iºneyc. Bibl. i. p. 913), and will, no doubt, be fully worked out by him. At first sight, from the point of view of common-sense, it seems absurd, and as a matter of fact it has very little evidence in its favour. The evidence that there seemed to be arose from a certain method of looking at facts owing to preconceived ideas. Without going into the question more thoroughly than space permits, we may touch upon the fol- lowing points:– Af * (i.) It is very doubtful whether the Simon of the Clementines Conc vls the Apostle Paul. P} There is little or no evidence for early Ebionite Act.8 Q) ete?’. (iii.) The evidence for the Catholic history of the visit of Peter to Rome is earlier and better than that for his visit to Rome t.) combat Simon Magus. That is a later story (not ap- pearing until the 3rd cent.), arising from the combination of two or three stories. (iv.) The catena of Patristic evidence given above suggests a quite different account of the growth of the legend. (i.) How far does the Simon of the Clementimes conceal the Apostle Paul ?–It is quite natural that the writer of the Clementines, who was probably an Ebionite by extraction, should be anti-Pauline, and any teaching that he would consider erroneous he would put into the mouth of Simon. But hº does the masque of Simon really conceal aul ? (a) In LIom. xvii. 12–19 Simon defends the thesis that the belief obtained by visions is more certain than that from per- sonal intercourse. Peter maintains that the personal know- ledge that he possesses is more trustworthy. This may very naturally be referred to the claim of St. Paul, that he was an apostle because he had seen the Lord in a vision; nor are there wanting verbal parallels. Peter says (ch. 19) : , si zºrsyvoo ºvov Azi Aiysis, cf. Gal 211; so again, el 83 Wº Hasivov 'zºs &pzs 320sic xx. Accºlºrsv0sis & réorreño; #yśvov, and we know that St. Paul claimed to have visions (2 Co 121). This explanation is quite possible ; but has not the whole passage probably very much more meaning when applied to the claims made by heretics to have a special revelation superior to the Church revelation ? (b) In Ilonn. ii. 17 Simon is said to be 6 ºrpo #200 slº rò, fil/vº, •rpºro, ixtláy. He preaches the false doctrine, the coming of which must precede the true which Peter taught. Is not this Paul going among the heathen and teaching them falsely, to be followed by l’eter, who teaches them what is true? So again IIon. iii. 59 Peter says that when he wished to teach the heathen the belief in one God, Simon went further, and taught them to believe in many. In vii. 4-8 Peter tells the people of Tyre that they have been deceived by his forerunner Simon. The second instance clearly takes away from the force of the first, because the false teacher is made to teach the belief in more than one God, and is clearly the first disseminator of Marcionism. (c) In Honn. xviii. 6-10 we have a condemnation of indis- criminate teaching. This is l’eter condemning Paul; but really it will have equal meaning if we suppose it introduced to explain why this special doctrine of the Clementines has only been known to a few. (d) In Itecog. iii. 49 Simon is called a was electionis . . . maligmo, a chosen vessel for evil, cf. Ac 910; and in Išecog. ii. 18 he is said to be maliſmus transformans 8e in Splendorenn, lucis, cf. 2 Co 1114. But nothing can be drawn from the last sentence, and the first does not mean much. Why, if Paul is called a chosen vessel in a good sense, should not Simon be called a chosen vessel for evil? (e) Something more may be said for the expression in the letter of Peter preſixed to the book in which he speaks of #zllpot, &vtodºrov &vowów rivo: acozi ºvoºpó3% . . . . apogºzékesvoſ 3,82- o:22xfow.—Here Paul may well be referred to as ‘the enemy' whose doctrine was lawless; but why should not the enemy be simply Simon, who was by tradition the source of all false teaching? Lawlessness does not mean breaking the law, but teaching immorality. (f) The most significant passage is Recog. i. 70 (a curious episode peculiar to the Itecognitions). , James by his preaching has very nearly persuaded the high priest and all the people to be baptized when “homo inimicus' appears and bids them not to be deceived by a magician, and attacks them. He was clearly intended to be Saul (in his unconverted days), but he i8 8pecially distinguished from Simon, who is introduced as some- one different in the next chapter but one. Paul is quite clearly not Simon here. It seems very doubtful, indeed, whether Simon is ever intended to represent Paul, nor is there any Pauline teaching put into Simon's mouth. The above passages, which are all the more im- portant quoted, are hardly sufficient to establish the theory that Simon is Paul. The author or compiler of the Clementines really starts from the belief that the Simon of the Acts, whom Peter combated, was the source of all heresy, and so he makes his favourite apostle travel from place to olace combating in the person of Simon the false K. teaching of which he was believed to be the originator. This will explain the whole situation, and is much less far-fetched than the explanation which finds St. Paul every where. (ii.) But without forcing this too far, and ad- SIMON MAGUS SIMON MAGUS 525 mitting that the writer may possibly have been intending somewhat delicately to attack Pauline teaching, there is a further question : Is there any evidence for early Ebionite Acts which con- tained a narrative of Peter and Simon (concealing Paul) & The theory of Lipsius formerly was that there was an original Ebionite Acts which was the com- mon source of both the Itoman legend and the Clem- entines. He found an external support for this statement in the passage given above from the Apostolic Constitutions, which he boldly said be- longed to the earlier portion of that work. This is an admirable illustration of the danger of such statements, and how very untrustworthy are the attempts of any critic, however able, to guess at the original portions of a work. Some years before Lipsius wrote thus, Lagarde had already published his Greek version of the Didascalia, the earlier form of the Constitutions, and disproved the whole theory. There is no external evidence for the existence of early Ebionite Acts as the source of the whole story, and Lipsius has given up the theory in this form, but he still believes in early Ebionite Acts. As a matter of fact, there seems very little evidence for their existence. He finds Ebionite tendencies in some passages of the Acts of Peter and Paul, but the controversy there is not with Jewish Christianity, but with Judaism—and Simon Magus is the champion of Judaism. That is the position that he occupied in the Leucian Acts, and the passages suggest much more a Leucian than an Ebionite origin. It is even more diſlicult to speak of the sources of the Clementines, but it is very doubtful if it is necessary to assume an IEbionite Acts which contained an account of Simon. The contest between Simon and Peter along the Syrian coast is almost absent from the IRecognitions, perhaps the earlier form. With the exception of the concluding incident, which was clearly not part of the original work, the portion concerning Simon resolves itself into the account of his career, which is obviously based largely on Justin, and the disputes with Peter at Caesarea, in which Simon is made the protagonist of Marcionism. The latter would probably be the direct work of the author, and does not demand a source. On no subject con- nected with the Clementines is it possible to speak with certainty; but this much seems clear, that there is no evidence of Ebionite Acts, and no need to suppose that they existed. They are merely a hypothesis, invented to support preconceived views. (iii.) If we examine the chronological order of the development of the legend, the Catholic account of the first work of Peter and Paul at Rome is older than the story of Simon and Peter. Both T)ionysius of Corinth and Irenaeus know the story of their visit, and both ascribe to them the foundation of the Roman Church. There is no certain trace of the story concerning the contest of Simon and Peter at Rome before the 3rd cent., although as a matter of fact it probably existed in the Leucian Acts not later than the close of the 2nd century. Chrono- logically, the Catholic story caused the legend, not wice ven s(?. (iv.) The same is true of the whole growth of the story. We first of all trace the various elements of it as existing in different sources and varying forms. The more complicated and fuller stories are the result of later growth, and not the original source. The simple narrative of the Acts is the earliest, not the latest account. This will come out more clearly in what follows. v. THE GROWTH OF THE LEGEND.—We are now in a position to sketch tentatively the growth of the w). legend. Our primary authorities must be the Acts and Justin Martyr, because they are chronologically the earlier, and because the accept- ance of them explains the rest. Justin Martyr, who lived in Samaria less than 100 years after the time of Simon, was writing about something that he would know. . Whether the fully developed system as described by Justin comes directly from the founder of the heresy or was the product of a later member of the school, may of course still be doubted, but the system harmonizes with what we read in the Acts; nor are there any a priori reasons for doubting the story about Simon and the woman he chose to call Helena. The later account of the system which we find in Hippolytus was probably the production of some member of the sect ; but it is on the same lines as the older work, and we must remember that the essence of Gnosticism was not Orthodoxy but speculation. Different members of the school of Basilides produced very different systems, and in the same way some members of the school of Simon produced the later development described above. "The main source of the Clemen. tine literature was directly or indirectly Justin, poºfibly also Hegesippus, and some of the personal details of his life and connexion with Dositheus may be authentic. We now pass to the Roman visit. Are there any grounds for thinking that this really took place : Probably not. Of what happened in Samaria, Justin is a first-hand authority ; on matters in Rome he would be ignorant and misinformed. He saw the statue, and jumped to the conclusion that Simon, of whom he had known so much, was here represented. It may be noticed that Justin gives no authority for the Itoman visit except the statue. . In another direction Justin is responsible for the Simon legend, namely, by making him the source and originator of heresy. How far there is an actual historical basis for the idea that Gnosticism was directly or indirectly derived from him may be doubtful. . His system exhibits all the elements which go to make up Gnosticism ; especi- ally we may notice that there we first find the idea that the highest God was not the creator of the world ; but then such tendencies and ideas were in the air. The same influences of dualism and syncretism which worked in his case would work in others. But, anyhow, Simon was the one clear in- sfance of a heretic mentioned in the New Testament. It was natural, therefore, to represent him as the typical arch-heretic, the originator of heresy, and the place which Justin assigned to him at the head of his heretical genealogy was one in which his position was uncontested. Next comes the Roman contest with Peter. The materials out of which this was constructed were (1) the contest of l’eter and Simon in the Acts ; (2) the Roman tradition that the Church was founded by Peter; (3) the story of the Simon statue ; (4) a story contained in Suetonius (Nero, 12). At games initiated by Nero, some one, per- Sonating Icarus, attempted to fly, and the emperor was sprinkled with blood when he fell. The story of Simon’s flight towards heaven was prob- ably invented at Rome before the close of the 2nd cent., not later at any rate than the beginning of the 3rd. Whether the author of the Leucian Acts of I’cter—a Gnostic—was the first originator or not we cannot say ; very probably he was, as he seems to have helped to give Simon Magus, a pro- minent place. According to Photius (Cod. cxiv.) that work taught that the God of the Jews was evil, whose minister Simon was. This would make it very natural that the author we call Leucius should have invented the episode; and the date which we assign later than Justin, but not later than the end of the 2nd cent., harmonizes with other indications. This story, like many other Leucian inventions, was attractive to the orthodox, and therefore we find it here Worked up in a com. 526 SIMON MAGUS SIMON MAGUS —º paratively speaking orthodox dress. Paul was in- troduced as a companion of Peter, not because there had been anything anti-Pauline in the original story, but because the combined activity of Peter and Paul became a favourite subject of legend. For an Ebionite form of this legend there appears to be no evidence. There remains a certain º logical confusion to discuss. According to Justin, it was in the reign of Claudius that Simon came to Rome. The origin of this date was probably the date on the statue which he saw. The earlier form of the story, then, would bring Peter to Rome in the days of Claudius; and in the Actus Petri cum Simone nothing is said about Nero. But the martyrdom of Peter was by tradition under Nero, so that at a later date the legend was changed to Nero's time. Eusebius, however, had before him the earlier account. He brings Simon to Rome under Claudius, and Peter innmediately after him. Is not this probably the origin of the 25 years' episcopate of Peter at Rome? The origin, them, of the Roman legend was prob- ably the i.eucian Acts. These are represented for us mainly by the Actus Petri cum Simone, the Leucian affinities of which have been shown by James (Apocrypha Anecdota, ii. p. xxiv); the ºpáčets IIérpou kai II at Nou are an orthodox recasting of the story, with the exaggerated miraculous tendency omitted. A separate line on which the legend developed is represented by the Clementine literature. A combination of arguments would incline us to put its date at the beginning of the 3rd cent, and its origin in Syria. The sources out of which it was composed must be very doubtful, as we have little to go on, but the story is obviously made up of different elements. There is a story of Clement and his relations; there is a story of a dispute with Apion, which sometimes seems to have been put into the mouth of Peter, but in our texts is put into the mouth of Clement. There are certain kmpºy- para or Preachings of Peter, and there is an account of the travels of Peter. But how much of this was derived from earlier sources and how much was the work of the compiler of the legend we have no means of determining. The story of the travels of Peter contained, obviously, an account of his journey from Caesarea to Antioch, of the Churches that he founded during that journey, and the bishops and º that he instituted. This is preserved in ooth our texts; but was the dispute with Simon Magus part of the original document? It is usually supposed that it must have been ; but in the Itecog- nitions, which is generally considered the older form of the story, the part of Simon is confined to Caesarea, and is an episode by itself. Again, does the author know of the Roman contest ? The refer- ences to Tºome occur mainly in the Recognitions, and may have been introduced to adapt the story to a Roman audience. It is quite possible that the introduction of Simon Magus is due to the compiler of the work, and that his only historical source of knowledge about Simon was Justin Martyr and, possibly, Hegesippus. But if his sources are doubtful, his purpose is more clear. He is an Ebionite Christian by ex- traction, who has been influenced by the specula- tive ideas which we associate with Gnosticism, and he writes to reconcile the conflicting claims of Judaism and Christianity. His main tenet is the I)ivine unity, and therefore he combats the poly- theism of the heathen, the dualism of Marcion, and Trinitarianism (if we may use the term). This last feature gives us his date, the º of the Monarchian controversy early in the 3rd cent.; and for this date there is also external evidence. Within the limits of a common Monotheism he hopes to find room for both Jews and Christians, and his references to the establishment of bishops and presbyters by Peter show that he wishes to adopt the existing ecclesiastical organization. There is a certain amount of art in his choice of characters. The defender of polytheism is Apion, perhaps the traditional opponent of Judaism ; the attack is put into the mouth of Clement, as obviously more fitted for such work than l’eter. The one heretic of the apostolic age, Simon, who was the traditional source of all heresy, is made the exponent of all false Christian teaching, and his natural combatant is Peter. Paul is never men- tioned by name, but anything like an overt attack on him would have been quite beside his purpose. There are no doctrines which were ascribed to Paul attacked in the person of Simon. Simon is not Paul, nor intended by the author to be Paul. He was obviously a writer with considerable powers of invention ; he had a certain annount of history or legend or tradition, but he may very likely be himself responsible for most of the personal episodes he describes, and for the use he has made of Simon. There is no evidence, at any rate, for any Ebionite Acts which he is supposed to have used, nor any need to imagine them. One more feature must be referred to. Simon is with him the magician as well as the false teacher, and a great deal is said about the magical element, which requires all Peter's miraculous powers to dispel. The whole of this side of the legend appears absurdly puerile to a modern reader. But we are apt to forget that all the tricks Simon claimed to perform were believed in at the time, and that those who claimed to perform magical rites were among the most deter- mined opponents of Christianity. Magic was a real danger, and a very subtle form of false teach- ing. It was the true spiritual force of Christianity which overcame it ; but numerous writers always ascribed this triumph to the exhibition of vulgar miraculous power. It is maintained that this reconstruction of the history of the Simon legend represents a much more probable and consistent account of the origin of the story than the distorted and complicated theories which have appeared since the time of Baur, and have rested clfiefly on unproved hypo- theses of sources and fanciful reconstructions of the early historical period.” vi. THE AFFINITIES OF SIMON's SYSTEM.–The historical nucleus of the legend is, as we have seen, the narrative in the Acts, part of the ſtory in Justin, the system as described by him belonging either to Simon himself or an earlier follower, and perhaps some incidents recorded by the Clem- entines. Wi. we accept this as original, the affinities of the system suggested by 13aur and his followers become a legitimate explanation. Sam; aria was a country in which a sort of bastard Judaism came in contact with the old Syrian and Phoenician religions and the newer Hellenic aganism. All these different elements are present in Simon's system. That the relation of himself and Helena is a reminiscence of the Syrian male and female deity is equally natural, whether Helena be a real person (as is probable) or only the per- sonification of an idea. The fact that in one account—that of the Recognitions—she is colled Luna (a translation of orexium), makes the parallel to the Sun and Moon worship, the Baa) and Astarte, more close. Simon represents an almost pre-Christian Gnosticism, and it is significant that only here do we find this very repulsive duo listic element. Simon represents the impostor of the * It may be objected that nothing has been said about the Simon of Cyprus mentioned in Jos. A mt. XX. vii. 4. ..] a the opinion of the present writer the two Simons have nothing to do with one another, and the resemblance of names countu for nothing. There are said to be twenty-four Simons in the 11:00x to Josephus. s SIMON MAGUS SIMPLICITY 527 r period, whose claims are even more improbable than those of Apollonius of Tyana or Alexander of Abomoteichus. His mind is a medley of Hellen- ism, Judaism, and Orientalism ; out of this he forms a system, in which he himself occupies the first position. The influence of Christianity and then the opposition to it give a certain vitality and force to the ideas he suggests, and in other hands, they become fertile and prolific. Later Gnostics were more definitely Christian. The founders of the sects never claimed Divine honours for themselves. They discarded more extravagant features. But they shared with Simon the funda- mental doctrine that the Creator of the world was an inferior and, perhaps, a malevolent deity.” vii. SIMON MAGUS AND SIMONY. — In another direction the name of Simon has become used universally for the sin of attempting to purchase spiritual gifts or spiritual preferment for money. Both sorts were included under the sin of Simon. The earliest example seems to be from the Apos- tolical Canons, where it is said: ‘If any bishop, resbyter, or deacon obtain this dignity for money, É. he that is ordained and the ordainer shall be deposed, and also cut off from all communion, as Simon Magus was by Peter.’ And the instance is often quoted in later canons. The use of the term appears to have arisen through the Canon Law. viii. SIMON MAGUS AND THE FAUST LEGEND.— There are some curious coincidences, if they are nothing more, between the legend of Simon and the story of Faust. The hero of that legend is sup- losed to have been a certain Dr. Faust, of Knitt- łº, who died in 1540. The legend appears first in a written form in 1587, and was obviously the result of a fertile imagination. It is quite possible that in building up the story reminiscences direct or indirect of the legend of Simon Magus may have come in. The following are points of re- semblance : (1) firstly and most clearly the intro- duction of Helena in both ; (2) the name Faustus; (3) the homunculus; (4) in Simon Magus himself we may have a suggestion of Mephistopheles. This connexion may be due to direct literary in- fluence, or we may have here two different versions of a theme which has been common at various times, the contest between Religion and Magic—a contest which we have to believe is far older and more universal than was once thought. LITERATURE.-(1) On Simon Magus generally. The two most complete expositions of the two opposing points of view are by Möller in Herzog, R192 xiv. s.v., and by Lipsius in Schenkel's Bibel-Lea:icon, v. 301–321. For older works see Mosheim, Inst. hist. eccl. i. 389. There are accounts in all the works on heresies in the Larly Church, of which the most useful is that of Hilgenfeld, die Hetzergeschichte des Urchristenthums, pp. 103 and 453. The most complete account in English is that by Salmon in Dict. Chr. Biog. iv. 681. Other treatises referred to are Simson, ‘Ileben und Lehre Sinnon des Magiers,’ in Z. f. hist. Theol. 1841, iii. 89; Baur, JDas Manichſtische Religionssystem, Tübingen, 1831, 467, Die Christliche Gnosis, Tübingen, 1885, . 300 ft. *č, On Simon and Paul see Baur, “Die Christuspartie in Korinth,’ in Tübinger Zeitschrift, 1831–34, p. 116ff.,. Pawlw8 (1845), p. 85 ft., 218ſ. 12 pp. 97 ff., 246 ſ.l., Das Christenthwin der drei erstem. Jahrhunderie 2, p. 85 ſº, ; Hilgenfeld, Die Clementin- ischem. Itecognitionen atmal Homilien (1848), p. 317 ff., “Der Magier Simón,’ in ZFWTh, 1808, p. 357 ff.: Zeller, Apostel- geschichte, 158 ſº. (i. p. 250, Eng, tr.); Volkınar, ‘fiber den Simon Magus der Apostelgeschichte,’ in Theol. Jahrbücher, 1856, p. 279ff. º * tº (3) The Apocryphal Acts, may be read, in Lipsius,...Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, which supersedes all previous editions. Lipsius' criticism will be found in Die Quellen der römischem * The criticisms of Renan (ii. 154) are interesting and worth uoting. ‘Simon de Getton fut le chef d'un mouvement re- ligieux, parallèle A celui du Christianisme, qu'on peut regarder comme une sorte de contrefaçon Samaritaine de l'oeuvre de Jésus . . . (ib. 269). Hélène, significant par lù Qu'elle était l'objet de l'universelle pursuite, la cause éternelle de dispute entre les hommes, celle qui se venge de ses ennemis en les rendant aveugles: theme bizarre qui mal compris ou travesti à dessein, dºnna lieu chez les pères de l'église aux contes les plus banals.’ Petrus-Sage kritisch wntersucht, Kiel, 1872, and in Die Apokry. ſphem. Apostelge&chichten und Apostellegendem, ii. 1, Braunsch. weig, 1887. In the latter volume he very much modifies hit earlier conclusions. (4) On the Clementines may be mentioned Schliemann, Die Clementinen, Hamburg, 1844; Uhlhorn, Die Homilien und Recognitionen deg Clemens ſkomnanus, Göttingen, 1854; Hilgen- feld, Die Clementimischen Iłecognitionen und Homilien, Jena, 1848, and in Theol. Jahrbücher, 1854, 1868; Lehmann, Dió Clementimischem Schriften ; Lipsius in Protestantische Kir- chemzeitung, 1869, pp. 477–482; and, in English, Salmon's art. in the Dict. Ch?". Biog. (5) On, Simon and the Faust legend see Zahn, Cyprian von Antiochien who die dewtsche Faust8age, Erlangen, iS82; and Kuno Fischer, Die I'aw8t8age. A. C. HEADLAM. SIMPLE, SIMPLICITY.-The words tra ‘simple” in AV are (1) "nº (from Tºp to be open), “openness,” inexperience, descending to º In Pr l” the abstract use occurs and the word is tra “simplicity,” elsewhere the meaning is personal, and the translation “simple’ or ‘simple one.” In Pr 9" the translation is ‘foolish' (RW ‘simple ones’). It occurs chiefly in Proverbs (see Oehler, Theol. of OT, ii. 446; Cheyne, Devout Study of Criticism, 388 ; Schultz, Old Test. Theol. ii. 283 f.). (2) nºnº, only Prº*, of Folly personified. (3) dikakos, “guileless,” Wis 4”, Ro 16”. (4) & Képatos, ‘sincere,’ lit. “unmixed,” Ro 16” (see Trench, Sym. § lvi.). Simplicity is the tr. of (1) ºn; in Pr. 1%. (2) Bh (of which the plu. is nºR, the Thummim of Heb. Oracles) completeness, uprightness (from DipE to finish), only 2 S 15". (3) &t)\órms, ‘one- foldedness,’ ‘singleness,’ ‘sincerity,” Wis 1", 1 Mac 2*, Ro 128, 2 Co 1* 11°. (See Sanday–Headlam on Ro 12°; G. Montefiore in JQR vi. 469). The Eng. adj. ‘simple' (used also as a subst.) signiſles ‘one- fold,” “single' (from Lat. simplea, through Old Fr. simple). This original meaning is seen, e.g., in its application to medicines: thus Gosson, School of Abuse (Arber, p. 37), “Chiron was . . . a reader of Phisicke, by opening the natures of many simples.’ And we still speak of a matter being ‘simple' when it is not complicated. When applied to persons, the meaning is now ‘weakminded,’ ‘foolish.” But in AV and older Eng. generally the meaning is never quite so strong as that, and, when it approaches it, always implies moral blame. I. Inea:perienced or unsophisticated, as Gn 2527 Tind. “Jacob was a simple man and dwelled in the tentes.’ This is perhapſ all that is expressed by the word in l’r 14 “To give subtilty (RVn ‘prudence') to the simple'; 1415 “The simple believeth every word'; and especially Ro1619 “I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple (AVnn “harmless') concerning evil.” 2. This inexperience may be ignorance to be instructed, or weakness to be defended. Thus Ps 197 ‘The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple'; 1160 “The Lord pre- serveth the simple.’. Cf. Hamilton, Catechism, fol. xv, “Ye that are simple and unleirnit men and wenen suld expresly beleifal the artikils of your Crede’; Is 588 Cov. “He shalbe the most symple and despised of all' : 6022 Cov. “The yongest and leest shal growe in to a thousande, and the Symplest in to a stronge beople. l º But in Proverbs the tendency is to regard inexperience as heedlessness and almost folly, thus 1418 “The simple inherit folly’; and as blameworthy, thus 123 “How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity ?’ Cf. Bunyan, Holy War, 129, “I heard him say it in IFolly Yard, at the house of one Mr. Simple, next door to the sign of the Self-deceiver." Simplicity has not quite the same range of meaning as ‘simple.’ 1. Ignorance or weakness, descending to folly, as Pr 122, cf. Adams, Works, i. 29—“God, in regard to thy sim- plicity, brings to naught all their machinations,'... 2. Guileless- mess, rising to innocence and sincerity, as 2 S 1511 “They went in their simplicity’; Wis 11 ‘Think of the Lord with a good heart, and in simplicity of heart seek him '; 1 Mac 237m; Ro 128 ‘IIe that ... him do it with simplicity' (iv &rAérati, AWim “liberally,' RV “with liberality,” RVm ‘with singleness'); 2 Co 112 “in simplicity and godly sincerity’ (RV [reading with edd. &yuárnºr, for &rAörºrt of TR) “in holiness'); 113 ‘the simplicity that is in Christ.' Cf. Elyot, Govermour, i. 220, ‘Trewely in every covenaunt, bargayne, or promise, ought to be a simplicitie, that is to saye, one playne understandinge or meaning betwene the parties’; and Ac 240 Rhem. “They tooke their meate with joy and simplicitie of hart.” It is to be observed that “simpli- city' in its modern sense does not occur in AV or RV : to take 2 CŞo 113 in the mod, sense is wholly to misunderstand the paSSage. J. HASTINGS. SIMPLICITY (&tx&rms, ‘singleness,’ LXX tr. of ph as also of ngº) is the characteristic attribute of the man who is whole - hearted and single - hearted. The word āTX00s is applied by Plato to God, who is 528 SIN SIN ‘perfectly simple and true both in word and deed” (Rep. ii. 382 E). It is used to describe the man who plays only one part and does one thing, in con- trast to him whose energies are not concentrated but divided over a variety of pursuits (IRep. iii. 397 E). Simplicity is a mark of the just man who wishes to be and not to seem good (Rep. ii. 361 B), while the man of an opposite type who lacks the true virtue of a ‘unanimous and harmonious soul’ is ôttrMods, for he is at war with himself, and is virtu- ally two men, not one (Rep. viii. 554 D). Its close relationship to drakta (guilelessness) is indicated by the fact that in many passages where the LXX has āt)\örms, Aq. has ākakla as tr. of the same word (Ps 70 261 it 4118 7872); its relationship to ejóðrms (rectitude), by the fact that in LXX nº is tr. by both words (1 K 9, 1 Ch 2917). Simplicity describes the moral and mental attitude of the man who is absolutely at one with himself in motive, aim, and end, whether in relation to God or his fellow-men. This unity and concentration of the inner nature gives fulness of spiritual perception, as our Lord. shows by a comparison taken from another sphere of vision. ‘If, therefore, thine eye be single (ār),00s), thy whole body shall be full of light' (Mt 6%, Lk 1184). Such a man is incapable of in- sincerity, or artifice, or malice, or finesse. IIence he is opposed to the two-souled mam, who is driven now Godwards, now earthwards (6tyuxos, Ja 18), to the double-hearted (Ps 12°) and the double-tongued (60.6)0s, 1 Ti 38; 6iy\wagos, Pr 1118, Sir 59). In his walk he does not try to go upon two ways (Sir 212), but goes straight to the goal, with his face set thitherward, neither halting, nor lingering, nor diverging. In his obedience to Christ there is no reservation, no element of calculation, only un- conditional loyalty (2 Co 118). In his devotion to God there is no bargaining as to the minimum of disobedience which He may permit (2 K 518), in his work for men is no taint of eye-service (Col 342, Eph 6°). In his giving there is no admixture of any base element (Ro 128). For he gives as God gives, without any afterthought (Ja 1°), for no end save the good of the receiver. The simple one is guile- less, and as such, though not free from prejudice, he is open to conviction (Jn 147). Himself incapa- ble of being swayed by ignoble motives, he attrib- utes a similar incapability to others, and thus may be easily deceived ; in this way simplicity may so degenerate that it becomes not merely opposed to craftiness, but to prudence (2 S 1511). In the NT conception prudence is consistent with simplicity, and should be inseparably associated with it (Mt 1010, Ro 1619 &Répatos). In the Test. of the Twelve Patriarchs there is a graphic picture of the man of simplicity. He is not a busybody in his doings, nor malicious and slanderous against his neighbours. IIe never speaks against any one, nor censures the life of any one, but walks in the simplicity of his eyes. Ile is free from lustful desires ; he is unselfish in his beneficence. ‘The simple coveteth not gold, defraudeth not his neigh- bour, longeth not after manifold dainties, de- lighteth not in varied apparel, doth not picture to himself to live a long life, but only waiteth for the will of God, and the spirits of evil have no power against him ' (Testament of Issachar, c. 3–4, Sinker's tr.). LITERATURE. — Suicer, Thesaurus ; Cremer, Bib.- Theol. Lea:, ; Trench, N T Symonyms, pp. 204–200; Kling in Herzog", vol. iv. 135, 136; Lemino in Herzogº, vol. v. 251-253. JOII N PATI:ICK. ** SIN.— I. IN TIME O/D TESTAM//wz–Profit- tory.—The doctrine of sin in the ()'I' must be con- sidered as there given ; that is to say, the historical method forbids our taking into account NT inter- bretations of it—such, for instance, as St. l'aul's comments in Itomans on the sin of Adam and its -ºw —-mºs consequences. The same method requires that the chronological order of the OT should be followed, but the attempt to do this precisely would so com- plicate the treatment that it seems best to examine the main divisions of the Heb. Bible as they stand — (1) the Law, (2) the Prophets, (3) the IIagio- grapha, leaving Open such questions as what amount of the Priestly legislation may be considered to be pre-exilic, and what dates are to be assigned to l)euteronomy and the Books of Kings. Sin is a negative conception, and involves a pre- ceding idea to which it is contrary, namely Right- eousness, first attributed to Noah, Gn (59. The righteousness of God is His conformity to the moral law which is II is nature, and to His cove- nants with man. The righteousness of man is conformity to the same moral law and the same covenants. ‘Walking with God’ (Gn 5%) is but an- other phrase for righteousness. Sim as the contrary of righteousness is disobedience to God, departing from God, self-assertion against God. Thus the fundamental OT conception of sin is not sin against Other men, or against a man's self, but sin against God. The OT anticipates what modern Christian thought has asserted, that the nearest relation of the human soul is its relation to God (Müller, Chr. Doct. of Sin, tr. Vol. i. p. 81). i. THE LAW. — Starting with this hypothesis, let us first see how far it is borne out in the tradi- tions of pre-Mosaic religion. (1) There is no occasion to enter into the question whether the story of the Fall is to be regarded as both historical and symbolic (Aug. de Civitate Dei, xiii. 21) or merely symbolic (Origem, de Prin. iv. 16). One point comes out clearly : sin is set before us at its very beginning as disobedience to I)ivine law, an exercise of human free will in con- scious opposition to that law, a departure from an original state. There is, however, nothing to imply that that state was a perfect one, as scholastic theology described it. The free communications with God, on which much stress has been laid as evidence of a lofty state, continue after the Fall. (On the supposed contradiction between the results of anthropological science and the idea of a Fall, see Illingworth's Bampton Lectures, Lect. vi.). It must also be observed that the OT does not any- where teach a corruption of human nature derived from Adam, still less an imputation of his guilt. All that it teaches is the universality of sin in Adam's offspring. But if the descent of all man- kind from Adam is taken as a fact, then the univer- sality of sin may be presumed to have some relation to descent from Adam (see Mozley’s Lectures and Theological Papers, Lect. on ‘Original Sin '). And the prevalent feeling that the nation rather than the individual was the subject of sin (see Clemen, Lehre von der Sünde, p. 42 f.) would prepare the way for the thought of all mankind being involved in the guilt and penalty of Adam and Eve, when religious thought came to reflect on the relation to God of mankind generally, and not merely of Israel. This reflexion, however, belongs to a later date (2 Esdras and Romans), and the absence of reference to the IFall in OT is remarkable. The three passages usually quoted, Job 31” (see RV m), IIos 67 (see RVm), Is 4327 (see Dillmann, ad loc.), are not to the point. Cf., further, Thackeray, St. I’aul (and Jewish Thought, 31 ff. (2) The interest of the Cain narrative is, (a) that man is not left to limself either before or after sin. There are voices of God Warning, promising, con- demning. And (b) sin is already personified ; it has gained a positive existence instead of being a mere negation : ‘If thou doest not well, sin couch- eth at the door,” Gn 47; cf. Sir 2719. (3) The next point is the development and in. crease of sin (Gn 6%. 11.1%). Sin is a parasitic growth ** (Mo))/7%iſh/, 1902, by (http:/es Stºrilyntey's Sons SIN SIN 529 which multiplies in its appropriate soil. It is not merely a number of isolated rebellions, but results in a state of sin both in the individual and in the race. This state of sin takes possession of the thoughts of the heart, and its outward effect is violence (PP) between man and man. º At the Flood the method of God is, so to speak, changed. He recognizes (Gn 6°) the pre- dominance of ‘the evil imagination” (9), YK.), a term which afterwards plays an important part in Jewish theology (see Weber, Jüd. Theol.” p. 213 ff., and Dillmann, ad loc.). Sin must be dealt with in other ways, by an election and a covenant. The one righteous man is takeſh, special relations are established with him, and a covenant given. This covenant is followed by those with Abraham, and with Israel at Sinai. Ibut these covenants, while designed for Salvation, open out, each of them, new possibilities of sin. It is no longer a matter of transgression against undefined moral law, but there are definite ordinances. Sin is not merely the breach of the universal relation between creature and Creator, but the breach of covenant, a revolt (9%). Moreover, with patriarchal re- ligion, the contrast of faith and unbelief comes in in a definite way (Gn 15%). Esau's sin also is plainly unbelief. This is gradually shown to be the root of sin, and every particular sin is regarded as a manifestation of it. When, with Abraham, we reach the distinction between those within and those without the covenant, the question arises, Is there a recognition of the moral law and a con- sciousness of sin in the Gentile world 2 The ques- tion is answered in the affirmative by the case of Abimelech (Gn 20), and the existence of such a law outside the covenant is implied throughout the OT, e.g. Am 1. Thus there is nothing in the OT claim of unique revelation to Israel, which is inconsistent with that consciousness of sin which is to be found in Babylonian, Persian, Vedic, and Greek sources, though there it is sin against Istart, Ahuramazda, or Varuna, not against Jehovah. As to what conduct is sin, the range is narrow, and the moral standard within the covenant does not materially differ from that outside it. I)eceit, sensuality, and cruelty are not yet distinctly felt as sinful. (5) The Mosaic covenant. The terminology of sin now increases and becomes definite, and it will therefore be necessary to examine it in detail. The three most important terms occur together in one verse, Ex 347 (cf. Ps 32.2), iniquity (i\}), trans- gression (993), sin ("Nº, nsºn, sºm). (a) Sin.—Three cognate forms in Heb., with no distinction of meaning, express sin as missinſ, one's (tim, and correspond to &paptia and its cognates in NT. The etymology does not suggest a person against whom the sin is committed, and does not necessarily imply intentional wrong-doing. But the use of the word is not limited by its etymology, and the sin may be against man (Gn 401, 1 S 20) or against God (Ex 32*). Clemen's concession (Lehre von der Silnale, pp. 22, 23), that sin and iniquity meant failure to comply with national custom ( Volks- sitte), must be qualified by the consideration that national custom was practically religion, and was always associated with supernatural sanction, so that sin against it was considered sin against God, even where God is not mentioned. It is no doubt true that this implicit thought that sin is against God, comes much more distinctly to the surface in Deuteronomy. Two subsidiary uses of nsºn must bo noticed. Iliko \}, it is used for the punishment of sin, as well as for sin itself (Zec 1419, La 890). The passage from one sense to the other is seen in Nu 32*. These instances open the question of the meaning of ns@D (and nº) in a class of passages in the Psalms, where modern ex- positors take them to signify not sin or (ſuilt, but punishment, See Cheyne on Ps 3111. This double sonse of both words is a witness to the IHob. Vlow of the close connexion of sin and suffering, which will demand special attention in Job. Secondly, nsºn is used for sin-offering (Lv 4”). This use of the same word for the oftence and the offering meets us again under tº: (trespass). (b) Iniquity (\º), literally “perversion,' ‘distortion' [but see Driver, Sam. 135 m., who follows Lagarde in distinguishing two roots Tiy, one = ‘bend, twist,” the other (the root of Tº) = 'olºr VOL. IV.-34 (from the way)'].—It is to be distinguished from (a) as being a quality of actions rather than an act, and it thus acquires the sense of “guilt,’ which might well have been adopted by 13 V as the rendering of IV. . Gwilt as distinguished from 8in may be described as the sinner's position in regard to God which results from his sin. Gullt involves punishment, and thus the connota- tion of 1% is enlarged still further. As Schultz says (OT Theol, ii. p. 806), ‘in the consciousness of the pious Israelite, sin, guilt, and punishment are ideas so directly connected that the words for them are interchangeable.” See esp. Gn 418, Lv 2641. An illustration of this connexion is the phrase ‘bear iniquity (less frequently ‘bear sin"), first occurring Gn 413, and frequent in Ezekiel, II and P. The idea is that of being involved in guilt with the inevitable consequence of punishment (Nu 14*), and the phrase is nearly equivalent to the verb cºs; cf. Lv 5-9. It must, however, be noticed that the verb translated “bear’ (sº) SOIll O- times has for its subject the person offended against, and is used in the sense of ‘taking away' sin. I'or reff, see Outf. Iſeb. Lea, p. 671. In Ly 16” the goat for AZAZEL ‘bears iniquities' into a land not inhabited. Hore both the senses above men- tioned are impligd ; and the 8ame may be said of the more important passage in Is 5813, where the Servant of the Lord both bears and takes away the Bin of many. Thus this phrase lies at the root of the doctrine of the Atonement. (c) Transgression (993).-The original sense of the noun is clear from the use of the verb (cf. 1 K 1210 “Israel rebelled against the house of David’). ... It is a breaking away from law or covenant, and thus it implies a law and lawgiver. It im- plies what ns ºn does not necessarily imply, namely, the volun. tariness of sin. This distinction comes out clearly in Job 3487 “he addeth rebellion unto his sin.” (d) Wickedness (99).-This is sin become a habit or state. Its adjective yº in plur. describes sinners as a class, “the wicked '; and is invariably the correlative of DYº (“righteous'); cf. Gn 1828. Besides the foregoing, three other words require brief notice, pºſs with ºpp and y). AV does not sufficiently distinguish them, rendering $2p ‘trespass,’ ‘transgression,' and Dys or nº's ‘trespass,’ ‘trespass-offering'; whereas ºn is strictly an act of unfaithfulness or treachery towards God or man, pro- ducing a state of guiltiness designated by bº, requiring an offering to atone for it, which offering is also expressed by the same word cºs (RV guilt-offering'). See Oehler, 0.7. Theol. § 187. byp is a word of limited range belonging to the priestly termit.ology (see Driver, LOT 127 [0, 184]), while Dys and its cognates run through OT. There is in the latter word the sense of a need of compensation, and the guilt-oflering is to be regarded as a compensatory offering for an injury done (see O.cf. Ileb. Lea, p. 79). We now proceed to the Mosaic covenant, not merely as contained in Ex 20–23, but as developed in the whole of Ex. - Lv. - Numbers, keeping in mind the widely different dates to which different portions may belong. . The object of this law as a whole, if we regard it as providentially developed, appears to be not so much directly to advance morality or to deepen a sense of moral imperfec- tion, as to create a nation within which communion with the One God might be realized and preserved, —or, in other words, to form a hard external shell, within which a higher religious life might be gradu- ally and securely evolved. Hence the political and ceremonial elements were the prominent ones. And hence sim under the Law meant much more neglect, conscious or unconscious, of ceremonial regulations than moral transgression, and no dis- tinction was drawn between the two. This was a necessary first stage. Again, God was the King of the new nation. Thus there was no room for non-religious law. His purview embraced all acts. Therefore there was no distinction between sin and crime. In the present day there are sins, which are not regarded by English law as crimes or torts. It was not so in Israel. If an act was outside the Ilaw, it was not sin. IIe who kept the Law was blameless. Conversely, there are offences against the law of England which the most conscientious would hardly regard as sin; but in Israel all enact- ments were part of the Divine law, and the breach of any of them was sin. This religious character of law was, of course, not peculiar to Israel. It is characteristic of early 18tahmanic law (see Maine, Early Law and Custom, c. ii. esp. p. 42 ft.) and of other systems. 530 SIN SIN If, as seems probable, Deut. is earlier in date than much of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, it cannot correctly be called an advance on the views hitherto treated, but at any rate it takes much higher ground. Not only does the love of God and of one's neighbour in Deut. supply the Israelite with new motives for fulfilling express commands, but this love opened new views of duties beyond those commands, and thus enlarged and deepened the sense of sin where these were not fulfilled. There are humane directions which tend to positive virtue. Deut. is not open to Wellhausen’s charge against the rest of the Law, ‘What holiness re- quired was not to do good, but to avoid sin” (Hist. Isr., Eng. tr. p. 500). It will now be necessary to examine one class of offences against the Law which has had an important part in providing terminology and forming conceptions of sin. It is acknowledged that the Law of Israel was in great part a reformation and republication of existing Semitic custom, and indeed of customs not exclusively Semitic. This was the case with the class of enactments which related to what was clean (non?) and unclean (sp). These concerned not only food, but persons and things. Offences in respect of these were sin, and punishable with death. There are three explanations of these enactments which must be set aside. Taking them as a whole, it is impossible to regard them as having a moratl character. Nor are they designedly allegorical. So far as they disclose this character they possess it not by virtue of direct Divine ºpº but from their origin long before the birth of Israel. They grew out of man's sense of the unseen, his reverence for it, his consciousness of physical and spiritual dangers besetting him. . The proof of this }. in the existence of very similar bodies of law as to cleanness and uncleanness, outside Israel, as for instance in the V endidad (Sacred Books of the East, tr. Darmesteter, vol. iv.). Thirdly, the conception of clean and unclean was not a sanitary one, and had nothing in common (except incidentally) with modern notions of cleanliness. It was rather, that certain things, especially everything connected with birth and death, carried with them an infection of danger and an unfitness for worship. The opposite of uncleanness was holiness, and this too in the Law has an infectious character (Lv (;87). The sin-offering is so holy that everything it has touched must be washed, broken, or done away with (see, further, art. UNCLEAN, UNCLEANNESs). The importance of the foregoing in considering the OT doctrine of sin is as follows: (1) All these enactments enlarged the area of sin (Ro £20), though no doubt they mainly affected the priests (Montefiore, IIibbert Lect, ix.). At the same time it must be added that to those who observed them they also increased the area of righteousness and the opportunities of conscious joyful obedience. (2) The notion of the holiness of God, to which the system of clean and unclean had a close relation, was so elevated by the prophets, especially by Isaiah, that the terms connected with the system or their equivalents came to supply much of the vocabulary for sin in the NT and in the Christian Church : e.g. the use of such words as ka9após, ka9aptgº cannot be understood without recalling their source in the Law. The next matters for consideration are the pun- isliment and the forgiveness of sin under the Law. —(1) Punishment. Sin is to be stamped out; the punishment for almost all sin is death. In theory, at any rate, the severity of the Law is amazing. What is taken into account is not so much the ill- desert of the individual, as his guilt involving the nation in guilt, so he must be extirpated (cf. Jos 2229). It is only as regards the nation that punish- ment is restorative.—(2) Forgiveness. The only sin admitting of individual atonement was sin not committed “with a high hand' (i.e. not wilful), for which sin-offering and guilt-offering were provided (Lv 4–67); see Westcott, Ep. to Heb. p. 288. The IDAY OF ATON I.M.I.NT must also be taken into con- sideration, though its main object appears to have been the purification of holy things and places. That forgiveness was so difficult of attainment, implied and fostered conceptions of God and His wrath which were strongly anthropopathic. One effect was that God was thought of as injured by man's sin ; and the guilt-offering had in it, as we have seen, the notion of compensation for injury done. In Job (72) 35%) we find the first explicit contradiction of this thought. Dut Deuteronomy, if anterior to the priestly legislation, had already provided an antidote. There God’s love for Israel is set forth, and the purpose of all His commands is repeatedly stated to be man's good (Dt. 0°, 101*). His commands give life. Hence God hates sin against Himself because it hurts, not IIim, but the sinner. ii. TIIE PROPIIETS.—(a) The Former Prophets.- If the essence of sin is departure from God, then, in whatever form, idolatry must be the Worst sin because the most complete. That is its position throughout the historical books. In Judges it is the cause of all Israel's sufferings. In 1 and 2 Samuel it is comparatively absent, and conse- quently there is a great burst of national vigour and prosperity. In 1 and 2 Kings the standard by which all reigns are measured is the permission or repression of idolatry. The history of the Northern Kingdom is the history of the continuance and effects of the sin of Jeroboam, and the word ‘sin’ is almost restricted to that special meaning. The sin of idolatry took different forms, such as de- grading the conception of Jahweh, identifying Him with 13aal, worshipping Him in heathem fashion and with visible representations, combining llis worship with that of other gods, or, far less com- monly, forsaking Him altogether for other gods. But in one form or another it is regarded in the his- torical books as the first and worst of all sins, and rightly so, at that stage of national life. (b) Yet this view was too concentrated to be complete. It is not to the retrospective record in 1 and 2 Kings that we look for light on the progress of the national conscience, but to contemporary authorities, the so-called Later Prophets, i.e. the prophetical books of the 8th cent., Amos, IIosea, Micah, Isaiah. It is they that develop the moral character and moral requirements of J’’; and as a necessary consequence the range, depth, and danger of sin. The history of David supplies us with two examples of sin– one flagrant, and the other difficult to regard as sinful. The points which come out in his sin with Bathsheba are (1) possi- bility of immediate forgiveness on repentance ; (2) punishment after forgiveness, severe and protracted ; (3) the punishment of the sinner involves suffering for others. This, however, appears more clearly in the next instance, that of the census (2 S 241). The point to notice in this is, that the sin is ascribed to the causation of J’’ IIimself, just in the samo way as the evil spirit which came upon Saul is described as ‘from God.” Several other passages, e.g. Jg 9% are of the same character. On thern Cleimon (Lehre won ('e?' Sièm d6, p. 128 ft.) builds the conclusion that God was regarded as the author ( Veroºn stalter) of sin. It is inore correct to say that we have in them reflexions of that perplexity about the interaction of Divine control and human freedom which has at all times been felt, and not alone in 1st-ael. I'or later protests against false inferences from such expressions, see Sir 1511-20 and Ja 1 19-10. What was in IIobrew religion only a hesitation and perplexity, which never produced dangerous results, became in Islam a principle fatal to triorality, ‘The unbelief of the unbeliever, the impioty of the impious, and bad actions, come to pass with the º will, pre- destination, and decree of God, but not with His satisfaction and approval ' (Sell, ſaith of Islam 1, pp. 118, 178). Amos leads the way in bringing moral offences to the front. He carries on one side of Elijah's work, and the transgressions denounced in Am 1. 2 are offences against justice and humanity between man and man. Micah and Isaiah (e.g. Is 119 ''') follow Aunos. To IIosca the sin of Israel is heinous because it is sin against God’s love. In Hosea, we have the OT counterpart to 1 John. What IIosea (and indeed all the prophets) did, was to enlarge and deepen the conception of sin indirectly by making men realize far more fully the moral character of God. This work of the prophets, though by far the most important phase in the history of the OT doctrine of sin, is so obvious on the surface of their writings, and has been so often and so fully dealt with (e.g. Robertson Smith, I’rophets of Israel, Lect. ii. ; ICirkpatrick, Doctrine of the Prophets, passim), that it must here be taken for granted in order to leave room to deal with less obvious contributions and developments. See also Clemen, Lehre von der Sünde, p. 70 f. SIN SIN 531 pressure of present affliction. Another point. in the teaching of the prophets as to sin is their preaching of repentance, both national and individual, outside the covenant (cf. Jonah) as well as within it. The development of individualism by Jeremiah and Ezekiel is a moment of great importance in the doctrine of sin. Hitherto the prominent thought has been that of sin affecting the nation through the individual, and entailing guilt on Succeeding generations, though it must be noticed that the heredity of guilt is not allowed as a ground for private revenge (Dt 2419, 2 K, 14%, but cf. 2 S. 219). Lzekiel attaches his teaching to that of Jeremiah, and works it out. His result is well summed up by A. B. Davidson in his mote on Ezk 18, ‘the individual man is not involved in the sins and fate of his people or his forefathers.” But even Iºzekiel did not dissolve entirely the great predominant OT thought of the Solidarity of Israel in respect of sin. There was Work for that conception to do in the NT. It made possible the thought of the vicarious atonement of Christ, as representative of the nation and the race (Jn 11* *). For a strong instance of the sense of sin as national, see Is 64. The feeling has been well expressed by Montefiore : “At his worst the individual felt he belonged to the people of God, and shared their righteousness; and at his best he still felt the depressing burden of Israel’s national sins” (Hibbert Lect. p. 512). The whole question was deeply affected by the obscurity and comparative unimportance of the Heb. ex- pectation of a future life. When that dawned clearly, the importance of the individual dawned with it. - iii., THE HAGIOGRAPHA. — The Psalms belong largely, though not entirely, to the prophetic School of thought, and either anticipate or develop its teaching, according to the view we may take of their respective dates. It is in the Psalms that We first have a deep view of sin from the sinner's side. In the Prophets we have the historian or preacher denouncing, but in the Psalms the sinner Confessing sin, either personal or national. This deep sense of sin arises invariably out of the pres– Sure of suffering in Some form ; and in some cases, at any rate, is due to the national suffering of the Captivity and Exile. The l’salmist does not re- pent for fear of future punishment, but from the It is true that we find the consciousness of uprightness and sincere purpose as well as the consciousness of sin (e.g. Ps 26), but this does not contradict the general im– pression. A special aspect of sin in the Psalms is that of falsehood. The service of J" is thought of as truth, practical truth, much in the same way as in the Gospel and lºpp. of St. John ; hence sin, its opposite, is untruth, Vanity, lies. In the Psalms, as in the Prophets, sin is no longer a matter of strict legalism, of failure to obey. Emotions and affections come in largely (as in souno degree in Hosea and Deut.). The Psalmists love God, and look on sin as breaking this happy relation, hiding His face and shutting up His mercies. All this reaches its highest point in Ps 51, with its pro- found consciousness of sin in the individual and in the race (v.", cf. Job 14), hatred of it for its own sake, not merely for its consequences, and hopeful assurance of forgiveness and renewal. M. Holzman (Lazarus and Steinthal's Zeitschrift für Völker- 98ychologie, Bd. xv. 1884) contrasts the doctrine of sin in the &ig Veda with that of the Psalms in the following respects: (1) Varuna (the god addressed) is regarded as himself the cause: of man's being deceived into sinning ; (2) ceremonial offences are regarded as on the same lovel with moral, which is certainly not the case in the Psalms; (3) guilt is dreaded not for itself, but solely for its punishment. In Proverbs the aspect of sin is, of course, wholly different. It is practical religion which is treated here, and this from an external and an intellectual point of view. Righteousness is wisdom, and sin is folly. The sinner is (1) simple (º), (2) a fool (??), See article FOOL), or (3) a scorner ((?). Two characteristics may be specially noticed. (1) Men aro sharply divided into good and bad ; and though in chs. 1–9 the possibility of change is assumed, there is no reference to sorrow for sin, or conversion from bad to good (see Toy, Prowerbs, Introd. p. xiii). This is the attitude towards sininers which is developed and hardened in Sirach, as noticed below. (2) In Proverbs, and still more distinctly in Job, it is the moral state of the individual which occupies attention ; for even if Job be typical of Israel, the type is worked out with thorough dramatic truth. The result is that we obtain in these books far more detailed othical reflexions than are found elsewhere in the OT. Although the religious consciousness of sin cannot be said to be prominent, yet it does find expression in a verse which is the strongest statement in OT of the universality of human sinful- ness, namely Prz09; and throughout Pri0–24 the approval or disapproval of the Lord often recurs as the standard of action. The Book of Job presents features of far greater interest, and represents the furthest advance in the doctrine of sin prior to the NT. Its results may be classed under three heads. (1) The Law being designedly excluded from the drama, the sins which come in question arc purely ethical and nowhere ritual. The spread of sin is definitely acknowledged as universal; it is inherent in human nature (Job 417 RVm, 144 1514-10), and it includes sins of thought and desire. This latter point comes out most fully in Job 31, where we get the author's conception of sin, a very wide and penetrating one, not less remarkable for inwardness than the Sermon on the Mount. (2) The close relation between sin and suffering, believed in by Israel in early times, and implied by the double sense of nsº and N3 (see above), is in this book shown to be at any rate not a necessary one. Sin does not always bring suffering, and suffering does not always imply sin. Iłut this result is something very different from denying altogether such a re- lation between the two, a denial which would at a blow cut away the ground from under the religious life of Prophets and Psalmists. (3) The character of sin as affecting God comes in for treatment inci- dentally. I}xpression is given to two false guesses: (a) that God watches man's transgressions with something approaching satisfaction, Job 1419' 17 ; (b) that human sin cannot affect Hin), Job 79) RV ; cf. Elihu in 359. Of these (a) is merely one of the rash words which fall from the sufferer, but (b), as confirmed by Elihu, shows Jewish thought strongly, perhaps dangerously, in reaction against its earlier anthropopathic conceptions. Ecclesiastes contributes little except the final de- cisive conviction of the universality of sinfulness, ‘Surely there is not a righteous man upon earth that doeth good and sinneth not ” (Ec 720). II. IN TIII, APOCR YPIIA. — Sirach. —As in Pro- verbs, so in Sirach the righteous and the wicked under various names form two great classes over against one another (33*1%), and it is to the former class only that the writer addresses himself. Fools are incapable of amendment. Turning from sin (85) is only the repentance of the righteous; and, with the exception of 1720°, the attitude of Sirach prefigures that attitude towards sinners which it was the great work of Jesus to challenge and Set aside by His example (LR 15°). Yet Sirach denies to sinners the excuse that they cannot help them- selves. It is not God who causes man to sin (See above, I. ii.). The author's assertion of human freedom and responsibility is striking and powerful, if somewhat too broad (Sir 1511%). It is not in any degree limited by the statement of 25” that Eve's sin brought death upon the race, for the inheritance of death by every man does not necessarily imply a doctrine of original sin.” The philosophy of * Seo important art. by F. R. Tennant (Journal Theol. Studies, ii. 6, p. 207), published since this art, was written. He sums up thus: ‘The l’all (according to Siragh) was the cause of death, but only the beginning of sin.” Cf. Thackeray, !,0. 532 SIN SIN Sirach accounts for physical evil in creation as a necessary complement to moral evil in man, and designed for its punishment; see Sir 3928–31 408-11. Wisdom of Solomon. — In this book, notwith- standing the totally different atmosphere produced by (1) a hope full of immortality (3*), and (2) the practical identification of Wisdom with the Spirit of God (917), the ground thought is the same as that of Sirach, namely, that sin is ignorance, and that it is the intellectual side of man that must by ‘discipline' be fortified against it. The character of the book is therefore, at first sight, in the strongest contrast with the words of Christ, ‘I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes' (Mt 1123). Yet if the above-mentioned identification of Wisdom with the Holy Spirit be pressed a little further, the contradiction dis- appears (cf. 1 Co 218). It should be noted that Wis 1210ſ, which appears to make for a doctrine of inborn sin, applies only to the Canaanites, and not to mankind at large. The idea of the derivation of a universal taint from Adam's transgression is altogether wanting. Prayer of Mamasses.—We here encounter the first unqualified presentation of the later Judaic belief in the complete sinlessness of the patriarchs (‘Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which have not sinned against thee,” 4). This attribute was extended afterwards to many other OT personages (see Weber, Jüd. Theol.2 pp. 32 and 54 ff.). Lk 157 does not necessarily admit the existence of absolute human sinlessness, and must be interpreted, ad hominem, as addressed to Pharisees and scribes (see 15°) in a spirit not far removed from irony. St. Paul expressly dissociates himself from the above tendency (Ro 828), but Rev 14-" seems to show traces of it. 2 Esdras (chs. 3–14).-This book ought in strict- ness to be dealt with separately, as being post- Christian (prob. A. D. 81–96). Its close relation (along with Apoc. Baruch, see BARUCII [A POCA- LYPSE OF)) to the line of thought in the Ep. to Romans has been fully brought out in Sanday- Headlam, IRomans ; see esp. p. 137. We learn from 2 Esdras that at the time at which it was written there was in Judaism a doctrine of inborn inherited sin. It is hard to see how such a doctrine could be expressed more definitely than is the case in 2 Es 4” “a grain of evil seed was sown in the heart of Adam from the beginning, and how much wicked- ness hath it brought forth unto this time.” In the light of this passage the less clear utterances of 2 Es 321f and 748 become unambiguous. On the side of human free-will Sanday-Headlam (l.c.) quote 2 Es 82° 911 and esp. Apoc. Bar 5415, 19. They truly remark that both works “lay stress at once on the inherited tendency to sin, and on the freedom of choice in those who give way to it" (p. 134). If the biblical doctrine of sin finds its most important expression in Romans, then 2 Esdras, as illustrat- ing Romans, has a special value for the study of the subject. Cf. Thackeray, l.c. III. IW T/IE, NI, W TESTAMENT. - Termin- ology. — 1. The diploptiveuv group. "Auapria may mean sin as a habit, a state, a power (so freq. in Romans), and also a single act of sin; while &M.4ptimula is restricted to the latter; 8eg Wostcott, Epp. John, Add. Note on 1 Jn 19. 2. trapd{3aorus, transgression ; Tºpártolia, trespass º precisely, full or declination), “These two words are closely allied, referring respectively to the consequencos on the agent ſund to the line transgressed, Both prosuppose the existence of a law." (Lightfoot, Motes on Jºpp, Å. I’aul, Ro 5?"), and herein they differ from &papria. Whilo law multiplies transgression, lt reveals sin. 3. &vouía, AV infº ulty. The word had been so coloured by its LXX use, as a frequent rendering of Y, and other words meaning sin, that its proper 80nso, violation of law, can be certainly recognized only in one passagg, 1 Jn 8%. In its strict sense it truly represents the conception of sin given in the Epp. of James and John. 4, &oré8eva. As divopuia is disregard and defiance of God's law, so diaré8eta is the same attitude towards God's Person. It ex- presses the insult and blasphemy involved in sin, 5, Götkia. This word brings forward that side of sin which is against our neighbour and does him a wrong, and as such is common to human and to 1)ivine law (see Westcott, Epp, John 517, note for relation of &ötkia to &papria). 6. bºei Amua. Though occurring but once, it has a special im- portance from being the term for sin chosen by the Lord Himself to be used by us in our daily prayer for forgiveness, the Lukan form &paprias (Lk 114) being probably a paraphrase (soe Chase, The Lord's Prayer, p, 54 f.), — Other words for sin are rather aspects of it, such as falsehood, darkness, ignorance, and do not come under terminology. i. SYNOPTIC GOSPELS.—Looking back on the OT as a whole, we are struck with the range and completeness of the doctrine of sin which it pre- sents. This accounts for a feature in Christ's teaching as given in the Synoptic Gospels which would otherwise be surprising, namely, the paucity of teaching about sin. Sin is mentioned almost exclusively in connexion with its forgiveness. Jesus appears as one who forgives sin, and not as insist- ing and enlarging on it, or as convicting of it. It is obvious how different would have been the effect of His ministry on the world, if it had been primarily a ministry of conviction of sin. In the Fourth Gos- pel He explicitly disclaims such an aim (Jn 12*7), thus confirming the impression derived from the Synoptists. At the same time it is forgiveness, not indifference. There is no trace of the Ritschlian view, that till He came all sin was practically ignorance, and that sinners only needed to lay aside their sense of guilt. That ignorance, even where it exists, is but a partial and not a sufficient excuse, appears in Lk 1247, and the explanation of that passage is that moral ignorance is never total, and only comes near totality by man's own fault. The sharp distinction between sins of ignorance which are forgivable, and sins without ignorance which are not, is untrue to life. The man Who sins from ignorance has still some spark of knowledge which is enough to condemn him, and the man who sins against light has still some ignorance, for how can a man in his present limitations realize the gravity of the issues which are presented to him here ? For the first point see Lk 23°4; the soldiers in their ignorance, nevertheless, need forgiveness; and for the second see the lament over Jerusalem, Lk 1942. The Lord's teaching as to sin, so far as He touched it, was not so much to correct ()T doctrine regard- ing it, as much rather to get rid of a spurious de- velopment of it, represented by the legalism and casuistry of the Jewish scribes. The character of prophetic invective appears in one class of discourses only—those addressed to the Pharisees. We are next led to consider what exceptions must be made to the general statement above as to the absence in the Gospels of denunciations of sin. They are as follows:— (1) IIypocrisy, (2) offences (orkávôaxa), (3) sin against the Holy Ghost, it will be seen that two of these are closely cognate, and all three attach more or less to the same class of persons, (1) IIypocrisy, defined Mt 23% all their works they do for to be seen of men.' It is in a great degree a new revolation of sin, for the words in ()T tr. ‘hypocrite 'have not that meaning (see art. II y pooltiTr). Yot although no corresponding Hob. word occurs, tho condition of soul is described in IN 201", and is quoted as such by Christ (Mk 7"). I'urther, it had already been brought as a charge against the Sadduccos by the Pharisees, āv0pw- trápeakot being used to denote hypocrites (PS-Sol 4°. 19). They were now to have the reproach cast back upon themselves by Christ. — (2) Offences. This sin is fairly prominent in OT ; as, for instanco, the sin of IIophni and Phinehås, who made the Lord's people to transgress (1829"), and still more the sin of Jeroboam. The offence (orkävöaxov) may be within the Inan and limited in its operation to him, as in Mt 18% and perhaps 1 Ju 2", . Or it may involve two porsons, the cause of the offence being in one jerson and the actual stumbling taking place in another, as in Mt 180. Subdividing this latter alternative, wo find that the cause of stumbling may be in itself positively sinful, as in the OT instances quoted above, and again as in the attitude. of the Pharisees towards Christ, which turned the multitude away SIN SIN 533 from Him. Another instance is that of Simon Peter, whose counsel was an ‘offence' to Christ Himself (Mt 1628). Or, º the cause of offence may be in itself quite an innocent act, as in lto 149, and only sinful because of its easily foreseen consequences (Ro 14*). This principle explains the otherwise unnecessary payment of the half-shekel (Mt 1727). Yet, further, the act causing offence may be not only innocent, but necessary in itself, in which case its incldental consequences cannot make it sinful. Christ Himself, His sayings, Iſis cross, are all described in NT as ‘offences.” . The general teaching, if we anticipate and include St. Paul’s development of the subject, is that we are bound to look forward to the probable consequences of our actions, even when those consequences aro far from our inten- tions. Ito 14 grows naturally out of Mt 180. Nothing is gained by confounding, as Clemen does (Lehre von der Sünde, p. 216 if.), the sin of causing offences with the general topic of the self-propagation of sin, and its power to bring men into bondage, on which see below, § il. 2.-(8) Sim against the IIoly Ghost. This was exemplifled in, but is not to be limited to, the attribution to evil spirits of the work of the Holy Spirit in the actions and words of Christ. For a probable explanation of the different judgments pronounced by Christ on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and that against the Son of Iman, see art. BLASPHEMY. The persistent denial of the inspiration of Jesus by those who in some measure felt the truth of His claims was an unpardonable sin. The three passages, Mt 1291. 83, Mk 828. 29, Lk 1210, are, like most of the Lord's teaching, not a new unrelated utterance, but rather a republication and adapta- tion to the Kingdom of God of the ancient law of blasphemy, Iv 2410. It must be added that the unpardonable sin does not consist in the utterance of particular words, but in the condi- tion of soul which is expressed by them, namely, that persistent resistance to the Holy Ghost which was afterwards emphasized by Stephen (Ac Tºi). Taking a general survey, it may be said that there are three points which appear specially in the Synoptists of which the last is by far the most important. (1) An extension of the area of sin by the spiritual interpretation of the Mosaic law, and by the new requirements of the Kingdom of God. (2) A limitation of its area by the great principle now clearly formulated, that sin cannot be con- tracted by physical contact with things ceremonially unclean, but must proceed from within (Mk 719, Mt 1511). (3) The Lord's own attitude towards sin in man as a revelation of God's attitude to it, namely forgiveness. The message which He brought and which He entrusted to the apostles (Lk 24*7) was the forgiveness of sins, and it is this which we find them declaring in Acts and expanding in the IEpistles. ii. THE FOURTII G.)SPEL.—The same note is struck by St. John at the outset : ‘Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world' (Jn 120). Yet His coming and gracious work opened the possibility of a new sin, that sin of rejection of salvation which overshadows so largely the first twelve chapters of the Fourth Gospel, and re- appears under other circumstances in the lºp. to the Hebrews (He 2841 64. W 102). 1. In short, the principal teaching as to sin in the Fourth Gospel is the capital nature of the sin of un- belief in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God. There had been unbelief in Galilee, and that unbelief had called forth the severe denunciation in Lk 101*10. But the unbelief of Judaea was far more marked and general, and the gospel of the Judaean ministry is darkened every where by collision with it. This is the sin of which the IIoly Spirit will specially convict men, ‘of sin because they believe not on me." Could this sin be regarded as a sin of igno- rance 2 It could not, for Christ had come and manifested Himself. “if I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin : but now they have no excuse for their sin” (Jn 1522). We are here close to the sin against the Holy Ghost, which has been already treated. That is a special and aggravated form of the more general sin of unbelief. It may be added that the sin of unbelief in Jesus as the Christ the Son of God holds in the NT much the same position which idolatry holds in the OT. In each case the sin is the worst sin that can be committed, because it cuts off the soul from God, and so from the source of its life and peace. It is an evil heart of unbelief falling away from the living God (He 312). 2. The second important point in the Fourth Gospel is its emphasis on sin as bondage. The direct teaching is brief, contained in six verses in Jn 891ſt, but the development afterwards given it by St. Paul in Ro 6 places it in the front of NT teaching on sin. It is perhaps anticipated in Mt 624 “ye cannot serve God and mammon.” 3. There are also lesser points worthy of notice. The old question of the connexion of sin and suffer- ing is raised in Jn 9, and its universality is there denied ; while, on the other hand, it is clear that it holds good in some cases, as appears in 514 “sin no more, lest a worse thing befall thee." The pas- sage in Lk 15 as to the slaughter of the Galilaeans is not precisely to the point, as what is there taught is the general guilt of the nation of which only these few had as yet paid the penalty. Another class of passages bearing on the subject is that dis- tinctive one in which this Gospel gives us, far more fully than the others—the Lord's dealings with individual souls. What is remarkable is His gentleness towards their sins, as, for instance, Jn 417. 18 and 811. Lastly, we must observe that the principal teach- ing as to sin in the Gospels, taken as a whole, is that which results from the revelation of a perfect standard of life as shown in Christ. As Ritschl says (vol. iii. Eng. tr. p. 329), “The only way in which the idea of sin can be formed at all is by comparison with the good.” It is true that Ritschl presses this too far, and seems to imply that no competent standard of morality had existed before the preaching of the ICingdom of God. ‘Ibut to affirm the absolute standard is not to deny the relative standard. God was in the preparation for the IXingdom of God as in the realization of that Kingdom in Christ’ (Garvie, Ritschlian The- ology, p. 303). We must, nevertheless, allow that the coming of Christ and the preaching of the gospel did give a new character to sin. Sin was thus placed in a new relation, that of opposition to the Kingdom of God, and yet, further, it was shown, as in the parable of the l’rodigal, to be not only sin against power and Wisdom, but also against goodness and love. iii. EPISTLES.—1. St. James.—Three passages de- serve special consideration. (a) The genesis of sin in the individual (Ja 114 lº). It comes from the will consenting to a desire for something not lawful. The desire in itself may be innocent (see art. LUST), but, in the case supposed, it can only be gratified at the expense of transgression of moral law. The will surrenders, and the desire is fulfilled in an act of sin (cf. 41 °). Desire (étuffvuta) here corre- sponds nearly to ‘the flesh” of St. Paul's theology. To understand the bearing of the passage, see Sir 15111ſ, which perhaps suggested it. There the source of evil lies in the freedom of the will. The fact that this freedom is God's gift does not make Him the author of evil, for it is freedom. (b) Sin in relation to law. The Law, rather than Christ, is the central thought of the Epistle, but it is the Law as revealed and interpreted by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount and in II is life. It is a perfect law (126); a law of freedom, i.e. not enforced from without, but freely accepted as the aim and desire of the subject of it (1*2%); a royal law (2*). There is also the thought of the solidarity of the Law, with its consequences on the doctrine of sin. Conscious, wilful transgression of any one point is tantamount to transgression of the whole, for, all being God's will, any transgression is defiance of God's will (210). This, so far from being a pedantic conception, is founded on a true spiritual view of the relation of man to God. It is applied to an appa- rently small matter—respect of persons within the 534 SIN SIN º Church, and preference given to the rich over the poor. It must be added that the passage does not justify us in inferring the equality of all sins. It is rather a warning against regarding lesser sins as of no consequence. (c) Forgiveness of sin (51%). Two points deserve notice. (1) The mediation of the Christian community, not of the elders only, in the forgiveness of sins (eixea 6e Virép d\\?\wv, v.4%). This mediation is effected by mutual confession and prayer. It may extend even to the case of a Christian who has actually forsaken the truth (v.19), and every member of the Church is bidden to consider the blessing which may attend his efforts. The sins covered are certainly those of the sinner who is converted (see Toy on Prl()]?). (2) The close connexion in the writer's mind be- tween forgiveness of sin and healing. The passage begins simply with the idea of a case of sickness (V.4), and goes on to assume that it may perhaps be occasioned by sin (cf. the forgiveness of the paralytic, Mt 92). The removal of the chastise- ment and the forgiveness of the sin which occa- sioned it go together; cf. Ps 1038, which was interpreted in this sense. 2. Hebrews. – The persons addressed had to the full the sense of sin which the OT had prepared and developed, and they had had to part with the ritual which had hitherto cleansed them and brought them migh. A main purpose of the Epistle is to show them that better provision than the Law could offer is made for these needs in Christ and His priestly sacrifice. Hence the prominent aspect of sin in this Epistle is that of sin as guilt, as the cause of the separation between man and God, barring access to Him. The work of Christ is the restoration of communion, and the earlier portion of the Epistle reaches its goal in He 1019. Besides the general teaching as to the removal of guilt, the Epistle deals with a particular form of sin, that of falling away from grace. It is written to men in danger of lapsing into their former Judaism, not merely as individuals, but as a body (see Giff 102*). The sin as to which the Hebrews are warned is not ordinary sin after baptism to which every Christian is liable, but nothing less than apostasy. It should also be observed that He 212 sets a final seal on the gradually developed conviction that much of human suffering is not a consequence of sin, but a means to perfection. 3. St. Pawl.—Lechler (Apostolic Times, Eng. tr. vol. i. p. 340) asks what is the kernel, the life- centre of St. Paul's Christian feeling and doctrine, and replies, “God’s grace in Christ towards the guilt-laden sinner.” It is not merely that St. Paul as a theologian felt that the most important aspect of the gospel was that of a remedy for sin, but that the gospel was that remedy for himself. He had felt as few men have felt, his own sinful- ness. In this respect we recognize a contrast be- tween him and other NT writers. If it is in the Epistle to the Romans that we find the full develop- ment of St. Paul's hamartiology, it is because the question there propounded is, Iſow is man to be righteous before God P For that purpose man’s present sinfulness must first be set forth, and that is done systematically in Ro 1–3°), and incidentally throughout the Epistle. The teaching of St. Paul, esp. in Romans, on the subject will be considered under the following heads: (a) universality of sin ; (b) heredity of sin ; (c) the seat of sin ; (d) sin as a power; (e) sin and law ; (f) sin and death ; (g) death to sin. (a) Universality of sin.—The Jewish and the Gentile worlds had to be dealt with separately. In the Jewish world there had been preparation, but sin against ceremonial law had been so exaggerated as to put out of sight sin against moral law. Here St. Paul follows Christ Himself, and his exposure in Ro 217tt reminds us of Mt 23 and many scattered sayings in the Gospels. Another point regarding Jewish sinfulness has already been noticed under II. (Prayer of Manasses). St. Paul rejects the supposed sinlessness of the patriarchs. We next take his condemnation of the Gentile world, which in Romans comes first. This had become necessary now that the gospel of forgiveness was offered to the Gentiles. It was true that they had had their preparation. The notion of sin is clear enough in Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian religion, but it is mainly ceremonial sin. In Greek religion there was a truer conception of sin, which reaches its highest representation in Mºschylus, the poet of l)ivine retribution on the sinner. ‘The “Pro- metheus,” the “Seven against Thebes,” and the “Orestes” contain a natural testimony of the soul to the reality of sin, and the inevitable penalty which it carries in itself” (Westcott, Ireligious Thought in the West, p. 94). But to accompany a gospel of forgiveness some clear arraignment was needed. So, in an epistle addressed to the centre of the Gentile world, this clear arraignment stands in the front. And here the doctrine of the universality of Gentile sin is set on a true foundation, not on the popular Jewish conception that every Gentile was a sinner simply as not knowing the Mosaic law (cf. Gal 21%, and Lightfoot, in loc.). But, as the sin of the Gentiles did not consist in not having the Mosaic law, so neither did their want of it excuse them. They had the law of conscience or reason (Ro 24.1%), and sin against this was sin against God. (b) Heredity of sin.—Here we must distinguish two separate ideas, both of which find expression in Romans, namely, (1) participation in guilt ; (2) inheritance of sinful disposition. (1) In the OT (to use Dorner's words, System Chr. Doct., Eng. tr. vol. ii. p. 325) are already found ‘the materials for a conception of moral evil as a generic characteristic, and not merely a matter of the in- dividual person.” A family, a tribe, a nation are conscious of a solidarity in respect of guilt and innocence difficult to realize in an age of strongly developed individual responsibility. It is enough to refer to the guilt in the sense of liability to punish- ment brought about by the sin of Achan, and by David's census; and to the effect of sin on the land itself (Dt . So St. Paul, contemplating not merely a family, tribe, or nation, but all mankind, sees them all affected by the sin of Adam—all recon- ciled by the obedience of Christ (Ro 5” and cf. Sir 2524). The correspondence between Adam and Christ has taken hold of his mind, it helps him to set forth the work of salvation which the Lord has accomplished. It is not that Adam's sin is actually reckoned against us, but that we are because of it involved in punishment.* This effect on mankind of the sin of Adam may be inferred (according to Ro 51*) from the death of Adam's descendants who lived before the law was given. In the absence of law they were not liable to punishment. To account for their mortality, ‘generic' guilt must be assumed. It is evident that such an argument cannot be pressed abso- lutely, but must be correlated with the statement as to Gentile responsibility without the Law (lko 212.10); see Sanday-Headlam on Ro 518. (2) But besides generic participation in Adam's guilt we have also to consider the doctrine of the inheritance from Adam of a sinful nature. In OT the transmission of a sinful nature from parent to child is clearly admitted (Ps 51%, Job 14), but it is not traced back to Adam. It is a question whether St. Paul so traces it, for neither Ro 51% nor 519 is decisive on the point. Taking the section (Ro 5.1%) * Sco Tulloch, Christiaº Doctrine of Sin, p. 193. SIN SIN 535 as a whole, it is difficult to disentangle with certainty - the ideas of a transmitted sinful disposition, or of an actual sinfulness of all men, from the idea of the generic guilt of mankind (described above) with which they are closely interwoven. (cf. v.” # 3 tróvres #paptov) of the passage, which is occupied much more with the reign of death than with the reign of sin. The view taken of the sin of Adam is not so much that thereby human nature was infected in itself, but rather that there- by sin, an alien power, got a footing in the world, and, involving all men in actual sin, brought death upon all. This is very far short of the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin, which appears to be a development of 2 Es 391 490 rather than of anything to be found in NT. The language of St. Paul (“sin came into the world,” Ro 512) leaves room for the communication of a sinful tendency, not only by heredity in the strict sense of the word, but also by all that interpenetration of the individuals by the race which makes it impossible to regard them as isolated atoms dependent only on birth for their characteristics.” (c) The seat of sin.--Strictly speaking, this is in the will ; but in a wider sense its seat is in that which moves the Will, namely, in ‘the flesh.” ‘The flesh” in St. Paul denotes not merely sensual desires and appetites, but “man’s entire life so far as it is not determined by the Spirit of God.” It may thus demote also man's rational nature. fleshly mind is ‘the God-resisting disposition in virtue of which man in self-sufficiency and pride opposes himself to God, and withdraws himself from the spirit of Divine life and love.”f In short, ‘the flesh ' is man in his selfishness. But neither the flesh in the material sense, nor human nature on the whole, are in themselves evil; for the body may be brought into subjection (1 Co 937), may become a temple of the Holy Ghost (1 Co 619), and its members may be “servants to righteousness unto sanctification.” (d) Sin as a power.—St. Paul regards sin not as an isolated act, nor as an accumulation of acts, but as a power which has gained a lodgment in man (Ro 717), enslaving and paralyzing his will. ‘The flesh” is only the material medium in which it works. Cf. above, Prefatory (2), and Jn 83%, and see esp. Sanday-Headlam on Ro 5*-*, p. 145. (e) Sin and law.—Here we have something new, new as the result of conscious reflexion, yet the result of what has gone before. St. Paul looks back on the history of the nation, and of his own spiritual experience, and sees (Ro 8”) to 3.5% watov toū vöuov (the inability of the Law) for the restraint of sin. The result of law, by itself, must always be sin rather than righteousness. It provoked and revealed sin. ‘The strength of sin is the law' (1 Co 1553). (f) Sin and death.-St. Paul, as stated above (b), regarded physical death as the consequence of the Fall, and argues from this premiss in Ro 51*-*. Put it is probable that he (like the author of Wisdom) did not separate strictly the conceptions of physical and moral death. He uses the words ‘ death' and ‘life " with a breadth which makes it difficult to say in any particular case which kind of death he is attributing to sin as its effect, e.g. Ro 6%). 43. To him physical death is but the symbol of its far more terrible moral counterpart, final separation from God, and the extinction of the life of the Spirit; cf. Ja 115. NT. Theol., Eng. tr. Vol. ii. p. 55ff. (g) Death to sim.—The wide use of the idea of ‘death,” illustrated above, enabled it to be applied See Beyschlag, * Cf. Dorner, System. Chr. Docłr., lºng, tr. vol. iii. p. 56 ſt. + Dorner, System (Phºr, Docłr., Eng. tr. vol. ii. p. 819. The whole passage on orépé should be referred to. See also art. I'LESII. The latter is certainly the leading though not the only thought The to any absolute final separation of objects hitherto closely related. Hence the entry into union with Christ is death to sin (Ro 61-14). All that St. Paul has to say on the sinfulness of the flesh, on sin as an inmate of the Soul, on sin as a ruling power, relates to the state before justification. The Christian is, as such, dead to sin. St. Paul con- templates the Church (as in Eph. passim) and the Christian in their ideal state. But he is no dreamer ; he knows how incompletely the ideal is realized. His delineation of it is his mode of ex- pressing the imperative. His hopefulness as to its realization is not mere opinion, but the experience of a man who himself had felt what he taught, of a teacher who had entered into the heart of the gospel. The doctrine of St. John (see below) con- verges to the same goal, starting from a different point, and expressed in different phrases. And it must be remembered that “death to sin ' is not equivalent to insensibility to temptation ; it is rather deliverance from bondage. 4. St. John (Epistles).—(a) The great contribu- tion which 1 John makes to the doctrine of sin is a paradox. Nowhere is the reality of sin more strongly insisted on as occurring in the Christian life, and nowhere is the sinlessness of the Christian more distinctly asserted. In 1 Jn 1 the sinfulness of Christians is presented in three different aspects (reality, responsibility, fact; see Westcott, in loc.). Again, it is involved in the very purpose of the Epistle (1 Jn 21, and cf. 510). But in 1 Jn 3% 9 and 518 he who is begotten of God and abides in God does not, cannot, sin. St. John is not intention- ally putting these opposing statements side by side, but they are called out by different forms of error (TXávm). While some denied in various ways the reality of sin, others were under the delusion that, for the enlightened, conduct is a matter of indifference. The answer to the first was this : we have sin (18); and, to the second, whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not (39). So far as we sin we fall short of our position as children of God abiding in Him. There must be infirmities need- ing repeated advocacy and propitiation (2**), but the choice of the man is against all sin, and towards complete conformity to the will of God. He still needs to purify himself (39); but sin is no longer at the centre of the inner life, it has been driven out to the circumference. Further, St. John goes on to teach a certain security against sin, regarded as coming from without. ‘The evil one toucheth him not (518). The Christian abides in Christ and is ‘kept.” The agency of Satan in occasioning human sin is strongly marked in this Epistle (38-13 518. 19), as it had been also in the Lord's teaching recorded by St. John (Jn 844). On the whole section cf. above iii. 3 (ſſ). (b) A second but less important point in 1 John is the sin unto death (519). It is inconceivable that this should be some particular kind of sin, the name of which is con- cealed. A classification of sins as mortal and venial, though not without its grounds and its uses, is alien from the spirit of the gospel, which teaches us that the guilt of sins is estimated by their conditions rather than by the actual thing done. The sin unto death is nearly related to, but not the same as, the sin against the Holy Ghost ; again, it is also nearly related to the sin of wilful apostasy, already treated under Ep, to IIebrews. But the three must not be identified. Any sin wilfully persisted in would satisfy the conditions of 1 Jn 510, and the ‘sim unto death ' is perhaps to be regarded as a genus under which the two sins above mentioned are to be classed. St. John does not forbid intercession for Such a case, he only says that such a case is not what he is speaking about, and that he cannot attach a distinct promise to such intercession. (c) Another 536 ... : SIN SINAI, MOUNT characteristic of these Epistles is the representa- tion of sin and righteousness in the aspect of false- hood and truth (cf. above, Sin in ...tº; Sim is falsehood. It came in with the primal lie, ‘thou shalt not die" (cf. Jn 844). It rests for its power upon deceit. But the life of love is the life of truth; it corresponds with the movement of the Divine government, with its purposes of mercy, with the Being and attributes of God (2 Jn 1–4). LITERATURE.—OT-Oehler, Theol. of OT, Eng. tr. vol. i. pp. 229-245 (very valuable); Schultz, OTTheol.; Clemen, Lehre von der Sünde ; Tulloch, Christian Doctrine of Sin ; OT com- mentaries, esp. Dillmann on Ilexateuch, Davidson on Job and Ezekiel, Cheyne on Psalms. NT.--Dorner, System of Chr. Doctrine, Eng. tr. vols. ii., iii. (excellent);"Beyschlag, NZ" Theol., Eng. tr. vol. ii. bk. iv. c. 8; Lechler, Apostolic Times, Eng. tr. vol. i. pp. 842–360 (very useful); Weber, Jital. Theol.” $$46–54; Wernle, Der Christ wºnd tion, Eng. tr. }% 327–366; Thackeray, St. Paul and Contem- jorary Jewish Z'hortſ/ht, ch. ii.; Commentaries, esp. Sanday- Headlam, Romans (see 'Sin' in index); Westcott, Hebrews (esp. pp. 81, 82), and Epp. John (esp. 19 37–40); Mayor, St. James, On the subject as a whole, Müller, C still the only comprehensive work known to the writer. It contains much valuable thought, but is unattractive in form and style, and is largely open to criticism, e.g. in its recourse to a theory of pre-existence of souls to account for the origin of inborn sinfulness, bk. iv. ch. 4. E. R. BERNAIRD. SIN (TP; 24's, Xuāvm, A in Ezk 3015 Távis; Vulg. Pelusium).-A city in Egypt mentioned in lºzk 30 ºf along with Pathros (Upper Egypt), Zoan (Tanis), Sin, No (Thebes), Noph (Memphis), Aven (Helio- polis), IPi—beseth (Bubastis), and Tehaphnehes (Daphnae). Arranging these in geographical order, we find them to be the most important cities in the N. I. of the IDelta and along its eastern edge leading to Memphis, the capital of Lower Egypt, followed by Pathros (Upper Egypt) and its capital No. Sin is characterized by Ezek. as ‘the strong- hold of Egypt” (RV), yet it is not mentioned by Jeremiah. LXX tr. it by Sais (the capital of the 26th 1)ynasty, in power at the time of the prophecy), or Syene, the southern frontier. The latter identification is, however, impossible. In all probability Sin is l’elusium. The name Sin seems, like l’elusium, to be connected with “mud'; and a modern name that clings to the neighbourhood of Pelusium is et-Timeh, which is from the same root as Sin. Unfortunately, nothing is known of the history of l’clusium before the time of Hero- dotus, in whose days it was a place of importance owing to the development of commerce by sea; and soon it became the key of Egypt on the N.E., as in the Persian war and long afterwards (Her. ii. 17, 154, iii. 10). From the wording of Ezek. it would seem to have held this position at a date when Daphnae was still a great garrison city, guarding the approach to Memphis. The ancient lºgyptian name of Pelusium is still unknown. In Coptic it is Peremän, in Arab. el-Fermá. The ruins are about a mile distant from the Sea in the ex- treme N. E. corner of the IDelta. They consist of a long narrow mound parallel to the sea, containing ruins of a tenmple and a large red brick enclosure, evidently a Byzantine or Arab fortress. At the E. extremity, after a slight gap, is another high mound, nearly touching the desert, and crowned by a structure of red brick. These brick buildings are of the Arab. period. West and south all is barren salt marsh, without a living soul for miles; the marsh is now indeed intersected by the Suez canal, which brings human beings within 20 miles. Yet even down to the 11th cent. A.D. el-Fermá was a large city, and the country round, though marshy, was to a great extent cultivated and populous. Near the shore were salt-pans, and places for salting fish. F. L.L. GR II"I’ITH. sIN, WILDERNEss or ("P"). LXX h ongos X(e)tv; Vulg. desertum Sin).-This ‘wilderness” is —— die Sünde bei Paulus; leitschl, Justification and Reconcilia- hiri 8/ictn. Doctrine of Sin, is described in Iºx 161 as between Elim and Sinai; in 171 an encampment in Replmidim is mentioned between Sin and the wilderness of Sinai; and in the itinerary of Nu 33 an encampment by the Red Sea is inserted between Elim and the wilderness of Sin, and two other camping-places besides Rephidim between the wilderness of Sin and the wilderness of Sinai. On the supposition that the traditional site of Sinai is the correct one, the encampment by the sea is generally placed at the end of Wädy Tayibeh, near Rås Abw Selimeh, and the wilderness of Sim may be the open plain a little to the south of this headland. Others put it in Wädy Schellal or Wädy Budrah. This wilder- ness appears to be different from the wilderness of ZIN (Nu 1321 2012714 3333 34%. 4, Dt 3251, Jos 151.8), in which the Israelites encamped after leaving Mt. Sinai, but the student cannot fail to notice the close similarity of the three names Sinai, Sin, Zin. A. T. CHIAPMAN. SINAI, MOUNT (‘l’E, 2(e)wd).—The impressions derived from a study of the wanderings of the children of Israel as they are recorded in the Scriptures, are found to undergo important modi- fications as soon as the biblical tradition is supple- mented by an actual topographical survey of the peninsula at the head of the Red Sea, which takes its name from Mt. Sinai, and is supposed to contain the famous mountain where the Law was said to have been given to Israel. For while the student of the Scriptures without their topographical supplement would conclude that the route of the IExodus lay entirely outside the pale of civilization, the student of the country is able to affirm with certainty that there was an actual civilization in the peninsula itself; that there were important mines, with at least one port of debarkation for ships coming from Egypt; and that the country was intersected by trade routes which connected the upper end of the Red Sea with regions lying farther north and east ; the mines alluded to being contemporary with the earliest Iºgyptian dynasties, and the trade routes being also, in all probability, of extreme antiquity. And not only are there within the limits of the so-called Sinaitic peninsula the marks of an astonishingly early stage of civilization, but there is also the indication of the existence of early forms of religion, far removed from the semi-fetishism of wandering Arab tribes. One of these forms of religion was the Egyptian, represented by the temples at Sarbut el-Kadeem on the northern route to Mt. Sinai; it was the natural concomitant of the imported lºgyptian influence which came in with the officials who had charge of the mining operations in the west of the peninsula. Put besides this form of religion there is reason to suspect that Babylonian religion was also represented, for there are traces in the Babylonian literature of mining and quarrying operations in the eastern part of the peninsula and in the adjacent country of Midian, and these traces are very suggestive of religious concomi- tants, especially when we find a reflexion of the Babylonian theology in the very name of the sacred mountain. Mount Sinai, in fact, is named after the moon-god Sin (cf. the formation of Mordecai from the name of lº ; and if this be so, it was from the earliest times a place of Sanctity, and the routes that converge upon it would easily acquire the character of haj routes or pilgrim roads. There is therefore, no a priori difficulty in the account of the wandering of the children of Israel to a sacred mount, nor any need to regard the sanctity of the place as acquired in the time of the IExodus, or projected back upon the story by later chroniclers. The real problem lies in the identification of the SINAI, MOUNT SINAI, MOUNT 53] mountain described in the Pent., especially in view of the fact that the whole of the peninsula is a mass of mountains, many of which are conspicuous objects in the landscape, and certain to have earl attracted attention and invited nomenclature. % are assuming that Mt. Sinai is somewhere in the tongue of land at the head of the Red Sea, between the two arms of that sea, which constitute respec- tively the Gulf of 'Akaba and the Gulf of Suez. It should, however, be remembered that Sayce thinks he has grounds for locating Mt. Sinai outside the peninsula and in the land of Midian itself. In this he is following in some points an earlier and more fantastic suggestion of Beke. The advantage of such a theory lies, in the fact (1) that Mt. Sinai is elosely connected with the land of Midian in the biblical account. Thither Moses escapes from the wrath of Pharaoh, and while engaged in pastoral ºr. in that land he sees the theophany of the burning bush. Moreover, his wife and her relations are Midianite. The general opinion is that Midian is on the farther side of 'Akaba to the east and north, and that special evidence is needed if we would include in it the surroundings of the traditional Mt. Sinai. (2) The theory furnishes a new explanation of the encampment of the Israelites by the sea, which on this theory is the Gulf of Akaba ; (3) it finds a site for the much-disputed Elim in the modern Aileh (ancient Eloth); (4) it º why nothing is said about the exquisite valley of Feiran by a writer who is so careful to record the palm-trees and springs (certainly of a much inferior quality) at Elim ; the identification of Rephidim with l'eiran is, on this hypothesis, incorrectly made. The theory is not lightly to be set aside; the main objection to it lies in the itinerary (which appears to have been one of daily marches along a conventional road). No satisfactory attempt has been made to trace this itinerary to the E. or N. of the Gulf of 'Akaba. Setting aside, then, the theory of a (trans-'Akaba) Midianite Sinai as inconsistent with the most natural interpretation of the biblical traditions, we proceed to determine the most likely spot within the peninsula to which those traditions can be referred. And first of all we may clear away the apparent confusion between Horeb and Sinai which occurs in the Pent., and has often been perplexing to commentators who had to reconcile such ex- bressions as ‘to the mountain of God, even to Horeb’ (Ex 31), with which cf. 1 IC 19°, where Elijah is said to have come ‘to the mountain of God, even to Horeb.” Here and in other places ‘the mountain of God’ is identified with Horeb, i.e. Sinai and Horeb are practically interchange- able. An examination of the sources of the narrative will show that Horeb is the term used for the seat of the Deity in E and D, while Sinai is the term used in J and P. According to the Sources, them, we can only say that the centre of the worship of J" is in Horeb according to the northern tribes, and in Sinai according to the southern ; and no further help is forthcoming for the location of Horeb (which may simply mean “waste ’). Returning to the question of the actual moun- tain involved in the tradition, we have a remark- able divergence of opinion amongst critics and travellers, not a few of whom (especially Lepsius and Ebers) have sought to identify the biblical Sinai with Mt. Serbal, which rises just above the oasis of Feiran to the south. It may be admitted that Serbal is a much more conspicuous object than Jebel Musa (the traditional mountain of the Law), although it is not so lofty. It is also true that the centre of early Christian life in the peninsula in , the first centuries of the occupation of the holy places is in the Wady Feiran, which stands for the ancient Paran, the seat of an episcopate and the home of innumer- able ascetics, whose caves and rude dwellings may still be traced. We need not be surprised, then, if it should be maintained that the special place of sanctity in the peninsula was not far from the Wady #sº in which case Serbal can hardly fail to be the holy mountain. In further support of this it is urged that immediately after the battle with Amalek the Israelites are said (Ex 19°) to have come to Mt. Sinai, or at all events to the wilderness which bears the name of that mountain, and it would therefore seem that the mountain was at no great distance from Rephidim, which is almost universally identified with the Wady Feiran. So that, when we combine the biblical statement of the proximity of Rephidim to Mt. Sinai with the undoubted fact that l'eiran is the primitive Christian metropolis, a strong case is made out for identifying the beautiful, and imposing Mount Serbal with the biblical Sinai. Various attempts have further been made, by means of quotations from Cosmas Indicopleustes, Eusebius, Jerome, etc., to show that there #. been a monastic translation of the accepted site of Sinai from Serbal to Jebel Musa (cf. Lepsius, Tour from Thebes and the Peninsula of Sinai, 1846, tr. by Cottrell; and Ebers, Durch Gosen zum Sinai, 2nd ed. Leipzig, 1881). And it has been affirmed in accordance with this hypothesis that there was no monastery or monastic settlement in the neighbourhood of Jebel Musa before the convent, called popularly after the name of St. Catherine, was built by Justinian. Unfortunately for this ingenious hypothesis, it has been reduced almost to absurdity by the dis- covery of a document which is in itself one of the most interesting of pilgrim itineraries, and which for the settlement º the early Christian tradition has immense weight. We refer to the document known as the Peregrinatio Silvia, edited in Rome in 1887 by Gamurrini from an imperfect MS, and since reprinted by J. H. Bernard as a volume of the Palestine Pilgrims' Text Society. The pilgrimage in question is dated in the years 385–388 by its editor, and its authorship is assigned with good reason to a lady from Aquitaine. The imperfect MS . with topographical details, which, certainly identify the plain of er-Rahah in front of Jebel Musa (“vallem infinitam ingens “ planissima et valde pulchram, et trans valiem apparebat mons sanctus Dei Syna”). And, in fact, the whole of the route which Silvia describes between Egypt and Sinai, and the holy places which she visits, coincide closely with the route and the sanctities recorded in modern books of travel. The theory of the dis- jlacement of the traditional Sinai from Serbal to ebel Musa in the early Christian centuries may therefore be abandoned, and this practicall amounts to the final abandonment of º Serbal- Sinai theory itself and the acceptance of , the traditional site. Any residual difficulties which are connected with the account of the Exodus and the last stages of the journey to . Sinai are probably due to unhistorical elements in the tradition. Mt. Sinai must therefore be sought in the cluster of eminences which includes Jebel Katerina, Jebel Musa, etc. Of these the highest is Jebel Katerina, but it does not appear that any attempt has been successful to find at the foot of Jebel Katerina a suitable place for an Israelite encampment. And in so far as this is the case, the traditional site must be allowed to retain the identification until further light can be thrown on the subject from unexpected quarters. * Ingens =valde in this document frequently; but here in its natural sense, for she says a little later valle illa quann divi tºgens. 538 SINCERE SINITES The traditional Sinai is bounded on the north side by the great plain er-Rahall, out of which it rises precipitously; on its east and west sides are wadis named respectively, the one on the east Wady ed-Deir and the one on the west Wady el-Leja. The former takes its name (Valley of the Convent) from the celebrated convent of St. Catherine, which stands upon the slope of the mountain; the derivation of the other name is more obscure. In this western wady are the remains of the convent of the Porty Martyrs (Deir el-Arba'in) and a number of other traces of early monastic life, and by this valley it is customary to make the ascent of Jebel Katerina, which lies to the S.W. of Jebel Musa. The northernmost peak of Jebel Musa is called Ras es-Sufsafeh (* Head of the Willow,’ lº from a tree growing in one of its gullies), and is commonly taken as the place of promulgation of the Law, for which it is a very striking and suitable site. The height of Sufsafeh is 6937 ft., while the south- ern peak is somewhat lower. . The latter is the true holy place according to the Greek and Arab tradition. There is an ascent to it by a flight of rude steps commencing not far from the convent, and extending, with slight intermission, almost to the Summit. ADDITIONAL NoTE.—Objections to the traditional site of Mt. Sinai.—In the foregoing we have found ourselves closely in accord with the traditional view of the route of the Exodus, and of the location of Mt. Sinai. If the Israelites really went into the Sinaitic peninsula, the route and the goal of their wanderings have probably been correctly identified. We have shown that the tradition in favour of Jebel Musa is earlier and more constant than has generally been recognized. But the real difficulty begins with the question whether the biblical Mt. Sinai was in the peninsula, after all. Objection after objection has been raised under this head, and some of them are not easy to refute. (1) The biblical references to Mt. Sinai do not seem to warrant an identification in the limits of the peninsula. Dt 12 gives a distance of 11 days from Horeb to the mountains of Seir, and this would agree well enough with the distance from Jebel Musa. But in other passages, such as Dt 332, Hab 38, the contiguity between Sinai and Edom seems to be more pro- nounced ; even if we grant a certain freedom of expression to poetical passages, still such language as Dt 332– J” came from Sinai, And rose from Seir unto them, might, in view of Heb. parallelism of the members, º more than that Sinai was in the direction of Seir. It might be urged in reply that the passage continues— - He shined forth from Mt. Paran, And came from Meribah IXadesh, and Paran has been commonly identified with Feiran in the peninsula. But this identification has also been questioned on account of the parallelism with Kadesh and other references. (2) Some of the places in the itinerary of Exodus have apparently been found outside the limits of the peninsula, as l:lim in Elath-Eloth, and the encampment by the sea in the Gulf of 'Akaba. - (3) Mt. Sinai is suspiciously connected with the land of Midian, and it has to be shown that the Sinaitic peninsula could be thus jescribed. At the time of the Exodus it was an Egyptian province. These and other objections have been raised against the traditional theory ; their resolution depends upon the final discrimination of the documents underlying the Pent. and upon the results of further archaeological investigations, not only in the peninsula of Sinai but to the N. and E. of it. LITERATURE.—Robinson, BI: P2 i. 90 ft., 119 ft. ; Stanley, SP 42 f.; Palmer, Desert of the Ea:00 w8, passion ; Hull, Mount Seir, Sinai, etc., 51 ff. [all these support the identification of Sinai with Jebel Musa); Lepsius, Briefe, 345 ſº., 416 ; Ebers, Durch Gosen zum Sinai, 392 ft. [both advocate the claims of Mt. Serbal]; Sayce, HCM 263 ff. (his view is discussed above). There is a full account of the controversy as to the identity of Sinai in Dillm. - Ryssel on Ex 191. For the sacred character of Mt. Sinai see W. R. Smith, I:S2 117 f., and Smend, Alttest. Iteligiomºgesch.2, 32 ft. J. RENDEL HARRIS. SINCERE.-In 1 P 22 * sincere’ is used in the sense of “unmixed,’ ‘pure’: ‘I)esire the sincere milk of the word’ (to Aoyuköv (160)\ov yd) a, Vulg. sine dolo, Wyc, “with out gile,” Tind. ‘which is without corrupcion,’ Cran. “ which is with out disceate,” Gen. ‘syncere,’ Rhem. “ without guile ’; R V goes back to Wyc. and IRhem. ‘which is . —º without guile”). For ‘sincere’ in this sense, cf. Rhem. NT, Preface, p. 16, ‘We translate that text which is most sincere, and in our opinion, and as we have proved, incorrupt”; and Cranmer, Works, i. 134, ‘If there be none other offence laid against them than this one, it will be much more for the conversion of all the fauters hereof, after mine opinion, that their consciences may be clearly averted from the same by communication of sincere doctrine . . . than by the justice of the law to suffer in such ignorance.’ J. HASTINGs. SINGERS, SINGING.—See artt. PRAISE IN OT, and PRIESTS AND LEVITES. SINGULAR is properly that which concerns a single person or thing ; so AV, after Tindale, in Lv 27” “When a man shall make a singular vow ’ (n)} sº, l{V ‘shall accomplish a vow,' It Vm “make a special vow ’).” So also Knox, Works, iii. 141, “Without harnes or weaponis (except my sling, staf, and stonis) I durst interpryes singular batteli aganis him '; Bp. Davenant, }. 329, ‘For my part, I am of opinion that there is no same or possible Way for any singular person to attein to the comfortable persuasion that hee is Elected unto Salvation, but a Posteriori. Cf. the plurase ‘all and singular,’ as in the Act of Uniformity in K. Edward VI. Second Prayer-Book (1552), “And for their authority in this behalf, be it further likewise enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that all and singular §e same Archbishops, Bishops, and all other their officers exercising Ecclesiastical juris- diction, as well in place exempt, as not exempt, within their dioceses, shall have full power and authority, by this act, to reform, correct, and punish, by censure of the Church, all and singular persons which shall offend within any their juris- dictions or Dioceses.’ Then the single person or thing may be regarded as special and remarkable, as Wis 14*.* the singu- lar diligence of the artificer.’ Cf. Ridley, Bréfe Declaration, 144, ‘Origen . . . was compted and judged thi singular teacher in his tyme of Christes religion’; Mt 5" Tind. “And yf ye be frendly to youre brethren onlye, what singular thynge doo ye?” J. HASTINGS. SINIM (Dºrp; IIéparat; de terra australi). —The ‘land of Sinim’ (Is 49*) must, from the context, have been in the extreme south or east of the known world. In the south, Sin (Pelusivtºn, Ezk 30%) and Syene (Ezk 29' 30") have been suggested (the former by Saadya, Bochart, and Ewald ; the latter by Cheyne [Introd. to Is. 275, and in SBOT], who would read Dºp, with J. D. Michaelis, Klostermann, Marti), but these places are perhaps too near. The LXX favours the view that a country in the east was intended, and modern commentators have identified Sinim with China, the land of the Sinae. . The name Tsim was known as early as the 12th cent. B.C.; and it was not improbably familiar to the Phoenicians. There was a trade, at a very carly date, between the extreme east and southern Arabia and the l’ersian Gulf. This interpretation of the name Sintinº as referring to China, which was first suggested by Gesenius, is strongly opposed by Dillm. (Jesaja, ad loc.), Duhm, and Richthofen (Chinct, i. 436 f., 504). Dillm. e.g. points out that no Israelites could have been in China at the time of this prophecy, that we should expect D'J's not ‘D, and the name Tsim (derived from a dynasty of 255 B.C.) could not have been yet in use in Babylon. C. W. WILSON. SINITES ('jºr ; A 6'Aqevvaſos, Luc. 6 Ageuvet). — * On the vocalization and meaning of the IIeb. ‘word see the Comm., especially Dillm.-Ryssel, ad loc. SIN-OFFERING SIRACH (BOOK OF) 539 wº- A Canaanite people, Gn 107 = 1 Ch 1”. Dillm. (Genesis, ad loc.) compares the name of the ruined city Sin, mentioned by Jerome (Quast.), as not far from Arka, at the foot of Lebanon. Strabo (XVI. ii. 18) also names a mountain stronghold Sinna(n) (2uvvāv, accus.), on Lebanon, and a Phoen. city Siánºt is named along with Semar and Arka in an Assyr. inscription (Del. I’aradies, 282; cf. W. M. Müller, As, i. Europ. 289). SIN-OFFERING.—See SACRIFICE, p. 337°. SION.—1. (s'y; LXX Xmdiv) A name of HERMON, Dt 4°, Sion is taken by some to be a textual error for SIRION (ſºlº), the Zidonian name of the same mountain, Dt 3". This view is supported by the reading of the Syr., which, however, is as Iikely to be a correction of the Hebrew text (Driver, ad loc.). Like SENIR, Sion may have originally been the designation of a particular part of Hermon. 2. See ZION. J. A. SELBIE. SIPHMOTH (nipply; B Xaqet, A Xaqapiºs; Sepha- moth).-One of the places, ‘where David and his men were wont to haunt,’ to which a portion of the spoil of the Amalekites was sent after David’s return to Ziklag (1 S 30°). It is mentioned with Aroer, now ‘Ararah, to the east of Beer-sheba, and Eshtemoa, now es-Semit'a, in the hill-country S. of Hebron. The site was unknown to Eusebius and Jerome (Omomi. s. Xaqapa,0, Sofamoth), and it has not yet been recovered. It was probably in the Negeb to the S. of Eshtemoa. Riehm (H WB) suggests that Zabdi, the Shiphmite (1 Ch 27”), was a native of jº and not of Shepham— the change from Sh, to S being easily made, and a few MSS reading Shiph- for Siph. in 1 Samuel. See SHEPHAM. C. W. WILSON. SIPPAI.-See SAPH. SIRAUH (BOOK OF).- . History. ii. Importance. iii. Name and Place in the Bible. iv. Name of the Author. v. Editions. vi. Greek Text. vii. Versions and Quotations. viii. The Syriac Text. ix. The Hebrew Texts. x. Contents and Theology. Literature. i r [Abbreviations in this article :-Ed. = Edersheim, Commentary on Sirach in Wace, Apocrypha, ii.; , C-N=Cowley-Neubauer, The original IIebrew of a portion of Ecclesiasticus ; It = Ryssel, Translation of Sirach with Notes in Die Apokryphen fibersetzt, . . . ed. by E. Kautzsch (1900, i.) and in SK 1000, 1901; S-T = The Wisdom of Bem, Sira, Portions of the Book Jºcclesiasticus, ed. by Schechter-Taylor (1809); (3 the Greek, ſº the Hebrew, g the Latin, s the Syriac Text, p the Syriac translation of Paul of Tella]. i. HISTORY..—The history of the book, which in the English Bible retained the Latin mame Ecclesi- asticus, while it is called in German the book (of) Jesus Sirach or, abbreviated, Sirach, falls into two periods, the second beginning on 13th May 1896, when S. Schechter, Talmudic reader in the Uni- versity of Cambridge, wrote in a letter to Mrs. A. S. Lewis there, that the fragment of a Hebrew MS of hers, which he had taken with him, represented “a piece of the original Hebrew of Ecclesiasticºts. It is the first twme that such a thing was discovered’ (see A. S. Lewis, In, the Shadow of Sinai : A Story of Travel and IResearch from 1895 to 1897; Cann- bridge, 1898, p. 174). Since that day, 39 out of the 51 chapters of which the book consists have been recovered totally or in part in Hebrew from 4 different MSS, and a new period in the history of this book has thus been opened. What we knew about it before that time or believed we knew, is, —w perhaps, best Summed up in the Introduction and Commentary of . A. Edersheim, in the Speaker's Commentary (“Apocrypha, ed. by Henry Wace (London, 1888), ii. 1–239). ii. IMPORTANCE. –In many respects this book is the most important of the so-called Apocrypha. It is important for the student of history who wishes to trace the Jewish religion in its transition from the OT to the NT, and it is important on account of the influence it exercised and still exer- cises on the religious life of generations. Both the Jubilee Rhythm of St. Bernard of Clairvaux ºy translated in Hymns Ancient and Modern, 178, 177), and what may be called the German Te Deum, Nun danket alle Gott (ib. 379), are taken from this book. How much has been lost by those parts of the Church which excluded it from their Bibles may be gathered from the use made of it in other parts, not only in the Greek and Roman, which place it on the same footing as the whole Bible, but also in the Lutheran, which placed it among the Apocrypha, but made a very large use of it. - On the Latin Church compare especially Augustine. When he collected from the Bible, towards the end of his life, his so- called Speculum, i.e., those passages which he considered useful for the guidance of the religious life, he found in this book more for his purpose (plura, hwic operi mecessaria) than in any other book of the OT or NT (no fewer than 36 pages out of 285 in the edition of Weihrich [CSEL, vol. xii. 1887); from Proverbs 21 pages, from Matthew 18). After the excerpts from those books ‘quos et Judaei canonicos habent,’ he goes on to say ‘sed non sunt omittendi et hi quos quidem ante Salvatoris adventum constat esse conscriptos, sed eos non receptos a Judais recipit tamen eiusdem salvatoris ecclesia, in his sunt duo qui Salomonis appellantur a pluribus propter quandam sicut existimo eloquil similitudimen). nam Salomonis non esse nihil dubitant quique doctiones. mec tamen eius qui Sapientite dicitur quisnam sit autor apparet, illum vero, alterum quem vocamus Ecclesi- asticum, quod Jesus quidam Scripserit, qui cognominatur Sirach, constat inter eos qui eundem librum totum legerunt.” As to the Lutheran Church it may be noted that the protocols of the Meistersinger of Nürnberg alone mention about 100 songs all beginning ‘Jesus Sirach' or “Sirach (the wise man)'—see the Indexes published by IC. Drescher in vol. 214 (1897) of the Literarische Verein. In 1670 a preacher published the themes and dispositions of 170 sermons on this book,” and the Bible Society of Halle (founded by francke Canstein) circulated from 1712–1823 no fewer than 77,105 copies.f iii. NAME AND PLACE IN THE BIBLE.—(a) Place. (1) The book had at no time a place among the 24 (or 22) books of the Hebrew Bible, though it is quoted in one passage of the Bab. Talmud (Berakh- oth, 48a) with the quotation-formula nºnpº “as it is written,” which is used elsewhere only of the acknowledged books; but in the * passages the name of the book is added. In two other passages two rabbinical authorities actually quote from our book, while believing themselves to be quoting from Scripture (see Strack, Kanon des AT’ in PIRE * ix. 753). The book is therefore not mentioned in those lists of the canonical books which profess to give the Jewish Canon, as Melito, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, Amphilochius, pseudo - Athanasius' Synopsis, Canon of Laodicea, capitºtlºts (Zahn, Geschichte des Kamoms, vol. ii.). Epiphanius, de Mens. 4 (Lagarde, Symmicta, ii. 157), says on the two books, mentioned above by Augustine, Wis- dom and Sirach ; attal Xpijatpot pºév elot Kal ºpéAtpot, &XX' sis àpubuðv Tów pyrów own dyadépovral ºf Öt’ & otöé év tá, épěv (phs) évéré0mgav, Tour' éotiv čv rii Tâs 6ta- 0%kms Kugarð. s (2) But Sirach had a sure and prominent place among the books of the Bible in the Greek and * Sacrarum IIonviliarum. Thematicarton e Sapientia II*- pera, sive Ecclesiastico Jesú fili; Siragh centiºn et septºtatºta dispositiones, annotationibus textualibºts illust'ºtº’, quibus praſiaws, liber Siracidis graeus cºm vºls lectionibus . . . autóre . . . W. M. Stissero, Lipsite, 2 pts. (1876), 4to, + On the use made of the book in the English Church see below, p. 650b. e R & f Čoumare with this assertion Luther's deſinition, of, the Apocrypha, as “IEiicher, so der, Heiligen Schrift nicht gleic k géhalten, und doch nützlich und gut zu leson sind. 540 SIRACH (BOOK OF) SIRACH (BOOK OF) still more in the Latin Churches. In the MSS of the Greek Bibles it was most commonly grouped With the other Poetical books (see the ists in Swete's Introduction, pp. 198–214); the order being in cod. S : Psalms, Proverbs, Eccl., Cant., Wisd., Sirach, Job ; in B : Ps., Prov., Eccl., Cant., Job, Wisd., Sirach, Esth. ; in AN : Ps., Job, Prov., Eccl., Cant., Wisd., Sirach. On the question whether Clement of Alexandria had Wisdom and Sirach as an Appendix to the NT, see, on the one side, Credner-Volkmar, Geschichte des newtest. Canons, p.387 (on the strength of Photius, cod, 109, § 3; 6xos groºs [of his 'Exxoyzi] &roºve; ippºvici rvyxetpax (or >t-) in codd. ACS, and in the subscription of B. Ch. 50 has the inscription IIpogeuxm Imaov viou 2epax, and occurs separately under this heading, e.g. in cod. Bodl. misc. gr. 205 (xiv cent.); (3) Xopa m travaperos Imaov vuov 2eupax stands in the edition of Camerarius, 1551, before the so-called Prologus incerti auctoris. The expression Tavápéros is applied to Proverbs (Eus. HJE iv. 22), to Wisd. (Athan., Synops., Epiph., Subscr. in codex Syro-hexaplaris Ambrosianus), to Sirach (Hºus. DE viii. 2, Jerome). Clement of Alexandria quotes: pmalv h toº 'Imaoſ, 20%ta, h ypaſp# (Str. ii. 180), h >oqta, trapó rig 26Xopºut, (ii. 160), trap& 20Xopačvros, IIavčaywyðs. Origen (ii. 77): rod rô a jºy Ypappa. Thu Xoqtau hulu kata)\ttróvros Imaoſ, vloi, 2-pdx; (iii. 48) pmolu yüp # 20%ta, (139) \sºowoºms rās ypaq,7s. - In the official editions of the Latin Bible the book has the heading Ecclesiasticºts; then follows, * In Ecclesiasticum Jesu filii Sirach Prologus.’ Ch 50 has the heading ‘Oratio Jesu filii Sirach.” In the codex_Amiatinus the inscription and sub- Scription is Liber Ecclesiasticwm Salomonis; the subscription standing after 3 Regn. 8**, which follows in this MS immediately after ch. 5l. The same arrangement is found in mediaeval Bibles, as the Wenzel Bible, the first German Bible (Eggestein, Strassburg, c. 1461). Very strange is the heading 'Ekk\matao rucós (be- cause hitherto found only in Latin and the pas- Sage of Photius quoted above) + in cod. 248 before * Of printed Greek texts Luther knew probably only the edition of Lonicerus just mentioned, 1520; the other texts printed at that time were in the Polyglot Bible of Ximenes, 1614, and in the Greek Bible of Aldus, 1518; Melanchthon's edition of the Greek Bible appeared a few months before Luther's death, 1545. Frz, Delitzsch (Studien zwr 1'mtstehungsgeschichte den Poly- glottembibel des Cardinals Ximenes, Leipzig, 1871, p. 5) states that Luther nowhere mentions the Bible of Ximenes, but that Melanchthon refers to it while Luther was living, and that the library of Wittenberg possessed the copy dedicated to the I’lector; two years after the death of Luther it passed into the library of Jena. f Besides the statement of Zahn, Gegoh. d. Kam, ii. 233, cf. Qikonomos, repl row o' spºnwavrov, ii. 579. On the adjective ixxx, rigorºzás see Clement, Str. vi.125 (ed. Dind. iii. 217), *w&v ixzano lootixás, Origen, ii. 97.1, iii. 44. 1; Itufinus (Eaſpos. SIRACH (BOOK OF) SIRACH (BOOK OF) 5 * : the text of the book and the Prologus incerti auctoris, the latter being inscribed 20%ia 'Imaoſ, vioſ, 2eupéx. The common Latin designation since Cyprian is Ecclesiasticºts, and means, most probably, the Church-book kat' ééox#v, from its frequent use in the Church, especially for the instruction of cate- chumens. Ecclesiasticus is used in Cyprian once of Ecclesiastes (Test. 8, 86. 61), once of Wisd. (3, 112 cod. A), of our book (3, 1, 95, 110. 111); it is ascribed to Solomon in 3, 6, 12. 20. 53, 113, Op. 5, Semt. 27, Ep. 3, 2; it is both ascribed to Solomon and called Ecclesi- asticus in 2, 1, 3, 35. 51. 96, 07. 109 (see Rönsch, “die Alttest. Citate bei Cyprian’ in Zeitschrift für histor. Theol. 1875, 05). Ambrose writes: “In Ecclesiastico Syrach, in libro Sapientiae Syrach’; Lactantius (Ep. 25), “In Ecclesiastico per Salomonem'; it is referred to Solomon also by Vigilius of Thapsus, Anicetus of Buruch ; Hilary (‘qui nobiscum Salomonis inscribitur, apud Græcos atque Hebraeos [!] Sapientia. Sirach habetur’). Jerome says, “In Sapientia quae Sirach inscribitur.” The (wrongly) abbreviated inscription of codex B and the editio Sixtina have become prevalent in modern books, even in those of Roman Catholic authors. (c) Name of the original work.—Jerome (in the Preface to the books of Solomon) writes: “Fertur et Tavápéros Jesu filii Sirach liber, et alius pewö- etlypaqos qui Sapientia, Salomonis inscribitur ; qºto- Twin priorem, Hebraicum reperi, nec Ecclesiasticum, ut apud Latinos sed Parabolas praenotatum ; cui juncti erant Ecclesiastes et Canticum Canticorum, ut similitudinem Salomonis non solum librorum numero, Sed etiam materiarum genere adacquaret,” secundus apud Hebraeos nusquam est.’ This raises the question, What was the original title of the work? The Syriac version, which is based (see § viii.) on the Hebrew, is in Jagarde's edition (from cod. 12, 142 of the Brit. Mus., vi cent.) in- scribed Nnºb hit snpon ‘ Wisdom of Bar Sira’; in Walton's Polyglot, sini, in Nnpnon NTDR hypwi Rann NY on hai mnomm “Book of Simeon Asira, which book is called the Wisdom of Bar Asira.’ At the end we read (a) Hitherto the words of Jesu bar Simeon, who is called Bar Asira I and (b) “Endeth to write the Wisdom of Bar Sira.” Walton has (see Lagarde, p. ix) ‘Endeth the Wisdom of Bar Asira. In 20 chapters and to God glory in etermity.’ The MSS of Pococke and Ussher add after (a) instead of (b) ‘Endeth the book of the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Simeon who is called Bar Asira (cod. Ussher 2, Sirak), in which are 2500 words.’ ‘. . * In the Hebrew text we read at the end, “Hitherto the words of Simeon ben Jeshua, who is called ben Sirã. The Wisdom (npon) of Simeon ben Jeshua ben Eleazar ben Sirâ. The name of Jahweh be blessed from now and till eternity.’ From these Greek, Syriac, and Hebrew state- ments it would appear that the title of the book was ‘Wisdom,’ Sopia, in Heb. nerſ (or nºb); but how is this to be reconciled with the statement of Jerome that the title was in Hebrew Patrabola, (i.e. ºn)? Is this a confusion with Proverbs, a solution recommended by the fact that in the Hebrew seen by Jerome Eccl., and Cant, followed ; or was the copy seen by Jerome not a copy of the original, but a retranslation from the Greek, as already Scaliger suggested ? And then, Jewish quotations from Sirach, where they mention not only the name of the author as sn't ji hps, or in in Symnb.), after the canonical books of the OT, among which he mentioned “Salomonis vero tres’: ‘Sciendum tamen est, quod et alii libri Nunt, qui non canomici setl ecclesiastict a maioribus appellati sunt, ut est Sapientia Salomonis et alia Sapientia quie dicitur ſilii Syrach, qui liber apud latinos hoc ipso generali vocabulo Ecclesiasticits appellatur, quo vocabulo non auctor libri, Sed Scripturas qualitas cognominata est.’ * How are these words to be understood Just as there are three books of Solomon (prov., Eccl., Cant.), so there were extra- tººl books equal in number and contents (Sirach-i-lºccl.-- ant. 7). + ić. also Opuscula, Nestoriana, p. 107, and after a remark, endeth Bar Sira.’ Aramaic Rºb ºn, or Rºb a HEP, have twice nps ºff ‘the Parabolist said,” or shºp a now nºnp ‘a proverb said ben Sira’ (see C-N, p. xxiv n. v. liv and p. xx n. x.). The same word Nºnp ‘proverbs’ occurs in the Syriac VS at 50”; the Heb. text has there 93ry ºpp, and the book is quoted as help hºp by Saadia (C-N, p. ix n. 4). The question of the original title is, after all, a puzzle, and new puzzles as to the author’s name arise from the newly discovered texts. iv. THE NAME OF THE AUTHOR.—(a) Hitherto it has been generally held that the author's name was Jesus the son of Sira (Jesus filius Sirach, Jesus Siracida). Especially subsequent to the Reforma- tion this name became current instead of the Latin book - name Ecclesiasticus. Compare the title of the first separate edition of the book in Greek by Joachinn Camerarius (Basileae, 1551), ‘Sententiae Jesu Siracidae Graece.’” But now new difficulties arise. In the Greek text the author himself (50°7) gives his name as 'Imaovs vios Xelpax 'EXeaſap 6 'Iepoo oxvpcevrms; F instead of the last word the first hand of codex S had lepews & Xo)\vplettºms; the name 'EXea&ap is omitted by cod. 248 and the Complutensian and Sixtine editions; 'EXea&apov is written in cod. 68 and the Aldine Bible, "EXeáčapos in V 253. The Syriac Hexapla has “Jesus son of Sirach of Eliezer' (miyºs"); the Pesh. omits the passage altogether; in the Latin Vulgate it runs, “Jesus ilius Sirach Jerosolymita,”; and now in the Hebrew in the twice-repeated colophon, in hype” NTD in myºs in viv, “by Shimeon son of Jesus son of Eleazar son of Sirâ.’ And so the author is called also by Saadia (see S-T, p. 65). Many recent writers think the Hebrew pedigree Simeon—Jesus —Elcazar—Sira, a mere clerical error for the sequence Jesus—Simeon—Eleazar—Sira. But it must be pointed out that the name Simeon is firmly attached to the author of this book in the Syriac Church. There he was identified with the Supedov 6 6.e065×os of the NT, the author of Nuºvo dimittis. On this identification see especially Georg, bishop of the Arabs (Briefc wrºd Gedichte, ed. Ryssel, p. 59 f., 80 f., 159 f.), who opposes the identification for chronological reasons, the author of the book having lived, according to Georg, 244 years before Christ, in the 65th year of the Greek era, under Euergetes. Cf. further, Gregory Bar- hebraeus (Scholien, ed. Kaatz), who identifies him at the same time with Simeon (II.) son of Onias; Opuscula Nestoriana (ed. G. Hoffmann, p. 107, t 139 Š); History of the Blessed Virgin Mary, ed. Budge (p. 36), where cod. B for ‘Simeon the old' has ‘Simeon Asira’—he becomes priest after * There is a good story told by Melanchthon, which, whether it refers to this edition or not, ought not to be suppressed : ‘Quidam sacrificulus cum in bibliopolio widisset Syracidem editum dixit : quam mali homines sunt Lutherami; etiam Christo nomen aliud affingunt : antea vocabatur Christus Jesus, nuncilli vocant eum Jesus Syrach' (see (#GN, 1894, 180). # AV “Jesus the son of Sirach of Jerusalem'; RV “Jesus the son of Sirach Eleazar of Jerusalem.” Note the Grecized form of the name (instead of 'Ispovac.A., w). ! “That he was called bar Sirā; they relate that he called his father NYDN, because he is the Simeon whose tongue was bound (Nºts) by the Holy Ghost, till he should see the Christ, and when he had seen Him, he spoke, Let me now part in l eace to my fathers.’ * § The Septuagint is said here to have been made “six years after the return of the children of Israel from Babel, which was the 17th year of the death of Alexander the Greek, and 1400 years after the Law was given to Moses. Simeon the old (Nino), the father of Jesus bar Sira, the Wise, was one of the seventy-two old men just mentioned ; and he was the Simeon bar Nethamiah bar Chonja (; ; Sir 50), and Simeon was brother of the priest Eleazar; and it was he who carried our lord in his arms, and his life was stretched over 216 years, and he called himself with a contemptible name (NTDH Nova), like Abraham, who called himself dust and ashes, and David, who said, I am a worm and no man, Nºb, i.e. dust from the white-washing, which is beaten off the walls. Instead of Sira the Greek says Asira (N lºs).” 542 SIRACH (BOOK OF) SIRACH (BOOK OF) Zechariah the father of John the Baptist, Protev. Jacobi, ch. 24; The Book of the Bee (p. 71): ‘Simeon the son of Sira, died in peace in his own town.” In one Greek recension of the Lives of the Prophets, Xupe&v 6 lepets found a place towards the end between Zechariah the son of Barachiah and Nathan (see Nestle, Marg. wºnd Mat. p. 33). That Simeon 6eoööxos was one of the Seventy, is stated, among Greek writers, by Euthymius Zigabenus, ICedrenus, Nicephorus Kallisti. The pedigrees we thus obtain are— smºon. Jesus. Jesus. Jesus fliesia. Jesus. Sirach. Simeon. Simeon. pºlar [Eleazar]. sº sº It has been suggested by Blau that ‘the two traditions, that of the Greek and that of the Syriac, are mutually complementary.’ Thus we should have in #, a combination of both, what textual critics call a conflation. The decision depends on the general question of the value of #), see § ix. As to whether Simeon or Eleazar can be identified with one of the known bearers of these names, see below. (b) The name Sirach.—The latest contribution to Hebrew lexicography, M. Jastrow's Dictionary of the Targumim, etc., contains the following words which come into consideration for the explanation of this name: (1) To ‘pot”; (2) NTD = Heb. Hºng ‘coat of mail'; (3) sn’b ‘thorn’; (4) Nºb-the present proper name ; (5) Tºp, Nº"p f. (a) “[degenerate growth),’ ‘thorn,' ‘thornbush,” (b) “refuse,” “foul matter’; (6) Tºp, Nºpf. ‘sur- rounded place,’ ‘court,’ ‘prison.” From Thes. Syr. we may add (7) ºp-a tºp, “Sir”; (8) sno= orelpá; and (9) the explanation of the , name given by the Syriac lexicographers = Nº “thin dust from the walls.” If there was not the constant tradition that the initial letter was b, the Greek X might correspond also to other letters, as 1, or s, or w, and the name might be connected with “Tyl, Rºyś, “small,’ ‘little,” “lesser,’ hy] or Rºy] being, in fact, the name of several Jewish Amoraim. The x at the end of the Greek form may corre- spond to 1 (cf. Xepovy, PaXex), n (Ka)\ax, Maoğax), to # (many names in -plexex), to 9 (Baxax), to p ('Apaxmy, Bapax), to still other letters, as I (Kevex, Mawz) or n (Battavax, Aewax); but it is most probably a mere representation of the mºtter lectionis N ; cf. 'Akex- 6égax, 'I wanx Lk 3" = "pi", the spelling "AAAax = Allah [Schlatter takes it for v = viós]. A. Meyer (Mattterspratche Jesu, p. 39) takes the word to mean coat of mail or iris oculi ; Ryssel (p. 234), ‘more probably thorn or thorn-hedge than mail-coat,’ referring to Levy, NH WB iii. 519, 520. Ityssel takes bar-Sira, as name of the family; we should thus have only three generations: Jesus, Simeon, Eliezer—not four as in 3).” In view of the Pro- logue, “3 tróttiros uov 'Imaoûs,’ it seems certain that the author was Jesus (the son of Simeon), and not Simeon the son of Jesus. Whether the translator, too, bore the name of his grandfather, as is stated by the Prologus incerti auctoris, is not certain. This second Prologue, which was first printed from cod. 248 in the Complutensian Pol º and was first shown by Hoeschel (1604) to be part of the so-called pseudo-Athanasian Synopsis, begins— 'Ivoroú, obºro; Xp22. ºw %y vić, #yyovo; 8% 'Izzoö 8pcovágov obrá, . . . 6 o'v rárro; ozºroú . . . pixárová, re 2 vowsy %w/p by 'Egozíois . . . ; rei oiſy rºw BigAoy roºtzv 8 rpáros 'Inooús oxºov tº ovvel»sy- wévov xzzo. Aurów tº &vt/parasy %zero, Spixx o'ros wer' oºtov ráxty * This is possible; cf. Josephus, Vita, 1: 6 rpárzºrºro, hºw Af f * y * g * *g *...* * * 21%aw & ‘We Axo; horizoºxoºctyo; . . . yºvovºrozu 88 tº "P's???, Xiºzawa ºoziºs; viz' roºrov Hoºd, Mzºvic: ; Hºoiju (v.l.. 'Hºxiou) X-yé- £229.9%. +& oxsº aro.13, 2&rixursv 'Izoroſ, & 39 wºrſ; Azéégives sk ly &rocorozy ivopuévlov advtozyºz ovváx.22, 20¢iocy ºri tº cºroú zoº tº row aro: Tejº &AA& Azºv accº ré rérarov * 3vézo, Tu (a)=xxxzés. Thus we have the pedigree : Jesus [II, the trans- lator]—Sirach tºº. [I, the author]—Sirach [I, Eleazar]. Another enlargement has taken place in the translator's Preface, as it seems, in Latin MSS, though it is known to the present writer only from the pre-Lutheran German Bible. There it is stated that the “anherre’ (avºts, tróriros) was a son of Josedek (see ch. 49*), and one of the Seventy, and that the grandson Jesus the son of Sirach pursued higher studies. . Finally, Euergetes is stated in the same connexion to have reigned after Philadelphus, his brother, under whom the Bible had been translated from Hebrew into Greek (see Nestle, “Zum Prolog des Ecclesiasticus’ in ZA TW, 1897, p. 123 f.). Already Isidore of Seville identifies Jesus the son of Siracli with Jeshua, the son of Jozedek. This is of course impossible. For the translator states: év yöp tº 6-yôów, kal Tptakoorg &ret étrº Toſ, Eöepyérov Bao'a)\éws trapayev’mbels els Alyvirrov Kal avyxpovio as éðpov ot, pukpās trauðelas dºćplotov. This date is not to be understood of the 38th year of the life of the translator (Camerarius) nor of any unknown era, but of the reign of Euergetes (see especially Deissmann, Bibelstudien, i. 255 [Eng. tr. 339 ft.]; It 235; Ed. 4ff. As only Euergetes II. reigned more than 38 years (from B.C. 170 with his brother, from 145 alone, reckoning his years from 170), it is the year B.C. 132; and as he states that he stayed some time in Egypt (avyxpovlaas) before he undertook his task, we may place the translation about 130, and the original some forty or fifty years earlier (B.C. 190–170). Then we must understand the high priest Simon, who is so highly praised in Sir 50", from personal knowledge as it seems, to be Simon II. Others, taking trairiros in the sense of ‘ancestor,’ prefer to place the author more than a hundred years earlier, under Simon I. In the former case it would be possible to identify our author ‘Imaoûs with the high priest 'Idowu (175– 172); but beyond the identity of the time and name nothing leads to this identification. That the author of our book was high priest is stated by Syncellus (Chron., ed. Dindorf, i. 525); the reading lepews & Xoxupétrºms by the first hand of S cannot be more than a clerical error.: v. EDITIONS.—(a) The first editions of the Greek text are in the Complutensian Polyglot (c) 1514, from cod. 248 Š (see below, p. 544"), in the Aldine Bible (a) 1518, which has been taken for this book * The word ráºrros used here and in the Preface may have the more general meaning ‘ancestor,' but in this connexion it will be “grandfather.' In the Concordance of Hatch-lècolpath it is §º from Symmachus on Zec 1), where it seems to belong to (w + On the reign of Euergetes we are well informed through the inscriptions of the temple of Edfu (see Dünnichen, Die erste big jetzt aufgeſundeme sichere Angabe iber die Itegierungs. zeit eine8 Agyptischem Königs aws dem, alten I'eiche, Leipzig, 1874, p. 20 ft. ; and Žtschr, J. &g. Sprache, 1870). There the years 28, 30, 40, 48, 54 (as the last of this king) are mentioned ; the first Toth of his 28th year fell on the 28th Sept. B. c. 143, the first Payni (rise of Sirius) on the 20th–19th July 142. f IIere it may be mentioned that in a late compilation (see C-N, pp. xiv f., xxix) Ben-Sira is made the son or grandson of Jeremiah, and has a son Uziel and a grandson Joseph. See Proverbia Ben-Sira, Awton'is antiquissimi, qui creditur ſuisse mepos Jeremia, propheta, Opera J. Drusii, Francker, 1597. In the Preface Drusius thinks it a probable inference, ‘interpretem Graecum lºcclesiastici Josephum fuisse Wzielis ſilium.' "Cf. on this literature the edition of Steinschneider, Alphabetwm Siraci- dis uta'unque, Berolini, 1858; and Schürer, GJ V: ii. 101. In other legends he has been brought into connexion with Solomon as his wezir or secretary ; see above, p. 540" ; a legend about Aphkia (the wife of Sirach) and Solomon has been pub- lished in Arabic by Mrs. M. 1). Gibson in number viii. of the Studio. Sinaitica, London, 1001. § Sirach was committed with the rest of the ‘libri Sapien- tiales' to the care of Johan do Vergara, who, at the end of his life, had no greater wish than to illustrate Sirach by notes (Alvarus Gomez, de rebus gestis a l'ramc. Aſimenio, lib. 2). SIRACH (BOOK OF) SIRACH (BOOK OF) 543 r— without any doubt from cod. 68; and cod. 68 itself is, to all appearance, for this book a copy of cod. B, so that a represented the text of cod. B in many passages more faithfully than the Sixtine of 1587.” A reprint of q is the edition of Lonicerus + (Argent. 1526); but the editor introduced many changes: for instance, in 3", where a has €uoſ, roſ, trampos, Lonicerus put (from the Latin) kptua toû ratpºs. That Lonicerus changed his text has been over- looked by subsequent editors and commentators, hence in later books a number of misstatements as to the text of a ; ; Lonicerus in turn was followed by Melanchthon (Basle, 1545), Melanchthon by the edition of Wechel (1597, see art. SEPTUAGINT, p. 440°). § The editors of the Sixtine (b) made use not only of B, but of c a Lonicerus, Melanchthon, and the codd. W 106, 155, 253| (see on b, above, p. 440°); on Grabe's edition, see p. 440°. (b) Separate editions of the Apocrypha are men- tioned, p. 441°. The edition of Fritzsche (1871) is the best, but for our particular book quite un- Satisfactory (see Nestle, Marg. 1892, pp. 48–58). (c) Of separate editions of Sirach alone the oldest is: Sententiſe Jesu Siracidae, Graece summa diligentia et studio singulari editat, cum neces- S&rtis Ammotationibus, Joachimo Camerario, Pabe- pergen., autore, Basileae, 1551, 8vo." It has both Prologues, is the first which numbers the verses, and has useful notes, especially parallels from the classics, but also various readings, . In the Prologue, Camerarius writes $4.6%tov for the doubtful &etºotov (p.l. tº colo, and &popºv), which reading has been mentioned in the notes of b and other editions and received into the text by Grabe. Then comes Xopta Xelpax, sive Ecclesiasticus Grace ad eacemplar Romantºn, et Latine ex inter- pretatione J. Drusii, cum castigationibus sive notis eiusdem, Ad Iłeverendissimum in Christo patrem D. Johannem Whitgiftum archiepiscopum Cantuariensem, etc., Franekerae, 1596, 4to ; with a double appendix, ‘ Proverbia-Bensirae' and ‘Ad- agiorum Ebraicorum Decurise aliquot nunquam antehac editac.’ Besides the previous printed editions—among them “Biblia R. Stephani qua, vulgo Vatablo attributtºn'twº',' apparently the cdition [Geneva, 1st March] 1557–58—Drusius made use from ch. 20 on- ward of a collation sent to him through Jan Gruter from Heidel- berg. “Huius enim hortatu Jacobus Kimcdontius iunior . . . codicem Palatinae bibliotheca vetustissimum membranaceum cum editione Cannerarii anno 1578 [sic; in his nota, he writes 1570) Lipsiae cusa diligentissime contulerat.’ This is apparently the Codex 200 of IIP. A most conscientious edition is that of Hoeschel : Sapientia, Sirachi sive Ecclesiasticus, Collatis lecti. omibnts variantibus membramſtrum. Attgustamºrum vetustissionarum et aciv practerca eaccºmplar inton. Addita versione Latimſ, vulgata, ca, editione leo- mana, gwan notis Davidis Iſoeschclii Augustami. In quibus multa SS. Patrum loca illustramtur, Augustae, 1604. His codex Augustanus (‘H’ in the edition of Fritzsche, p. xxii) is apparently codex 70 of IIP, now at Munich 551, and deserves the more a fresh collation, as HIP gave it only for the * More than thirty readings quoted by Holmes-Parsons as singular from a turn out to be in reality readings of B. l.Iow did 68 really read in these passages? it seems very badly col- lated, for IIolmes-Parsons. # See above, pp. 440", 540b. f Comp, Bretschneider on 31 “Aldima, Melanth. et Bas, minor: sepiac, rot, roºtpos quod et codd. quidam Hoeschelči.” The first and last statements are quite incorrect. § 1). Hoeschel quotes amongst the editions used by him fre- quently ‘Biblia Parisiis impressa a lö. Stephano, A 1555.' From his quotations it would appear that it is in Greek and Latin with notes. Is there such an edition ? | This follows from a comparison of the scholia and the Notes of Nobilius in the edition of 1588; coup. on 31 ‘in aliquibus libris est xpiouv rot, ºrzºrpo ’ [= cod. 253], ‘in aliquibus aliis zpiaz' [== Ionicerus]. Nobilius quotes at least a dozen readings from a, and MSS which are not found in II l’. *I Kolde (art. “Camerarius’ in P1: 129 iii. 680) mentions only the second edition (Lipsite, 1568); the same year is given by Hoeschel (1604); but Drusius (1590) and the Catalogue of the British Museum give 1570, 2 vols. ſirst chapter, and as the codex is closely related to 253 and the Syriac Hexapla. The source and present place of another MS used by Hoeschel ‘Fragmentum §§ variae lectionis aliquot capitum e scidis Fr. ylburgii') are unknown to the present writer. From Hoeschel till Fritzsche not much was done for the textual criticism of a book which needed it greatly. We have—Sententia, Jesu Siracidae, Grae- Cºtºn teactum ad fidem codicum et versionwm, emen- davit et illustravit, Linde (Gedani, 1795); and Liber Jesu Siracidae Grace, Ad fident codicum et versionum emendatus et perpetua annotatione illus- tratus, a C. G. Bretschneider (IRatisbonae, 1804), xvi. 758 pp. Br. is not accurate enough, but he has the merit of having called attention to a witness in textual criticism, the I'lorilegium. of Antonius and Maximus, neglected by most workers in this field Hart's edition must find its place among the MSS (see below). vi. THE GREEK TEXT.—The problem of textual criticism in this book is of exceptional interest. Luther declares in the Preface to his translation (what pains it had taken him to translate this book may be judged from a comparison with all other copies, Greek, Latin, or German, old or new) : “There have come so many “Aliiglinge” over this book, that it would be no wonder if it were totally disfigured, not to be understood, without any use. Like a torm, trampled, and scattered letter, we have gathered it, wiped off the dust, and brought it as far as can be seen.’ Some idea of this may be gathered by the English reader from a glance at the margins of RV. There are about eighty mar- ginal notes; fifty times it is stated that a verse or part of a verse or even a series of verses is onlitted !. many or by the best or the oldest authorities (cf. 14, 18 °); once only (17") “this line is added by the best authorities’; at other places we read, “The Greek text here is probably corrupt,’ ‘the Greek text is here very confused.’ The numbering of verses and even of the clapters does not agree. The latter is caused by the misplacement of some leaves (Ryssel says ‘two '; and it may have been two, which must have been the inner leaves of a layer, and somewhat more closely written than A and still more than BS ’) in the copy from which all the Greek MSS hitherto known have been derived. This fact, first pointed out by O. F. Fritzsche (Ausleg. 169, 170), who was led to his discovery by a similar observation of H. Sauppe on a Heidelberg MS of Lysiast, would not have been recognized with such certainty but for the Latin and Syriac texts, which have the different order. j. Already Nobilius declared the Latin order to be the better, calling attention especially to the reading Katak\mpovówmgov “in non nullis (libris),’ ‘quod optime convenit, si conjungatur cum illis quae in §. c. 36' (a reading received into the text by Grabe, but not to be found elsewhere in HP, quoted by Hoeschel from his codex Augustanus; Camerarius put Karak\mpověpanoat). Where did the Roman editors get it from ? and which is the ‘unus vetustus codex,’ which accord- ing to their repeated statement has, like the Com- plutensian, the Latin order? It is not the cod. 248, *Toy (Encyc, Bill, vol. ii. col. 1173) speaks of the displace. ment of rolls of the CŞ MS, or possibly of the IIebrew MS from which the Gr. translation was made. # This accident occurs very often in ancient MSS. In the British Mus, there is a German IBible which has Mt 11–54 after 1)euteronomy; at Gotha there is another with the same mis- placement. On a misplacement in cod. S see Swete, Iºlº off. p. 131; in a MS of ecclesiastical canons see Turner, JT'Jº St. ii. 260 ; in the Cluvel. History of Zacharias of Mitºylene see the edition of Brook-Hamilton ; in the Homilies of Origen on Jer. See E. Klostermann (Or, iii. p. xiii). For other examples (Plautus, Mostellaria, etc.) see lºd. p. 154. a $ & w º † The strange éonfusion Melanchthon produced in his edition, by placing the verse 22, 22 tszX.20% wºog in the middle of ch, 33 and Aguapā azoº.º. in the middle of ch. 86, has been partially amended in the edition of 1597. 544 SIRACH (BOOK OF) SIRACH (BOOK OF) in spite of the definite statement of Edersheim and others” (see Nestle, Marginalien, 1892, p. 58; J. K. Zenner, ‘Ecclesiasticus nach Cod. Wat. 346’ in Z. f. Kath. Theol. 1895; Ryssel, p. xxviii.; and now the edition of Hart).| Parsons used for this book fourteen MSS; the two uncials iii. and 23, i.e. AV, but cod. 70 (Hoeschel's Augustanus) only for the Prologue and ch. 1. In the Addenda is to be found for the Prologue the collation of a fifteenth MS (234). Fritzsche ex- cerpted the apparatus of Parsons, but in an in- sufficient way, and added the collation of C, S, and Hoeschel's Augustanus from his edition of 1604.: In Swete's OT" in Greek we have a faithful repre- sentation of the readings of BACS (==N); but it is now generally acknowledged that the text of these uncials is a very bad one in Sirach. § It is therefore a great boon that the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press are to publish shortly an edition of the Codex Vaticanus 346 (= HP 248, the basis of c) by J. H. A. Hart, who, with the assent of the Syndics, had the kindness to communicate to the present writer, for the benefit of this article, the proofs before publication.| Of MSS not yet laid under contribution there are known to the present writer:—(1) A palimpsest of the 6th or 7th cent. at St. Petersburg, written in three columns (see Urteact, p. 74; Swete, Introd. p. 147 n. 12). (2) Two palimpsest leaves belonging to cod. 2 in the Patriarchal Library at Jerusalem, ascribed to the 6th cent., containing Prol, and 11:14 120–31, published by J. R. Harris, Biblical I'ragments from Mowmt. Sinai, No. 5. (3) The apoorevzz, (ch. 51) is to be, found in Cod. Bodl. Misc. 205 (xiv sacc.); see Coxe, Catalogus, i. 762. This chapter is missing in the MSS 296 and 308” of HP and (at present) in the codex Syro-Hexaplaris Ambrosianus; but there only through the de- plorable loss of a leaf. Of minuscles, two Vienna, MSS, Cod. Theol. Gr. xi. and cxlvii., both of which were brought by Busbecq from Constantinople, have been hº collated by Edw. Hatch and quoted as Vienna 1 and 2 in his Essay on the text of Ecclesiasticus (Essays in Biblical Greek, p. 247 ff.). On the confusion about the 308 (or 308”) in HP see Hatch, l.c. 248; and Swete, Introd. p. 159, No. 149. Now comes the strange fact that our Greek MSS--which, as stated, go back, without any ex- ception, to one and the same copy, in which the dis- location had taken place—show the greatest diverg- ences. For instance, after 1* two lines are inserted by six MSS of HP (23, 55, 70, 106, 248, 253); after v.* again two lines by five MSS (the above without 248); after v.” and v.” two lines, but only by two MSS (70, 253); after v.17 one line by two MSS (here, however, not 70 and 253, but 70 and 248); after v.” two lines by four MSS (70, 106, 248, 253); in v.19 two words, dir' attàs, by one MS (70). How is this possible if all go back to the same original 2 And the variation is increased by the second and third class of our witnesses, the ancient Versions and Patristic Quotations. vii. VERSIONS AND QUOTATIONS.—(a) In the * e.g. C. H. Toy (art. “Ecclesiasticus' in Encyc. Bibl. vol. ii. col. 1173). # At present the Latin order is found in the edition of Camerarius; can this be meant 7 f Bretschneider, p. 694 : “Cum Compl. textu maxima ex parte consentit codex Augustanus, Cuius lectiones Hoeschelius in criticis 8acris t.v. nobis dedit, quod modo accuratius ac clarius fecisset voluerim. . . . quum . . . haud raro lection.cs, neque cas spermendas haberet, quorum nullum in reliquis deprehenditur vestigium.” That Hoeschel's codex E is identical with ‘Drusii MS Heidelbergense’ Bretschneider failed to recognize. § Edw. Hatch closes his examination of the text of Sirach with the remark, that as one of the points established by his investigation will be acknowledged ‘the inferior value of some of the more famous uncial MSS as compared with some cursives’ (E88al/8, p. 281). - | One of the characteristics of this MS is the insertion of about 130 glosses, to guard the text against misunderstanding, especially in chs. 1-30; see 181 #y &Az0s.g., 24 &ogºvoſº, 321 &vºurſ/A- ra, and &pporávº, 22 %aſſac and 32.Érely detocaſcots, *% ºoztocicz, 48 &X&roº, 25, 20.4 & /xa); ºv, 511 ºptºv, 697 rºasſos, 88 stºopór, 1310 &zpíra;, 164 $v rázst, 11 31& rézzov*, 20 &áo;, 179 ovveró;, 20 60 los. Interesting is 1919 roaXξ 2&p yíverol buo:30A2, Azotzio, because the motive is quite the same as led to the addition of sixã in Mt. 522. Some of them are found in the Syro-Hexaplaric MS under asterisks, one of these (511) also in one of the Hebrew texts, others in the Latin texts. first place has to be mentioned the Syriac version #. Paul of Tella (c. 616 A.D.), the so-called Syro- € xaplar, preserved to us through the codex Syro-Hexaplaris Ambrosianus. If we retain the designation Syro-Hexaplar, we must bear in mind that Sirach had no place in Origen's Hexapla ; but in one particular respect this Syriac version reminds us of the Hexapla : one of the critical marks of Origen, the asteriscus, appears also in Sirach, at least in its first part up to ch. 13. There are altogether 45 asterisks, and they mark just some of the additions mentioned above. No Greek MS of Sirach seems to have been found as yet with asterisks; but there is scarcely a doubt that the asterisks were not added, by Paul of Tella, but were taken over by him from the Greek MS which he translated. This MS contained, before the text of the book, the capitulation, which is found in the so-called Synopsis of Chrysostom (Migne, Patr. Gr. lvi. 575), and some good corrections of the printed text may be gathered from it. Now the question arises the more : Where did these additions come from in this Greek copy 2 Take the very first one, which has an asterisk in p, 17 dir' airms, given in the text in Syriac as Hypsk, and on the margin, to remove any ambiguity, in Greek letters as AIIATTHS., There is a slight difference between p and the solitary Greek witness, from which this addition is known hitherto, Hoeschel's Augustanus (70), inasmuch as the latter gives it after uéré, tréams a'après ( alii non agnoscunt has voculas megue Athanasius Orat. 3. contra Arian.”), while p has it after karū thv 66auv attoo. This makes no difference of sense ; in both cases &t’ attàs is a limitation of the preceding at Tiju (retained by 70 p) : God does not shed out His whole wisdom (ağrºv) on all flesh, but only dir' attàs ; it is a mere dogmatical correction ; but while appearing hitherto only in a single and late Greek MS-70 is of the 15th cent.—it gains suddenly in strength when shown by p to be perhaps 1000 years older; nevertheless it is a mere gloss, which might be added by any copyist from his own brain, without any source. But what about the lines immedi- ately following, put in p under asterisks in quite the same way ?— Sk and he gives it to them that love him, >k the gift of the Lord is Wisdom, >k glorious, >k to them to whom he appears he deals >k it in his appearance ; or with the two lines after v.”, >k the fear of the Lord is a gift from the Lord, for on love he raises paths.” Both additions are found not in 70 alone, but in 70 and 253. Where do these additions come from ? | We must look for more witnesses— versions and quotations. The versions to be mentioned are the Armenian, Georgian, Iºthiopic, Coptic, Arabic. On the Armenian version and its complicated history see PIRE" ii. 68, 69 (= Urtext, p. 128 f.); Ryssel, p. 129; Margoliouth - Edersheim, $ ix.; Conybeare (vol. i. p. 153"); Herkenne, pp. 28–33. The older text rests on the authority of a single MS, which breaks off at 42*7, and has a lacuna from 35%–38”, and several omissions besides—e.g. the whole of ch. 8. * That the critical marks are not absolutely to be trusted is shown by these examples : in the first a line is placed under asterisk (‘and he gives it,' etc.), which ought to be free from it ; in the second, the second line (“for on love,' etc.) ought to have the asterisk. f Starting from the same observation, that some of the char. acteristic additions of the cursives 100, 248, 253 are to be found in the Syr.-Hex. with asterisks prefixed, the editor of cod. 248 raises (in a private communication to the present writer, 8th June 1001) the question : Is it possible that Sirach t lso was found in Origen's Hexapla, and that he knew a Hebrew original and compared the Greek teact there with ? SIRACH (BOOK OF) SIRACH (BOOK OF). 545 On the Georgian version no more is known to the present writer than what is stated by Holmes at the end of the Pratſ. in Pent.: “In Bibliis Georgianis Moscuaº curatis, liber Ecclesiastici et duo libri Macchabaeorum, critico usui forte haud inser- vient.” The Palaeo-Slavonic version, says Margoliouth, “follows a text similar to that of the Complu- tensian version, but with only a portion of the additions.” As in other books it is revised from a, the question must be put, whether this be not the case in Sirach also. The Ethiopic version was published in 1894 as the last {...}. of A. Dillmann (Veteris Testamenti AEthiopici tomºus quintus, quo continentur libri Apocryphi, Baruch . . . Judith, Ecclesiasticus, Sapientia. . . . Berolini, 1897, 4to. On its confused state see Nestle, Marginalien, p. 58 ; Dillmann's Epilogus, p. 113 ff. ; Herkenne, pp. 33–38 : Margo- liouth believed he could find in a few places signs of contamination from the Syriac (8° 22' 38” etc.); but they are of rather doubtful character. Of Coptic versions the one in the Sahidic dialect is almost complete, existing in a unique MS, of the 6th cent. at Turin, and published by P. de Lagarde in his 439/ptiaca (Göttingen, 1883; Anastatic reprint, 1897; see his Mittheilungen, i. p. 176 m.). From a MS in the Museo Borgiano, A. Ciasca published short fragments from chs. l, and 2 (Sacrorum Bibliorum fragmenta Copto- Sahidica, vol. ii. (1889) p. 218); and the same b E. Amélineau (Fragments de la Version Thébaïne de l’Ecºiture Amcicm. Testament, Parisiis, 1889), to- gether with two leaves from a MS at Berlin, con- taining 67–718, 21**, supplying and emending some defects in Lagarde's codex (see Herkenne, pp. 23–27, and Norb. Peters, Die sahidisch-koptische bersetzung des Buches Ecclesiasticus auf iſ ren wahren Wert für die Teactkritik untersucht Freiburg, 1898). —A fragment in the Bohairic dialect (ch. 2'-9) has been published by Lagarde, Orientaglia, i. (1879) p. 69; the same piece with some more fragments (chs. 1. 40–5° 123–13, 227-18 237-" 24-11) by U. Bouriant, Recueil de travanta, relatifs dº la philologie et dº l'archéologie égyptiemmes et assyriennes, vol. vii. (Paris, 1886), p. 81 ft.—One piece, finally, has been published by U. Bouriant in the dialect of Akhmim in the Mémoires publiés par les membres de la mission archéologique fram- gaise ant Caire sous la direction de M. Maspero, I. 2. (Paris, 1885), 255 fl., containing 22"–23". In Arabic there seem to exist several versions. One MS, said to be corrected from the Greek, is preserved in the Medicean Library at Florence : in the Prologue the grandson is made to say that he translated the work into Syriac. A com- pendium of the Arabic version in an imperfect state (5 pages) is preserved, according to Mar- goliouth, in the fºllº Library (Hunt. 260). The version contained in Kanshumi in cod. Syr. 179, i., at l’aris, is said to be due to Basilius, bishop of Tiberias, but goes back to the Syriac, not the Greek text of Siracli. All these versions, except the last, rest on the common Greek text ; and so do most of the quotations in Greek lºathers. An exceptional position among them is held by Clemens Alex- and rinus, whose quotations in important details agree with cod. 248, 253, and the monks Antonius and Maazimus. * Of greater importance than the other versions, and of greater value than for other parts of the Greek ()'I', is— (b) The Latin Version. It is true that the sug- gestion first broached by the lºoman Catholic commentator Cornelius a lapide († 1637, Comm. on Sirach, 2 vols., 1634), next mooted by Sabatier, then discussed in a special paper by Ernst Gottlob VOL. IV. –35 º Bengel (1769–1826),” that the Latin version wal. based immediately on the lost Hebrew original, has turned out to be wrong ; but even the ſatest investigation (H. Herkenne, de Veteris Latinae Ecclesiastici capitibus i-xliii, Leipzig, 1899) has arrived at the result : ‘Nititur Vetus Latina textu vulgari græco ad teaction hebraicwm alivas recen- Sionis Graece castigato.’ It is all the more to be regretted that its text has not yet been published in a satisfactory way. It is generally believed that the text in our ordinary editions of the Vulgate is the Old Latin untouched by Jerome. But his expression ‘ calamo temperavi' does not exclude, in our opinion, those stylistic emendations which we perceive when comparing the current Latin text with older docu- ments, either MSS or quotations.: The most convenient edition of the Latin Vulgate is that of van Ess (pub. 1824), which gives on the margin the variations of the Sixtina, and Clemen- tina after the Vatican editions of 1590, 1592, 1593, and 1598. Sabatier (see vol. ii. 53) reprinted the official text with the collation of four MSS ‘optimae notas’ (ib. 389, ‘Corbeienses duos, unum Sangerman- ensem, & alium S. Theoderico ad Rhemum '). The Corbeiensis I. is now Paris 11,532 (9th cent.; Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, 104, 107); Sanger- manensis 15, now Paris 11,553 (9th cent.; Berger, 65, 408). In 1740 J. Blanchinus published, in his Vindicia: canon. Script. Vulgatae Latina, calitionis, a collation of the codex Toletanus, with Henten’s edition. (1569); repeated in Migne, Patr. Lat. xxix. 985. After the collations of the Amiatinus by Heyse- Tischendorf (Lips. 1873) the whole text of this MS was published for Wisd. and Sirach by Lagarde, Mitth. i. 283–377; see also p. 191. Ph. Thielmann devoted to the Latin Sirach two articles in Wölfflin's Archiv, and showed that chs. 44–50 were due to another hand than the rest of the book; the former of European, the chief part of African origin (Archiv für lat. Leasikog,'. viii. 501-561, ix. 2, 247 ft.); see yol. ii. p. 10. The text published by C. Douais (wne ancienne version latime de l’Ecclésiastique, Paris, 1895, 4to) is, according to Thielmann .# IXennedy, an appar- ently Spanish text, a revision of the primitive African version (ch. 21.17–22*). In the judgment of the present writer it may be just as well a new translation, independent of the former. Ph. Thielmann (‘Bericht ilber das gesammelte handschriftliche Material zu einer kritischen Aus- gabe der lateinischen Ubersetzungen biblischer Bücher des alten Testamentes’ in Münchener Sitz.-Ber., 1899, ii. 2, 205 fl.) gives for Sirach the collation of twenty-three MSS (1-4 Spanish, 5, 6 Anglo-Saxon, 7–12 French before Charlemagne, 13–16 St. Gall and Italy, 17–19 Theodulf, 20–2; Alcuin), and specimens from fourteen MSS more ; some fragments cod. Veron. i. and cod. Ambr. D. 50 f. (olim IBobb.) are of the 6th cent. But still older are the QUOTATIONS OF THE LATIN FATHERS. — Aug- ustine's Speculum is mentioned above ; it contains whole chapters from Sirach, and its text agrees closely with that of the codex Amiatinus; but other quotations in the writings of Augustine * “Ueber die muthumassliche Quelle der alten lateinischen Uebersetzung des Buches Sirach' in Eichhorn's Allgemcing Bibliothek der bibl. Litt., 1790, vii. pp. 832-864. # Edersheim : “Jerome tells us expressly that he had left the text of the Vetus latina ſº (catamo temperani) in the (apocryphal) Wisdom of Solonion, und in Sirach ' (1°raf. in edit. libr. Salom. İuata Sept. interpr., ed. Vallarsi, 10,436). * ; Comp. the same expression on his version of the Latin Gospels in the 10pistula ad Damasum : ‘quie ne mulbum a lectionis Latina) consuetudine discreparent, ita calambo temper- animºus, ut his tantum qual sensun videlyantur mutare correctis, reliqua mauere pateremus ut fuerant.' 546 SIRACH (BOOK OF) SIRACH (BOOK OF) (collected by Sabatier and Lagarde) show strange variations. See, for instance, 15?! “lazamentwm peccandi’ for ‘spatium p.” (‘spatium' also in the Speculwm).* Not a single one of his §§ as Thielmann informs the present writer, has this word ‘laxa. mentum '; yet it is found for this passage also in that other Speculum falsely, ascribed to Augustine, now called liber de divinis 8criptwris (edited together with the former by ...}. and must for internal reasons be considered as the original re in; of the Latin version. "or “opprobrium,’ 2026, this Speculum has “supervacuitas' (in no MS of Thielmann); further, 2223 “conservationem' in- stead of ‘custodiam' (no Biblical MS); Augustine “signaculum astutumn” instead of “certum”; 2532 instead of ‘beatificat virum suum the Liber has “consentit in angustio viro suo'; in this case Complutensis 1 agreeing with it (only ‘angustiis } 285 in- stead of “dum caro sit servat iram’ (orkpá &y) the Liber has ‘coppit retinere iram' (=&pzow); 2911 we find in the Liber the inn ...'...}}. (= Azo.zpotjápono'oy), a word to be added to the new Thesaurus Latinae lingwoe for ‘animo fortior esto’ of the Vulgate, or ‘animaxauior esto’ of Compl. 1, Metz 7 (first hand, second hand =Vulgate). Here we have three stages of subsequent revisions. The greatest surprise is 310. By a comparison with the Syriac it seemed clear that instead of 3,200epºv we must read buc.ºopoº, and ràocyºtº orgrazı instead of ºrazorbăors roºt (see Ball, Variorwyn, Apocrypha ; Nestle, Marginaliem, p. 56. The RV does not materially alter the AV : “he that followeth destruction shall have the fill of it.'); ‘qui insequitur destructionem replebitur ea’: for this the Liber has “qui ins, multa, in illis implamabi- twr,’ i.e., just as proposed, 21&ºopo, and racev”.0%a's rol. Of all MSS collated by Thielmann, only the first hand of Metz 7 has breserved a remembrance of this rendering, reading ‘multa in illis implicabitwr' (sic), t * Now the questions arise—(1) How have this quo- tation and the codex of Metz preserved this true reading 2 (2) How did the wrong text find its way into all the other MSS 2 Is the latter circumstance due to an intentional revision, and may this re- vision have been made through Jerome 2 . The former may be due either to a Greek MS which pre- served the original text, or to recourse to the Syriac version, or to derivation from the original Hebrew.; In all cases the in portance of 31, in its original form and of the early quotations is evident—the worse therefore the neglect of these studies; but still more evident is the value of the Syriac and *he Hebrew texts. viii. THE SYRIAC TEXT.-In his edition of the Libri Veteris Testament Apocryphi (or deutero- canomici, as he wished to read afterwards) syriace (1861), Lagarde gave to Sirach the first place, to show that he believed with Bendtsen (Specimen eacercitationatºm criticarum in V. T. libros apocry- phos e scriptis patrum et antiquis versionibus, Göttingen, 1789), that this version was not made from the Greek, but from the ‘Hebrew ' (see Lagarde, Symm. i. 88, 17 ; Mitth. i. 191). As this view is now almost universally accepted—it was still debated by Bretschneider and Fritzsche—it need no longer be proved. The question is only whether the translation was not influenced, like other books in the Peshitta, here and there by the Greek version, and whether its text has come down to us in good preservation. It was first published in the great Polyglot Bibles of Paris and London, in the latter on the basis of three MSS of Ussher and Pococke; then by Lagarde from the cod. 12, 142 in the British * The variations are partially mere lexical : 433 “veritas' in- stead of ‘iustitia'; 636 ‘limen’ instead of ‘gradus’; 1412 ‘siocu- lum' instead of ‘mundus’; others touch the sense or even the underlying Greek text, as 3819 “flectet fortitudimen’ (= lozºv) against ‘flectet cervicem' (&ºzévo. 7). f Another trace of this reading is found in the 25th epistle of Paulinus (p. 197c): ‘qui terrenas possessiones concupiscit, in illis implana bitur.’ Sabatier, who 4. this passage, remarked : “at haſ: postrema ex alio loco desumpta videntur.’ f For mere conjectural emendation the rendering seems too clever, or rather not clever enough, for the proper meaning of buozºoecº = ‘propcrty' has not been recognized. It is quite the same with the preservation of the original order in chs. 31–36 in 1. This may be due either to the fact that iſ, was made from a Greek MS which was independent of the one from which our present (5 texts are derived, or it may have been restored after the Syriac or after the Hebrew. I shares some of the strangest misspellings with (5; see 4329 “dominus Jhesus’ "wo ous instead of ~%aovº “insulas' (in the official Vulg.). Museum, which belongs to the 6th cent. (with a collation of Walton's text), and lies before us further in Ceriani's photo-lithographic reproduction of the codex Ambrosianus of about the same age (Milano, 1876–83, folio). It suffered, of course, some textual corruptions, but on the whole there are no such difficulties as arise in connexion with (ºr and 31. The other question whether it was influenced by (ºr must, it seems, be answered in the affirmative. This may have been the case already when the version was made, or at a later though very early and only partial revision. The former view seems the more probable (see Ryssel, p. 253). It is a drawback for our purposes that ś is rather a paraphrase than a version; nevertheless, the great progress made in the explanation of Sirach by Margoliouth - Edersheim depends on the use made especially of $ for the corroboration or correction of Qir and the restoration of the original Hebrew. These two texts were, so to speak, our Röntgen apparatus, enabling us to see the Hebrew text §§. them. ix. THE HEBREW TEXTS. — Especially among those who knew the precarious state of the present Greek, Latin, and Syriac texts of Sirach, the surprise and joy were great when the news spread that a fragment of the original Hebrew text had been discovered, and when, after its publication, more and more parts of a Hebrew Sirach came to light, of which in the Church at least, since the days of Jerome, nobody had heard or seen any- thing, while even among the Jews few scattered quotations had survived, partially in Hebrew and hº in Aramaic (see their collection in C–N). t is impossible to notice all that has been pub- lished on these finds. Suffice it to say that after the first private communication (see above, p. 539*) the first public announcement appeared in the Academy of 16th May 1896. (1) The first publication of the text was in the Eapositor, July 1896, 1–15 (see on it D. S. Margoliouth in the same periodical, Aug., 140–157); (2) then came nine leaves, which had found their way into the Bodleian Library, published by Cowley and Neubauer, 1897, and re- published by R. Smend (Abhandlungen der K. Ges. der Wiss. zu Göttingem, N.F. ii. 2); after this (3) the chief publication of Taylor-Schechter (Camb. 1899), containing, besides fourteen pages from the first MS (now called B), eight pages from a new MS, now called A ; (4) in the Jewish Quarterly 180 view for Oct. 1899, G. Margoliouth gave four pages from MS B, acquired by the 13ritish Museum ; (5) I. Lévi published in the Revue des Etudes Jatives for Janvier–Mars, 1900, two pages from a third MS (C) and two from a fourth MS (I)), both in the library of the Consistoire Israélite at Paris. The JQIt for April 1900, finally, gave four pages of MS A published by E. N. Adler and four of MS C by S. Schechter (6, 7), and (8) in the number for July 1900 (p. 688 ft.) two pages of C belonging to M. Gaster. All the publications were at last brought together most conveniently—if it may be called convenient to study torn and faded leaves of Hebrew MSS—in a j publication, Iºac- similes of the Pragments hitherto recovered of the Book of Ecclesiastients in Hebrew (Oxford and Cam- bridge, MDCCCCI, 60 plates in case)." C, it should be added, consists only of excerpts (see p. 548”). But in the meantime—between the second and third publications—there had suddenly fallen a bitter drop into the general joy. D. S. Margo- liouth, who had published in 1890 as his Inaugural Lecture an Essay on the place of Ecclesiasticus in Semitic Literature, and before that time had con- tributed largely to the commentary of Edersheim, declared in a paper on The Origin of the “Originſt, * With ‘New York, Frowde, 5 dollars,' mentioned by W. Muss Arnolt in the Theol. and Sem. Lit, for 1000, p. 32. SIRACH (BOOK OF) SIRACH (BOOK OF) 547 |- Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus (Parker, 1899, 20 pp.), that the newly-discovered Hebrew was not the original, but a retranslation ; a certain reading, 43*, appeared to him to be a translation of a corruption of a Persian translation of a corrupt "eading in the Greek, the work of a Jew, whose native language was Arabic, about the 10th cent. He closed his paper with the remark that “Mrs. Lewis by her precious discovery has hit biblical criticism harder than it was ever hit before, or is ever likely to be hit again. For, the next time we proceed to parcel out Isaiah, will not our very street boys call out to us, “You who misdate by 1300 years a document before you, what do */ow know of the dates of the Prophecies and °salms.” 2' Startling even as this was, a similar verdict was pronounced by such a scholar as Bickell, who in earlier years had discovered under the Greek dis- guise that the closing chapter must have been an alphabetical poem (“Ein alphabetisches Lied Jesus Sirach's. Nachgewiesen von G. B.’ in Z. f. kath. Theologic, vi. 319–333), and had tried to restore the very metres of the Hebrew (“ROie Strophilº des Ec- clesiasticus’ in Zeitschrift für die Kwide des Mor- genlandes, 1892, 87-96). Bickell published his view in a short paper on this alphabetical poem (“Der hebräische Sirachtext eine IRückiibersetzung,” ib. 1899, 251-256). Other scholars took up the challenge of Prof. Margoliouth—among then Th. Nöldeke (“Bemerkungen zum hebräischen Ben Sirā’ in ZA TW xx. [1900] 81–94); Smend (Th LZ, 1899, col. 506); M. D. Gibson (The Record, June 23, 1899, . 641); Ed. König in a series of papers in the }. Times, 1900, and separately (see Literature, 6, at end of present art.) and in other periodicals; see Muss-Arnolt, p. 33. Portunately, the new documents which came to light afterwards enable us to place our judgment on a broader basis. The four MSS seem to be all of about the same age, the 11th cent. D is apparently the oldest of them, but even on C Adler remarked : “From a comparison of paper and character with my earliest fragment from the Genizah, dated 832, there is nothing to induce one to assume that its date is later.” Some passages of Sirach occur in these four MSS twice, 2, few even three times. Now if #)—to use this symbol for the Hebrew texts—were the original, the MSS of 3% must agree,_apart, of course, from such transcriptional variations as are common to the transmission of works before the invention of Gutenberg,-according to the rule laid down by Jerome on the Latin texts of the Gospels as compared with the Greek, verwm now esse quod variat. But what do we find 2 One of the first verses now lying before us in two MSS of #} is 499– (ºr pººl to 6, Ös Méav čv tº otrº (v.l. Tholkta) gov Kal pavtaoruokotrów £v tots oikétous gov. 3L Noli esse sicut leo in domo tua ; evertens domesticos tuos et opprimens subiectos tibi. $ Tnºn- iº Rinn wº innºyi ºn Tyn ‘be not a dog in thy house, and rebuking and fearful in thy works.’ Nobody doubted that ‘cºs Ašav’ and ‘a dog’ went back to an original ºf, read nº? by §5, and that ‘as a lion' was right. Again, in the second member it appeared necessary to seek a common IIebrew equivalent for to:vrozorozorºv on the one hand, and “rebuking and fearful' on the other; further, for “slaves’ and ‘works.’ The latter was, so it seemed, found easily: Dºg, from Tºy, would = “slaves,’ from Tºy, (Ee 91)=' works’; the other was more difficult to guess, because pozwarozorozorów is a hapaa, legomenon in the Greek Bible, and a rare word, with doubtful meaning; some good examples of it from Ecclesiastical authors may be found in the edition of Hoeschel.” And now for the texts of 30– A Tnºna nºn: "nn 9x Tn5NSpa Rºno) hºp, C Tn"nn nºr: "nn ºt TnTay by Irienp) i.e. A ‘be not like a dog in thy house, and [-º] and fearful in thy labour.” C ‘be not like a strong lion t in thy house, and raging over thy works.’: Can there be any doubt that A agrees with $ and C with Gº ? Compare especially the second clause, where $ has two words, A has also two, $ C for one word of (ºr has one word. What is more natural than the conclusion that A and C are not the original, but dependent upon S and Qir, retranslations, as Margoliouth affirmed of B? But we must not be too rash : we ask, How would a late Jewish trans- lator hit upon inenb to render so obscure a word as pavtaartokotrów 2 in B is rare in biblical Hebrew (Gn 49", Jer 23*); it suits the context very well ; it might be easily confounded with Tn5 “fear,’ and thus explain the rendering of $, and it is a favourite word with Sirach (see # 8° 19° 41'7"8. 42" "8, $ 19° 23' || 16. 17); it may therefore have preserved the original. || This supposition gains probability from a comparison of Zeph 3* * * her princes are lions in her midst . . . her prophets are D'Iſà,’ where the two words stand together just as here in clause a and b. Schechter has shown that the whole text of #) is full of allusions to the OT (cf. p. 548" : 11” a reminiscence of Gm 42"). These are used, of course, also by pious Jews of later times; but when the grandson testifies in his prologue that his grandfather “having given him- self to the reading of the Law and the Prophets and the other books of our fathers, and having gained great familiarity therein, was drawn on also himself to write "somewhat pertaining to instruction and wisdom,’ why should we hesitate to consider those characteristics as belonging to the original 2 Take the next verse which lies before us in two MSS of ſº— 4* (5 kil &aira, i, xelp orov čkreragéum els to Aa3eſv Kal év tº dTroötöðvat a vueata)\pévº). $ appº T's nov's sinn nº ºnpº Noep Ninn) * In the Thesaurus of Stephanus-IIase ‘Eccl 4' and ‘Sir 498' are quoted as different passages . The wrong form ºocyrocoto- oxorºv is translated suspicaa; by Grotius. Nobilius gives arre- pticius ; even Ryssel translates as if it came from a xorgiv, “Ge- spensterseher,’i.e. argwohnisch, misstrauisch ohne thatsiichlichen Grund. AV “frantick” (see vol. ii.,65), RW ‘fanciful’; Frankel translated nps “cruel' (for 'lion' cº) ; p nºsſº, Fly-Ip “boister- ously rebukeful' (whether influenced by §5? or reading ºvario-?); on the Coptic see Herkenne, who thought for CŞ of some wort from Vºlvº (Job 413), for $1 of Vºlvo (Is 1083), and adduced from the Apophthegmata Antonii et Maazimi, p. 602 (“morosus') $v tors olx, orov zoº roºrgivöv row; 9 roxspíov; orov (=Il). f The Hebrew word is different from N'D'2. t Or slaves, if we derive Hilay from Tºy, (Job 13), as sug- gested to the present writer by Dr. Driver, and independently to the editor by 1)r. A. B. Davidson. § The first of them nnn is not clear; see C-N and R (SIſ, 1900, 378); the latter compares Ps 699. We suspect a corrup- tion of m = y), see L'apos. Times, xi. 336 note ; for N'hºnn R. proposes nº or "Fp ‘zuwartend, langsum’l | The passage is discussed with a different result by Taylor (JThSt, i. 576). He considers nºns aryeh and sn'no mithyard to be the original; (5 may have turned the latter into Tsino; “the synonymous Trienp with a clerical error accounts for trienb C. The first two suppositions are natural, but when, where, and why should snºnp have been turned into Tn5mp, so us to arrive at, in Enº” 548 SIRACH (BOOK OF) SIRACH (BOOK OF) p agrees in the first clause completely with $, in the second it has spºp rºl *Now take A and C– A mp5 mmns in nn ºn |no Tºni ris Epi C nxwº new p TT "nn ºn nTEp ºwn nyn) that is to say: instead of a common original we have two versions differing more from one another than the two Syriac, every word for which there is more than one Hebrew equivalent available being rendered differently— stretch out V rins and bº receive npº and Riy, in Tina and nyi give (back) |n) and awn shut YEp and nep A third passage is— 5” ºr kal ui tropečov ću rég'm drpatrº $ ºaw 93% siphp A nºnw ºn nye) C ºnw 95% ºn 9x) A is translated by Taylor, and turning the way of the stream, C agrees with (R. Further, v.”— A. DInB =wn mn T-Ray C Fijinx myn my Thran Q=º with the addition 6pºv, which is found only in 248, 253 and p sub:k V.” OR exaxiſ. § ºppºſip Ta ‘through him that is speak- ing.’ Non-I -nºr, C Flºon- Tººl W.” (it h trôats abrów § pnº son ‘throws them down” A Ynºpp C Yoºto (C being, of course, a corruption of A). 720 (ºr ööpmoat atráv $ Tan give her A nºan join her C nºn, grant her." What follows from these passages? That the $º is a very complicated one. Not even of is it possible to say that it is a simple retrans- lation of Gr, for even in C there are passages which are at variance with (R. On the other hand, it is equally impossible to maintain that iſ, has preserved everywhere the original, independent of ºr and Š. . There are passages in #, which can. not be explained in any other way than by the supposition that they rest on a corrupt and giossed text, sometimes of Qi, sometimes of $. . A passage which, for the present writer at least, is perfectly convincing is— 25”. “The wickedness of a woman . . . darkeneth her countenance like sackcloth,” AV (mg. ‘ Or, like a bear’), RV as a bear doeth (without even men. tioning the other reading). * 7” AC ppy its” ni Rºn, CŞ 2a) toº rarias22s favoy Acízoº, # ºpey PPJ), AO ppy Nº"); ‘and the trouble (or strife, see S.T. 9. 47), has gone’; cf. , the witty though rude Saying of Schopenhauer at the death of an old woman whom he haj to “are for ; obit amus, abit onw8. It is clear that here C cannot rest on Q3. (ºr B, etc. d.s orákkov ; (; AS, etc. &s dpkos. 3L combining both readings: tanguam wrsus et quasi saccum. $ . . . . “makes pale the face of hºr husband and makes it, black like the colour of a sack)' ; * now C has amº “JE Tip” “makes black (his or her; the letters are torn away) face . . . to a bear.’ All rules of textual criticism (the general one : scriptioni proclivi praestat ardua, and the special one for Sirach, the agreement between (ºr and $) must be nought, or C is here the retranslation of a corrupt Greek teact. The close connexion of C with (ºr is corroborated by other passages. The very first words preserved in C–it begins 4” (Tnpan ns) rispn, for which A has the synonymous l'Esn—do not occur, it is true, in the received Greek text, but in the MSS 106, 248, 253 (c); C even preserved such glosses (mentioned above, p. 544") as 5” ylvov raxºs (C 5) - ?) év ćkpo- doet orov -- dºy a 0 fi (C mint) = 106, £48, 253 p), kal ép piakpobvpilg p0é'Y'You dtrökptov -- 3 p67) v (C Final=248, 253 p >k). § Again, all rules of textual criticism are nought if such additions be not glosses, and glosses added to the Greek, not to the original Hebrew text; and yet they occur in C. §§C, therefore, is dependent —partially at least—on a glossed text of Ur, as it #3 represented by 248, 253. It is to be hoped that scholars will agree in this, and they may do so the more because this con- cession does not decide the question for the other MSS ABD, nor even for the whole content of C ; C being an exception also in this respect, that it does not give a continuous text, but mere excerpts from clis. 4°–7* 18"–207; then come suddenly 37*.*, *, *, + followed by 2013, and, finally, 25%–26%. If #C is chiefly dependent on (ſº, there abound in the other MSS #ABD traces of the influence of 5, especially in so - called doublets, passages appearing twice. Cf. 11”— n (ºr we have two lines— IIépôuš 0mpevrºs év Kaprºx\p, oùrws kapāta, Ümepº- q,4vov' kal dis karáq-Kotros étruſ&\étrel trfájauv. In 31, three— sicut perdix inducitur in caveam (v.l. foveam) et wit capreº in laqueo, sic et cor superborum et sicut prospector videns casum proacimi Sui. In § five— like a partridge caught in a cage is the heart of the proud, and like a spy who looks on the fall ; How many are the iniquities of the ungodly [cf. (J. v.”] like i. dog which enters into every house and rops, so enters the ungodly into every house and disturbs. In 3% six or more— As a bird caught in a cage so is the heart of a proud man ; : As a wolf that lieth in wait to tear. How many are the iniquities of the covetous In all ! As a dog is he annong those that eat in the house. - * It is diſficult to understand how Bickell, Zöclºler, Ryssel, RV could prefer the bear, which crept in from the mentionin of lion and dragon in the context ; ; being independent of decides for the sack; and then compare parallels like Rev 67%, but especially 1 Clem, ad Cor. 8, 2, &acoption &/2&y . . . /*Az- várépce, orézzov ; see on these variants Nestle, Marginalien, p. 51. f It is owing to this insertion that we have these fragments three times in B, C, D, with slight variations. SIRACH (BOOK OF) SIRACH (BOOK OF) 549 He doeth violence to all . . . The covetous man conneth and maketh strife in all their goods; The tale-bearer lieth in wait as a bear for the house of the scorners; And as a spy he seeth nakedness. On the two lines of (Jº Bochart has written a whole chapter in his Hierozoicum. More than one article would be necessary on the correspondence between karáq-Kotros (and its equivalents ooz = HR = Hit) and the other equivalents. It seems clear that the dog aka owes its existence to the kápraNAos =2.97. On the arguments adduced by Margoliouth from the Persian we must refer to Nöldeke (ZATW i."; 94); on the question raised by M \rgoliouth, whether the Sepher ha-gallºy, which betrays knowledge of the Cairene texts, is by Saadia or not ; and on the age of the Talmudic quotations from Ben-Sira, cf. the papers of Margoliouth on the one hand, and König, Schechter, Abrahams, Bacher, Harltavy, etc., on the other (see Literacure). But that even in C fragments of the original are preserved, see above on 7”. What Jew of later times, who had nothing before him except (ºr, ěkôov 0vyatépa kal éorm retexékdos péya &p'yov, could have hit on ppy Nsº na sºlº Even with the help of $ it would have been difficult to arrive at this text. But there are passages where #} offers read- ings different alike from (ºr and $. A good example occurs in the very first leaf dis- covered of #1, 40%— (ºr § whatrápkovs épyárov y\vkav6%gerat kal Virép d'pºpóTepa 6 euplokay 070 avpóv. The very context shows that (ºr is wrong; in- stead of the one member atrápkovs épyárov there must have been two. Grotius, Grabe, Fritzsche, AW, RV, inserted kal and spoiled the sense; for the life of the atrápkms is sweet (ipse swis pollems opibus, Lucretius), but not that of the working man. S gave no help ; for the first member is wanting. What a pleasure, then, to read in #}– bno, nºw, ſº ºn a life of wine and strong drink is sweet ; cf. the same pair in v.” in #}, where (ºr had otvos kal pova'uká = nº, and $ Npºny Rººm ‘old wine.’ And what a surprise to find on the margin an additional (though wrong) reading: 92.9 m (C-N = ‘that excels in prudence '; but nm perhaps = atrápkms). The grandson mistook nº “strong drink' for n(*): 'y “hired worker.’” What a surprise, again, to find the whole margin of this leaf covered with various readings, spellings, notes—one in Persian referring to a diflerent MS. W.29, where we had read in (ſº that ‘better than wine and music is the love of wisdom,’ in $ ‘better than old wine the love of a friend,’ we now find that the grandfather had written, ‘Wine and strong drink make the heart exult, but the love of lowers (D'ºù") is above them all.” Surely it is not going too far to say that with the º of these texts a new period begins in the history of our book. Where we hitherto were bid (7*) to bow down the neck of our children from their youth (káupat rôu Tpdxm\ov at Tøv--but rôu Tpáxm}\ov abrów is correctly omitted by 31, and Clemens Alexandrinus (i. 186, 2, ed. Dind.t),—we are now advised to marry them early ($31)AO = con- fusion between ne' and sty). It is neither possible nor necessary to go on multiplying examples of this kind. A great field * Bacher, Ryssel, Smend are not satisfled with ‘wine and strong drink.” Bacher, comparing Iºx 511, wishes to read |º: *PW) ‘who can sleep and has work'; Ryssel with Smend, hºm "Fly)" who has plenty, and has paying work.’ # The agreement between IL and Clement is of great import- All C0. waits for patient workers. The task for future editors of Sirach will be to compare most care- fully—(1) the witnesses for QR (MSS,” Versions, Quotations +); (2) the witnesses for $ – on the whole, an easy task; (3) the witnesses for #,ABCD; and the quotations to be compared with each other, where there is more than one, then with (ſ.3. The text, in translation, would have to be given in parallel columns: in the middle what is common to all, at the right and the left the variations, at the bottom would be shown how the variations originated. On the language of Tib see in C-N p. xxxiff. the ‘Glossary of Words not found in the Hebrew of the OT, or found in it onl in the passages quoted or referred to '; and cf. Nöldeke (ZAT'W', 1900, p. 94), who was at first in favour of the Oaf, Heb. Lea. beginning to take notice, of Ben Sira, but afterwards thought it a safer course that his words should be gathered into an #. The Concordance to the Septuagint by Hatch- Redpath promises for the second #. of the Supplement “A Short Concordance showing the Hebrew º: to the Greek in the lately discovered fragments of Ecclesiasticus.” This will be very welcome. To learn what interesting questions are raised, see, for instance, 1010 Tºmb Pow-ºuxp}y &ppa.ormºz; t 1832 (C) injyn Pow-auxp}. Tovº, ; D'prº-aipº 3718 (cf. Gn 4822); 999 (see I. Lów, ‘Marginalien zu Kohut's Aruch' in Semitic Studies in Memory of A. Kohut, p. 374); D'JBN 5027 with Jas 500 and Prº52. The similarity to the language of the ‘Pai- tanim,' the late Jewish hymn-writers, seems to militate against the originality of ſly; but even Schechter cannot deny it : ‘If he thought like a Rabbi, he wrote like a Paitan’ (cf. Toy in Encyc. Bibl. p. 1167 f.; D. Strauss, Sprachl. Stud. zu den heb. Sirachfragmentem, Zürich, 1900; W. Bacher, Die álteste Ter- animol. der jüd. Schriftauslegung, Leipzig, 1899, p. 207). x. CONTENTS AND THEOLOGY..—l. It is clear that in many details our views about the contents of the book must be revised since the recent finds; but on the whole the standpoint of the book has been correctly estimated. It has been considered as the chiºf monument of primitive Sadduceism, and this found corroboration in an unexpected Way. C. Taylor wrote (1877) in the first edition of the Sayings of the Jewish Fathers: ‘It has been suggested, with a certain plausibility, that the Book Ecclus. approximates to the stand- point of the primitive Qaduqim as regards its theology, its Sacerdotalism, and its want of sympathy with the modern Soferin. The name of Dzra is significantly omitted from its Catalogue of Worthics.” At the same time he called attention to the fact that the Book of the Sadducees and the Book of Ben Sira are placed side by side on the ‘Index Expurgatorius' (Sanh. 100b). It must have been gratifying to be able to publish twenty years later, at the end of the Hebrew Ben Sira, a hymn, not to be found in the earlier texts, which ends with praise of the Sons of Sadok. See S-T p. 41, the hymn (after ch. 5012)— “O give thanks unto the Lord, for he is good; For his mercy endureth for ever.’ O give thanks unto him that maketh to bud a horn for the house of David : For his mercy endureth for ever. O give thanks unto him that chose the sons of Sadolc to be priests ; Tor his mercy endureth for ever.’ In3% pins in nma". * Special attention is due, amongst these, to those of the longer recension, called ‘Alexandrian' by Ryssel ; cf. A. Schlatter, Das meuggfundene hebräische Stick des Sirach. Der Glossator des griechischen. Sirach und seine Stellung in der Geschichte der jūdischen. Theologie, Gütersloh, 1897 º Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie," i. 5, 6). On the passage 2618th, especially ‘the tower of death' (= 2 Mac 13”; Valerius Maximus, ix. 2), see Nestle, Marginaliem, p 52. - + On the quotations of Clement see esp. O. Ståhlin, Clemens Alexandrinus wºnd die Septuaginta (Nürnberg, 1901, l’rogr.), pp. 46-58; note in 1892 ºuxpé. . f toxxpov &pp. all Greek MSS ; most a zárts, four zörrs, or $2x &rrs, one oxo~s ; instead of icºrpo, Ilitzig and the corrector of S loºrpáy; AV “The physician cutteth off a long disease' ; RV “It is a long disease, the physician mocketh';. Ti, combining both readings, ‘Languor prolixior gravut medicum ; , breven languoren praycidit medicus’; ‘ā ‘and his bowels the physician tears' (Nnsy); but, with IIerkenne, we may perhaps read NTs, (= ax ºr ruv). Adler's translation of Ib (“of course, quite tenta; tive') is, “A trace of disease that maketh the physician serene’ (nºns'). It seems best to combine the translation of IIitzig with the reading ºxpów : “A little disease bafiles the physician 550 SIRACH (BOOK OF) & SIRACH (BOOK OF) 2. Among former descriptions of its contents see especially T. K. Cheyne, Job and Solomon, or The }Wisdom of the OT, 1887, pp. 179–198, 247 (ch. i. : The wise man turned Scribe—Sirach’s moral teach- ing ; ch. ii. : his place in the movement of thought); then the Introduction of Edersheim, and now the article of C. H. Toy (Encyc. Bibl. 1164–1179). 3. In its form and substance the book is a fine example of Hebrew Hokmah-literature, with its lights and shadows. It is no longer the prophet that speaks in it, neither, the prophetic speaker of earlier times, nor even the prophetic writer like Ezekiel or Malachi; nor is it a poet like the author of Job; on the other hand, the Rabbi of the Tal- mud has not yet taken their place ; there is scarcely a trace of Haggadah and łºń. in the book. The author is full of respect for the religious literature of the past ; he knows himself to be an epigone, but nevertheless he dares to give some- thing of his own. He does not preach as yet from given texts (33° ‘ I awaked up }. of all, as cue that gathereth after the grape-gatherers; by the blessing of the Lord I profited (got ahead) and filled my winepress like a gatherer of grapes’; cf. also the Prologue). What he has to give is Hokmah, Wisdom, an outcome of that Divine Wisdom which is from the Lord, and is with Him for ever, but given by Him to them that fear Him, especially among His chosen people Israel (1717* 247"). But the author does not dwell long in those lofty regions, but turns himself to the wisdom of daily life, giving counsels for all kinds of emergencies, and communicating his observations on men and women, rich and poor, high and low. 4. The book has not received, apparently, its final shape ; its contents at least are so varied and loosely arranged that it is difficult to give a table of contents, See ºne l.eakings, which are partially preserved in the book itself, in the Greek text from 1830 onwards (#yzpa.ºrgio. Jºvzºic ; 20% A6xoi ºropo. 30% v ; 237 roºt.o. oºroºzczºro; ; 241 &nysau; oropics ; 30 ripi răzvoy; 10 répi &gapºrwy; 441 IIztépay tºovo; ; 511 IIpoorsv2% 'Izorov viot, Sºup6%); the capitulations placed before the book in ancient Greek and Latin texts; the Synopsis of pseudo-Chry- sostom ; the headings of the AW, which are dropped instead of revised in the RV ; careful superscriptions in the German trans- lation of Ryssel; the attempts in the Comm. to find out a plan of the book. . But it would be a pleasant task to give more than a sketch of its moral and religious teachings. (a) The author's idea of God shows an interest- ing combination of Jewish piety and Greek philo- sophy, the former decidedly predominating. What Edersheim considered, on account of its pantheistic ring, as a bold later addition of the younger Siracide, namely 43° ‘We may speak much and yet come short : wherefore in sum he is all ” (tò trāv éa riv aúrós), is found in £), and means nothing more than that God is to be found in all His work; it does not deny His unity or personality, which is emphas- ized by the new reading in 3ſ. 42* “he is one from everlasting ' (els instead of éays or dis or ös). God is the absolute Lord, the righteous judge, the wise ruler, rich in forbearance, though the full concep- tion of Divine fatherhood finds no expression (1810m.). (b) Of angels and demons there is scarcely any mention, quite in agreement with the Sadducean standpoint ; the central idea is the personified Wisdom, which is seen in nature and history, especially in the history of Israel, first of all in the Jaw, The prominence given to the Law, both its moral and ritual parts, is one of the features which distinguish 13en Sira, from Proverijs, leading over to the later Rabbinism. But from the latter our author is far removed, especially in his attitude towards the heathen world. He does not despise it, like the l’harisees, nor does he expect any special manifestation of Jahweh for the benefit of i. people or the conversion of the nations. As regards the individual, he speaks neither of the resurrection of the body nor of the immortality of the soul—d.6avaala occurs only in the glossed text 19" yvägus évroMöv kvplov trauðela. Świs, ol Śē trotojvres tà épeará attº d6avaotas 6évôpov Kapiroßvrat ; see on this point especially Schlatter, pp. 110, 176;-of death and Sheol he thinks like the psalmists. 5. A much larger space is taken up in the book by the ethical and social teachings. Through their pointed form many of Ben Sira's sayings have remained popular. Much, of course, is to be taken cum gramo salis; to guard against mis- understanding, the glosses have been added in MSS like 248, 253. The author is ‘generally acute, sometimes a little cynical, never pessimistic’ (Toy, l.c. 1178). Most unfavourable is his judg- ment on the female sex (25*); friendly is that on physicians (ch. 38); he does not despise wine and music. A great rôle is played by money matters and trade ; but almsgiving is the chief part of righteousness, and readiness to forgive is a primary condition of obtaining Divine forgiveness. In some of his precepts he comes near to those of the gospel; the Golden Rule, however, does not occur. No wonder that this book was used in the Church, especially for instruction of the young, almost like a catechism of morals and religion (85th Can. Apost.), and that Augustine embodied so many of its sayings in his Speculum. In modern times one of the few attempts made in England to employ its teaching for religious instruction is the small selection published by E. J. Edwards, School Lessons from Ecclesiasticus (1853). It is to be hoped that, when the critical questions about the book are settled, it may gain in popularity. NotE.—USE OF THE BOOK IN TIIE CIII ISTIAN CHUI:CII.—Cf. Daubney, The Uge of the Apocr. in the Christian Church (London, 1900). For the use of Sirach in NT, he compares about 20 passages, e.g. Mt. 614 with 28%, 619 with 2013, 16%. with 3224. On Lk il? Bengel quoted 4S10 and remarked : ‘Minime proletarium esse Siracidae librum, convenientia eius cum angeli sermone docet.” For the Epistle of James, J. B. Mayor (1897) collected thirty-two resemblances to Sirach. . The question whether St. Paul did not quote from the Hebrew Sirach in 1 Co 1540 has been raised by Müller (“zum Sirachproblem,' in the Orientalistische Literaturzeitung, June 1900). ICarly Christian writers made such extensive use of Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch that they appear more familiar with them than with several books of the NT. Allusions to Sirach may be discovered in Polycarp, i. (620. 90); Didache, iv. 5 (431); un- doubted quotations from Sirach occur in Barnabas, Tertullian, etc.; Eusebius introduces a quotation from 320 by the formula : 8,8272&x4' ×44, sºo; ropo.zyńſzczºr, ſlºw 81% ºxovri (Denn. I'v. i. i.). On the use made of Sirach in the Roman Church (Breviary and Missal) see W. Schenz, Jºinleitung in die kamomischen Iłłicher des alten Testamentes (Regensburg, 1887, 409). In Britain, Alfred (f 1005) seems to have been the first writer to mako any investigations touching the Canon, especially, the two books Wisd, and Sirach, “placed with Solomon's works as if he made them ; which for likeness of style and profitablo use have gone for his ; but Jesus the Son of Sirach composed them . . . very large books and read in the church, of long custom, for much good instruction.” In the Prayer-I}ook of 1549, there were 108 daily lessons from the Apocrypha; that of 1552 had 110, that of 1568 had 125. On the use of Sirach, in the ‘IIomilies' see Daubney, p. 67; on that made by English divings, p. 71 ff. To Archbishop Whitgift (f 1604), who declared the Apocrypha ‘Parte of the Bible,” and gavg command for them to h9 bound up with the Bible, Drusius dedicated his edition of Sirach (1606). LitRRATURE, - Only a selection oan bo given, l, Commen- taries: Camerarius, Drusius, Bretschneider (seºp, 543), Grotius (best edition ; IIwg, Grotii Annotationes in WT', curavit G99. Jo. Lu. Vogel, Halas, t. iii. 1786, pp. 63–230, 4to), Cornelius a Lapide (Antw, 1634 f, ; , often, at last Paris, 1859 f.), Fritzsche (!(t/ſ. bareg, IIdh. zw den Apokryphem, vol. iii. 1859), E. C. Bissºl (The Apocrypha, New York, 1880); tho placo of a Commentºry is filled by the Notes in the Variorum. A poorlypha, ed., by G. J. Ball (Eyre & Spottiswoode, no º: Edersheim (in Wace, “Apocrypha,' see p. 539), Zöcklor (in Strack-Zijckler's Iºſif, Rout- onentar, 180i, weak in textual criticism), Ed. Iteuss, Das 4 tle Testament iibersetzt (vol., vi, 1894, }. 289 (f.), Ityssel (in ‘Dig Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des AT . . . iibersetzt und hérausgegeben von E. Rautzsch," i. 1900, pp. 230-475). 'Y -- ~...” 2, Monographs: Tetens, Disquisitiones generales in Sapien- tiam Jes. Sír., Haunite, 1770; IB. G. Winer, De attriusque Siravidae aetate, Erlangen, 1832; II. Ewald, “Úber das grie- SIRAH SISERA 55] thische Spruchbuch Jesus' des Sohnes Sirachs,’ in Biblische Jahrbücher, iii. (1851 ; cf. Geschichte Israels, iv. 340 ft.); Vaihinger in SI(, 1857, 93 ff. ; A. Geiger, “Warum gehört Sirach zu den Apokryphen' (ZDMG xii. T1858] 536 f.); Horowitz, * Das Buch Jesus Sirach,” in Monatsschrift für Geschüchte und Wissenschaft des J wdenthums, xiv. and separate (Breslau, 1865); H. Grätz, “Die Söhne des Tobias, die Hellenisten und der Spruchdichter Sirach’ (ib. 1872); A. Astier, Introd. au livre de l'I'cclésiastiqwe (Strassb. 1861); Merguet, Die Glaubens- wºnd Săieniehre des Buches Jesus Strach (Königsberg, i., 1874; ii., 1901); Seligmann, Dak Buch der Weighett des Jesus Sohm des Sirach (Josua ben Sira) in 8ečmem. Verhältniss zu den 8alomon- ischen Sprüchen und 8einter historischem Bedewiwng (Breslau, 1883); F. E. Daubanton, “Het apokryphe boek Xopio. 'Indow viov Xipáx en de leertype daarin vervat' (in Theol. Studien, 1886–1887). 3. On the miliew of the Book: Dähne, Darstellung der jūdisch - aleazandrinischen Religionsphilosophie (1837); J. F. ruch, Weisheitslehre der Hebråer (1851); Faure, La Sagesse diving dams la littérature didactique des Hébrewa, et des Juifs (Montauban, Inaug. Diss. 1900, 73 pp.). 4. On questions of textual criticism; B. Bendtsen (see p. 546"); E. G. Bengel (see p. 545b); J. Fr. Gaab, De locis quibºtsdam. sententiarum Jesu, Siracidae (Tubingae, 1799), and Versio carninum quorundam Arabicorwin . . . cwm animadversion?- bus ad sententias Jesw Siracidae (Tüb. 1810); Dyserinck, De Sprewken van Jesus dem. Zoom van Sirach (1870); I2dw. Hatch, ‘On the text of Ecclesiasticus,’ in 1988ays in Biblical Greek, 1889, pp. 246–282; Eb. Nestle, Marginalien (Tüb. 1893, p. 48 ft.); Ph. Thielmann, “Die lateinische Uebersetzung des Buches Sirach,' in Archiv für lat. Lea:ikographie, viii. 501-561 (1893), and “Die europäischen Bestandtheile des lateinischen Sirach’ (ib. ix. 1896); H. Herkenne, De Veteris Latima, Jºcclesiastici capitibus i.—xliii. Uma cum motis ea; eiusden libri translationibus othiopica, armeniaca, copticis, latina altera, 8 yro-heavaplari depromptis (Leipzig, 1899), and “Die Textiberlieferung des Buches Sirach,” in Biblische Studien, ed. Bardenhewer, vi. 1, 2 (1901), 129-140; Norb. Peters, “Die sahidisch-koptische Ueber- setzung des Buches Ecclesiasticus auf ibren wahren Werth für die Textkritik untersucht’ (ib. iii. 3 [1805]). 5. On the Alphabet of Ben Sira cf. I. Lów, Aramäische Pflanzen namen łºść. 1881, pp. 2 ft., 417).” 6. Iliterature since the discovery of the Hebrew texts: On the wblication of the texts by Schechter, Cowley-Neubauer (Smend, Jévi), Schechter-Taylor, G. Margoliouth, I. Lévi, 12. N. Adler, Schechter, Gaster, see above, p. 5469. The Jºaºpository Times, vol. vii., has two, vol. viii. again two references to Sirach (p. 262, a review of Hogg on C-N), vol. ix. one, Vol. x. Seven, vol. xi. twenty-four such references (by the editor, König, D. S. Margoliouth, S. Schechter, J. A. Selbie, I. Abrahams, Eb. Nestle, C. Taylor, W. Bacher). The record of “Theological and Semitic Literature for the year 1900,’ published by Muss-Arnolt (Chicago, 1900), enumerates thirty papers, published (1900) in twenty-two different periodicals. Sec also J QR : Adler, Harlºavy, D. S. Margoliouth, Lévi, Schechter, Tyler; 18 E.J. : Bacher, Chajes, Lambert, Lévi ; ZAT'W : Bacher, Nöldeke; It B: Condamin, Grimme, Touzard. Ed. IXönig, in addition to his papers in the Jºa:pository Times, which were published separately in German (Die Originalität des newlich entaeckten Sirachteacles), wrote in four other periodicals. Cf., further, in Muss-Arnolt, pp. 32–34, the names : Buhl, Flournoix, Halévy, Houtsma, Méchineaux, Noordtzij, Peters, Tyssel (in SIC, 2900, 3, 4, 1901, 1, 2, 4, a very careful comparison of Tib with CŞazd £5, to be continued), Schlögl, Strauss, Wilson, Zenner. B. Baentsch, in Theol. Jahresb. for 1000, notes 51 books or papers on Sirach. Even on the Strophic structure of Sirach several papers have been published by H. Grimme (at first in RB, 1900–1901; then separately, Leipzig, Harrassowitz); by Norbert Peters (Theol. Quartalschriſt, 1900, pp. 180–193); # by Nivard Schlögl in ZDMG liii. (1899), pp. 660-682, and Jºcclesiasticus (3912–4916) ope artis crit. et metr, informam, originalem redactus, Wien, 1901, xxxv. 72, 4to. It will be a long time before all the questions connected with Sirach are settieſ and a critical edition becomes possible EB. NESTLE. SIRAH, THE WELL OF ("Tº ma; BA to ppéap roſ, Xeepdu, Luc. Xeetpá).—The place at which Joab's messengers overtook Abner, and brought him back to Hebron, where he was assassinated by Joab (2 S 3”; Jos. Amt. VII. i. 5, 1870 tpd). It lay on the road from Hebron to Jerusalem, and is now probably 'Ain Sárah, near Hebron, the “spring' ('aim) having taken the place of the ‘well' (bir). The spring flows from a spout into a small tank, and stands back from the road in a little alley with walls of dry stone on either side (PEI' Mem., iii. 314). C. W. WILSON. SIRION (ºnly in T)t 3"; jiny MT and Baer, but Mich. Tºj, in Ps 29").-The name said to be given * Nebuchadnezzar wishes to know whether Ben Sira is a prophet, and asks of him the number of trees in the royal gardens. Ben Sira answers that there are thirty kinds : of ten the whole fruit may be caten ; of ten the kernel ; of ten the OutCºl" yº. Löw gives the list, which is found also in the Butmalchesſ, on the basis of five texts. # A great work on Sirach by Norbert Peters is advertised for 1902 by Herder of Freiburg. by the Zidonians to MT. HERMON, Dt 3" (Xavićp). Like SENIR, it may have originally been the desig. nation of a particular part of the mountain. In Ps 29", where Sirion is coupled with Lebanon, the LXX (confusing with innw" Jeshurun ; cf. its render- ing in Dt 32° 33” “, Is 44°) reads 6 yarnºśvos. SISERA (NTP"p ; Xela apá, meaning doubtful; cf. Assyr., Sasat, ‘progeny,”-Sayce, H.ibert Lects. 373. Ball, Light from the East, s.v., gives the Assyr. form Sisseru, Seseru, ‘child.’ Moore, Judges, 112, thinks that the name is not Semitic, and compares Hittite names ending in -stra, Htasira, Manrasira, etc., W. Max Müller, Asien it. Europa, 332).- 1. Jg 4 and 5, 1 S 12", Ps 83". The history of Sisera is told in a poetic (Jg 5) and a prose form (Jg 4). In the main particulars both agree, but they differ considerably on some important points. The Song of Deborah, as being nearer in date to the events recorded, must be treated as the more authentic source. (1) In 4* Jabin, king of Hazor, is introduced into the history of Sisera. He is not mentioned in ch. 5, he takes no part in the battle, and his city Hazor, if = Merj Hadire (or near it), a little S. of Kedesh and W. of the lake of Huleh, is far away from the scene of the conflict, and brings in possible situations into the narrative. Sisera is throughout the actual and independent leader ; his forces are his own (cf. 4” with 4°); to slay him is to carry off the honours of the ſight (4"). This Jabin-tradition is of the same charac- ter as the fragments preserved in Jg 1, and forms the basis of the history in Jos 11” [JE]. How it Came to be combined with the Sisera-tradition is not clear; perhaps because both were concerned with fighting in Upper Palestine, and because the northern tribes and Canaanites were the conn- batants in both cases.” The combination must be earlier than the work of the redactor (41*, *, *3. * * *), who provided the narrative with an intro- duction and conclusion (vv.” ”), and gave Jabin, who is called merely king of Hazor in v.”, the un- historical title of ‘king of Canaan’ (42.2%). It is noticeable that 1 S 12" and Ps 83" imply the com- bination of the Jabin- and Sisera-traditions. (2) In order to harmonize these, Sisera had to be made the general of Jabin's army (4* 7); and this must have been done before the redactor dealt with the narrative. (3) The campaign is on a larger scale in ch. 5 than in ch. 4, . In the former Sisera appears at the head of a federation of Canaanite kings (5"), and attacks the six tribes bordering on the Central Plain. In ch. 4 only Naphtali and Zebu- lun are engaged (v."); the mention of these two tribes only and of Kedesh their headquarters (v.") was probably an element in the Jabin-story. (4) The scene of the battle in 519 is the left bank of the ICishon ; this implies that Ibarak advanced against Sisera from the S.W. and fell upon him from the Carmel range. In 4* * Barak attacks the Canaanites from Mt. Tabor, and the battle apparently takes place at its foot. (5) The accounts of Sisera's murder present a striking divergence. In cli. 5 Jael, by an ingenious stratagem, kills him with a tent-mallet while he is standing and drink- ing out of a deep bowl ; in ch. 4 she hammers a tent-peg through his temples while he lies asleep in her tent. Some explain this divergence as a prosaic misunderstanding of the parallelism of 5* (so Wellhausen, Composition 222; Robertson Smith, OTJO” 132), but it is more likely to be due to a different tradition. One important detail is preserved in ch. 4 alone—that Sisera’s stronghold was Harosheth hag-goyim (4* *). This place has been plausibly identified with cl-Ilúrithiyeh, on * IRudde (IRichter w. Samuel, 69) thinks that the person of Isarak was the link which connected the two, and that tradi- tion ascribed both victories to him (cf. Jos. 4 ºvt. W. v. 4). 552 SISINNES SLANDER the right bank of the Kishon, commanding the road from the Central Plain to the sea. Perhaps 4** inply that Harosheth was at some distance from the łºś. so the identification cannot be called certain, and the resemblance of the names, though philologically correct, may be ac- cidental (see $uñi, GAP 214). See arts. DEBORAII and JABIN. 2. A family of the Nethinim, Ezr 2" (Bom.., A 2kspad, Luc. 210 apg), Neh 7” (B Xeoretpá9, A Xeotapá6, Luc. om.). G. A. COOKE. SISINNES (Xiaºlvvms).-The governor (ěrapxos) of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, under Darius, and a contemporary of Zerub., 1 Es 69.7 °77). In Ezr 5°, etc., he is called TATTENAI, ‘the governor (TTP) be- yond the river,’ i.e. satrap of the whole of Syria. west of the Euphrates. SISMAI ("ºpp; BA Xogopal, Luc. Xao'apel).—A Jerahmeelite, 1 Ch 2". SISTER.—See FAMILY. SITH.—The Anglo-Sax. prep. sith (originally an adverb = ‘after.”) with the pron. dam = them, formed siththan “after that’ (= Ger. Seitdem). Then siththan was contracted to sithen, which again became sometimes sith and sometimes sin. The adv. suffix s being added to sithen gave middle Eng. Sithens, afterwards spelt sithence to keep the s sharp in pronunciation, like pence for pens, dice for dies; and this was contracted to since, the contraction being helped by the form sin. “Sith was used as a prep., an adv., or a conjunction. Thus as adv., Wyc. Works, iii. 114, ‘Ffyrst they trow in the Ffadyr, for he ys fyrst persone; aftyr they trow in Jesus Crist, be dyvers artyclys; and sytthe they trow in the Holy Gost’; as prep., Rnox, Works, iii. 278, “Transubstantiation, the byrde that the Devel hatched by Pope Nicolas, and sythe that time fostered and nurryshed by al his children’; and as conj., Berner, I'roissart, Pref., “Among all other I read diligently the four volumes or books of sir John Froissart of the country of Hainault, written in the French tongue, which I judged commodious, necessary and profit- able to be had in English, sith they treat of the famous acts done in our parts.” . ‘Sith occurs in AV 1611 in Jer 157 23%, Ezk 356, Zec 419 nurg, 2 Es 768, and IRo 5heading, and ‘sithence’ in 2 Es 10". As early as 1616 ‘sith- ence' was changed into “since,’ and “sith ' was in time changed (by Paris or Blayney), into the same mod. form in all places except Ezk 35", Ro 5 hºud. For ‘sithence ’ cf. Lk 2099 Rhem. “In the resurrection therefore, whose wife shal she be of them 2 sithens the seven had her to wife.’ ‘Sith often occurs in the Psalms in metre, viz. 168 228 31* 33°, 507 (both versions) 7319 86° 10921 119°, always as a conjunction. J. HASTINGS. SITHRI ("np; B Xeypet, A Seſſpel, Luc. Serpt). —A grandson of Kohath, Ex 6” (P). SITNAH (nºw ‘enmity’; 'Ex0pſa ; Inimicitiae).— The second well dug by the servants of Isaac, and for which they strove with the herdmen of Gerar (Gn 26”). The name of the well is derived by J from the disputes over its construction. The site is unknown, ''. it is supposed to have been in the valley of Gerar, though this is not distinctly stated in the narrative. Palmer (PE1'St, 1871, p. 35) finds a reminiscence of the name in Shattnet er-Jeuheibeh, a small valley near Ruheibeh (Reho- both). Itiehm (11 WI3) apparently means the same place, which he calls Wady esh-Shetein. g C. W. WILSON. SIYAN (lyºp).-The third month, according to the later (Babylonian) mode of reckoning. See TIME. SKILL.—Skill comes from a Scand. root meaning to separate, discern, and means discernment, under- standing. The verb to skill, i.e. to discern or understand, has now gone out of use, but occurs in AV in 1 K 5" “There is not among us any that can skill (so RV, Amer. RW ‘knoweth how ’) to hew timber,’ 2 Ch 27 ° (all yi to know), and 2 Ch 34” “all that could skill of (Amer. RW ‘were skilful with ') instruments of musick’ (pºſſ to be skilled in, Hiphil of ºil to º under- stand). Cf. Milton, Areopag. (Hales' ed. p. 39), ‘A wealthy man addicted to his pleasure and to his profits finds löeligion to be a traflick so entangl’d and of so many piddling accounts, that of all mysteries he cannot skiſſ to keep a stock going upon that trade ’; Elyot, Governoºtr, ii. 181, “Whether he be a gentyll man or * a ryche man or a poore, if he sitte mat suerly and can skill of ridynge, the horse casteth him quickely'; and Lk 12” Tind. ‘Ypocrites, ye can skyll of the fassion of the erth and of the Skye.” J. HASTINGS, SKULL, PLACE OF A.—See GOLGOTHA. SLÄNDER or EVIL-SPEAKING (noun Tººl, from [and] ‘glide'; verbs [ſº], lit. ‘use the tongue’; brº, lit. ‘slink about,’ and other roots. Greek 8Xao pmuéa, ‘speak injuriously”; adj. and subst. B\doºmuos ; subst. 3Xao pmula ; Śwaſłd MAw, “throw over,” “slander’; 5ud90)\os, adj., and subst. & 6td (30)\os = |\pyn).-This sin, of which the tongue is the organ (Prºl&º, Ja 3° "), springs from the heart, as the seat of inner life (Mt. 1294.8° 15'9, Mk 7”, Lk 6"). As a rule, its mental feature is falsehood (Pr 10° 1217 14* *) and its emotional hate (1 P 2"); but even truth may be circulated from motives of malice, and falsehood may be told simply from a perverse pleasure in lying. Hence all tale-bearing, whether false and ill-tempered or not, is blameworthy and injurious (Lv 1919, Pr 111° 26° 18°, Ezk 22"). Against slander and evil - speaking, from which arises much strife (Pr 1627° 3019), warnings abound in the OT (Ps 348, Pr 15* 30% 24*) as in the NT (Eph 4”, Col 38, Ja 4", 1 P 3"), and threats of punishment are not wanting, alike from God (Ps 5010-22 10920 1401, Pr 81° 21*) and from man (Ps 101", Pr 197; cf. Ro 3°). Slander is a sign of moral corruption (Jer 6* 94, 2 Ti 3"). As angels abstain from all reviling (2 P 2", Jude 9), so proneness to slander is regarded as disqualifying for citizenship in the Hebrew commonwealth (Ps 15° 24") and for membership or office in the , Christian Church (Tit 29, 1 Ti 311). Instances of slander are recorded (2 S 1997, Dn 3%, Nell 6*, Ezr 4") against persons, and even against a land (Nu 13* 14"). Among other forms of persecution to which the pious in Israel were exposed was slander (Ps 31° 41° 27” 35*, Jer 201"), from which also the members of the Christian Church (1 P 2° 4"), and especially the apostles, suffered (Ac 19° 24° 28°, 2 Co 6°), even as Christ Himself did (Lk 29%, Mk 9”, Mt. 11"), and as He foretold that they would (Mt. 5", Lk (*). Christians are warned to give no occasion for it (Tit 28 3”, l P 31°), as thereby they may bring discredit on the gospel and the Church (Ito 14"; cf. Ro 2*, 2 P 2*, Tit 2", 1 Ti 6"). Among charges later brought against them falsely were cannibal- ism, incest, atheism, hatred of human race, licen- tious orgies. When suffering from such slander innocently, they are urged to bear with patience (1 P 39; cf. 1 Co. 419) even as Christ did (1 P 2*; cf. Mt. 2739, Mk 15*, Jn 9°), and even to rejoice therein (1 P 41%). False witness is but slander carried into a court of justice, and against this sin the ninth command. SLAVE, SLAVERY SMYRNA 553 ment is directed (Ex 201"; cf. 23", Dt 5”). Its attacking fortresses (2 K 3", 1 Mac 6"). Among prevalence in the East (Ezr 4", Lk 3* 19°) necessi- tated great severity in punishing it, and in the Pentateuch the law of retaliation is literally enforced regarding it (Dt 1919-19). To avoid mis- carriage of justice, the testimony of one person was not accepted as sufficient by the Jewish law (Nu 35", Dt 17" 19%), and this rule was adopted in the Christian Church (2 Co 131, 1 Ti 519; cf. Mt 1819). When the charge involved a death sentence, the witnesses had to be first in carrying it out (Dt 177; cf. Ac 7*). Yet false witnesses could be found (Dn 6”, l K 2110), as against Jesus (Mt. 26". ", Mk 14*"), Stephen (Ac 6”), and Paul (Ac 24”). The heinousness of slander is shown by the use of the same Gr. word in NT for sins of speech against God and man (Mt 2799, Lk 23° 22°, Ac 13” 18' 26", 1 Ti 1", Tit 3%, Ja 2); by our Lord's warning about the unpardonable sin (Mt 12*, Mk 3*, Lk 12"); and by the name 6 6.48oNos, given to the spirit of evil, who is represented as playing the ; of slanderer against Job (Job 1"), Joshua the high priest (Zoc 3’), and Christians (Rev 12"). A. E. GARVIE. SLAYE, SLAVERY.—See SERVANT. SLAYONIC YERSIONS.—See VERSIONS. SLEIGHT.-Eph 414 “By the sleight of men’ (€v rū kubeta [Tisch. WH Kv3ig] rôv &vöpútrav, lit. ‘by the dice-playing of men,” from Kūgos, a cube, die). Tindale translates ‘by the Wylynes of men,” which is the meaning of AV ‘sleight.’ It is of the same root as ‘sly,’ as if for Slyth = ‘slyness.’ Cf. Ridley, Works, 31, ‘The sleights and shifts which craft * g . . . riv 3. 'r, Jos San * * sº o and wit can invent’; Tymme's Calvin’s Genesis, 569, ‘Nowe, seeing a lye is damnable of it selfe, therein she simmed the more, that she durst use such deceiveable slightes in so holy a matter.’ But the word properly means a device, and may be used in a good sense, as Udall’s Erasmus' Paraph. i. 106, ‘If this invencion and sleight be brought unto your presidente, we will perswade hym, and deliver you from all daunger of this matter’; Elyot, Governour, i. 173, ‘It hath ben sene that the waiker persone by the sleight of wrastlyng, hath overthrowen the strenger.' We still have the phrase ‘sleight of hand.’ The adverb sleightly is used in the Preface to AV, ‘Now, when the father of their Church, who gladly would heale the soare of the daughter of his people softly and sleightly, and make the best of it, ſindeth so great fault with them for their oddes and jarring, we hope the cluildren llave no great cause to vaunt of their uniformitie.” There is no connexion either in origin or mean- ing with “slight,” “slightly,’ which means originally ‘flat,’ ‘smooth.’ J. HASTINGS. SLIME.—See BITUMEN and MORTAR. SLING (yºp Kela', a bevöövm).—A weapon used by the Hebrews, Egyptians, Assyrians, and other IEastern nations, from whom it passed over to the later Greeks. During the best days of Rome, slingers appeared only among the foreign auxili- aries — Greek, Syrian, and African. We know nothing definite concerning the form of the Hebrew sling, but on the Assyr. reliefs slings are shown, made of two thongs, one of which was doubtless released in the act of discharging the stone. The hollow in which the stone was placed was called the hand (); kitph, “the bent hand ’). Smooth stones (1 S 1740, Job 4128 (29))” were used by the Hebrews, stones or leaden bullets (uo).ugötöes) by the Itoman auxiliaries, as missiles. Slings were employed in * Cf. “Teretes lapides do funda vel fustibalo destinati' (Vege- tius, i. 16). the Israelites the Benjamite left-handed slingers were famous (Jg 20", 1 Ch 12%); David the Judaean ºl. as a slinger only in his contest with Goliath (1 S 17", Sir 47°). From the prominence given to David’s ‘staff’ in 1 S 1740. 38 it is not improbable that his ‘sling' was mounted on a staff; the weapon may in fact ilave been that descried by Vegetius, iii. 14, ‘I’ustibalus fustis est longus pedibus quattuor, cui per medium ligatur funda de corio, et utraque manu impulsus prope ad instar onagri (a powerful military engine) dirigit saxa.” The “sling’ of v.” is a gloss on ‘staff, just as ‘scrip’ is a gloss on “shepherd's bag.” The sling- stones might be carried either in a bag (so David, 1 S 17") or in the bosom of the outer garnment (so the Itoman slingers). , Abigail (1 S 25*) predicts that God will take the lives of David’s enemies out of the bag or purse (ºn; zérôr) in which He holds the lives of men, and will “sling them out,’ i.e. cast them away. In Zec 9” hailstones are spoken of as God’s slingstones (tr. ‘ and [His] slingstones shall devour and subdue '; cf. v.” “His arrow shall go forth as the lightning'). On the difficult verse Pr26° “As he that bindeth a stone in a sling’ (Mººp margémath), see Toy in Intermat. Crit. Comm. and I&V (‘a heap of stones’). W. EMERY 13ARNES. SMITH.—ºnſ, an artificer, a workman, l S 131°, Is 54”; ºn; ºn a smith (lit. a worker in iron), Is 44”; napp (lit. locksmith ?) 2 K 24”. 1", Jer 24, 20°. The name smith is common to several metal workers: the goldsmith, the silversmith, the copper- Smith, and the ironsmith. The most important of these in ancient times was the coppersmith. Though iron seems to have been known at a very early º it did not come into common use. Copper, eing more easily worked, was the universal metal for tools, arms, and all kinds of utensils. Alloyed with tin it became hard, and was capable of taking a sharp edge: thus it was suitable for knives, swords, spears, axes, etc. The coppersmith is still a very important workman in Syria, for almost all domestic utensils are made of that metal. 1’ans, pots, trays, caldrons for boiling the grape juice, are made of copper. The goldsmith and silversmith are next in importance, and their methods of working are almost the same as the pictures on the tombs in Egypt show to have been followed by the ancient Egyptians. The silversmith is usually also the tinsmith of a Lebanon village. Iron ore of the very best quality is abundant in the Lebanon range, and has been worked for ages by the smiths. The forests around supplied the fuel, and the iron obtained was similar to what is known as Swedish iron. It was probably from this iron that the smiths of Damascus made their famous steel. Nearly every village in Syria has its smith, whose business it is to make and repair ploughs, pickaxes, hoes, and the tools for the masons and carpenters. He makes shoes also for horses, mules, donkeys, and for the oxen used for ploughing. The fuel of the smith is charcoal, and two very largo circular bellows keep up a steady blast. Smiths in ancient as well as in modern times were noted for the strength of their arms, Is 44*. The discoverv of the smith's art is ascribed in Gn 4” (J) to Tubal-cain (which see) the son of Lamech (see Dillmann, ad loc., and l3enzinger, Heb. Arch. 214). A smith at Work is graphically portrayed in Sir 3828. CAltSLAW. SMYRNA (Suºppa) was an ancient city in the west of Asia Minor, situated at the head of a gulf which runs up about 30 miles, into the country. It was at first a colony of Aeolic Greeks, but was taken by an attack from the Ionian colony of Colophon and transformed into an Ionian city. 554 SMYRNA SMYRNA The original Aeolic and Ionian Smyrna was cap- tured by the Lydians, who broke up its constitu- tion as a Greek city about the end of the 7th cent. B.C.; and it existed as a mere Oriental town or series of villages for more than three centuries, till Lysimachus (301–281) refounded it as a Greek city, in a new situation about 3 miles south- west from the ancient site. It has continued ever since an unbroken history as one of the greatest cities of Asia. Smyrna was a faithful ally of Rome, from the time when the reat Italian republic began to interfere in the affairs of the Sast, choosing that side before Rome had become all-powerful, and remained true to it even during the Mithridatic wars, when a Smyrnaean assembly, hearing of the distressed condition of Sulla's army, stripped off their own clothes and sent them to clothe the soldiers; and it was accordingly favoured in the Roman policy, though it suffered during the Civil War, after the death of Caesar. That early appreciation of the value of the Roman alliance was undoubtedly due to the position of Smyrna as a great trading city : the exact circumstances are unknown to us, but Smyrna must have been as early as B.C. 200 brought into such relations with the general Mediterranean trade that its interest lay in supporting Rome against Carthage and the allied Seleucid kings of Syria, and against Rhodes (just as the old friendship of Massilia and Rome was due to their *mon dread of the competition of Carthaginian mer- chants). Smyrna was the port at the end of one of the great roads leading from the inner country, Phrygia, Galatia, etc., across Ilydia towards the west. It was also the harbour for the whole trade of the fertile Hermus Valley, and was probably hardly Second even to Ephesus as an exporting city. Its great wealth is attested by its abundant coinage. It was the chief city of a conventus, and was one of those cities that were dignified with the title of metropolis. It vied with Pergamus and Ephesus for the title of ‘l’irst (city) of Asia ' (ºrcón” 'Ao. 2;); and the contests between the three great cities were carried to a great height, as each invented new titles for itself or appropriated the titles of the other. In one case, at least, their jealous rivalry led to an appeal to the in perial decision. In A.D. 23 the cities of Asia obtained permission to found a temple in honour of Tiberius and his mother Julia Augusta. and in 26 several contended for the privilege of having the temple within their walls. The pleadings of the different cities which claimed that honour throw considerable light on the state of the great Asian cities under the early Roman emperors, though only a very brief report has been preserved by Tacitus (Annals, iv. 55, §6). The claim of Pergamum was rejected because it already had the temple dedicated by the province to Augustus: that of Ephesus because it was sufficiently weighted by the worship and the temple of Artemis: that of Laodicea, Tralles, etc., because they were not sufficiently great. IHalicarnassus was carefully considered, but at last the choice lay between Sardis and Smyrna. Sardis relied especially on its past history, and quoted, amidst other evidence on its side, a decree passed in its honour by the twelve ancient ICtruscan cities. But the Smyrnaºans could appeal to their faithful friendship and alliance with Rome ; . they mentioned that they had dedicated a temple to the goddess Rome in B. c. 195, before the eastern cities had learned by experience that Rome was the one supreme power in the world. The claim of Sinyrna was preferred to that of Sardis, thus marking the superior dignity of the former in the province. The temple was erected by the provincial council (see Asiancii) in Smyrna, which henceforward could claim the Imperial Neokorate, i.e. the title of temple-warden (vºwzépos) of the emperors. The title was not so much prized in the 1st cent. ; and the earliest proof that Smyrna had assumed it is in A. D. 98–102. A jid and a third Neokorate were afterwards granted to Smyrna (as to Pergamum and Ephesus)—the second by Hadrian (though not mentioned on coins till the reign of his successor Pius), the third by Severus towards the end of his reign (along with the same compliment to Ephesus) In the Roman time Smyrna was perhaps the most brilliant and splendid of the cities of Asia. No other city of the province could vie with it for the handsomeness of its streets, the excellence of the paving, and the skill with which it was laid out in rectangular blocks; but it was badly drained, and the streets were liable to be flooded in rain. It stretched along the southern shore of the gulf, not far from its eastern extremity. On the west a hill which overhangs the sea was enclosed within its walls; and on the South a still loftier elevation called Pagos, “the hill,’” 460 ft. high, served as its * Pagos is, indubitably, an ancient name ; but the hill appears also to have had the special name Mastusia, alluding to its shape as seen from the Bea (though the likeness to a breast is seen to be illusory when one goes roulid it, or ascends). acropolis, and afforded a strong line of defence for the walls of Lysimachus. The modern city stretches beyond the ancient walls on the east side, but leaves out part of the ancient city on the west. On the lower ground west from Pagos, about the South-western extremity of the city, was the “Ephesian Gate,’ whence issued the ancient road to Metropolis, Ephesus, and the south generally. Another gate near the modern station of the Hermus Valley Railway is still called the Black Gate (Kara Kapu). The most splendid street in ancient Smyrna was called the Golden Street ; it led perhaps from the temple of Zeus on the hill over the sea to the temple of Cybele on the hillock east from Smyrna called Tepejik (if, as is probable, the temple stood there), issuing from the city prob- alſº through Kara Kapu. here was, in addition to the mooring-ground in the open gulf, an inner harbour nearly land-locked, which was sufficiently commodious for ancient vessels. It was in the heart of the modern city; and the Bazaars now occupy part of its area. In A.D. 1402 the entrance to it was blocked by Tamer- lane with a mole, to facilitate his assault on the stronghold of the Rhodian Knights beside the sea. Even before that, it had probably been a good deal neglected in the troubles and the weak govern- ment that prevailed for centuries; and afterwards under Turkish rule the harbour became more and more choked up, till in the 18th century it finally disappeared. Smyrna has suffered much from earthquakes. A Severe one occurred in A. D. 180, and great shocks seem often to be felt in the latter part of a century. The last was in 1880. There was no specially famous cultus at Smyrna. The ‘Mother of Sipylos' was worshipped in a great temple, which probably stood on the already mentioned mound outside the city on the east side ; the priestess of the goddess in front of the city (lipsia. I ſpordàto);) is mentioned in an inscription; and the Meter Sipy- lene is a common type and legend on the coins of Smyrna. But her cultus was common to other cities round Mt. Sipylos, and the Smyrnaean worship did not become famous and im- portant like those of Ephesus, Magnesia, etc. The temple of the Nemeseis, or l’ates, and a Hieron of the Iſledones, in which divination was practised from chance words or phrases or acts, are mentioned ; but it seems very probable that those two foundations may have been only a single holy place. According to the legend, the two Nemeseis had appeared to Alexander the Great in a dream, and ordered him to rebuild Smyrna. In Smyrna, alone was the ordinary singular conception of Nemesis doubled as a pair of divine figures. Smyrna was one of the cities claiming to be the birthplace of Homer. The poet is often represented on its coins ; and thcre was a building in or near the city, called the IIonvereion. Tradition connected him with the sacred river, called Meles. The descriptions of the river by Aelius Aristides, and its sacred character, show that it was not any of the varying streams, dry in Bummer and torrents in the rainy season, which have been identified by diſferent authorities as the Mcles (especially the stream on the eastern skirts of the modern city, crossed by Caravan J3ridge on the great road leading to the east). The Meles was the unvarying stream rising in the splendid sacred springs called Diana's 13ath, more than a mile east from Cara- van 13ridge, and flowing in a steady uniform stream through a partly artificial channel º Aristides says) into the gulf. The whole character of the localities, both springs and Channel, has been changed by modern engineering operations. The Church of Smyrna has had an honourable history. The message sent to it among the letters to the seven Churches, Rev 2 and 3, is more uni- formly laudatory than those sent to the other Churches; even Philadelphia is hardly praised so highly as Smyrna, and the others are all blamed in varying degrees. But the Smyrnaean Church was apparently kept pure by continual suffering : the Church was poor and oppressed : it was not exposed to the dangers of riches, but was rich spiritually. The Jews of Smyrna are described as bitterly hostile. I'ew or none of them seem to have adopted Christianity, and they are described as not being really Jews, but merely a synagogue of Satan. This probably means both (1) that the Gentile Church of . Smyrna, represents the true - SMYRNA SMYRNA 555 stock of Abraham, while the Jews say they are Jews, clo. Iming the name, but losing the reality of Jewiſh inheritance; and (2) that the Jews in the city had given way to the temptations of luxury &nd civilization, and degenerated from Jewish purity and religion. It is an interesting point 'hat, in an inscription of the 2nd century (CIJ 3148), we find mentioned as one of the classes of the population ‘the erstwhile Jews' (ol troté 'Iovöaſot), an enigmatic phrase which probably means “those who formerly were the nation of the Jews, but who have lost the legal standing of a separate people and are now merged in the numerous class of resident strangers, sprung from various, parts of the empire.’” In the ... outburst which led to the martyr- dom of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna in A.D. 155,4 the Jews are described as playing a prominent part. The ASIARCH Philippus, who was presiding at the games (which therefore must have been those called Kotuſ, 'Aglas, celebrated by the provincial council called the ſočnom, and held at the various metropoleis in turn), was very unwilling to authorize the deed, and without his permission it could not have been carried out in the stadium on the occa- sion of the games; but the popular clamour con- strained him. The Jews were active also in fetching and arranging the wood to burn the aged bishop. The view that the Jews of Smyrna are described in the Apocalypse as degenerate from the pure religion of their race seems to be confirmed, when we observe that Polycarp's martyrdom occurred on a Saturday afternoon, and the Jews, who were so active against him, must have appeared in the stadium at games which should have been an abomination to them on the Sabbath day. It is a noteworthy coincidence, which may be intentional, that the Divine Sender of the message to Smyrna, the city which had been destroyed and after 340 years refounded, calls himself ‘the first and the last, which was dead and lived again.” The various titles which the Sender-of the messages to the Seven Asian cities assumes in each case have sometimes at least an obvious relation to the circumstances of the city to which the message is addressed : that is evidently the case at TIIYATIRA, and may be in other cases, though we cannot trace the relation. Here, however, it seems very clear. That, of course, is not inconsistent with the equally obvious relation of the title to the immediate cir- cumstances of the Smyrnaean Christians as de- scribed in Rev 219. " " Fear not the thing which thou art about to suffer; behold, assuredly, the devil is about to cast some of you into prison that ye may be tried ; and ye shall have tribulation for a term of ten days [i.e. a time not unlimited, but with an end fixed]. Be thou faithful unto death ; and I will give thee the garland of life [i.e. the prize which consists in lifel. As your city was destroyed, and lived again more glorious than before, so I who died and lived again will give to thee [each individual Christian is singled out and addressed], if thou be true to death, the reward of the true life (tàs $oſs).” On the other hand, it seems highly improbable that there is here intended any “allusion to the ritual of the pagan mysteries which prevailed in that city', (as is suggested by Rev. J. W. Blakesley in Smith's DB iii. p. 1835); ‘the story of , the violent death and reviviscence of Dionysos' was not specially characteristic of Smyrna, or likely to be specially familiar to the Smyrnaoan Christians. It seems quite unnatural that the * See Mommsen in Historisohe Zeitsch). xxviii. p. 417. The meaning ‘who were once Jews, but have abandoned their re- ligion,' seems quite impossible : renegade Jews would not be called so in an inscription which mentions them in a compli- mentary way. s # The date, as fixed by Waddington, is nearly, but not abso- lutely, certain. Harnack considers Waddington's reasoning to bo entirely erºr,ueous, but accepts the date on different grounds (Chronol, der altohristl. Litt. i. pp. 355, 721). Divine, Sender of , the message should be represented in a :haracter designed to recall that of Dionysos, . It is º: that the writer had in his mind the prize of victory (as in the Greek games), when he spoke of the ‘garland of life.’ It is indeed quite out of keeping with his usual custom to take a metaphor from such a source: he was not, like St. Paul, brought up in Greek surroundings and accustomed to draw his illustrations from the social life of the Greek cities. But that special metaphor had entered so completely into current language that the writer was hardly conscious of its source : he was probably thinking more of St. Paul's garland of righteousness (2 Ti 48), St. Peter's garland of glory (1 tº 54), and above all St. James's garland of life" ‘. than of the athlete's garland. ... At the same time it is possible, and even probable, that another pagan *::: was also in his mind. The worship. per, while engaged in the service of a deity, wore a garland of the kind sacred to that deity,+myrtle, in the service of Aphro- dite, ivy in that of Dionysos, wild olive in that of Zeus Olympius (out of which, indeed, developed the victor's garland in the Olympian games), and so on. The meaning then would be : “Be thou faithful to death, and I will give thee the garland of my service, which is of life,' Yet the idea of prize or reward seems inseparable from the passage; and it is only througll the victor's garland that the 8tephanos acquired that connotation. Probably both ideas are united in this passage. The magis- trates of hieratic origin, called Stephamephoroi, who were found in Smyrna and the other Asiatic cities generally, are not alluded to in this passage (as has been suggested); such an allusion lends no point to the words. Again, we notice that, whereas Sardis, the city whose impregnable fortress had twice been cap- tured while its people slept and neglected to watch, is advised to ‘be watchful,” Smyrna, the city which boasted of its faithfulness to the IRoman alliance, is counselled to ‘be faithful [not now to an earthly power, but to God].” Throughout the messages to the Seven Cities it is evident that the writer knew the circumstances of each city, and alluded to many facts of its present or past life. The references to past history are not gathered from reading and literature. The facts alluded to are of that marked type which would be universally known in each city, and would be appealed to by orators addressing popular assemblies. The Church in Smyrna is addressed rather as separate from (and persecuted by) the city, than as forming part of the city and characterized by its qualities and sharing in its works (like Sardis and Laodicea). Only the faithfulness and the resurrection of the city are alluded to as proper to the Church. In its separation from and superiority to the society by which it was surrounded lay the glory of the Smyrnaean Church ; and life is to be its reward for its faithfulness and its patient endurance. Life is the dominant tone in the letter to Smyrna, death in that to Sardis, weak- ness and indecision in that to the Phrygian IAODICEA. It is remarkable how later history has confirmed the prophecy and the character ascribed to the Church. Smyrma had a chequered history during the Turkish wars; and it was the last independent Christian city in the whole of Asia Minor. It was thrice captured by the Seljuk Turks in the end of the 11th and beginning of the 12th cent., but was recovered by the Byzantine government ; and the emperor John III. Ducas Vatatzes, who resided frequently at Smyrna or at Nymphaion, rebuilt the castle on Mount Pagos (1221– 1254), Early in the 14th cent. it passed into Mohammedan bossession, and formed a part of the dominions of Aidin, the ord of Guzel-Hissar, ‘the Beautiful Castle' of Tralles ; but the Knights of Rhodes seized the lower city, and strengthened the fortifications of the harbour, though the castle on Pagos over- hanging the city remained in Turkish hands. Two Qsmanli Sultans, Amurath l, and Bayezid, besieged the city and castle of the Knights, but without success. At last in 1402 the hosts of Tamerlane captured the castle; and after he retired the city passed quietly under the power of the Seljuk chiefs of Ayasaluk (Ephesus) and Guzel - Hissar, until they were reduced by Amur'ath 11, under the Osmanli Sway. The last stronghold of Christianity in Asia Minor, Smyrna still is more occidental in char- acter and more solidly flourishing than any other city of Turkey. It is called by the Turks, accordingly, Giaour Ismir, Inſidel Smyrna. The * Zeller's idea, that St. James imita’led this passage of the Apocalypse, seems not acceptable. 556 SNAIL SNOW i Mohammedans number less than a quarter of the Kºš. which totals over 250,000; more than a half is Greek: there are large Jewish and Armenian uarters : colonies from all the chief countries in urope, from the United States, and from Persia, also are settled there. The views from the sea, and from the summit of Mount Pagos, are among the most exquisite in the whole Mediterranean lands; and the prosperity within the city is, in comparison with all other Turkish towns, plain to the eye. As in the message to the Church, so at the present day, life is the prominent note. In the early ecclesiastical system Smyrna was a bishopric under the authority, probably, of Ephesus; but, soon after, it was raised to be independent and autokephalos. In , the later Aotitiſe it appears as a metropolis, having six bishoprics subject to it — Phocaea, Clazomenae, Magnesia ad Sipylum, Archangelos, Sosandra, and Petra. LITERATURE.—Though Smyrna has been so frequently visited by European travellers of every kind, very little has been written on its history, and no proper study has ever been made of the literary and monumental evidence on the subject. The account given in Sir Charles Wilson's Handbook to Turkey %. is the best, though necessarily very brief. In the Historical Geography of Asia Minor, Ramsay, there are only Some inadequate notes, pp. 107–109, 115, 116. An old book in French, by Slaars, on Smyrna, published there, is practically unprocurable. An article by Arist. M. Fontrier, in Bullet in de Corresp. Hellénique, xvi. pp. 379-410, on le Monastère de Lembos (five miles east of Smyrna and one south of Bunar- Bashi) is by far the best study that has been written on the subject. Numerous picturesque descriptions of the beauty of the scenery may be found in the books of travellers and tourists. W. M. RAMSAY. SNAIL.—Two Heb. words are trºl “snail’ in AV. 1. torn hòmet, oraßpa, lacerta (Lv l 1*). There seems to be no foundation for the AV ‘snail.” Other ancient VSS besides the LXX and Vulg. under- stand the word as referring generically to the lizard. It is in a list of those animals, and prob. one of them. RV tr. it by “sand-lizard,” which is Lacerta agilis, L., a species of wide distribution. This rendering, however, is a mere surmise. 2. hºw shabbélil, knpós, cera (Ps 58°). The Heb. is Shaph. form from the root *; bálal, similar to the Arab. balla, “to moisten.” The rendering ‘ wax,” of the LXX and Vulg., is ampliſied by the expressions étréole, trºp, supercecidit ignis ºo:: a confusion of nºs 95, with &N 95). Never. theless, the modern WSS are unanimous in the rendering ‘snail.” The allusion to “melting away’ is explained in two ways: (a) that a snail, in moving from one place to another, leaves a slimy track, which was popularly referred to the dis- solution of its body. The Arab. popular name for the snail, bizzák, ‘the spitter,’ is derived from this characteristic ; (b) Tristram explains it by the fact that, in the dry season, snails attach them- selves to rocks, trees, shrubs, or the soil, if possible in a moist situation, or at least one sheltered from the direct rays of the sun. If, however, a snail be long exposed to the sun, it will be dried up in its shell. Tristram thinks that this explains the Inetaphor of the text. !. number of species of land and fresh- water snails are found in Palestine and Syria. They emerge from their hiding-places after the early rains, and are collected by the natives, and boiled and eaten with great relish. G. E. POST. SNOW (3%); Aram. ºn [Dn 7"]; Gr. xiów)" is men- tioned in Scripture with a degree of infrequency corresponding to the rarity of its appearance in Palestine proper. Of an actual fall of snow we read only twice in the biblical narrative—in 2S 23” * The Verb lºw) occurs in Ps 6814 and is tr. in LXX by Xtovoda (loci. lºg is tr. by 32&oros in Pr20, and in Prº121 xpović, appears to be a corruption of zovićn. ** = 1 Ch 11”, where Benaiah, one of David's mighty men, is described as going down and slaying a lion in a cistern on a snowy day; and in 1 Mac 13”, where the horsemen of º the usurper king of Syria, were prevented from attacking Simon at Adora (or Adoraim) by reason of “a very great Snow’ which fell in the night. Snow is unknown on the seaboard of Philistia, Sharon, and Phoenicia, and seldom whitens the ground inland below an elevation of 2000 feet. In the Ghôr and the plain of Jericho it never falls. South of Hebron it is rare. Along the summits of the central ridge of Palestine and on the high tableland east of the Jordan Snow falls nearly every winter. The snowfall at Jerusalem, which is 2500 ft. above sea level, may be taken as typical of the whole central ridge. A table is iven by Dr. Chaplin in the PEI'St (vol. for 1883, p. 32), covering he winters from 1860–1861 to 1881–1882. Out of the twenty-two seasons to which his report refers there were eight when no snow fell, four of these being consecutive (1863, 1864, 1865, 1866). It is not wonderful that in 1864–1865 (see JERUSALEM, vol. ii. pp. 686, 586) the water supply from the chief springs entirely failed. From Dr. Chaplin's table we learn that the last few days of December, the months of January and February, and the first fortnight of March make the period within which the Snow falls in and around Jerusalem. In 1870 there was a fall of nearly two inches on April 7th and 8th, but this was a very remarkable and extraordinary occurrence. ‘For the most part,” says Dr. Chaplin, ‘the snow is in small quantity and soon melts, but heavy snow- storms sometimes occur, and the snow may then remain unmelted in the hollows on the hillsides for two or three weeks. The deepest snowfall was in Dec. 28 and 29, 1879, when it measured 17 inches where there was no drift. In l'eb. 1874 it was 8+ inches deep, and on March 14, 5 inches.’ Sir J. W. Dawson (Egypt and Syria, p. 113) reports that at the Jaffa Gate in Jan, 1884 there were snowdrifts 5 ft. deep. Wallace (Jerusalem, the Holy, p. 252) mentions that three heavy falls of snow occurred during Jan. and Feb. 1898, when the weather was exceptionally cold, and much suffering was endured by the people. Galilee, with a general elevation of 2000 to 2500 ft., is less liable to snowfalls. But sometimes these are heavy. In March 1884 a party riding through N. Galilee was overtaken by a snowstorm which covered the ground to the depth of several inclies. It lay during the night, and when the members of the party set out next day after a comfortless en- campment the snow still lay white over the land- scape, and its glare was almost blinding as the sun poured down his rays in a blaze that threatened Sunstroke. The snow of Lebanon was proverbial (Jer 18*, Ca 4”). It is ‘the white mountain, probably because the snow never fails altogether from its summits (for another explanation of the name see LEBANON, ad init.). On the highest cultivated lands the Snow covers up the wheat sown by the peasantry and protects it from the cold in winter. The lofty dome of Hermon is white all the winter, and through the summer broad patches and long streaks of Snow are to be seen upon its widely-extended mass, . Snow is an emblem of refreshment in Scripture. It may be the glowing aspect of the distant moun- tain tops that is in the mind of the psalmist when, speaking of the scattering of Jehovah's enemies and the consequent elation of the people, he says, “Then fell snow on Zalmon’ (Ps 68"; see Delitzsch, in loc.). Lebanon and Hermon with their snowy sides have a delightfully refreshing aspect as the inhabitants of the sultry lowlands look up to them from afar. ‘The cold of snow in the time of har- vest’ (Pr25*) may refer to the sight of snow upon the mountain, but more likely to the snow which is preserved and stored to make cooling drinks in the heat of summer. Just as snow from Lebanon and Hermon was carried as a luxury in Jewish times to Tyre and Sidon and Tiberias, so it is to- day used in Beyrout and Damascus for mixing with beverages. ‘Water like snow' is still the beverage most grateful to the fellahin, or to the thirsty traveller. Snow-water is mentioned for its cleans- ing properties (Job 9"; but the text is doubtſul, See Dav. ad loc.); and the rapidity with which SNUFFERS, SNUFFDISH SOAP, SOPE 557 the snow disappears in the heat of the sun is noticed by the sacred writers (Job 61° 24”). Snow by reason of its rarity and beauty is one of the wonders of God’s power (Job 37", Ps 147"); the hail and the snow are conceived to be stored in the heavens for use by God in the productiveness of nature (Is 55*), and in the accomplishment of moral ends (Job 38%. 28 ; cf. Jos 1011 and 1 Mac 13%). To be prepared against its coming, seeing that it keeps its season So Pºiºly, is one of the virtues of the ideal woman (Pr 31* 26"). Snow is taken to ex- press whiteness in the realm of nature—the white- ness of wool, hoary hairs, leprosy, milk (Rev 1*, cf. Dn 79, Ex 4", Nu 1219, 2 K 527, La 47). Snow is the chosen Scripture emblem of stainless moral purity. We are perhaps not at liberty to say it is used of the transfigured Christ (Mk 9°), because the best MSS omit dºs Xutºv. But it is taken to describe the purity of the Nazirites of Zion (La 47), of the Ancient of Days (Dn 7"), of the Angel of the Resur- rection (Mt 28°), of the Risen Lord (Rev 1”). As against the defilement and condemnation and per- sistence of sin, it describes the righteousness, for- giveness, and complete acceptance of the penitent believer (Ps 517, Is 1*). LITERATURE. –Mackie, Bible Manners and Customs, v. p. 8; Conder, Handbook to the Bible, p. 221; G. A. Smith, IIGIII, p. 64 f., PEI'St, 1883, p. 82. T. NICOL. SNUFFERS, SNUFFDISH.—In three passages of the Priests’ Code mention is made of two utensils connected with the golden candlestick, named respectively prºp melkäháyim, and nñſp malit0th, and rendered by AV in Ex 37* ‘snuffers’ and ‘snuffdishes,’ in 25* Nu 4° ‘tongs” and ‘snuffdishes' (so RV also in Ex l.c.).” The mall- tóth bear the same name, and were probably of the same shape, as the censers or fire-pans (so Tindale, 1530, ‘snuffers and fyrepanns'). In them were deposited and removed from the sanctuary the burnt portions of the wicks (see CENSER and TABERNACLE, section on the Candlestick). The melkähdºyim, as the etymology and the dual form show, was clearly a snuffers (Vulg. emunctoria, forcipes, LXX, Ex 38", Nu 4° Nagtóes), resembling in shape a pair of tongs, like the Roman forceps (illustrs. in Smith, Dict. of Gr, and Rom. Amt.” i. 872), since the same word is used of the tongs with which, in Isaiah’s vision, the live coal was lifted from the altar-hearth (Is 6°). It was used to trim and adjust the wicks of the lamps, like the acus (the pin for pushing up the wick) which figures in representations of Roman lamps. In later times we hear of a wool or flax comb, re- duced to a single tooth, being used for this purpose (Mishna, Kelim xiii. 8 end). The same instrument (melkähäyim) is mentioned (1 K 7") in connexion with the lamps of Solomon's temple, in a late addition to 1 K 7 (for 7” see KINGs, vol. ii. p. 864", the commentaries of Kittel and Benzinger, and esp. Stade's essay cited there), and its parallel 2 Ch 44, in both passages trº ‘tongs’ in AV and RV. It will thus be seen that in l{V ‘tongs’ is now the uniform rendering of melkähdºyim in all the passages where it occurs, “ smuſſers’ being reserved for another word nº mézammèróth (from nº to prune, trim), also mentioned, among the temple furniture (1 K 700 =2 Ch 4*, 2 k 12” [MT 111, 2513– Jer 52*). This, as the etymology again shows, also denotes some species of Scissors or snuffers for trimming the lamp-wicks. From a survey of the passages cited in this art, it would appear that mēgammérôth is the older term of the two, melkūh- (tyim being found first in l’, and in the later addi- * The American Revisers, however, prefer 'snuffers' in all three passages. f But lºx 2538 and elsewhere irotovo Táp and irozovorºpic, a tunnel or other appliance for feeding the lamps with oil. tions influenced by it, in which indeed both terms occur side by side. In all these, further, the material is given as gold, and even “perfect gold' (2 Ch 4*), while in the older and historical sources the material is bronze (cf. 1 K 7”). A. R. S. KENNEDY. SO (king of Egypt [Mizraim); nºn;p hºp Rºb, LXX Xmyūp, Vulg. Swa).-According to 2 K 17* (AV and RW), Shalmaneser, “king of Assyria, found conspiracy in Hoshea (king of Israel); for he had sent messengers to So, king of Egypt, and offered no present to the king of Assyria.’ This was the cause of the invasion that ended in the captivity of Israel. Kings of the Ethiopian dynasty (25th) were reigning at this time in Egypt, and it has been supposed that one of these, either Shabaka or Shabataka, was intended by ‘So.’ Prom cuneiforn) sources, however, we learn that there was at this time a certain Pir’u, king of Musri, and that in B.C. 720, shortly after the fall of Samaria in 722, Sib’i, tartan (commander-in- chief) of Musri, was sent by him to the help of Hanno, king of Gaza, against Sargon. It was formerly thought that ‘Pir’u, king of Musri,’ must be ‘Pharaoh, king of Egypt,' Musri corresponding in general to the Hebrew Mizraim ; but Winckler has recently shown that this Musri must be distinct from Egypt, and belong rather to North Arabia, in the country of the Nabataeans. He finds the same Musri also in the Bible under the name Mizraim, and identifies the biblical ‘So, king of Egypt.” (Mizraim) with Sib’i, the tartam of the North Arabian Musri, proposing to read Rip sh’ for Rio sw’ (So) (see his art. ‘Pir’u, king of Musri,’ in Mittheil. d. vorderas. Gesellsch. 1898, 5). The identification of So with Shabaka or Shab- ataka, seems impossible. Shishak of the 22nd dynasty, who invaded Judah and Israel in the reign of Jeroboam, is indeed entitled in the Bible Dynsp hºp ‘king of Mizraim,’ as were the later ‘Pharaohs,’ Necho and Hophra. But the position of the somewhat obscure 25th dynasty with regard to the throne of Egypt was peculiar. jº * - Tirhaka, who was the last important king of Shabaka's dynasty, is entitled the Hºp ‘king of Cush (Ethiopia)” in 2 K 19", and in the cuneiform ‘king of Cusi’; we might expect, therefore, to find the other kings of that dynasty bearing the same title “king of Cush,” rather than “king of Egypt,' if referred to in any Hebrew or As- syrian record. This is a slight additional argu- ment in favour of Winckler's theory. To the Egyptians themselves every king of Egypt in these later times, whether the Persian Darius, the Macedonian Alexander, the Roman Augustus, or the Ethiopian Tirhaka, was known as the ‘Pharaoh,’ and this is the title which they all bore in Egyptian legal documents. To the rest of the world Shabaka, the Ethiopian conqueror of Egypt and the founder of the 25th dynasty, presumably would be known as ‘king of Ethiopia.” F. J.L. GRIFFITH. SOAP, SOPE (na, nº ; trota) is a general name for the class of substances obtained by decompos- ing fats or oils by an alkali such as soda or potash. Fats and oils are compounds of certain ‘fatty acids’ with glycerine, and in the process of ‘Saponification' the alkali combines with the acid to form a soap, while the glycerine is set free. Soaps dissolve readily in water, imparting to it a peculiar slippery or greasy feeling, forming a lather easily, and adding greatly to its cleansing powers. According to l’limy (11 N xxviii. 51), soap was an invention of the Gauls, who prepared it from tallow and ashes. They lad two kinds of it, the hard and the liquid. Soap-making is the chief industry of modern Palestine. It is carried on in Jafla, Nāblus, Jerusalem, and elsewhere, and the 558 SOBER, SOBRIETY SODOM roduct is exported along the coast, and even to ºgypt and Asia Minor. Olive oil is used, and the poorer qualities of it especially are turned to account in this way. . The alkali employed is potash, and is icº; known as kily. It is ob- ta.ned by burning certain saliferous desert plants, the chief of which is Salsola kali. This alkali resembles cakes of coarse salt, and contains many impurities, and these accumulate to form great rubbish heaps in the places where soap is made. The potash obtained from the ashes is in the form of a carbonate. This is dissolved in water, and made caustic by treatment with lime. The solu- tion or ‘lye' is then boiled, the refuse from the oil-press being used as fuel. Olive oil is added, and after repeated boilings and additions of oil the solution is allowed to cool, when the soap sets in a solid mass. - - ‘Soap' (AW “sope’) appears twice in EV (Jer 222, . 3°). In each case it is the translation of nºna, a word connected with the root ºn; ‘to cleanse.” The previous clause in Jer 2* refers to hū, or mineral alkali (see NITRE). LXX translates nº in both places }. trola (“grass'). These facts suggest that vegetable alkali is to be understood rather than soap in the strict sense. The carbonate of potash contained in the ashes of plants has detergent properties similar to those of washing- soda. Another word, na, from the same root, usually rendered ‘cleanness,’ is tr. ‘lye' in RVm in Job 9", Is 1*, on the supposition that it means the same thing as nº, vegetable alkali or a solution of it. I,ITERATURE,--Thomson, Land and Book, i. 130; Warren, Underground Jerusalem, 500 f.; SWP, Flora, 308. JAMES PATRICK. SOBER, SOBRIETY.—Both “solver’ and “temper- ate’ are used in AV in the narrower meaning of ‘not drunk' or ‘not drunken,” and in the wider meaning of ‘moderate,’ ‘reasonable.” The earliest sense of ‘sober’ is ‘not drunken' (from l’r. sobre, Lat. Sobrius, i.e. so-cbrius), and that is now its only meaning; but it early adopted the wider signification, as Piers Plowman, B. xiv. 53– “Be sobre of syghte and of tonge, In etynge and in handlynge and in alle thi fyne wittis.” For an example of sober= not drunk, take Tindale's tr. of Nu 6” “And the absteyner shall shave his heed in the door of the tabernacle of witnesse, and shall take the heer of his sober heed and put it in the fyre which is under the pease offerynge.” Soberly (Wis 9", Ito 12°, Tit 21°), soberness (Ac 26”), and sobriety (1 Ti 2". *) are all used in both senses. Cf. Tindale, Pent. (1’rologe), ‘Dehold how soberly and how circumspectly both Abraham and also Isaac behave them selves amonge the infideles’; Tindale, Earpos. 127, ‘With their fast they destroy the fast which God commandeth, that is, a perpetual soberness to tame the flesh ’; Ac 26* Rhem. “I speake wordes of veritie and Solrietie’; Ro 12° Rhem. ‘For I say by the grace that is given me, to al that are annong you not to be more wise than behoveth to be wise, but to be wise unto sobrietie.” The words rendered “Sober,' etc., or “temperate,' etc., in AV and IRV, are the following:— 1. (a) vºw, 1 Th 56.8, 2 Ti 46, 1 P 11847 58 (all “be sober' in AV except 2 Ti 46 ‘watch”; in RV all “be sober'). In every case the Greek word has the wider meaning of ‘moderate.’ (b) vºtos, 1 Ti 32 (AW ‘ vigilant'), 311 (AV ‘sober'), Tit 22 (AW “Sober’; all “temperate’ in IłV). In all these cases the meaning of the Greek is ‘not drunken.” 2. (a) oróppov, 1 Ti 32 (AV “sober'), Tit 18 (AV ‘sober'), 22 (AV ‘te:mperate’), 26 (AV “discreet'; all “sober-minded' in (b) orogºpovoz, Tit 212 (AV and RV ‘soberly’). (c) coºpovio, Mk 5/6-- Lk 890 (AV and I&V “in his right mind'), Ro 128 (ºpovery slº to oroºpavily, AW and RV ‘to think soberly'), 2 Co 518 (AV be sober’), Tit 20 (AV ‘be sober-minded'), 1 P47 (AV “be sober’; RV in last three ‘be of sober mind'). (d) coºperúwn, Ac 262 (AV and RV "soberness'), 1 Ti 29, is (AV and RV ‘sobriety'). 8. (a) #yxpérsio, Ac 2429, Gal 623, 2 P 10 bis (AV and I&V always “temperance,' RVnn always “self-control'). % $yxpºrºs, Tit 18 (AV and RV “temperate'). (c) #yxporsioact, 1 Co 79 (AV ‘contain,’ RV ‘have conti- nency'), 92% (AW and RV “be temperate'). It thus appears that in RV ‘sober,’’ ‘sober-minded,” etc., represent oraºpov and its derivatives, as well as wāpa, ; “temper. ate' is the tr. of vºxios and of the derivatives of $3.2 poz reto. ' while for #2. itself “temperance’ is retained from AV, with the marg. ‘self-control.” For the difference between #yxpocrá; and oráçowy see Page on AC 2425. J. Plas'TINGS. SOCO, SOCOH (nºw, ribºy ‘branches”; Soccho, Socho). — The form of the name varies in the LXX (see below), and quite needlessly in AV. RV has Socoh everywhere except in 1 Ch 4° and 2 Ch 28.1°, where it has Soco. 1. A town in the lowland of Judah, mentioned with Adullam and Azekah (Jos 15” B Xaw3.4%, A Xw3.6). The Philistines, before the battle in which Goliath was slain, assembled at Socoh, and camped between Socoh and Azekah, at Ephes - dammim (l S 17' ; Jos. Amt. VI. ix. 1). It was in the district of Ben-hesed, one of Solomon’s commis- sariat officers (1 K4"); and was fortified by Relio- boam (2 Ch 117; Amt. VIII. x. 1). In the reign of Ahaz it was taken by the Philistines (2 Ch 28°). Eusebius and Jerome (Onom.) mention two villages—one in the mountain, the other in the plain, or an upper and lower Socoh—which were 9 Roman miles from Eleutheropolis, on the road to Jerusalem, and were called Socchoth (Sokxtó6). Socoh was passed by St. Paula on her way from Jerusalem to Eleutheropolis (Horraci, Ep. Paul. xviii.). This place is now Khurbet Shºrt- weikeh (a diminutive of Shawkeh, the Arabic form of Shoco), on the left bank of Wądy es-Sumt, “the Valley of Elah.” The position, strong by nature, was of strategical importance, for it commanded one of the great highways from the coast to the hill-country of Judah. Beneath Shuweikeh, the PVády es-Sumt makes a great bend, and runs west- ward instead of from south to north. And here, at the foot of the highland district, the roads from Jerusalem and Hebron inite, before running on- wards down the Yºlº the plains of Philistia. The important part played lº. Socoln in the wars between the Jews and the Philistines is clearly indicated in the Bible narrative (Rob. BI: Pºii. 21; PEF' Mem. iii. 125 ; Guérin, Judée, i. 201, 332). - 2. A town in the hill-country of Judah, named with Jattir, Dannah, and Debir (Jos 15* B Xaxa, A Sox9). The Soco of 1 Ch 4” is apparently the same place. It is now Khurbet Shuweikeh, to the S.W. of Hebron, and near Eshtemoa. There are some insignificant remains (I&ob. BIRP” i. 494; PEF (Mem., iii. 410). At Socoh, according to the Talmud, was born Antigonus, the first Jew known to have taken a Greek name, -who was noted as the disciple of Sinnon the Just, and the master of Sadok, the reputed founder of the Sadducees. It is not, how- ever, known of which of the two Socohs he was a native (Neubauer. Géog. dw Talmud, ). 121). C. W. WILSON. SOD, SODDEN.—See SEETHE. SODI (Tºp, perh. = Tºp “intimacy of Jah'). —The father of the Zebulunite spy, Nu 13" (B Xovöel, A Xovöl). SODOM (nip, Xóðoua).-One of the five ‘cities of the Plain’ in the time of Abraham and Lot, destroyed by ſire from heaven ((in 19°), for the wickedness of the inhabitants.” Its position, in * The five cities were Sodom, Gonnorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Zoar (Gn 142, Dt 2029). That the language of St Jude is not SODOM, VINE OF SOLOMON 559 the opinion of the present writer, was on the Arabah north of the Dead Sea not far from GO- MORRAH (which see). Weighty authorities, how- ever, can be cited in favour of a site at the S. end of the Sea (Dillm. Genesis, 111 f.; Robinson, BRP” ii. 187 ff. ; G. A. Smith, HGHL 505ff.; Blanckenhorn, ZDPV xix. (1896) 53 ff. ; Baedeker-Socin, Pal. 3, 146; Buhl, GAP 117, 271, 274; see also art. ZOAR). The wickedness of the Sodomites appears to have been so heinous and debasing as to have become proverbial (Gn 131° 18°, La 4", Is 3", cf., 2 P 2", Jude 7). The term ‘Sodomite” (vip) is used in Scrip- ture to describe offences against the laws of nature which were frequently connected with idolatrous practices (cf. Dt 237, 1 K 14* 151*, 2 K 237; see art. SODOMITE). The fate of Sodom and Gomorrah is referred to by our Lord as a warning to those who reject the offer of the gospel (Mt 10”; cf. Jude 7, 2 P 2"). A spiritual or typical meaning is applied to the word in Iłevelation (11°). E. HULL. SODOMITE (ºp, lit. ‘sacred'; fem. nyip, inade- º tr. by EW ‘harlot,” see note in RV m at Gn 38”).—The Eng. word is derived from SoDOM [in 2 Es 780 “Sodomites’ of AV is used in lit. sense for “people of Sodom” (so RV)], where unnatural offences prevailed. But the Heb. kõldésh and Icédèshâh, have in view not ordinary immorality but religious prostitution, i.e. “immorality practised in the worship of a deity and in the immediate precincts of a temple’ (Driver, Deut. 264, where see references to authorities for the widespread existence of this practice). Such tep56ovXot of either sex were not tolerated in Israel by the IDeuteronomic law (Dt 2318. 19 (7. 19)). The kédèshim. are said to have been banished from Judah by Asa (1 K 15”). References to them are found also in 1 K 14* 227 (46), 2 K 237, Job 36”, while we meet with kédésháth in Gn 38” and Hos 4*. J. A. SELDIE. SODOMITISH SEA, THE (mare Sodomiticum), 2 Es 57.-A name for the Dead Sea. One of the signs of the times to come there given is that ‘ the Sodom sea shall cast out fish (cf. Ezk 47° for the belief that fish could not live in its waters), and make a moise in the night which many have not known.” This is the only passage in the Bible or the Apocr. which directly connects the lake with the Cities of the Plain ; and even here the name may be derived from the closeness of Sodom to the lake, and not from the incorrect theory of that city having been submerged by the Dead Sea. H. ST. J. THACKERAY. SOJOURNER.—See GER. SOLEMN, SOLEMNITY.—Derived through Old Fr. solempne from Lat. Sollemmis (from sollus, entire, and ammus, a year), “Solemn means pro- perly that which occurs annually, and is thence applied to any stated or regular occurrence. Thus Mt. 27". Wyg. ‘But for a solempne day (Rhem. “upon the solemne day’) the justise was wonte to dº to the puple oon bounden’; Lk 2" Wyc. “And his fadir and modir wenten eche yeer into Ierusalem, in the solempne daie of pask’ (Rhem. “at the solemne day of Pasche’). And then, as that which was stated, especially when public, was frequently grand or ceremonious, ‘solemn 'assumes this meaning; thus Shaks. Tit. Androm. II. i. 112, “A solemn hunting is in hand”; Macbeth, III. i. 14, ‘To-night we hold a solemn supper, sir.’ Such an occasion might be merry or sad, according to its nature; whence Chaucer, Prologue, 209– “A Frere ther was, a wantoun and a merye, A limitour, a ful solempne man.” Chaucer uses the word simply in the sense of ‘public in Persones Tale, 105, ‘The spyces of Penitence been three. That oon of hem is sol- empne, another is commune, and the thridde is privee.’ These examples illustrate the use of the word in AV., . In all its numerous occurrences it signifies ‘stated or ‘public,’ having no Heb. word corre- sponding to itself, but being used along with assembly or meeting for Tyy, or nºsy (see Driver on Am 5*); with feast or day sometimes (as Nu 101", La 1", Hos 2") for Tylp * (prop. stated time, then used esp. of stated sacred seasons [see Lv 23* RVm “appointed seasons’]) “solemn feast ’; also thrice in AV (Nah 11°, Mal 28, Ps 81%) for 17, and (with keep) for III, Dt 6"[RV omits ‘solemn,’ harmonizing with Lv 23”]. It is easy to understand how the modern sense of “serious,’ ‘grave,” or “gloomy” arose, but in AV that sense is never present. The expression “with a solemn sound' occurs in Ps 923 (“Upon the harp with a solemn sound'), on which de Witt remarks, “Heb. higgūyön, from the verb hêgêh, which is imitative of any low, suppressed sound, and especially applicable to the soft trill of the harp. The English Iłible has the rendering “solemn sound,” which does not at all represent the meaning of the word.” Not now, for the next verse says, “For thou, Lond, hast made me glad '; but “solemn' once expressed gladness as readily as gravity. Elyot (Govermow)", i. 41) speaks of the theatre as “an Open place where al the people of Rome behelde Solemne actis and playes.” In accordance with the meaning of “solemn,” solemnity always means a sacred or ceremonious occasion. It is the tr. of hály, a feast, in Is 30” (“in the night when a holy solemnity [RV ‘a holy feast ’) is kept '); and of mó'éd, a (sacred) season, in Dt 311" (RV “set time’), Is 33” (RV “solemnity,” RVm ‘set feast ’), Ezk 457 (RV ‘appointed feast ’), 46” (RV “solemnity,’ RVm ‘appointed feast'). The word also occurs in Sir 5019 the s. of the Lord’ (kóagos Kuplov, RV “worship of the Lord,” RV m ‘ Gr, adornment ’); and 2 Mac 15” “in no case to let that day pass without s.” (ätrapaaijuavrov, RV ‘undistinguished'). Cf. Shaks. Mids. Night's Dream, V. i. 376— “A fortnight hold we this solemnity, In nightly revels and new jollity.’ And so also solemnly means sacredly or cere- moniously, Gn 43° ‘The man did solemnly protest unto us’ (AV m ‘IIeb. protesting he did protest ); 1 S 8” “Howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them ’; 2 Mac 14* “of the boughs which were used solemnly in the temple' (rów vowtopičvaju 9a)\\óv rod lepod). Cf. Fuller, Holy War, 338, ‘His [the prince's] clothes are such as may beseem his Greatnesse, especially when he solemnly appears, or presents himself to forrein Embassadours. J. HASTINGS. SOLOMON (nbºy; BA Saxwu6v, Luc. SoNowºw and XaXouðv, NT and Josephus SoNowgºv).-The third king of Israel, a son of David and Bathsheba. overstrained in describing the habits of the Gentile inhabitants of Eastern countries will be clear from the account given by Prof. Rawlinson of the character of even the highly civilized Phoenicians of Tyre and Sidou : Llistory of Phoenicia. caressing word.' I 1. The Name.—Another name Jedidiah (TTT ‘beloved of Jah’; B' IXs)sſ, A. Els)3Xtc., Lue. 'Is}},3,4) was given him by the prophet Nathan as a pledge that the Lord would be specially gracious to him, and that his father was restored to the Divine favour. As that name, however, occurs only once (2 S 12”), we may infer that it never came into common use. Not improb- ably it may have been deemed too sacred for such use. The name Jedidiah has the same root as David, viz. TT ‘a primitive Wellhausen and others conform the Heb. text of 2 S 1225 to the Vulg, and represent David as the originator of the name. The hypothesis is unlikely consider- ing the diſterence of the relations of David and Nathan to J" at * 'lººp once also of solemn assembly. + On the distinction of uſ, and Tºp see vol. i. p. 800°. $ See Oaf, Ileb. Lea. 8, v. 560 SOLOMON SOLOMON *he time when the name was given, and that the name was a Sacred, one and the vehicle of a Divine message. Cheyne (art. ‘Jedidiah' in Enc. Bibl.) not only alters the text but makes for it a new context, and so arrives at the original and remarkable result that Jedidiah was David's ſirst son by Bathsheba, and that he called his second son by her not Shēlömöh, but ‘Shilliannó (bºw, i.e. “his compensation') because of Jedidiah.” Accord- ing to that finding, Solomon was never called Jedidiah. Nor was he entitled to the name of Solomon. His real name was Shilluno, although no Hebrew king is known to have borne that name. It is difficult to see where, on the hypothesis of , Cheyne, the consolation of David could come in. Nor is it §. that any Hebrew king would call his son by the name hillumo. Shillāmah is only used in the OT once (Ps 918), and it is in the sense not of compensation, but of retribution, the reward of the wicked (so shilliam in Hos 97, Is 848). Shilliºn, and shalmónim are also each used once (Mic 78, Is 123) of ‘rewards' in the sense of Uribes. According to one reading of 2 S 1224, it was Bathsheba that gave her son the name of Solomon. She may have done so. In the OT more instances are mentioned of the names of children being given by their mother than by their father. In a num- ber of cases the names are said to have been given by both parents, and that may have been so, as regards Solomon, although the evidence for David's º in the act is positive, and that for Bathsheba's only problematical. Accord- ing to one account of David's naming of Solomon, he is repre- sented as having acted under the belief that God had expressly directed him to give the child the name he did. The Chronicler (1 Ch 229) describes him as telling his successor that he had himself proposed to build a temple to J", but that the word of J" had forbidden him because of the blood he had shed, while promising him that the work would be accomplished by a son who would bear the name of Solomon, and have a reign of peace and quietness. Whether that statement be historically accurate or not cannot be decided by the merely historical evidence in our possession. There is, however, no internal impossibility in the account of the state of mind ascribed to David. On the contrary, that is psychologically quite natural. The name Shēlāmūh (Solomon) means ‘peaceful,” “pacific,” like the Gr. Irenaeus and Ger. Friedrich. And when Solomon was born, David was a man whose strength had been exhausted in war- fare, and who was keenly sensible of the blessings of peace both for a king and a kingdom. Hence it was altogether natural that at that period of time he should have given the name Solomon to a son on whom he placed high expectations and for whom he desired a happier life than his own, and very con- ceivable even that he may have felt that God directed him to name his child as he did. The name was certainly one which indicated well a prominent and distinctive feature of both the character and reign of Solomon. Although he ruled as an absolute monarch, allowed no rivals, and did not hesitate to Crush dangerous adversaries, he was not naturally cruel, and had no taste for war. He was a man of peace—the most peace-loving, perhaps, of the Hebrew kings; and under his sway there was for about forty years in Palestine, not absolute peace indeed, either as regards contentment within or cessation of hostility from without, but such peace as the Hebrew nation had never known before or was ever to know again. 2. The Sources.—The chief sources of informa- tion regarding the life and reign of Solomon are contained in the books of Kings and Chronicles. The narrative in Kings (1 K, 1-11”) is closely con- nected with a section of the books of Samuel (2 S 11–20). The latter is also a continuous nar- rative. It leads steadily P to the story in Kings, and shows in a graphic and picturesque way what obstacles blocked the way of Solomon's accession to the throne, and how unlikely it was that he would have reached it had J" not specially loved and favoured him. Along with the narrative in Kings it forms a whole in which there is both unity of plan and similarity of style. Both of our oldest sources are far from being contemporary documents. The record in Kings is historically much the more valuable ; but the compilation even of Kings cannot have been º: until about 400 years after the death of Solomon. The com- flºº of Chronicles was not completed until at east three centuries later. The author of the account in Chron. made use of the account in Kings, and added to it only little information of a strictly historical character. The author of the account in IXings refers (1 K 1141) to an older account ‘the book of the annals of Solomon.” The author of the account in Chron. refers (2 Ch 929) to (a) “the words of Nathan the Prophgº' (b) “the pro- phecy of Ahijah the Shilonite,’ and (c) “the vision of Iddo the seer.’ See artt. ICING8 and CHRONICLES. Through the hands of what authors and editors Kings and Chron. passed before they reached their º form no one knows, and even the process by which they became what they are has been only vaguely ascertained. The loss of older records than those which we possess is all the more to be regretted, as both Kingu and Chron. were written largely under the influence of ...”. motives and with a view to religious edification. Merely to record events and trace their connexions, causes, and course of movement had no interest for the authors of them. What they were chiefly concerned with was how they might make known the hand and voice of God in His dealings with Israel, and with her friends and foes. The authors of the accounts in Samuel, Kings, and Chron. were manifestly men of limited views, men of their time, and much influenced in what they wrote by the feelings and beliefs prevalent in their social medium. They are entitled, however, to be credited with honesty and piety in intention. Their account has its faults. Although they assign a comparatively large space to Solomon, they give us no very precise or vivid description either of his private life or public career, and no distinct view of the order of succession of events in his reign. They may not be wholly to blame for that, nor may it be much to be regretted that they did not succeed better. Seemingly, the character of Solomon was one exceptionally difficult to portray. , Saul and David were far more interesting personages, and it is natural that they should have been presented in a far more lifelike manner. Solomon is left by his biographers an imposing, but very in- distinct figure. Was that, however, not just as it should be? Was not want of reality his great want? If so, could he have been more truly and wisely represented than he was’ The accounts given of him in both Kings and Chron. are priestly in tone and tendency, but that in Chron. is much more so than that in Kings. The general view given of the character and reign of Solomon in the latter is far more discriminating than that in the former. . While in Kings the glory of Solomon is dwelt on with patriotic pride, the mischievousness of his conduct is also clearly set forth, whereas in Chron. what tends to glorify him is alone dwelt on, and what was unworthy of his reputation, judged of from a Levitical point of view, is either passed over unnoticed or very slightly indicated. There are no traces, however, of conscious dishonesty in the Chronicler, no grounds for holding him to have stated what he did not believe, while it is of great advantage to have two accounts which so far agree and so far differ. The Chronicler assumed certain preconcep- tions current in his age as to the history of his people to be unquestionably true, and wrote his history in conformity with those preconceptions. That, however, is what all historians do, even the most advanced and critical. History cannot be written without preconceptions, and preconceptions cannot but lead to conclusions j, must appear to those who do not accept them falsifications of the historical data. The Chronicler’s }. in the glory of Solomon and in the position attained by srael under him, the exaggerated importance which he assigned to priests and priestly things, his prodigality as regards number, and other peculiarities, are themselves most instructive, because characteristic of him not as an individual merely, but also as a representative of the time and society to which he belonged. His estimate of the conduct of Solomon does not substantially differ from that given in Išings. It amounts to a severe con- demnation—-one all the more severe coming as it does from a writer so biassed in his favour—of the evil which he had done ºthstanding his vast means and opportunities of doing good. * The fragments of ancient historians quoted by Josephus (Amt. VIII. ii. 6), by Eusebius of Caesarea. (Praep. Ev. ix. 34), and by Clemens Alex. (Strom. i. 386) add little, if anything, to our knowledge of Solomon beyond what is stated in 18 ings and Chronicles. The narrative of Josephus himself in Ant. VIII. i.-viii. depends almost entirely on the Biblical records. Where he deviates from them, he is rarely to be trusted. It is noteworthy that he describes Solomon as a powerful sorcerer. That had already become in his time a generally accepted belief among the Jews, and º W ºu.S. not confined to them. It is especially as a sor- cerer and lord over the elements, animals, aphrºdts and jinn, that he is renowned in the East. The Oriental imagination has run riot in the invention of legends regarding him.” The writings long attributed to Solomon, to be found in the OT or the Apocrypha, cannot in the present state of opinion among Biblical critics as * Jewish legends of the kind referred to are to be found in the Targum on Eccles, and II. Targ. on Esther. For those in the Koran see suras 21. 27, 28.37. For the opinions of Jewish Rabbis see Lisenmenger, I'mtdeck. Jud. 351 ff.: 440 ft. For Mohammedan stories, Weil, Bibl. Legenden der Musselmänner, 225 ft.; Baring Gould, Legends of OT Characters, vol. ii. ch. xxxvii. f.; and Lane's Thousand and Ome Nights (Index. $. ‘Suleiman ibn David'), Hottinger's IIist, Qr., IIerbelot's Jºb!. O). 833, and the historians Abulfeda, Tabari, and Ludolph (Hist. 10th.) may also be referred to. M. D., Conway, in his Solomon and Solomonic Jiterature (Open Court Pub. Co., Chicago, 1900) deals with the Solomon mythology as a whole in an ingenious hut often yery arbitrary way. He considers the external and historical data insufficient to prove certainly that an individual Solomon ever existed' (p. 1). - SOLOMON SOLOMON 56] to their authorship be assumed to supply materials for his biography. He may have been the author of a few of the Psalms and a number of the Pro- verbs, but to prove him so and to establish which are his is difficult. The SONG OF SONGS cannot be his, but it has a historical value dependent neither upon its date nor its authorship, but on its testimony to the impression which Solomon's character had left on certain Jewish minds. The WISDOM OF SOLOMON, which professes to have Solomon for author, shows what impression he had left on a very different class of minds at a still later date. As to the relation of ECCLISI- ASTEs to Solomon, see art. in the present work and in Enc. Biblica ; cf. also Sir 42*. Con- siderable sidelight has been cast on the Solomonic age in Israel by archaeological and historical investigations, but it has not so much increased our knowledge of Solomon himself as of his build- Ings, the topography of his capital, the geography of his kingdom, the ethnology and ancient histor of it, and the state of the countries with which the Israel of his time was brought into contact, — subjects which cannot be dealt with in this article. Modern criticism of the Biblical sources has dis- elled many erroneous views regarding Solomon's ife and reign ; but it has, of course, not increased, and cannot be expected to increase, that know- ledge of positive facts regarding them, which is the great desideratum. 3. Birth, parentage, and training.—The account of the birth of Solomon in 2 S 12* * conveys the impression that he was the second child of David and Bathsheba. The lists of their children in 2 S 514, 1 Ch 3", and 1 Ch 14*, on the other hand, seem to imply that he was their fourth child, their youngest son, and that Shammua (or Shimea), Shobab, and Nathan had been previously born to them, as in all those lists his name is mentioned last. No quite satisfactory explanation of the Apparent discrepancy has yet been given. . The *. perhaps, is that Solomon was mentioned last as being the most important member of the family group, the heir to his father's throne. Nathan, by his rebuke of David, lost none of his influence with either him or bathsheba, and con- tinued to be the friend of both. He prophesied good for their child, and strongly supported his cause at the moment when it was most in danger. Owing to that and the vagueness of a phrase in 2 S 12”, he has very generally been held to have had the charge of Solomon’s education. There is, however, no real foundation for the opinion. Scarcely any information is given us, regarding Solomon previous to his elevation to the throne. It may safely be inferred from what he was in manhood that his education had not been neglected in youth, and that he must have been very recep- tive of learning and eager to excel in accomplish- ments; but there is nothing to indicate that he was trained under any prophet, or that he was in sympathy with anything distinctive of prophetic ğ. or prophetic ideals of life. There is no trace of Nathan, or any other prophet, having had any in ſluence over him when king. The prophetic ministry almost disappeared during his reign. What prophets there were in Israel in his day were opposed to his policy. Far more probably he was educated in his father's palace. In various respects the court of David must have been the best school possible for the education of David's successor, while in others one most apt to develop the defects so conspicuous in Solomon's after-life. The atmosphere of a court presided over by David, and agitated by the internal dissensions and con- flicting passions to which despotic power and polygamy combined necessarily gave rise, cannot |. been favourable to his healthy moral growth. VOL. IV.-36 There is no definite information given us as to how far or in what ways he was influenced by his mother ; but there can be no reasonable doubt that her influence was considerable. To have retained the hold , which she had upon David and the rank which she held among his wives, she must have been more than merely “a very beautiful woman’ (2 S 11*). She unust have been also a talented and sagacious one. That she was in close alliance with Nathan, that Adonijah sought her aid on his behalf in the belief that her son would refuse nothing that she asked, and that Solomon received her with the utmost reverence when she presented . herself before him, are indications of fact which all point in one direction. We may accordingly infer that she had considerably contributed to the for- mation of Solomon's character. 4. Adonijah's rebellion. — There is very little further information given regarding Solomon pre- vious to his accession to the throne. The account in 1 Ch 22” describes David’s preparation for the building of the temple, and records his charges to Solomon and the princes. If it be in its proper lace in the book—a point on which there is room for difference of opinion—it clearly shows that Adonijah's rebellion was inexcusable. There is, however, nothing elsewhere to correspond to it, nor are there any means afforded us of verifying what needs verification in it. The rebellion of ADONIJAH was what necessitated the elevation of Solomon to the throne before his father’s death. Adonijah was then, perhaps, his father’s eldest son, and may naturally have considered himself to have had on that ground a preferential claim to the throne. There was at that time, however, no authoritative law or settled precedent to regu- late the succession. Adonijah himself does not seem to have rested his claim on right or precedent, but on the goodwill of the people. ‘Thou knowest,’ he said to Bathsheba when obviously trying to make the most of his own cause,_* thou knowest that the kingdom was mine, and that all Israel set their faces on me, that I should reign : howbeit the kingdom is turned about, and is become my brother's : for it was his from the Lord’ (1 K 215). That is a very intelligible view, and all the more so that we know the people of Israel in the time of David and Solomon unquestion. ably felt that, they had some right, to consideration in the appointment of their kings. The Northern tribes unmistakably showed that when they rejected Solomon's only son. It is none the less very misleading to speak of Adonijah as “the rightful heir' to the throne, as Stade and some other critics do. The ‘rightful heir to the throne” in an absolute monarchy such as Israel had become under David, was the son nominated by the reigning monarch. It has been so in all such monarchies; and wherever polygamy has prevailed in these monarchies, younger sons have been often appointed to the exclusion of the eldest. The present Shah of Persia is an instance of “a rightful monarch,' although he has an older and, it is said, exceptionally able brother. The appointment of the youngest son to the throne was very common in the despotisms of India. Adonijah, it would seem, was “a very goodly man,’ captivating in his manners, fond of display and magnificence, anbitious, and scheming. He made it quite apparent that he wished to be king, assumed royal honours, and gained over to his side powerful allies, in Joab the general of the army, Abiathar the priest, and the princes of the royal house. In a word, he began to play the rôle of the ill-fated Absalom. The conspirators may possibly have deemed that his seniority of birth or superiority of qualifications gaye him a right to reign. They may also have possibly deemed that it was expedient for him to ascend the throne at once owing to David's bodily weakness. . Iłut they were certainly engaged in a real and formidable conspiracy kept secret from the king, and meant to set him aside and to thwart his wishes. Their attempt does not seem to have been either skil- fully planned or strongly supported in popular feeling. The account given of it and of its failure in l is 1°-90 distinctly conveys that impression. 562 SOLOMON SOLOMON As soon as divulged, the whole plot came to naught.” 5. Commencement of reign and first acts.—David Soon afterwards died, and Solomon succeeded him without opposition. The year in which he began to reign has not been determined, nor are there et known data for doing so exactly. He is said oth in Kings and Chron. to have reigned forty years; but that may be a round, not an exact, number. If exact, however, we may assign about B.C. 970 as the time at which he began to reign, since there are good reasons for considering B.C. 930 as about the first year of Jeroboam’s reign— the year in which Solomon died. The Jewish and Arabic tradition that Solomon was only twelve years old when he began to reign, obviously originated in misconception of the meaning of the words in 1 K 37 ºf an but a little child ; I know not how to go out or conne in,” etc.; words not to be taken literally, but as a humble confession of inadequacy, owing to youth and inexperience, for the great task of royalty. The generally received view that he was about twenty years old when he began to reign cannot be far amiss. According to Josephus, Solomon began to reign when he was fourteen years of age ; but, in the same sentence he tells as he reigned eighty years, and died at the age of ninety-four (Amt. VIII. vii. 8). He does not mention the source of his information.f The first concern of Solomon as king naturally was to make his seat secure. The Chronicler characteristically says nothing regarding the way in which he established himself in his kingdom. The whole account, however, in 1 K 21°–38 seems worthy of credence. It represents Solomon as acting with great decision and vigour, and yet as not inflicting punishment beyond what was deemed necessary. He struck only at the heads of the conspiracy which had been formed against him. Considering that he was an Oriental ruler, not his cruelty but his clemency was exceptional. I)avid is not recorded to have advised the taking of any strong measures against Adonijah, and Solomon had granted him a pardon accompanied with a stern warning. Very naturally, however, and probably quite correctly, he interpreted his re- quest to have Abishag for a wife as a proof that he had not abandoned his pretensions to the throne. Bathsheba, it has been argued, would not have communicated the request to her son if she had deemed it treasonable in intention. Per- laps not, but perhaps also she did not act in earnest for the good of the son of Haggith. Abiathar was leniently dealt with in considera- tion of his past loyalty. I)avid, according to 1 K 2", had advised the putting to death of Joab ; but, even if he did not do so (see art. JoAB), Solomon could not have been expected to spare his life. Joab was the most dangerous enemy he could possibly have in all Israel. He was so resolute, so able, so much a favourite with the army, that even David had not been able to keep him in check. Not inferior, and seemingly even superior, to David as a counnander, there was no one left in Israel to compare with him in military ability. His successor Benaiah was a valiant warrior, and an efficient tool for an abso- lute ruler to have at hand, but there is no evidence * Wellhausen, Stade, and other eminent critics represent Nathan and Bathsheba, Zadok and Benaiah, as conspirators, and the choice of Solomon by David as the result of a palace intrigue. It is possible to think so, but the supposition appears to the Pº writer to be merely conjectural. As to what is related of David's advice to Solomon in 1 K 21-12 and 1 Ch 216-19 and 28–291-22, see the art. DAvid in the present work, and Iºne. Bib., and the commentators mentioned under leading of Literatºtre. # Perhaps 1 IS 314 sufficed to suggest to him the eighty years' reign and ninety-four years of life. It is not unlikely, however, that earlier Jewish authors may have written to the same effect. The promise of length of days was a merely conditional one, and Solomon did not fulfil the condition. Stade rightly holds it as certain that Solonjon must have reigned over thirty years, but inconclusively infers from 1 K 15] and 2 Ch 1218 that he could not have reigned forty years (see his G VI i. 307). that he was a great general. Joab could neither have respect for the character of a man like Solomon, nor sympathy with his policy; indeed a reign like that of Solomon could hardly have been possible so long as Joab was at the head of the Hebrew army. The view of Guthe and others, that David and Solomon hoped that the putting of Joab to death would avert the vengeance which his crimes might otherwise bring upon the house of David may be correct, but it is not necessary to account for his death. Resentment and policy are sufficient to account for it. They also account best for the way in which Shimei was dealt with. It does not appear that he was implicated in the conspiracy, but he had been a bitter enemy of David, was suspected of being still disloyal and hostile to the house of David, and, on account of his influence with the Benjamites, was deemed dangerous to the peace and comfort of the new monarch. 6. Convocation at Gibeon, dream and request.— The way in which Solomon dealt with the enemies whom he had recently feared could not fail greatly to “strengthen him in his kingdom.' . He not only thereby got rid of them, but showed to his sub- jects that young as he was he was neither weak nor foolish, but a shrewd and capable man, who could effectively discharge the functions of a king, and might be hoped to act neither capriciously nor cruelly. To have gained so great a triumph at the very commencement of his reign was enough to secure his popularity, for with the populace of all times and places, “nothing succeeds like suc- cess.’ When he felt himself secure on his throne he resolved to make manifest his gratitude to J", and proceeded to do so on a scale indicative of his taste for magnificence and display in worship, as in other things. He called a convocation of his captains, judges, governors, and heads of houses, at the ancient city of Gibeon, where was a famed bămâh, ‘a great high place,’ and there, surrounded by his dignitaries, he offered in thanks to God a thousand burnt-offerings—‘a thousandfold holo- caust’—on the brazen altar which stood before the sanctuary and could be seen from afar. On the following night the king dreamed that Jº appeared to him and asked what He should give him, and that he replied by asking “an under- standing heart to judge aright' the great people entrusted to his charge while so young and in- experienced. He dreamed also that, because such had been his request, God promised him not only what he asked for—wisdom and knowledge—but also wealth and honour, and, conditionally, how- ever, on conformity to the Divine law, length of days. The dream was naturally accepted by the king as a Divine communication. To Solomon there seems to have never been vouchsafed any clearer or higher form of Divine revelation than the dream. 7. Solomon’s judgment.—According to his bio- grapher in Kings, he was soon afforded an '''. tunity of displaying the wisdom which he had asked for and received. From Gibeon he returned to Jerusalem, where the ark of the covenant was now located in the tabernacle erected by 1)avid on Mount Zion, and there also presented offerings to J”, and likewise made a feast to all his servants. At Jerusalem he was forth with called to pronounce a decision between two harlots who both claimed the same live child while each affirmed that a dead one was her neighbour's. The way at which he at once arrived at the truth immediately made him famous, and has greatly helped to maintain his re- putation for wisdom ever since. . It showed an in- stinctive insight into the workings of the human heart very remarkable in so young a man, and a keenness of practical disce rnment of a kind invalu- SOLOMON SOLOMON 563 *— - - able in one whose chief duty was to act as the Supreme judge in all disputed cases throughout Israel. That “all Israel heard of it, and feared the king, for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him, to do judgment,” may well be be: lieved. That there was nothing miraculous in it may as reasonably be admitted. Innumerable examples of the same kind of wisdom as remark- able and as well authenticated might easily be given. Far more wonderful stories of a similar kind, are told of Solomon himself, but they are entirely fictitious. The story, as told in 1 K 31°, can alone be regarded as historical narrative. Josephus (AAvt. VIII. ii. 2) seems to have had no other source of information, yet he gives a very distorted version of it. He represents the king 8,S Fº to divide both the dead and the live child, and the people as privately laughing at the proposal as that of a mere youth.” 8. Solomon's policy dependent on David’s.—The task which fell to Solomon was that of building up a kingdom on a foundation already laid and on lines . drawn. A reign like his was only made G possible by what Samuel, Saul, and David had accomplished. Samuel, the last of the Judges, was also the first of them whose influence extended over all Israel, and was powerful enough to recon- struct the theocracy on a monarchical basis. Saul, by his struggles with the l’hilistines, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, and Amalekites, rendered comparatively easy the consolidation of all the tribes of Israel into a nation under David. It was David, however, who made the policy of Solomon feasible, who indicated both by his counsels and example how it could be carried into effect, and who enabled him to start with a sufficiency of the means necessary to enter on his schemes of ambition and to revolutionize the manners and the ideals of Israel. Solomon seems to have done little which his father had not in- itiated : both imitated the doings and methods of Oriental despots. 9. His military policy. — Solomon had not the genius requisite to extend his kingdom. He seems to have had no military taste or talent ; and cer- tainly the glory of the conqueror he but little sought and Tittle won. He was content to main. tain and develop what he had inherited, and to abstain from dangerous adventures. The weak condition of the surrounding States would have presented to an ambitious warrior-king a strong * There is no mention of the incident in Chronicles. The story told by Diodorus Siculus of Ariophanes, king of Thrace, in general character resembles very closely that of Rings. On the death of the lºing of the Cimmerians, three young men appeared before Ariophanes claiming to be the only son of the deceased king, without producing adequate evidence for the truth of their claims. Ariophanes ordered them to hurl a º at the corpse of their alleged father. Two consented, ut one refused, and he was declared to be the true son and heir of the deceased monarch. Another parallelis the account which Suctonius gives of a judgment of Claudius (Lives of the Twelve Caesars). A woman refused to acknowledge that a young man who claimed to be her son was so. In the absence of other means of deciding on which side was the truth, the emperor ordered the woman to marry the youth, and so obliged her to acknowledge that the latter was her son. Most of the Oriental parallels have a manifestly mythical and fabulous setting. In some of them, however, the resemblance is so close as to amount almost to verbal repetition. See Benfey's Pantschatamtra, i. 804-800, ii. 544, also Kleine Schriftem, 3rd Abt. 171 ff.: lºng, tr. of the ‘I(ah-Gyur' (Trübner's Or. Sør.)—the tale of Visãkhā; Weber's Indische Streifen, iii. 60 (also T. Steele's Am. Jºasterm. Love Story, Trübner, 1871, pp. 218 f. 248 f.); Reinh, Köller, GGA, 1872, pp. 1210-1221; Fausböll, Buddhist Birth Stories, tr. by Rhys Davids, vol. i. xiv-xvi; and Rev. de l'Histoire de Rel. . xxxviii. (1898), art. by Leclère, “Une version cambodgienne du Jugemont de Salomon,’ 176–187. In the last-mentioned version, 1 mother, her child, a female ogress in Woman's form, and a Buddhist Solomon, “the noble Mohosoth,’ are the parties. To the questions whether the stories of the judgments of Solo- mon, Ariophanes, and Claudius are legendary or historical, and whether * judgment of Solomon originated in the Indian stories or had its origin in India, definite answers do not seem to have been as yet arrived at. temptation to attempt to create a powerful Semitic empire, which, if unified and vivified by faith in J", might have anticipated Islam by a millennium and a half and given the history of Israel a very different direction. Yet Solomon, far from being a feeble or incapable monarch, was an able, shrewd, and enterprising one, who knew well how to mag- nify his office, further his interests, and attain his ends. He must have had very exceptional adminis- trative talent, and he applied it to military as well as civil organization. Not otherwise could he have preserved for forty years the security and unity of a nation, so recently and loosely constituted; kept down its strong disruptive tendencies; and prose- cuted a policy which must have been obnoxious to the majority of his subjects. Although he did not increase his territory, he kept a firm hold of it, and made his sphere of influence much wider than his father's had been. His troubles with HADAD, REZON, and JEROBOAM prove nothing to the con- trary. The account of them given in 1 K 11” is placed—obviously with a view to religious ediſi; cation—in the closing period of his reign, instead of at or near its commencement ; and the informa- tion which it conveys, although it may be received as trustworthy so far as it goes, is scanty, and can- not be supplemented either from other Biblical or non-Biblical sources. It does not appear that Solomon’s adversaries gained much advantage over him. Hadad was doubtless, and very excusably, as troublesome a neighbour to him and his people as he could be, and did them all the ‘mischief' in his power; but there is no evidence that he became king of Edom, or that Edom under him secured independence. The fact that the port of Elath re- mained in Solomon’s hands showed that the king of Israel was the overlord of Edom. As regards Rezon ben-Hadiada, he may have made himself master of Danmascus even in the lifetime of David. There is no evidence of David’s having had an acknowledged and effective suzerainty over Syria. And, besides, although we are told that Rezon ‘ was a foe to Israel all the days of Solomon,’ it does not appear that he succeeded in seizing any portion of Israelitish territory. Jeroboam’s attempt to stir up sedition against him can still less rele- vantly be referred to as evidence of his weakness, seeing that it was a failure, and Jeroboam did not venture to return from Egypt until he heard that Solomon was dead. Solomon left out of his military calculations the possibilities neither of invasion from without nor of insurrection from within. He strengthened his capital by the construction of fortifications which David had only begun or merely contemplated. See art. MILLO. He established fortified cities, well - garrisoned and well - provisioned, at well- chosen strategic points (see HAZOR, MEGIDDO, GEZER, DETH-HORON, BAALATII, TAMAR). He thus guarded the kingdom against attack at all its more vulnerable points, as well as increased the safety of the sacred city. By adding to his army a force of 12,000 horsemen and 1400 war chariots, he must have greatly increased its eſtigi- ency. The innovation was unpopular among the ultra-conservative and superstitious portion of the community, but it was a real improvement. In the plaims of N. Palestine, on the borders of Phil- istia, and in most directions beyond the national boundaries, cavalry could not fail to be of great ad- vantage. The Canaanites had employed it with success against the Israelites in the time of the Judges. Before its adoption by Solomon it had come into use in all the neighbouring States. Once introduced, it was adhered to so long as Israel and Judah retained their independence. 10. A prominent feature of Solomon's policy was his full recognition of the importance of interna- 564 SOLOMON SOLOMON i tional alliances. He immensely increased his power and influence by the treaties which he formed with the rulers of neighbouring States. The most advan- tageous of them was that formed with Hiram, kin of Tyre—the continuation of an alliance forme in the time of David, but utilized by Solomon to an. immensely, greater extent than by David, Without it Solomon could not have given effect either to a commercial policy or to his desire to build the temple and beautify Jerusalem. for the manifest benefit of both the contracting }..."; To Hiram it ensured, in case of attack rom the landward side of his kingdom, the aid of a powerful army in its defence; an abundant supply at all times of such commodities as corn, oil, and wine; an enlarged traffic with the Hebrews by way of Joppa ; and the opening up of the Y&m Sūph *... Red Sea), and of the ocean beyond it, to the enterprise of his mariners and merchants. To Solomon it was equally advantageous. It enabled him to enter into , mercantile copartnership with Hiram, and in conjunction with him to have ships trading both in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. Whatever may have been the exact position of TARSHISH and OPHIR, Solomon must have had vessels on both seas. If Elath and Ezion-geber were open to him, Joppa or Dor was still more so. He was not the man to make a foolish bargain, or to prefer doing business on a small to a large scale. That he derived annually from his foreign trade as much revenue as his historians (1 K 101*, 2 Ch 9**) state is very difficult to believe. The trade, how- ever, may well have been a very lucrative one. And, obviously, without the aid of Hiram and his subjects Solomon could have found neither the ships nor the men necessary to him for engagin in it. Nor was he less dependent on the skill an tastes of Phoenician artists and artisans for the construction and ornamentation of the buildings on which his desires were set, and to which he was to owe so much of his fame in future ages. His own subjects were incapable of ºpplying workmen of the kind needed, whereas the Phoe- nicians were famous for their proficiency in archi- tecture and the plastic arts. It was chiefly from Phoenicia that Hebrew art was derived. In that sphere the influence of Egypt on Israel was not direct, but through Phoenicia.” - Next in importance to the Tyrian was the Egyp- tian alliance (1 K 3"). The Pharaoh with whom Solomon entered into alliance is not named in the Bible, but must have been one of the last of the Tanite Pharaohs (perhaps the last—Pasebchanu II., called by Manetho Novgevils). Solomon obtained a daughter of the Pharaoh for his wife, and received with her as a dowry the town of Gezer, which her father had captured. Gezer was a valuable gift, and the marriage itself seems to have flattered the pride both of Solomon and of his subjects. In the age of the Chronicler and of the Jews of later times the marriage came to be regarded by the pious as disastrous, but there is no trace of such a feeling in the older historical sources. The first great edifice which Solomon caused to be built was not the temple of J", but a palace for the Egyptian prin- cess. The daughter of Pharaoh was always the chief personage in his harem. In all probability she had received a much more comprehensive and * In the Historics of Phoenicia by Kenrick, Rawlinson, Movers, Pietschmann, in Renan's Mission en. Phénioie, in CIS ii. tome 1 and 2, and in Perrot and Chipiez' Hist. de l'Art, much infor- mation is to be obtained as to the relations between the Phoe- nicians and the Hebrews, The reigns of Hiram and Solomon appear to have been contemporary almost all through, as the former is said (Menander, fr. 1) to have begun to reign when nine- teen years old and to have been fifty-three years old when he died. The enumeration given in 1 K 713ſt of the qualifications of the Hiram who was Solomon's chief architect and artist, indicates what the Phoenicians could teach the IIebrows during the reign Df Solomon. It was refined education and training than his Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite wives and concubines. His own tastes, indeed, were of a kind which would have º him to imitate the style of life of a Pharaoh, but they must have been strengthened by his marriage with a Pharaoh’s daughter. However explained, his ideal of king- ship was the ideal which had for ages been con- spicuously exemplified in Egypt. Like the Tyrian . the Egyptian alliance was uninterrupted throughout his reign, and of the latter as of the former he would seem to have taken full advan- tage.” That he bought droves of horses and large numbers of chariots in Egypt and sold them at high prices to Hittite and Syrian kings may be fairly inferred from 1 K 10** and 2 Ch 1", 17, it by Mizraim in those verses Fº be meant."h #. also promoted and protected the carrying and caravan trade, which extended almost from the Nile to the Euphrates. He saw that the geo- graphical position of Palestine—between the Medi- terranean, Red Sea, and the Desert—gave him command of the chief highways of Asiatic com- merce, and power to secure to himself a share of the profits of the greatest markets of the then known world (those of Egypt and Chaldaea), fully recognized the importance of trade and commerce, and acted accordingly. Therein lay, perhaps, his greatest originality as a Hebrew ruler. His pre- i.”. Judges, Saul, and David—could not do so, continually engaged as they were in fierce struggles with their enemies in and around Pales- tine. The general result of their struggles made his wider and more humane views and schemes of olicy possible and so far realizable; but to himself !. the credit of their inception and prosecu- tion.: Looked at in itself, his foreign policy must be pronounced on the whole a reasonable one. And it had good results. It was a policy of peace; it saved his subjects from the miseries of war; it enriched certain classes and benefited in some degrees other classes; it made the Hebrews better acquainted with the greatness, the wealth, and the state of civilization of the world around them, widened their views, corrected sundry prejudices, suggested improvements, and stimulated activity. It was, perhaps, the chief factor in making the Solomonic age the period of greatest materiaſ pro- gress in the history of Israel. Yet it is quite possible to estimate too highly the external policy of Solomon, while quite impossible to estimate it aright without viewing it in relation to his internal policy. There is no evidence that it was disapproved of by his subjects, and he did not enter into, what would have been abhorrent to them,any alliance with the Canaanites; but it was the expression merely of the king's will, not of the national desire, and when the king died no one thought of continuing his policy. On the contrary, so long as the nation retained its national existence, it tended increas- ingly to self-isolation. 11. As regards the domestic policy of Solomon, the list of his chief officials in 1 K. 4 is of special in- * Neither the general Histories of Antiquity nor the special Histories of Ancient Egypt make any ºl. addition to what the Biblical historians tell us of the connexion between Israel and Egypt during the reign of Solomon. The lack of information is strange, # Winckler holds that by Mizraim a N. Syrian Muğri is meant (Alttest. Untersuch, 108 f., and Altor. I'orsch; i. 24–41,337, 338). Kittel, Benzinger, and others have accepted his view. Valuable, however, as his new facts are in themselves, they do not prove his Mwºri to be the Mizraim of Kings and Chronicles. t According to ICupolemus, as quoted by lºusebius (Prºp. Ev. ix.), David began the maritime trade. The statemoyº appears to be merely a conjecture suggested by the fact recºrded in 28 814, 1 IC 1115, 10, and 1 Ch 1813, that David conquered the kingdom of Edom. Possibly David foresaw and suggested the use to which his conquest might be put. It is very unlikely, however, that at so late a stage of life he should have begun such an enterprise, and still more unlikely that, if he had begun it, he should not have got the credit of it. SOLOMON SOLOMON 565 * * terest, particularly when compared with the lists of those of David in 2 S 810-18 and 20%, although of too general a mature to be definitely referable to any particular period. The comparison will show that David in the later years of his life had gone far in the direction followed by his son, and that between them they had effected a great revolution—economic, social, and political—in the national life of Israel. The old tribal system had been undermined and shattered, and a monarchical despotism of the only kind known in the East— one none the less a despotism in reality for being a theocracy—had been built up. The will of Solomon was practically the supreme law of his people, and neither priests nor prophets ventured to oppose it or to attempt to limit it. Through- out his reign all power in Israel was centred in himself and carried into effect by his officials. The list of his såröm (princes or chief ministers) in 1 K 4*" does not contain the name of a single individual who can be supposed to haye been, an * adviser. The name of Abiathar should not be in it, as he was a degraded and banished man during Solomon's reign. The sons of Nathan mentioned were much more probably the king's own nephews, the sons of his brother Nathan, than the sons of the prophet Nathan [but see vol. iii. p. 488°]. There was no prophet among Solomon’s princes, nor any man not directly and entirely dependent upon him. We are not told that he made any direct attack on the old tribal systems. It seems erroneous to represent as such his division of the territory of Israel (that of Judah was exempted) into twelve districts, over which were appointed twelve ‘officers’ (nizzābām), each bound to provide in regular monthly suc- cession victuals for the king and his household, and provender for his horses and dromedaries. Those districts were not coextensive with the tribal territories. The officers to whom they were assigned did not displace the tribal chiefs, and had only a definite specific duty to perform. They were merely ‘purveyors’ or ‘providers’ for the king, his cºmmonde curatores. But, although the old tribal system and its chiefs may not have been assailed, the claims of the monarchy were asserted and its powers exercised independently of them. Čhe tribal system and the monarchy coexisted under Solomon, but the latter was so dominant that the king could introduce what changes he pleased. Tribal and personal privileges, rights, and liberties were at |. mercy. Doubtless the nation realized only slowly that such was the case, and how dangerous a state of things it was. The monarchy had been a great success, and was re- garded as a sacred institution. The king was ‘the Lord’s anointed.’ The new king was young, beautiful in person, a rarely brilliant, attractive, and imposing personality; to outward seeming a perfect king. He was well aware that a great trust had been assigned to him, and he set a high value on equity in judgment and orderliness in administration. Many of his innovations must have been improvements. Some of his enter- prises were largely successful. For a season the sun of prosperity shone so brightly on his reign that there may well have been great contentment and rejoicing in Israel. 1 K 4*** may be re- garded as echoes of that time. But disillusion- ment was bound to come, and gradually came as what was radically evil in the government of Solomon gradually displayed itself. with unlimited power, |. yielded to the tempta- tion to abuse it, and to enjoy it mainly for what he deemed his own honour and advantage. His policy, although not unintluenced by worthy and pious aspirations, must be pronounced essentially selfish. The chief motives of it were the love of Entrusted pleasure and power, of wealth and splendour and fame ; its main object was to promote his own interest, to enrich and glorify himself, and to strengthen and magnify the Davidic dynasty. To obtain his ends he required to have recourse not only to measures obnoxious to chiefs of tribes, elders of cities, and holders of landed property, but to such as were most oppressive to the poorer classes. . He reduced the Canaanites to slavery, and enployed 160,000 of them in quarrying stones and bearing burdens. From the Israelites he exacted less labour; but they, too, were constrained to give personal services and to submit to heavy exactions. Thirty thousand of them were required to work by relays of ten thousand, every third month, in the forest of Lebanon. The statement to the contrary in 1 K 9” and 2 Ch 8" is an in- structive, patriotic gloss, inconsistent with the general narratives either in Kings or Chronicles. The Hebrews under Solomon were no longer a free people. While not slaves in the strict sense of the word, they were subject to forced labour, “the levy,’ the mas—a term as hateful to them as were its equivalents, corvée or Frohm, in mediaeval Europe. David had introduced the form of servi- tude denoted by it (2 S 20%), but Solomon greatly increased it. The favouritism which he showed towards Judah in connexion with it must have made it all the more offensive to Israel, while it was doubtless one reason why Judah did not join Israel in the revolt against Rehoboam. The evils of the ‘levy’ could not fail to make themselves increasingly felt in the course of the building operations which were so conspicuous a part of the king's domestic policy. One of his chief aiius was to have a strong and magnificent capital. It was a very reasonable aim within proper limits, but these he failed to recognize. To render Jerusalem as far as possible in pregnable, and to make it a capital worthy of Israel and of being the centre of its political and especially of its religious life, was manifestly desirable. The fortifications and the temple of Jerusalem were for the benefit of all Israel. Ilike so many kings of his type, however, Solomon failed to see that there should be limits set to expensive building. He did not adequately realize that the territory of Israel was a very small one, and that, although he and those around him were rich, the general population—one in a transi. tional stage from pastoral to agricultural—was not. The cost of the superb buildings erected for himself and his dependants, added to the provisioning of a household containing many thousands of persons, the supply of what was required besides food to gratify the desires of his wives and concubines, and the expenditure on his splendid pageants, must have been an enormous burden on his subjects. No truly wise king would have persisted in such a policy. The natural result of it was just what actually happened. Whatever Judah thought, all Israel felt his yoke to have been intolerable; and when his son refused to lighten it, cried out, ‘What portion have we in David 2 neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse : to your tents, O Israel : now see to thine own 'house, David' (1 K 12"). Solomon was responsible for the dis- ruption of the united kingdom of Israel and Judah, and for the consequences of it. That disruption, which led to the loss of the independence of both, was the natural result of the policy on which he acted throughout a forty years' reign. 12. The foregoing observations raise the ques- tion, What really was the wisdom which the Biblical historians attributed to Solomon & Cer- tainly it was not wisdom in the higher significa: tions in which the term is used either in the OT or the NT. There is teaching in Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and a few of the Palms as to a 566 soLOMON SOLOMON ‘wisdom' which is nowhere in Scripture attributed to Solomon. The wisdom of Solonion as described either in Kings or Chron, has very little in common with the wisdom inculcated by St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. James. Further, in what the Biblical writers say of the wisdom of Solomon there is nothing which implies that it included any of the supernatural attainments attributed to him in Jewish, Arabian, and Persian traditions, or even of any scientific or philosophic knowledge properly so called.” And it must be added, that although they ascribe his ‘wisdom ' to God, a gift in answer to |. they do not represent piety— the fear and love of God—as a prominent feature in his ‘wisdom.” While declaring him to be the wisest of all men, they do not represent him as an especially devout or righteous man. In that respect I)avid, notwithstanding his many defects and crimes, was regarded by them as far superior to him. So much, then, as to what the wisdom of Solomon was not. As to what it was, it compre- hended at least the following elements:—(a) Pos- session of the qualities of mind—the quickness and accuracy of discernment and the practical sagacity— which are most indispensable to one who constantly requires to decide readily and correctly on which side truth and justice lie in disputed cases. Those quali- ties were of the utmost importance to a Hebrew king. Judicial functions had been the chief function of the ‘judges,’ and continued to be so of the kings. The king was the chief justice of the realm. David in his later years had been blamed for neglecting his judicial duties. The prayer of his son, on his accession to the throne, was for the knowledge and wisdom which would qualify him for the fulfilment of those duties. The judgment which he pronounced on the dispute between the two harlots was regarded by the people as evidence that his prayer had been granted. Seeking justice was by the Hebrews held to be sacred, inasmuch as it involved ‘inquiry of God.' Almost all the Oriental legends regarding Solomon’s wisdom which are not utterly extravagant are those which give the same kind of instances. An excellent and able judge, however, may not be an eminently good and wise man. He may be sadly lacking in true wisdom. (b) Possession of comparatively exten- sive knowledge and varied culture for a man of the time in which he lived. That Solomon was widely observant and inquisitive, interested in all that came under his notice and was likely to add to his knowledge, and that he could talk instruc- tively on a great variety of subjects, on trees and plants, beasts and fowls, creeping things and fishes, etc., must be admitted. “The largeness of heart (rùhabh lébh), even as the sand that is on the seashore,’ ascribed to him in 1 K 4” [Heb. 5"], means merely, if properly understood, a compre- hensiveness of mind, a many-sidedness of intelli- gence, of great and indefinite extent. There is nothing exaggerated or incredible in the plurase, which may perhaps have suggested what has been so finely said of l’lato: ‘His pliant genius sits close * The knowledge of the language of birds attributed to Solomon in Jewish, Arabic, and Persian traditions was in Greek mythology ascribed to Tiresias. The Rabbis represented Solo- non as the originator of the science and philosophy of the Greeks, Itomans, and their successors. Aristotle was supposed to have gained his knowledge of natural history by appro- priating Solomon's MSS when Alexander entered Alexandria. The Spanish theologian J. de Pinèda, in lib. iii. pp. 111-208 of his De Mºebus Sºlomonis, attributes to him hºliº physical, astronomical, botanical, economic, ethical, and politi- cal writings, as well as many scientific discoveries. Theophilus Gale, Phil. Gener. § 8, maintains that Pythagoras and Plato got their symbolical and the Stoics their ethical philosophy, Ilippo- crates his knowledge of medicine, j. of animals, tund Theophrastus of plants—ea; Salomnonis 8chola. IIow greatly ex- aggerated, down even to recent times, has been his knowledge of theology may be learned from many of the commentaries published on the ‘Song of Solomon,’ and even from the ‘head- ings' of our AV of that book. to universal reality, like the sea which fits into all the sinuosities of the land. Not a shore of thought was left untouched by his murmuring . (Ferrier, Imst, Met. p. 165). The wisdom of Solomon was wisdom at a very different stage from the wisdom of Socrates or Plato; but they may have been alike in implying ‘largeness of heart,’ universality & * tº - tº rºw of intellectual interests, and activity. (c) There have also to be included in the wisdom of Solomon skill in propounding and solving riddles, in put- ting and answering hard and abstruse questions, and the faculty of expressing himself in měshälim, similitudes and parables, and proverbial or gnomic sentences which sum up in a pithy and memorable form the findings of prudential sagacity and moral reflexion. 1 K 4” states that he “spake three thousand proverbs.' . One reason given for the visit of the queen of Sheba to his court was her desire to test the report which she had heard of him b ‘proving him with hard questions.” The Phoeni: cian historians quoted by Josephus (Ant. VIII. v. 3) relate that the Hebrew and the Tyrian king entered into a contest to determine which of them could solve riddles best, and that the former was at first successful, and won largely from his oppo- ment, until the latter got the assistance of a very acute youth called Abdemon, when Solomon was always defeated, and had to pay much money back to Hiram (see art. I&IDDLE). In the time of Solo- mon, Israel passed from its heroic and imaginative age into a positive and practical one, resembling the stage in Hellenic history in which originated the practical maxims of the Greek ‘Sages’ and the verses of the Greek ‘gnomic’ poets. The result in Israel was the rise of a new way of thinking and the beginnings of a new kind of literature, the whole development of which must have been greatly influenced by the character, and reign of Solomon. How much, if anything, he personally contributed by speech or writing to the ‘Wisdom literature’ we do not know, and ; perhaps the whole of it, Biblical and Apocryphal, may be not inappropriately termed Solomonic. At the same time no one has probably been so overpraised for ‘wisdom' as he, and that à like by Mohammedans, Jews, and Christians.” See, further, art. WISDOM. 13. Solomon is represented as excelling all con- temporary kings in wealth as well as in wisdom. His father is said to have left him for building the temple “one hundred thousand talents of gold and a thousand thousand talents of silver’ (1 Ch 22*), a sum calculated to be equivalent to £1,025,000,000 sterling. His annual revenue in money is stated (1 K 101*, 2 Ch 9”) to have amounted to 666 talents of gold, equal to £4,095,900 (see art. MONEY, vol. iii. p. 420); and besides payments in money he received large payments in kind, both from his own subjects and from foreigners. Hence he was able to spend vast sums in luxury and display. His great ivory throne, which came to figure so largely in Oriental tradition, was overlaid with pure gold ; the shields of his bodyguard and the utensils of his palace * For an admirable comparative study of Hebrew and Greek proverbial literature see H. Bois, La Poésie Gnomique chez leg Hebrewa et les Grecs: Salomon et Theognis, Toulouse, 1866. A careful comparative study of Hebrew and lºgyptian proverbial wisdom is a great desideratum. Wisdoul books alcin to the Proverbs of the OT, and partly to lºcclesiastes, were produced in Egypt from about B.C. 3500 until about A. D. 200. It cannot reasonably be supposed that in the age of Solomon they were wholly unknown to the Hebrews. The sayings in the oldest of them — the Instructions, or, Maziºns of Ptahhotep - often strikingly resemble those in Proverbs. , Defore and during the reign of Solomon Egypt was open both to Greeks and Jews. It does not follow that any of the Hebrew Wisdom books were composed in the time of Solomon. g } Prideaux's estimate, long generally accepted, was consider- ably less, viz. 4,833,000,000. Yet he added, ‘the sum is so prodigious, as to give reason to think that the talents whereby ihe stim is reckoned were another sort of “ſilents of a far less value than the Mosaic talents, of which an account is given in the preface' (Old and New Testament ('onnected, p. 5). SOLOMON SOLOMON 567 were all of gold. Silver, we are told, was nothing accounted of in his days; he made silver to be in Jerusalem as stones. Such is the account given us of his wealth. What are we to think of it ! The statement as to the sum amassed by David for the building of the temple is, of course, incredibly large. The amount of annual revenue assigned to Solo- mon is not so, although very large. Probably it may have been his income merely for an excep- tional year or years. That he was the wealthiest king known to his Hebrew contemporaries may well be believed. But even what is said of his wealth in Kings and Chron. suggests that he was only rich after the fashion of Oriental kings. His golden targes, golden utensils, and throne overlaid with gold, seem to imply that he could find little roductive use for his gold. Gold came into circu- ation as money among the Hebrews only in the time of David, and probably it was little used by them as such in the time of Solomon. Various peoples have passed through a stage in which a pound of gold was willingly exchanged for a pound of silver or even of copper. The Shahs of Persia. and Emirs of Scinde were not wealthier than are European monarchs, although they had, as a rule, vastly more treasure in the form of jewels and the precious metals. The value of the material of money depends largely on its purchasing power and rapidity of circulation. Had Solomon's silver, and still more had his gold, much of either ? It is not likely that they had. Although he may have made silver as stones ‘in Jerusalem,” there is nothing to indicate that it was plentiful outside of Jerusalem. There was gold in abundance at the court and among the king's officers and favourites, but there is no evidence of its having reached the farmers and peasants of Palestine. Probably in the form of money most of it got into the hands of the Phoenicians and other foreign traders. By the great extension of the royal domains during his reign, Solomon must have increased his real wealth more than by the importation of gold ; but such enrichment of himself implied the impoverishment of his subjects, and that in a country of very small extent, and of which the real prosperity mainly de- pended on agriculture. The money spent on mag- niſicent buildings must have been to a large extent wasted. We may believe, therefore, almost all that we are told about the wealth of Solomon, and yet believe also that even his economic policy was foolish, and tended to national bankruptcy and the ruin of his dynasty. 14. Closely connected with the wisdom and wealth of Solomon was his ‘fame and ‘glory.’ The “fame? of Solomon denoted by the Hebrew words shěm (1 K 4"), shºm'ah (1 K 107, 2 Ch 9"), and shěma' (1 J& 10", 2 Ch 9"), name, hearing, report, was, like all fame, an external thing, “a fancied life in others’ breath.’ The “glory’ of Solomon, although denoted in the NT by the same term (dowa) as ‘the glory of the Son of Man,’ was a very diſlerent kind of glory. It was not glory of the highest order, the glory of essential excellence, but a superſicial glory attainable by striving after eflect, by the lavish display and expenditure of wealth, by showy talents, by courting popularity, and the like. The glory which Solomon sought for he olytained in an extraordinary measure in his lifetime, and it grew in the course of ages to the most extravagant proportion. Orientals are fond of display and pomp, and doubtless, at least for a lº Yeriod, Solomon, with his good disposition and brilliant gifts and conspicuous suc- cess, must have seemed to his subjects an almost ideal king. He gave Israel a place among the nations which it had never previously held, secured to it peace and prosperity, perfected its organiza- tion and administration, and so transformed, - e 4 g w - adorned, and enriched Jerusalem as to make it appear the central city, the joy and pride of the whole earth. Not only to the Hebrews' but to all the peoples of the Semitic world he must have seemed the foremost monarch of the age. His in- tellectual gifts and acquisitions were so displayed as to cause him to be regarded as a paragon of wisdom, one whose knowledge and judgment had never been equalled, a sage and ruler superior to all others on the earth. Hence we are told many princes and renowned men came from afar to visit him, to see the grandeur of his court, to hear the wisdom of his words, and to pay him homage and present him with gifts. Of all his visitors, the queen of SHEBA naturally made the greatest impression. She was a much more ex- alted personage than the princes and sheikhs with whom the Israelites were familiar. She came from ‘the uttermost parts of the earth’ (Mt 12*); came in high state ‘with a very great train with camels that bare incense and very much gold and precious stones’ (1 K 10°); came, it would appear, attracted purely by the fame of the wisdom, and especially of the religious wisdom, of Solomon ; and departed leaving magnificent gifts, confessing that what she had heard was not half of what she had found to be true, and thanking and blessing the God of Israel. The above is, in substance, all that is related of the famous visit of the Sabaean queen to Solomon ; and it is also the origin and basis of all that has been fabled about herself and her visit by the Rabbis, Arabs, Persians, and Abyssinians. . Many modern critics pronounce even the Biblical account of it (1 IC 101-19, repeated in 2 Ch 9.1-1%) to be manifestly legendary. And it may be a legend. There is no historical evidence to the contrary except the clear and positive statement made by Kings. But it is certainly not manifestly legendary. Wellhausen, Stade, Klostermann, Benzinger, and other eminent critics all content themselves with mere assertion to that effect. The fame of the glory of Solonion was largely posthumous. Great as it was among his contemporaries, the whole course of subsequent Hebrew history tended to increase it. After his reign the Hebrew people passed through stages of humiliation and affliction while clinging tenaciously to the belief that they were God's elect and had a glorious future before them. To endure the present, they were always providentially constrained to magnify the past. The more they sank, the more they com- forted themselves by thinking of what they had been and imagining what they could be. And the age of Solomon was the golden age of their history, and Solomon himself their most brilliant and renowned king. Hence there was in the OT an idealization of kingship founded on the character of the lº life, and reign of Solomon, and impelled and guided Dy a truly Divine inspiration which has been of immense signifi- cance to the world. It forms, a large and precious portion of Messianic prophecy. The initial impulse to the close connexion of Solomon with it may, perhaps, have been Nathan's promise to David (2S 711-16 and 1 Ch 1710-14) that J'' would raise up to him a seed that should build . the house of the Lord, and whose kingdom and throne would be established for ever. As soon, however, as we go further we find ourselves in an alto- gether unreal world. Jewish l'abbis indulged in the most ex- travagant exaggerations as to the gifts and glory of Solomon. Christian writers followed suit, and showed themselves almost as credulous and inventive. 15. Religion of Solomon.—The Biblical historio- graphers who have treated of the reign of Solomon regarded him as having fallen far short of his father in piety. While pronouncing David a man according to God’s own heart (1 S 12", 1 K 11" "), they have so spoken of Solomon's death (1 K ll", 2 Ch 9") as to have given rise to a long controversy among the Church Fathers as to his salvation.” * St. Augustine and the Latin Fathers generally pronounced against, and St. Chrysostom and the Greek Fathers in favour of, belief in his salvation. Calmet, in his 1)ict., N. p. ‘Salomon, Nouvelle Dissert. de la salut du Salomon,' has collected the opinions. Dante unites him in l'aradise with the four great schoolmen, and makes Aquinas thus describe him — ‘The fifth light, Goodliest of all, is by such love inspired, That all your world craves tidings of his doom : Within there is the lofty light, endowed With sapience so profound, if truth be truth, That with a ken of such wide amplitude No second has arisen.' - - —Par. x. 108–114 (Cary str.) The third line is the rendering of Dante's : ‘('he tutto il monolo Laggiù negola di Saper novella." 568 SOLOMON SOLOMON —— Now, thwo Solomon's piety was not so warm and intense as David's is W. no one will question, yet bhat it was in some respects superior may well be maintained, and can even scarcely be denied by any one who attempts to judge of David and Solomon from a Christian standpoint. With good gifts and reat qualities, David had terrible defects. While intensely real, his faith, in J" was comparatively crude and unenlightened. . . Hence his piety was compatible with such horrid deeds as his conduct towards Uriah, his allowing the innocent sons of Saul to be “hung up unto the Lord in Gibeon’ (2 S 21**), and his ruthless treatment of the Moab- ites (2 S 8”) and Ammonites (2S 12*). The memory of Solomon is unstained by such acts. His faith in J", however otherwise inferior to David's, was so much more rational and ethical as to save him from much which David did. ' He too had faith in J", but a considerably different faith, and one implying a higher and worthier conception of J". The general tendency of his reign was towards spiritual enlightenment. The Solomonic age was not one of spiritual decadence on the whole, but a distinct spiritual advance in important respects on the age of the ‘judges’ and of the first two kings; and doubtless Solomon contributed more to its being so than any other person. The interest of revelation required a Solomon as well as a Samuel, Saul, or David. David's significance as a king in relation to the Messiah was as a victorious warrior; Solomon's as the prince of peace—no inferior honour. There is no warrant for reckoning Solomon among the sceptics. The son of David could not fail to have been taught to revere and honour J". The com- mencement of his reign was marked by a display of ardent piety towards J", and the expression of humble dependence on His guidance. Throughout his reign lie acted as temporal head of the Hebrew theocracy, as chief of the ministers of J" in Israel. He delighted in the offices of Divine worship. Some have denied, but without apparent proof, that he took part in what have been called dis- timetly priestly acts—slaying the victims and offer- ing incense. All the other acts of worship—all those which the Hebrew prophets deemed most sacred and spiritual — he is clearly recorded to have performed. In connexion with the building of the temple, he showed his anxiety to render to J” a worthy expression of gratitude for His kind- ness towards David and himself. His prayer at the dedication of the temple, the substantial authen- ticity of which there seems to be no reason to doubt, is one of the grandest devotional utterances to be found in pre-Christian devotional literature. Solomon evidently desired to render the service in the temple beautiful and impressive, the temple itself the chief and central sanctuary in the land, and Jerusalem not only the royal residence and national capital, but the holy city. He thereby, however, displeased those who disliked changes in religion and preferred the old simplicity and rude- ness of worship to innovations. They included probably most of the uncultured tribesmen of the north. The seer AHIJAH was at their head. They may have had a considerable amount of truth and reason as well as piety on their side, but not more than the innovators—Solomon, the priests, and all others who were in favour of progress. The changes introduced by Solomon tended to further the spiri- tual education of the Jewish people, to suggest to receptive minds annong them larger and worthier thoughts of God, and to contribute to the perman- ence and progressiveness of religion in Israel. 16. Alleged Apostasy of Solomon.—The age of Solomon was in the main one of intellectual libera- tion and religious enlightenment, although to many of his subjects it may have appeared one of scepti- cism and impiety. That the king abandoned his faith in J" and became an idolater is ditlicult to believe, while it is easy to conceive how the fana to that effect may have arisen, Solomon built altars for his foreign wives, and allowed them to worship their national gods on earth brought from their native lands and in the language and forms of de- votion which were familiar and sacred to them. He did not allow them to proselytize or to attempt to act the part which was afterwards played by Jezebel ; and it is even very unlikely, seeing that they were all members of his own household, that he permitted either the cruel or the licentious acts sometimes practised in the worship of certain of their deities. But to Ahijah and his partisans toleration of any worship in Israel except that of J" appeared tantamount to apostasy from J", and the worship of a strange god. They necessarily saw therefore in Solomon’s conduct proof that his heart was turned away from J" and given to the foreign gods whom he allowed his wives to worship. They judged of it by a crude and immoral concep- tion of J", while Solomon himself must have seen in it no treason against J", and believed it to be reasonable and right. The religious toleration granted by him to his wives was an almost inevit- able consequence of his policy of alliances with foreign rulers through marriages. There was, however, apparently no opposition given or offence taken by his subjects either to his polygamy or his marriage with foreign women. They seem to have regarded his multitude of wives complacently as a sign of his wealth and grandeur. In his poly- gamy he only followed the example, and probably the advice, of his father. Nor was his offence marriage with foreign wives, although he is not recorded to have married any of his own subjects. Perhaps few of them would have been considered . wives for so great a king, and marriages with them could have had no political advantages. It was his religious toleration per se which was condemned, and held to imply disloyalty to J" and the worship of other gods. That he should have been guilty of the apostasy and sin alleged seems incredible and inexplicable on any supposition except one, viz. that his mode of life had }. him prematurely worn out both in body and mind, so as to be, even in the fifth decade of his age, in a senile condition, and hardly responsible for his actions. That is little if any- thing more than a supposition. Yet it seems to be hinted at by the author of 1 Kllº, who writes as if willing to excuse and yet unwilling to express himself plainly, when telling us of Solomon's ‘cleaving in love to many strange women,” and that ‘ his heart was turned away after Strange gods when he was old ' (say over fifty years of age). The erotic element in the Song of Songs, so far as it refers to Solomon, is also, yerhºps, in this con- nexion not to be 'º. The apocryphal book Sirach, while otherwise glorifying Solomon in the most generous manner, distinctly singles out for condemnation his sensuality as ‘what stained his honour and polluted his seed, brought wrath on his children, divided Israel, and made Ephraim a rebel kingdom (42*). The censure was fully deserved. However numerous lurid attractive may have been the gifts and good qualities of Solomon, he had two great faults— self-love and self-indulgence. He was blind to the claims of self-sacrifice and self-restraint, and hence was no wise man in the highest sense, but merely the wisest fool of his day. His harem may suffice for proof. If his wives and concubines together really amounted to a thousand women, it would seem to have been the largest of which there is any record in history. It was doubtless Inon- strously large, and eunuchs' were among the SOLOMON SOLOMON's SERVANTs $69 attendants in it. Yet Solomon had only one son, and that so , was lèehoboam—‘ample,’ as Ben Sira says, ‘in foolishness and lacking in under- standing, who by his counsel let loose the people’ (Sir 47°). God's violated law of married love clearly avenged itself on Solomon and condemned his polygamy. 17. Close of Solomon’s Career.—Before his death Solomon had largely lost the popularity which he had enjoyed in the earlier years of his reign. He had overtaxed and overburdened his subjects, and made a lavish and wasteful use of the national resources, and the selfishness which led him to do so had defeated its own ends. He had given offence, in a considerable measure, perhaps unnecessary offence, to the prophets and their adherents and to the Ephraimites generally. But the fame he had acquired could not be forgotten, and he had done too much for Israel to be despised or assailed. His reputation was a part, and a large part, of that of the nation. Hence none of his ‘adversaries rose against him.’ The recollection of what he had been protected him even against his bitterest ene- mies among the Ephraimites; and Ahijah himself preached the very strange doctrine that God desired Solomon's sins to be overlooked for David's sake, and Rehoboam punished for the transgressions of Solomon (1 K 11”). But, even although left un- molested, he must surely, when he began to realize that death was not far away, have looked back on his lengthened reign with great dissatisfaction. He had abundant cause for contrition and regret. He had not been a good shepherd of his people. He had sought his own glory far more than their good. He ind preferred low aims to high, and could not fail to be conscious thereof. He had impoverished and oppressed large numbers of his subjects. He had not made Israel a thoroughly consolidated nation, as he might and should have done. He had talked wisdom and practised folly. He had through selfishness failed to take advan- tage of the precious for usefulness which jºhad granted him. He had professed piety and preached righteousness, yet dishonoured God, degraded himself, and set an evil example to others by his luxury and licentious- ness. Looking seriously over his past, he could not but realize that, with all its appearance of splendour, it had been essentially, so far as he was concerned, a deplorable failure, a vanity of vanities, whatever might be made of it by an over- ruling Providence. He may have been spared the misery of foreseeing that in mediately on his death his son would be so foolish as to provoke a disruption of the kingdom, and therefore bring innumerable woes both on Judah and on Israel, but he can hardly have failed to forecast that troublous times for the monarchy were approach- ing. Throughout almost the whole of his reign the relations between Israel and lºgypt had been friendly ; by the time of his death the Pharaoh Shishak was meditating war, and five years later he captured Jerusalem, plundered Solomon's temple and palace, and left Rehoboam to substitute shields of brass for his father’s shields of gold. The dis- ruption of Israel and Judah was fatal to both, and §. even more than Rehoboam was respon- sible for it. It is not surprising, therefore, that both in IGings and Chronicles, when his death is recorded, he should, notwithstanding all the glory he had gained, receive no word of commendation. All that is said is that ‘he slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David his father ; and Rehoboam his son reigned in his stead' (1 K 11", 2 Ch 991). LITERATURE. — Milman, Hist. of the Jews (1866), i. 307 ff.; Stanley, Ilist. of Jewish Church, ii. 130 ſſ.; Fr. Newman, II ist. of Lleb. Momarchy, ch. iv.; the Histories of Ewald (iii. 204 f.), gifts and grand opportunities Stade (1884, p. 374 f.), A. Köhler (1884, ii. 874ff.), A. Kloster. mann (1896, p. 168 f.), Wellhausen (1897, p. 66ff.), Guthe (1899, 2: 110ſ.), Cornill (1898, p. 80 ft.), Ient (1809, p. 109ff), Kittel ii. 177 ff.), Renan (ii. 96ff.), Piepenbring (1868, p. 167 ff.); cf. also Winckler, Alttest. Untersuchwngen, (1892) 60 f., (1894) 1ſf.; McCurdy, 11 PM $205 f.; B. W. Bacon, ‘Solomon in Tradition and in l'act,' in New World, June 1898, p. 212 f.; and articles in Herzog, Riehm, and Schenkel. As . commentaries, etc., on the sources, see the bibliographical lists appended to articles on KINGS and CIllton ICLES. R. FLINT. solomon's PORCH.-See PorcH, and TEMPLE, p. 713°. SOLOMON'S SERVANTS (nºw ºy; LXX usually 600Xot XaXwpºv [but see ad fin.]).—In the two lists of exiles who returned to Jerusalem from Babylon with Zerubbabel, the sons of Solomon's servants are first mentioned immediately after the Nethinim (Ezr 2”, Nell 7”), and then included with them, as though they were subdivisions of the same clase: “All the Nethinin, and the children of Solomon's servants, were three hundred and ninety-two" (Ezr 2*, Neh 7"). At Nell 1098 the sons of Solo- mon's servants appear to be included amongst the Nethinim. At Neh 11” they are again mentioned along with them ; but the paralleſ list of 1 Ch 9° contents itself with using the more familiar of the two titles, as though the person who inserted this list did not distinguish between Nethinim and sons of Solomon's servants. As to their position and functions it will therefore be sufficient to refer to art. NETIIINIM. It is clear from Ezk 44* that non - Israelites were employed for many menial duties counected with the temple service. The caste of foreigners thus referred to may have originated from the body of forced labourerſ, whom Solomon is said to have used in building the temple and other struc- tures (1 K 94" "). These would not unnaturally be called Solomon’s slaves or servants. After the temple was finished, some of them might be retained for the inferior offices of the house of God, and the title originally bestowed on them would cling to them. In succeeding generations the composition of the class would vary from a number of causes: some families would die out, others would be added from prisoners of war and other sources. Nor is there any difficulty in con- ceiving of them as holding together in the Exile. We can readily imagine members of the minor orders in the Roman Catholic Church doing so in like circumstances. Torrey (Comp. and Hist. Value of Ezra-Nehemiah, p. 40) thinks that the mention of them is simply an instance of the Chronicler’s determination to connect every insti- tution belonging to his own day with David and Solomon. But it may fairly be argued that the very lowliness of the title ‘Solomon's slaves’ is in favour of its genuineness. No body of men would have been willing to bear it if it had been arbitrarily imposed from without in the days of the second temple. 13ut if it were inherited, the disagreeable connotation would be worn off in the process of time. The remark made respecting the family names of the Nethinim must be repeated here. They indicate a foreign origin. There can have been only a small number of persons in each of the families, as will be seen by dividing the total number by that of the families. The spelling of the names varies slightly in the two lists, but there is no ground for the distinction Pochereth of Zeba'im (Ezr 2") and Pochgreth Zehaim (Neh 709) in AV ; in both places lèV rightly reproduces Pochereth-hazzebaim. The Pesh. differs from MIT in two points. At Ezr 2”—but not at Nell 7"— it gets rid of Solomon's servants entirely, reading O y 0 0 ... ? >a s - la Fas –- LXX B has viol 570 SOMEIS SON OF GOD 'Agömag\, v.", and viol 'A36ma expad, v.”. At Neh 11° it makes them dwell at Jerusalem, not in the cities of Judah. J. TAYLOR. SOMEIS (Xousels, AV Samis), 1 Es 9*=Shimei, Ezr 1088. SOMETIME, SOMETIMES. – These forms are used indiscriminately in AV, and (except Sir 37*) always in the sense of “once upon a time,’ “formerly.” The Gr. is always Toré. RV changes in every case: in Wis 5*, Col. 37, Tit 3%, 1 P 3” into “aforetime’; in Eph 21° 58 into ‘ once'; in Col 1* into “in time past.’ I’or the indiscriminate spell- ing, cf. Melvill, Diary, lx., “He tuik him to rest, and passed ouer that haill day, sum tyme in rest, as it seimed, and sum tymes in paine.” For ‘some- time,’ meaning “formerly,” cf. La 1° Cov. “Alas, how sitteth the cite so desolate, yt some tyme was full of people 2’; and for ‘sometimes,’ Shaks. Rich. II. I. ii. 54, ‘Thy sometimes brother's wife.’ Abbott (Shaks. Gram. p. 51), thinks this is the meaning also in Merch. of Venice, I. i. 163— “Sometimes from her eyes I did receive fair speechless messages.” In the mod. sense of ‘occasionally' the only example in AV is Sir 37*. (Gr. e.vtore). But that meaning was quite common at the time. Thus IElyot, Governour, ii. 225, ‘Some tyme it [fides] may be called faythe, some tyme credence, other whyles truste'; Tindale, Eapos. 30, “Centurion is a captain of a hundred men ; whom I call some- time a centurion, but for the most part a hunder- captain.” J. HASTINGS. SON.—See FAMILY. son of GOD.— Use of the title “Son of God' in- I. OT AND JEWISH WRITING8. 2. OT.--Title applied to : (a) angels ; b) judges or rulers ; § the theocratic king ; (d) the theocratic people; (e) the Messiah—Ps 89 and Ps 2. 2. Jewish Writings:— (i.) Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. (ii.) The Talmud. II, NT 1. The Gospels. (a) Use of the term “Son of God.” (i.) Incidental uses. (ii.) St. Peter's confession. (iii.) The voice from heaven at the Baptism and at the Transfiguration : (2) The textual question. (3) Nature of the manifestation. (b) The correlative terms ‘Father’ and ‘Son.” 2. Test of NT. (a) The title “Son of God.” (b) The titles “Father' and ‘Son.” Note on the use of roºts (soč. 8. The significance of these titles— (a) For contemporaries, Jewish and non-Jewish— (i.) The populace. (ii.) The centurion. (iii.) The ruling classes. (iv.) The disciples. (b) For Jesus Himself— § The filial consciousness of Jesua, (ii.) The testimony of the Father. º Messiahship and Divinity. (iv.) Pre-existence. (c) For the Apostles— He 11-3 Col 1 (13), 15. RO 83. Note on the origin of the Christian use of the title “Son of God.” III. THE EARLY CHURCII. 1. The sub-Apostolic Fathers. Note on the meaning of “Son’ in the Apostles' Creed. 2. Marcellus of Ancyra. Conclusion. Literature. I. THE OLD TESTAMENT AND JEWISH WRITINGs. —The history of the term ‘Son of God’ in the pre- Christian period is the history of a gradual height- ening and concentration of meaning in connexion with the culminating point of biblical revelation. The use of the term is at first rather poetic or rhetorical than in the strict sense theological. It is applied to a number of º in such a way as to invest them with a special dignity and value, or to hint at a special relation of nearness and appre- ciation on the part of God; but it did not denote any essential partaking in the Divine nature. Only in Christian times does this latter sense come to attach to it. 1. OLD TESTAMENT. - In OT the phrase, or something like it, is used of angels, of human judges, of the theocratic king, of the theocratic people, and of the Messiah. It is this last use which is taken up and further developed in Chris- tianity. * (a) In the first passage that meets us, Gn 6* * (ascribed to the 9th cent. document J), the term is applied to the race of demigods or angelic beings which is conceived as existing before the Plood. This passage proved rather a stumbling-block to the later Jewish exegesis, and was variously explained. The main body of Septuagint MSS (N B are not extant) tr. literally of viol row 0soß (so also Theodotion). A group, including A, paraphrases this (in v.2 but not in v.4) as oi &yyaoi, Aquila, tr. still more literally of viol Tây 0søy, leaving an opening, as it would seem, for some such sense as that given in the next paragraph. Symm. interprets less equivocally of viol rôy buyo.orrsvövtov, as though the reference was to the profligate sons of the upper, or ruling classes. Some modern Jewish commentators, along with Dr. Field (Hearapla, i. 22), make the ‘sons of God’ = the descendants of Seth, and the “daughters of men’= the descend- ants of Cain. But there can be little doubt that the sense is as in Job 1621 387, Ps 291 etc. (b) In one remarkable verse the title seems to be applied to judges or rulers (Ps 82"), ‘ I said, Ye are gods; and all of you sons of the Most High (cf. v. 1; also Jn 10*). And in a number of places ‘judges’ are in some way or other equated with ‘gods’ (Ex 21 RVul and AV, 228. " RVm and AV, 1 S 225 RVnn and AV ; in all these places “God’ in RV is lit. “gods,’’élöſlin, according to the familiar idiom). The origin of this latter usage is not quite clear. It appears to be connected with the fact that judicial or quasi-judicial decisions were given in early timos in the form of oracles at some sacred place and in the name of the deity. It is a further question whether or how far PS 820 was suggested by this usage. That it was so suggested was the older view ; and Duhm (e.g.) still explains of the IIasmonaban princes; Baethgen, of heathen rulers, But some recent writers, not without precursors in the earlier days of criticism, take more literally: e.g. Cheynes, of the ‘patron angels’ of oppres- sive heathen nations; Wellhausen (ad loc.) and Smend (AT Theol. p. 304 f.), of the gods of these nations. , Most commen- tators compare Ps 58, reading “O ye gods’ in v.2. (c) Of more importance, and indeed on the direct line of Messianic promises, is the designation as applied to the theocratic king. . I'or this the lead- ing passage is the assurance given by Nathan to David, ‘I will be his father, and he shall be my son’ (2 S 7"). Many other places point back to this, esp. Ps 89*.*. But these will meet us again under (e). (d) Closely associated with the application to the theocratic king is that to the theocratic peºple. For this we go back primarily to Ex 4* Thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, my firstborn,'—an announcement that seems to have been present to the mind of the º Hosea, when he wrote, ‘When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. (Hos. 11'). (e) If the title ‘son’ is given both to the theo- cratic king and to the theocratic people where these are clearly distinguished from each other, still more inevitable was it that the same title would belong to them when the two ideas coalesce into one, as they do in the passages that may be called more directly Messianic. Conspicuous among these are Pss 89 and 2. SON OF GOD SON OF GOD 57.1 Ps 89.—This psalm is based upon the promises of 2 S 7, but also in v.” clearly takes up Ex 4”. Hence, while it is agreed that both kiſſ. and people are in view, opinions differ somewhat as to the degree of prominence to be assigned to each. Cheyne (Comm. on v.”) has “no doubt that the Davidic king (or rather ‘the Davidic royalty”) is meant.” But ‘the Davidic house has long been overthrown, and the fate of the nation has a more practical interest for the writer, whose description partly ſits the king, partly the people, now become the heir of the old Davidic promises.” In OP p. 118 he pronounces more decidedly for the “post- exile Jewish Church’ in the Persian period (Arta- xerxes II. and III.). Strack points out a close resenblance to the state of things under Josiah; Duhm, to that under Alexander Jannaeus (c. 88 B.C.). Wellhausen, like Cheyne, explains of the com- munity, which ‘in the history of the theocracy succeeded to the place formerly occupied by the kings.’ Ps 2.-Even more central in its bearing upon the history of Christian thought is Ps 2, esp. v.7°. Opinion is leaning rather more than it did to the view expressed by Cheyne, that this psalm has not ‘a contemporary historical reference' (though Duhm believes it to have been composed at the accession of Aristobulus I. or Alexander Jannaeus ; Cheyne himself thinks that the writer ‘throws himself back’ into the age of David or Solomon, to which, according to Strack, he belongs). What might be called the most modern view is concisely stated by Wellhausen (PB, “Psalms,’ ad loc.): ‘The Messiah is the speaker, and the whole psalm is composed in His name. It is mot merely the hopes concerning the future to which he gives expression; it is the claims to world-wide dominion already, cherished by the Jewish Theocracy. All the heathen are destined to obey the Jews; if they fail to do so, they are rebels. The Messiah is the incarnation of Israel’s universal rule. He and Israel are almost identical, and it matters little whether we say that Israel has or is the Messiah. . . . On the day when JHWH founded the Theocracy, He gave it the right to unlimited earthly dominion. This right is involved in the very idea of the Theocracy. Zion, as being the seat of the Divine rule, is, ipso facto, the seat of universal rule.’ It will be seen how the most advanced science of our time is by degrees giving back a full equiva- lent for the old naïve conception that would make the passages above quoted direct unmediated pre- dictions of the personal Messiah. As applied to the Messiah these prophecies are not unmediated. The steps are one thing, the shrine to which they lead is another. The Scriptures of which we have been speaking mark so many separate contri- butions to the total result ; but the result, when it is attained, has the completeness of an organic whole. A l'igure was created — projected as it were upon the clouds—which was invested with all the attributes of a person. And the minds of men were turned towards it in an attitude of ex- pectation. It makes no matter that the limes of this Figure are drawn from different originals. They meet at last in a single portraiture. , And we should never have known how perfectly they meet if we had not had the NT picture to compare with that of O'T. diction would not be more conclusive proof that all the course of the world and all the threads of history are in one guiding Hand. 2. JEWISH WI&ITINGS.—Ps 2, as it has been rightly observed, stands at the head of a long line of subsequent development. The conception of the Messiah as also “Son’ became a fixed part of the tradition, mot perhaps quite so widely extended as The most literal fulfilment of pre- —t might have been expected,—it does not figure at all largely in the Talmud, and yet sufficiently attested in those forms of Judaism which present the nearest affinities to Christianity. (i.) The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.—The title “Son’ as applied to the Messiah occurs only once in the Book of Enoch (105°) in a passage the origin and date of which are uncertain. It does not occur at all in Apoc. of Baruch. But in 4 Ezra (2 Esdras) it seems to be fairly well established. This book is lost in the original (Gr. or Heb. ?), but is preserved in no fewer than five versions, Lat., Syr., AEth., Arab. (two forms), Arm., which are com- monly supposed to rank in this order, though the subject has not yet been thoroughly investigated. The text printed in our Bibles is from the Latin. In 728, 20 this version has evidently passed through Christian hands; Syr. has twice and Arab. Once “my Son Messiah,” A2th. once “my Servant Messiah' (perhaps = ºrozis), and Arm. once , ‘the Messiah of God.” From this rough statement, which can hardly be pursued into close detail, it will be seen that there is some doubt. In 1382 and 37 Lat. Syr. Arab., and in 1302 Lat. Syr. identically, and Æth. Arab. approximately, all have ‘Son,' which, however, does not appear in the Armenian. A like relation is found in 149, where Lat. Syr. AEth. Codd. Arab. have “Son’; Aſºth. Codd. ‘sons,” while Arm. drops and paraphrases. . The edd., including Hilgenfeld and Gunkel in Kautzsch, Apokºr, w. Pseudepig. d. AT', read “Son’ in all these places; but the readin cannot be regarded as quite secure (cf. Drummond, Jewish Messiah, pp. 285–288). The strongly Messianic passage in Ps-Sol 1728-51 has not the title “Son,' but clearly borrows from Ps 2 in v.26. (ii). The Talmud.—Apart from the above instances there is not much evidence for the Messianic inter- pretation of Ps 2 in the Rabbinic literature. Dal- man (Worte Jesu, p. 222) gives three examples of this, one dating c. 240 and another c. 350 A.D. Two other comments quoted by him are of some interest. The Midrash on Ps 212 concludes thus: “To whom is this like? To a king who is wroth with his subjects, and the subjects go and make their, peace with, the king's son, that he may, make peace for them. Then when the subjects go to give thanks to the king, he saith to them : Would ye give thanks to me? Go and give them to my son ; since, but for him, I should long ago have blotted out the people. So saith God to the nations of the world when they would give thanks to him. Go thank the children of Israel, for without them ye would not have continued for a single hour.’ . A late comment in Midr. Tehill. ii. 7 is expressly directed against the Christian interpretation : “From this passage (Ps 27) an answer may be given to the Minim (Christians) who say the Holy One—blessed be He—has a Son, and thou canst reply to them : it does not mean “A Son art Thou to Me,” but “Thou art My Som”; like a servant whom his master encourages by saying to him, “I love thee as my son l’’’ Although this is set down as ‘very late,' it is just the interpretation that would be natural to a Jew. II. THE NEW TESTAMENT.-In passing over to NT it is important to observe that we should not form an adequate conception of the significance of the title “Son of God’ if we were to confine our- selves to the use of that title alone. It is true that it occurs in Some central passages, and true that in these passages the phrase is invested with great depth of meaning. But we should not adequately appreciate this depth, and still less should we understand the mass and volume of NT teaching on this head, if we did not directly connect with the explicit references to the ‘Son of God’ that other long series of references to God as pre-eminently ‘the Father,’ and to Christ as pre-eminently ‘the Son.” These two lines of usage are really conver- gent. And we must first consider them separately before we bring them together. It has seemed best first to coſiect and sift the evidence before seeking to penetrate further into its meaning. 1. THE GOSPELS.—(a) Use of the term “Son of God.”—The use of this term is perhaps more sparing than we might suppose. And the number of in- stances on which we can really lay stress will be found to shrink somewhat on examination. (i.) Incidental uses.—Only in the IFourth Gospel (525 gº [var. lect.] 10° 11") is the title “Son of God’ used by our Lord expressly of Himself. . . And although three at least of the places in which it 572 SON OF GOD SON OF GOD is described as used of Him are of salient in port- ance, this is not the case with others. Instances like Mk 1" (where the reading is also not quite certain), Jn 31° 20% belong to the evangelists, and are therefore evidence for a later stage of belief than that of the narrative. And we must allow for the possibility that to this later stage are really to be assigned words such as those ascribed to the Baptist in Jn 1% and to Nathanael in Jn 1*. Nor can we be too conſident as to the exact wording of the discourses or sayings in Jn 31° 5* 9” [v.l..] 10” ll". St. John, even more than the other evange- lists, was so intensely absorbed in his own belief in the Godhead of Christ that it was natural to him to antedate expressions which really would be ex- ceptional at the time to which they are referred. Even in the First Gospel (Mt 14° 26°) the absence of the phrase from the Synoptic paralle's must cast some doubt upon its originality. On the other hand, in the cases of the demoniacs (Mk 3" || 57 ||) and of the centurion at the Cross (Mk 15*||) the attestation indeed is czcellent, but we cannot deduce anything very tangible (see below, 3 (a)). (ii.) St. Peter's Confession.—We cannot be sur- prised if by an application of similar critical methods some scholars (e.g. Dalman, Worte Jesu, . 224) should also cancel the phrase in the more important connexion of Mt 16%. Here, in the version of Matthew, Peter's confession runs: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God’; where Mark has only, ‘Thou art the Christ,’ and Luke “The Christ of God.’ And no doubt it follows from this that the Marcan document had no more than our present Gospel. Still this passage is not really on all fours . the others that have come before us. For the context clearly proves that Matthew had before him some further tradition, possibly, that of , the Logia, but, in any case a tradition that has the look of being original. Whether this originality extends to the whole phrase may be more than we could assert posi- tively, but to the present writer it appears to be probable that it does... We should more easily understand the apostolic use of the title “Son of God’ if there had been precedents for it on im- portant occasions like this, when it is represented as receiving the sanction of Christ Himself. The whole phrase as it stands, including the epithet ‘living God,” calls up such a host of OT associa- tions, and at one step sets the confession so conspicuously in its place amid the whole series of biblical revelations, that we may be loth to let it go. (iii.) The voice from heaven at the Baptism and Transfiguration.—The next two places that we have to deal with are encircled, like the last, with critical considerations. It may be well first to state the textual facts, so that the reader may have the evidence fully before him. a. The textual question.— THE BAPTISM :- Mt 317 zi how towº iz ray otpovăy Afyovoro.' Oºré, torty 3 vić, wou 8 &yararo; iv & 80%zzo'o. Mk 111 zoº tovº, #2 ray owpox vöy X, s] 6 vić; gov 3 &yorntés, iv oro. 493.02%a'oz, Lk 399 . . . zoz. cavºy #3 obpovoi, 2-svárdoz Xu sº & vić. Acow & &yo. Taráz, iv. o.o. 49%zzo.o. Xu sī, 2.T.A. codd. Graec. et verbs. (inc. Syr. Sin.) fere omn. Tić, Žov iſ oré (+ &yoraros, Clem. Alex.). ix. 2, a 4&spov 24, wox& ort, D a l) (; f. 2 * 1 r. Hanc lectionem quasi evangelicam agnoscunt (nisi psalinum alicutbi respiciant), Just. Mart., Clem, Alex., Method., Juvenc., Tycon., Aug. IIabet etian, Ev. Ebionit. ap. Epiph. 1/2. Tii E TRANSF1GURATION:— Mt. 17" xzi how cavº, #2 rā; vician, Afyovoro.' Oºré, irriv 8 vić, 2 * * * t ex- in tº * y * g * & Azov 3 &2&rare; iv. 3 ºzzo'o. &zo's re oºzov. Mk 97 xxi szévero gov% #2 rac vapºn;' Oºrce ioray 6 viás stov & &zczarztoº, &zoºsts at toº. Lk 999 zoº pay? iwiyiro iz rā; vapianº Aiyovo.o." Obrós is riv a vić, Azov 6 izafatzºivor, 29to5 &xočari. We may also compare Ac 1883 . . . &yozorrãoro's 'Inooty, as xx) is tº “kºvº, Yiyazorroz, tº 3svripº (v.l. iv tº rpátº ºxº wive.) Ti㺠aov ii oº, ix3 ràcipov yixivynx& ci. Cf. He tº 59. The main question here is as to the reading of Llr 392 : i) & oºzipov. 21) ivy.nzº ori is clearly Western, with strong Latin sup- port, though even here the whole family is not included, e f going the other way ; the absence of Syriac evidence is also important. The natural inference would be that the reading although, no doubt, very ancient, was not really primitive. Aid when we think how strong the temptation would be to assimi- late the text of the Gospel to that of the psalm, and how readily this latter text would fall in with ideas that are known to have been current in the 2nd cent., the presumption against its originality is increased. In any case Luke is the only Gospel affected. The agreement of Matthew and Mark is sufficient guarantee that the reading found in them was found also in the common Synop, document. Luke can at most represent only a separate tradition, which hardly in this instance carries with it so much weight as the others. If the common reading is to be preferred, then the first half of the words presents a coincidence with PS 27, the second half with Is 421. The words heard at the Transfiguration also pre- sent a general resemblance to Ps. 2. That psalm is directly quoted in Acts and Hebrews. 8. The nature of the Manifestafion.—It is char- acteristic of the OT prophets that the revelations made to them sometimes took the form of remark- able sights and sometimes of remarkable sounds. At least these are the terms in which they are described to us; what exactly were the psycho- logical plenomena corresponding it is beyond our power to say. They belong to the peculiar experi- ence of the Hebrew prophets. The Jewish notions about the Bath Köl are an extension of the same idea (Weber, Jüd. Theol.” p. 194 f.). It is natural to suppose that the manifestations at the Baptism and at the Transfiguration were similar in kind. . It is possible that they were known only to Jesus Himself, perhaps in the one case also to the Baptist, and in the other to one or more of the apostles who possessed the prophetic endowment. Through such a channel as this the Divine ap- proval of the Son was in all probability communi- cated to men. The significance of this Divine testimony will come before us later. (b) The correlative terms “ Father’ and ‘Som.”— We are told (Dalman, Worte Jesu, p. 156) that it is contrary to Jewish usage to speak of God as ‘the IFather' simply without some such addition as ‘who is in heaven.’ The only exceptions occur in prayers. It also appears that great care and reserve were used in the application of this title generally. The Targums, where they have occa- sion to refer to it, adopt a paraphrase, In this respect the Gospels show a marked con- trast. Our Lord does, indeed, make use of the Jewish form (which is found most frequently in Matthew, but cf. also Mk 114", Llº 11”); and it is probable enough that the real instances of this use may have been more numerous than would appear from our Gospels. At the same time the Christian use goes far beyond the Jewish limitations. And besides the general use as applied to the disciples, there is a special use in which our Lord reserves it in a peculiar manner to Himself. He nowhere speaks of “our Father,’ numbering Himself with II is fol- lowers. The Lord's Prayer is not an exception, because it is a form prescribed to the disciples, and constructed entirely for them. The prayers of the Son to the Father are different. On the other hand, our Lord constantly speaks of “my Father,’ whether with (Mt 7”. 10° 15' 1617 18". " ") or without addition. And this use ap- parently goes back even to His childhood (Lk 2"). The use in question is illustrated in a number of ways. So in the parable of the Wicked Hus- bandmen, where the ‘beloved son (Mk 12"), who is also “heir,’ is distinguished from all other mes- sengers. So again in the º of the Marriage Feast, which the king makes for his son (Mt. 22*): SON OF GOD SON OF GOD 573 where, though the parallel in Lk 14" may point to this description as added later, the instance just given would at least show that it lay near at hand; and some further support is given to it by the part played by the ‘bridegroom” in the parable of the T'en Virgins. \n any case the whole argument of Mt. 17” turns oM the distinction between ‘son’ and ‘stranger.’ And the point of the discussion about Ps 110' (Mk 12”) is just to prove that the Messiah is not ‘son of David' in the same sense in which other members of his lineage are spoken of as sons. We shall have occasion to come back to some of these passages presently. We observe in our Lord’s use of the titles “Father’ and “Son’ in connexion with Himself an ascending scale. First, there are the places where He speaks of God as His heavenly Father, or IFather in heaven, after ordinary Jewish usage (MIt 7” etc., see above). Then there are the places where He speaks of God as ‘my Father’ without addition, which are too numerous to need specifica- tion. Then we come to a smaller number of pas- sages in which ‘the Son’ and ‘the Father’ are at once opposed and associated. And lastly, there are the cases in which mention is made of ‘the l'ather’ and ‘the Son,” where the correlation is not expressed but implied. The last two classes of passages alone will require some discussion. The classical passage in the Synoptic Gospels for the correlative use of ‘the Father’ and ‘the Son' is, of course, Mt 11” ||. By the side of this we have Mk 13*|| [w.l..] and the important and much de- bated verse Mt. 2819. Dalman (see pp. 231–235) allows the first of these passages to stand, explaining it as a figurative application of the relation of ‘father and son.’ The relation of Jesus to Him whom we call ‘the Father’ is such a relation, and therefore implies mutual knowledge. But the other places, he thinks, bear too close a resemblance to the theo- logical language of the Early Church ; and he would set them down, in their present form, to the reflex influence of that language. He ques- tions the use by our Lord Himself of either phrase as a theological term. And this kind of view is, no doubt, widely spread in critical circles. Now, in the first place, we note that the passages just referred to are not the only evidence for †. the use in question within the cycle of Synoptic language. We may fairly add to these for this purpose Ac 14. 7, 2*; for not only is the author of Acts the author also of one of our Synoptic Gospels, but it is probable that these early chapters are based upon a document that is very º upon the same level with the sources used in the Synoptics. Next, we observe that if the use of ‘the Father’ and ‘the Son' as theological terms belongs to the Early Church, it at least goes back to the very first moment at which we possess º evidence for the vocabulary of that Church, and indeed to a date which is not more than 23 years from the Ascension (see 1 Th l’). And at the time when we thus first meet with it the use is no novelty, but already firmly and deeply rooted, a thing generally understood in all the l’auline Churches, and, so far as we can see, without any hint of question or dispute beyond their borders. As we shall have to illustrate this more at length in the next section, we need not pursue the point further. These facts demand an explanation. How are we to account for the rapid growth within some 23 to 26 years of a usage already so fixed and stereotyped 7 Where is the workshop in which it was fashioned, if it did not descend from Christ Himself . When we think of the way in which the best authenticated records of His teaching lead us up to the very verge of the challenged expressions, it seems altogether an easier step to regard them as the natural continuation of that teaching than to seek their origin wholly outside it. Of the two alternatives the former seems not only in other ways the more satisfactory, but really the easier and the more critical. 2. THE REST OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.—The same two convergent lines of doctrine may be traced in the rest of the NT as in the Gospels. Here again we have two groups of passages, the one introducing the title ‘Son ...} God,” and the other speaking rather of ‘the Father’ and ‘the Son.” And here again we find the two groups approach and mutually support each other. The main difference between the Gospels and the rest of the literature is that, whereas we have seen that in the Gospels there is an ascending scale of expression, corresponding to the gradual unfolding of the new conception in the course of the history, in the Epistolary and other books (which though, as writings, for the most part earlier than the Gospels in point of composition, are later than them in the stage of development to which they have reference), -in these books the 3rocess reflected in the Gospels is seen as complete; }. titles, or sets of . “Son of God’ and “Father and Son,” have come to represent definite theologumena. Their content is fixed, and carries with it a distinct doctrinal meaning. The climax to which we have been advancing has been reached, and now simply perpetuates itself. The point gained is not lost again. (a) The title “Son of God.”—We open the Epistle which stands at the head of the collection in our Bibles, and the state of belief implied in it is revealed to us in the very first verses (Ro 1*). We read there that the main subject of the Gospel, or new announcement to mankind, is just . ‘the Son of God.’ And the nature of the announce- ment respecting Him is, that while on one side of His Being He satisfies the conditions expected in the Jewish Messiah by His descent from David, on another side of His Being He is defined or marked out as attaining to a higher designation still. He is nothing less than ‘Son of God.’ And the incontrovertible proof of His higher nature is to be seen in His victory over death by the Re- surrection. The term “Son of God’ is evidently by this time chosen and established as the standing formula to express what we mean by the Divinity of Christ. If in the OT the term did not necessarily imply Divine origin in the strict sense at all, that state of things has once for all been left behind ; and this particular formula has been fixed upon by the Christian consciousness as the shortest and most decisive expression for the proposition in which its whole faith centres. The inference which we thus draw from the opening verses of Ep, to Romans is confirmed on | hands, and shown to hold good for every branch of the Church. We need not stay to illus- trate it further from such passages as Gal 2", Eph 419 for the Epp. of St. Paul. Iłut Ac 9"shows that to preach “that Jesus is the Son of God’ was a current way of describing the gospel. A like result follows from 1 Jn 3° (where ‘the Son of God was manifested is a name for what was after- wards called ‘the Incarnation '), and 1 Jn 4°5* * * prove clearly that the confession of Jesus as the Son of God was the cardinal point in the Chris- tian faith. Somewhat more indirectly the same conclusion follows from lle 4" 10” and l{ev 2* (taking up the description of 1*"). The Gospel of St. John (1*, *) identifies the Only-begotten with the Logos of God. 574 SON OF GOD SON OF GOD (b) The titles “Father’ and ‘Son.”—In the Pro- logue to the Fourth Gospel we are in the region of high theoloey. But the fundamental assumptions of the Epistles (Pauline, Petrine, Johannean, Hebrews) are on the same plane. From the first we have in the greetings of such as begin with greetings frequent reference to the standing cor- relatives “the Father’ and ‘the Son.” There never was a time within the range of this literature when the two correlative terms were not under- stood and accepted as part of the essential voca- bulary of Christianity. When, therefore, we read in Mt. 2819 the com- mand to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son, this combination is one proved to have been in common use less than 25 years after the command is said to have been given ; and the complete triad is proved to have been recognized very little later. We repeat that the matured form in which these conceptions are found in the earliest Epistles seems to us abundantly to justify not only the few places in which they enter into the Synoptic Gospels, but, in principle at least, the more numerous places in which they occur in the Gospel that bears the name of St. John (see below, 3 bi). Note on the w8e of ºrozis (soß.—We must reckon with the possi- bility that razī, (tsoč) in Ac 318, 26.427. 30 was intended to be taken in the sense of ‘Son.” It certainly has this sense in a number of places in the Apostolic Fathers (see below, III.1). It is, however, more probable that (as in Mt 1218) the earlier writers distinctly have in view the ‘Servant of Jehovah' of Is 421 etc. Only when the preaching of the gospel left Jewish ground and began to spread among peoples ignorant of Heb. were the two senses wholly confused. This process, indeed, was rapid ; and the effect was so far good that it blended with the conception of Christ as “Son’ a quantity of valuable teaching relating to the “Servant' which was most truly applicable to Iſim (though under another name), and which, but for this, might have met with less attention. On the passages in Acts see esp. an excellent note by Knowling on Ac 313; cf. also what is said by the same writer on ‘St. Peter's Discourses,’ p. 119 ft. 3. TIIE SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE TITLES.– We have now collected most of the data bearing upon our subject. The next step must be to con- sider their significance under the different condi- tions in which we have found the titles used. In other words, we shall have to ask what they really meant, in the fulness of their meaning, (a) for the contemporaries of Jesus, both Jewish and non- Jewish ; (b) for Jesus Himself; (c) for the apostles, looking back upon and interpreting them. (a) For contemporaries, Jewish and non-Jewish. —(i.) The populace.—Not much can be extracted from the witness of the demoniacs (Mk 3" || 57 ||). If we read into it a higher meaning than the words conveyed to the mind of the speaker, it could only be by assuming a providential action outside the working of ordinary laws. The prophecy of Caiaphas (Jn 11”) is perhaps sufficiently parallel to justify us in introducing #. and it is a common belief that, where the human will is most dormant, Divine influences are felt most readily. But, looked at psychologically, the confessions of the demoniacs could not mean more than that they believed theniselves to be in the presence of the expected Messiah. (ii.) The centurion.—In spite of the divergent report of the words of the centurion at the cross in Lk 237, there can be little doubt that the common source of the Synoptic narrative is rightly reproduced by Mark and Matthew, “Truly this was the Son of God.” As, however, there is no obvious reason why Luke should have altered this, and as there are other details in the history of the l’assion for which he appears to have inde- pendent authority, it is possible that another version of the words may have reached him ; and that version may have as good a chance of being true as that which competes with it. If the words ‘Son of God’ were really used, the sense attaching to them would depend to some extent on the nationality of the centurion, in regard to which we are in the dark. Probabl what was in his mind would be an undefined .# ing of awe, and a consciousness that events were happening that transcended his experience and apprehension. (iii.) The ruling classes. – The question was directly put to our Lord by the high priest, “Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed ?’ (Mk 14*). And the assenting answer was treated as blas- phemy. Still, it would not follow that this was taken as an assertion of full Divinity. It prob- ably, was taken as a claim to be the Messiah. But if the Jews in general thought of the Messiah as superhuman indeed, but not strictly Divine, the high priest (unless it were by such an overruling as we have considered above) is not likely to have meant more than this. The claim might well seem so audacious as to amount to blasphemy even without this aggravation (cf. Holtzmann, Newtest. Theol. i. 266), more especially as it in- cludes the prophecy of a second coming as Judge. (iv.) The disciples.—The highest point of recog- nition of our Lord's true nature was no doubt reached in St. Peter's confession. We have seen that there is sonne presumption (the extent of which we would not exaggerate, though it seems to us real) that St. Peter did actually use the words attributed to him by Matthew. If so, “the Son of the living God’ would be stronger still than the more common phrase without the epithet. Not only (as we have suggested) does this at once bring before the mind a whole mass of most central OT teaching, but by the very fact of varying from and adding to the current phrase it prepares us for a variation from and addition to the meaning. ‘The Son' is emphatically taken out of the common category of ...} others who may be described as ‘sons.’ And, ‘the Son of the living God’ is as much as to say “the Son of Jehovah Himself,” the God of Revelation and Redemption, and the expression of His Personal Being. We are on the way towards the dtraúyaapa, Tàs 6&ns kal Xapakrip rās virográoews of He l'. (b) For Jesus Himself.-But the question that concerns us most is, of course, What sense did the title and its equivalents bear for Jesus Himself? And here again we shall have to regard the ques: tion from several distinct points of view. We shall do well to look at it, (i.) in the light of our Lord's own filial consciousness; (ii.) in the light of the external testimony borne to Him by the Father; (iii.) with reference to the two distinct things, Messiahship and Divinity; (iv.) and lastly, with reference to the extent to which the l)ivine Son- ship is to be garried back behind the Incarnation. (i.) The filial consciousness of Jesus.--We have expressed our reluctance to speak too freely of the human consciousness of our Lord (art. JESUS CHRIST, ii. 603). But there can be no question that the central constituent in that consciousness was the complete and unclouded sense of the filial relation, evidenced at once by perfect mutu- ality of knowledge between the Son and the Father, and perfect submission and response on the part of the Son to the Father's will. On this head it may be said that critics of all shades are agreed (see, e.g., Holtzmann, Neºttest. Theol. i. 281 f., with numerous authorities quoted on p. 282; also Harmack, What is Christianity ? p. 127 ff.) J3ut, that being so, it is rather strange that the references to this filial relation in the Synoptic Gospels should be so comparatively few. . It is indeed implied in the many places in which (as we have seen) Jesus speaks of ‘My I'ather’ in a sense peculiar to Himself. 13ut, apart from these, there are but two conspicuous passages in which SON OF GOD SON OF GOD 575 ºr the relation in question is described. On the side of action we have the supreme “obedience unto death of Mk 14*|| ‘Abba, Father, all things are }. unto thee; remove this cup from me : howbeit not what I will, but what thou wilt.”: with which we may compare the intimacy of in- ward converse throughout the Passion (Llº 23*. [w.l..]"). And on the side of knowledge we have the one great passage, Mt 11” “No one knoweth the Son, save the Father ; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him.’ It is in conse- uence of this relation that “all things have been delivered” unto the Son by the Father (ib.), and that whosoever receives the Son receives really the Father who sent Him (Mk 9" ||). In the Synoptic Gospels, with these few excep- tions, the filial relation is rather felt as an under- lying presupposition of the narrative than directly expressed in it. But when we turn to the Fourth Gospel, what has been hitherto of the nature of incidental comment or implication becomes nothing less than a standing theme, worked out in great variety of detail. * The Son is come forth from God, from the Father Ǻ 133 1697. 23); He is not come of Himself, but is sent by God (849 178); and as IIe comes forth from God, so also He returns to God (133 1628). ... He is come in the Father's name (548); not to seek His own will, but the will of Him that sent Him) (530 638 1431, 1716); to do that will is the support and stay, the ruling function, of His whole being (434). It follows that the Son does not seek His own glory but the Father's (718 850 174); and, as the con- verse of this, IIe does not glorify Himself, but is glorified by the Father (1228 1332 175), though the Father is glorified in the Son. The acts of the Son are really the acts of the l’ather, the natural expression of that perfect intimacy in which they stand to each other (510, 20 820 1023. 37.38). The reciprocity between them is complete, it is seen in the perfection of their mutual knowledge (72) S10 1015 1723); so that the teaching of the Son is really the teaching of the lºather (710 828, 28.38 1249, 50 1410, 24 1516). [It is important to note that the after-teaching of the Spirit comes under the same description; He too will ‘not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak’ (1019; cf. 1515)]. Hence the life and char- acter and words of the Son, taken as a whole, constitute a revelation of the Father such as had never been given before (040 147.10; cf. 114.18). The great fundamental fact is that the Son is in the Father and the Father in Hin) (1038 1411 1721); or, in other words, the Son and the Father are one (1030); a claim, which the Jews appear to have understood, for they accused our Lord of “making himself equal with God’ (518). It was but another aspect of Iſis filial relation that the Son was the object of the Father's unwavering and unfailing love (Jn 395 520 1017159. 10 1723. 24, 26; cf. 1141 1423); that the father bears witness to Him (537 818 1290) [and we observe here again that the witness which is borne to the Son by the Father is also borne by the Spirit (1520)]; or, to use a summary Jewish expres- sion, “him the IFather, even God, hath sealed' (627). Nor is it surprising that the prerogatives of the Father are committed to the Son (335 133 1615, 177), more particularly the prerogative of ‘dgment (592, 27 099), and the power of both possessing and imparting life (520 1125 146, 19 172; cf. 14) : or that the Son is to be honoured as the Father is honoured (523; cf. 1523. 24); or that mankind are invited to “conne' to the Son as the source of all highest nourishment (414 000 787), and as the way to the Father (697. 44, 45 140). It is open to us, if we will, to think that in this collection of sayings there is an element—possibly a somewhat considerable element—that represents not so much what was actually spoken as enlarge- ment or comment embodying the experience and reflexion of the growing Church. It is open to us, if we will, to think that the part played by such sayings in the Gospel is proportionately greater than they would have seemed to bear to any average disciple who had heard the Lord. That it should be so would be perfectly consistent with the Gospel being the work of an apostle. It would be the natural and deliberate result of his setting himself to write a trueuparuköv eſſayyé\tov, the object of which was not so much to furnish a plotographic repro- duction of the events as to fill up gaps and defici- encies in the records of preceding evangelists. But, when every deduction is made, the fact remains that sayings of this character there most certainly were ; and not only so, but on the showing of the most critical of critics they supplied the real key- note to the whole history. A scientific examina- tion of the Gospels, whatever else it brings out, brings out this, that the root-element in the con- Sciousness of Jesus was a sense of Sonship to the Divine Father, deeper, clearer, more intinuate, more all-embracing and all-absorbing, than ever was vouchsafed to a child of man. (ii.) The testimony of the IFather. — We have spoken so far of what might be called the sub- jective consciousness of Jesus. As much at least as this not only follows from the logic of the history, but is distinctly revealed to us.-in the Synoptic Gospels sufficiently, in the Fourth Gospel abundantly. But to this subjective conviction on His part the narratives tell us that there was also added an objective confirmation. The confirma- tion was given in the two voices at the Baptism and at the Transfiguration (Mk 1" || 97 ||), and also —if we take in St. John—by the voice heard at the visit of the Greeks (Jn 12*). How are we to explain these utterances 2 If the narratives are well founded, we are not limited in our explanation by any inquiry as to the current contemporary interpretation of such texts as Ps 27, Is 42", Dt 18*, however much the words said to have been spoken contain reminis- cences of or allusions to those texts. For the hearing of the voices was what might be called a |...}. hearing. The lº is, as we have hinted above (p. 572”), that just as on the third occasion, while the crowd said, ‘It thundered,” or ‘An angel spake to him,” either in the first instance the Baptist, or in the second instance the three apostles, or perhaps in all three, Jesus Christ Himself alone was aware of something that con- veyed a more articulate sense than this. But in any case the sense thus conveyed was conveyed to the spiritual ear by a method analogous to that of prophetic inspiration. And if, on the occasions in question, the Spirit of God did intimate prophetically to chosen witnesses, more or fewer, a revelation couched partly in the language of the ancient Scriptures, it would by no means follow that the meaning of the revelation was limited to the meaning of those older Scrip- tures. On the contrary, it would be likely enough that the old words would be charged with new meaning—that, indeed, the revelation contained in them, though linking on to some message of the past, would yet be in substance a new revelation. We have seen that the ancient Scriptures of which we are speaking contributed, each in its way, to create that Ideal l’igure which, in dimensions varying with the apprehending eye and mind, hovered before the imaginations of the conteun- poraries of Jesus. To Jesus Himself it reached the fullest dimensions of which it was capable. And we may assume that to His mind the an- nouncement ‘Thou art my Son’ meant not only all that it had ever meant to the most enlightened of seers in the past, but, yet more, all that the response of His own heart told Him that it meant in the present. It might well content us to put into the words this, and no more. 13ut it is possible, and we should be justified in supposing—not by way of dogmatic assertion, but by way of pious belief—in view of the later history and the progress of sub- sequent revelation, that the words were intended to suggest a new truth not hitherto made known, viz. that the Son was Son not only in the sense of the Messianic king, or of an Ideal People, but that the idea of Sonship was fulfilled in Ilim in a way yet more mysterious and yet more essential ; in other words, that He was Son, not merely in bropletic contemplation but in actual transcendent fact, before the foundation of the Worlds. 576 SON OF GOD SON OF GOD (iii.), Messiahship and divinity.—This last possi- bility brings us to the question, which in any case we shall have to face: What exactly is the mean- ing of the title “Son of God’.? There is no doubt that it means the expected Messiah,--that at least. But how much more does it mean than that ? In articular, does it mean the Son as incarnate, or oes it go behind and beyond the Incarnation ? We reserve the last part of this question for a moment. . In the meantime we must attempt to define rather more exactly the relation of the title ‘Son of God’ to the conception of the Messiah. In the popular mind, at the period with which we are concerned, the two things would be simply iden- tical. But, as we so constantly see, our Lord was not content merely to take a popular idea with the conventional stamp upon it. In "His hands the F. idea is nearly always remoulded, renewed; rought into harmony with some fresh and power- fºliº, and reissued with the signature of that reality. Hºad done this with the title SON OF MAN. For the author of the Similitudes in the Book of Enoch and for those who inherited his tradition, the Son of Man was just the Messiah as Judge. IBut our Lord went back to the original sources of the title, Dn 7” and Ps 8*; and He thus brought it into living contact with the conception of Man as Man. In His lips it was the Messiah os Man, the perfect Man, in i. sense of being more man—more completely embodying in Hinmself the essence of all that went to make man, more utterly in touch with everything in man—than any who had ever borne the name of man before. So, too, with the title “Son of God.” Its meaning was very far from being exhausted by the holding of a certain office or function, such as that of the Messiah. For Jesus the phrase means the absolute fulness of all that it ought to mean—the perfection of Sonship in relation to God; in a word, just all that sum of relations and habitudes of feeling and thought and action that we have seen so amply set before us in the Gospel of St. John. It is the pic- ture of a mind lying open without flaw or impedi- ment to the stream of Divine love pouring in upon it, and responding to that love at once with exquisite sensitiveness and with entire completeness. It is indeed the very perfection of what we mean by #ion and the religious attitude of the soul to }od. It thus appears that in the mind of Christ the Jewish conception of the Messiah parted in two directions—one covering all the relationships of man to man, and the other in like manner covering all the relationships of the perfect Man to God. . It Jarted in these directions, and it was resolvable into the two complementary ideals to which they led. And as a matter of fact the life of Christ on earth was the consummate realization of those ideals. ſº. with the above an admirable paragraph in Holtzmann, Newtest. Theol. i. 281 f.]. The łº, title ‘Messiah' had upon it the stamp of something local and temporary; and as such it has lost Inuch of its interest for the modern world. But the two other titles of which we have been speaking imply what is neither local nor temporary, but as permanent as Humanity itself. It is therefore specially under these titles that our Iord most freely revealed Himself. There is, however, something in the title ‘Mes- piah ' which although present was not quite so prominent in the other two. They conyey to us as fully as it could be conveyed what Jesus was in Himself. Ibut they do not bring out in the same relief the historical mission that He had in the first instance for His contemporaries and through them for all after-ages. The wonderful birth, the wonderful works, the crucifixion, the resurrection, _* and the ascension may be viewed as aspects of the work of the Son of Man and of the Son of God,— they are aspects of the work of salvation and of the coming forth from and return to the Father,- but as enacted in space and time they might be more appropriately described as belonging to the manifestation of the Messiah. What, deeper implications are there in the title “Son of God’? Were the 4th cent. Fathers right in claiming that He who bore this title was not only in the full sense “Son’ but in the full sense ‘God,” —that to be the Son of God implied identity of nature or of essence 2 We may say with confidence that a Sonship such as is described in the l'ourth Gospel would carry with it this conclusion. How . any inferior being either enter so perfectly into the mind of the Father or reflect it so perfectly to man? Of what created being could it §. said, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father’? We need not stay to pick out other expressions that admit of no lower interpretation, because the evangelist has made it clear by his Prologue what construction he himself put upon his own narrative. But, although this conclusion can really be made good independently of the next and last point that we have to consider, it is to some extent mixed up with it, and it may be well to pass on to this point. (iv.) Pre-cacistence.—When we use the title ‘Son of God,” how much does it cover ? Is it strictly and properly º to the incarnate Christ, or does it extend backwards before the Incarnation ? In other words, does it, or does it not, imply pre- existence We cannot discuss this question ade- quately without taking in the rest of the NT. We may, however, provisionally ask what infer- ence would be drawn from the Gospels. And in regard to these there is no doubt that in the great majority of cases the words would be satisfied by a reference to Christ as incarnate. All the instances in the Synoptic Gospels would come under this head. On the other hand, it is equal y little open to question that in the Fourth Gospel Christ is conceived as pre-existent. Nothing could be more explicit than the opening verse. Christ as the Logos was in the beginning with God, and was God. But does this hold good of Him also as the Som. 2 That is more debatable. We have to look about somewhat for expressions that are free from ambiguity. Perhaps there are not any. The clearest would be the verse Jn 118 (which belongs to the evangelist), if we could be sure that the common reading is correct : “ the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father,’ seems to speak of this pre-existent condition (= irpès rêv 0eów of v.”) as though it belonged to Him as Son. But then we are confronted by the well-known question of reading. It must be enough to refer to the elaborate note in WH, and to Dr. Hort's dissertation (1876), with which the present writer, So far as his judgment goes, º express his agreement. But the reading would then be not ‘the only-begotten Son,” but ‘God only-begotten.” Places like 3!” [v.l..]*, which are unambiguous ts to pre-existence, do not clearly connect it with ‘the Son.” Indeed the first of these introduces some- what unexpectedly not the “Son of God,” but the ‘Son of Man,” who must be the Son incarnate. At the same time the terms ‘Father’ and “Son’ are so correlative that the frequent occurrence of such phrases as ‘My Father which sent me,’ ‘Not any man hath seen the Father save he which is from God,” “I speak the things which I have seen with my Father,’ would seem to suggest that the relation of Father and Son existed before the Son became incarnate. At any rate the great emphasis on the two terms would seem to show that º relation to OſO4) HO NOS 11g GIO*) TO, NOS. ‘xºnoid Tuol u \ou sº uºyu w *I.N. Jo osoto oth puoſoq sdons A\oj u (Io SSud on loºpod suoos q inq : pouotor oAuu oA quod out, qu dm uns quêrui o A–"Houſ II.O ATIVEI III,I, III •uspuupuy Jo untoun, uſulu ou') outſooq Utopiouſ]sſp out) ºup layup u q W ‘uoyºonpold poquios. Kisuolºmo quuſ, Jo duſuouaq ouq go opºspºojou.tulſo sp. "I (OI X J0) 0T ‘g| AX “utorſ “utomo ry sp 3280 puu go?0 sofa too.wqoq KII compul usinjuſºsp 6; Toqºix, Juosold ouq ol usaotix qduoqqu Klutoduoquoo IIu qu Kuo ou.T. - (Mooq quotlooxo osºtoujo ut; tıodn qorq tool u ‘ggz ‘d ‘offo.tºr ºdouſ's oos) SSoupopps-ouo quous qq.A Iodsor) spuſ) uſ quoulolo Ústavoſ out) &IIuſoodso quo.") o, sopoultuj puno.15 soluto AA go touqout, ‘IQAoAou “sſ QI (819 uſ) , p ≤) uq, A Tuubo Josulu jupſuu, Su Qsiluſ) Jo uſuſo out) popauşo. SAoſ' otº ºutlº pion Wissoulxo oit, oa) [odsor) ultnoſ out, uſ (|bg-10RT IIW) poultuopuoo Suw oPI quuſ, oil'uuo quitº uodu suas q} quuſ) puu ‘Āuoudsulq Jo utop outd.1%x9 uu Jo uplpoutit'S outſ, ologoq postmoou Suw Jºostuſ II sºluo quuſ, uoſºsomb puo Koq oſprub st q qugſ "I go plbou o Auu Klupu),too qsoul plmous OM ‘Āqunultuoo uuſsatio ouſ, Jo osuos out" on uoſqisoddo uſ juſqou trooq put out quo aſ āuſ Autuo up JJ put, “ultu on onp KII'uol (tooq puu sºluſ) Jo uomº Jogop ou, JI 'lutº, I “S Jo OAQuºuſ ottº off Uſomu oo) tug o]nqlū)'u ol Hood soluto AA go sopoultuj puno.13 out, Jo ouo Sy qI 'aoſ quinooom on o[quun sº JIostulu ou (Ioſua , Kouopuol [uopiot -OUTKul, posoddns u ol āuluovo’, su go opps spun unwop gos oj puu ‘Aoſ' tº KIIuot qou splmud “S Käolonsau() sput up quuq Kūs ol louding pointlo SpoLI J.O go pionſ, ouq t'\A qsituſo 3up/ſyſ) (topſ &q tug ouoš Āpuolilu puu Inuit “S quuq stooj Afſluoppao tosuyu oIII.10M 'ulouſ, quouſ]{A\ 049 (dutoouſ stºº quuſ, ooutpo ut, uMoto off suujºsſillo'otſuo:), out on Joſ Angol jou suM j qug "ouſ) st poſſ) quuſ, uossal quo.15 out, sua Aquuſsuluſ) og to Ao 3upuuoo uo quituol ſolº quud wossol qsuſ out', qolī; qooy out, qos od on AIQūšit qušuo ‘poopuſ ‘spu) suyuşw 'uoouſºu'ad ouq on sojºujap Aou quipt, Olssoupua, Iſou), pum ‘ūIsſuºud uloag squoaudo ouſ, &q uſ qušuo IQ stop, Xul ou'l Qāno.Itſ “puno.15 ouTuob liodn uoyſtiq su. A , pot) = poſſ) Jo uos, doqs Iðuling out, quu? Slupuſ) on stuoddle out quq ‘USIAoſ ÁIQoI.10s sy, poğ) Jo uos, oùù out, quuq sawollu of I ,'QSITUO Jo AquaTOI ouq go out 14oop out, oº, spool quuq puo.1 ou SI orouſ Uustuſqqū’I UIo.ſy put J.O. ou! u0,1], qullquogysodold ouq On JIoSuſù Squiuoo losugi go ousto AA 'Joldſ “ggz ‘d ‘(I00I '51zdºorſ ºn uošuſqJ) wonthſ ºr .to.tosum offwºſu y on Cr ‘Mooq 5uydoãAs puu quopuuoo ooq, tug qua Suſqsotoqui pun olam spºt uſ — "pop Jo u0S, 211?? 971, ſo 987, woº?Sºlo anſ; ſo wºljºto own wo onoM - ‘oaoqe 90s stl uſ uO ‘uoſºsoſtuºuſ oſtols!"I out” pupuloq Mogq soºthp (IOIUAV drušuoS Jo uondoouod a sqso:3 ºns (topnſ’ ‘al di I go ºn tº uſ & ‘ag ºf rº-ºrg itſ I) , Wollº[ OUT poº), Jo put , uoS out), put tout; I oq), go osm oºmosqu and “otoun su ‘qug 'Iodsoº) oud uſ st; IoAot outs oilſ, qu &IIboi otº o AA oAISniouoo oqmb 5uſtſ, ou sporouſ, utioſ qS go ºddſ out, uſ ‘Āºw outs ouſ spuo, “uos Sy opt atopoq (opytudiuo) noS UAo spoº), Ápû9.Iſe sº qua ‘quos 5uſoq Āq uoS out outdooq Jou soop uoS ou', otou A “S oyſ ‘oo7 pp 700 “nooſušyſ “Ioning ‘oos ojuqs optonspu -old out on op.101st II out uoly drušuos Jo uopºdooud.) où1 Noºd &LIto on diati UoptiM suoissolidzo jo opoMo lougout uſ ssuſ.Iq qI ‘olou tuto, oud go osm oiſ, on Sdoqs [UIoAos Áq pot ostoA quuq go uoſquo;[ddu oſutºssoſ.W. on, quuq olqissod KIOA sº q ūšūouq ‘gº ºff& sq. on uoism[In 199.jpg |ou SI atollſ, (La 'd ‘aſhºtgs?ſon/osuoſºvº/99 ‘qdn't Hosſaiouqo ºrpoolſ.I. ‘sjæðuads/C soa only slopil odu) IIoA su Kaptopad Jo topſ out, opn(oxo Oq 5uo.IAA suoos q ‘sooolly slºopil oA10 ſtro3 5uſujop ouſ, Jo Aoya uſ ‘sſuſ, ox|II qxoquoo tº uſ qugſ (gr.S oyſ Jo) untſ tolyt: u.Ioq oſe ou A II'u JoAo oouopooold sitſ “unoqāsīg ouq go squšII [p.3öI oùn go quuſ, SI soxol) todu up bopp 5uſpool out of esti Itoſſſſſt uſ quuſ, on 11 SI q. ‘AoN (soooſly slopil soxolºlodil) uoſº goto Iſø go utoqqsig ouq ‘pot) 9Iqſs[Auſ oil] go (apx19) of buy out spotſ A ' ' ' oAoſ SIUſ Jo UOS ou?, at (c) I IOO sº 958SSud Touqo ouſ I, - *oqºlmoog o Lou od p(noA qs.III où Qiánot(, ‘of’emāugſ up qānouo uoultuoo spºona, buoſoq poiſ010.11s KIIgor qou sº offussed out 3uptº) Jo Kuw puooos stud, 'uoS, poſſco ÁIIthoods od O! ouTuo [uoyºtºu Igouſ sſRI Jo Aoya uſ “spreaw.todyg] oùA luſh on of unsuel Jo Kºprul Tumyou onjub put qušūs b. Āq ºnq ‘ûons so Atholins qou uos ouj on boltogo.1 od u211 p(now ‘oouanspo-old Kºduty qopuA ‘sosnuſo tougo ou.I. (...pugil huāji otſ, qiā assop 308, “suſs go uoſºgoſTind opout out uotia, ‘sfuyu, II* Jo Iraq lº où utoq A,) 01buteouſ so uoS oùq 01 Junod poopuſ op qopuA Jo Sqiud Kuetti “ofºus | -sud 91911A outſ, solouguop ºscinuoo spun youq puu ‘uoS 94 bu tuouſ ou', ‘2’ ‘uos out qāmottº uomºloao.I A$ – ‘AI “TOA [but] º put shoudoid ouq ūānoulq suoſht’ſoaor smogaold ouq uooAqoq Spošussed oul uſ 1st IQuoo. upbut out, quuq pois.In od, Kutu I ‘uoS St uſ! II. O) topol Kouq jºu? Aoſtoj KILIUSSooou Oºmb Jou soop qt ‘uoS ou') ol logo.I Šošntºlo oathºlº alſº ºr ‘ĀInoptºs on: It op ostro spun up quino ow loulou A bouoſºsomb ol Kutu q ‘putti toujo ou? IIo ‘Angſ ‘puoupot) sqspruſ) jo.ootlosso ou" on 5uſuTuºlod oquqiqqu ut q oxiºu pluow put ‘uoſºvo to otojoq oupſ, ouq ol dusuoS ouq Mouq Kūl'uo pInow quil), ‘sºutuq IIº spoudn put ploudu opſ uoS St. ooutºs -qus out AICI ouq go oiuluſ ou', ‘Kuolā out AICT out, Jo ootto:5[n]o ouq sp. opt uOS Su : , splitoA ouſ, opulu oH woS so quuq ‘Aus on SI quitſ, ‘uoS Su tuſſl On Moºd quºod Sosnuſo oAſſuſo.1 ou? II's quuſ, AOIIoy" otojo.tould pino A qI ſpoº) Joj uoSoul Jo SXI'uods osmºſo [tºdiouſld sluJ, pollojo.1 ovu Sosnuto OAI]uſol put oyuuſploqns touqo oth Iſu (IoIlſa Oil ‘oouoluos où uſ osmēto ſediouſld ouo juq spolouq Quuq pošin oq Kutu q ‘Āſīonths on:5.Itſ ow. JJ ‘puſbú oud out) uO ‘old Issod ovu edussed spun 5upitºl Jo SKuA owlſ, .."uāyū ūo Kºsoſuuſ out, Jo putſu dušil ou" (Io (IAAop qus ‘suis Jo uoguo Hind opºut putſ on uoua ‘to Aod syu Jo pioA ou" & Säuitſ, Iſu 5uiploqdu put ‘oottuqsqus stu Jo ojuuuſ KIOA out, puu ‘Klopș syſt Jo ootiošUniſo ouſ, Suſoq on A : spIIow où, opuntſ out osſu ulou A tºmoltſ, ‘siuſ!!" [[u Jo Iſoq poquoddu qiyou ou uot A ‘uoS Stu uſ su optin uox{ods $Kup osotº, Jo puo ou', 'ju (Inguſ ' ' ' S]oudoid out, uſ Siouquy out) onun uoxiods outſ, pIo go ºut Aull ‘pok), : SAolqol I out! O! ‘dºſ out, Jo 5uſuodo outſ, SI ou () ‘Āſhootſp otolu uoſºsomb out, uodn lºod quqq Sośussed oA). ‘IoAoAoû ‘ott, otolſ.I, ruouſ). opuloxo qou op osſe Kotī, ‘suopºlol quoqspo-old puts ootions[xo-old q8053ms qou op Kouº Ji : Smonjiquit, old Soğussed Jo Loqunu toº go.13 out, Uby KQ uſu%t, oto H § 01buttouſ so qsituſ) on polyunſ q, Sy to ‘ootto1st Xo-old go uoſº. -bonduiſ Kut uſuauoo “sopisode out, Kå posm so “pot) Jo uoS, tulo) out, sooCI SIodsor) out" on plbäol up 5uſſºop uooq ºsmſ oAbū oAA (IoIIIA qq. A quuſ, sº outs out, sº sm shootu quun uoſºsomb ſºdiouſld out.I. "poq losutuolſo od On SI solinquoo osotſ! Jo M.I.O.A oùn (loſt|A KQ poppaOId uood sºul pluouſ to outly out, qug soluluoo go XIIoA out, od IIIA KI)00xo oloul q ougop o', ; onjeA SI ‘oseo (loud uſ ‘osº.III.I ouſ], , pºop put Momb Jo 95pm ſº ouſ, Jo St. ‘(gopé) (del sº) poſſ) Jo Su qsſiuſ) Smsoſ Jo Muluq ol os qušuo ow. ‘uolunoia, quouloſo Jo oſºsidºl (poſſeo-os) puooos out, Jo Unſp.toxo uAoux-[[oAA ou" on tºſſuſs Ato A od pInoA qu'uouſ Kou() quu.A. “SittiO Jo otuſ, bu out, Jo ops ouſAIOI out uſ jolloq. Toul quo juſtſ on topio uſ ‘Splow toujo uſ Kūs &bul oA Se ‘to ‘uqay upſ) -SIIIO Iſoui, Ssold Ko Oq &Inuitoſ tº St. poſſ) Jo uoS, où14 outſ, go osm ox{tºtu Klooly Stoq.IAA of ſoqsode ouq quuq uoos oAgú oAA— so??sodo alſº .tor (9) ‘āui Kiddus KI400. Ip qnouq(A go off to A ou? on Sn pool s{odsor) Touqo otſ, quu A Kiddns on qsmſ ‘stouno Kuutu os uſ sº ‘ooutºsuſ sittº uſ stuoos qi Ionſ LA quosold out, ol, ‘Āq.Iouang Igor Ioºsitſ tº St. Iodsor) (1).Ino I . JO oqouſlso I grouoš out" uodn puodop IIIA pondoooº oq on sº uoſº tºuosold ugouttguoſ out lºy Aoû O] sº uoisſoop out.I., “I uodn 5uguouaq S.p.torſ Ino Jo uoſquod tº oompotdo.1 ºnq pºp put ‘[[e qu Qooſqms où uodn poqooljot qou pull Stoq.[A out, quitº aido -qold SI q. Siodsoº) oſqdou KS out, up oſſu A : ponsoãäus os sſ qi quitº uoſqdunsold Tuolo tº sp. olouq unof ‘qS go osſeo ouſ uſ poqsoiâns KII?0.1 sº q odou A qi opinioxo on KuA quâIIS Ato A B qiq off uoſº copidur tions Aut, quoiſqJA posm sp. UIoS, utoq out, topus uſ sold tutºxo Kuglu ou I, dy"IsucS go quitº, tú A ootions:o-ord Jo copy out outposse of osmyoi piùoA oùA osotº) (ITIAA on 01 Suroos ÁII'got Joo.Id Jo uop.Inq outſ, snu" polygºs od qušpuſ osso out, sdūqīod iO . - ‘5uſoq go ooliosso ouſ, oluj u Aop doop sooš qaqq àujuq ouos quq ‘ositid 5tissud a qou spºulod Kodº uopiº 578 SON OF GOL) SON OF GOD * 1. The sub-Apostolic Fathers.—In the sub-Apos- tolic writings we find a state of things very siniilar to that which we have just left behind. There is no doubt a certain annount of usage in which the term “Son’ may be appropriately explained of the Incarnate. Such would be, e.g., Ignatius, Smyrn. i. 1, ‘per- suaded as touching our Lord that he is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, but Son of God by the Divine will and power, truly born of a virgin.” This is clearly modelled on Ito 14 (similarly Barn. v. 9, 11). I}ut even in this writer there are instances where a less restricted sense would seem to be intended, as in the Trinitarian passage, Magn. xiii. 1, ‘that }. may prosper in all things . . . in the Son and "ather and in the Spirit” (év vić kal trarpi kal év true part); and in Rom. inscr., “[the Church] which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father’ (vloſ, trarpós). We seem to have here the absolute use of ‘Father’ and “Son’ as correlative to each other, without refer- ence to the Incarnation. Cf. Magn. vi. 1, “Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the worlds and appeared at the end of time’; if the Father- hood is pre-mundane, the Sonship must also be pre-mundane. All ambiguity is removed in Barn. vi. 12, where we have the first express reference of the plural in Gn 1* to ‘the Son,’ ‘For the scripture saith con- cerning us, how he saith to the Son : Let us make,” etc. (cf. v. 5). The strange reading ‘Son of God,” foisted into the free quotation of Ex 17" in Darn. xii. 9, can hardly be adduced, because Joshua is regarded as a type by anticipation of the In- Carnate. Another quite clear passage is Herm. Sim. ix. 12. 2, where the Son of God, eo nomine, is described as ‘anterior to all creation, so that he became the Father's adviser in his creation' (6 Aév viðs roſ, 9eoſ, Táorms Tīs Kriorews atroſſ trpoyevéo repôs éotiv, K.T.A.). This evidently takes up the Trparótokos tróa'ms krigsaws of Col 1", assuming the doctrine if not actually referring to the words. Of the group of passages in Patr. Apost. where traſs is certainly used in the sense of ‘Son,” one at least, Ep. Diogn. viii. 9–11, refers unequivocally to the pre-Incarnate, “having conceived a great and unalterable scheme, he communicated it to his Son alone” (ävekouvêa aro advº rig travöt). The state of the case appears to be, that while in Patr. Apost. the title is still predominantly referred to the in- carnate state, the writers have no sense of being confined to this, and are quite prepared to go be- yond it. When we come to Justin all distinction is ob- literated, and the Son is frankly identified with the Logos; Apol. ii. 6, ‘But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten, there is no name given. . . . And his Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word, who also was with him and was begotten before the works, when at first he created and arranged all things by him,” etc. (6 68 viðs ékelvov, ô Đôvos Aéryópºevos kvplws viós, ò Aóyos trpé Tóv troum- Awaraju kal avvdov kal yewv&ſaevos, K.T.A.). fioſº We not only have “Son’ and ‘Word’ used as convertible, but a special stress is laid on the idea of ‘genera- tion' as involved in ‘Sonship,” which a little later in Origen took shape in the &º. of the Eternal Generation (de Princ. I. ii. 4, 9). Before this, in Ignat. Eph. vii. 2, both words yeuvnrós and dyévvmtos (v. l. Yevnrós and dyévm ros) had been applied to Christ, but with quite untechnical freedom (cf. Lightfoot, ad loc., and ii. 90–94; also Robertson, At/vtnasius, pp. 149, 475 m.). The passage of Justin is very important as a landmark. From that time forwards what might be called the metaphysical treatment of the title antithesis to the Christology of Pre-existence. “Son’ becomes more and more common until it reaches its climax in the writers of the 4th century. Note on the meaning of “Son’ in the Apostles' Creed. — There arose in Germany in the years 1892-1804 a rather shar discussion about the Apostles' Creed, begun by Harnaclº an taken up by Zahn, Kattenbusch, Cremer, and others. This also roduced in England an admirable little volume of lectures by Dr. Swete (The Apostles' Creed, Cambridge, 1804), which gives a concise account of most of the points at issue. Among these was the question as to the intº of the term “Son’ in the Creed, which Harnack wished to limit to the historic, as contrasted with the prehistoric, Sonship, Dr. Swete perhaps (p. 26 ft.) a little overstates both Harnack's contention and the strength of the arguments against it. . And yet that contention is really too sweeping, though the point made by I(attenbusch in his recently completed larger work (Das Apost. Symbol, ii. 566f.), that the clause roy yºvynllivro, ix ºrvº. &y. z. Mapios ris troºpſ). shows that the historic yáyyºori, was in the author's mind, appears to be valid. It is true that the first interest in this paragraph of the Creed is in historical facts. But at the same time, as Kattenbusch also very rightly observes, there is no - The question is not really raised; and yet, as we might perhaps put it, the conception of Sonship is left open on that side. We are re- minded that the Creed is in its origin Western and not Oriental. And for Western thought more especially, the denial of a purely natural birth may be taken to imply pre-existence. It should be added that recent research places the origin of the Creed with confidence in the first half of the 2nd cent., and many would say in the first quarter; so that it would be strictly parallel to the Apostolic l'athers. 2. Marcellus of Ancyra.-One episode in the controversies of the 4th cent. has a not incon- siderable reflex bearing on the interpretation of NT. Marcellus of Ancyra was one of the keenest supporters of Nicene doctrine. He seems, how- ever, to have asserted it on different grounds from those commonly brought forward. The position he took up was in the first instance biblical. We have seen that the Arians exploited in their own interest the title “Son.” They inferred from it the posteriority and inferiority of Him by whom it was borne. Marcellus appears to have met them by saying that the use which they made of the title was unwarranted and indeed altogether wide of the mark. According to him, the title “Son’ had no reference to origin or to the pre- existent relation of Christ to the IFather. The proper term to denote this relation was in his view not ‘Son,” but “Logos.’ It appears to be a mis- take to say that he denied the ‘Trinity’ or the distinct hypostatic existence of the Logos, though some of his speculations were not quite easily reconcilable with this. But his main contention was that “Logos’ was the proper name of the pre- Incarnate and “Son’ of the łº, and that the biblical writers observed this distinction, the only apparent exception being cases in which the title “Son’ was used ‘prophetically.” Eusebius of Caesarea, who replied to him, marshals an impos- ing array of no fewer than thirty separate desig- nations which he maintains to have been also used of the Son before the Incarnation ; but they are nearly all wide of the mark, and it must be con- fessed that on this ground the victory rests rather with his opponent (see Euseb. de Eccl. Theol. i. 17–20, Migne, Pat. Gr. xxiv. 856–896; and on the whole controversy, esp. the monograph by Zahn, Marcellus von Ancyra, Gotha, 1867; and Moberly, Atonement and Personality (London, 1901, pp. 208–215). Conclusion.—From what has been said, it will be seen that the assertion of Marcellus in regard to the biblical usage was really very much in the right direction, though—as is so often the case with the ancients, when they have got hold of a right principle in criticism or exegesis — it is rather too sweeping and unqualified. As compared with Marcellus and the modern revivers . his opinion, our own conclusion from the evidence passed in review would be, that while it is undoubtedly true that the biblical writers and the other early Christian writers before Justin, SON OF MAN SON OF MAN 579 start from the Incarnation and are thinking prinarily of this, their thought does not neces- sarily end with it. It seems to point backwards into the dim past behind it. Certainly there is no sharp line of demarcation restricting the meaning of the title to the incarnate state and no other. The writers are so far from guarding themselves against any reference beyond the Incarnation that they seem rather naturally to suggest it. The Son is so called primarily as incarnate. But that which is the essence of the Incarnation must needs be also larger than the Incarnation. It must needs have its roots in the eternity of Godhead. [See esp. a very instructive and carefully balanced discussion in Moberly, Atonement and Person- ality, pp. 185 fl., 21.1–215]. LITERATURE.-The most important literature will have been sufficiently indicated in the course of the article. The works to which the writer himself owes most are Dalman's Worte Jesu, (Leipzig, 1808), and H. J. Holtzmann's Newtest. Theologie (Frei- burg i. B. u. Leipzig, 1897). To these should now be added Harmack's Das Wesem des Christentwm3 (admirably translated under the title What is Christianity ? London, 1901), which has a very suggestive treatment of the subject, though too im- patient of formulated doctrine; and the portion of Moberly, Atonement and Personality, just referred to. Younger students should not fail to have recourse to Dr. Swete's Apostles' Creed (Cambridge, 1804). W. SANDAY. SON OF MAN.— 1. An expression occurring in both OT and NT, and used in the following applications. (1) A poet, synonym of ‘man,’ found in parallelism with “man’ (the word for “man” in the two clauses being in the original a different one). See the occurrences in § 6; and add Ps 144” (for ºils"]]; 1 DJs). (2) In Ezek. the title under which the prophet is regularly addressed by J", 2** 3" " and upwards of 90 times besides. Ezek. has a pro- found sense of the majesty of J"; and the expression is no doubt intended to mark the distance which separated the prophet, as one of mankind, from Ilim. The id: is borrowed from Ezek. in Dn 87. (3) In the vision in Dn 7 the glorious being whom IDan. sees brought ‘with the clouds of heaven' to the Almighty, after the fourth beast (representing the empire of the Seleucidae) is slain, to receive an everlasting and universal dominion (v.”), is de- scribed as ‘one like unto a son of man’ (Aram. Ya? cºs). The expression means simply a figure in human form. What the figure was intended to denote has been the subject of much controversy. At an early date (see § 11) it was undoubtedly in- terpreted of the Messiah, and the same view has been largely held down to the present time (e.g. by Ewald, Riehm, and Behrmann); but in the author's own interpretation of the vision (vv.” ”,”) the “saints of the Most High' take the place of the ‘one like unto a son of man’; and this constitutes a strong ground for concluding that he himself understood by it the glorified and ideal people of Israel (see, further, the present writer's Comm. on Dan. p. 103 ff.). The same expression in Greek (Šuotos víð dvdpºtov: see IRV) is applied also in Rev 1" 14” to the risen and glorified Christ. 2. ‘The Son of man' (6 vtós roß &v6pútrov) is a designation of Christ, though one confined to the Gospels and Ac 7", and, except Ac 7" (where it occurs in Stephen's dying exclamation *), found only in the mouth of Christ Himself (the quota- tion in Jn 12” forming no real exception). 3. The following is a synopsis of the occurrences in the Synoptic Gospels, in the order given, or suggested, by St. Mark — Mt. Mk Lk 1232a [8%ſ"] 1210 (whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, etc.) [51]+] 6” (when men reproach you, etc., for the Son of nan's sake 1023; (shall not have finished the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come) [1032}]; 128 (him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God) 1119 78% (came eating and drinking) 820 958 (hath not where to lay his head) [164*] [813°) (as Jonah was three days, etc. (Mt); as 1130; Jonah became a sign unto the Ninev- 1240 n ites, etc. [Llt) 1337 (he that Soweth the good seed is the Son of man) || 1341 §: send forth his angels, etc.)|| 1613 [827#) [918+] wº men say that the Son of man IS [1621+] 831 922 (must suffer many things, be killed, and rise again) 1627 838 920 (of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory, etc. [Mk, Lk) ; for the Son of man shall come in, etc. (Mt) 1028 [91+] [927t] (shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming, etc.) 179 90 [08°] (to tell the vision to no man till the Son of man be risen from the dead) 1712 912 (ºr like Elijah [John the Bap- j|S 1722 931 944 (shall be delivered into the hands of men, etc., and [Mt, Mk] rise again) 1928 [1020”] [1829*] (in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne, etc.) 2018 1033 1831 (to be delivered to the chief priests, etc., and rise again) 2028 1015 [cf. 2227] § give his life a ransom for many) 1722 (when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man) 2427 1724 (as the lightning . . . so shall be the coming of the Son of man) 2430a [1320°] [2127*) (then º appear the sign of the Son of man 2430b 1326 2127 (shall see the Son of man coming in (on) the clouds of heaven) 2180 (watch . . . that ye may be able . . . to stand before the Son of man) 2437 1720 (as were the days of Noah, so shall be the coming of the Son of man) 2439 [1737*] ([as they were in those days . . .,] so shall be the coming, etc.) 1780 ([as the days of Lot . . ...,] so shall it be in the day that the Son of man is revealed) 188 (when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth Y) 1910 (came to seek and to save that which was lost) 1240 (in an hour that ye think not, etc.) (when the Son of man shall come in his f 2444 [cf. 1333}] 31 - 25 glory [22]"] (after two days the passover cometh, 262 [141*] and the Son of man is delivered, etc.) 2624a 14°la 2222a (goeth even as it is written of him) 2024b 1421b [2222bi) (Woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed) 2645 1441 (is betrayed into the hands of sinners) [2649*] [1445*] 2248 Qºst thou the Son of man with a kiss? 2064 1402 2200 (from ºw ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power) [280°] [100*] 247 (saying that the Son of man must be delivered, etc., and rise again) 30 14 25 = 60 times Mt 1811 (I| Llº 1910, though in a very different connexion), in Mt. 2513 the words “in which the Son of man cometh,' and in lik 900 the clause “For the Son of man came not to destroy men's lives but to save them,' are not in the best MSS ; cf. I&V m on Mt 1811, Llº 050. The occurrences in the Fourth Gospel are Jn 161 318, 14 627. [3,02 828 035 (NBI) ; cf. RVm), 1223, 84 (see 314 828), v.84 1891 (11 [or 12] times). None of these occurrences are parallel to any of those in the Synoptists. See, further, § 23. 4. If the occurrences in the Synoptic Gospels are analyzed, it will be seen that the expression is attributed to Christ upon (probably) 40 distinct MI; Mlc Lk 06 210 524 (hath authority on earth to forgive 811)S) ' 128 228 05 (is lord of the sabbath) * Cf. the words spoken by Janucs, the brother of the Lord, i. before his martyrdom, as reported by Hegesippus, ap. Suseb. ii. 23 (see vol. ii. p. 542). * The corresponding clause, or verse, entirely omitted (in Mk 328 either omitted or modified ; see p. 58S). # ‘Son of man’ represented by a pron., or (Mlr 91, Lk 927) by a paraphrase (‘the lºingdom of God'). i In instructions to the disciples, attached to 10l. 5.7. 9:14 = Ml: 07-11 == Llº 91-5. § Observe that Llº 1129b = both Mt. 164 and Mt 12:9, and that Llr 1131. 32 = M (, 1242. 41. | In the explanation of the parable of the Tares (no || in Mk, Lk). 580 SON OF MAN SON OF MAN occasions,” of which 8 are reported by the tlitee Gospels, 13 by two, and 19 by one. No instance is, however, reported in Mark which is not in one (of both) of the other two Gospels. The occasions fall naturally into two great groups: (1) those in which the reference is to some aspect or other of the earthly work of Christ, in the time of His humility (including, in particular, His sufferings and death); (2) those in which the reference is to His future consing in glory. It is important to bear in mind the fact of these two applications of the expression ; for it has some bearing upon recent discussions of the subject. On the crucial passage, Mt 1618, see § 19. - 5. Before, however, we can proceed to examine the meaning of the title, a prior question must be con- sidered, which has assumed, within recent years, great prominence. Jesus, it is not doubted, spoke, at least as a rule, not Greek but Aramatic ; a puoper method, therefore, it is urged, requires that we should begin by inquiring how the title would be expressed in Aramaic, and what meaning it would there possess. And when we proceed to trans- late back Ó viðs toū āv6ptºrov into Aramaic an unex- ected and startling result discloses itself, which has involved students of the NT in great per- plexity. 6. Let us first, for clearness, explain briefly the usage of the expression in Biblical Hebrew. In Ibiblical Hebrew, DJs ºn or DIST ºn ‘sons of man' (or ‘of men,”—DJs being a collective term) occurs frequently,– though not so frequently as DIS(1) alone, and chiefly in poet. and later Heb.,-- to denote mankind in general (Gn 10", 1 S. 26", 2 S 71°, Ps 114 @ 12.8 (4.9) 142 etc.). The sing. Dysº: ‘son of man' (i.e. not son of an individual man, but son (i.e. member) of the genus man) also occurs, viz. (a) in the address to Ezekiel 2". "3" *, and more than 90 times besides (so also Dn 817; cf. Enoch 60” 71*); (b) occasionally in poet. parallelism with tºs or this Nu 23, Is 51° 56%, Jer 498 (= v.*=50"— (nearly) 51*), Ps 84 (?) 807 (18) 146” (I D'a'i, “nobles’), Job 1621 (I-73 “man’): 25° 35°. 7. In Aramaic DTN is not found. § The term which, speaking generally, corresponds is Jºs, cº’s (in some dialects contracted, without diſſerence of meaning, to cº, in the status emphaticus (corre- sponding to the def. art. in Heb.) Nºis, Ryº's (contr. ww.). Enăshā (màshà) mostly denotes “man” in a general or collective sense, though it occurs occa- sionally (p. 582°) in an individual sense : ’émāsh (māsh), on the other hand, not infrequently pos- sesses an individual sense, and also often sinks to express nothing more than rus, or ‘one’ (as in “every one,’ ‘no one’), In some Aramaic dialects, however, though not in all, ‘son (or sons) of man (men)' is common—in prose, and not merely, as in Heb., chiefly in poetry – in the ordinary sense of man (or men), the distinctive force of ban’, ‘Son,' being no longer felt. The following are the main details of this usage : — (a) Judaan Aramaic. — In Biblical Aramaic, the plur. "Ji Nyºs ‘sons of men’ occurs Dn 29° 52' ('driven from the sons of men,'—interchanging with “driven from men' (Rºys), 425.82. 33 (92.29, 30)): elsewhere 'énáshú is used, 249 (‘the seed of onem'); 416 (13) (‘changed from (the heart of) men'); 417, 25.92 (14. 22, 29) 521; 42%. 32, 43.122, 20.90) (just quoted); 78 (‘eyes like the eyes of onen'); Ezr 411 (ºs determined by the foll. gen.). "Jºnásh occurs in the indeterm. sense of “a man,’ 55 67. 12 (8, 19) (“of any god or mnan'), 74, 14; and in “every man,’ ‘no man,” 210 310 57 G12 (19), * IIolsten and Oort reckon 42 occasions, distinguishing Llº 1130 from Mt. 1240, and Mk 838 Lk 920 from Mt 1627. + so cºs ºf Ps 429) 492 (3) 629 (10), La 399. i But read here prob. DTN ją) (‘and between a man, and,' etc.). § The Targ., where it has DTs nå (as in Ezek, for Distja, and occasionally besides), means ‘son of Adam.” *... • v- --- Ezr (ºl.” Bar'énôsh, “a son of man,' occurs only in the passage of which more will be said below, Dn 713 ‘one like unto a son of 7/7 (1.7%, In the Targ. of Onkelos the plur. Nwy's "jin occurs Gn 61 115, Nu 2319, Dt 320, 20: the sing, bar ’émāsh does not occur at all, ‘man'—where it is not expressed by hill, Nºha (vir)—being represented always by 'êmāsh, 'êmāshū, In the Targ. of Jonathan (on the prophets) the plur. "In NW." N occurs at least 20 times (as 1 S 1520 167.7 2410 2610); 'êmāsh frequently (as Jos 15 211 817 108); bar'énôsh only Is 5112 ſcod. Reuchl., in ed. Lag., DTN na] 562, Jer 4918, 88 5010 5148, Mic 56—in each case being suggested directly by the Hebrew. (b). In Nabataean Aramaic (some 30 inscriptions, chiefly sepulchral, mostly of 8–14 lines each, dating from B.o. 9 to A.D. 75),t bar 'énôsh does not occur at all. Enûsh, ēnäsh occur pretty frequently, very much as in Daniel, in “every § “no one,' etc. (see CIS II. i. 1977 2068.0 2005 & 2103, 521.3% etc.). (c) Galiloeam Aramaic.—In the Palest. Talm. (3-4 cent. A.D.) bar másh (determ. bar màshà) occurs with great frequency, and means simply a (single, individual) mam, as WJ him in “a certain man (did so and so), swl na Nin ‘that man, Nº ni jºin ‘this man,’ and in a weakened sense, with a neg. or ºn “all,’ as “he went out ºy) "il nDº N. sº and found no one,’ wi ha) wi nº 51 (= late Heb. 19°N) tº "N 95) “every one.’ f Obviously, in all these cases it would be absurd to render bar-nāsh(ſ) by ‘son of man.’ In the Palest. Lectionary (the “Evangeliarium Hierosoly. mitanum,’, ed. Erizzo, 1861, ed. Iagarde, in his Bibl. Syr. 1892), of the 5th cent. A. D., the usage is similar : barmāsh standing regularly for ‘a man’ (as tyin: Tri- &vlooroº or &v02aºré, Tig, Llº 2° 49' 60 1080 1511 etc.); and barmáshù (determ.) for 6 &v(poroz, as Mt 44 1235. 35 2024, 24, Lk 829, 33, 35 etc. The same usage prevails in the l’alest. Targums on the Pent. §, and on the IIagiographa (c. 7th cent. A.D.) : see, for instance, bar müsh in Lv 21 42 51, 2, 4, 21 etc. (“if a man do so and so ': Onk. in all such passages wi'N), Ps 8018b (for |H DTN) 1154. 1180, 8 144%. 4 etc.; || and bar máshá in ‘that man,’ Lv 720p. 21b, 2nd 174.9 198 etc. (Onk. always Ntyx'N), Ps 85, 5 5612 (301; 119134. (d) In Syriac, barmūsh, barmāshā, in the meaning ‘man,’ are very common. Examples: for DTS Ex 131%, Is 4413, Jer 20 1014, Ezk 18, 10. 26 108.14, Dn 78; for &wſ/corer, Curet, and Pesh., Mt 44 1212.43 1511, 11, 18 109, Pesh. Mk 83G, 37, Jn 225 7-2, 24, 24, and (in “every man') Ro 20 34 1218 1610 (slº ºrc.wºrcz;), and elsewhere." 8. It thus appears that bar nåsh(ā) is a common Aramaic expression, in which the force of the ‘son’ has been so weakened by time as virtually to have disappeared, so that it practically means nothing more nor less than man (ſtomo, Mensch,-not vir). The natural Aramaic original of 6 viðs to 9 &v0p. would, however, seem to be ban'nāshā. If, now, our Lord spoke Aramaic, and denoted Himself by this expression, what meaning can He have in- tended to convey by it 2 To this question, which is by no means a simple one, different answers llave been given. (1) C. B. E. Uloth, who, it seems, was the first to set himself to answer it, came to the conclusion that Jesus called Himself ‘the man,” meaning by the expression to point to His creaturely frailty and humility.” .* (2) Eerdmans argued that the expression was not in the days of Christ a Mess. title, and was not used by Him as such. In opposition to the prevalent Mess. expectations, Jesus called Himself ‘the man,’ inneaning it to be understood that He * Cf. Dalman, Aram. Dialektproben, 1896, p. 3 (from the Megillath Ta'anith, of 1–2 cent. A. D.; see ib. p. 32, Gramnin, de; Jºid.-1’al. A rain. p. 7). # See Jºuting, Nab. I'mschriftem (1885), ed. and tr., with notos by Nöldeke ; or CIS II. i. 196-224; several also reprinted in Lidzbarski, Nordsen. Jºpigr. pp. 450-455. ; Sec numerous examples in Ilietzmann, 34-7 ; and cf. Iyal. man, Argºn. Dialektprollen, pp. 28-30. The usage of the Palest, Midrashim is similar (ib. p. 15 ft.). § In which bar müsh(ſ) occurs much more frequently than would be supposed from the terms used by l)alman (Die Worte Jesu, 194). | And so, in the ‘Fragmentary’ (Palest.) Targ, to the Pent., in the recension from a Paris MS edited by Ginsburger (1899), even in Gn 120 (inpin we na na); cf. Ex 1019 (for cºs; Onk, Ney's), Nu 127 Hep Tay v, in: nº (in the Leipz. Ms Ip. 85) wax ºns). *| On the Samaritan see Fiel)ig [S 24 end J, p. 14 ſſ. ** Godgeleerde Bijdragen, 1802, p. 407 ſ. SON OF MAN SON OF MAN 581. g- was a man, and not more. Translated literally into Greek, it was not understood, and under the influence of apocalyptic phraseology (Dn 7” etc.) made into a title of Christ.” (3) Wellhausen, in 1894 and 1897, also considered that Jesus intended by the term to speak of Him- Self as ‘the man,’ meaning, however, by the ex- pression the one who completely fulfilled the idea of man, and who as such was in specially close relation to the Father; and the early Christians, not understanding how He could have so described Himself, in translating rendered barnāshā falsely by 6 viðs toū āv0pútrov instead of by 6 div0patros : the expression was thus brought into connexion with Dn 7”, and so became a standing Messianic desig- nation of Christ.'" (4) Arnold Meyer: called attention to the fact that in Aramaic, in particular in the Aramaic spoken in Galilee, it was not unusual for a person to speak of him- (or her-)self as ‘this man,’ ‘this woman’ (Nºni Niñº, Nnn's Nºnn), S and also that there are, even in the OT, passages in which, though the general term “man” is used, the reference is clearly to the speaker (Job 3° 16”); and he applied this principle to the explanation of at least some of the passages in the Gospels: sometimes, in using the expression, Jesus spoke of men in general (as Mk 2* “Therefore man is lord of the sabbath,’ 12*), sometimes He pointed by it to Himself (as Mk 2" “that ye may know that a man hath authority on earth to forgive sins,” Mt 8", 1119 a man came eating and drinking,” etc.): the early Greek-speaking Christians, translating it by 6 viðs toū āvöpútrov, connbined with it associations derived from Dn 7”. This explanation does not carry us very far. It is true, it might in the abstract (see § 22) be adopted for some of the passages cited ; but otherwise the expression used in the Gospels is not, as in the Galilaean phrase quoted, ‘this man’; nor does Meyer make any attempt to show how in the numerous other passages concerned, the pre- dictions of sufferings and the eschatological utter- ances, the .." “a man' could have been naturally employed by Christ (cf. Fiebig, p. 74 f.). (5) Lietzmann, as the result of a careful ex- amination of the existing evidence, literary and philological, rejecting the solutions of his prede- cessors, reached the startling conclusion || that “Jesus never applied to Himself the title ‘‘son of man’ at all, because it does not exist in Aramaic, and upon linguistic grounds cannot exist,’— on account, viz., of the fact mentioned above, that barruáshá, though it is lit. ‘the son of man,’ in actual usage means simply ‘the man,’ so that the distinction made in the Greek between 6 div0patros and 6 viðs toū āv0pútrov could not have existed in Aramaic (both expressions being translations of the same word, barmāshā). The evangelical tradi- tion which attributes to Christ the use of this title is consequently false. The title arose in Greek : viðs dubptºtrov, as a translation of barnāsh in such passages as Mk 2" ", sounded strange; it was consequently, under the influence of I)n 719, turned, under the form 6 viðs toū ā., into a title of Christ, first in the apocalyptic discourses declaring His future trapovata, and afterwards more generally in other discourses (pp. 91–95). And lietzmann supports this conclusion by various subsidiary arguments, of which the principal are : (1) the fact that ‘the son of man’ was no accepted Messianic title in the age of Christ ; (2) the absence of the expression from the writings of St. Paul, which, he claims, is scarcely conceivable had it really been * Theol. Tijdschr. 1804, pp. 153–176; 1895, pp. 40–71. t Isr. at. Jüd. Gesch. (ISO4) p. 312; ed. 3 (1897), p. 381; cf. Skizzem und Vorarbeiten, vi. (1890) p. 200 f. i Jesu Muttersprache (1896), pp. 91-101, 140–149. § Dalman, Grammatik, 77 f.; 1)ie Worte Jesu, 204 f. | Der MenschemSohm, 1896, p. 85 used habitually by Christ ; (3) its absence likewise from the literature of the sub-apostolic ages, the Didache, Clement, Polycarp, the §. of Her- mas, etc., after a review of which Lietzmann finds it to be first alluded to by the Gnostic sect of Ophites ( % 62–69), Marcion (c. 120–150 A.D.), and Ignatius (Ephes. xx. 2, tº við &v0pútrov kal við 0600). And Wellhausen, though for long he could not bring himself to such a tour de force (‘Gewaltstreich'), was forced ultimately to agree with Lietzmann. The sense in which he formerly (see above) supposed Christ to have used the expression he now considered to be too abstract, and could conse- quently find no alternative left but, bold as the step might appear, to deny that Christ used the expression at all. The title originated in Dn 7”, being attributed first to Jesus in the eschatological passages (cf. Mk 13”, where, as Wellh. observes, ‘the son of man’ is not expressly identified with the speaker); and its adoption afterwards as a general self-designation of Jesus was perhaps facilitated by a misapprehension of passages such as Mk 2*, in which barnāshā, though meant gener- ally, was interpreted as referring specially to Christ.* The general conclusion that Christ had not Himself used the title had been reached before, though without the use of the argument based upon the Aramaic, by Volkmar in 1870, and especially by Oort (in De Uitarwkking & vio; rot &. in het NT, 1893), who, though he allowed that Jesus might have used the expression as a symbol of the future kingdom, argued that He did not use it as a self-designation ; it was introduced first as a personal title by the early Christians from apocalyptic litera- ture, and was ascribed afterwards to Jesus IIimself by the evangelists. 9. Such a conclusion, conflicting, as it does, with all the direct evidence that we possess on the subject, could not be accepted, except upon the clearest and strongest grounds; and it is not sur- prising to find the leading NT scholars on the Continent, including even those who approach the Gospel records from a thoroughly critical stand- point, opposed to it. The principal objections may be thus summarized. (1) The variations be- tween this title and the personal pron. presented by many of the parallel narratives (see the Table), show, indeed, that there are occasions on which we cannot be sure whether the term was actually used by our Lord or not, and it might be admitted (see S 22) that there were even other passages in which it had been attributed to Him incorrectly; but that an expression which in the Gospels is attributed solely to Him, and is never used by the evangelists themselves, should in reality have been never used by Him, but have been introduced into the Gospels &ntirely by the evangelists, implies an inversion of the facts which is hardly credible. (2) The attribution of the expression to Christ does not depend upon isolated texts in individual Gospels; it has in many cases, as the Table shows, the support of the double, and even of the triple, Synoptic tradition. (3) Exactly the same usage is found, moreover, in the independent tradition represented by the l'ourth Gospel ; and, as Dr. Drummond [$ 24] remarks, “there seems to be no particular reason for its appearance in this Gospel, except the fact that it was at least believed to be a common expression in the mouth of Jesus.’ Direct personal reminiscences unquestionably un- derlie both these traditions; and, as the same authority further remarks, ‘the apostles must have known whether their Master spoke of Him- self in the way recorded in the Gospels or not ; and the Gospels are suſliciently near apostolical sources to make us pause before admitting that the Clurch is responsible for the appearance of so striking a characteristic as this title in the mouth of Christ. (4) Even assuming that the title was intro. duced into the eschatological passages in the n: anner * Skizzen w. Vorarbeiten, vi. (1899) pp. 188, 200 f., 206, 214. 582 SON OF MAN SON OF MAN supposed, it is difficult to conjecture a motive for extending the usage to a number of other passages of an entirely different character (Baldensperger [$ 24], p. 254). (5) As regards the supposition that the ascription of the expression to Christ was due to the early Church, Dr. Drummond observes : ‘The Church was more likely to omit than to insert the phrase. Reliance is placed on the silence of Christian writers to show that the phrase was not known. The Gospels conclusively prove that it was known ; and to imagine that it was a favourite expression just during the period when the Gospels were composed, and that before that time it was not known, and after that time it was not in common use, is to construct history to suit the hypothesis. The Church would have preferred some title apparently higher and more dignified.’ (6) St. p. it is urged, never uses the title. But neither do the evangelists in º of Christ, and yet their own narratives show that they were acquainted with it, and believed it to have been used by Christ. . Unless Ac 7" is to be eliminated as unlistorical, along with the numerous occurrences of the title in the mouth of Christ found in the Gospels, it must have been known at the time of Stephen's martyrdom its a designation of Jesus; for otherwise there would be no sufficient cause in Stephen's exclama- tion to account for the fury of the Jews (Drum- mond). Schmiedel, moreover,” argues at length that the use made offs 3 in 1 C3 isºſ and #e 2", presupposes the acquaintance of the apostles with the expression as a designation of Christ; the fact that they do not use it more frequently is not difficult to explain. They wrote largely for converts from heathenism, who would be liable to misunderstand it ; and they naturally chose by preference terms which wººd give prominence to the Divinity of Christ. The case would be similar with the sub-apostolic writers. Barnab. 129-19, however, which, it had been alleged, was proof that the writer was unacquainted with the title, had been Wrongly explained (as Lietzmann after- wards admitted t). 10. All these considerations would, however, un- doubtedly have to yield, if it were philologically certain that ‘ the son of man’ could not have been an expression used by our Lord. The reasons ad- duced in support of this conclusion are, beyond question, weighty; we must consider carefully whether they are conclusive. In the first place, it must be clearly understood that we have no actual knowledge of the Aram. original used (presumably) by Christ. We have no records of the Galilaean dialect as early as the first cent. A. D.; and hence the Aram. original of ‘the son of man’ is a matter not of actual know. ledge, but of inference. Three possibilities must be kept in view. (1) Wellh. says that barnāsh (&) in the sense of “man’ is common to Aramaic dialects in general ; but this statement is in excess of the evidence; its occurrence in the exceptional passage Dn 7” (in which a semi-poetical expression would be but natural) is not proof that it was in general use in that sense in Bibl. Aramaic ; and it is not found in other passages of Dn. (as 74.8), in which, if it were as commonly in use as it is in the Jerus. Talm., it might be naturally expected. It does not occur in the Aram. of Onk., and occurs but rarely in that of Jon. (§ 7 a.); and though Wellh. (pp. vi., 195) explains its absence from these Targums by the fact that their authors adhered closely to the Heb. (in which, as pointed out in § 6, the sing. ‘Son of man' is of rare occurrence), yet it is not certain that this explanation is the correct one. The l’al. Targ. on the Psalms and * Prot. Monatshefte, Juli 1898, p. 260ff. # Thewl. Arlº. aw8 demn ſheim. Pred.-Verein, 1808, H. 2, p. 8. Job, and the Pesh., are also in general literal translations, and yet bar māsh (&) occurs in both frequently (cf. above, $ 7 (c), (d)). Onk, uses regularly wi's for “soul’ (= person), Lv 21 42.27 5l. 2, 4 etc.; and NYrin Rwy's for ‘that soul,” Gn 1714, Ex 3114, Lv 720, 21. 27 108 200 and elsewhere. In all these passages pseudo-Jon, uses as regularly 'barmāsh,’ ‘barnāshā.’ So in Dú $” 8 (for Dixºn) pseudo-Jon. has Rw) him, while Onk. has rºl"N ; and in the expression ‘the work of man's (or men's) hands’ DiN is rendered by barnāsh(ſ) in the Palest. Targums (Ps 1154 18515, 2 Ch 3219), but by 'ênāshū in Onk. (Dt 428) and Jon. (2 K 1918, Is 3719). Similarly wh)N is rendered in the Pal. Targums by barmāsh(º), Ps 85.920.21 10315 10415 etc., but by 'emáshá in Jon. (Is 137 240 5112 562). Cf. also Ps. 1188b (Pal. Targ.: w) ha) with Jer 175 (Jon. : Nuyj"N). So Fiebig, p. 11. It is true ('é)máshú is used mostly as a collective term ; but Wellh.'s argument (p. v) to show that it is used so always, and that consequently, unless bar ('é)nūsh(ſ) were in use, there would have been no means of expressing the idea of (a single, particular) man (homo) in Aram., is surely not conclusive ; for in Onlº, NYIn Nøj'N, as has been just shown, occurs repeatedly in the sense of that man (comp. in Heb, the analogous indi- vidual and collective applications of ty'N). So I'iebig, p. 11. The Aram. dialects do differ from one another in details of linguistic usage ; * and though barnāsh (à) is common in the Galilaean dialects of the 3rd or 4th cent. A.D., it may not, as Dalman points out, have been equally common in the 1st cent. ; and if usage llad not at that time obliterated the distinctive force of the first part of the compound, bar màshà might have been used by Christ in the sense of ‘the Son of man.’ It must, however, be allowed that Fiebig [$ 24] has made it probable (pp. 33–36, 59 f.) from quotations in the Jerus, Talm. that bar mósh (ā) = “man” was current in Galilee in the 2nd cent. A. D. (2) In the Sin. (Curet.) and Pesh. versions of NT, ‘the Son of man' is, for distinction from the barmáshá which stands for 6 div0patros, always repre- sented by b'réſ d'māshā (lit. his son, that of man, —the pleonasm being an idiom very common in Aram.:),—grammatically (Nöld.) “a more strongly determined form of barnāshā.” If in the Aram. spoken in the time of Christ barmāsh (&) was really in common use in the sense of ‘man,’ there does not seem to be any sufficient reason why, if our Lord desired to express the idea of ‘the Son of man,’ He should not have made use of this expres- sion. There would be nothing unsuitable in its being an unusual and emphatic one; and that there was some Semitic expression bearing this meaning appears, as #. has pointed out, $ from the fact that in the Gospel acc. to the Hebrews, which Jerome himself translated from Aramaic (or, as he elsewhere says, from Hebrew), there was a saying of Christ, addressed to James, which (in Jerome's tr.) reads, “Frater mi, comede panem tuum, quia resurrexit filius hominis a dormientibus.’ || IFrom a communication printed by Dr. Drummond," it appears that Prof. Nöldeke also is disposed to agree with Wellhausen. To diſfer from Prof. Nöldeke on a point of Aramaic or Arabic * See, for some illustrations, Dalm. Grammºn. 34-40. + B'n'êh d'barmāshū ‘Son of the son of man' is certainly a “theological barbarism”; it does not, however, occur (as Wellh., by an oversight, says, p. 104 m.) in the Pesh., but in the Palest. Lectionary. f See, e.g., Dalm., Dialektproben, p. 15, 1.2, Non Fºni =whose son? Hºpini Fºni = the son of Hezekiah. So Dn 220 38.25 atc., and constantly in Syriac (as Mt 1] [thrice). According to Wellh. b'1'êh d'mishſi (on account of the sing. suff, and the following virtual plural) is “unmöglich’ (p. vi). Hut Røy's is regularly in the Tgg. construed with a sing. ; and Job 720 1419 3310, l’esh., are precise formal parallels (see, further, Fiebig, p. 48 ft.); more- over, if the expression were “impossible’ in Syriac, would the authors of the Syriac versions of the Gospels have employed it? § Z. f. Wiss. Theol. 1897, 470 (cf. Berl. philol. JYouhemschr. 1897, Heft 49); 1890, 150. | Jerome, de Viris Ill. c. 2 end (ed. Bened. IV. ii. 102; ed. Wall. ii. 817; Migne, ii. 613); see Hilgenf. Jºvangg. Sec. Ilebr. etc. qua, 8wpersunt (1806), pp. 17 ff., 29. Lietzmann's reply (Theol. Arb. p. 10) is to the eſſect that even here the title must ..be of Greek origin, because it is only in Greek that the con- ditions for its having arisen can be shown to have existed. *|| Journ. of Theol. Studie8, Apr. 1901, p. 357 f. SON OF MAN SON OF MAN 583 usage would be to court certain error; but from the terms in which he expresses himself, it does not seem that he means to pronounce an absolute philological veto against the position §: J esus may have spoken of Himself in Aramaic as ‘the Son Of Illſ,ll, ; (3) No doubt our Lord, as a rule, spoke in Aramaic; but, as Prof. Sanday has remarked to the present writer, it is quite possible that He may, upon occasion, have spoken also in Greek. In this case, which is more than a mere abstract possibility, the expression 6 viðs toū āvöpútrov may actually have been sometimes heard upon His lips. 11. Origin and meaning of the term as used in NT.--Here we must first consider the question whether the term is used in previous or contem- }. Jewish literature, and, if so, in what sense. n Dn 7”, as has been already remarked, the ‘one like unto a son of man’ denoted originally, in all probability, the glorified º of Israel ; but the expression was undoubtedly interpreted at an early date of the Messiah. The most remarkable evi- dence of this is afforded by that part of the (composite) Book of Enoch (ch. 37–70), which is commonly known as the ‘Similitudes,’ and which is attributed generally to the 1st cent. B.C. (see vol. i. pp. 7079–708"). Enoch is here represented as carried in his vision into heaven, where he sees the “Head of Days’ (a title of the Almighty suggested by Dn 7*) surrounded by an innumer- able company of angels (40'), and beside Him the Messiah, sitting on ‘the throne of his glory’ (62%. 8 ' 69**), and executing judgment upon wicked men and angels. The Messiah is often spoken of as the ‘Elect One’ (Is 42"); but in ch. 46 he is introduced in terms which more particu- larly concern us here— 461 “And there I saw One who had a head of days (i.e. an aged head), and his head was white like wool (Dn 70), and with him was another one whose face was as the appearance of a man, and his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels. 2 And I asked the angel who went with me, and showed me all the hidden things, concerning that 80m of mam, who he was, and whence he was, and why he went with the Head of Days. And he answered and said unto me, 8 This is the son of mam, who hath righteousness, with whom dwelleth righteous- ness, and who reveals all the treasures of that which is hidden, because the Lord of Spirits hath chosen him, and his lot before the Lord of Spirits hath surpassed everything in uprightness for ever. 4 And this son of man whom thou hast seen will arouse the kings and the mighty ones from their couches, and the strong ones from their thrones, and execute judgment upon then." The judgment is described most fully in ch. 62— 022 “And the Lord of Spirits seated him (the Elect One) on the throne of his glory, and the spirit of righteousness was poured out upon him, and the word of his mouth slew all the sinners [Is 114], and all the unrighteous were destroyed before his face. . . . 5 And their countenance will fall, and pain will seize them, when they see that son of ºnam sitting on the throne of his glory. . . . 9 And all the kings and the mighty and the exalted and those who rule the carth will fall down on their faces before him, and worship, and set their hope upon that son of man, and will petition him and supplicate for mercy at his lands.” Ibut it will be too late: the “angels of punishment,’ will take them in charge, and carry them away to their appointed doom. Dut the righteous will be saved on that day; 14' and the Lord of Spirits will abide over them, and with that son of man will they eat and lie down and rise up for ever and ever.’ Cf. 6027 “And he sat on the throne of his glory, and the sum of judgment was committed unto him, the son ºf mam, and he caused the sinners and those who havo led the world astray to pass away and be destroyed from off the face of the earth.’ The ‘son of man” of the ‘Similitudes’ is thus an august, superhuman being, who is seated on his throne beside the Almighty, and exercises in par- ticular the functions of judge. This representation, it is to be observed, though based, no doubt, upon that of I)n 7, is not identical with it : in łº it. is God who is the judge; the ‘one like unto a son of man’ appears upon the scene only after the judgment is completed, and , he comes, not to exercise judgment, but to receive a kingdom. It has been much disputed whether ‘the son of man' is a title in the Similitudes or not. The expressions used are, ‘that (zeku or we'etu) son of man' (40° 48% (29. Isee Charles, or Beer, in I(autzsch's Apokruphem, ad loc.], vv.0. 146311 6926, 20.20701 7.117), ‘this son of man’ (464 and ‘the son of man’ (469 (see Dillm. A3th. Grann. § 194] 627 § On the one side, it is argued, Enoch sees in his vision a human form (461), which is afterwards (402 etc.) referred to as ‘that (or this) son of man,'—‘son of man,’ rather than simply ‘man,’ being (presumably) employed, partly on account of Dn'718 (which the context shows to be in the writer's mind), partly as being a rather more distinct and individual term. “The son of man' of 46%. 62769?? might similarly be nothing more than an expression referring back to 461 ; and the same, it is urged, might be said oven of 6 vio; Toº & vºcarov, if, as is possible (see esp. Charles, Eschatology, p. 214 f.), this were the Greek which lay before the Ethiopic translator,” On the other hand, the somewhat marked prominence of the term is an indication that some significance attaches to it; else why does the writer not say “the Elect one’ (as 492.4 518, 6 B26.9 al.), or ‘the Anointed one' (as 4810 524)? On the whole, it may probably be fairly said, as is claimed by Baldensperger ([$ 24], p. 246), and admitted by Dr. Drummond (p. 544), that the ex- pression, even if not a title in Enoch, is next door to becoming one, and that the step of making it a title is one which at any time afterwards might be readily taken. If, however, the view of ‘the son of man’ adopted in this art. (§§ 17, 21) be the correct one, it will be seen to be a matter of in- difference whether the expression was a ‘title’ in Enoch or not. The reader ought, however, to be aware that it can hardly be said to be certain that the ‘Similitudes’ are of pre-Christian origin; though this is the view taken by the great majority of critics, who urge in particular that, had they been written (or interpolated) under Christian influence, the allusions to the historical Christ would have been more definite. See Schürer?, ii. 626 (3 iii. 201 f.). 12. Another passage, which, though of post- Christian date (probably A.D. 81–96), seems to show no traces of Claristian influence (see vol. ii. p. 766*), and deserves to be quoted in the same connexion, is 2 (4) Es 13”. Here Ezra is repre- sented as seeing in a dream the sea disturbed by a wind, and a ‘man,’ who is declared afterwards (v.”) to be God’s appointed judge and deliverer (i.e., though the word itself is not used, the Messiah), ascending out of it— “And I beheld, and, lo, this wind caused to come up from the midst of the sea as it were the likeness of a man, and I beheld, and, lo, that man flew with the clouds of heaven [cf. 1)n 713] : and when he turned his countenance to look, all things trembled that were seen under him.’ In the sequel, the same ‘man that came up out of the sea,’ as he is termed (v.5, cf. v.v.29. 51), destroys by a “flaming breath,' proceeding out of his mouth, the multitudes which assemble against him, and calls back to the land of Israel the ten tribes (vv. 10ſ, 12. 30.49). Here then at least the Messiah is described, with evident reference to Dn 7”, as a ‘man.’ T}r. Charles has called attention also to 4 Es 61 in the Syr., Eth., and Arab. t versions (the world to be judged finally—first by [Arab. on account of] a “man” [Syr. Nºni T'in), or, to judge from the Eth. vers., by a ‘son of man,’—and afterwards by God : see Hilgemf. Mess. Jud. * 223, 275, 334); but the statement is inconsistent with 60, and is open to the suspicion of being a Christian interpolation (cf. Hilgenf. p. 54 m.). 13. In spite, however, of the usage of the ‘Sim- ilitudes,’ and of 2 Es 13”, it seems clear that “the Son of man’ was no generally accepted title of the Messiah in the days of Christ. Dalm. (Die Worte Jesu, 197–204) shows that nothing exists in Jewish authoritics in favour of such a supposition. The same conclusion is supported by the testimony of the Gospels. “It is inconceivable that the Lord should have adopted a title which was popularly held to be synonymous with that of , Messiah, while He carefully avoided the title of Messiah itself” (Westcott). The reply that He used it enigmatically is not to the point ; for though He * The Eth. zekw and we'etu not infrequently, in translations from the Greek, represent the Greek art. (Charles, l.c. : 1)illm. Jºth. Lea, col. 1057, 919). They are not, however, used in the lºth. NT in the tr. of 6 vios roß & v(p&rov. (Dr. Charles, in his tr. of (302ii. 29.29 701, has not represented the Eth. ‘ that '). # The Arab version published by Ewald (Dºts tierte Ezrabwch 1S63): that published by Gildenheister (1877) is different. NWW IO NOS #89. NWIWI （IO NOS *#88 I Zoo’ſ.. .I.A.) SSIOAA ‘g Ág ouop SI St. ‘KII*11tiºqs -qus poquq's ol Kuul Aora uſuuſ lotilo otl,I, ‘LI 3. ‘(, poſ) go uoS, où" to Aſºlo.I.100 sq. Jo Jºlin on ‘ooutºsuſ Joy ‘snoºoſhrut) sq81suoo qi (IoIIIA Jo splio AA out" uſ p0A10Auſ K1100.11p 5uſutout outlos ‘SAAOIIº (II '02, §) uoqslo II uoAo utúl ÁloAI) ou!]'s]p put ÁIIny otolu oštu put ‘KII.Ututi.Itſ SSold xo on popuoqui si qi qu (14 (‘J 892, 'd 'tūzqLoII Jo O'ºds uſ) juſt 1 01 qou q(no -Iljſp OSIt! St. QI (IOOu'ſ Jo , sopn)|Illu IS, où luo,IJ poAAo.I.Ioq SI of 111 outſ, qullq qsoßns on ‘ssoſ Áus on qou ‘ollº II ÁII unbo SI olotſ,I, ‘It’.Inquu qou sſ ‘Alīsſuſu Alt1)...to si II 5uſ.In p q 5uipunoſ sſ II go ouſ" out, qt utopiuſ XI ou? (IqAA qug ‘KIOIſ, Iuuſ) Sqſ (II q.81.1 (IO go utopºupſ ou" (ITIA qou “ſolut:(I uſ polmqoſd ſuop -šupſ out go uoſquogº) (Iopſ suuuuuzqLoII SIodsor) oul uſ sonouop on!') out quuſ M KIo.ins sº “Kºsoſtitu ÁItioAbout outnsst; on poulºsop 2.1777tſ 27/7 ºt? AIuo out, ‘KhIIIllinuſ KIUſ).Ito Jo 8xLibu piu Mºno otlº II? 3uſquosold qual “tutu on poſsu.Iquo uoissºu Mºſt ot" Jo put Knitounnu syll Jo ‘poopuſ ‘snoosuoo “ºuloq V. ‘Ionitoſ uſ poluoso.Idol 5uſoq ĀluòAuouſ ‘quopuoos -uu.I] ouq Sto.Tuouſ sſ II otojoq juſ.Iq on qi go osn SpRI Áq popuoquy plorſ Ino quun uoſº ISOddus outſ, Oq puoſ oq to ‘Ionut (I on oouologo.1 tº qsoßns on ‘stodsor) oſqdou KS ouq up—posu KIJoſuo poopu, IO-postl qs.III sº othil out! (IoIIIA uſ Lou utu out uſ “ziA ‘5uſt 1ou SI 9.1ou,I, , 'uoſquqo.Id.loquy ut; tıons sopuſoxo postl q8.II; st oſq., ou" (IoIIIA uſ Iou utu ou L ..'uºuſ go uos oilotſdold ouq,, possold xo ÁIduis opold.It opuſſop oul quuq osoddins on uomºsomb out, Jo quo si qI, ‘s Kūs (#8 'd ‘ūIIoſ’ “S uo ‘utſtoſ) set2:/pads) q1091so AA SV III, 10 Ioyuu(I uſ qouquoo Jo quiod ou si otoqq ‘ūq.I'do uodu KhHRuinuſ, up oyſ I SIH Jo Sqoodst; Snoj.It'A UniMA ſtop IIG Loſ UAA put, ‘qū jujśn qs.III st; poluos -oudol KIIºnqog sy. OII (loſt|A uſ sojussed out, UTIAA ‘snu" put osco out" uood oault on qtruſ] osoddins on ‘so Aſquitºu [odsor) out, Jo quouqua.In K.It Iqqit, 1sou qnouq A ‘oſqissodun si q ‘st qi sº ‘qūq : 11 luoly poqdopt; 5uſoq oldſ, outſ, Ioy quinooot! on quopollins “[oſut (I uſ uoisſ A out 111A qoqquoo go quod qoo.IIp ‘e uood oatu plmoA olouq ‘Atolà ul quo Apt, olnquy SIII sodilosop of I Uſoſ (IAA UI osotiq Udoq pºli uois -sold xo oth post 1s.III plorſ Ino IIoIUAA up sojuśsed oul J. ‘AON (r1L) uq.Ito out" uſ pous! [Quqso ÁIIt -s to Alun put KIIuuſ) uooq seq q. uoul 5uouſe JIos]] puoqxo on AIAoſs put ÁII unpº.13 sma uopiºuſ XI ou? ‘Āloqsſu go toºtºut tº su “IonuţA 5ultup poſiod 5uol otſ, Jo uox101 SI quinoool! O N 'uopiuſ XI ºupºſduinº.1% tº si unopäupſ out, put, ‘Buſoq Kuo Agou ‘poultoſí; t; so poquoso.Idol si . Uſulu go uos e Oquin oxiII ouo, out, Ioſum (I go uoisſ A old uſ 'suo jooſqo aq on Utoos olouſ, wºlin.00 sq. Jo uox{uq Aot A ouq ol quot : qsn'ſ ÁIqooyiod “ostnoo go ‘st quuq upnuſ sſ olouq ‘olºr) otlº, Jo 9&n out, Jo plus oLou si qu UAA UI '91 ‘(p-qz ‘61 § ºutwup.tº) “iouſAA : 'o'? “[opoſititioS) 1stU ouq go oouosaid out, uloly ‘uoſqouaqqu go pupſ u Aq KIduis squisol (304) puooos out, ‘(#93 “d ‘IopapuluoS : *t #03 'd ‘ulzqLoII) CIA, uCI 04 Squiod (?) Qiu qs.Itſ ou? Aoi A sitſ] uodſ) ‘(pojpſ.Iqū ‘9-092, dd), olnqng où1 uſ ubiſ, Sso1 qou quosold out uſ XIIoA SIH on oouologo.1 stºod ... unful go uoS,, oilſ, oud os ‘Āquot eInquj u Su IIoA sº quoso.Id tº SI uopäupt out SV 'qi soloiduloo opſ ‘Ātolà up 5uturoo ‘uous ‘ĀIIºſoodso put, ‘puttu touqo out, uo : tuopäupt out, spuoqxo to ‘squosoidal “supg|oold of I ‘āui (alºns put 5uſuogo) Aq ‘āuluou put 5uſAI5 toy Áq to Aotou A pubu oud ou% uo ..."utºut go uoS,, out? “poſſuo St puts ‘sſ Smsoſ. snuſ,I, “ſpoop puu uoſquillullû AIU).Ito O4 OSI'm qnq ‘Atolà oinquy on ATuo gou Buſºlo.1 suoſºtop -old Jo qooſqms ou', souoood ... utilu go uoS,, oilſ, ‘qūop uoAo put, ‘Suttalins put uomº Alld ATUAlto q; tıqçA sºuſiq uoissºul . quuq suojosuoo St ODI ost tood qsuſ’ ‘q Aq possoid Xo Suopſ ouſ, ozi.[tºol pub quoso.Idol on SI ou A uoStod ótt, Jo uomous isop oats -nloxo oilº q Soxlulu oPI ‘Ā.14sſulu put uoissºul syſł jo opºsitoqoultuo sº JoAoqºq A olºp, oud Oluſ SAoluſ), ‘Sonu!]uoo uuuuuzºlo II , "suseſ’, ‘([6L $ ‘AAoloq “gol tºmºsºs * ‘(8810 AA g| Aq ‘po U18 ot'ſ uſ poroºſt) 028 91W uo IoMoMº A V II Jó | “WIZ ‘(I ‘UIII 0AA : '71 ſyſ)Z ‘tuoqqoq £9% 'd 'tūz"IOHI 'JO ,”umissow out, Jo oolijo to Liow oun fluſuiſſop Soºtioſpold, itto.1 pouſtºdoost od on sº q; 'o','ouo TuomotinuAs ºf toy qnq ‘quoulipnſ Imoſ).Wimum un Ioj qou aoqqºlu si sotſiušis qi quitº : [gil UCI Wºl ‘ZIA) uoaſă spoulou ou I, , ; #02 'd ‘ſopotuitioš , 893 ‘003 ‘do? Ogz, ‘dd) uoissojiioo sºloqo.I. ologo'ſ q 9sm ‘oilſ, ou" Jo osuos oun Huſoq suſ, ‘ioAoAoû ‘40U pſp of I ‘JIosuſ III uio.I] q.itiſlu polis (quºso od Qou pſilow qi qu"In poſſduiſ ‘oilſ, oil, Jo uoſqdopt sph Aq ‘susoſ : qſ (ISIIqºso pIndM ot|A vios.iod oil, sºw otoli III's ‘(pnot sqi jou put.) utopºupſ oun Kuo pozi -IOſſul A's olnäſ ouſ, IoſtIt(I uſ [ºnoun uo ao ; potniſſ; -old JIostuſ Hoos on susoſ. Ioy it..inquiſ St. A qi oioſoloiſ, uoli w uſ pub “poſſ) tuo.1] utopiuſ XI out, so Ayooo..I on A ... uttu Jo uos 'u Ojun oxiII otio, ouq go olin;I ou? Ioſut (I uſ sſ SITI', opisoq osopo : uopiºupſ oinqny ot|4 Jo Ao(A S.IoIIIt (IS)dopt snsoſ art. IICſ uſ soºtºut; IIo ÁIuſt 1100 oIQI) oil.J., “(Liz, 'd ‘L68i ſooºſ, JAN) sonſ (A uuttuzº IOH snu,I, ‘SAAoi A osotſ, liqoq log poqomb od upo Soſnilotſºut: uñIH 'd Iqsuuissoſ.W. sIII Jo quânouſ, où) uoſº Ippu uſ poqsoiâns ‘ĀIqsſuſui si H. Jo osolo ouſ, sp.It Avon KIIºſoodso ‘Āº Kuo put 'Anjuuuini jo oAI]tºuoso.Ido.1 oudidns oil, ‘uou touqo oAoqº uttu tº ‘osuos Igoods ouos III “su.w snsaſ quitº quânouq où1 ÁIII'utujld possoid Xa ‘sil, uCI on oko ut; unlaw uosoqo uoaq oatt Ketu q ūšnoun *otºq ouq ‘Aoy A lot(10 ou? on 5uſp.tooow snsoſ go dutistſuissoſ.W out, ‘ĀI]ouſºsip put ÁInoo, Ip ‘ssoid Xo o, os put lºſt UCI up uuur go uos e Olun ox{II oud, oth on quiod oq ĀIduits popuoqui si aſ a ‘u Ao sqi go 5upuuou ou Sºul oilſ, ouſ, ‘Aoy A oud on 5uſplooov "poquook pu u09q 0Atºli O1 prºs og Kulu SAoA untºul ow.J., “gſ ‘uisſoinſ to Iodsor) Jo Suoſºsomb touqo put ‘sosunoosip s, piorſ ino go Á5oIouoluo ou" Jo on IIo ſòmpy Alpuſ outſ, Aq uøxitº, AoA ou? on 5utpuodso.Ltoo “qu poAI.I.It out: Suoſsulo -uoo quojio Aſp tou?.Iny put : qſ (111A populoosst; someoſpold º Áto A oliq ‘ootiºqsuſ Joy “st; ‘poloprsuoo old slodsor) out up of;usu sqi Jo stºop où) uouſ A OSI,Its Soſquo;[Iſp lotſ).Inj III].S & [g I Oz, Š A. Snon|j.Iodins put, K.It'ssoooutin Jouqo ouſ, Iopuo.I 'II'uolijol q soop ‘poqdopts aq stionquqold.Ioquſ osotiq Jo JoAouloru Aº ‘pubu louqo out uo ‘IO : pourquiod ÁgA Kuu uſ og Aaj A Jo squiod on Isoddo oAq osoul Aq ponsoºns suoſº tºo.Id.loquy out Kutu IO & splow osou? Jo sis&Ibut ut, Aq pouyuq.loose og on q Āq KoAuoo on popuojuſ pionſ Ino IIoſu A 5uyutsoul out, sº put “Sºsis -uoo q IIoIUAA go sploaº Inoy out uſ oſſ othy, .. JO ooutoſ.ſtudys out, soop lo & utilssol\ , Ioſ sists.IIIdiod 2.tout tº os put ‘ctſ, UCI. uory ‘ATItoſuguoolu alo A q St. ‘uox104 °oſºph 2.low b out U out si : uoint:514so Auſ ou, Ioy Squgod-šuſiºns oſqissod O.Aq ol u oſauq quuq qoug out Kºt pontonidulloo Ioun Iny stuoſºsenb out,L ‘q dump.It jol poulogo.1 UIooq oAgu Udjutaw suoismo -uoo ouq go oolio3.io Aſp oppM out, ost, pub ‘uor]sonb aul Jo Khūnoſuſp quo.13 out, og ol powo III, KIIºloua:3 st quuA anp sº osn'go outs out, O.J., “oouologuſ put o,Inqooſuoo Jo Ioqquul tº od qsnut poqdopt od qi go Aoya to Aoquu A quuſ, OS ‘LN out, UI pattyv?da:9 alou AA -Kut, qou si qi quuſ, pools.Iopuu KII'uolo od on quâno q. ‘oſqq out, Jo 0xtºwout out 5uſ.Ioppsûoo UI FI ‘(v919 'Jo ‘dz29 II IOA ‘oaoqu) poſſuo -oq . SopnqūuſS, ou, Uſoſt A on o[0,110 IBImoſq.It ouq uſ osuos quuq uſ Iulluby St. A q ‘ûgissoRN oth Jó otºy, o so qualinó Kūčiouo; jou usuott, quuq ‘sſ posoddins og quâul quuq qsoul on J, Q, Jo Joluoq out sº JIostuſ II go poquoi pold so Arquijoloid out AICI oug uſ qud ‘oilſ, stud go osm sill uſ qou ÁITuoppao poqssuoo root XIIN=cºſ)3 qIN go . Kuuou I -St. Iq, ouſ, oou.I] ou pioIſu stadsor) ou? (uoixouſ -uoo sºlº uſ) to Ao Aouſ ‘Uloſt|A go ‘SAAoſ’ out, Jo Aqlſº -sou ou? pa][oxo oAbū qug qou pluoo q go osn siRI ‘Joaootout ‘uoſq;soddns outs out, uodſ) utotu on upH pooqslopun oAbū pluo.w uti II pluouſ ou A 9souq. Uloſt|A ‘ūgºssoRN oug uood oatsu (‘dſºnſ aro) III's pillow q. ‘utilssoſ.W. otiq go uoſqdoouoo lulladod autº luory quotolyſp jujuqouos q Āq poljučis oAuuſ qujuu SON OF MAN SON OF MAN 585 § 16), (l) Our Lord adopted this title just because it was not a current title of the Messiah. In view of the expectations of a personal Messiah which Yrevailed at the time, Dn 7” could certainly in His day be interpreted only of the Messiah; but, even so, He . not assume that this particular passage would be so generally known that the expression, “the Son of man,’ would be at once runderstood as referring to it. The case would be different if we could presuppose, the use made of Daniel in Enoch ; but, even if the pre-Christian origin of the ‘Similitudes’ be granted, it is far from clear that they were familiarly known in the circles in which our Lord's ministry principally lay. Only when Jesus in the eschatological pas- sages directed attention to Dn 7” could the title be understood generally as a Messianic designa- tion. This view of His use of the title agrees with the manner in which, during all the earlier part of His ministry, He avoided any direct announce- ment of His Messiahship, in order not to lend encouragement to the unspiritual ideas attaching to the popular conception of the Messiah. (2) For His hearers the idea expressed by the title would be that He was not a ‘son of man’ like all others, but that He was ‘the son of man,’ one who, in virtue of His character and personality, held a unique position among men. It did not designate merely His h;1manity (for this must have been evident to all who saw Him), but it marked Him out as in some sense a special or representative man. (3) Christ's statements respecting the ‘Son of man,’ the functions, office, and divinely appointed destinies assigned to him, point to one who has a mission higher than that of an ordinary prophet, i.e. indirectly to one who is also the Messiah. They speak of Him, for instance, as in various ways proclaiming or establishing the kingdom of God. He has authority to forgive sins; and He gives His life a ransom for many. He is con- trasted with John the Baptist, who is merely a forerunner. The sufferings of the Son of man are divinely appointed (Öeſ,—Mk 8" || ||, al.), because it is implied in the OT that God’s plan of salvation would not be finally realized upon earth without the suffering and death of the servant of God by whom it would be accomplished. (4) Lastly, in the prophecies of the Second Advent, our Lord alluded so clearly to Dn 7” that though He does not expressly identify Himself with the ‘one like unto a son of man’ there spoken of, those who leard Him, and who identified the figure in Daniel with the Messiah, could not but conclude that He meant by the term that particular ‘son of man’ who was to be the Messiah.” Upon this view the second art. (roſ) is generic or collective (Winer, $ 27. 1; Gn G6, 7 821 00, 2 S 719, Mk 227, Jn 226), the first art. (3) specifles the individual of the genus meant (Weiss, $ 16b). 18. This opinion, that the title, viz., even though it may have been suggested by Dn 7”, was never- theless intended, and even intended primarily, to express in some manner the relation of Jesus to humanity, has been largely held (see § 20; and the references in Holtzm. pp. 254, 255). It has, however, been objected to it that if the title denoted the ‘ideal or .*.*.*.*. man, the predicates affirmed of it could be only those which were involved in the idea, itself, -i.e., to speak technically, were the predicates of analytical, not of synthetical judgments, which obviously is not the case with the predicates affirmed of the ‘Son of man in the Gospels. This would, no doubt, be true if the title were understood to be a designa- tion of the ‘ideal man, but not if (abandoning this abstract expression) it be understood to desig- * The views of Bruce, Kingdom of God 2 (1800), 172–78, and of Stevens, N'T" Theol. (1800), 51–53, while souncWhat differently put, do not diſſer matcrially from that of Weiss. nate a particular, individual man, embodying in their highest perfection the attributes of humanity. And this is the sense in which Weiss and West- cott (§ 20), for instance, understand the title. There will then be no difficulty in understanding the predicates affirmed of the “Son of man’ as j judgments: they will result, in other words, not from an analysis of the idea of ‘man,’ but from the experience, present or future, of the particular individual actually denoted by the term. As Holtzmann, though himself preferring the other view, writes (p. 254), “The possibility is by no means excluded that the conception of the Messiah was rooted in the idea of man, and that Jesus, in choosing this designation, instead of others that were open to Him, intended thereby to express His relationship to humanity.’ 'he fact just mentioned has been made the ground of a further objection to the same opinion. As has just been shown, if we start from the idea of ‘man,’ none of the predicates applied in the Gospels to the “Son of man’ can be obtained from an analysis of that idea. But if we start from the equation (given by Dm 7”) ‘Son of man’= ‘Messiah,’ then all these predicates become analytical judg- ments; they are, it is said, derivable, at least largely, from the idea of ‘Messiah’ itself; they are expressions, not of Jesus’ conception of ‘man,’ but of His conception of His Messiahship.” And hence it is concluded that the term was used by Him as properly and primarily signifying ‘Messiah.” It may be doubted if this conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. If the term denoted Jesus primarily as a Man above other men, a Man with a unique position and mission, this position and mission would, from another point of view, be also those of the ‘Messiah '; and the predicates describing different aspects of His work and ministry would accordingly be those belonging to Hinn as ‘Messiah.” The offices and functions ascribed to the “Son of man’ in the Gospels are deduced by Weiss, starting from the idea of ‘man,’ not less naturally than by Holtzmann, starting from the idea of ‘Messiah.” 19. Two questions, intinately connected, remain to be considered, which also, as will appear, have a bearing upon the question of the origin of the title. At what period in His ministry did our Lord first use the title 2 And in what sense was it understood by those who heard it 3 Or, to put the possible alternatives unambiguously, did it veil or reveal His Messiahship 2 . It is clear that our Lord only declared His Messiahship gradually. The Question put by Him to the disciples at Caesarea Philippi, and Peter's reply (Mt 16** = Mk 8** = Lk 19°), particularly when taken in connexion with our Lord's comment in Mt 16", make it evident that up to that time He had not openly declared Himself as the Messiah ; and the prohibi- tions in Mt. 1620 = Mk 839 = Lk 99", and Ml (, 17°– Mk 99, cf. Lk 99", show that He still did not wish the fact to be known to the people generally. In the Synoptic Gospels there are, however (see the Table, § 3), 9 passages in Matthew, 2 in Mark, and 4 in Luke, in which the title “Son of man’ is ascribed to our Lord before the occasion at Caesarea Philippi. If, then, the title was a current Mess. title, or even if His hearers, when He used it, were likely at once to perceive a reference to 10m 718, it is clear that IIe must, by His use of it, have revealed His Messiahship, from virtually the begin- ning of His ministry, both to His disciples and to the people at large. This, however, as we have just seen, was inconsistent with . His avowed purpose. Hence, those who believe that it was a current Mess. title are obliged to get rid of those passages in the Gospels which represent our Lord * Holsten ($ 10. 11], pp. 30–30; cf. Lietzmann, 14, 15, 24. 586 SON OF MAN SON OF MAN as using it before Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi. Matthew (in whom most of the pas- sages occur) is the evangelist who, generally, displays the least regard for historical sequence, and sometimes groups incidents and sayings to- gether merely on account of material resemblances; he even represents the disciples as owning Jesus to be the ‘Son of God’ (14*: no || in Mk 6*. Jn 6*) before the confession at Caesarea. Philippi. Hence there is no difficulty in supposing that Mt 10° 13” (in which, whatever view be taken of the meaning of the title, the predicates applied to it, describ- ing the Second Advent, show that the Messiah is referred to) are placed too early in our Lord’s Fº and the same supposition might be reasonably made (upon the º that ‘ the Son of man” was a Mess. title) in the case of some other passages, as Mt 8* 12"; f, but it is difficult to think that Mk 210 = Mt 9% = Lk 5*, Mk 2-8- Mt 128 = Lk 6", [Mk 3* = | Mt 12*= Lk 121°, can be so misplaced. Nevertheless, those who believe “the Son of man' to be an explicit Mess. title are obliged to assume this (cf. § 20. 12), or else to hold either that Jesus never used the title at all, or (so Holtzm. p. 263, cf. 256 f.) that, on at least the three last-named occasions, He spoke of “man” in general (see, further on these passages, § 22).f. The second of these alternatives we have already found ourselves unable to accept ; but does either the first or the third suffice to remove the diffi- culty ? Is it really credible that our Lord first used the expression of Himself, after Peter's con- fession at Caesarea. Philippi ? Is not the familiar manner in which He used the title, if not in the uestion put to Peter (Mt 16°, but not Mk 8”, Lk 9°), yet directly after it (Mk 8", Lk 9°), with: out exciting any comment or surprise, sufficient evidence that it must have been often used by Him previously, and that it was an expression which, whatever special ideas it may have been intended to convey, was well understood to denote Himself? These considerations, as it seems to the present writer, constitute a strong argument against the supposition that it was a current Mess, title, or even (without supposing as much as this) that it was adopted by our Lord as a Mess. title, for the purpose of proclaiming His Messiahship. The title, we thus seem forced to conclude, was used by our Lord in His Galilaean ministry; but it did not suggest to those who heard it Mess. associations, until it canne to be connected with predictions of the Second Advent ; it thus did not reveal, but veil, His Messiahship. Christ's use of the term was paidagogic. It veiled His Messiah- ship during the earlier part of His ministry, till the time was ripe for Him to avow it openly. § By His adoption of it, He found a means, on the one hand, of not denying even in public His con- sciousness of His unique mission, and, on the other hand, of lending no countenance to the crude and illusory hopes which attached to popular ideas of the Messiah (Weiss, Leben Jesw, i. 429). 20. The following summary (which makes no pretension to be exhaustive) may be useful to the reader, partly as illustrating, especially when taken in connexion with the views that have been already stated, the great diversity of opinion which has prevailed—and in part prevails still— with regard to the meaning of the title, partly as exemplifying the lines along which attempts have been principally made to solve the problems which it presents. * Some other passages in Matthew, involving the avowal of Jesus' Messiahship, though not with the use of this title, are also probably ante-dated ; cf. Holtzmann, p. 259. # In Ll; 0% (contrast Mt 511), 74-Mt 1119, Holtzmann (p. 251) doubts whether the title (which he regards as Mess.) is original. t l'iebig, however $ 24], thinks that in these cases it was simply misunderstood (as - “muan,’ ‘a man') by those who heard it. § Kein). Similariy Iłaur, IIase, Lange, Ritschl, II wrnack, and others, as cited by Holtzmann, p. 261 n. 1, 202 n. 6. 1. Neander (Leben Jesu, 1837, 120 ft.; Eng. tr.4 p. 99). The title denotes Jesus on His human side, as One belonging to humanity, who in His humanity has done so much for it, through whom it is glorified, and who has realized most com- pletely the ideal (‘Urbild’) of humanity. 2. Baur (Z. Wiss. Theol. 1800, 274–202; NT. Theol. 1864, 77–83). Not at the time a current title of the Messiah, but chosen by Jesus in opposition to prevalent Jewish conceptions of a victorious, earthly Messiah. }. emphasized His humanity, His subjection to the needs and experiences of ordinary men; and denoted Him also as one who made all the deepest human interests His own, and had the wide human sympathies ex- ressed, for instance, in the Beatitudes. It was suggested by m 718; and Jesus adopted it as a title, which, while possessing no popular Mess, associations, was adapted to express the Mess. idea in its higher significance, 3. Hilgenfeld (Z. Wiss. Th. 1863, 327–334; cf. 1894, 10 f.). Not a current Mess, title, Suggested by Dn 718, but used by Jesus with the object of giving prominence to His humanity, and of emphasizing the humility and external lowliness which in His }. were combined with the exalted dignity of the Messiah. t thus in a veiled manner pointed to His Messiahship, Jesus, by uniting spiritual loftiness with earthly lowliness, ‘trans- figured’ the º; Jewish idea of the Messiah. 4. Weizsäcker (Evang. Gesch. 1864, 426–431). Not a current Mess, title (for, if it had been, Jesus would have been attacked for appropriating it); and adopted by Jesus, not from Dn 718, but from Ezekiel, to designate Himself specially as a prophet. The Mess, sense, derived from Dn 718, was attached to it only at a later period of our Lord's life. 5, Holtzmann (in 1865; Z. Wiss. Th. 212-237). Not a current title of the Messiah (for else Jesus would have been attacked for using it), but borrowed by Him as a Mess, title from Dn 719, ‘the expression used by Dn. reflecting itself in His conscious- ness in a universal and human sense.’ It thus denoted Him not merely as the Messiah, but as “the bearer of all human dignity and rights,' as “one who held a peculiar and central º among the viol rôy &vleån ww.” Not being a current ess. title, it was a riddle to those who heard it, and served to veil, not to reveal, His Messiahship. 6. Keim (Der Gesch. Christus, 1865, p. 105 f.; Jesus of Naz. tr. iii. 79–92). The title had a double aspect: on the basis first of Ps 84t, though afterwards also of Dn 718, it expressed Jesus' sense on the one hand of IIis human lowliness, on the other hand of His Messianic dignity: in particular, He intended by His use of it to show that even in II is capacity as Messiah He was part and parcel of humanity, and to teach His disciples that it was pre-eminently His vocation to serve and suffer for humanity. 7. Wittichen (1868). In Dn 718 the ‘son of man’ represents the ethical character of the future Isr. dominion, as opposed to the worldly heathen dominions; this idea is, however, ſirst embodied in an individual in Enoch, from which book Jesus adopted the title. He designated Hihmself by it as the perfect representative of the idea of man, especially on its ethical side, and at the same time as the Messiah, the chosen organ for the fuller realization of this idea in the world." The idea as pre- sented in Enoch is spiritualizcd and morally deepened by Jesus, and also combined by IIim with associations derived from the OT “servant of Jehovah.” 8, Westcott (l.c. 1880). The title is a new one, not derived from Dn 713; and it expresses Christ's relation not to a family, or to a nation, but to all humanity. There is nothing in the Gospels to show that it was understood as a title of the Messiah. The idea of the true humanity of Christ lies at the foundation of it. He was the representative of the whole race, in whom the complete conception of manhood was absolutely attained, and who exhibited all the truest and noblest attributes of the race, Cf. Stanton, The Jewish and the Christium Messiah, 1880, p. 246: “It is clear that Christ by II is phrase represented IIimself as the head, the type, the ideal of the race.” 9. Wendt, 1890 (The Teaching of Jesus, ii. 139–151). Not a current Mess, title. Dn 718 suggested the combination of creaturely frailty and lowliness with high dignity; and so Jesus, when He used the title, taught that He was a frail human creature, and yet showed that He remembered the proph, word that the Mess. dignity was to belong to “one like unto a son of man.’ It was no announcement of Iſis Mess, claims, but rather propounded a problem for II is hearers to reflect upon, 10. J. E. Carpenter (The I"irst Three Gospels, their Origin and IRelations, 1800, pp. 118–120, 244-257, 372-388). Jesus never used the expression to designate IIimself: He employed it only in the eschatological passages, and in these it was used by Him symbolically to denote the establishment of God's kingdom of righteousness upon earth. The primitive Church Anderstood the expression in a personal sense, and then ascribed it, as a Mess. title, to Jesus Himself. 11. IIolston (Z. f. Wiss. Theol. 1891, pp. 1–70). The title, though not a current McSS. one, was understood by Jesus in that sense, as appears from the fact that IIe always uses it to express some aspect of the work or activity of the Messiah (cf. Holtzmann : § 15). It was adopted from 1)n 713, though this º gave only the outer form, the contents being supplied y the experience and knowledge of the historical Jesus (as teachcr, sufferer, redecmer, etc.) : only thus did IIe convert ‘the visionary form of a Messiah, which He found in Daniel, into IIis own living Mess. personality’ (p. 68, cf. 00). He would SON OF MAN SON OF MAN 587 not, however, have appropriated the title, had He not desired to designate IIimself as a member of the gem w8 ‘man,’ and also recognized Himself as the member of the genus referred to in Dn 719 (p. 47). The difficulty (cf. § 16) of understanding how Jesus could have denoted Himself, under the conditions of His earthly life, by a term suggesting only the transcendent Being of Daniel, is met by the supposition (which, however, lacks support in the text of Dn, itself) that the ‘one like unto a son of man’ in Dn 718 is really to be conceived as having been brought before God, and invested by Him with power and greatness, out of a previous state of earthly humility and weak- mess (pp. 61, 67 f.). The title was used by Jesus in His Galilaean ministry (Mk 210 etc.); for though He Himself understood it in a Mess. sense, this was not necessarily placed upon it even by scripture-students, esp. if His own appearance and manner of life did not suggest it : it would be taken naturally by those who heard it, including, up to the time of Peter's confession, even the disciples, to signify simply “the man.’ And this would agree with His own purpose of keeping for a while His Messiahship a secret (pp. 20, 22,31 f., 70 f.). 12. Baldensperger {}, elbstbøww88t&ein, Jesu, im Lichte der Mess. Hoffnungen. Seimer Zeit?, 1892), emphasizes strongly the prevalence of apocalyptic conceptions in the time of Christ. He rejects emphatically the opinion that the title concealed Jesus' Messiahship, and also the view that it was intended to express any aspect of His humanity. It was (through the influence of Daniel and #º known Mess, title in the time of Christ ; and Jesus adopted it with the express object of proclaiming His Messiahship. It was a triumphant designation of the Messiah ; and Jesus connected it with declarations respecting His humiliation and sufferings for the express purpose of show- ing (in opposition to current Jewish ideas) that these were integral elements in His conception of the Messiah. . As, how- ever, it was an open proclamätion of His Messiahship, He cannot have used it before Peter's confession at Caesarea. Philippi: the passages in the Gospels which imply that He did this must be chronologically misplaced. Baldensperger closes with a severe criticism of Holsten for admitting in again “by a back-door' (see above, No. 11) any reference in the title to the humanity of Jesus, which he had himself shown to be out of the question, as well as unnecessary, in view of the direct derivation of the title from Dn 719 (pp. 182–180); and of Wendt for dis- covering in the expression anything of the nature of creaturely weakness or humility (pp. 189–192). 13. J. W. Bartlet (Ea:pos., Dec. 1892, 427–443). The title may have been suggested by Dn 718; but as used by Jesus it denotes Him as the ideal representative, partly ºf humanity in general, partly of the JKingdom of God in particular, especially under those aspects of character which belong to the suffering servant in Deutero-Isaiah. 14. Dalman (Die Worte Jesu, 1898, 191–219; cf. Ea:p, Times, x. 438-443). Not a current Mess, title, but adopted by Jesus from Dn 718, and very probably also with the thought of Ps 84f. at the same time, because He was the destined Mcssiah. It veiled II is Messiahship behind a name which emphasized the humanity of its bearer. It implied that He was in some sense a man above other men,” but not that IHe was the ‘ideal' man —a conception foreign to Jewish thought, and not at all sug- gººd by the teaching of Jesus. . He avoided the term Messiah’ on account of the false ideas associated with it by the Jews: the ‘son of man’ in Daniel, on the other hand," was one who was not to win the kingdom by his own strength, but to receive it at the hands of God, and might have to do this through suffering and death: Jesus thus assumed the title as “a frail child of mam, whom God would make Lord of the world.’ Probably not used before Peter's confession; the passages in the Gospels which imply that it was, being chronologically misplaced. 15. Gunkel (Z. Wiss. Theol. 1899, 582-500) agrees that in Arann, the term meant only ‘the man,’ but thinks that there may have been an esoteric eschat. tradition underlying both 1)aniel, lºnoch, and other apocalypses, in which (like other apoc. expressions, as 'the end,’ ‘the woes,’ the ‘elect,’ & 2x ré- Zwy, etc.) “the man' (perhaps orig, ‘the man of God,' or ‘of leaven’) may have come to be used conventionally as a mystic synonym of ‘the Messiah’: Jesus might thus have adopted it as a self-designation; to outsiders it would mean simply ‘the man,’ and might be understood, for example, of an ancient prophet, returned to life (Mt. 1614); by the initiated, it would be {j to be a covert, title of the Messiah. 10. J. Drummond, 1001 [see § 24]. The term is used elastic- ally : starting from 1)n 713 Jesus may have regarded it as a typical expression for the ideal people of God, with which associations derived from the ‘servant of God’ in Is 5218– 5312 would readily connect themselves : conscious IIimself of II is Messianic calling, He would naturally regard Ilimself as the Head of this ideal class. The central idea of the expression would thus be that of the trute servant of God, pre-eminently Himself, but not necessarily and uniformly exclusive of others (so, e.g., in Mt 820 1291, Mlk 210. 28,-in Mt 1118 the expl. ‘a man' IS 8; 4) may be adopted). The eschat, passages may be visions of the spiritual conquest of the world by a l)ivinely commissioned humanity, personiſled as ‘the son of man.’ 21. Most of these opinions contain elements of truth ; but the divergence as regards the funda- mental idea denoted by the expression is remark- able. Still those views which see in the title some relation to humanity decidedly predominate. The resent writer must own that he is most attracted y the views of Westcott and Weiss (to which those of Neander, Baur, and Holtzmann in 1865 lead up). The expression, understood in the natural Sense of the words, denotes one who, though a Man, holds nevertheless a unique position among men ; and , this, it seems to him, is the proper starting-point for investigating its meaning, and discovering the further ideas (i, any) attaching to it. He cannot think that the title was first used by Christ in the eschat. passages, or even after Peter's confession : whatever its special signifi- cance may have been, it must have been an ex- pression heard frequently upon our Lord's lips, and the disciples must have first become familiar with it in comparatively neutral or colourless pas- sages, not in those foretelling either His future sufferings or His future glory. The title may have been borrowed by our Lord from Dn 71*; but He did not, at least when first using it, intend to bring before His hearers the figure there portrayed : He adopted it as a mere shell or form, suggestive of His humanity, into which He threw a new import and content of His own : more special associations derived from Dn 7”—perhaps, also, in Mt. 1697 1998 25% from Enoch *—came first to be attached to it in the eschat. passages. Ps 8, with its strikingly-drawn contrast between the actual lowliness and the ideal dignity of man, may also well have contributed to the adoption of the title by our Lord. The title, as it seems to the present writer (though he would avoid such expressions as the ‘ideal’ or ‘representative’ man), designates Jesus as the Man in whom human nature was most fully and deeply realized, and who was the most complete exponent of its capacities, warm and broad in His sympathies, ready to minister and suffer for others, sharing to the full the needs and deprivations which are the common lot of humanity, but conscious at the same time of the dignity and greatness of human nature, and destined ulti- mately to exalt it to unexampled majesty and glory. He would in general endorse cordially what is written on this subject in vol. ii. p. 623"-" (cf. also p. 850”). 22. We append a few remarks on some particular passages in which the title is used. a. Mk 8*= Llº 9” (“the foxes have holes,” etc.). As Schmiedel remarks (p. 293), Meyer’s “a man’ (i.e. Jesus) + is exegetically impossible ; Lietz- mann’s “man’ (generally) + is out of the question, The contrast is evidently between the external lowliness and the inherent dignity of Him who in a special sense was the ‘Son of man.” b. Mt 90 – Mk 219 = Llº 5*. There is no neces- sity, for the purpose of understanding this passage, to suppose that the title was a Mess, one. Jesus, in order to meet the objection, ‘Who can forgive sins, but God only 2' heals the paralytic, thereby showing that He holds an extraordinary commis- sion from God upon earth sufficient to satisfy the Jews that He is justified in claiming also to possess authority to forgive sins. The passage, it is true, is one in which an Aram. original ‘that a man hath authority on earth to forgive sins's would be quite possible, and yield a suitable sense, --the word, though in form general, being meant to be limited to Jesus Himself; but, if the Son of man’ be admitted as a title of Jesus elsewhere, there is, of course, no necessity for having recourse to the supposition here. C. Mt. 128 = Mk 228 – Llº 6”. Here in Mk we read : ‘(v.27) And he said unto them, The sablath is * For (§ 11) it is only here (and not in Daniel) that the ‘son of man' appears as judge. # P. jū f. (cf. above, § 8, 4). s i P. 00 (but allowing that, in its present connexion, only Jesus can be meant : so Well, p. 206). 1 - § Meyer, p. 94 (cf. § 8, 4); Lietzm. p. 89; Wellh. p. 203. 588. SON OF MAN SON OF MAN. made for man, and not man for the sabbath : (v.*) so that the son of man is lord even of the sabbath,’—the statement that the son of man is lord of the sabbath being based upon the premises contained in v.”. . But in the premise, ‘the sabbath is naade for man,” “man’ is evidently meant gener- ally, so that the only logical conclusion from it is, not that a particular man, but that man gener- ally, -or, at least (since, from the nature of the case, the worldly, unspiritual man would not be thought of), the religious man, who weighed reasons, and could judge how to use rightly what was instituted for the benefit of man,—is §. of the sabbath.’; , Jesus, by His argument, though He would include Himself, would not eacclude others. And such a conclusion would be in agree- ment not only with the general teaching of Christ, but with the context, which shows that Jesus is defending not His own action, but that of His disciples. Hence, as Schmiedel also allows, the supposition that “the son of man’ has arisen out of a misinterpretation, or false limitation, of the Aram. barnāshā,” is here certainly plausible. At the same time, it is possible that the argument is, “The sabbath was made for man ; and therefore the Son of man, as holding a unique position among men, and knowing what their welfare requires, may, for a sufficient reason, dispense with the obligation to observe the sabbath’ (cf. Stanton, 247 f.). It must, however, then be sup- posed that the action of the disciples in plucking º ears of corn had been iº authorized by €SllS. d.t w - between Himself and the Holy Spirit), has, upon intrinsic grounds, a far higher claim to oº:: than the remark of the narrator in Mk 3” (which makes blasphemy against Jesus tantamount to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit); while the declaration that blasphemy against Himself was pardonable is one which no evangelist would have ventured to place in Jesus' mouth, had He not really uttered it. , Mt. 12” is not necessarily a Yarallel recension of 12”, or superfluous beside it ; it would be perfectly in place if it stated with explicit reference to the “Son of man’ what is i. implicit in v.”, but is not there expressed explicitly. Mark ‘may have had before him, not indeed our Matthew, but Mt 12* in a similar form, and have re-cast v.”, on account of its seem- ing inconsistency with reverence for Jesus, in a form influenced by the phraseology of v.”.” But the correctness of the comment in Mk 3" must, upon this view, be given up ; and indeed (Schmiedel) it is not certain that Mk 3* (=Mt 12*) is his- torically connected with the preceding narrative ; the parallel in Lk (12") stands in a very differ- ent connexion. The impossibility of questioning the originality of Mt 12* = Lk 12" thus consti- tutes to Schmiedel a conclusive argument against explaining the variations between the Synoptists here by means of the Aramaic. 23. In the Fourth Gospel the title is still found only in our Lord's mouth ; but it is lifted into a higher plane, and, in agreement with St. John's predominant point of view, is used commonly in more distinct connexion with His Divine nature, Mk 328-30. Mt. 123}. Mt. 1232. Lk 1210. 28 All sins and blasphemics shall to the sons of men be forgiven, wherewithsoever they blaspheme : 20 But whoso blasphemeth against the Holy Spirit hath not forgiveness for ever (sk row &lºvo.), but is guilty of an eternal sin. Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit. Every sin and blasphemy shall unto mnem be forgiven; but the blasphemy of the Spirit Shall not be forgiven. 30 against the II o l y S p i r it, And whoso speaketh a word against the 80m of mam, it shall be forgiven him ; And every one who shall speak il, WVOl'C. against the son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoso speaketh but unto him that blasphemeth - against at he Holy Sp i r it it shall not be forgiven him, it shall not be forgiven. neither in this tige (cºláw) nor in that which is to COIIle, Here Mt 12*, * certainly wear the appearance of being duplicate versions of one and the same say- ing, v.” agreeing with Mk 3*, and v.32 with Lk 12"; and the contrast expressed in Mk 348t. Mt. 12” between “men” in general and the Holy Spirit becoming in Mt 12* Lk 12" one between the ‘Son of man’ and the Holy Spirit. It is not difficult to understand how these duplicates might have arisen out of different recensions of the original saying, of which one read Nvy in (“men”), and the other w; Ta (“a man,’—intended in a general 'sense).: According to Wellh. the version in Mk 328 Mt 1291 is the original, the contrast (as Mk 3" shows) being between blasphemy against men and blas- phemy against the Holy Spirit [cf. 1 S 22” It V]; Jesus, therefore, if this view be correct, never declared blasphemy against Himself to be pardon- able. Schmiedel, in his acute discussion of these passages, replies that although no doubt Mark, as a rule, has the greater originality than Matthew, that is not the case universally [cf. vol. ii. p. 241"]; and in the present instance the words of Jesus in Matthew 12* = Lk 12" (in which He distinguishes It is thus applied to Him not only with reference to events in His life on earth as a man, but also with reference to His pre-existence with God.” The uniqueness of the “Son of man' consists in His having ‘come down from heaven’ (3*), whither also He will return again (6%), and in virtue of which those who “work’ that they may appro- priate Him, and who further eat. His flesh and drink His blood, have eternal life (697. *, cf. vv.". " "). While on earth, He remains in con- stant spiritual intercourse with His Father in Heaven, as those whose eyes are opened may see by His life and works (1*). He will be ‘lifted up ' on the cross in order that those who believe in Him may have eternal life (3*), and that men may perceive who He is (8*); and His ap- proaching death is the hour of His glorification (12” 13*). The multitude understood Him to claim to be the Messiah ; and ask (12”) to have it ex- plained to them how, if the Son of man is thus to be ‘lifted up,’ He can be the Messiah who is to ‘abide for ever” (as head, viz., of an earthly kingdom). In 9”, according to the reading of NBI), the unique position occupied by the ‘Son of man’ is attested by the importance attached to ºver, p. 93; Lietzm. p. 89 f.; Wellh. p. 202: cf. Holtzm. . 25(5. f The tabular arrangement is Schmiedel's (p. 303). ! Lietzm. p. 87-89; Wellh. p. 203 f. * In connexion with our Lord's future Advent, it is not used at all in St. John. SONG OF SONGS SONG OF SONGS 1589 belief in Him.” Weiss, $ 144c. 24. LITERATURE.—Holtzmann, NT. Theol. (1897), i. 246–64, is indispensable for all further study of the subject :, it is, un- fortunately, not very clearly written, the writer's literary method leaving it sometimes uncertain how far he identifies himself with the alternative views stated :-Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1860, tr. i. 197–200 (as realizing the moral ideal of humanity), ii. 410, 412; Weiss, 1884 (above, § 17); Baldensperger, 11888, -1892 (above, $ 20. 12); Holsten, 1891 ($ 20. 11); Sanday, Iºa:pog. Jan. 1891, 18–32 (crit, of Carpenter, $ 20. 10); Bartlet, 1892 (§ 20. 13); Charles, Book of Iºnoch, 1893, 312–17; Oort, 1893($8 end); Wellh. Isr, w. Jüd. Gesch. 11804, 312, 91895, 346, 31897, 381; Eerdmans, 1894–5 (§ 8, 2); N. Schmidt, JBL 1896, 36–53, “Was Nwl him a Mess. Title?' [Answer, No, on grounds of Aram. usage]; A. Meyer, 1896 ($ 8.4); Lietzmann, 1896 ($ 8. 5) ſpp. 1–20, survey and criticism of previous views); Hilgenfeld, 1897 (§ 10n.); Nestle, Ea:pos. Times, Feb. 1900, p. 238 (on Ps 8010, 18 LXX [where, however, roy vi. Tog & does not occur]); Schmiedel, Prot. Momatshefte, 1808, H. 7, 252–67, II. 8, 201-308 º of Meyer, Lietzm, and Wellh. Gesch.); Lietzmann, Theol. Arbeiten aw8 demn Rheim. Wiss. Pred.-Verein, 1808, H. 2, 1-14 (reply to Hilgen- feld and Schmiedel); Dalman, 1808 ($ 20. 14); Wellh, Skizzen at. Vorarbeitem, 1890, 187–215, and v, vi; Klöpper, Z. Wiss. Th. 1899, 161-86; Gunlcel, 1890 [$ 20. 16); Hommel, Ea:pos. Times, May 1900, 341–5 (develops Gunkel's view, and traces title back to the Bab. Adapa); Baldensperger, Theol. Irwndschaw, June 1900, 201-10, July 1900, 243-55 (survey of recent discussion); J. Drummond, Jowrm. of Theol. Studies, Apr. and July 1901, for the loan of which in MS the writer of the preceding article is greatly indebted to the author: Fiebig, Der Memschensohn, 19 1 [appeared since this art, was in type. Impartial and inde- pendent : very clear and thorough, csp. on the Aramaic side ; thinks the title was a current Mess, one, meaning ‘the man,’ based on Dn 718, but enlarged and enriched by Jesus and adopted by IHim because (cf. § 19) it did not mecessarily point to Him- Self, and also was not specifically national]. S. R. DRIVER, SONG OF SONGS (n-nºir ºw: B &gua, N C &aua douárwv, A āopata dauðrøv ; Vulg. Canticum Canti- corum, whence the common name Canticles; AV Song of Solomon).- i. Name and place in the Canon. ii. Methods of Interpretation. An allegorical sense maintained both in Jewish and Christian Church : Targum, St. Ber- nard, Luther; Seb. Castellio (opposed traditional view); Grotius, R. Simon, Clericus, Whiston, J. D. Michaelis (all opposed at least to the exclusively allegorical sense); Herder (regarded the book as a collection of separate love- Songs); allegorical interpretations of I(eil, Rosenmüller, Hengstenberg, Hahn, Goltz, Hug, G. P. C. Kaiser; views of Jacobi, Delitzsch, von Orelli, lºwald ; two distinct types of the dramatical theory, represented by Delitzsch and Ewald respectively ; a new era in interpretation of the Song inaugurated by J. G. Wetzstein, whose views have been most fully carried out by Budde ; IBudde's view stated and criticised; the present writer's own view. iii. Authorship, Place of composition, and Date. Literature. i. NAME OF THE BOOK AND ITS PLACE IN THE CANON.—‘Song of Songs,” which is the exact render- ing of the Hebrew title of this little book, does not mean ‘a song of the songs (sc. of Solomon), as Ibn Ezra, and Rimchi º but, by a not uncom- mon periphrasis for the superlative, is equivalent to ‘the finest song,” that which is superior to all other songs, that which unites in itself the excel- lences of everything that is called song. The title, which, as we shall find, did not originally stand at the head of the book but was introduced after- wards, thus contains a significant expression of opinion regarding the composition. It is explicable only on the ground of the view which a later age thought it necessary to hold as to the real sense of a work which had now gained a place in the Canon of the OT. Nay, it is only the prevalence of the same view that will explain how the Song ever found entrance at all into the circle of Sacred Writings. This pregnant title corresponds with the high estimate of the book expressed by R. Akiba (cf. Jadaim, iii. 5), about the end of the 1st cent, A. D. : “God forbid No one in Israel has over doubted that the Song of Songs deſiles the hands [i.e. that it is a holy canonical book #1, for the whole world is not worth the Cf., further, Holtzm. ii. 426–30; * In Jn 597 the expression is diſterent, “because he is a son of man’ (vio; &wſp.), i.e. (see Westcott, or Meyer, ad loc.; and Holtz- mann, ii. 427 f.) because of IIis true humanity, adapting IIim specially to be a ſº of men. Cf. the human sympathy of the Judge in Mt. 2534-10. i - t On ‘defile the hands' see Delitzsch in Zeitsch. f. luth. Th. v. K. xv. (1854) 280ſ, and W. R. Smith, OT'JC2 1S6, note 1. day on which the Song was given to Israel. For all the Writings [i.e. the Hagiographa] are holy, but the Song of Songs is a holy of the holies.’ Henceforward this idea of the incomparable value of the book continued to be the only prevailing one amongst the Jews, and thus passed over also into the Christian Church. ii. METHODS OF INTERPRETATION.—The above Talmudic citation shows, however, that this high estimate of the Song of Songs did not succeed in establishing itself without opposition. The ques- tion whether they “defile the hands’ received a vacillating answer especially in regard to the Song and Ecclesiastes. And it is easy to account for this. The plain language of the book, soberly interpreted, does not suggest that we have to do with a work of high religious value or with a sacred poem. It was necessary to wrest the language and to assume that a deeper sense underlay the literal meaning, before one could justify the pres- ence of such a book and gain an abiding place for it amongst the Sacred Writings.” What we hear of is earthly love, that of betrothed or married persons, and nowhere does the natural eye detect a single indication that would call it away from this and compel it to see in the figures presented to it images of a higher love. But at the time the step was taken of admitting the Song into the Canon, there can be no doubt that amongst those scribes whose influence was greatest in the collect- ing of the Sacred Writings, it had long been the custom to find in this exquisite work an allegory, and in the bond of love there presented to see the bond of love between J" and Israel. Sufficient in- ducement to such an interpretation was supplied by Scripture itself, for at least since the time of the prophet Hosea, the representation of the cove- mant between J" and His people under the figure of the relation between husband and wife had become frequent and popular. When in consequence of the allegorical interpretation the book had been received into the Canon, objections to its being allowed to remain there could, of course, arise only from the strong impression which its lan- guage makes upon the reader, and the removal of such objections was facilitated in proportion as the allegorical interpretation obtained acceptance. The latter interpretation was bound to triumph in the end, for the more the true conception of the origin and character of Scripture was lost and a false notion of its inspiration came in, the more did the need make itself felt that all writings received into the Canon, the Song included, should be viewed and interpreted in such a way as to entitle them to rank as holy writings inspired by God's Spirit. One result of the triumph of the allegorical interpretation, and of the extravagant estimate of the book (so well illustrated by the above words of It. Alziba), was the introduction of the liturgical use of the Song into the Jewish Church. Canticles, along with lºuth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, made up the five illegilloth (“rolls’) which were read to the congregation at certain festivals. The liturgical use of Canticles deserves all the more careful consideration, because it helps us to decide what view of its contents was entertained by the Jewish congregation in the earliest times. For undoubtedly the contents of each book were intended to be brought into close connexion with the festival at which it was read. Now, Canticles was appointed to be read on the Sth day of the Feast of the Passover.' ISut this feast com- * See Aboth of R. Natham, c. i. : “At first they said that Proverbs, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes were apocryphal. They said they were parabolic writings and not of the Iſagiographa . . . till the men of the Great Synagogue came and explained them' (cf. W. R. Smith, OT'/C2 ISI, note 1). + Ruth is read on the 2nd day of the Feast of Weeks or Pentecost, Lamentations on the 9th Ab (i.e., the anniversary of the burning of the temple by the Chaldaeans), lºcclesiastes on the 3rd day of the Feast of Tabernacles, and lºsther on the 13th Adar (the opening day of the l’east of l’urim). 590 SONG OF SONGS SONG OF SONGS memorated the time when J" delivered His people from the oppression of a strange lord in order to unite them to Himself at Sinai by an everlasting covenant. J" then is the beloved, and the people of God or the congregation of Israel are His loved 'OIAC. According to the paraphrase of the Targum, the poem por- trays the history of Israel from the Exodus to its redemption and glorification in Messianic times, when the full and final union of J” with His people shall be realized. This is certainly a profound interpretation, and one, too, which could find its roots in the Prophetic literature (cf. Hos, 1-3, Jer 21ſt. 31ſr, Ezk 16, Is 50l 540th, etc.). But this explanation puts difficulties in the way of the plain natural understanding as soon as it is sought to apply it to individual features of the poetical repre- sentation. These everywhere indicate too strongly that what we have to do with is really earthly love and a product of erotic poetry.* The consciousness of this had certainly not been lost even by the Jews. It was felt that one required ripe- ness of religious and moral insight and strength in order to understand the Song not in a false and morally pernicious fashion, but according to its hidden deeper meaning. Thus we must explain the Jewish regulation, reported to us by Origen and Jerome, that no one was to read the book till he was 30 years of age (the age, according to Nu 49, at which the Levite is ready to enter upon his sacred duties). The allegorical interpretation, which had been adopted by the Jews, gained acceptance also in the Christian Church, chiefly through Origen's exposi- tion of the Song, and all through the Middle Ages this continued to be the prevailing interpretation. Nay, until quite recently it has maintained its supremacy in the Roman Catholic Church, and has found defenders even in the Churches of the Refor- mation. The allegorical interpretation, indeed, speedily assumed here a mystical character. It W’:US . that one could discover in the poem a (prophetical) description beforehand of the loving relation between Christ and His people or between Him and the individual believing soul, and of the yearning desire of the latter for joving union with the ford. The most notable witness to this aſle. gorico-mystical view is to be found in the 86 sermons of St. Bernard, which, however, do not extend be- yond Ca. 3". Of course there are particular features in the poem which give abundant scope for mystical fancies. It was only with the Reformation that an era dawned which created the conditions neces- sary for a more correct understanding of the Song. It should not, indeed, be forgotten that Theodore of Mopsuestia, who belonged to the exegetic school of Antioch, had long before sought to do justice to the literal sense of the Song, by teaching that it treats simply of earthly love. But he stood alone with llis interpretation over against the prevailing allegorical view, and was amathematized for holding it at the fifth (Ecumenical Council at Constantinople (A.D. 553). Even in the Churches of the Reforma- tion a more natural understanding of the Song made its way at first very slowly. In general the allegorical interpretation, borrowed from the Jews, and subjected to Christian modifications, continued to reign : especially within the Reformed Church was there a tendency to adhere closely to the ex- planation of the synagogue, and to see in the Song a prophetical pre-description of the development of the history of the Church.t A unique view, which deservedly gained no adherents, was put forward by Luther : “Solomon intends by these discourses of the lover and his beloved to show that, where obedience and good government are, God dwells and kisses and embraces His ride by Iſis word ; in short, he means to sing the praises of obedience as a gift of God.” t-It was still a dangerous thing, even in the century of the Reformation, to depart from the traditional allegorical interpretation. Seb. Castellio of Geneva learned this to his cost when, on account of having seen in the Song a ‘geistlich Buhllied,’ and having Wººl it unworthy * According to another interpretation, Canticles portrays Solomon's love to Wisdom. (The last representative of this view is lºosenmüller, in his Scholia in Wet. Test. ; the Peshitta substitutes Horſ, for nº in the title of the book). Are we to infer fronn Wis 82 that the author of the Wisdom of Solomon already held the same view # As a notable representative of this view we may specify Cocceius (#1069), whose federal theology this view of the Song suited admirably. { Cf. I(Östlin, MI. Luther, 8cim Leben w. Seine Schriftem?, i. p. 610 f. to stand in the Canon, he was accused (not, it is true, simply for holding this opinion) by Calvin and banished from Geneva (1544).-A more decided movement in favour of an interpreta- tion corresponding to the original sense of the poem, was inaugurated by Hugo Grotius (t 1645). Even he, to be sure, does not yet break absolutely with the traditional view, for hē does not simply º: an allegorical exegesis, but, primarily and according to the literal sense, the Song is for him concerned only with earthly love, in fact the love of Solomon for the Egyptian princess, his wife.”—The number of those who under- stood the subject to be earthly love and rejected the allegorical interpretation continued to grow ; in particular the pioneers of the critical study of the OT, men, like R. Simon, Clericus, Whiston (Cambridge), belonged to this category. The first to oppose the , allegorical interpretation by weighty arguments was J. D. Michaelis (in his edition of It. Lowth's De sacra poesi Hebroeorum proclectiones, Göttingen, 1758-61, Notes, p. 603 ff., he even excluded the Song from his translation of the Bible). But to J. G. Herder belongs the credit of having helped to its triumphant recognition the only true view of the fundamental character of Canticles as a product of genuine and pure erotic poetry. In his work, entitled Lieden' der Liebe, die #. wnd Schönstem atts demn Morgenlande, nebst //, alten Minneliedern (1778), he contends that the book is a collection of separate love- Songs of an impassioned and morally pure character, and this view of his has continued to gain adherents (Reuss, Budde, et al.; see, further, below) down to the most recent times. But the allegorical interpretation also found champions not only among Roman Catholic, but also among Protestant theologians, . In itself this is not at all surprising, for any one who took his stand upon the ground of the old orthodox doctrine of inspiration would feel compelled to do justice to the simple fact that the Song is included in the Canon. He would have to bring it into relation with the system of revealed truth, and discover revelation, that is, prophecy, in its contents as well ; for in no other way could he explain its reception into the Canon. Accordingly, we find, on the one hand, a movement in the direction of the old Jewish interpretation. So, in par- ticular, Keil (I'ênleitung, 1853, p. 373) holds that in Canticles ‘in dramatico-lyric responsive songs, and under the allegory of the betrothed love of Solomon and the Shulammite,’ we have portrayed ‘the loving intercourse between the Lord and His people in their ideal character resulting from Israel's choice to this privilege, according to which all disturbing of this inter- course by unfaithfulness on the part of Israel only leads to an establishing more ſirmly of the covenant of love, through return to the true covenant God and His unchangeable love.’ Hut, as he himself expressly notes, Keil does not mean by this that we can discover in the Song a literal reflexion of the actual ‘history of the covenant relation’ or ‘an allegorical veiling of the principal features of the theocratic history.’ On the contrary, it is the loving intercourse of the Lord ‘according to its Divine idea that is portrayed. In this way Keil obtains for the Song a Messianic character in so far as it describes a relation ‘which was ſlrst realized through Christ.’ Accordingly, he insists also upon the inspired character of the book, which is ‘no product of the Soil of the natural development of the theocratic God- consciousness, but, like the prophetical Psalms, one due to the supernatural working of the Holy Spirit in the mind of Solomon, and so constructed that the mutual love of king Solomon and the ideal Shulammite undergoes transfiguration and becomes an allegory of the marriage of the Heavenly Bridegroom with His elect bride on earth.” Of course IKeil considers that this allegorico-prophetical view is amply supported by the above- mentioned Biblical description of the covenant relation be- tween Jahweh and Israel under the figure of a marriage union. —The same principle of interpretation lay at the root of Rosen- müller's original view (cf. Keil and Tschirner's Analckten, i. [1813]. p. 138 ft. ; for his later view sce preceding col., note * as well as at that of Hengstenberg (Das Iſohe Lied, 1853) and others.t-Another sct of interpreters refer the contents of the Song (in a Messianic sense) to the mission of the kingdom of Israel to heathendom (II. A. Hahn, 1852), or of Christ to the presently divided Church, which is to be brought back to the perfection which belonged to it in the apostolic age (G. F. Goltz, 1850). g The attempts to convert the Song into a political allegory may be pronounced completely mistaken. For instance, it has been supposed by J. L. Hug (1813) to be a fancy poem in which, the longing of the ten tribes for a reunion with king Hezekiah is set forth under the figure of the love relations of the Shulammito with Solomon. According to G. P. C. Raiser 1825) the Song of Songs is “a collective song, addressed to Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, as the restorers of a Jewish constitution in the province of Judah.” * The form in which Grotius states the traditional view is worthy of note: “Creditur autern Salomon, quo magis peren- naret hoc scriptum, ea arte id composuisse, ut sine multa distortione allegoria) in eo inveniri possent, quad Dei annorem adversus populum Israelit. exprimerent. Ille amor th/pus cum fuerit amoris Christi erga ecclesiam, Christiani ingenia sua ad applicanda ad ean rem huius Carminis verba exercuerunt, laudabili studio.' # I. Rupprecht (Einleit. in d. A T', 1898, p. 353 ff.) still walks quite in the footsteps of Hengstenberg. SONG OF SONGS SONG OF SONGS 59 | The allegorical interpretation has all along started with presupposing the internal unity of the poem, and has uniformly seen in Solomon its author and its hero. On this view of the Song, moreover, the dramatical element in its construc- tion, which makes itself felt not indistinctly, is preserved, even if it is not always recognized. Over against not only the allegorical explanation but also that view of the Song which *. it. up into separate songs or fragments of songs in the fashion so brilliantly inaugurated by Herder, another manner of interpretation began to gain always wider currency and acceptance. This agreed with the second of the views just named, in holding that it is earthly love that is the subject of the Song, and with the ſirst in main- taining the literary unity of the poem. It ceased to search in Canticles for deep secrets of revela- tion, prophetico-symbolical glances into the de- velopment of the kingdom of God, and preferred to take its contents realistically, as the reflexion of a historical occurrence. What the poem lost In this way of the value, which the allegorical interpretation had sought to impose upon it, was richly compensated by the ethical significance which it gained upon the new theory. The man who led the way in this mode of interpretation was J. C. Jacobi (in his anonymous work, Das durch eine leichte Erklärung vom Seinen Vorwińſen gerettete Hohelical, 1771). He saw in the Song a panegyric on conjugal fidelity, for he considers that its subject is the steadfastness with which a wife who had been carried off from her husband maintained her fidelity to the latter, in face of the seductive attempts of Solomon. Afterwards the adherents of this system of interpretation deviated from Jacobi in one point. They saw in the heroine of the poem, not a married woman, but a virgin, who, in spite of all the insidious arts of Solomon, remained true to her lover or betrothed, and who finally received the reward of her faithfulness in her union with her beloved. Those who, in spite of differences in detail, which it is impossible to describe more fully here, held the same general view (just described) of the Song, were not all agreed also in regarding it as a dramatic poem. Some took it to be an epic oem ; others, in view of its strongly pronounced yric character, would have it that it is a collection of ballads, or even an operetta, with choruses, duets, and solos. But the majority of the ad- herents of the above theory, especially amongst the most distinguished exegetes, took the view that the Song is a drama, or it might be a melo- drama. We may specify such names as Ewald (1826, 1867), Umbreit (1828, 1839), Hitzig (1855), IRenan (1860), even Delitzsch (see, further, below), Stickel (1888), Oettli (1889), Driver (1891, etc.), I3ruston (1891). Amongst many others the present writer has given in his adhesion to this opinion (1893). 13ut as to the internal structure of the poem there is by no means complete agreement, although the differences that exist are no evidence, as has been supposed, that there is nothing in the dramatic theory. The absence of scenic indica- tions in the text, and the necessity of inferring simply from the contents, or the form of expres- sion, who is the speaker in particular sentences or sections, are quite sufficient to account for the surprising differences in the dramatic arrangement of the Song proposed by different exegetes. These differences are, of course, due also in large measure to the very great difficulties that beset the ex- position of the Song of Songs. The main difference amongst the adherents of the dramatical theory is the following. Starting with the primary assumption that Canticles is a dramatic poem, exegetes, in answering the ques- fails º: 6, 7). tion as to the principal dramatis personae, part company in two quite different directions. I)e- litzsch (1851, 1875), and, in essential agreement with him, Zöckler (in Lange's Bibelwerk, 1868), and von Orelli (in PIRE * vi. p. 245ff., art. ‘Hohés Lied Salomos,’ 1880), hold, in harmony with the traditional view, that, apart from certain sub- ordinate figures, there are only two principal persons to ise recognized, namely, Solomon and the Shulammite, and that, where a shepherd is spoken of, Solomon is here also to be understood. The poem is supposed to describe the bond of love between the two, from the first moment of mutual burning passion (12–27), and mutual seeking and finding (28–30), down to the realization of the desire for love in the marriage union (30-51); and then, after a passing estrangement, the mutual return (52-69), the praise of the charms and beauty of the bride now raised to be queen (610–84), and the confirming of the love covenant in the home of the Shulammite (83-14), I)elitzsch, however, finds in the whole poem a deeper idea expressed. He says (Comrºn.2 p. 5): “the Shulammite is a historical person . . . a country maiden of lowly rank, who by her physical beauty and purity of Soul awakened in Solomon a love which elevated him above the wantonness of polygamy, and gave him a personal experi- ence of the Paradise idea of marriage as this is expressed in Gn 223f, with reference to the first created woman. It is this personal experience that he celebrates, at the same time ideal: izing it in the manner of poets by stripping off the husk of all that is accidental, and presenting the lcernel and essence. . . . The Song is a protest against polygamy, although only to the extent that one could expect from the Mosaic standpoint.” He finds in the Song a reflexion of the Azávo, ºvarráploy of Eph 532. But he claims for it, not only a historical and ethical but also a typico-mystical significance. Solomon is to him a type of Christ, and accordingly he sees in the love relations between Solomon and the Shulammite ‘the mysteries of the love of Christ and His people shadowed forth' (p. 5), remarking at the same time that the typical exegesis must bear in mind that type and antitype do not exactly coincide, and the mystical that ‘the heavenly stamps itself, indeed, upon the earthly, and yet is poles asunder from it.”—Von Orelli diſfers from Delitzsch only in so far as he holds the subject of the Song to be ‘not marriage as a permanent bond and condition, but betrothed love which finds simply its climax and goal in the marriage union’ (l.c. p. 252). Accordingly in 30–51, upon his view, there cannot be already an allusion to the marriage union, as Delitzsch holds. In his typical view of the Song, Orelli is otherwise essentially at one with Delitzsch (l.c. p. 240). Apart from the fact that such exegesis as the above is dominated by considerations supposed to be involved in the history of revelation, there are serious objections to the view that there are only two principal persons in the Song, and to the identifying of the shepherd with the king. Above all, it is hard to comprehend how the Shulammite, even after her marriage has taken place, should continue to treat and to address the king as shepherd, and should even inquire (17) where he pastures his flocks. To discover ‘an essential feature of the spiritual beauty' of the Song in the circumstance ‘that the ideal virgin loves him, not as king, but loves in him the shepherd, ...i longs to share with him the innocent simplicity of her former manner of life, a desire to which he joyfully yields,’ is possible, indeed, but in the highest degree unnatural, and may be regarded rather as an outcome of a mystical deepening of the sense of the Song than as the result of a sober interpretation of the actual words of the text. Far more support has been accorded, and rightl so, we consider, to the view represented above all by Ewald. According to it, besides Solomon, the king who is courting the love of the Shulammite, we must distinguish a shepherd who was the real object of her passion, and the beloved of her heart. The fascinatingly beautiful Shulammite is supposed to have been met by the king on the occasion of a tour of his in the north of his kingdom (611t), and placed in his harem. The king seeks by enticing flattering speeches to win her love, but from the very first meeting (ch. 1) she gives him to understand to whom her heart belongs. While the king then presses her with ever renewed words of love and admiration, the emotion of love thus stirred within her pours itself forth in Words addressed to her lover far away. Nay, in the intensity of her feelings, she imagines she sees him come from Afar, to her prison, she hears his words meant for her (28" 47". 5*), and in a dream seeks for him by might in the streets (31". 5*). Even the prospect of becoming the ſavourite wife of the splendid monarch cannot shake her ſldelity to her absent lover, and even when the king imagines he has gained his point she remains firm, and refuses to entertain the idea of allowing any one to enjoy her love but the object of her heart's affections (30.58). A last attempt of Solomon to win her heart Finally, the king magnanimously gives her back her liberty, and in her home in union with her beloved shepherd she finds the consummation of her happiness. On 492 , , SONG OF SONGS SONG OF SONGS this view, the Song reaches its ideal goal in the impassioned eulogium on true, pure love in 80f.* It is quite true that, even upon this inter- pretation, which at all events does fuller justice to the text than the traditional view *. anew , by Delitzsch, there are still difficulties enough in points of detail. But it is question- able whether these difficulties are sufficiently great to make this explanation inadequate alike from the formal and the material point of view, and thus to demand its rejection. The present writer does not think so. The principal difficulty is in the so-called Third Act (36–51). The question is whether the conclusion (51) is intended to mark the longed-for marriage union as actually consummated. l:litzig held that this question must be answered in the affirma- tive, and supposed the marriage in view to have been one that Solomon contracted with a woman of Jerusalem, but not with the Shulanimite. Bruston is also of opinion that in this Third Act we have to do with the marriage of the king to another— in fact, as he thinks may be gathered from 48, with a Tyrian princess. This actually accomplished marriage with another woman would thus place on a still higher level the invincible fidelity of the Shulammite. But there is really no necessity to take the Shulanumite's words in 416b as formally different from her words in ch. 1. She is thinking in both passages, not of the king, but of her true lover, and it occasions no difficulty, but only marks the climax of the conflict that the king believes, of course, that the object of his desires is now about to yield to him, whereas, as the very next scene shows, such an idea has never entered her mind. Ewald himself held that from 48 onwards we have again words of her lover, which the Shulammite imagined she heard, as in 28ff. ; he even sup- posed that two lines have dropped out before v.8, their con- tents being, “Behold, my beloved, behold, there comes he Hark how he speaks to me his words . . . ,” or the like. But it is unnecessary and hardly justifiable to suppose that a different subject speaks in 48tſ from the speaker in v. 1ſt. #– Stickel, too, denies that 48tſ are words of Solomon, but he thinks to tºpº all difficulties by the strange assumption that in 17.8 115–24 47–51 there are three scenes that are to be separated from the rest of the poem. In these he supposes a second pº of lovers, a shepherd and a shepherdess, to be introduced, who actually arrive at a marriage union, this inter- lude having the effect of setting Solomon's wooing of the Shuiammite in a peculiar light.f. Otherwise, the relation of Solomon to the Shulammite and her relation to him remain the same as on 12wald's theory. But this view of Stickel's, which destroys the unity of the poem, presupposes far too great skill in producing stage effects (‘Bühnengeschicklichkeit") on the part of the author to be well founded. A very important turn of opinion as to the literary character of the Song of Songs has been brought about in the most recent times. J. G. Wetzstein, who was for long Prussian consul at Damascus, and who has rendered much service in the way of increasing our knowledge of Oriental life and contributing to the understanding of the OT, ayailed himself of his opportunities of making acquaintance with the marriage customs in modern Syria. In this way, he met with some things which are certainly calculated to throw light on certain }. of the Song of Songs. He published in 3astian's Zeitsthrift f: Ethnologie (1873, p. 270 ſp.), an article, entitled “Die syrische Dreschtafel,” in which he describes the manifold uses made of the threshing-board, and amongst others its symbolical employment in the so-called ‘king’s week,” i.e. during the seven days' marriage festival (p. 287 ff.). It was partly from this article that the ‘Bemer. kungen zum Hohenliede’ in Delitzsch's Commentary were taken, but the author contributed further important materials to the elucidation of the sub- ject. To the same category belongs an earlier * The reader will find an exact account of the scheme of the Song proposed by Ewald, in Driver's LOT'0 p. 440ſ. t. It may be noted that, in the opinion of the present writer, 49 is not now in its original place. It is not till v.7 that the destription, of the charms of the Shulammite (vv. 1-5) closes. Perhaps y.9 should follow v.7, and formed originally the con. necting link with v.8ff. : Cf. Stickel, Das Hohelied, p. 45: ‘Antithesis, that indis- pensable art of the drama, by presenting so vividly the un- Histurbed happy shepherd's love in contrast with the sorely tried heroine of the Song, awakens warm sympathy with the latter, and a feeling of suspense and compassion, etc. Further, this interlude is supposed to mark and fill up various spaces of time in the course of the main transaction. article by Wetzstein, entitled ‘Sprachliches aus den Zeltlagern der syrischen Wüste,’ in ZDMG xxii. (1868), p. 69 ft., containing valuable notes on a story written down from oral communication. The remarkable similarity between certain songs sung at modern marriage celebrations and certain ortions of the Song of Songs, naturally enough orced upon him the conclusion that the latter is not “a dramatic unity,” but rather a collection of ‘beautiful nuptial songs’ which were received into the Canon “to furnish good models to the occasional poets whose productions may in Hebrew antiquity, as at the present day, have transgressed the bounds of decency and good taste.” The allegorical or mystical interpretation is held to have come in afterwards (cf. Delitzsch, Comm. p. 172, note). After Stade (Gesch. Isr. ii. [1888] 197) had referred approvingly to Wetzstein’s ‘most helpful contri- bution to the understanding of this quite unique book,” Budde, in an article on ‘The Song of Solo- mon’ in the New World (Boston, U.S.A. 1894, p. 56 ft.; cf. Preuss. Jahrbücher, 1894, p. 92 f.), went in the fullest detail into Wetzstein's communica- tions, and sought with their help to win its natural sense for the Song of Songs. His arguments gained complete assent from Kautzsch (‘Abriss der Gesch. d. alttest. Schrifttums’ in the “Beilagen’ to his A T' p. 210 f. [in the “Sonderabdruck’ of 1897, p. 134 f.]), and in specially emplmatic, confident fashion from Cornill (Jºnleitung", p. 256 : “In this way the enigma of our book is deſinitively solved ’).f Whether this conſidence is really justified is open to doubt. With reference to Budde's claim (l.c. p. 9) that he has cut away the roots of the dramatical interpretation of the Song by his explanation of ‘Solomon’ and ‘the Shulammite,’ which stand simply for bridegroom and bride, husband and wife, Bruston (cf. Le Xe congrès des Orientitlistes et l’ancien Testament, Paris, 1895, p. 13 ff.) declares, ‘I fear, that this is a huge and extraordinary illusion,’ a judgment with which the present writer agrees. Budde attempts first of all to prove that by Solomon, or the king, the Song means not the real king Solomon, but that we have here only a type, a poetical designation of any and every bridegroom. In order to give a worthy title to the latter on his wedding day and in his wedding dress, the figure of Solomon is supposed to have been employed as that of the monarch whose riches and splendour had become as proverbial as his wisdom. The case is similar with the Shulammite. “She is, indeed, no other than Abishag the Shunammite, but only as the representative of her qualities’ (p. 8). The maiden from Shunem (the º Sholam, a pronunciation to which the IIeb. Shulam mith also goes back), who was brought to the aged king David, and on whose account Adonijah had to die (1 K 2"), was admittedly, according to the cor- rect sense of 1 K 1", the fairest virgin to be found in the whole land, and continued to enjoy this reputation in the memories of the people. Hence, argues IBudde (p. 9): ‘. . . as the bridegroom is compared with king Solomon in his glory, or even named with his name, and would not exchange his fortune with Solomon, so for the beauty of the bride no less a woman could be named than the fairest of whom the ancients spoke, and one who was also a queen [Solomon may have, at least according to the legend, introduced her into his harem], which certainly was not an unwelcome fact. That she should be called the fairest of all is the right of every bride on her wedding day, however she may be outshone by hundreds at other times.’ The present writer has no difficulty in admitting * Cf. his Comm. in Kurzer IIdcon. 1898, and art. l'oistuxe f Cf. also Siegfried's Comm. in Nowack's LIdkonn, 1898. SONG OF SONGS SONG OF SONGS 593 that the situation may be understood in the above way, that is to say, that it is not necessary to pre- suppose absolutely that the Song of Songs is based upon an actual historical occurrence; but he fails to see how, on this view, the dramatical theory of the poem in its present form is wounded unto death. . If Budde is right in holding that in later times the two outstanding figures in the popular recollection were employed as above described in the poetry of marriage celebrations, this very cir- cumstance might also lead a poet to give a dramatic fashioning to the material supplied by 1 K 1.2, and, in so doing, to utilize the further development the story had undergone in the popular memory. Now, Budde himself (p. 8) remarks that the circumstance that, Solomon had his brother put to death on Abishag's account, may have given rise to the legend that he himself loved her and made her his wife, and that the execution of his brother was thus an act of jealousy. But if we admit the possibility of this, there is another possibility we should not leave out of account. In 1 K 2 we hear nothing of Abishag having really become the wife of Solomon. Why may not this circumstance have given rise in poetical legend to the conception that the lovely virgin refused to become Solomon’s wife, may even to the conception that her refusal was based upon her wmconquerable love for a youth in her native district P Moreover, when the notion was once seized that she had not chosen to be the wife of Solomon, it was no great stretch of poetic fancy to assume that her first introduction into the apartments of 1)avid by his servants was not a willing one on her ºrtº the presupposition that from the first she succeeded in defending her honour finds its firm basis in the capress statement of 1 K I* (‘and the king knew her mot'). We see then that the narrative of 1 K 1. 2 supplies, especially if we take into account the influence of inventive popular reminiscence, quite sufficient material for developing the story which the dramatical theory of the Song of Songs con- siders to be unfolded in it. It required at all events no very great gift of poetic construction to give a dramatical form to this material borrowed from recollections, in which all the points necessary for a º dramatical development were con- tained and spontaneously offered themselves to the poet's notice. Iłut, we repeat emphatically, this does not absolutely exclude the possibility that in later times it was customary in a poetical and symbolical form of address to call a bridegroom and a bride ‘Solomon’ or ‘king,’ and ‘Shulam- mite.’” At the same time we think it only right and proper to emphasize the other possibility, that an unknown man, of a poetical turn and moved perhaps also by special circumstances, found in this very custom the motive for working up the material that lay to his hand. The one supposi- tion does not exclude the other. The question “hether we have really to do with a dramatical poem must be settled from the book itself, and in any case the matter is not so easily settled as Budde and those who agree with him suppose. Budde ſinds ‘the solution of the problem of our book’ (p. 10) in the customs reported by Wetzstein in connexion with weddings amongst the Syrian Beda win, namely, in the festivo proceedings of the so-called “king's week.’ The book con- tains, according to him, “songs' sung at the wedding festivities, during which bridegroom and bride (or husband and wife) are honoured for seven (lays as lºing and queen, whose throne is the threshing-board, set on the threshing-floor of the place and decked out with carpets and pillows. A principal element in these songs are the wasfs or lyrical descriptions of the physical charns and wedding attire of the young pair. Especially in- pressive, according to Wetzstein's account (cf. 1) elitzsch, Comm. * By the way, Budde's view is not at all favoured by the circumstance that in the Song of Songs the Shulutunite or the bride is never called ‘queen.’ The “daughter of a noble' (7") does not take the place of this. VOL. IV. —38 É. 171), is the so-called sword dance of the bride on the evenin efore the bridal night. In this dance, which is accompanie by the song of a double chorus of men and women in praise of her physical beauty, she seeks in the light of the high-leaping flames of a fire to display to the bridegroom the chains of her person, brandishing all the time a sharp sword in her right and, and holding a handkerchief in her left. The whole per- formance is an imitation of the dance that celebrates a victory. Now, as a matter of fact, the wasf sung during the sword dance corresponds in Canticles to 71ſt (as far at least as v.7). The wasy referring to the young wife (i.e. the queen) after the consum- mation of the marriage on the bridal night, on the first day of the “king's week,” is found, according to Budde, in 41-6. It is put in the mouth of the young husband, and is partially re- peated in 64-7. There is also a panegyric on the physical charms of the husband or king, the was freferring to which is put in the mouth of the wife in 59ſt., v.2ſ being supposed to be intended simply to serve as an introduction to this wagf with a pleasing dramatical movement. Next, according to this Inode of in terpretation, 30-11 contains a description of the festive train o' the gorgeously dressed bridegroom - king, and , their joyous greeting to him on the morning after the bridal night, wher: the threshing-board has been placed and decked out as ſhe throne; here the name “Solomon' is, of course, not meant to be taken literally.” The “sixty mighty men' are the “com- panions of the bridegroom,’ who, as Wetzstein, with the approval of Budde suggests, were perhaps originally charged with the duty of protecting the festival against attacks, especially during the night (38, cf. Delitzsch, Conn. p. 170).t The “daughters of Jerusalem” are of course, in the same way, not ladies of the royal harem, but virgins from the Sume neighbourhood as the bridal pair, who take part in a variety of ways in the wedding celebration. † The circumstance that it is with Jerusalem in particular that they are brought into relation, proves, according to Budde, that the home of the wedding songs which are brought together in Canticles is to be sought in this city or its environs. But now, as Budde further supposes, the passages just named have not, in their present order, the chronological succession demanded by the course of the marriage celebrations. At all events, the sº that accompanied the sword dance (71ſt) must stand before 30th, the greeting addressed to the approaching bridegroom-king. Budde suggests, however, that perhaps its proper place is after 38.11 and before 4–6, if, as is possible, the subject of 36-11 is not the procession to the throne on the day after the marriage, but the ceremonial arrival of the bridegroom at the marriage itself on the evening of the wedding day. . (If 51 alludes to the coming actual consummation of the marriage covenant, the latter supposition appears to the present writer to be the only suitable one). From all this it follows, º to Budde, ‘that the songs are brought together irregularly, an the last trace of an orderly arrangement thus appears.’ It is a question, however, whether the premisses upon which this conclusion rests are in all respects correct. The present writer does not think so. In the remaining portions of Canticles also there is of course, in Budde's opinion, no connexion to be discovered, but still less any progressive history. These passages, on the contrary, may be readily broken up into a number of songs, which, as Weizstein's information showed, may have been used during the “king's week' in praise of love in general, and of the love of the present pair in particular (Budde, p. 15 f.). But, after the Song of Songs has been thus resolved into a number of separate songs, the ques- tion arises, What judgment is to be passed on the book in its present form # Was it originally nothing more than a collection of wedding songs, or wits ſt species of editing carried out in the arrangement of them, with the intention of establishing an internal commeasion, 2 Budde decides in the main in favour of the first of these alternatives, holding that we have to do, at least originally, only with a collec- tion. Some one who felt an interest in this species of lyric poetry is supposed (like Wetzstein in our own day) to have written down these songs, and then the collection would be passed on to posterity in this form, perhaps without indication of their origin and without any exact distinction of the limits of the different songs. In this way the book would be exposed to the greatest danger of falling into disorder. Of course this is in itself a possible view. But that the question as to the origin of the book in its present form is not settled in this simple fashion, Budde is well aware. He finds here and there short pieces which possess, in his * This approach of the bridegroom is recalled, as Budde ex- pressly notes, by the figure in Ps 10". y º † Samson had thirty such ‘companions' about him (Jg 14*), who were headed by one who had the speciº tºe ºf the “friend' of the bridegroom (cf. Jg 1429 &nd also Jn 3”). ! Their greeting addressed to the apprºaching bridegroom (311) finds a parallel in the parable of Mt. 20". 594 SONG OF SONGS SONG OF SONGS opinion, small poetic value, which he holds it to be impossible to bring into any connexion with the surrounding and originally independent songs and songlets. One trace of the later origin of these he finds, above all, in the circumstance that the composer of them misunderstood the real meaning, and in particular the symbolically in- tonded º in older passages and took these in a literal sense. The most striking instance of this is discovered by Budde in 48, where the purely typical Lebanon of ww.ll. 10 is alleged to be converted into the real Lebanon and associated with other mountain heights. The author of 48 is thus supposed to have been guilty of a crude misunderstanding, and it is declared that, when closely examined, the list of mountains is so little in }. and yields so little sense, while the whole verse is so weak rom the poetical point of view, that it is most natural to infer “misunderstanding and insertion.' But this is a purely subjec- tive verdict. It may reasonably be asked how any one was likely to introduce such an addition at this particular place. And what compels us to understand the names of the mountains here, ‘the lions' dens’ and “the leopards' mountains,” literally and not symbolically * This symbolical sense is as suitable to them as it is to ‘the clefts of the rock’ and ‘the covert of the steep place’ in 214. Other sentences which are supposed to have originated in a similar way are found by Budde in 814, cf. 216. He also holds, strangely enough, that 2833-9a is an addition introduced on account of v.16, for plainly (?), he argues, the words ‘Hark, my beloved 1' (v.8wo.) should be connected immedi- ately with the words of v.9b (“there he stands behind our wall’). But here again the question may be asked, Why should it have occurred to any one to insert the words in v.8, which at least are so evidently poetical and out and out original? A similar judgment is passed by Budde upon 88.4, cf. 20f ; 85 is due to a misunderstanding of 39. He makes a special allusion to 61-8, arguing that what was intended in 58.9 to serve simply as a transition to the was f of the bridegroom is here transferred to the sphere of actuality, and that the figures borrowed from the plant-world (513) are likewise misunderstood and taken in their literal sense, the beloved becoming the gardener who has gone into his garden, etc. But, says Budde, if the Shulammite really knew this, why does she search so long for her lover and call for ºp to find him 2 Here, again, “genuine phrases’ like 17ſ. 216 Gilf are supposed to have been worked up in a way opposed to their proper meaning. It is quite natural that Budde, with his view of the Song of Songs, can make nothing of these verses (61.8), which beyond a doubt are as genuine as 27.8. We must ask here once more, How can it have occurred to a later editor to introduce such sentences? What motive could have led him to do so?” Even Budde feels the above difficulty, but, for all that, he is unable to give a satisfactory answer to the question. “What reasons led him [the redactor to whom we are supposed to owe these strange interpola- tions] . . . what suppositions and intentions, of course we do not know.” Of course, if an author is to be held capable of such misunderstandings, it is difficult to give any satisfactory account of the motives that actuated him. And yet Budde repeats that one can recognize “the plain effort' of the redactor “to introduce movement and action where none were.” The author of these later additions is held, then, to have meant to bring movement and action into the whole work. May he then have been guided by dramatizing aims ? May it be that elsewhere too he is not without responsibility for the present form of the Song of Songs, but actually brought movement and action into the material of the work, i.e. that he perhaps worked up the latter from the dramatical point of view 2 These ques- tions are very readily suggested by Budde's own words. True, he does not actually raise them, although he afterwards concedes that the addi- tions just described (with which also may have been coupled trifling alterations and corruptions of the text) have given to the dramatical view of Canticles “a certain justification from antiquity downwards, because separated matters were thereby connected and a certain movement and development brought in.” Of course he no longer gives the dramatical view the benefit of this excuse, now, that he has shown what the Song of Songs really is. It is interesting to note the manner in which Budde supposes it possible that the book assumed its present disordered form. It was originally, as we have been told, a collection of wedding songs. This collection canne, of course in manuscript form, into the hands of a later writer, torn into single leaves and * We shall see afterwards that, on a correct view of the Book 9t Canticles, these verses (91-8) show themselves to be unques- tionably original. damaged. . He supposed that he had before him not a collection of songs, but a literary unity, of whose contents and aim he had, however, only an obscure idea.' He attempted a restora- tion of the unintelligible work by putting together as he best could the separate leaves, and trying to amend the text by additions and supplements of the kind described above. But this is a very strange account of the matter, a real hypothesis of despair. There is one point, above all, to which exception must be taken. . By way of supporting his general view of Canticles, Budde insists with much emphasis that the marriage customs, and of course also the peculiar character of the marriage songs, have continued essentially unaltered in Syria and Palestime from early times down to the present day. Now, how is it conceivable that an author living in Palestine (for it is there that we are supposed to look for the ‘redactor') as early as the pre-Christian era should either have failed to recognize the contents and aim of songs which had been handed down for the most part without any corruption, or should have had “only an obscure idea' of their true character? Might we not assume that this Judayan redactor would have recognized the so-called wasfs as readily as Wetzstein has done? Here, then, Budde brings us face to face with a serious problem. The extremely mechanical explanation of the origin of the present Song of Songs, which he considers to be “a satisfaction of all just demands,’ appears to the present writer to condemn itself. And, as a matter of fact, Budde himself by the characteristics he assigns to the redactor points the way again past his own hypothesis to the dramatical view of the Song. His merit thus comes to be, not that of having cut the thread of life of the dramatical explanation, but—and it is a service not to be under- valued—of having laid the foundation, by the aid of Wetzstein's information, for a more correct opinion of the character, and perhaps even of the origin, of the Song of Songs. The hº writer recognizes, then, the possi- bility that older wedding songs (as, for instance, the wasfs) are worked up in the Song of Songs. But this does not exclude the supposition that the Song in its present form is of a dramatical nature, and that its author (not a redactor or “reviser’) introduced ‘movement and action' or ‘develop- ment’ into the material of which it is composed. At all events, this view is not set aside by simply pointing to passages in certain parts of the book which are marked by the characteristics of cus- tomary wedding songs, and which were perhaps taken over by the author ready made. If an examination of the separate parts of the book and a study of the connexion of the whole tend to show that everywhere, and not merely in the passages attacked by Budde, there is dramatical movement and expression, however great or small g ‘a e ſº * e this may be, then the question is decided in favour of the correctness of the dramatical view, whatever may be urged to the contrary. Of course a dra- matic poet who utilizes older material in his work cannot have the full credit of º allowed him, but a dramatic poem is the result of his work all the same. Moreover, it is by no means certain that the Gong of Songs contains foreign matter which did not proceed from the pen of one and the same writer ; on the contrary, there are not wanting indications, both in thought and ex- ression, which point to an identity of authorship or the whole work.” As to the general view of Canticles that ought to be taken, there can be no doubt, in the judg- ment of the present writer, that it is a poem whose subject is love, or more specifically that it is a carmen nuptiale or wedding song. The crucial question, however, is whether the poem, viewed as a whole, sets out from a marriage as an accomplished fact, —-in other words, whether its subject is married love, or whether a marriage is the goal at which it aims, in which case it is intended to glorify betrothed love and fidelity. . The present writer is convinced that the second alternative is the correct one, and hopes in what follows to substantiate this. We have already pointed out (p. 592 f.) how the story which Ewald's interpretation discovers in the Song of Songs might be readily developed in the popular memory, and by a poetically inventive disposition from the history of Abishag of Shunem. I3udde, citing a word of Goethe's, reminds us that * A careful reading of the bºok itself will readily supply the necessary evidence of this. SONG OF SONGS SONG OF SONGS 595 * if we are to understand the poem which we call the Song of Songs, we must visit the poet's own land. This is what we propose now to do. If Budde himself had continued his journey further and looked more carefully around him, he might have discovered the story of two lovers, Habbās and Hamda, which bears a very close resemblance to what we find in Canticles. The story is given by Wetzstein in the Arabic text with German translation (see ZDMG xxii. [1868] p. 74ff.), and was taken down by him directly from oral communi- cation. In any case, this beautiful love romance proves that under special circumstances even at the present day amongst the Beda win the possi- bility of love entanglements is contemplated, such as are presupposed in ancient times in the Song of Songs, if we adopt the dramatical view of Ewald and others. Hamda, is said to have loved Habbās, who lived far away and belonged to another tribe. Her heart remains true to this love, although, after long separation in time as well as place from him whom her soul truly loves, she is destined to become the wife of her cousin Ali, and the wedding day (or rather evening) with all its festal celebra- tions has arrived. ay, she has not omitted even to tell her cousin, Ali’s sister, how it is with her heart, and has given her such a description of her lover's stature, his physical excellencies, and his beauty that even she must have been able to pick him out of a crowd (cf. l.c. p. 103). And, in point of fact, the lover drawn from afar by his love comes, accompanied by a true friend (Husein), while there is yet time to prevent the closing of the marriage bond between Hamda, and Ali, and to win his true love for himself. And he does win her and takes her home. No one who reads this story, which is given in its most general outlines, will be able to avoid the impression that here there is partially the same problem before us as is presented in the Song of Songs. ISudde (p. 4) insists again with much emphasis that in neither the modern nor the ancient East has a real betrothal and an intimate intercourse between the betrothed parties been permitted or possible prior to marriage, and that there is no place for such a natural growth of affection as the dramatical view postulates. Well, of course we must be on our guard against apply- ing rules borrowed from the West and from the condition of things annongst ourselves. But the story communicated by Wetzstein shows that such affections, even if these are surrounded a little with the halo of romance, are still possible at the present day, and evidence may be '. from the O'T' itself to show that even in ancient times it was not an in possible thing for two young people (especially leading a country life) to make each other’s acquaintance and fall in love, and then to gratify their inclinations by personal meetings, even if these had to be stealthily contrived." The present writer must confess, then, that in his opinion no real objection to the dramatical view of the Song of Songs can be taken on the ground of the contents which this view discovers in the Song. Moreover, the structure which is formed out of these contents presents so close a lº. to the story communicated by Wetzstein, that one can only feel thus confirmed in one's opinion that Canticles is a dramatic poem, taking for granted, of course, that in the contents of the latter there is really a draimatical progress or structure discover- able. That this last assumption is well founded is our firm conviction ; and even Budde himself, as * In favour of such a possibility may be cited in the first place Jg 1411.71, and then legal enactments like lºx 2210ſ, Dt 2223ft ; cf. also (; n 341. 3. It may he held as certain that even in ancient Israel, in spite of the strictness of morality, nay, perhaps even º of it, there was no lack of a genuine romantic side to OW 62, —s we have seen, is not so very far removed from this opinion, since he cannot deny that at least his assumed redactor (or ‘reviser’) sought to introduce movement and action into the older material whose peculiar character is supposed to have passed un- recognized by him. This, however, is tantamount to saying that he gave it a dramatic form, even if he did so in an imperfect fashion. Of course the objection that the Semites had no dramatic poetry at all (cf. art. POETRY, p. 9") has no force, for it starts by assuming as an axiom the very point whose universal application is disputed on the round of the Song of Songs. The proof that the ramatical view of Canticles is the correct one cannot be offered, of course, through general considerations; but it is offered, and that with tolerable certainty, if we succeed in formulating a theory of the contents and structure of the Song, which is natural on all sides and capable of ex- plaining, at least in the main, all the particular phenomena exhibited by the book. The ideal goal of the whole poem appears to the resent writer to have been found, from Ewald downwards, in 8" 7. The real aim of the Song of Songs is to glorify true love, and, more specifically, true betrothed love, which remains steadfast even in the most dangerous and most seductive situations. The author, as we may perhaps assume with cer- tainty, found the material for his work in the story of Abishag of Shunem (l K 1. 2), and that in the form which we described above (p. 592 f.). She remained true to the beloved of her heart, she steadily repelled all the advances of Solomon, into whose harem she had been brought, and finally she triumphed (8” and 81*), was conducted home and restored to her lover perfectly pure. The poem makes two presuppositions—one being that the Shulammite's heart belonged to a youth in her own home, and the other that meanwhile against her will she has been brought into the royal apart- ments (1*). The dramatical exposition commences at the time when the first meeting of the king with the maiden is close at hand and actually takes place (1*). The dialogue between the Shulāmmite and the “daughters of Jerusalem ’ (the wives and maidens belonging to the royal harem, cf. 6*) in *** serves to pave the way, in true dramatic fashion, for that meeting, and at the same time to explain the real inward disposition of the Shulam- mite towards the approaching royal suitor, which the poet henceforward makes her retain without Wavering. If, now, we would understand aright the further structure of the poem, it must be observed that the scheme chosen by the author for the poetical disposition of his material is based upon the different stages in the courtship and the marriage festivities, down to that moment when alone the real victory of loyal love, the preservation of bridely honour in face of all temptations and assaults, was evidenced, and could be evidenced, namely, the morning after the bridal might passed with the real lover." The Song of Songs is in fact a love- or marriage- drama, but, by reason of the lyrical tone which rules in its various parts, we may more appro- priately call it a melodrama. If now, keeping in view the legend derived from the story of Abishag, and the progressive stages of the marriage proceedings, we look at the whole poem, it falls, alike in point of matter and * The way in which the particular sentences are to be assigned to the respective speakers will be found exhibited in the present writer's work Das IIohe Lied, to which he begs to refer the reader. # As bearing on this, the reader may be reminded of the legislative enactment of lot 2218th. The cloth with its irrefrag- able proof of the virginity of a newly married woman points to a very serious transaction in the early morning after the bridal night. The practice forms even at the present day, part of the proceedings in connexion with a wedding, and is described by Wetzstein (“Die syrische Dreschtafel' in Bastian's Ztschr. f. lºthmol. 1873, p. 290). 596 SONG OF SONGS SONG OF SONGS ceremonial procession of the bridegroom, which was expressly mentioned in the case of the king in 30tt, is thus presupposed in the present instance. The search for the beloved, in which the women (61) are prepared to help the Shulammite, corre- sponds to the ceremonial conducting of the bride in the evening to the festal spot. , 64-10 [ww.bb-7 are to be struck out as having been introduced by mistake from ch. 4) contain the songs which greet the approaching bride and describe in striking figures her unique overpowering beauty. Öll, 12 are words of the Shulanmite. She is º". surprised at coming upon the festive company, she still acts as if she did not notice that the object of her search is in their midst. She had gone down, she says, to the mut garden to refresh herself by the enjoyment of it, i.e. she too has gone out to find her beloved and to enjoy his love, and has all at once come upon the crowd. We are to suppose now that she makes as if she would turn back, where- upon the chorus breaks out (71 [Eng. 613), ‘Turn round, turn round, O Shulammite,” etc. Then the short invitation and dialogue of this verse lead directly to the sword dance, in which the bride dances in a sense to her beloved and presents herself to him symbolically with all her charms, while the double chorus ranging itself behind her proclaims her physical attractions in a highly realistic was f. Now she is ready, as 711ſt show, to yield to the wishes of her beloved (78.10), and herself invites him to go with her where she will grant him her love. The last section of this Act, 85-7,” shows the loving pair on their way to the house where the bridal night is to be passed ; they are received by the festal chorus with the words of 85*, which find their echo in the alternating song of the lovers with its glorious panegyric on true love (vv.0. º And now the moment had come when it must be shown whether the Shulammite had really maintained her love true and uninpaired, whether the lofty ode to love in which she had joined (86, 7) was really suitable to her love. 88ſ. i transport us to the morning after the bridal night. In the Space of time between v.7 and v.8 we are therefore to place not only the bridal night with its mysteries, but also the transition to the serious transaction early in the following morning (see above, p. 595, note #). The latter is brought directly before us in vy.8-10, which proclaim the triumph of steadfast loyal love over all the difficulties and fears that have beset it. We hear in ww.8, 9 the brothers of the Shulammite declaring what they mean to do to their sister according as she has shown herself, in face of the seductive whispers of love, firm and inaccessible as a wall, or open and easily approachable like a door (i.e. easily led into inchastity). These, of course, are words which the brothers have spoken before the commencement of the severe period of probation and danger exhibited to us in the Song of Songs. . We are thus vividly reminded of 16, and in point of fact—as is shown also by 812A, which in like manner looks back to 10—the author in his beautiful closing section, 88ſſ, attaches his words once more to the opening of the poem, thus indicating not only that this resolute maiden has succeeded in maintaining her childhood's purity, but also that the Song of Songs is really a well-rounded whole. The brothers have a direct interest in the issue of the test of their sister's virginity, and, besides, have the duty of maintaining the honour of the family. But while they are uttering the language of anxious expectation, which is finely put into their mouth, regarding the result of the test, the actual piece of evidence is brought forward (this we must suppose to be done between v.9 and v.19), and in face of this irrefragable proof the Shulammite breaks forth in the conſident triumphant words of v.10. She has been found inviolate, she has kept herself as an impregnable fortress, there being perhaps in the last words of the verse a delicate allusion to Solomon, and the fact that even he had finally to recognize that this virgin was uninpressed by himself, his splendour, his allure- ments, and that he must thus let her go in peace. The words in v. 12 connect themselves closely with v.10; she has kept her own vineyard, i.e. herself, her honour, her love, for herself and her beloved ; Solomon may rest content with the abundant resources he possesses for gratifying his love. So ends the dramatical development of the material used in the Song of Songs. The present writer considers that in the scheme of interpreta- tion just proposed everything proceeds in good order and exhibits a perfectly natural connexion. He thinks it well to say natural, because, as a matter of fact, the different parts of the Sorg form, into two nearly equal parts. The dividing point is reached In 51, where also the dramatic entanglement reaches its climax. Up till then the king is the suitor for the maiden's love, and in 51 the course of development leads to the point where every- thing appears to point to the certain consummation of the marriage bond in the coming night.” From the very first encounter (19–27) the king, as intended by the poet, goes away with the impression that the fair maiden longs with intense assion for union with him ; he does not notice that the out- ursts of passionate longing called forth by his words are meant not for him, but for another whom she loves. The reader or tle spectator of the play can have no doubt on this point, for already in 12-8 (cf. especially v.8) it comes out clearly enough how the heart of the maiden is engaged, and the Second Act (28–39) confirms this in the strongest way by the two dream visions. The Third Act (30–51) corresponds to the first of the festal proceedings on the day (evening) before the bridal night. The king proceeds, in his wedding attire, surrounded by his trusty men, and amidst greetings from the women, to the house where the lovely maiden is detained. This answers to the joyous procession in state by the bridegroom and his friends to the place where the feast was celebrated, on the occasion of weddings amongst the common people. . The equally pompous conducting of the bride in the evening to the same place and to the performance of the sword dance, which characterized popular weddings, is wanting here ; nor is this surprising, since the bride is already in a place where she belongs to the king. We may probably assume also that a king's marriage was not celebrated in exactly the same way as that of one of the common people. The sword dance and other popular customs may have been wholly absent.f . Of course this does not prevent the poet from introducing into his description certain features borrowed from these customs, simply because these were calculated to introduce movement into the material. Thus he makes the king draw near in all his splendour, with his sixty heroes and friends, and (51) even go in to the festive meal exactly after the fashion of popular wedding festivities. On the other hand, the enticing sensually flattering words of the king in 41ſt convey the impression, since, as we have said, we can hardly think of the sword dance, that they are the transition link to the bridal night with its mysteries. The same inference is supported by the context, as far as the contents of 416–51 are concerned ; from the Shulam- mite's reply in 41Gb to his longing desire to enjoy the fruits of the garden that is supposed to belong to him, the king has concluded that she waits for him in order to accord him the enjoyment of her love (whereas she is thinking of her true beloved), and in this, of course, mištaken assurance he calls his friends to give themselves up to the joys of the marriage festival. At this point the king disappears. This is not specially noted, indeed, but it was unnecessary that it should be, on a correct understanding of the story of the poem, and with an actual dramatical presentation of it. As in the story of Habbās and Hamda related by Wetzstein, the fortune of the maiden turns at the last moment, just when the final consum- mation of the marriage union with the unloved one was imminent. The king has learned in the night shrouded with mystery that she does not belong and cannot belong to him, and he is magnanimous enough not to claim what only violence could procure. IIe has set her free, as Ali did with Hamda, and the next section (52-69) of the Fourth Act conducts us slowly away from the king's domain. The poet retains the scheme of the wedding celebration, but now we have to do with the celebration of the marriage of the Shulamnite with the object of her heart's affections. Between 51 and 52, properly speaking, there intervenes a space of time, which, to be sure, required in the dramatical construction of the poem no further indication than the passing from one scene to another. In what will be conceded to be an extremely skilful manner the poet moves on to the goal of his task, by placing us in 52ſ, at the same stage in the celebration of the marriage of the Shulammite with her lover as we had reached in 30–5] in connexion with the abortive attempt of Solomon. The passage 52-03, rightly understood, forms the introduction to the principal part of this Act, which reaches its climax in 80. 7... We hear in it the outpouring of the burning longing of the Shulammite for union with him whom she loves. The women, “the daughters of Jerusalem,” by whom she is surrounded, are called on by her to assist her search for the beloved of her soul, who is portrayed in glowing colours. In this way a perfect movement is given to the action, which is conceived of after the model of a marriage celebration. For the correct understanding of the further context it is necessary, above all, to take (;1-3 rightly. In 62 there is an allusion, expressed in a beautiful figure, to part of the festal procedure of the marriage evening having already taken place. The beloved has already gone down to onjoy the fruits of his garden (a plain allusion to 410), i.e. he has already gone to the place of the festival, and is present there with his escort. The * It is impossible to understand the perfects in 51 as real preterites. They are perfects of certain expectation (perfecta confidentia", cf. Ges.-IXautzsch, Grann.26 $ 106 n.). The mis- understanding of these perfects has been the occasion of much confusion. # How kings married daughters of the people may be gathered from 2 S 1127, while PS 45 may give light in regard to the pro- cedure when a foreign princess was concerned. f The following of these popular customs also shows irrefut- ably that, the call to cat and drink and intoxicate themselves refers not to the enjoyment of love, but to an actual banquet at which the friends, too, are to do their part. * It may be noted that 88.4 have been wrongly placed in their resent position, where they do not at all suit the context. H. insertion after v.v.l. 2 is readily intelligible on the ground of a certain similarity of thought in 24ff.; but see the next note. # In this last section the present writer regards v.21 as an archaeological and in any case very prosaic gloss, occasioned by the ‘thousand' of v. 12. In like manner v.lº is a later insertion by one who misunderstood the Song of Songs in so far as he believed that the Shulammite in the end became the wife of Solomon. In no other way can the strange invitation by tho beloved be understood. The same band which added V.14 *y also through a similar misunderstanding have inserted vv.8, 4. In 812, which is unquestionably genuine, the Shulammitt manifestly contrasts herself with the thousand wives of Solomon; v.19, which we also hold to be genuine (cf. 214), closes the Song of Songs, but serves at the same time as an introduction to the merry songs, dances, and games which followed at a marriage feast, and which lasted for seven days. SONG OF SONGS SONS OF GOD 59 correspond exactly in their progress to the various stages in a marriage celebration. Even the transi- tion from the first to the second half of the poem is dramatically beautiful and essentially uncon- strained, and, as deserves to be once more empha- sized, has a remarkable resemblance to the turning- oint in the narrative of the loves of Hamda, and Iabbás. So also in the progress from one Act to another or one Scene to another, everything has an unconstrained flow, there is nothing abrupt or unnatural. . We may then be permitted to express our conviction that if the Song of Songs be taken in the sense above indicated, not only will it be found to be perfectly intelligible in every part of its contents, but it will also prove itself beyond question to be a dramatical unity and constructed with dramatical skill.—Whether this melodramatic marriage-play was ever actually performed, say at Wedding celebrations, or whether it was simply the product of a poet's leisure (composed with a didactic aim), cannot of course be determined, but at all events it was capable of being so presented. iii. AUTHORSHIP, PLACE OF COMPOSITION, AND DATE OF THE SONG OF SONGS.—The title at the head of the work means, of course, to point to Solomon himself as the author of the poem, and down to the most recent times this view has been closely bound up with the allegorical interpretation and has been widely held. But it is out of the question, alike on the theory of Herder and on that inaugurated especially by Ewald. As a matter of course, the Solomonic authorship is excluded also if Budde's view be accepted. The present writer is equally conn- pelled, in view of all that has been said above, to regard the traditional opinion as erroneous. Solomon is indeed partly the subject of the poem, but it is quite impossible that he himself should have composed it. And it is of course beyond our power so much as to hazard a conjecture as to who the actual author was. Nor can much be said as to the place of com- position. Budde has sought to infer from the mention of the “daughters of Jerusalem' that the º material contained in the Song of Songs had its birthplace in Jerusalem or the neighbour- lood of it. But every hint that can be utilized for locating the poem appears to point to the north of Palestine. There and nowhere else is the stage upon which the movement takes place in most parts of the poem that contain geographical allu- sions. This does not, however, imply that the actual composition of the poem must have taken place in North Palestine. It was extremely natural that, even if the author lived in Judaea, the locality of the dramatic poem should be fixed in the north, if its material was supplied by the story of Abishag of Shunem in the developed form explained above. In the first part, accord- ingly, we should find ourselves, of course, in the royal palace at Jerusalem, and this agrees ad- mirably with 2*. 17”, where it is presupposed that the place of residence of the Shulam mite is sepa- rated from that of her beloved by a number of mountain heights. While there is nothing in the contents of the Song of Songs to justify any cer- tain inference as to the place of composition, the §." writer considers it probable that it was udaea, perhaps even Jerusalem. . This conclusion is perhaps supported also by the decision, so far as any such is possible, regarding— The date. It has been supposed that the Song of Songs originated, if not in the Solomonic era, at least at a time not far renoved from it. The life- like conception of the conditions of that time, on the one hand, and the occurrence of Tirzah, the ancient capital of the Northern Kingdom, along- side of JG 1 usalem (6'), on the other hand, are sup- posed to necessitate the fixing of the date of composition of the Song of Songs in the early decades after the reign of Solomon. Neither of these arguments, however, proves anything, for there is nothing in then |. what is readily explicable even on the view of a late date, especially if we may regard it as settled that the author derived his material from the story of Abishag. Besides, it is very questionable whether the conceptions of local, personal, and other rela- tions are so lifelike, and in general so accurate, as to permit or justify the inference that the poet lived near to the time with which he deals. Tirzah and other places that enter on occasion into his descriptions were, of course, not outside the sphere of knowledge even of a poet belonging to a later age.—The strongest objection, however, to placing the Song of Songs so early is presented by cer. tain linguistic phenomena that characterize it. The form of the relative pronoun (º) and other peculiarities of expression may, indeed, be ex- plained on the view that the Song of Songs was composed in North Palestine, the language of which was doubtless dialectically different from that of Judaea, and more akin to the neighbouring Aramaic dialects. But the Persian loan-word CT5 (4”) and the word pºnen (3"), which in all proba- bility is borrowed from the Greek popeſov, cannot possibly be explained at so early a period, but rather compel us to come down to the Macedonian era (cf. on this point especially Driver, LOT" p. 449 f.). The poet was then in all probability a member of the Jewish community in Jerusalem, and lived at a time when, through contact with the Greek world, the adoption of Greek terms had become possible not only in the language of daily life, but also in literary usage. It is of course difficult, or rather impossible, to fix the terminus ad quem for the composition, and we do not intend to propose even a tentative date. One point, how- ever, may be noted. The general tone of the whole poem appears to imply that the time when the Song originated was a time of peaceful, we might say happy, repose for the community, when love could unhindered follow after love and finally rejoice in the full possession of its object.—And now, perhaps, at last we may hazard a conjecture. It is true that purely dramatic poetry is in general alien to the Semitic mind, and, although we felt compelled to maintain the dramatical character of the Song of Songs against all objections, yet we found it necessary also to make our recognition of the presence in it of the lyrical element, which is the fundamental characteristic of all Semitic poetry, by calling Canticles a melodrama. The question naturally arises, Whence came the author's stimulus to compose this melodramatic poem 2 Was it from a wide contact with the Greek world 2 This appears to the present writer not impossible. LITERATURE. —All the principal authoritics are mentioned in the body of the article. We may add Cheyne's art. “Canticles' in Encyc. Biblica (practically in agreement with Budde), which appeared since the above was written ; and W. Riedel, Die tilteste Awslegumg d. 11oheml. 1898. Further references to literature may be found in 1)river's LOT'6 p. 436 ; C. D. Gins burg, The Song of Songs, with a Comm. historical and critical, 1857; and E. Reuss, Gesch. d. heil. Schriften alt. Test. § 180 ft. J. W. It OTIISTICIN, SONG OF THE THREE CHILDREN.—See THIREI, CHILDREN (SONG OF THI). SONS OF GOD. — This expression is used in Scripture in two distinct senses. I'or one of these see articles ADOPTION, and GOD (CHILDREN OF). The other is found in six passages : Gn Gº, Job 1' 21 387 (all Dºrºs(ſ) ºn ; LXX in first three ol dyye)ot toº. Ueoû, in last dyye)ol ſtov), l’s 29 897 () (both p", s ); ; LXX viol 0600); cf. in the 598 SOOTHSAYER, SOOTHSAYING SOOTHSAYER, SOOTHSAYING sing. Dn 3” ºn?sº, R.V. ‘a son of the gods.’ he meaning is ‘sons of the 'élöhim or 'élèn' in the sense of members of that class or race (cf. ‘sons of the prophets’= members of the prophetic ggild) of, which God, Himself is the pre-eminent 'Elóhám (see A. B. Davidson’s note on Job 1"). Hence the expression is practically synonymous with ‘angels’ (cf. LXX above). The only passage where any difficulty has been felt (and that only for dogmatic reasons) about interpreting the phrase in this way is Gn 6°. Onkelos, Beresh. rab., Saadya, Ibn Ezra, et al., take it to mean there ‘sons of princes,’ ‘nighty men '; Theod., Chrys., Jerome, Aug., Luther, Calvin, Hengsten- berg, et al., understand by “the sons of God’ the pious (Sethite) º of the human race, which is opposed to the (Cainite) “daughters of men.’ Neither of these interpretations suits either the context or the usage of the Heb. phrase. The interpretation ‘angels’ is correctly taken in Jude" and 2 P 2", in the Books of Enoch and Jubilees, as well as by Philo, Jos. (Ant. I. iii. 1), and most of the older Church l'athers. J. A. SELDIE. SOOTHSAYER, SOOTHSAYING.— The Heb. for ‘soothsaying’ is Dpp, Dºpp, Gr. ºozvraſe, pºwtiſov, •lávio.º.o. (the last term being also used to tr. Upj ‘augury,’ Nu 2328 || bgp). "Soothsayer' is ppp, which in Is 32 is rendered by orozo.orås. The Arab. kasama means properly ‘divide or portion out.” Hence kismnet is a man's apportioned lot or destiny. The word jºy) is another alternative expression not easy to distinguish from Dºp (see below). The term "jºyº is always closely connected in the OT passages with n\N, and will be dealt with under “Necromancy’ in art. SonceRY. The other terms Bonn (see below) and the Aram. Tº (Dn 22747 57) do not possess a clear connotation. Soothsaying, though separate from magic, is nevertheless very closely associated with it (see MAGIC). It may be defined as involving an abnor- mal mode of obtaining knowledge. Just as magic is the abnormal method of obtaining control over ersons or events by means of some supernatural }. or demonic agency, so soothsaying involves the corresponding abnormal method of obtaining information. The soothsayer is to be found in every primitive religion, and ancient Semitic culture formed no exception to the rule. The comparison of early Arabic religion with that of primitive Israel conducts us irresistibly to the conclusion that the Hebrew priest in early times was also a soothsayer. I’or the Heb. In? is the Arab. káhim, ‘soothsayer,” who owned the local shrine and kept watch and ward over it, and gave replies to the inquiring pilgrim. We thus observe how the priest and the prophet in primitive Semitic antiquity started from a common base and blended their functions. The priest offered sacrifices, and likewise gave answers to satisfy the worshipper who came to seek information and guidance. Both functions, that of sacrifice and that of divination, were united in one person. Indeed, as we know in the case of the soothsayer and prophet Balaam, sacrifices accompanied the declarations which he made" (Nu 220 23: " " " "). Accordingly, the combination of the functions of divination and sacrifice may be assumed to be characteristic of primitive Israel as it was of ancient Arabia. To the priest belonged the function of giving replies by (a) URIM AND THUMMIM, (b) by TERAPHIM, and, lastly, (c) by EPHOD. Much obscurity invests the actual nature of all these objects. The most probable view is that the teraphinn, were ancestral innages and of human shape (to which 1 S 1919-10 irresistibly points, cf. Gn 3119. 30), and that the ephod was a plated innage * “In petitioning the deity a sacrifice was naturally offered. Through the sacrifice, which was rendered acceptable to the dcity by the mediation of the pricst, the desired answer to a question was obtained ''(Morris Jastrow, Iteligion of Babylonia and 488/ria, p. 331). - used as a symbol of Jehovah. This seems clear from Jg 820ſ, in which we are told that Gideon made it of the gold rings captured from the Ishmaelites and Midianites. Doth ephod and teraphim are mentioned together in Hos 34; and Ezk 2121 and Zec 102 clearly prove that the teraphim were employed in the act of divination. Reference to the employment of the ephod is to be found in a series of ancient OT passages which describe the consultation of Jehovah in special emergencies. A series of interrogations was put to the deity, one following in logical sequence on the other, each capable of being answered in the alternative form of ‘yes’ or ‘no.' Of this, perhaps the most instructive example is to be found in 1 S 239f, in which David inquires through the priest Abiathar by means of the ephod and a series of categorical affirmative (or in other cases negºtive; replies are given (cf. 1 S 307, 8, and Benzinger, Heb. Arch. pp. 382, 408). Obviously, information could be eked out by this process only very slowly, and in one case we read that Saul was com- pelled by the exigencies of war (1 S 1419) to interrupt the tardy procedure of the priest as the tumult of the advancing Philistine army increased. Sometimes the omens were unfavourable for obtaining Divine answers (ib. 1437). The close connexion which certainly subsisted between the ephod which was carried by the priest (1 S.23%) and the divination which he practised, seems to point to the conclusion that the ephod was in some way a part at least of the apparatus of inquiry.” But it is not necessary to suppose that it was more than the symbol or idol which repre- sented the deity whose presence gave validity to the whole procedure. The actual apparatus of soothsaying probably con- sisted in blunted arrows or, in primitive times, small twigs; and it is to this rude mechanism of inquiry that IIosea (41%) refers under "y (cf. Arab. ex- in Wellh. Reste 2, p. 132) and ºpp, while Ezk 2121 mentions the arrows. Early Arabic cultus, as Wellhausen has pointed out (l.c. p. 141), bears an unmistakable family likeness to the Hebrew, and it is to ancient Arabic usage that we turn for the most instructive illus- trations of our subject. Among primitive Arab warrior tribes, as in ancient Israel, campaigns were never conducted without constant resort to the káhin or priest-soothsayer, who usually be- longed to a family which owned the Sanctuary and kept guard over its treasures. Ordinarily the answer to the inquiry consists only in ‘yes’ or ‘no,' indicated by one arrow for affirmative and another for negative. There might also be complicated alternatives. The arrows might be marked to meet every possible range of inquiry, and the arrow drawn forth or shaken out was the answer to the question. Soothsaying was constantly resorted to before a military expedition. It is said of nearly all the clan chiefs of the Kuraish that they consulted the lots before their departure to Badr, although Abu Suflan, for whose deliverance the expedition was made, had Šent them word that they were not to begin by consulting the lots. Strictly speaking, this consultation takes place in the samctuary before the valol (Well- hausen). m Among the Arabs, money was paid for divination, and sacrifices (as of a camel) preceded or accom- panied the divining ceremony. In these respects we find close parallels in the IBalaam narrative, to which allusion has already been made. Accord- ingly, in this episode we do not fail to note that the deputations were provided with money pay- ment for the soothsaying (called Dºpp Nu 22"), a feature in the story which reminds us of 2 k 5"; As the ancient Hebrews in early times called the soothsayer TNT or ‘seer,” so the primitive Arabs called him a ‘gazer.” When ‘gazing’ he would veil his face. Hence the epithet, dhttl chimar, or ‘the (man) with the veil,’ applied to several seers.f We naturally revert to the veil of the prophet Moscs (Ex 34*). Under the influence of the Super- natural spirit or demon a series of short sentences would be uttered, of which four to six would be united together in a strophe by rhyme. This is called in Arabic Saj", comp, the Heb, whº applied to a prophet (2 K 9”). This wild ecstatic condition often characterized the primitive Hebrew rophet in pre - exilic times (1 S 10"), and this |. contagious, and affected those who wit: messed it (1 S. 1920. 28.9%, cf. 18"). What the OT ascribed to possession by the spirit of God (Jehovah) the Arab in primitive times ascribed to the spirit * So Moore, art. “Ephod' in Iºnciſc. Biblica. # The root of the word for ‘seer' in Arabic corresponds to the Heb. Finn? SOOTHSAYER, SOOTHSAYING SOOTHSAYER, SOOTHSAYING 599 or demon that dwelt in him. Among the Moslems a demon was called a shaitán (see under SATAN). The connexion between the jinn in early Arabia (and in later times the Shaitán) and serpents throws light upon the serpent of Gn 3 as well as the Ty of Is 6°. The jinn were considered to reside in ser- pants, and the nameshaitán is ºliº to a serpent.” The jinn were not necessarily evil. Some might be well disposed to truth (Koran, 46*), like the great male serpent which met Mohammed on the way to Tabuk (cf. Baudissin, Studien zur semit. Religions- gesch. i. p. 279 ft.). - These illustrations from ancient Arabic belief enable us to understand the use of the Heb. º. for ‘divine” (from Ur, “serpent’) and ºn for ‘divina- tion’ (2 K 1717 219, Dt 1819, Lv 1920, Gn 3027 4415). This association of the art of divination with the serpent arose from a variety of causes. This reptile springs mysteriously from holes in the earth with the hissing or whispering sound char- acteristic of incantations (see MAGIC, vol. iii. p. 210" and footnote), and with a fascinating power of the eye which made it inevitable that a serpent should be regarded as the embodiment of a demon. Hence cunning and wisdom were ascribed to ser- pents (Gn 3", Mt 101"). Thus it was natural that the denom. Piel will came to be employed of the sooth- Sayer, who was considered to be demon-possessed (like the sorcerer or necromancer, "yº and his ºwz). Both in Arabia, and in ancient Assyria, the desire to know the course of future events in their bear- ing upon the interests of the inquirer, more espe- cially with respect to the success or non-success of some enterprise, impelled him to find clues of information in the movements of nature, more especially of animals, since these were held to be possessed by demons. The Arabs believed that the animal is ma'mitr, i.e. is subject to some higher behest, and has open eyes to see (like Balaam’s ass) when human eyes are without vision. The wolf, the dog, the hare, and the fox were omen- giving animals. , Coming from the right hand, one of these animals would be hailed as portending good; from the left, bad (Wellh. p. 201 f.). Birds were especially considered to convey omens, viz. the raven, goose, starling, and hoopoe. The raven was the bird which heralded misfortune, especially the separation of friends from loved ones. The cuneiform records exhibit the wide preva- lence of a great mass of similar beliefs and prac- tices in Babylonia, but with this difference, that the omen-tablets mark the distinctions in special :ases with a wearisonme excess of detail which we do not find in the simpler civilization of the Western Semitic lands, Palestine and Arabia. The omens may be divided into different classes : (1) those concerned with days and heavenly bodies; (2) those concerned with the features of human childbirth and also with those of birth-giving by animals; (3) omens concerned with movements of animals.--These will be found fully treated in Morris Jastrow's instructive work, Religion of Iłabylonia and Assyria, chs. xix. and XX. The following is a good example of (1)– ‘Sun and moon are seen apart (i.e. at different times); The king of the country will manifest wisdom. On the fourteenth day sun and moon are seen together; There will be loyalty in the land, The gods of Babylonia are favourably inclined, The soldiery will be in accord with the ling's desire, The cattle of Babylonia will pasture in Safety. On the ſlfteenth day the sun and moon are seen together ; A powerful enemy raises his weapons against the land, The enemy will shatter the great gate of the city.’ Omens were likewise derived from the particular * Iblis (=31&goxos) is not, so frequently employed in the sing. as the plur, form of shatitán, which takes the place of jinn. (plur.) (Wellh. l.c. p. 157 footnote). day of the month on which an eclipse takes place; from the appearances or disappearances of the planet Venus (Ishtar). In Rawl. iv. pl. 32, 33 we have a calendar of the intercalated month Elul. The deity is mentioned to which each day is sacred, and certain sacrifices are prescribed and precau- tions indicated. The 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th days are called evil (limºnw); see art. SABBATH, . 319"; and cf. Schrader, COT i. p. 19 f., and ensen in Z.A. iv. (1889) p. 274 ft. (2) Varied forms of abnormal birth are specified, and the events which they portend— “If a woman gives birth to a child with the right ear missing, the days of the ruler will be long. If a woman gives birth to a child with the left ear missing, qustress will enter the land and weaken it.” The abnormal features in the birth of young lambs were carefully noted and interpreted— “If the young one has no right ear, the rule of the king will come to an end, his palace will be uprooted, and the population of the country, will be swept away. The king will lose judg- ment, the produce of the country will be slight, the enemy will cut off the supply of water. If the left ear of the young one is missing, the deity will hear the prayer of the king, the king will capture his enemy's land, the palace of the enemy will be destroyed.’ (3) The number and variety of cases here as in (1) and (2) are endless. “If a dog enters the palace and crouches on the throne, that palace will suffer a distressful fate. If a dog enters a palace and crouches on the couch, no one will enjoy that palace in peace.” - The colour of a dog that enters a palace or of the locusts that enter a house, will affect the precise form of good which is por- tended by the occurrence. The gods were constantly approached with ques- tions involving the future interests of the State or affecting the fate of a military campaign. Knud- tzon in his Assyr. Gebete an den Sommengott für Staat wnd königliches Hants, has devoted a careful examination to these questions addressed to Samaš the Sun-god, which are shown to follow a fixed pattern. First we have a series of questions which the god is petitioned to answer. The god is then in plored not to be angry, and to protect the sup- pliant against errors unwittingly committed in the sacrificial rites— “O Shamash, great lord, as I ask thee, do thou in true mercy Q.I] SWC1 l) he. “From this day the 3rd day of this month of Iyyar to the 11th day of the month Ab of this year, a period of one hundred days and one hundred nights, is the prescribed term for the priestly activity.” ‘Will within this period Kashtariti, together with his soldiery, will the army of the Gimirri, the army of the Medes, will the army of the Manneans, or will any enemy whatsoever succeed in carrying out their plan, whether by stratagen º or main force, whether by the force of weapons of war and battle or by the axe, whether by a breach made with war-machinery or battering- ralms or by hunger, whether by the powers residing in the name of a god or goddess . . . will these aforementioned, as many as are required to take a city, actually capture the city lishsassu, penetrate into the interior of that same city IXishsassu. . . . Thy great divine power knows it. . . . Will it actually come to pass?' - We observe that all possible contingencies are specified as in a lawyer's deed, and no loophole is left by which the deity may escape the obligation of a deſinite answer. (See Jastrow, p. 334 f.) How far Israel, and more particularly Judah, at the close of the 8th cent. became influenced by Bal). or Assyr. practices, it would be very difficult to say. That the older and more highly developed civilization of the Euphrates and Tigris should have aſlected the Palestinian tribes at this time is surely more than ſº In the 15th and earlier centuries B.C. that influence was powerfully felt througll- out the Western border (mdt am tryi), as the Tel el- Amarna tablets clearly testify, and it spread into Egypt itself. Moreover, we may infer from cer: tain indications that some influences from Bab. and * This expression is interpreted to mean that the priest is only asked to give a reply concerning the events of the hundred days specified in the text. 600 SOOTHSAYER, SOOTHSAYING SOOTHSAYER, SOOTHSAYING Assyr, divination not improbably found their way into the Southern kingdom. (1). We know that Alhaz was particularly susceptible to foreign re- ligious influence, and did not hesitate to borrow from foreign courts (2 K, 16** 20"). (2) The embassy of Merodach - baladan shows that the relations between Judah and Babylonia were inti- mate (2 K 201*). (3) The proneness of Ahaz to alliance with Assyria at an earlier period may have opened the way for the entrance of Assyro- Babylonian traditions. (4) If we combine these facts with Is 2°, where reference is made to the superstitious tendencies which prevailed in Israel, and where these are ascribed to the ‘East,’ we may find the true clue to the meaning of this term ‘East.’ The true reading here has been conjecturally re- stored by critics with some probability in the form Dºp (nºpºp) ppp isºp 5 ‘for they are full of sooth- sayers from the East,’ which harmonizes with the parallel clause that follows. Teman (Edom) also }. its soothsayers (Jer 497, Ob%). Was the source Arabia. ? Egypt presented parallel phenomena. Divination and the practice of occult sciences prevailed in the }. of the Nile as much as in those of the £uphrates. In Egypt the division of time among the higher divine powers was carried to such an extent that even every hour of day and night was allotted to some goddess (though not to the superior deities). The character of the divinity determined the destiny of the period over which that divinity presided. Iły turning up the calen- dar of the days of the month it was thought possible to gain a glimpse into futurity, and decide whether a particular day was favourable or unfav- ourable ; what should be done and what onlitted ; and what prospects awaited the child who was born upon it. We have an º: of such a calendar in the papyrus Sallier iy, belonging to the 19th dyn., in which there are instructions cover- ing several months of the year. We select the following in reference to one month— “4th Paophi: unfavourable, favourable, favourable (i.e. of vari- able significance). By no means leave your house on this day. He who is born on this day, dies upon it through a contagious disease. ‘5th – : unfavourable, unfavourable, unfavourable. By no means leave your house on this day. Do not approach any woman. On this day we should offer gifts to the god. The majesty of the god Month was satisfied on this day. IIe who is born on this day will die of love. “9th – : favourable, favourable, favourable. The gods are in gladness, men in exultation. The foe of Rå has fallen. He who is born on this day dies of the weakness of old age. * 22nd — : unfavourable, unfavourable, unfavourable. Do not bathe in any water on this day. He who embarks on a vessel on the river on this day will be rent in pieces by the tongue of the crocodile.’” To what particular mode of divination allusion is made in Gn 44%, where the silver bowl with which Joseph practised the art is referred to, cannot be determined from ancient Egyptian sources. It has been supposed that some form of KvXukoplav reta or vöpopauréla was in the writer’s mind. The goblet was filled with water and the sun's rays were ad- mitted, and, as the goblet was moved, the circles of light that were formed were closely observed (ſamblichus, de mysteriis, iii. 14), or the cup was marked with letters and a divining-ring touched then here or there, and conclusions were deduced therefrom (Amm. Marcellinus, 29); cf. Dillm. ad loc. These are, however, conjectures only. The word employed in the passages dealing with the story of Israel in Egypt for ‘soothsayer’ or ‘magician' (for the word expressed botlı) was Dönn, lur. pºlynn, Gn 418. * (E), Ex 7” 87. 18 etc. 9" (P), }. 1* 2°, variously rendered in LXX &raoûot, papuoxol éénymrat [in Dn 1” go bug rat, Theodotion étaotöol]. The Heb. word is probably derived from ºn, stylus for graving words, since the arts of the * Wiedemann, Die IReligion der alten Aegypter, p. 141. magician or soothsayer were based, in the more elaborate systems of Babylonia and Egypt, upon carefully written rituals. Dreams.-In ancient Arabic belief sleep was con- sidered in a mysterious sense to be sacred, and subject to the control of demons.” “All Arabs reverence a man sleeping ; he is, as it were, in trance with God; in their households they piously withdraw, nor will they lightly molest him.’ + It is not surprising, therefore, that the significance attached to dreams is a universal feature of anti- quity. The ancient Egyptians believed in the significance of the dream as the state of mind through which deities entered into personal re- lationship with men and gave them guidance. Thus Rå Harmachis appeared to king Thothmes IV., when he rested in the chase near the Great Sphinx, and commanded him to have the statue dug out of the sand. A sure means of obtaining a prophetic dream was to betake oneself to one of the temples that were sacred to divinities who vouchsafed oracles, and there sleep. The temple of Serapis was one of the most celebrated of these shrines, like the temple of Æsculapius at Epidaurus, where dreams were bestowed in which remedies were communicated against disease. Sometimes as a last resort magic was appealed to in order to extort the dream from the º. deity. Wiede- mann (Religion der alten Aegypter, p. 144) cites one of the magical texts from a Gnostic papyrus of comparatively late date preserved in the Leyden Museum, entitled ‘Agathocles' IRecipe for sending a Dream,’ which runs thus— ‘Take a slaughtered cat, quite black, prepare a tablet, ond write the following with a solution of myrrh and the dream which you wish to send, and put it into the cat's mouth : Keimi, Keimi, I am the great one who rests in the mouth Mommon Thoth, Nanumbre, Karicha, ICenyro, Paarmiathon, the holy Iau ied icu ačoi who is above the heaven [other names follow) put thyself in connexion with N.N. about this [i.e. the said dream]. If necessary, secure for me N.N. through thy power. Iord of the whole world, flery god, put thyself in con- nexion with N.N. Tharthar, thannara thatha mommon thana- botha [other names follow]. Hear me, for I will pronounce the great name Thoth, whom every god reverences and every demon fears. My name corresponds to the seven (vowels) a e ( i o y 0 inuč0ea0 ouee Oia. I named thy glorious name, the name for all needs. Put thyself in connexion with N.N. . . .' Here we find soothsaying passing over into magic, to which it stands, as we have already explained, so closely related. The apparently meaningless combination of syllables which the magician em- ploys contains the names of deities. Compare the name Saba.0th, borrowed from the Jewish Holy Scrip- tures, to which a mysterious potency was ascribed. These must be reproduced in their exact original form. No translation was tolerated : not only did. it render the charm inoperative, but brought down evils upon the magician (cf. art. MAGIC, ad fin.). The Assyrians, like the Egyptians, attached great importance to dreams. Of this we have two interesting examples in the Itassam - cylinder of Ašurbanipal. In col. ii. 95 we are told that to Gyges, king of Lydia, Ašur revealed Ašurbanipal's name in a dream, saying : ‘Embrace the feet of Ašurbanipal, king of Assyria, and thou shalt con- Juer thy enemies by his name.’ On the same i. on which he had seen this dream, Gyges de; spatched his horsemen to greet Ağurbanipal and narrate it to him. The inscription goes on to state that from that day forth he conquered the kim- merians, who had attacked the people of his land (lines 95–105).-The other passage occurs in Col. v. 95 ſº. Ašurbanipal’s troops feared to cross the Ididé, but Ištar of Arbela appeared to them in a dream, and said : ‘I go before Ašurbanipal, the king whom my hands have made.' ... Conſiding in this dream, his troops crossed the Ididé safely. * Wellhausen, l.c. p. 163 ff. # Doughty, Arabia. Deserta, vol. i. p. 249 ſt. SOOTHSAYER, SOOTHSAYING SOOTHSAYER, SOOTHSAYING 601 b- It should be noted that one special branch of the art of the priest-soothsayer in Babylonia con- sisted in the interpretation of the manifold appear- ances in dreams. A considerable portion of the omen-documents in cuneiform consists of the rules laid down as to what the different features in a dream may portend. * If a lion appears to a man, it means that a man will carry out his i. If a jackal, that he will secure favour in the eyes of the gods. A dog portends sorrow ; a mountain goat, that the man's son will die of some disease ; a stag, that his daughter will die, etc. (Bezold's Catalogue, pp. 1437, 1438, cited by Jastrow). To this special function of the Babylonian temple officials we have reference in Dn 2°, where they are summoned by Nebuchadnezzar to discharge the perplexing task of not only interpreting but also of first recalling a dream which the monarch had forgotten (cf. Gn 41*). ºn B is the proper word in Heb. for interpreter of dreams. Divine revelation through treams constantly meets us in the OT (Gn 20%. 0 31.10: 1137° 40'ſ. 411" 429, 1 K 35. 10, Dn 21971, Nu 129, Job 331", Jg 7”, and in NT Mt 120 218, Ac 231, 27*). Dreams were a legitimate mode of Divine manifestation, though we find warnings against the dreams of false pro- phets, as against magic and soothsaying (Jer 23** 298, Zec 10°, Sir 34* * *. 7). It is worthy of note that among the Hebrews, as among the Egyptians, in- portance was attached to the dreams which came to a man who slept in a sanctuary or sacred spot. The dream of Jacob might be included among such visions (Gn 281*), since the scene was at Bethel, the renowned sanctuary. The dream recorded in I K 30-1” was vouchsafed to Solomon at the high place of Gibeon, where he had offered sacrifices. Just as among the Arabs the art of soothsaying began to decline after the advent of Mohammet and the monotheism which he taught,” so annong the ancient Hebrews the prophetic teaching from the 8th cent. onwards constantly declaimed against the arts of the soothsayer, and the burden of this prophetic Törah became embodied in legislation {<\º 1810m, cf. Lv 20%. 47). In Is 2" we find mention of pºly[n] among the other modes of foreign Eastern superstition with which Judah by the time of Isaiah had become familiar. But in this special case the original source probably lay at Israel's doors, and the tradition was borrowed from the Canaanites. Of this we have clear evidence in Dt 18", and in the “terebinth (oak) of diviners’ (Dºyo MEO- NENIM) mentioned as a well-known sacred spot with a sacred tree (Jg 9”). There is a similar ‘soothsayer's tree 'l (see MOREH) mentioned in Gn 129 (ºp jºs). To this we may find a parallel in the oaks of Dodona, sacred to Zeus, whose rustling branches were supposed to utter oracles (Odyss. xiv. 328); cf. 2 S.5*. In Dº 18" the jºyº stands in close conjunction with the ‘diviner of divinations’ (popp ºpp) and the Unj?. The Greek equivalent of 'yº is k\möout{ºuévos, meaning one who judges from omens (k\móðv); cf. Is 2". The ety- mology of the Hebrew Poel form jºy is not easy to determine. To connect it with ly ‘cloud' has no foundation in the known practices of the ancient Israelites. More probable is the etymology which 7. / connects it with the root which is in Arabic , , * For demonology and soothsaying were closely interwoven (as in the case of magic). Now, according to Mohamumedan ideas, the devils after Mohammed's advent were prevented from mingling with the sons of God and learning, the secrets of heaven (cf. SATAN and ref, to Book of Enoch). When so detected, the angels pelt them with meteorites and drive them away : see Sur. 391 ad fin., 377th, ; and cf. Wellhausen, Iteste”, p. 138. # It is by no means certain that the Heb. nºs, jº's may not O be used generally for ‘tree,' like Syr. |AS-l, In S-l. O I. 9 It ‘to snuffle", (cf. the use of the Heb. bºsſ) Is Sº 29"); scarcely probable is the suggestion of Well- hausen to regard this Poel form as a denominative from the Subst. Ty ‘eye.” Cf. Nowack, Heb. Arch. ii. 274 footnote. The form of soothsaying which the word jºyº represents may have been akin to that which was practised by the Roman augurs or haruspices. In fact it is diſlicult to say how far the |Jºyp differed from the Tsh or primitive Hebrew ‘seer,” or from the Dºp. As to the first, we do not know what was his mode of procedure, whether it con- sisted in the examination of the entrails or general appearance of the victim in the sacrifices, as was done by the Assyrian priests (Jastrow, l.c. p. 337) and the IRoman haruspices or extispices. Or it may have taken the form of observing closely the move- ments of animals, as was done by the Philistine diviners (D'ºpp) in the case of the two cows yoked to the cart on which the ark of God was placed (1 S 6*); or it may have consisted in observing the sounds produced by wind (as the sound among the tops of the balsam trees in 2 S 5*) or the specia action of rain or dew upon objects (cf. Jg 6*). The 8th cent., as well as the 7th, witnessed the wide prevalence of these arts as well as that of necromancy (Is 8”). Probably the Assyrian in- vasions and the disasters which they entailed drove the panic-stricken people to resort to abnormal practices of magic and soothsaying.” I’rom Is 3° we learn that the soothsayer held an important place in national life, and was regarded as one of the props of the social fabric. He takes his place by º side of the judge, prophet, and elder. The attitude of prophecy towards soothsaying was uni- formly uncompromising and hostile (Mic 5*, cf. jer 2% and is 575, this last passage being descrip- tive of the degenerate practices that still went on in Palestine after the return from the Exile). In Ezk 21*, we have a vivid description of the king of Babylon standing at the crossways, shaking the arrows (BeNouavreta). We may assume that there were 'two arrows in the quiver, one bearing the name Jerusalem and the other Rabbah, and the result was determined by the particular arrow that was drawn out by the right hand or shaken out. He also inquires of the teraphim and looks into the liver. The reference to the teraphim is a Pales- tinian trait (the LXX y\virrots suggests D'asy, rather than D'Eºn). When we compare this with is 47°." with its closing references to the soothsaying, wo can clearly see that the latter Writer had become yet more familiar with the practices in divination :arried on in 13abylonia, and portrays them with remarkable vividness :— ‘Thou art wearied with thy counsels; yes, let them stand by and save you, they who divide the heavens, who gaze at the stars, announcing month by month whence they (i.e. the events) are to come upon you.’ The account given in the earlier portion of this article of the omen- tablets of Babylonia and the calendars of the days of the month, with its lucky and unlucky days, clearly illustrates the accurate delineation given us in Deutero-Isaiah. The plurase ‘dividers of the heavens’ (pºp: "Yin Kéré) contains a reference to the custom of the Babylonian astrologers of divid- ing the heavens into districts to take a horoscope (cf. Jastrow, I'eligion of Babylonia, p. 369 ft.). See also art. DIVINATION. LITERATURE. – This has been indicated in the course of the article. The reader should consult art. “Wahrsagerei' in Riehm's II WI32; Nowack's and l3enzinger's Ileb, Arch. ; art. • Divination' in Iºncyc. Biblica ; Smend, A T'Religionsgesch. pp. 76 ft., 113, 178, 105, 276, 200; W. R. Smith, ap. Driver on 19t 1810ſ., and in Journal of Philology, xiii. 273 ff., xiv. 113 ft. On Dreams cf. Brecher, Das Transcendentale . . . im Talmud, §§ 37-47. OWIEN C. WHITEHOUSE. * Cf. W. R. Smith, Rimship and Marriage, p. 308, in reference to the mystic piacular rites of the 7th cent. 1.0. 602 SOP SORCERY SOP.-A sop (Anglo-Sax. [sopprºl, from swpan, to sup) is a morsel of food soaked in liquid. Cf. Chaucer, Marchantes Tale, 599– “Anc then he taketh a sop in fyn clarree.” The word was used by Tindale to translate populov (from pog-tºw, to feed) in Jn 13*b*, *, *, the only occurrences of the Gr. word. (Wyclif had already used it in 13*, *, giving “bread’ and ‘morsel’ in the other places. The Vulg. has buccella in 13” ”, but simply panis in ***, and the Rheims, follows with “bread in 20 bis, and “morsel’ in 97.3%). The mod. meaning, “ something given to keep quiet,” is also found in early writers, as Howard, Committee, iv. 1, ‘Why, you unconscionable Rascal, are you angry that I am unlucky, or do you want some fees? I'll perish in a Dungeon before I’ll consume with throwing Sops to such Curs.” J. HASTINGS. SOPATER (2&rargos, Sopater).-A man of Beroea. who in St. Paul's third missionary journey accom- panied him from Philippi (Ac 20). He is called in the older MSS son of Pyrrhus. He was com- memorated June 25 and July 12. See also SOSIP- ATER. SOPE.—See the modern spelling SoAP. SOPHERETH (nºt : BA Xaqápa.0, N Xaqapabt, Luc. "Aaoq,épet). —A family of Nethinim that re- turned with Zerubbabel, Neh 7”. In the parallel passage, Ezr 2", the name appears as Hasso- phereth (nºbii; B 'Aoſepſipat), ‘Age®paô, Luc. Agag’épet), and in l Es 5” as ASSAPHION. SOPHONIAS.—The form in which the name of the prophet ZEPHANIAH occurs in 2 Es 1". SORCERY.—The subject of sorcery has already been treated in most of its aspects under MAGIC. There remain, however, certain features in this extensive department which are reserved for treat- ment in the present article. The wide prevalence of, sorcery, in pre-exilian Israelite life is only partially revealed in the OT. That the underlying motive of the Brazen Serpent in Nu 214-9 was the same as that of the winged colossal and human-headed bulls or genii (lamassw. or lamaššw, cf. the cherubim in Gn 3*, and Schrader, COT, ad loc.) which were set up at the doors of the Assyrian palaces to prevent the access of demons, of disease, or other calamity, seems to be fairly probable. In this connexion we must bear in mind the undoubted fact that the Serpent was associated not only with demons to whom a destructive power belonged (cf. Gn 3 and Is 14” 27' and Am 9°),” but also with those endowed with beneficent powers. Mohammed held that serpents might be inhabited by good as well as by evil jinn, and among the ancient Greeks the serpent was held to be sacred to the healing god AEsculapius. Also, as Robertson Smith reminds us, the South Arabs regard medicinal waters as inhabited by jinn, usually of serpent form (IES” p. 168; cf. 172). On this subject interesting facts have been col- lected by Baudissin, in his Essay on the Symbolism of the Serpent, in Studien zur som, ſteligions- gesch. i. p. 257 ſ. The brazen image of the serpent (ºru), worshipped in the reign of Hezekiah, and the occurrence of the name Nahash among Canaan- ite peoples, point to the prevalence of the serpent- cult. See NEHUSHTAN. Again, the law, to which the modern Jew pays so much deference, contained in T)t 6*", involves an ancient belief in the magic potency of Written * Here Gunkel (Schöpfung w. Chaos) has shown that we have remnants of the old Babylonian chaos-myth (Tianlu, ‘dragon of the deep'). --sº words and names, of which Lane (Modern Egyp. tians, 1871, i. pp. 7 ff., 319 ft.) gives valuable illus- trations. The Shema', as well as the following precept, “And thou shalt love Jehovah thy God with all thy soul . . ...,’ were to be bound as a sign upon the hand, and for frontlets between the eyes. They were also to be written upon the doorposts of the house and on the gates. The Jews in the present day use the name mézúzah, which in the original Deuteronomic sense meant ‘doorpost,’ for the small metal case which con- tained a piece of folded parchment, upon which the words aforesaid were written, viz. Dt 6** as well as Dt 11”, in twenty-two lines. This would be placed at the right of the entrance, on the upper part of the doorpost. . Like an amulet in- scribed with words or names of mysterious potency, this piece of parchment was held to possess a magic and protective efficacy. See Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, i. p. 76. Thé téphillin or phylacteries, on the left arm and fore- head, are of § character (see art. PHYLACTERIES). Again we have an instructive example of the all-prevailing faith in magic in the case of the afflicted woman who came to Jesus in the midst of the crowd, believing that His garments were pº. of mysterious healing virtue (Llº Sº, see Plummer, ad loc.). The same idea, underlies the narrative of Ac 19”, where we read that hand- kerchiefs and ". were conveyed from St. Paul's person to the diseased, who were thereby cured, and the demons expelled. A man’s clothing was supposed to convey with it some charm or efficacy from the owner. Mohammed was besought to give his shirt that a dead man might be buried in it. The character of the wearer and his clothing were identified in some mysterious way. Prob- ably in this way we are to interpret the reference to the mantle of Elijah (2 K 2°-4", cf. 8), and such expressions as ‘robe of righteousness,’ ‘garments of salvation' (Is 61”), “ of vengeance’ (59.7), etc. See Wellhausen, Reste *, p. 196. In Arabia sorcery was even employed in digging for treasure. Doughty relates a story that a Moor, who was regarded as specially proficient in magical arts, “sacrificed to the ján in the night a black cock, and read his spells, and a great black fowl alighted beside him. . . . The earth runnbled, and rose as it were in billows, gaping and slautting, and in that earthy womb appeared an infinite treasure' (Arabia. Deserta, ii. p. 103). Iłut we hear even more frequently of counter-spells, whereby the demons were coerced or terrified into in- potence. And this specially applies to the various diseases which the ján were supposed to inflict. The remedies are in almost every case magical in character, and were carried out by the physician called tabāb or wise man, who was, in fact, a magician. The methods of the magic-healing art were the same as those of the sorcerer who worked the evil. There was stroking and rubbing of the part affected ; most frequently we have the tying of knots, spitting, and breathing. “A young mother, yet a slender girl, brought her wrotched babe, and bade me spit upon the child's sore eyes. This ancient Semitic opinion and custom I have afterwards found wherever I came to Arabia (cf. Jn 90]. Mcteyr nomads in El Kasim have brought me bread and salt that I should spit in it for their sick friends.--Also the Arabians will spit upon a lock which cannot easily be opencil’ (Doughty, Arab. Des. i. p. 527). ‘Another time I saw Salih busy to cure a mangy thelūl (riding-camel). He sat with a bowl of water before him, and, mumbling there- over, he spat in it and mumbled solemnly, and spat many times, and, after a half hour of this work, the water was taken to the sick beast to drink' (ib. ii. p. 104). This strange custom may be combined with the prevalent notion that the more repulsive ar.” disgusting the remedies, the more eificacious they W (31'63, r SORCERY SORCERY 603 They will take of the unclean and even abominable, and Say, dawd, “it is medicine.” These Bedouin give the sick to eat of the rakham or small white carrion eagle. Upon a day I found a poor woman of our menzil seething asses’ dung in the pot. She would give the water to drink with milk to her sick brother’ (Doughty, i. p. 255). Magic devises strange remedies. The person of the king has a supernatural character (Frazer, Golden Bough *, i. p. 8 ft.), and it is owing to this belief that we constantly find the royal personality or his family invested with a priestly function. Thus in Arabia, it was believed that hydrophobia was to be cured by royal blood, i.e. not merely the blood of the reigning monarch, but also that of the royal family. Even sorrow for the dead had its magic remedy. Dust from the grave of the deceased beloved one was to be drunk, mingled with water; and the same remedy was employed as an antidote to love-sickness, for a man who was in love was held to be possessed or bewitched. Ry the spells of a sorcerer, too, lovers may be parted. It may here be remarked that the introduction of Islam did even less to destroy belief in magic than the growth of Jewish monotheism. We can only say in both cases (that of the Arab and of the Jew) that the belief in spirits entered, as Wellhausen says of the Arab (ib. p. 157), “upon another stage.’ ‘The old gods are deposed and degraded into the position of demons. The latter thereby change their character and become hellish creatures, bitterly hostile to Allah and his heavenly surrounding.’ They became Satans (Shaitáns), with Iblis at their head, opposed to prayer and the cry of the muezzin, loving uncleanliness and dirt, and therefore de- barred by washings and the burning of incense. Consequently sorcery was just as prevalent after Islam as before it. Mohammed placed the interior bark of the Samara tree on the arm of Dhul Bigádain to render him invulnerable. Gum resin from this tree was constantly carried as an amulet. The ankle-bones of a hare are effective to ward off the jinn of the camp, the ghoul of the desert, and Satan himself. They are also effective in quelling fever. Similar efficacy belonged to the teeth of a cat or a fox. The magic of the knot-tying was encountered by the protective spell of the amulet. One species of amulet was called tamgis (defiling), and contained dirt, bones of the dead, and other repulsive objects. Many annulets, however, con- sisted of ornaments, often precious stones, deemed on this account sacred. Their object seems to be to divert the attention of the demons from the wearer. Thus a mark on the face of a woman, or even tattooing, served this purpose ; also the fragrant berries carried by children, the silver and gold plates worn by horses, and the bells carried by camels (cf. Zec 14*), which diverted or scared away the demons by their sound. Cf. Wellhausen, Ičeste”, p. 164 ft. Ancient Jewish magic, to which Islau has devoted a special treatise, presents many features which are analogous to those of early Arabia, just described. Indeed it is by no means an easy problem to determine how much of the latter came from Jewish, 13abylonian, and Aramaic sources, and how far the Jewish in turn became aflected in very early times by Arabia.” There can he little doubt that the main source of Jewish tralition in magic and demonology, in and after the Exile, was 13albylonia, and that IBabylonia. also influenced Arabia. The magical effect of spitting, to which Doughty * According to the Talmud (Sanhedrin 67b, 91a) the Arabs were regarded as endowed with magical powers. In the first passage it is related that an Arab sorcerer cut his camel in pieces and then restored it to life., . In the latter passage it is stated that Abraham communicated to the sons of his concubines the unclean name, i.e. the names of deities potent in magic; cf. Blau, p. 48, and footnote 2. has referred (in the passages cited), was also an element in Jewish superstition. But what is most significant in Jewish sorcery is the belief in the magic power of words and names which was held almost universally, in the time of Christ, by the Jews in common with other contemporary nations. Pas- sages from Scripture were considered to be espe- cially eflectual. These were constantly employed in bringing about cures. Thus the words in Lv 13, nymy yj; and also LV 14 were considered efficacious, though forbidden by Rab and Rabbi Chanina. (Sanhedrin, 101a). Ex 15” was employed in heal- ing wounds; but when, in addition to this, spitting was resorted to, this was regarded as a forbidden form of magic, and whosoever attempts it has no art or lot in the future life (Mishna Samhed, xi. 1; Tosefta, xii. 10). Of course special force belonged to the words, ‘For I, Jehovah, am thy healer.” Unclean water has a magical influence, which can be increased or arrested by some incantation. Magic influence of a deterrent character was also attributed to iron. Iron has the power to ward off evil spirits and to break spells. Spirits stand in fear of iron (cf. Blau, p. 159; and Berakhéth 6a, cf. Tosefta vi. 13). The iron is cast between the graves, and the word hada is pronounced ; for the graveyard has always been the place where sorcer is practised, since the spirits of the departed dwell there. Thither Canidia and Sagana, the sorceresses of Horace's muse, repair in the moonlight (Sat. I. viii.); and Wellhausen (Reste”, p. 157) considers that close relations subsisted between jinn and spirits of dead men, the spirits of the departed becoming jimm. The Talmud gives special recipes for turning a bad dream into one of good onem. One of these consists in repeating 9 verses (3 x 3) of the l8ible. If a man sees a river in a dream, let him recite Is 66° (in which peace is compared to a ſlowing stream) before he thinks of Is 5919 “When the enemy comes like a river.’ It is dangerous to drink water on Wednesday or lºriday night. If, however, one is compelled to drink it, it is recom- mended that Ps 20” should be recited, where the voice of Jellovah is mentioned seven times and also the waters, and it is said that Jehovah is enthroned above the flood. Incantations were constantly employed in the art of healing. Most of these spells are derived from the teachers of the #. who also prac- tised the medical art. As the remedy was applied, the incantation was whispered in the ear of the patient. The head of the operating physician was anointed with oil, and, if any unbidden or un- initiated person heard the spell, its magical power was lost. Two examples of these magical remedies may be found in art. MAGIC, vol. iii. p. 211, and further illustrations will be found in Blau's mono- graph, pp. 72–77, 156 ſl., and Iłrecher's Das Tram- scendentale, Magic at. magische Heilarton im Talmud, p. 198ſf. Sorcery, in the narrower sense of magic em- ployed with malignant or evil intent, would seek to accomplish such ends as causing one's neigh- bour's house to catch fire, bringing a hailstorm on his field, depriving his cows of milk, making his child die of illness, causing domestic brawls, or visiting himself with sudden death. In fact the ancients were accustomed to attribute all such disasters to a malignant demon, Sorcerer, or witch; and the possession of any unusual physical or mental quality, especially an uncanny look about the eyes, would expose the male or female possessor of these characteristics to the unenviable reputation of being a sorcerer or sorceress. Espe- cially old women of unusual ugliness were credited with dealings with the dark supermatural world. Even men distinguished by b, illiant acquirements 604 SORCERY SORCERY or clever play would be liable to the suspicion of sorcery. The chief motives to sorcery were love and hatred, and the result was frequently death or unfaithfulness to the marriage vow. §ſ. W’9,S employed to win forbidden love. The chief means to compass this end was mandragora, which was universally regarded as an erotic plant (hence the Heb. name D's", Gn 30”). It was customary to re- cite verses from the Bible over this—a practice which the Talmud forbids (Shabbath 8b, 19). Tying of knots was sometimes resorted to in order to prevent childbirth. Cf. Koran 113 (blowing on knots). Simon ben Jochai had the reputation of being a magician, and tradition relates that when he with- drew from his cave, after residing there for thirteen years, he transformed every one upon whom he azed into a heap of bones; and it is reported that #. destroyed a º: in this way (Pesikta. 90b, 137a). Amulets were employed as prophylactics, i.e. as a means of counterworking the evil influences of witchcraft and demons. The Dººn?, to which Is 3* alludes as one among the articles of feminine attire, may be considered to be this simply and solely. These were not forbidden, though they partook of a magical character. It is only in cases where the amulets were heathen in origin that they were strictly forbidden. Thus in 2 Mac 12" the amulets discovered on the slain came from the idol temple at Jamnia, and were on this account objectionable. The name by which the amulet was called in later Jewish literature is kéméa. (gº). The kéméa is mentioned with the táphillin or phylacteries. Both were covered with leather. Similarly, the amulets of the Greeks and Romans were contained in capsules (bulba”). The Jewish amulet consisted either of some inscribed object or of certain roots of plants, or, in some cases, of grains of corn bound up in leather.” It may here Be remarked, in passing, that every vegetable was supposed to have a subtle connexion with a planet in heayen (see Blau, p. 100 f.). Anything offered with incense to the gods, or shavings from the Asherall tree, were considered to have a special healing virtue. Metal plates consisting of an upper and lower plate were constantly employed as amulets. A pearl wrapped up in leather was regarded as a healing remedy for cattle. In all spells, charms, incantations, amulets, and other prophylactics, stress is always laid on the mysterious potency and significance of the name. Nomen involves omen. Name to the ancient Semite involves reality and personal power. And the superstitious dread of the ancient Greek who cried evgºmue're at Solemn crises or functions, and of the Roman who under like circumstances said favete linguis, was founded on this same belief in the underlying dread potency of words or names to summon forth catastrophes. To this tendency the etymologizing efforts and plays on words in the O'ſ are probably due, viz. to the endeavour to discover in the name a clue to the underlying power that shapes individual destiny. “As his name, so is he,’ says Abigail of her wrong-headed husband Nabal. ‘Fool is his name, and folly is with him ' (1 S 25”). The combination of the name of deity with a newborn child was therefore quite explicable. Even the names of angels in i. Judaism, Jike those of individuals, contained the name of deity (98), c.g. Michael, Raphael, etc. Heaven and earth are perishable, but ‘Thy great name liveth and abideth for ever” (Berakhôth 32a). Hence those names (especially of angels) which contain the name of deity possess a special potency. * On this subject of amulets consult Winer, RWB.3 i. p. 56; Com. on Gn 354 and Is 318'ſ. ; IIamburger, I&L), Supplem.-Band, ii. pp. 8–11. Particular power was assigned to the mysterious tetragrammaton, which could be pronounced only on the Great Day of Atonement in the temple by the high priest. Hence it is called in the Talmud Uniºn Dº (in Aramaic Nyºn Nº), the name pro- nounced (cf. Pael cºnf) then, and them only. This name later Judaism believed to have been inscribed on the wonder-working staff of Moses. The tellón no longer overflows when a potsherd engraved with the tetragrammaton is thrown into it. Ashmodai (cf. APOLLYON), the prince of demons, was bound by a chain and a seal ring, on which was inscribed the Divine name (Gittin 68, bottom). By mark- ing this name on the mouth of the idol calf of Jeroboam it was nuade to speak. This mysterious and potent name was designated in Hebrew as Dyn, by the Greeks to Čvoua, also called åppmrov—on magic papyri (see Wessely) (voua. Kpvrröv Kai äppmrov, or, as in the inscription of Hadrumetum (see art. MAGIC, and Deissmann, Bible Studies, 146 ft., 196ff.), to dytov Čvoga & ot, Aérystal (line 20), also T0 kputröv čvoua kal dippmtov čv div0púrous (Dietrich, Abraajas, 195, line 7), or it is called to reſpáypapºuov čvoga to pºva ruków. The Hebrew nylº, nº, F: is reproduced in a variety of forms in Greek (see Deissmann, ib. p. 4). The manifold employment of the letters of the tetra- grammatom, as well as of the seven vowels a s m o v Q, played a considerable part in magic papyri; and it is impossible within the space at our disposal to enter into the maze of details on this subject, which may be found in Blau's treatise, pp. 141–146. The belief in the power of words, especially those of Scripture, is exhibited by the custom of repeat- ing a phrase, as, for example, the Shema', or some- times in inverting the order of letters, as in the Gnostic gem referred to by Schwab (Vocabulaire de l’Angelologie, p. 303), in which , is inserted Ovk\ta\tá, which is the expression sip 98% ºn inverted. The belief underlying these inversions is that the reversal of the order effects the retreat or over- throw of the demons and of the sorcery they em- |. According to Rabbi Akiba, special potency Jelongs to the letters of the alphabet to which special meanings by acrostics were assigned. Thus hºs= TE ºp', nox. Belief in the power of the evil eye was just as prevalent in Semitic lands as in those of classical antiquity. Iºspecially were women with an ugly squint or strange look or contracted heavy eye- brows considered to possess powers of the evil eye (see art. MAGIC, vol. iii. p. 208”). Tradition ascribed the belief in the power of the evil eye to Babylonia. Iłab lived in Babylonia, where the evil eye is often found (Jerus. Shabbath 14048; cf. Baba, mezia 1076, above). It is said of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, that after they were delivered from the fiery furnace they fell victims to the many eyes which were fixed on them. According to Baba bathra i. 18, Joshua commanded the sons of Joseph to conceal them- selves in the wood in order that they might not be overpowered by the evil eye (Jos. 17”). Men of distinction were specially exposed to this evil. But the tradition ºld that descendants of Joseph were exempt. Thus when the distinguished and handsome Rabbi Jochanan was asked whether he did not fear the evil eye, he replied, ‘ I am of the seed of Joseph, who are not injured by the evil eye” (Berakhôth 20a, below). It was recom- mended as a precaution, if one is about to enter a town and is afraid of the evil eye, to place the right thumb in the left hand and the left thumb in the right hand and say, ‘I am N. son of N., and am descended from the seed of Joseph.” Another preservative was to look on the left side of the Il OSC, SORCERY SORCERY 605 Horses were preserved from the power of the evil eye by hanging a fox's tail or a scarlet thread between the eyes. Children were more frequently rovided with amulets than adults, and those they held in their hand (Shabbath. 16b, 61b). Children lave naturally a weaker power of resistance to evil influence or fascination than adults. Hence an inscribed card or leaf (truttåktov) or other kind of amulet was hung around the neck. A Jewish annulet would contain the letters of the name of Deity and various extracts from the Torah. It would also contain the name of the person to be protected. Even articles of furniture or vessels were pro- tected in this manner. Handles and pedestals were inscribed with the Divine name. Especially the bedstead was guarded in this way against en- cliantment. The blessing in Nu 6** was intended to protect Israel against the evil eye. Indeed the Torah itself was designed by God as a defence against evil (Wayyilºra rabba, c. 25, ad imit.). The magic of the evil eye is a topic avoided in the Mishna, and the attitude of orthodox Judaism towards the entire subject of sorcery was hostile, and in this respect coincided with the spirit and teaching of St. Paul, who regarded sorcery as belonging to the sphere of the évépyeta rod Xaravā and papuakla as one of the products (épya) of the flesh (Gal 5°). This attitude of Judaism rested on the ancient precepts of the Torah, even the most primitive code (Ex 22", cf. Dt. 18") containing prohibitions and death penalties directed against sorcerer and sorceress. The causes of this ancient antagonism between religion and magic, which certainly existed, though far from universal, evidently lie in some funda- mental distinction between the two, which we have all 2ady endeavoured to elucidate in the opening pages of the art. MAGIC. The subject has been ably discussed in Frazer's Golden Bough (i. p. 61 ff.), but not with complete success, since the writer refuses to admit what the researches of Tylor and others have made clear, viz. that ancient culture in all its manifold forms rests upon a primitive basis of animism, an interpretation of life whereby man surrounded himself with a cosmic society of personal agencies. Frazer considers that the few cases cited, “in which the operation of spirits is assumed, and an attempt made to win their favour by prayer and sacrifice,’ are exceptional. “Wher- ever sympathetic magic occurs in its pure un- adulterated form, it assumes that in nature one event follows another necessarily and invariably without the intervention of any spiritual or personal agency.’ The final negative clause of this sen- tence, which we have italicized, lacks historic broof. The most ancient inscribed documents of ſººn life, discovered in 13abylonia and Egypt, point to the opposite conclusion, that in man’s primitive condition magic was closely interwoven with a belief in gods and demons. That in some more recent Qxamples of sympathetic magic the primitive elements of spiritual belief have dis- appeared, and nothing apparently * remains but the assumption that “in mature one event follows another necessarily and invariably,’ we may with ce, tain limitations admit to be true. In some exponents of ‘modern science’ we observe a similar process of the attrition of a belief in or recogni- iion of an ultimate Personal Cause which sustains “nature's unchanging harmony.’ But without the assumption of a primitive belief in personal agen- cies, how can we explain the constant employ- * We say ‘apparently,' because missionaries from Central Africa, where magic abounds (we refer particularly to the Rev. Ilarry Johnson), have informed the present, writer that natives are very reticent, with regard to their beliefs as to what under- lies their practice. Moreover, belief in spirits they certainly possess. ment of incantations and of formulae, spoken or written, as well as the close relations which in ancient culture undoubtedly subsisted between magic and religion, the priest combining in his own person the normal functions of worship with those of soothsaying and magic 2 But our criticism does not in reality obscure the illumin- ating value of Frazer's statements, which we now cite. ‘Its fundamental conception is identical with that of modern science, Underlying the whole system is a faith, implicit but real and firm, in the order and uniformity of nature. . The magician does not doubt that the same causes will always produce the same effects, that the performance of the proper ceremony accompanied by the appropriate spell will inevitably be attended by the desired results, unless, indeed, his incanta. tions should chance to be thwarted and spoiled by the more potent charms of another sorcerer. . . . The fatal flaw of magic ies not in its general assumption of a succession of events * . . . but in its total misconceptions of the nature of . . . that succession . . . . In ancient legypt the magicians claimed the power of compelling even the highest gods to do their bidding.’ Hence arose a radical conflict between magic and religion. “The haughty self-sufficiency of the magician . . . and his unabashed claim to exercise sway could not but revolt the priest. Sometimes, we may suspect, lower motives concurred to whet the edge of the priest's hostility. He professed to be the proper medium, the true intercessor between God and man, and no doubt his interests as well as his feelings were often injured by a rival practitioner.'f We may here briefly advert to the prevalence of magic and sorcery in ancient Greece and in ancient Greek settlements. Aristotle (Probl. xx. 34) refers to the superstition of the evil eye (8aa katva, and 8áakavos, Baokavla through the 64p0a)\!wós ka kös). This particularly affected children and cattle (Verg. Ecl. iii. 103). Theocritus (Idyll. ii. throughout, and vi. 39) clearly proves how prevalent º was in the beginning of the 3rd cent. B. C. century earlier Plato (Rep. ii. 364 B) describes the wandering beggars and soothsayers who go about to rich men's doors persuading them that they have power from the gods to avenge any man on his enemies, and can induce the gods to do their bidding by certain enchantments and magic knots (étrayayya's Kal Karaöéopols). Herodotus (in the 5th cent.), ii. 181, tells the story of Amasis, king of Egypt, who believed he had been spell-bound by his wife Ladica. The Greeks believed in and practised the magic Karáðeapot (katačéoets) or knots as much as the Hebrews their nºſ (cf. Euripid. Medea, 1136–1230). These karáðeapºot (Lat. dira) were inscribed on their leaden tablets or on strip. of papyrus or tale (Tacitus, Ammals, ii. 69). The first actually known were discovered at Athens in 1811 by M. I’auvel, and two years later, in the public ceme- tery of the Piraeus, by Mr. Dodwell. Recently they were found among the tombs in Cyprus (of the 1st cent. A.D.). The claracter of the º or incantation which is scratched, is mainly as follows: “I bind with this spell (Karaöð) So-and-so, his shop and all his property.” In the formula º on one of the two Athenian leaden tablets the writer binds over his enemies by name to Hermes Cthonius, l'ſ, Kátoxos, and Persephone. In the other we read : “I bind over such-and-such º to thee, Onesime.” Onesime may perhaps have been the ºnt of the tomb where the tablet was discovered. In addition to this method of writing the name of the enemy on a tablet and marking it with magical signs or characters, we have another, * We prefer to omit here all reference to ‘law.” The belief of ancient magic in the uniformity of nature, can only have been of a very partial and rudimentary kind, viz. in the limited sphere of magical practice. * * * * & # Another contributing cause to the hostility of religion and of the priesthood towards magic was morally justifiable, Magic and the popular faith in it, armed the soreerer with awful powers over his fellow-men, which he often used for unºrubu. ious ends. Thus in early Rome we find a law in the Twelve Tables which forbids charming away a neighbour's crops by incantations (eveantare). 606 SORCERY SORE which at once reminds us of Babylonia (cf. MAGIC). A waxen image of the obnoxious person was made and caused to melt away in order that that person might melt away. likewise (sympathetic magic). Cf. Verg. Ecl. viii. 80; Horace, Sat. I. viii. 32; Theoc. Yiyil. ii. There is good reason to suppose that these magic practices were introduced from Babylonia into Greece through Persia. AEschylus and Sophocles show no trace of them, but Euripides alludes to the yöms and étrºpóós. In Antiphon (end of 5th cent.) we read of a love-potion or ºptATpov, while Plato speaks of magicians (Symp. 203D) and of the Thessalian women who are said to draw down the moon (Gorg. 513 A). Necromancy, or the special mode of obtaining aid or knowledge by the conjuration of the dead, was a form of divination and magic which may be appropriately treated under the head of sorcery, since the sorcerer or sorceress would likewise become the medium of communication with the departed spirit. Necromancy is a practice which is linked to the belief in the continued existence of spirits in the dark underworld or Sheól. Hence among the ancient Greeks vexvla, or the summon- ing of the dead for interrogation about the future, became locally associated with caves and volcanic regions, where communication, it was supposed, would be easily established with the lower regions. Such a spot, called vekuopavretov or, puxotropºreſov, was the lake Aornos in Thesprotian Epirus (Herod. v. 92), Lake Avernus in Campania, and Taenarus in Laconia. There is, however, no clear proof that coniuration of the dead in Canaan was associated '...}. any special spot. It seems rather to have been associated with the personality of the con- jurer than with special places. . Nevertheless we might expect that caves or dark spots, and more especially sepulchres, would be selected by the Canaanite necromancers for the practice of their rites. The Heb. name for the spirit to whom the summons was given was n\N, a word which is prob- ably no other than that which is used in Job 32” for a skin-bag for holding water. The term would be applied to the spirit on account of the mysterious hollow sound which he was º: to make, as though speaking from some hollow cavity.” This nix or spirit was considered to reside in the necromancer, who was for the time identified with it. The term properly used to describe the necromancer was his ºvā, or for the female sorceress his nºw. We might compare the nºw? nºga of Nah 34. His nºw? is the term applied to the witch of Endor (1 S 287), who summons Samuel from his grave at the request of Saul (vv.”) and plays the part of clairvoyante as well. Another obscure term frequently combined with his is 'iyº, and it is exceedingly difficult to say whether any actual distinction of meaning properly belonged to the use of either. The etymology of the latter word, corresponding to our English word wizard, suggests the divining function of the spirit inhabiting the necromancer, whereas in was rather a term which indicated the ventriloquizing and hollow tones of his utterance. The LXX usually render an or 'N Sy; by éyyaarpluv00s, once (Is 19°) by ék yńs pověv ; whereas ºvº, which they hardly * This derivation is, however, disputed by Nowack and others. Hitzig, in his Commentary (on Is 819), connects it with the & f 3. Arabic C-1 (i.e. CW, reversus ſuit), and thus regards it as meaning “returning one.” Cf. Daudissin, Stud. 27tr 8emit. Religionsgesch. i. p. 143 footnote. On the whole, we agree with Dillm. on Lv 1931 that the connexion with n\N, ‘bag,' is the amost probable. The interpretation of the word as connected with 5:8, and as signifying “enemy (of God),' is the least prob- able. understood, is variously rendered by reparockáros, étraotöós, and Yuwaths (yvaptatis), and apparently in one instance (Is 19°) by éºyyaarpluv00s. In Dt 1811 there is a curiously amplified phraseology which ought not to be º viz. “interrogator (?se) of the nin,’ 'y', and the ‘inquirer of the dead” (n-nºir's viºl). In this as in the breceding verse (v.”) we have a fairly exhaustive phraseology, but each term employed does not cover an altogether distinct conception, but is more or less a synonym. During the closing decades of the 8th cent., amid the dangers, apprehensions, and calamities occasioned by the Assyrian invasions, the people resorted in large numbers to these occult modes of inquiry. To this Isaiah refers in scathing terms of rebuke (8*). Instead of turning their faces heavenwards to Jehovah and to the words of the Torah committed to faithful prophets, many were saying in these degenerate days, “Consult the conjurers of the dead and the necromancers, who chirp and whisper, Shall not a people inquire of their manes,” on behalf of the living, of the dead?’t To this pitiful and degrading appeal to popular superstition the prophet replies in tones of thunder : “To the instruction and testimony l’ The wide prevalence of necromantic practice is illustrated by a vivid simile employed by the same prophet. In a beautiful and graphic oracle (ch. 29) Jerusalem is threatened with all the horrors Soon to impend over the city in the siege of Sen- nacherib : “And thou shalt lie prostrate, speaking from the earth, and from the dust shall thy speech sound low, and thy voice shall be like a ghost (n\N) from the earth, and from the dust shall thy speech twitter’ (v.4). Thus , the higher prophetic teaching was as hostile in its attitude towards necromancy as it was towards magic and soothsaying; and this tone of reprobation is echoed in the stern penalties of death denounced against it in the legislation, Dt 1811 (cf. 1 S 289), Lv 1991 200. 7. The attitude of the teachers in the Talmud is not so uncompromising. Though they regarded it as the work of the devil, they believed in the validity of the art of necro- mancy (Berakhôth 59a”, Shabb. 1520). The dead can only be conjured in the first year after burial. It is said of IRab that he even himself inquired of the dead (Baba mezia 107b). LITERATURE.-This has been indicated throughout this article. On Jewish magic Blau's work is the main authority. On Greek magic consult Warre-Cornish's Comcise Dict, of Greek and Itoman Antiq., ‘Superstitio’; and Miss Macdonald in PSBA, vol. xiii. (Feb. 3, 1891), art. º relating to Sorcery in Cyprus.” In this instructive art. there are useful citations from Wessely's Griechische Zauberpapyri. A good illustration is given of a recipe for a zoºr&b soºoº taken from his edition of Papyrus Anastasi in the British Museum. On the subject of magic in general I'razer's Golden Bough 2 should be consulted, and A. Lang in I'ortnightly IRºv. Feb. and April 1901. The litera- ture has been indicated already in art. MAGIC, by reference to the exhaustive list in Schürer, G.J. V8 iii. pp. 300–304. OWIEN C. W IIITEHOUSE. SORE.-This word is used freely in AV as adj., subst., or adverb. The Anglo-Saxon adj. 84r, meaning ‘painful,” develops a subst. 8dr, meaning ‘a sore,' as that which caused the pain ; from this subst. another adj. was formed, 8ttrig, in the sense of “sad.” Sár became in later Eng. ‘Hore,’ as brºn became “bone,’ ham, “home,” etc. Sárig became ‘sorry,' the double r being a mistake, due to a fancicol connexion with the subst. ‘sorrow.” Between ‘sorry’ and ‘sorrow' (Anglo-Sax. 807 g) there is no etymological connexion. Thus the adj. comes first, and its primary mean- ing is painful, which is the only sense it now retains. Job 5* “I’or he maketh sore, and bindeth up' (n'sº, LXX & Xºyeſu trote?). But this literal meaning is rare, the word having early adopted * Comp. the similar use of bºn's in 1 S 2813, # These verses (i.e. 19.2%) are without adequate reason declared by Duhm and Cheyne to be non-Isaianic. SORERC SOSTHENES 607 the fig. sense of severe, grievous. The transition may be illustrated from Shaks. Tempest, v. i. 288– “Steph.—O touch me not ; I am not Stephano, but tº Cramp. Prus.--You'd be king o' the isle, sirrah? Steph.-I should have been a sore one, then'- where there is a play on the word. Is 27, ‘ In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan’ (nWen Yanni, LXX thv uáxalpaw Thu &yiav); Ezk 14” ‘when I send my four sore judgments upon Jeru- salem' (Dºyºn, LXX rôs trovmpás); Wis 10” “In a sore conflict she gave him the victory’ (&yöva taxupév); He 10” “Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy?’ (trégº xelpovos). Even when the reference is to suffering or disease, “sore almost always means severe rather than literally painful, as Dt 28” “With a sore botch' (yn Trºji). Cf. Udall, Erasmus, i. 20, ‘Making the law more heavy and sore’; Taverner's Bible, 3 Mac 3 hºing “The kyng maketh a sore decree'; Lk 1514 Rhem. “And after he had spent al, there fel a sore famine in that countrie” (Nupº's loxup3s). In the passage just quoted Tindale and others have merely “great’ (AV and RV “mighty’), and it is probable that the word ‘sore’ itself often means no more than that. Cf. Is 24” Cov. “The earth shal, geve a greate crack, it shal have a sore ruyne, and take an horrible fall.” But this is most frequently seen in the adverb. The adv. ‘sore’ (‘sorely’ occurs twice) never means in AV lit. ‘painfully, often, however, severely, grievously,” as 1 S 1" “And her adversary also provoked her sore’ (bºrn, Finns RD92); Mt. 17” ‘He is lunatick, and sore vexed' (kakós träoxet, IłV “suffereth grievously’). But the usual mean- ing is greatly, ca:ceedingly (Germ. Sehr), as Is 38°= 2 K 20° “Hezekiah wept sore’ (ºn, ºf inſp;| ſan, I, XX &rAavo'ev 'Eğektas KXav0.9% uéyáNg). The adv. "sº in Heb, is often tr" ‘sore,’ and a p53pa occa- sionally (1 Mac 2'4' 6' 9"s 16”, Mt 17%) in Greek. Cf. Chaucer, Prologue, 148— “Of smale houndes had she, that she fedde With roested flesh, or milk and wastel-breed. But sore weep she if oom of hem were deed, Or if men smoot, it with a yerde smerte.” The phrase “lie sore on occurs in Jg 1417. LIE in vol. ii. p. 113. The subst. occurs rarely : Lv 13%. 48, Ps 38th (y1) a plague-spot); Ps 77° ‘My sore ran in the night’ (nº Tº, I&V “my hand was stretched out ’); is 1" “wounds and bruises and putrifying sores” (Tºp Hºnº RV festering sores,’ RVm ‘fresh stripes'); Lk 16” “full of sores” (elNkwuévos); 16”, lèev 16%. 11 ({\kos). J. HASTINGS. See SOREK, THE WALLEY of (pºly ºn; : B “AXgopºx," A Xetuáppovs Xπ): ; vallis Sorec).-The valley or wódy (Heb. mahal) in which Delilah lived (Jg 16"). Eusebius and Jerome (Omom.) connect the valley with Caphar’sorec, a village to the north of Eleutheropolis and near Saraa (Xadp), that is, Zorah (Sur'ah), the home of Samson’s father. Capharsorec is now Khurbet Surik, to the north of Wódy Surár, which is identified with ‘the valley of Sorek,” and not far from Sur'ah. The JVády Sur(ºr is one of the great features of Southern Palestine. It rises to the N. of Jerus., near Birch (Beeroth), and, running between Neby Samwil and Jerus., passes IVºtlánich and 'Ain R (trim. It now becomes deep and narrow, and below Akita' is joined by Wódy es-Sikkeh, which rises in the valley of Rephaim, close to Jerusalem, and passes Bittir. North of Khurbet 'Erma (one of the sites proposed for Kiriath-jearim) it becomes a * In the Scotch Liturgy ‘sore’ is changed into “grievously" in the ‘Communion’—‘whereas you offend God so sore in refusing this holy banquet.' t The 'AA- probably represents the last part of Náz&A. narrow gorge with precipices on its northern side, and, a little lower, it emerges from the hill-country of Judah and enters the Shephélah, or lowland. Here, in a fertile well-watered basin, it is joined by Wady Ghurab, which, after passing Kuryet el- "Enab (another, proposed site for Kiriath-jearim), runs in from the N.W., and by W&dy en-Najil, which comes from the south. On the northern slopes of the basin are Zorah and Eshtaol, and between them “the camp of Dan’ (Mahaneh-dan), the early home and burial-place of Samson (Jg 13” 16*). On the southern slope is Beth-shemesh ('Ain Shems), prettily situated above the rich cornfields, and commanding a fine view down the broad fertile valley which runs past the vineyards of Timnath, Makkedah, and J alºa to the Sea. The ‘valley of Sorek’ offers an easy and natural line of º to Jerus. and the highlands of Judah. The Philistines followed it in the days of the Judges and of David ; up it the kine, lowing as they went, dragged the cart with the ark to Beth-shemesh ; and, at the present day, it is followed by the railway from Jaffa to Jerusalem. In or near the basin, according to several authori- ties, were fought the battles in which the ark was taken by the Philistines, and in which the Philis- times were defeated by Samuel (1 S 7). In Hebrew the word sorek means a particular kind of vine, which produced a purple grape, and . “ the valley of Sorek’ may have derived its name from the growth of this vine in the vineyards that covered its slopes (PEI' Mem. iii. 53; G. A. Smith, HGHL 218 ft. ; Conder, Tent-Work, i. 172). C. W. WILSON. SOSIPATER (Xavaltratpos, Sosipater).—In Ro 16” called a kinsman of St. Paul, i.e. a Jew, and joined with him in greetings at the close of the Epistle. The name is the same as SOPATER (Ac 20°), and the two may be identical, as Jason, another of those mentioned in Ro 16”, may be identical with the JASON of Thessalonica (Ac 17°); two Mace- donian Christians might naturally be with St. Paul at Corinth. The name Sosipater occurs in the well-known inscription of Thessalonica (CIG ii. 1967) giving a list of Politarchs, as also does that of SECUNDUS (Ac 20°). I'or later traditions see Acta Sanctorum, June vol. v., June 25, p. 4. A. C. HEADLAM. SOSTHENES (X000évms). — A name occurring twice in the NT, but under circumstances which leave it doubtful whether it denotes one or two persons. 1. In Ac 1817, when the Jews at Corinth rose against St. Paul and brought him to the tribunal of Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia, and the latter, refusing to be a judge in questions of their law, dismissed them from his bar, we learn that “they all,’ i.e. the bystanders or assembled crowd, “laid hold on Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment- seat,’ without interference on the part of Gallio, who, in his indiflerence to Jewish disputes, gave himself no concern. In the best critical texts the word “all” (Trávres) stands without any defining noun, which has accordingly been supplied by the insertion, in some MSS, of an explanatory gloss, either ol 'Iovöalot, as though the assailants were the Jews, visiting the failure of their complaint on the head of their own leader, or oftener and more feasibly ol"EX\mves, the (predominantly) Greek on- lookers. Sosthenes, described as ‘ruler of the synagogue’ (which see), was doubtless the chief representative and mouthpiece of the complainants. He was probably the successor in office of Crispus, who had become a convert to Christianity (Ac 18°). The theory of Chrysoston, which identifies him with Crispus, and ascribes his maltreatment to his being a ğ. is wholly arbitrary; and hardly less so are the conjectures that he had been a 308 SOSTRATUS SPAIN colleague in ‘rule’ with Crispus (see ‘rulers’ in the plural, Ac 13”), or had presided over another Synagogue. 2. In 1 Co 11 Sosthenes stands alongside of St. Paul in the inscription of the Epistle. He is simply designated as ‘the brother,’ which would seem to ...}. that his person and Christian standing were well known to the readers of the letter. He has been often identified with the synagogal ruler of Ac 18, who is assumed to have become a convert in the interval ; but such an assumption is arbitrary, when the name was, confessedly, a common one; and St. Paul's associate was now at Ephesus, not at Corinth. Many have assumed him to be the apostle's amanuensis in the Epistle, to which he appends an autograph salutation (16”); but he must have been something more than a mere amanuensis to be thus honourably co-ordinated in the Superscription. Later tradition represented him as having been one of the seventy disciples, and as having become subsequently bishop of Colophon. WILLIAM P. DICKSON. SOSTRATUS (A >60 rparos, W X60 rparos).-The governor of the citadel (6 Tâs &kpotrºews & mapxos) at Jerusalem, who in vain demanded, on behalf of Antiochus Epiphanes, the money which Menelaus had promised to pay on being raised to the high priesthood in place of Jason, 2 Mac 4” (*): *. SOTAI ("pºp and '95).—The eponym of a family of ‘Solomon's servants,” who returned with Zerub- babel, Ezr 2" (B Xarel, A and Luc. Xarral)=Neh 787 (BA Xovrel, Luc. Xatal). SOUL is throughout a great part of the Bible simply the equivalent of ‘life’ embodied in living creatures. In the earlier usage of the OT it has no reference to the later philosophical meaning— the animating principle, still less to the idea of an “immaterial nature’ which will survive the body. ‘A living soul' in Genesis and other records is simply an ‘animated being,’ and the word is ap- W. equally to the lower animals and to man. When the life is emphasized as human, it signifies life in the individual. This meaning it takes especially when JEJ, puxi), is put in contrast with ſºn, true dua, ‘spirit,” which then comes to signify the principle of life. . In this way soul’ acquires more precisely the idea of the individual life in man, the Self, the Ego, although it may denote other aspects of man than the intellectual, and, in fact, is sometimes equivalent to “heart as well as to “mind ' (see analysis below). In the NT the emphasis on the personality becomes most §§ in such sayings of our Lord as Mt 16** *, K 899. The following is an analysis (abridged from Oaf, Heb. Lez.) of the usage of the Heb. terms for “soul’:— 1. tº nephesh, lit. ‘that which breathes,’ ‘the breathing substance or being' - Jºuzà, anima (opp. bāsār, “flesh ' | Dt 1223, Is 1018], or betem, ‘body’ [Ps 3110); its source of life is the mish math hayyim breathed into the nostrils of its búsūr by God (Gn 27), in virtue of which man (ib.) becomes a mephesh hayyah [this expression elsewhere always of animals, Gn 120. 24.30 912. 15, 10 (all P), Ezk 470; cf. nephesh hahayyah in Gn 121 910 (both P), Lv 1110, 40 (II)). The life of the nephesh resides in the blood (Gn.94%, Dt 12% 24, Lv 1710, 11.1% lº). Nephesh is used for life itself, 171 t., either (a) of animals Priz10, or (b) of man Gn 44%, Ex 2129, Lv 2417 et al.: hence cº, Tºm-' smite mortally' Gn 3721, Dt 100. 11, Jer 4014. In t: , nº “take away life" 1 K 104, Jon 48, Ps 3114, Pr 19t; nyºn Us: ºsſ, ‘deliver life from death' Jos 213, Ps 8310 5014 f ; "I bºp 1 S 1911, 2 s 100 quater, 1 K 112 bis, Jer 489 51%. 45, Ezk 330, Am 214, 15, Ps SO19 1164 f ; 'i n); ‘redeem life’ 2 S 40, 1 K 120, Ps 342, 4010 5519 712, t , ^: Tºy keep life’ Ps 2520 0710, Job 20, Pr 133 1617 1910 225 t. Nephegh, as the essential of man, stands for the mnan himself, and may thus paraphrase the personal pronouns, esp. in poetry and ornate discourse: e.g. "...F.- ‘me’ (Gn 490, Nu 2310, Jg 1630, La 3%), Tºj=“thee' (Is 43 51*), etc.; or it may represent the reflexive ‘self'; § “myself' (Job 921), ‘thyself' (Dt 49), ‘himself' (1 S 18l. 9 2017); or it stands for ‘person,’ ‘individuaſ' (cf. Eng. “souls,” esp. in enumerations or collective expres: sions), Lv 2417, Nu 3189, lºt 1021 247 ; , and is used even of deceased persons, with (Nu 09, Lv 2111), or (more usually) without (Nu 52 611 96, 7 1911, 18, Lv 1928 211 224, Hag 213), nº. Nephesh is largely used for the seat of the appetites: e.g. Hºyn’s ‘hungry soul’ Ps 1970, Pr 277; in Is 514 it is said that “Sheol enlarged her appetite' (Fù; J n"ITF); similarly it is the seat of emotions and passions: e.g. 'I nºs “soul desires' (Dt 1220,1420, 1 S 216, 2 S 321, 1 K 1137, Job 2318, Pr 134 2110, Mic 71); 'i Hºy: 'soul abhorreth’ (Lv. 26.10, 89.48, Jer 1419); ' 'n? “bitter of soul” (Jg 1823, 2 S 178, Job 320, Pr 310). When used with lebhābh, “heart” (in D), nephesh is assimilated in meaning to it, so as to include intellect and will as well as feeling (e.g. Dt 429 2010, 1 K 818, 2 R 2825). See HEART. 2. Tºº, tr. in AV of Job 30lb 'soul, means ‘nobility' (RVm), i.e. ‘honour’ (RV). S. Flºw, lit. ‘breath,' is once in EV (Is 5710) tr. “soul.” It is used in the same absolute way in Jos 1040 and PS 1500 (both nºvº”; “every breathing being'). The LXX and NT syv2% follows very closely the above usages of mephesh (see Cremer or Grimm, 8.1).). The development of a double expression for man's inner É. (Wvxi), Tvetua) gives throughout the whole Bible a usage which is often not much more than a vague parallelism, as, e.g., in Is 26", Lk 140. 47, Ph 12, §V. It undoubtedly, however, contains a hint everywhere of the antithesis be- tween the life-principle and the individual life. Where the two are set side by side, as in He 4”, the actual relation subsisting between the “soul” and its life - principle (“spirit”) is brought into view. While in the older º of the Gospels orópa and buxiff appear as the two constituent parts of human nature (Mt 10*), there is in the Pauline usage a threefoldness : Tô Tveijua the Divine life- principle, h \pux; the individual life in which the Trvedua is manifested, rö orépa the material organism vivified by the pux (1 Th 5*). Where the most distinct antitlesis occurs is in the use of the adjective psychic or soulish (Wuxukós). In the only places in § Wvxukös occurs in OT Breek (2 Mac 4° 14*) it means ‘hearty.' [In 4 Mac 1” something more purely psychological is meant, but this is hardly § Greek]. In the NT another interest comes in. In the six instances where puxukós occurs (not wholly Pauline), an altogether new antithesis is introduced. What is natural or human in the buxi is contrasted with what is Divine and divinely given in the trueðua 6eoû. So that puxukós has acquired a meaning almost equivalent to ‘carnal' or ‘sensual,”, b which latter word it is twice rendered in AV. But since the rvedua and truevparukós, with which it is contrasted, is the Divine spirit in regeneration, it seems fair to render Wuxukós “natural ’ as AV does in four of these places, and I&V m in the other two (see 1 Co 214 1544 bis, *, Ja 3", Jude 1"). Thus Christianity has enriched this word puxukós, adding to its psychological sense an ethical or even a theological significance. Additional NT instances of the use of Wuxi in composition are dyvya ‘soulless,” or ‘lifeless,’ 1 Co 147; a ſuyuxot ‘of one accord,’ Ph 2* ; la'ſ puxov ‘like-minded,” Ph. 2”; 6tyuxos ‘double-minded,’ Ja, 1848. See also art. PSYCHOLOGY. J. LAIDLAW. SOUTH.—See NEGI.B. SOW.—See SWINE. SOWER, SOWING.-See AGRICULTURE. SPAIN (Xtravla).-The S.W. peninsula of Europe was known to the Greeks as 'Eotrepta or 'Iſºmpta, the latter name being derived from the river "I/3mp (the modern Ebro). The Roman name was II isprºniſt. The information of the Greeks about the country was somewhat vague. Gibraltar was one of the 1°illars of Hercules, and Herodotus (iv. 8) speak* SPAN SPEAR 609 of Gades (I'áðelpa) as lying beyond these. Spain had been colonized in very early times by the Phoenicians. Strabo (I. iii. 2) refers to settlements beyond the Pillars of Hercules soon after the Trojan war. . The country first comes into the clear light of history in connexion with its con- quest by the Carthaginians, a Phoenician people, between B. c. 237 and 2is "in the second Pºinić war (B.C. 218-205) the Romans conquered that Nortion of Spain which had been subdued by 'arthage, and divided it into Hispania citerior and Hispania ulterior, the Ebro being the boundary between the two. The northern and western parts of the peninsula remained unsubdued, and the conquest of them proceeded only gradually. It was greatly advanced by the operations of Pompey and Caesar, and was finally completed under Augustus, who divided the country into three provinces, Baetica in the south, Tarraconensis in the north, and Lusitania (the modern Portugal) in the west. The first-named province was sena- torial, and the other two were imperial. The mineral wealth of Spain is greater and more varied than that of any other country in Europe. Copper, lead, and quicksilver are abundant, and silver and gold are also found. It was the mines of Spain which gave the country its chief value for its ancient colonists and conquerors. The river Batis (Guadalquivir), and also the surrounding country, liad the name Taptojoads, which was derived from that of the inhabitants (Thirti) (Herod. iv. 152; Strabo, III. ii. 11 ff.). With this locality the Jºhn of the Hebrews is generally identiſied (but see TARSHISH). The other Scripture references to Spain are few, and in all of them Xtravia, a form of the Roman name, takes the place of the older Greek ones. 1 Mac 8° refers to the Roman conquest, and to the acquisition of the gold and silver mines. On his third Missionary Journey the Apostle Paul formed the purpose of extending his evangelistic labours into the lands west of Greece. In writing to the Corinthians from Macedonia, he indicated lis intention of preaching the gospel in ‘the parts beyond them (2 Co 10”); and in writing a little later from Corinth to Rome he explained his pur- pose as specially including Italy, and Spain (Ro 1524. 28). Whether he ever carried out this inten- tion as regards Spain is a matter of much dispute, and the question is important only from its con- nexion with that of the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles. St. Paul certainly did not visit Spain before his first Roman imprisonment. On the hypothesis of his liberation and second imprisonment he may have done so at a later time. The Pastoral Epistles themselves only refer to his journeyings in the eastern #. of the Mediterranean; but if the fact of his liberation be admitted, credence may be given to the statement of Clement of Rome (1st Ep. i. 4), that the apostle, before his martyrdom, preached the gospel “to the extremity of the west’ (éti Tô Téppa rās 600 ews). Clement’s expression naturally suggests Spain, and the Muratorian Canon shows that the apostle's visit to Spain was an accepted tradition of the Church before the end of the 2nd cent. It says that Luke in the narrative of the Acts omits ‘profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spanian proficis- centis’ (see PAUL, vol. iii. p. 714*). See, further, Lightfoot, Clement, l.c., and 13iblical Essays, 423 ff., where the whole of the evidence is collected. JAMES l’ATRICK. SPAN.—See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. SPARROW (n\By zippór).—There is only one passage where the context makes it reasonably certain that the house sparrow is intended by zippór (I’s 844 [LXX arpov0iov], where AV and VOL. IV.-39 RV both tr. ‘ sparrow).” The ‘zippó, alone upon a housetop' (Ps 102” [LXX vuktuköpaſſ]) may also be this bird. It is true that this is one of the most gregarious of birds, and that it is usually seen in large flocks, flitting from branch to branch, and from the ground to the roofs of houses and stables. But it happens sometimes that a single bird erches alone on a branch or on the roof. The act of its generally sociable habits would make this the more phenomenal and illustrative of the loneliness of the psalmist. The attempt to identify it with the blue thrush Petrocossyphus cyanents, Boie, is strained. If it does not refer to a solitary house sparrow, it is probably intended to indicate any small solitary bird. In addition to the above two passages, IRV tr. zippór ‘sparrow,” in Pr26” [LXX &pveal, unhappily, for the sparrow never wanders. Elsewhere in the 40 or more passages where it occurs, both Eng. VSS render it by ‘ bird' or ‘fowl.” In some of these passages it is doubtless generic for small birds, corresponding to the Arab. 'ws fºr (Job 41" [LXX &pweov], l’s 11” [LXX arpov0lov], etc.). It is also used for such birds as are caught by fowlers (Pr 6° 7”, Am 3" [LXX in all three &pwgov]), which would exclude the house sparrow, as it is notoriously far too cunning to be so taken. The Arabs have a pro- verb, “the diſa'i (house sparrow) cannot be tºº, with bird-line,’ applying it to persons who are too shrewd to be entrapped by guile. Zippér is also used generically for birds, and even for birds of prey (Ezk 39", see Fowl). The meaning of the Heb. root to twitter or chirp, which caused its original application to the passerines, has been overlooked in this broader application. . The con- siderable number of LXX renderings shows this. The NT airpov6tov (Mt 10*, Lk 12%. 7) refers to the sparrow Passer domesticus, L., or two closely allied species, P. Italica, Vieill., the Italian sparrow, and P. hispaniolensis, Temm., the Spanish sparrow. The latter is found in great abundance in the Jordan Valley, where it breeds in Zizyphus bushes. The house sparrow is so familiar ſ. any allusion to its habits would be superfluous. G. E. POST. SPARTA.—See LACEDAEMONIANS. SPEAR.—The spear of antiquity was a near relation of the sword. The primitive knife might be fitted with a short handle and become a sword proper, or be mounted on a pole and become a spear ; hence possibly the doubt whether the popºbaia (see SWORD) was a sword or a spear. BRONZE spºAR-HEAD FROM TELL EL-III:SY (LACIIIsu). (By kind permission of the PEF). The spear-head was of flint or bronze (see the illustrations in Bliss, Montmol of many Cities, pp. 36, 37) or of iron (1 S 177; Bliss, pp. 106, 107). Egyptian spears (perhaps only for hunting, and fishing) have been found inade of wood throughout. Different kinds of spears were 3–1. The jayelin ("nº kidón): RV of Jos S** (AV spear'); l S 17. (AW “target,”); (AV ‘shield’); Jer 6” (EV ‘spear”) ; 50” (AV ‘lance’); Job 39* (AV ‘shield'); 41% (21) (RV the rushing of the javelin': A V the shaking of a spear’). This weapon was for casting. In the Heb. Sirach (46%) kidón preserves the refer: ence to Jos S*, which is lost in the Gr, boºbala (EV “sword'). v.lb 610 SPEARNIEN SPICE 3. The lance (mph rômah, cf. Arab, rumſ), perhaps a lighter weapon than the spear proper. In 1 K 18” rômah is trºl in AV ‘lancets’ (‘lancers’ in the º editions). See, further, Driver's note on 3. The spear (proper)—once a tr. of Tp kayin (2 S 2119, where H. |. Smith accepts the emendation vºp Köbha' , “helmet'); generally, however, the rendering of nºr hānith. This (heavy) spear was used probably in close array, when an army was drawn up shield touching shield, and with spears at the charge to repel a threatened attack. 1 rom this array champions advanced to issue their challenges (1 S 17**), and back to it upon occasion they retreated. In Ps 35*, * the Psalmist seems to think of himself as such a champion defeated and retiring. The hāmith was used by Saul (1 S 22%) as a ‘sceptre’ (by shëbhet, the shepherd's staff).” The cutting up of the spear (Ps 46") is a sign of the end of war. The two parts of the spear were the “staff” or butt (ſ'y 'éz “wood,’ 1 S 177 Kéré ; 2 S 21”; or ºn hēg “arrow' or ‘shaft,’ 1 S 177, Kéthibh) and the ‘head' (nº lahebheth or nº lahabh ‘flame,” Job 39°3). In NT ‘spear” represents \{yxm (Jn 19” [the only occurrence], Vulg. lancea). In Jn 1999 F. Field (Notes on the Translation of the NT, pp. 106–108) points out that Woo &ng trepióévres corresponds with the repuffels kaxáug of Mt. 27*; accordingly, re- viving an old conjecture, he suggests Voog rept- 6éures, ‘putting [a sponge] upon a spear’ (vaſoºs = pilwm) ; certainly ‘a sponge upon Thyssop' is a difficult phrase to explain. W. EMERY BARNES. SPEARMEN.—1. Incorrectly for njºkineh, ‘reeds,' in the phrase ngº nºn haſyath kāneh, “the company pf spearmen,” Ps 68” [67*] AV (similarly Pr. Blº.); RV ‘the wild beast of the reeds’ [LXX ro's 0mptots Too KaNduov], i.e. probably the crocodile or the Rippopotamus (cf. Jºb 40") as the symbol of Egypt. 2. lºor Šešuoxá8ovs (Ac 23* EV; Vulg. lamcearii), Inchmann, following cod. A and the Peshitta -a-d -ºº-s), reads here Öeštofféxovs, ‘right- handed slingers.' E. Egli (ZWTh xxvii. pp. 20, 21) proposes to take the word in a passive sense (öeštá- Xagos, sic proparoxytone, “rectá captus’), “left- handed slingers’ (cf. Jg 20%). See Blass, in loc. - W. EMERY 13 AIRNES. SPECKLED BIRD.—Jer 129 (only). If the MT of this passage (Thy nºw by: * 'hºrſ, gay by:1) is correct, the tr. can hardly be other than ‘Is mine heritage unto me (i.e. to my sorrow, a dativus ethicus [Cheyne, ad loc.]) (as) a speckled bird of prey 2 Are (the) birds of prey against her round about 2' (so, substantially, RV). The people of Israel is compared to a bird of prey, just as, on account of its hostility to Jehovah, it is compared in V.“ to a lion. But as a speckled (y,ay, cf. Jg 5”) bird attracts the hostile attention of other birds (Tac. Ann. vi. 28; Suet. Casar, 81; Pliny, II N x. 19), Israel becomes a prey to the heathen (so Cheyne, Reuss, et al.). Cornill (in SBOT) alters the text slightly, changing "; into '5 (originally proposed by Graf) and pointing the 7 of the second byn as the art. instead of the interrogative particle. This does not seriously affect the tr., which would now be ‘Is ny, heritage a speckled bird of prey, that the birds of prey are against her round about?’ It need scarcely be said that the rendering ‘mine heritage is unto me the ravenous hyama,” (see art. HYANA) cannot be obtained from the present text. It is a fair question, however, whether the MT is correct. The LXX has, 13 atrij)\atov Valvms (“hyaena's den,'? = way nigº), A at #Aatov \matów (‘robber's den'). Siegfried - Stade suggest gay nºn; ‘torn (prey) of the hyaena.” J. A. SELBI.E. "Cf. Pausanias, ix. 40. 11, where it is said that Agamemnon's ancestral orzºrapoy was also called 36pw. SPELT.-See RYl. SPICE, SPICES.—Three Heb. words are so translated in OT. 1. D'ºp Sammām. This is a generic word (perh, loan-word from Arabic) for odoriferous substances. It is used alone in Ex 30” (LXX #6%apara), and with nºb, Kötöreth = ‘incense’ in Ex 307 (a WV6eros) 40°7, Lv 47 16°, Nu 4” etc. (a Wv0eats = ‘composition ’). In the first passage, cited is a list of three of the substances included under this heading. Of these, two are known, galbanum, a gum resin, and onycha, the operculum of a Strombus : for the third see STACTE. 2. Dy; bisãm (Ca 5' RVm ‘balsam,’ LXX dpay- Mára), Diya bósem, Dy; besem, pl. Bºy? besòmim. A list of some of the aromatics included under this generic name is given in Ex 30” (LXX #600 para) myrrh, cinnamon, calamus, and cassia, and with two of them, cinnarrion and calamus, besen and bösem are construed as adjectives, to denote sweet- ness. Such are spoken of as a sign of wealth (2 K 2013, 2 Ch 32”), and were given as tokens of royal favour (1 K 10% etc.). They were objects of com- merce (Ezk 27*). Asa was laid in a bed of spices (2 Ch 1614 AV; RV “sweet odours”). Some have supposed that the expression and they made a very great burning for lim' indicates that Asa was cremated. As the Pºiº part of the verse says, however, that they buried him in the sepulchre, and laid him in a bed, of spices, the better explanation of the burning is that it was a bonſire in his honour. Such fires are favourite expressions of popular enthusiasm on feast days in Bible lands. Spices were stored in the temple (1 Ch 94), and used for the purifying of women (Est 21°, Ca. 419 etc.). “Mountains of spices’ (Ca, 8") may refer to the hillsides around Jerusalem, where were Solomon's Botanical Gardens, containing beds of spices (5* 6°). Besem and bāsem may have signified originally the same as their Arab. cognate bashám = the Balsam of Mecca tree, Bal: samodendron Opobalsamum, Kth., which is defined in the Arab. lexicons as “a certain kind of odor- iferous tree, of sweet taste, the leaves of which, ounded and mixed with henna, blacken the hair.’ This confines it to a single tree or group of trees (see BALM). But the analysis of the use of bàsent and besem given above, with the fact that a special word 26ri is used for Mecca Balsam, makes it evident that these two words are not to be taken in any such restricted sense, but to be understood generally of aromatics, which would be a better translation than that of our Eng. WSS ‘spices.’ 3. nnn, mékó'th. This was a substance or sub- stances carried by the Ishmaelite traders from Gilead to Egypt (Gn 37*), and of which, Jacob sent some as a present to Joseph (43"). It is asso- ciated in both passages with balm and latlanum (see artt. On º words), and, in the latter, with honey, pistachio nuts, and almonds, which were products of Gilead proper. Some have sup: posed mäkó'th to be the same as the Arab, wrika'ath or maka'ath. This is delined as a plant similar to the turthith. The latter is defined by Avicenna as—“Pieces of rotten wood, with an astringent taste . . . it is said that they are brought from the desert. Its medicinal properties are astringent’ (ii. 183). The plant is defined in the dictionaries as “a slender, oblong plant, inclining to redness, serving as a stomachic, included among medicines ... a plant of the sands, similar to a fungus . . . having no leaves.’ This corresponds, with con- siderable accuracy, to the characteristics of Cyno- morium coccineum, L., a parasitic, leathery plant, of the order Balamophoraceae, with a crimson, club-shaped spadix, 3–4 in. long, and # im. to 1 in. thick, borne on a cylindrical stalk. It grows in SPIDER SPIRIT '61) *— sand on the coast, and in the salt marshes of the interior. We have been unable to find in the Arab. dictionaries sufficient authority for the tr. ‘gum tragacanth’ (IRV m Gn 37*) for maka'ath and maka'ath. Moreover, the tragacanth bears no resemblance to the above description of the turthith. . It has also a special name kethird, which is defined as ‘a liquid exuding from a tree in the mountains of Beirãt and Lebanon.” This is undoubtedly the gum tragacanth, which exudes from a number of the mountain species of Astra:- galus, in Syria and other parts of the Orient as 4. gwin mifer, Lab., A. echinus, DC, etc. The genus Astragalus is represented by over 120 species in Palestine and Syria. We are inclined to reject the idea of any connexion between maka'ath, naka'ath, and mékó'th. If by the former two were meant the Cymomorium coccinewºm, it would not have been an article of commerce important in the Egyptian trade. Could it be proved, which we believe impossible, that they meant tragacanth, the same remark would apply. The quantity exuded from all the Astragali of Lebanon and Hermon would not load a dozen camels. We have no reason to believe that it was ever more abundant. We incline, on the authority of the LXX in both the above passages (6 vulapa), to render the word nékó’th ‘perfumes’ or ‘aromatics,” which better expresses the Gr. than ‘spices,’ and corresponds to the grouping of articles enumer- ated. See, further, Oaf, . Heb. Lea. s.v., and Literature there cited. * As to n2, nékóth (2 K 20°=Is 39%), the meaning is uncertain, although the context demands some- thing like ‘treasure.’ I’ossibly the word is of Assyr. origin (see Oaf, Iſeb. Lea. s.v.): read then l'nïy. Spices (äpdºgata) are mentioned in NT in con- nexion with the burial of our Lord (“Mk' 16", Llº 23" 24, Jr. 10"). In Rev. 18” AV tr. daouoy by ‘odours,” RV ‘spice,’ m. ‘Gr. amonvum.’ G. E. POST. SPIDER.—Two words are tra ‘spider’ in AV. 1. wºn; 'akkābāsh (Arab. 'ankabūt), &páxvm, aramca. In both the passages in which this word occurs (Job 814, Is 59" ") the allusion is to the gossamer web of the spider, as an emblem of frailty and speedy destruction, Bildad declaring that the hope of the wicked is as the spider's web (m. ‘house”; cf. beit ‘ankabūt in Arab.), and Isaiah saying that the tenuous web cannot be wrought into a garment. The number of species of spiders in Palestine and Syria is very large. 2. nºnply semāmith (Pr 30”). This word, from an obsolete root Dply Sämam, “to poison,’ refers to some noxious, reputedly poisonous creature, which is probably some species of lizard (so RV ; see, further, Toy, Proverbs, ad loc.). The LXX KaNa- Bórns signifies a newt, gecko, or spotted lizard. The latter may be the abw burcis of the Arabs, Stellio in the Vulg. signifies the newt or gecko. Several species of lizards frequent houses, as the gecko, wº lizard, green lizard, etc. See CIIAMEL- G. E. POST. SPIKENARD (Tu nãrd, vápôos, nardus). — A fragrant, essential oil, from Nardostachys Jata- onamsi, IDC, a plant of the order Valerianaceae, growing in India. The shaggy stems, branching from their base, resemble the tail of an ermine. The perfume is procured from this part of the plant. It is called by the Arabs Sunbul Hindi, the Indian Spike. It is mentioned 3 times in the OT (Ca, 11° 418 ſpl. méréidim]"), and once in the NT (Mk 148 || Jn 12"), where it is called vápôos triarukº). The root meaning of pistic is fluid. A Vn gives ‘pure’ or “liquid nard,’ and IRV m “genuine' or “liquid nard,” or considers that pistic may be ICON, GECKO, LIZAltD. *—t— a ‘local name.” As the perfume is an oil, the etymological signification is eminently appropriate, and should be retained. The Romans used it in this state for anointing the head. It was exceed- ingly valuable (Jn l.c.), that used to anoint Jesus’ feet being worth about £12. Pliny gives 100 denarii as the value of a pound of it. That used for our Saviour must have been of a very superior grade. The tests of genuineness given by T’lin are lightness, red colour, sweet smell, taste which leaves a dry sensation but pleasant flavour in the mouth (IIN xii. 26). G. E. POST. SPINNING.—The notices of spinning in the Bible are very meagre, being found only in Ex 35**P (nº ‘spin,' and Tºpp ‘yarn’) and Mt. 6*, Lk 12*7 (vá0euv); but the art is implied in many other passages, such as where the curtains and hangings of the taber- nacle are mentioned; and the various garments, the materials for which must have been spun. The description of the virtuous woman in Pr3110-91 includes it as one of her chief accomplishments (vy.””); and the Heb., women were certainly skilled in working the spindle, as is evident from the articles which, acc. to P, they prepared for the tabernacle (Ex 35*). They used a hand-spindle, such as was in use in Egypt, and such as the women of Syria, and Palestine still employ. This consisted of a whorl or hemispherical disc of wood, amber, or other material, for steadying the motion of the pin which passed through the centre (Wilkin- son, Anc. Egyp. i. 317, ed. 1878). The Egyp. spindle was over a foot long (ib. ii. 171, 172), and, i. generally of wood, was also made of rushes and palm-leaves. The distaff was no doubt em- ployed, but the word so tr' in Pr 31” means more roperly the whorl, or the spindle itself. (See ISTAFF). - In Egypt men as well as women engaged in spinning, ºt among the Hebrews women only are mentioned in this connexion. The materials they used were wool and flax (Pr 31*), goats’ hair (Ex 35*), and possibly cotton, which was known in Egypt W. ii. 159). Even silk may have been used (cf. Ezk 1619, 18 and Pr 31*), as Kenrick (Phoem. p. 246) says that raw silk was brought to Berytus and Tyre by the Persian merchants, but it was too rare to have been much employed. Raw silk is spun quite extensively at present by the Syrian women, and they use the spindle to fill up leisure hours much as Western women do the knitting-needle. H. PORTER. SPIRIT.-Besides its use for the Supreme Spirit, —the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, etc., this word is occasionally used for the extreme opposite, as Tvetipa 6atuovlov dika0áptov (Lk 4*). Then there is its secondary use for an influence, or power, as ‘spirit of error’ (1 Jn 4"), ‘spirit of the world’ (Eph 2°), ‘of bondage’ and ‘of sonship ’ (Ro 8”), etc., yet often with a refer- ence to the spiritual personality controlling these influences. But the main use of it is psychological, where it is immensely indebted to the Bible and to Christianity. Indeed it may be said to be an expression created by Christianity. Two Hob. terms are tr. in EV ‘spirit.’ 1. Thºn, lit. “wind' (so often in OT); used of the breath of life (rùah hayyim) which animates God's creatures, Gn 617 715 (both l’; cf. mish- math hayyim in 27 (J); the medium of consciousness, 1 S 3012, Jg 1510, Job 018; the seat of emotions, 1 K 215, Is 662, Pr 1513, lºzk 814, Jos 211 (courage; and so 51, Pr 1814, Is 5718); and of intelligence and will, Ezk 2042, Pr 16** 212 2419, 1)t 280, Job 208; of an inexplicable or uncontrollable impulse, Nu 514, 30, 1s 19 286 2010 377, Hos 412 54. When used with reference to God, rival. is used of the brooding (nºn-in) and creative activity of Ilis spirit (Gn 12, Ps 10430), which imparts itself to men with the result of capacitating then, for the performance of extraordinary deeds, Jg 694 (Gideon) 146, 19 (Samson), and is specially noted as fitting the 612 SPIRIT SPY prophets for their work, Is 481. Boºl, Hos 97 (the prophet is the man of the º Ezk 371 (and often). See, more fully, vol. ii. p. 402 f.; and add Schultz, ii. 242 f. (249 on distinction of mºn and wel); Wendt, Notiones carmis et spiritus quomodo in VT adhileantwr; Briggs, “The uses of mn in OT” in JBL, 1901, p. 133 ff. (synopsis of passages arranged and translated). 2. Flºy, is twice in EV (Job 264, Pr 2097) tr. ‘spirit.’ Its lit. meaning is “breath.’ See, also, under SouL. The LXX and NT rvsöpco, follows the usage of rºah. In the two, passages (Mt 1428, Mk 69) where ºrwego, occurs, the AV tr. ‘spirit’ is replaced in RV by ‘apparition.” So far as it depends on physiological suggestion, in all the languages ‘spirit’ is the same, the inhaling of the “breath,’ and so “wind,” and more remotely ‘life,’ and so is closely allied to “soul (Wvxã), which depends upon a similar physiological derivation. In one respect the two words soul and spirit differ widely. Tveijua is far less than Wuxi con- nected with the life of man in the Greek classics. trueñua is never used in classical psychology for one of the elements of man's inner life, whereas puxh is invariably so used. Indeed it is one of, the chief distinctions of biblical from all other psychology to give Trvedua the supreme place as an element in the life of man. Only in the LXX and in the NT has rvedua the sense of a spiritual being, or refers to man in his higher inward aspects. Thus it is a good example of the language-building and enriching power of the Bible religion. The suggestion depends mainly upon two biblical ideas, viz. the attribution of spirit in man to Divine gift or creation (Ec 12"), and the parallel or analogy between ‘spirit' in man, and the Divine Spirit (1 Co 211, Ro 81%). Sufficient attention has already been called to the frequent and intimate association of the two terms ‘Soul’ and ‘Spirit' (see art. SouL) occurring so often in the Bil. as nearly parallel psycho- logical expressions ; yet each implying all through the characteristic distinction: º the individual and personal life; ‘spirit,’ the principle of life. There is another antithesis, more peculiarly Pauline, of the “spirit over against the ‘flesh.” The more obvious antithesis of “body’ and ‘spirit” ('a 2*) is upon purely natural ground. But the Pauline is a moral distinction, and belongs to specially Christian doctrine. It occurs chiefly in those passages where St. Paul is describing the conflict of the old nature, or the ‘old man' as he calls it, with the new nature or the new man. Human nature, as it comes to any one through the ordpš, manifests itself in the orépê, is determined by it, and called after it, comes to stand in contrast with ‘spirit” (Trveſ ua), the Divine nature, or the divinely originated and sustained new nature. Thus ordp; came at length, in distinct and pre- supposed antitlesis to trvetua, to signify the sinful condition of human nature, and in such a manner that this same a âp$ mediates or eflectuates that sinful condition—the orépé àpaprias, ‘the flesh deter- mined by sin ' (Ro 8”). In this antithesis there is progress or intensiſication in the meaning of Trveſ pla as well as of orépš. The trueūua in man, which is the element originally created by God, and which ought to rule or govern his whole nature, is used by St. Paul for the new nature divinely originated in the Christian, so that a direct antithesis is brought out between “flesh ’ and ‘spirit,’ and everything rvevuaruków, spiritual, is a Divine pro- duct or creation, according to that new nature. This use of Trveupwaruków for everything determined or influenced by the Divine rveſ ua extends beyond St. Paul's writings, and is quite general in the Epistles of the NT. There is the ‘spiritual house’ (oikos rvey- wartkós, 1 P 2") because “built up of living stones’; ‘spiritual sacrifices,’ i.e. offerings fixed or determined by the Spirit (ib.); ‘spiritual understanding' (Col 1"); ‘spiritual songs’ (46al truguparukat, Col 31%); ‘spiritual food, drink, rock’ (8pópa, Trópia, rérpa, "T –º 1 Co 109.4). In two sets of passages St. Paul con- trasts it with puxuków (1 Co 2* lä" "). There is one curious exception from this Pauline use of it for divine, viz. Eph 6” rô Tvevuaruká Třis trovmplas = ‘wicked spirits,” or something equivalent. There is another antithesis in which St. Paul places it as contrasted with voús or gºverts, where the intention plainly is to contrast the action of the ‘understanding’ in man with that of spiritual or ecstatic impulse even in a Christian (1 Co 14**). It is also once or twice opposed to Ypáppa, where inwardness or reality is }. thing to be brought out (Ro 220 79, 2 Co 3"). There are two things mainly noticeable and dis- tinctive in this biblical use of ‘spirit.” The first is the habit of biblical writers to explain the ‘spirit’ in the natural man as the product or creation directly of God, and as accounted for only by the direct contact of man with the Almighty in his origin. This is peculiarly prevalent in the OT (Gn 27, Is 42%). Then there is the assertion of a parallelism and communication between the self- conscious, inner life of man—his spirit—with the Spirit of God (1 Co 211, 1%, Ro 81-7, Philem *). . is a foundation laid in this way for the whole spiritual life of man, and especially for the renewed and redeemed life of which, according to Christianity, he is made a partaker. See also art. Holy SPIRIT : for “unclean (or evil) spirit” cf. art. DEMON, vol. i. p. 593; for ‘familiar spirit’ art. SorceRY, p. 606; for ‘spirits in prison’ see vol. iii. p. 795. J. LAIDLAW. SPITE. – Like T) ESPITE (which see), ‘spite ’ means in AV ‘injury’ (rather out of contempt than malice). It occurs only PS 10* “Thou be- holdest mischief and spite’ (DV2, properly ‘vexa- tion’). Cf. Child’s Ballads, v. 299– * Day and º he'll work my Spight, And hanged I shall be.’ The adv. ‘spitefully’ is used in the same sense; the phrase is ‘entreat spitefully,” Mt. 22", Lk 18” (93ptºw, RV ‘entreat shamefully ’). tº J. HASTINGS. SPONGE (AW spunge, oróyºyos, spongia). —The medium by which vinegar or sour wine was carried to the mouth of Jesus on the cross (Mt. 27*, Mk 1590, Jn 1929). This well-known substance is a porous, fibrous framework, º of a material called keratode, invested by a fleshy covering and lining of amoeboid bodies. Sponges grow only in sea water, near the coast, and mostly in the warmer seas of the globe, although some kinds are found even in the polar regions. Sponge fishing is a considerable industry along the coasts of Syria, Asia Minor, and the AEgean Sea. The divers go out in row-boats or sail-boats, a short distance from the shore; they then strip, and holding in their hands, high above their heads, a heavy stone attached to a rope, ſill their chests with air, and then plunge, stone downmost, and so rapidly reach the bottom. They often dive to a depth of 60 ft. or more. They then walk or creep quickly along the bottom, holding the stone to steady themselves, and tear the sponges of the stones to which they are attached, and put them into a netted bag hung around their neck. When they are exhausted they jerk the rope, and their companions quickly haul them to the surface. I'ew can stay under water more than 60 seconds, none as long as 100. Their º usually develops emphysema, and other diseases of the lungs, from which they are apt to die early. G. E. POST. SPRING.—See Fount'AIN, vol. ii. p. 62. SPY. —See ESPY, vol. i. p. 767. STAC HYS STEPHEN 613 STACHYS (Xráxus).-The name of a Christian greeted by St. Paul in Ro 16°, and described as “my beloved.” The name is rare, but found among members of the Imperial household (CIL vi. 8607). He is commemorated Oct. 31, and later legends will be found in Acta Sanct., Oct., vol. xiii. p. 687. A. C. HEADLAM. STAGTE (nº mátāph).-The Heb. word occurs twice : Ex 30” (cf. Sir 24”), LXX crakrä, Vulg. stagte, RV m opobalsamum ; Job 36” (LXX grayóves, Vulg, stillas, both of which signify “drops,’ and refer to water). The Heb. Tº mátaph (= Arab. nataf) signifies to drop or distil. As the exuda- tion of all guns is in drops, the etymology does not help us. But it is evident from the context in Exodus that a fragrant gum is intended. Many identify the arakti; here mentioned with the gum from the libneh (= storaac, see POPLAR). But a Taktú means primarily myrrh.. Myrrh, how- ever, is mentioned by its proper name no mór (v.”), coupled with minº dérô", W. AV tr. ‘pure,” and RV “ſlowing.” The LXX tr. this expression by ăv6os apºpums ék\ektās; Vulg. prima myrrhae et electae. Dioscorides describes two kinds of stacte, one of which is pure myrrh, and the other made from storax and fat. It is unlikely that any such inferior compound as the latter would be used in making the sacred incense. It is most likely then that matāph, and its LXX and Vulg. equiva- lent stacte, refer to myrrh in drops or tears, which is the purest form. G. E. POST. STAFF.—See ROD and SCEPTRE. STAGGER.—In Ro 4” “stagger’ has the mean- ing of ‘stumble,” and so literally “waver’ (as RW), ‘He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief’ (ot, 6tekpt0m). Tindale uses the stronger form of the same word, “He stackered not '; Rhem. is the first to use “stagger.’ The word is of Icel. origin, stra/cra, freq. of staka, to push. Cf. Mt. 21” Ithem. ‘A men, I say to you, if you shal haue faith, and stagger not, not only that of the figtree shal you doe.’ J. HASTINGS. STALLION (ºrros els 6xelav, only in Sir 33°).- Most of the horses used for riding and driving, and many of those employed as pack animals, in the East, are entire. Geldings are made only of the iliférior breeds. STANDARD.—See BANNER and POLE. STAR.—The Bible treats the stars as the noblest work of the Creator (Ps 8° 19", Job 25", Wis 7°), insisting on their brightness (Dn 12°), their height above the earth (Is 14”, Ob “, Job 22°), and especially their number (Gn 15° 22' 26", Ex 32°, I)t 110 1022 28%, Jer 33°, Neh 929, He 1118 etc.). They are sometimes poetically represented as living beings (“sang together,’ Job 38" ; ‘fought against Sisera,’ Jg 5*), and the darkening of the stars is treated as a sign of coming distress (Jl 2" 3", Am 89, Is 1310 34, Ezk 327, 8, Mt 24”, Mk 13", Lk 21”, Itev pass.). Iłut they were created by God (Gn 114, A. 58, Ps 741° 1367, Job 97, Sir 43") to give light (Gn 11", Jer 31*); He gave them their paths according to ſixed laws (Jer, 33*, Job 38”), and they are subject to Him (Job 97, Is 45*, Ps 147", Bar 3*, Ep. Jer"), who calls them by their names (Is 40%). It follows that star-worship is rigorously forbidden (Dt 41° 17* *); though introduced by Manassell (2 K 21”, cf. 23* * *; Am 5” does not necessarily imply its existence at an earlier date, cf. I) river in Smith, D13, art. ‘Amos'), and several times mentioned at a later date (Zeph 1", Jer 7” 19” 447, Wis 13°), it is always spoken of with reproba- tion (cf. also 2 K 17", Jer 44*). On the sources of this star-worship among the Jews see W. Lotz in Herzog, RE” xiv. 694. For the stars known to the Israelites and for astrological views see ASTRo- NOMY AND ASTROLOGY; for the star of the Magi See MAGI. P. V. M. BENECKE. STATER.—See Money, vol. iii. p. 4289. STEALING.-See, CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTs, vol. i. p. 522°, s. ‘Theft,’ and MAN-STEALING. STEEL is a form of iron intermediate in com- position between cast iron and wrought iron, and conbining the most useful properties of both (see IRON). The word occurs thrice in AV for nºn; (2 S 22*, Job 20°, Ps 18%), and once for nyn; (Jer 15”). In these cases the reference is not to steel but to brass (so IRV) or bronze (see BRASS). ‘Steel' appears in RV only in Nah 2", where it is the translation of nºt?? (AW “torches’). The word Tº occurs nowhere else, but its Arabic and Syriac cognates have the meaning of steel, or iron of fine quality. The ‘fire' or ‘flashing’ of steel in this passage may be understood either of the appear- ance of the metal-plated chariots themselves or of the glitter of the “scythes’ attached to their wheels. Against this latter supposition is the fact that such scythes are never represented on Assyrian chariots, but appear to have been introduced for the first time by the Persians (see CHARIOT). JAMES PATRICK. STEPHANAS (Xreqavās, Stephanas; the name occurs CIG ii. 3378). —A Christian of Corinth, 1 Co 1* 1619. 17. St. Paul mentions the household of Stephanas as one of the few exceptions to the ractice which he had followed of not personally lºg his converts. At the end of the Epistle the same household are spoken of as the first-fruits of Achaia. They are said to have given them- selves to the ministry of the saints, and the Cor- inthians are exhorted to obey such persons and all who work and labour with them. From the next verse we gather that Stephanas himself was with St. Paul at Ephesus at the time when the Epistle was written. In Clement of Rome's Epistle, ch. xlii., we are told that the apostles, preaching from city to city and country to country, appointed their first-fruits, having tested them by the spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those that should believe (ka0tgravov rás drapxás attáv . . . els étuoſkötrous kal 6takóvous Túv ple}\\övtwv tria Teiſelv, Clem. Itom. i. 42). It would be beside our purpose to discuss the exact meaning of this passage, but it may reasonably be held that Stephanas, and perhaps some members of his household, had been appointed to a position in the nascent church at Corinth, which implied on the one side ministry (Övakovla), on the ...}. side some recognition of their authority. If this was not a local ministry, in the later sense of the term, there were here the germs out of which it grew. A. C. HEADI.AM. STEPHEN (Xréqavos), Ac 6–8°.—Some dissatis. faction having been expressed by the Grecian Jews or Hellenists in the infant Church at Jeru- salem regarding the distribution of alms among their widows, seven brethren were chosen, and solemnly set apart by the apostles, to undertake the adulinistration of the poor-table. Of the seven (see DEACON), Stephen is the first named (Ac G"), and the most distinguished, though in a sphere, strictly speaking, beyond his office, viz., as a preacher and a worker of miracles--characteristi. cally apostolic functions. ... Nothing is known of his conversion to Christianity, though Epiphanius (Har. xx. 4) records that he was one of the Seventy. It is not certain that he was a IIellenist, though his Greek name, the fact that a committee 614 STEPHEN STEPHEN largely Hellenistic would probably be chosen to deal with the grievances of the party, and to some extent his opinions, make the supposition very probable. His character and abilities as given in Aç 6 are of the highest : “a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit’ (y.", cf. 7”), “full of grace (AV faith) and power’ (v. 8), ‘the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spake’ (v.”); cf. also the qualitica- tions necessary for the office (v.”), and St. Paul's words, “Stephen thy witness’ (22*). Stephen seems to have aroused the hostile notice of the Hellenistic synagogues (see below) by the wonders and signs which he wrought among the people (6°), but probably also by the substance and manner of his preaching; in any case they challenged him to disputation. But his skill in maintaining his opinions was so irresistible, that his adversaries, discomfited in argument, raised the charge of blasphemy, procured witnesses to testify to it, and thus succeeded in having him arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin. Here he was formally accused of speaking blasphemous words against the Temple and the Law, }. said, as the false witnesses maintained, that Jesus of Nazareth would destroy ‘this place,’ and change the customs delivered by Moses. Stephen was unperturbed by these accusations; his face appeared to those present “as the face of an angel’ (G”). Being asked by the high priest to answer to the charges, Stephen made a long speech, traversing the greater piv. ºf the listory of the chosen people, from the call of Abraham, through Joseph and Moses, to IDavid, and the building of the Temple by Solomon. Towards the close he fearlessly turned to his judges, rebuked them as “stiffnecked and un- circumcised in heart and ears,’ and as those who, carrying on the unholy work of the persecutors of the prophets, had become the betrayers and murderers of Him whom the prophets had foretold (7”). These words were the occasion of a furious outburst of wrath on the part of the assembly; and when Stephen, undismayed, looked upwards, and declared that he saw the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God, the exasperated hearers violently rushed upon him, dragged him forth by one of the gates of the city, and stoned him to death. . The witnesses (who according to Dt 177 had to take the lead in casting the stones) placed their garments in the keeping of a young man named Saul (cf. 22”)— the first historical mention of a great name. Among the last words of Stephen were, ‘Lord Jesus, receive Iny spirit,’ and ‘Lord, lay not this sºn to their charge,’ which are very similar to two of our Lord’s sayings on the cross, Lk 23%. 8%. In fact, the bearing of Stephen throughout — his courage, his calm, his patience, his gentleness-— accords remarkably with the demeanour of his Master in like circumstances. The mutilated body was reverently interred by ‘devout men' (709–82). The vividness of the narrative hardly leaves room for the supposition that the stoning of Stephen was a legal execution, i.e. one carried out with the sanction of the Itoman authorities, or, indeed, that it was other than a murder. But the Sanhe. drin may have been able to represent the whole incident as a mere tumultuous outbreak, for which they could not officially be called to account. A few other minor points require notice: (1) As to the number of synagogues implied in 69, whether five, or three, or two, or only one (each number has had its advocate among expositors), the Greek seems to support the view of Wendt, viz. that two synagogues are meant : (a) of the Libertines (Cyrenians and Alexandrians), arid (b) of those from Asia and Cilicia. See L!!!ERTISES ; Sanday, 194908itor, viii. p. 327 (third series); also Winer-Moulton, Granumar, p. 160 note, (2) The date of the martyrdom of Stephen can be determined only approximately : Bengel gives A. p. 30, Ewald A. D. 38, and every intervening year has had its supporter. Acts seems to place the event shortly bºfore St. Paul's conversion ; certainly nearer to that event than to the terminus a quo, the Crucifixion (say 29–30). Recent chronologists have Somewhat narrowed the termini of St. Paul's gonversion : von Soden 31–35, Harnack 30, , Ramsay 33; see 'XIIItoNoLogy of NT, vºl. i. p. 424 (C) and Table. (3) Who are —-d the persons, covered by the term ‘devout men,’ &ºp1; ºx36tle (89)? Hardly proselytes (Reman, Apostles, viii.) of either class as St. Luke regularly uses reorđavroſ and pogoſºvo; (or rigº Töv (sév for proselytes of the higher and the lower rank respec: tively, and elsewhere applies stagésis to Jews (Llr 220, Ac 252212 RW). It is also unlikely that they were Christians, else we should have expected the designation to be Awoºth, roºf or &34xpoſ. Most probably they were Jews who took a sympathetic interest in the fortunes of the Church, and who may have known and respected Stephen. Cf. Joseph of Arimathroa and Nicodemus (Jn 1938. 39), and see IKnowling in Ea:positor's Greek Testa- Tnent, ii., ad loc. (4) Traditions about Stephen. According to an early tradition, the scene of the martyrdom was the open ground outside the Damascus Gate on the north ; but about the 15th cent, this gave place to the popular belief that it was on the east, where, accordingly, St, Stephen's Gate is now located (see Conybeare and Howson, St. Paul, small ed., p. 61). Another legend relates that, through the friendliness of Gamaliel, the body of Stephen was buried at Kafr Gamala, a day's journey from Jerusalem, all the apostles being present. This story brobably originated after the so-called “Invention and Trans- ation of the Relics of St. Stephen,' the chief details of which are that in the year 415 Gamaliel appeared in vision to Lucian, parish priest of Kafr Gamala, and indicated the resting-place of the remains of Stephen, which were then disinterred, carried to Jerusalem, and buried in the church of Mount Zion ; it was also said that the exhumation disclosed, a tablet bearing the Aramaic name of Stephen, Kelil (Syr, kelila, ‘crown'- orvégocyc;). The Speech of †. historical narrative given by Stephen shows a considerable number of divergences from the OT account ; e.g. according to Ac 7** Abraham receives his call before his migration to Haran, in Gn 12" while in Haran ; the giving of the Law is connected with angels in Ac 7”, while Ex 19 has no mention of angels. * Remphan’ in 7” shows that Stephen was quoting from the LXX ; the Hebrew has “Chiun” (Am 5*); see C.IIUN. A full list of these variations is given by Farrar, St. Patºul, small ed. p. 92 note. The authenticity of the speech has been much canvassed ; e.g. Weizsäcker (and he is representa- tive of many more) regards the speech as a ‘doctrinal exposition,’ i.e. a later composition ; but See ACTS, vol. i. p. 33 f. There has been an almost equal diversity of opinion regarding the purpose of the address. Now, this very diversity seems a remarkably convincing proof of its substantial historicity; a mere fabricator would surely have taken care to leave his readers in little doubt as to his ‘tendency.’ Was the speech completed ? Was it intended as an answer to the charges made by the false witnesses? Or was it meant, as a vindication, in whole or in part, of the opinions by which Stephen had originally provoked opposi- tion ? As to the first of these questions, it may be said that the speech has all the appearance of being complete ; the fact that Stephen did not proceed to recount the nation's story beyond the building of Solomon’s temple is sufficiently ex- plained if we remember that the legal and institu- tional status quo was traditionally held to have been but little altered subsequent to that event. As to the second, it is certainly difficult to main- tain that the address is a counter-plea to the very deſinite charges of 6* *. It remains, then, to seek an answer to the question whether the speech was, so to speak, a plea of veritas, i.e. a re-declara- tion of what Stephen had said against the Temple and the Law. If we answer affirmatively, the climax will be found in v.v.”, where it seems to be suggested that the building of the Temple was an act contrary to God's will, a continuation of the contumacy that had fashioned the golden calf, and taken up the tabernacle of Molech (yv,” º); while, if we answer negatively, the cssential point will lie in vv."-", where Stephen declares that (not he and his brethren, but) his hearers and judges were the real violators of God’s commands. The former view is usually adopted by those who regard Stephen as the first to discern that the º could not be conſined within the bonds of Judaism, as, in fact, the forerunner of St. Paul. But it should be observed that if Stephen had spoken (as the false witnesses said) against the STEPHEN STOCKS 615 Temple, and had affirmed that Jesus would change the customs of Moses, his adversaries would have been his own Christian brethren, whereas he was held in the highest repute by them. Further, such words as ‘the Most High dwelleth not in i. made with hands’ can hardly be taken as implying any disparagement of the Temple, since similar language was used by Solomon himself (i Kºsº, 2 öhöß). finally, stephen speaks of the Ilaw in terms of the highest respect (7°.”); and his references to the call of Abraham in Meso- Y'amia (v.”), to the Divine favour vouchsafed to ºoseph and Moses in Egypt, and to the subsequent fº accorded to the latter in Midian (v.”), while they might be interpreted as signifying that the Divine purpose and blessing were not limited to the Holy Land, are rather to be under- stood in the light of the fact that Stephen repre- sents Canaan as the destination of the Chosen People from the first ; the patriarchs are buried there (v.”) as in a country really their own ; and the sojourn in Egypt (still more the deportation to Babylon) is plainly regarded as a misfortune. On the other hand, if Stephen was at one with his opponents (as with his brethren) in their high appreciation of the Holy Land, the Law, and the Temple, how could the charge of blasphemy arise 2 The witnesses might be false, but there must have been some colourable reason for an accusation so definite. But it seems a quite satisfactory answer to this to say that Stephen had attacked the traditional Law (as did Jesus Himself, Mt 15**= Mk 71*), which was freely held to have authority equal with the Mosaic, and that he may have urged, in the manner of Isaiah, that “temple- treading’ and external observances did not ensure acceptance with God. . It is quite conceivable that such teaching would be misunderstood, and even misrepresented as blasphemy against ‘the law and this holy place,” or even against God (6”). On this view, then, the speech was not so much the advancing of a new theological position against an older; its purpose was rather ethical and personal. God had vouchsafed great privileges to the nation, – the land, an ordained leader (Moses), the Law, the Talernacle, and the Temple, but they had been rendered of none effect by the people's con- tumacy and disobedience. Doubtless, as Spitta makes out, there is an unmistakable intention to draw or suggest a parallel between Moses and Jesus, ‘the prophet whom the Lord will raise up unto you . . . . like unto me’ (7”), and the treat- ment accorded to each ; but this is meant to give point to the general theme of the ". viz. that the members of the council, and all in league with them, had proved themselves to be only too truly the children of ungrateful, and unworthy forefathers. It is thus questionable how far we are entitled to speak of Stephen as the forerunner of St. Paul. I’ven if we accept Spitta's view that the erection of the Temple is represented by Stephen as an unauthorized and presumptuous act, this is something very different from St. Paul's conception of the national institutions as having had validity for their own time. Certainly Stephen never asserts the secondary and provisional char: acter of the Law, nor does he suggest the call of the Gentiles—two of St. Paul’s most characteristic tenets. In short, Stephen seems to regard Chris- tianity (as did the apostles generally) as the con- tinuation and development of the Divine purpose in the history of Israel; St. Paul sees in it the begin- ning of a new order of things—another dispensation. LITERATURD,-Farrar, St. Paul, ch. viii.; Conybeare and IIow- son, St. Pawl, ch, ii, ; Weizsäcker, Apostolic Age, i. 62 f. ; McGiſlert, Christianily in the Apostolic Age, 81-03 ; Spitta, Apostelgeschichte, p. 105 ſ, ; Bapositor's Greek Testament, ii., R. J. Knowling, Acts; and commentaries cited at ACTs, vol. i. p. 35, on relevant chapters, A. GlöIlêVI. STEWARD occurs six times in AV of OT. It is used in Gn 15° of Eliezer, where for “steward of my house’ RV rightly substitutes “he that shall be possessor of my house’’(Heb. nº pºp";. For the correct text and meaning of this verse see Kautzsch- Socin's Genesis, Comm. of Del. and Dillm. ad loc., and above all Ball's note in Haupt's OT). In Gn 43° 44'. * * steward” is trº (both AV and RV) of ma ºn tº “he who was over his (Joseph's) house.’ The same tr" is given by RV in 431", where the Heb. is the same, but AV arbitrarily and incon- sistently gives ‘ruler.’ See art. Joseph, vol. ii. i. 772". In 1 K 16" for AV ‘steward of his (Elah's) house’ RV substitutes ‘who was over the house. hold” (nºt). See art. KING, vol. ii. p. 843°. The only remaining instance in AV is 1 Ch 28%. The Heb. is pºly, which RV tr. ‘rulers.” In Dn 1”, where AV gives MELZAR as a prop. name, RV is perh, correct in translating ‘the steward’ (ºn with the article shows at least that we have here some title, although its meaning is not certain). In NT ‘steward” is trn of éirírporos in Mt. 208 (the steward of the lord of the vineyard), Lk 8° (Herod’s steward). This word occurs also in Gal 4” (AV ‘tutors, RV guardians’) and twice in Apocr., 2 Mac 11, 13° (AV ‘protector,’ RV “guardian ). Elsewhere in NT it is the trº of olkovápos, which is used both literally and metaphorically, Lk 12* 16” ”, 8 (the cogn. v.b. oikovowed occurs v.”, cf. 2 Mac 34), 1 Co 4!. *, Tit 17, 1 P 419. In Gal 4” olkováuot is coupled with étrirporot (see above), and is trº in AV ‘governors,” RV ‘stewards.” The former of these Gr, terms occurs also in Ro 16”, where RV has ‘treasurer’ (cf. 1 Es 4*), AV ‘chamberlain.” Stewardship (oikovopula) in lit. sense occurs in Lk 16** * (AV and RV), and in metaphorical sense is substituted by RV for AV ‘dispensation in 1 Co 917. So IRVm gives ‘stewardship” in Eph 3°, Col 1*, 1 Ti 14 where ‘dispensation' stands in the text. J. A. SELIBIE. STILL. — 1. As adj. : the general meaning is silent, as Ps 4619 “Be still’ (Enri, RVm ‘Let be,” LXX axoMágars); IPs 83. ‘Be not still, O God’; Is 42* “I have been still, and refrained myself : now will I cry’; Mk 4” “Peace, be still' (ireqiuwa o, lit. ‘be muzzled'). Cf. Ac 18" Wyc. “Speke and be not stille’ (uh a wrºoms). Or it means a low sound, as 1 K 19° ‘A still small voice’ (nºpil ºp HET, lit. as RV m ‘a sound of gentle stillness,’ LXX qovi) atpas Xeirrös); Ps 23° “He leadeth me beside the still waters’ (nm), p-by, RVm ‘waters of rest,’ LXX &rl #6aros &varawa'ews: the idea is “waters that refresh,” or ‘waters that are resting-places’ º Cheyne], not “softly ſlowing waters’ as in s 89). I’rom meaning ‘silent” the word passes naturally to mean inactive, as Jg 18° “Are ye still 2 be not slothful to go'; 1 K 22** Know ye not that Ranoth in Gilead is ours, and we be still, and take it not out of the hand of the king of Syria. ?’ 2. As adv.: the idea of persistence is more pro- minent than in modern usage. Cf. Hall, Works, ii. 14, ‘God uses still to goe a way by himselfe’; Adams, 2 Peter, |. 46, ‘If the hand be still striking t and stabbing, there is a bloody heart’; Shaks. Hamlet, II. ii. 42— “Thou still hast been the author of good tidings.” So I S 2620 “Thou shalt both do great things, and also shalt still prevail’; 2 S 16"" He game forth, and cursed still as he came '; l’s 84* “They will be still praising thee'; and Jer 33.7 They say still unto them that despise me ' (IRV ‘They say con- tinually ’). J. H. ASTINGS, STOCKS.–See CRIMES AND PUNISIIMENTS, vol. i. p. 527". 516 STOICS STOICS STOICS (Xrwīkot). —When St. Paul at Athens encountered the Stoics (Ac 17*), they regarded his teaching as an interesting novelty; and so in some Tespects it was. Jesus and the Resurrection were indeed ‘strange gods,’ but, for all that, there was more in common between St. Paul and his hearers than either party was perhaps aware of. To begin with, the Jews had a natural affinity with Stoicism. What nation indeed could stand more in need of the philosophy of endurance than that whose whole history was one long record of perse- cution ? The ‘courage never to submit or yield,’ which animated Stoicism, was the moral also of the story of the ‘seven brethren with their mother’ (2 Mac 7). The Jews claimed kindred with the Spartans, who were the ideal of Stoicism, and admired the Romans, of whom Stoicism was the ideal (1 Mac 12), But, in the next place, Stoicism, as has been shown by Sir Alexander Grant, was not a genuine product of Hellenic thought, but an importation from the East. ‘Its essence,’ he says, “ consists in the introduction of the Semitic temperament and a Semitic spirit into Gr. philosophy’ (Ethics of Arist. vi.). Not one of the famous Stoic teachers was a native of Greece #. Zeno, the founder of the school, who ourished about B.C. 278, was a native of Citium in Cyprus, a Greek town in which there was a large infusion of Phoenician settlers (Diog. Laert. vii. § 1). Hence Zeno is sometimes called ‘the Phoenician’ (ib. ii. § 114), and his master Crates, the Cynic, used jocularly to address him as powt- kiölov. His successor, Cleanthes (about B.C. 263), was a native of Assos. The third head of the school, Chrysippus (B.C. 280–207; b. vii. § 184), whose intellectual ability caused him to be re- garded as its second founder, came from Cilicia, either from Soli or from St. Paul's native city, Tarsus. Tarsus, indeed, was a very stronghold of Stoicism. To , it belonged Zeno, a disciple of Clurysippus, who seems himself at one time to have been head of the school (ib. vii. §§ 35, 41, 84). Though Strabo, in his account of Tarsus (xiv. p. 674) says nothing of this person, he mentions among the Stoic teachers who had adorned that city, ‘Antipater, Archedemus, and Nestor, and further, the two Athenodori.” Of these Antipater was a disciple of Diogenes of Babylon (Cic. de Off. iii. § 51), one of the three philosophers who were sent on the famous embassy to Iłome in B.C. 155 (Aul. Gell. Noct. Att. VI. xiv. 9). He was himself the instructor of Panaetius of Rhodes (Cic. de Div. i: , § 6), who was the friend of the younger Africanus, and the teacher of Posidonius (of Apamea in Syria), who in his turn numbered Cicero among his hearers. Archedemus is men- tioned by Diogenes Laertius (vii. §§ 40, 68, 84) in a way that would lead us to think that he followed Chrysippus, . Of Nestor the Stoic nothing more is known. Of the two Athenodori, the earlier, known as Cordylion, died in the house of Cato Uticensis; the later, who was also known as ‘the Kananite,’ from a village (Kanna) in Cilicia, was the friend and adviser of Augustus. In his old age he was given power to restore civil order in his native city. St. Paul then, coming from Tarsus, the home of so many of the Stoics, was not likely to have been a stranger to their way of thinking. In his speech on the Areopagus he seems to have addressed himself more directly to the Stoic part of his audience. He deftly quoted part of a line with which they were familiar, “His offspring, too, are we,” probably thinking of the Hymn of Clcanthes, though the precise form in which he quotes it comes from the contemporary poet Aratus.” Another point in which the apostle's language * It may be remarked that the language of He 412 is strongly suggestive of the Hyun of Cleanthes (lines 9–13), which might is coloured by the presence of Stoic auditors, is in the appeal he makes to their sentiment of cosmo: politanism—‘and he made of one every nation of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth,’ while the words which follow, “ having determine & their appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation,” express a conception of fate and pro- vidence, which was common ground to the apostle and his hearers. The constructive era of Greek thought had already passed away before the Stoics appeared upon the scene. Neither they nor the Epicurean: extended the bounds of thought, but only enlpha- sized certain aspects in the plmilosophy of their predecessors. Both schools were intensely §. tical, and endeavoured to make plilosophy a ‘life,’ as Christianity afterwards announced itself to be. Both also were systems of materialism, and agreed in discarding the abstractions of earlier thought. The Stoics adopted the physical theory of Hera- clitus, the Epicureans that of Democritus. With both, however, physics were a mere scaffolding for ethics; but the Stoics paid great attention to logic, while the Epicureans neglected this department of philosophy. What was special to the Stoics was the exalted tone of their morality, their grim earnestness, and their devout submission to the Divine will. Of the Stoic physics we seem to have a trace in the doctrine of the destruction of the world by fire (2 P 35-7. 19-13). The idea of the soul going up to heaven at death is not alien to their philosophy. For death with them was the resolution of man's compound nature into its elements, and the soul, whose nature was fire (cf. Verg. Æn. vi. 730, ‘igneus est, ollis vigor, et caelestis origo’), struggled upward to its native home in the empyrean. Without dogmatizing on disputed ground, it is at least interesting to com- pare Ec 127 “And the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit return unto God who gave it,” with what Welleius Paterculus (ii. 123), echoing the Stoic doctrine, says of the death of Augustus : “in sua resolutus initia. . . . animam caelestem caelo reddidit.’ The doctrine of the Logos may not have come exclusively from Greek sources; but at all events Lactantius (Div. Inst. iv. 9) admits that Zeno had anticipated the Christian teaching : “Hunc Ser- monem divinum ne philosophi quiden ignorave- runt : siquidem Zenon rerum naturae dispositorem atoue opiſicem universitatis N6-yov praedicat, quem et fatum et necessitatem rerum et deum et animum Jovis nuncupat.” The words Öt' 8v rā travta, ap- plied to God in He 2", are suggestive of the Stoic explanation of the name of the Supreme Being : ‘Ala uév yáp paat, 6t' by Tú Trávra,’ while the words in St. Paul’s sermon, “in him we live,’ recall the explanation offered of the other form of the name : ‘Zīva 5& KaNoüat, trap' to ou roi, ſīv airtós éo ru.’ The problem of fate and freewill, which was hardly raised by the Socratic philosophers, was much discussed by the Stoics. In this also they display an aſſinity with Semitic speculation. For this was the philosophical problem which divided the Jewish schools, as it has since divided the Christian Churches. The l’harisees leaned strongly to predestination, as we can see from the senti- ments of Gamaliel (Ac 5") and from those of St. Paul himself. Josephus, himself a Pharisee, says that that sect was very like the sect of the Stoics among the Greeks (Vita, cl. ii.). Another point of resemblance, which justifies this remark of Josephus, is the Stoic belief in a future life. It is true they did not regard the souls even of good men as being absolutely it’ mortal. But they held that these were destinea be used as an argument, so far as it goes, in favour of the Pauline authorship of that Epistle. STOMACH STONE 61? vo last until the next re-absorption of all things into the Divine nature. God was defined by the Stoics as “an individual made up of all being, incorruptible and ungenerated, the fashioner of the ordered frame of the universe, who at certain periods of time absorbs all being into himself, and again generates it from himself' (Diog. Laert. vii. § 137). Instead of drawing out further, as might be done, the parallelism between Stoicism and Chris- tianity, we will here close with a caution. It does not follow that, because we find a Stoic notion in the 13ible, it has got into it from the Stoics. It may originally have come to the Stoics from the Jews, or both may have borrowed from the same source. 4 LITERATURE.—The chief ancient authorities for a knowledge of the Stoics are Cicero's philosophical works, especially de I’inibus, Book iii.; Diogenes Laertius, Book vii.; Stobious, Ecl. Eth. pp. 166-184; Plutarch, de Itapugnantiis Stoicis, and de Placitis Philosophorum. ; Sextus Empiricus, adversus Mathe- maticos. Among modern works may be mentioned Zeller, Stoics and Epicureams ; Sir Alexander Grant, The Ethics of Aristotle, Essay vi.; Lightfoot, Philippians, Excursus on ‘St. Paul and Seneca.” ST. GEORGE STOCK. STOMACH.—In modern Eng. ‘stomach' is con- fined to its literal meaning of the receptacle for food in the body. In this sense it occurs in 1 Ti 5** Use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake’ (6tſ, Töv orógaxov). But in older Eng. the word was used figuratively, as we use “heart’ or ‘spirit,’ and expressed either courage or pride. The transition from the literal to the fig. sense was the easier that ‘stomach’ was freely used for appetite. Thus Fuller, Holy State, 185, ‘A rich man told a poore man that he walked to get a stomach for his meat : And I, said the poore man, walk to get meat for my stomach.” The sense of cowrage (“heart') is seen in Ridley, Works, 359, “Blessed bo God, which was and is the giver of that and all godly strength and stomach in the time of adversity’; and in Coverdale's tr. of Jos 21]. “And sence we herde therof, oure hert hath failed us, nether is there a good stomacke more in eny man, by the reason of youre commynge.’ Cov. even applies the word to Jehovah in 1s 4213 ‘The Lok DE shal come forth as a gyaunte, and take a stomacke to him like a fresh man of warre.’ The sense of pride is seen in IXnox, Works, iii. 187, “And ye haif a Quene, a woman of a stout stomak, more styffe in opinioun nor flexibill to the veritie’; Golding, Calvin's Job, 574, “Therefore when wee come to heare a sermon, let us not carie such a loftie stomacke with us, as to checke agaynst God when we be reproved for our sinnes’; and Fuller, Holy Warre, 99, ‘A man whose stomach was as high as his birth.” This is the meaning of the word in Ps 1017, l’r. Blº. “a proud look and high stomach,' where Earle quotes in illustra- tion katharine's character of Wolsey from Henry VIII. IV. ii. 33– ‘He was a man Of an unbounded stomach, ever ranking Himself with princes.’ The word occurs figuratively in the sense of courage in 2 Mac 7” “Stirring up her womanish thoughts with a manly stomach’ (dipoevt 0909, IRV ‘with manly passion '). J. HASTINGS. STOMACHER is the EV tr. of ºniº, Is 3*(only). The derivation of the Hebrew term is very un- certain. There is no probability in the supposition that it represents two words, "n; *º and º “mantle,” although the sense thus obtained would yield an effective contrast with the fol- lowing py nºrp : “instead of a flowing mantle, a girding of sackcloth’ (Cheyne, PB, cf. , Dillm.- Kittel, Jes. ad loc.). Others think that the antithesis suggests that ºn; is a kind of orna- mental girdle (see art. DRESS, vol. i. p. 628"). The LXX tr. by Xtrøv plea otrópºpupos, Aq. Ščum dºya)\\1&0ews, Symm. armbočeopºls, Vulg, facia pec- toralis. - The Eng. word ‘stomacher’ was applied to that part of a woman's dress which covered the breast and the pit of the stomach. It was usually much ornamented, and looked upon as an evidence of wealth. Coverdale translates Is 47° (of the de- graded daughter of Babylon), “Thou shalt bringe forth the querne, and grymede meel, put downe thy stomacher, make bare thy knees, and shalt wade thorow the water ryvers.’ J. A. SELBIE. STONE.-1. A fragment of rock of any size from a pebble up to the most massive block. In AV ‘stone' usually stands for as or Atôos; but it also occurs as the tr. of yºp (Ps 137° 1419, RV ‘rock’), of his (Ex 4”, AV ‘sharp stone,’ RV ‘flint,’ Job 22*), of wºn (Job 41*, ItW ‘potsherd”), of nins (2 S 1718, Am 99, AVm), of rérpos (2 Mac 11° 4*, Jn 1*), and of pâqos (Rev 2"). ‘Gravel stones’ is for ſyſ; (La 31%); ‘corner stones’ for ninj (Ps 144*); ‘chief corner stone’ for &kpoyaſviatos (Eph 2*, 1 P.2%); “a heap of stones’ for nºnp (Pr 268 RW); and “hewn stone’ for nº (Ex 20%, 1 K 5176% 79. M. 19, Is 919, La 3", Ezk 40°, Am 5”). Conversely pas appears in EV as ‘weight” (Lv 1999, Dt 2513, 18, 2 S 14*, Pr 11, 1611 2010. *, Mic 6", Zec 5°) and as ‘plummet” (Is 34m RV). The stones referred to in Scripture may be classified according to their size and the uses to which they were put. Among the smaller stones mentioned are ‘gravel stones’ (La 3°) and ‘stones of the brook” (1 S 1749, Job 22*). The smoothness of the latter is noted in 1 S. 17”, and the effect of water in wearing them is alluded to in Job 14". Stones in the soil interfered with its fertility, and it was part of the husbandman's work to gather them out. On the other hand, to scatter stones over the fields was one way of devastating an enemy's country (2 K 3" "). These are probably the opposite circumstances referred to in Ec 3". The ‘stony ground' (rù tre+ptºm, rö retp26es) of Mt 13° 29 || is not soil full of stones, but shallow soil with rock near the surface (RW ‘rocky’). Stones were convenient missiles for the hand (Ex 2118, 2 S 16, 18, Sir 220 272%, 2 Mac 116 4+1, Mk 12"), for the sling (Jg 2010, 1 S 1719. " ", 1 Ch 12%, 2 Ch 26'4, Pr 268, Jth 61°, Sir 474), or for larger military engines (2 Ch 26", l Mac 6”). Josephus (BJ III. vii. 23, V. vi. 3) gives an account of these engines as used in the sieges of Jotapata and Jerusalem. Stone projectiles roughly spherical, and 13 or 14 in. in diameter, have been found at Baniás (Merrill, Jº. of Jordan, p. 524). A stonecast was a rough measure of distance (Llº 22*). Stone - throwing might prove fatal (Nu 35'7. *), and was a common method by which death-sentences were executed, and in which popular violence found vent. The verbs ºpp, Din, Nidāºw, karaX104(w, Auð08oNéo, are used to denote this practice. A heap of stones was some- times raised over the bodies of those who were thus put to death (Jos 74% "), or who were other- wise executed (Jos 8”) or slain (2 S 1817). This is º the fate referred to in Is 1419, La 3°. Such heaps were also placed over ordinary tombs for pro- tection or to mark the spot (see BURIAL, vol. i. p. 333"). The density of stones (Pr 27*) made them convenient for use as weights (see list of passages above) and plummets (Is 34*), and also for attach- ing to anything to be sunk in water, like Jeremiah's book of prophecy (Jer 51*), or the body of a criminal to be executed by drowning (Mt 18"|). Sharp stones were used as knives (Ex 4”, Mk 5"). In the former case the reference is probably to artificially fash- ioned knives of flint such as have been recently found among the prehistoric remains of Egypt (see FLINT, vol. ii. p. 15; ISNIFE, vol. iii. p. 8; and Petrie and Quibell, Naqwada and Ballas, }. 55– 59). Wessels of stone are mentioned in lºx 7”, Jn 2". In connexion with the former passage, see Wilkinson, Amcient Egypt, ii. 8 ; Petrie and Quibell, Naqwada and Ballas, p. 10. Small stones or pebbles were originally used in voting, and the counters of metal, etc., afterwards employed were still called pāqot (4 Mac 15*, Ac 26"). Among larger stones, besides mill-stones (for 618 STONE STONE which see MILL, vol. iii. p. 369), may be noticed 3hose which covered wells (Gn 29* * * *) and de- posits of treasure (Sir 29"), and those which closed the mouths of caves (Jos 10°. *), pits used as dens (Dn 697), and rock-hewn tombs (Mt 27°). The entrances of tombs were closed sometimes by stone doors hung on stone pivots, and sometimes by circular slabs like millstones set on edge, which rolled in grooves athwart the openings, the grooves being sloped so as to make the stone easy to roll to the door and difficult to roll away again. The entrance to the Tombs of the Kings at Jerusalem has both kinds of stone doors (see Tristram, Land of Israel, pp. 406–7, and SWP Special Papers, p. 280ff.). Og's ‘bedstead of iron’ (Dt 3") was probably a sarco- phagus of basalt, such as have been found in abund- ance E. of the Jordan (see Driver, Deut. in loc.). Certain large stones served as landmarks, such as the great stone in Gibeon (2 S 20°), the stone of Bohan the son of Reuben (Jos 15° 18'7), the stone of Zolmeleth (1 K 19), the stone Ezel (1 S 209 MT). Other large stones had a more or less sacred char- acter. Rude stone monuments of religious origin are still plentiful E., of the Jordan, though they are not found W. of it except in Galilee. They have been divided into four classes, menhirs or illars, dolmens or stone tables, cairms or stone heaps, and cromlechs or stone circles. Examples of the first class are the ‘pillar’ which Jacob set up at Bethel and anointed (Gn 28° 35"), and that which he erected at Mizpah (Gn 31*). In early Sem- itic religion these pillars were associated with the presence of a deity, and were smeared with blood or oil as an act of worship (see PILLAR, vol. iii. pp. 879–81). In some cases a rude stone pillar seems to have served simply as a memorial (Jos 24**", 1 S 7”) or as a monument to the dead (cf. 1 Mac 13”, 2 K 237 RV, Ezk 3919). While at first the sacred stone representing the deity served also as an altar, the latter came to be distinct at a very earl period. It might be a natural rock (Jg 6** 13”, l S 6* 14*) or artificially built of stone. In the latter case the stones were unhewn (Ex 20°, IDt 27°. ", Jos 8”). Elijah's altar on Carmel was, no doubt, of this kind (1 K 18°1"). Under the Maccabees the stones of the altar of burnt-offering in the temple were laid aside as defiled and a new altar was built (1 Mac 4*, *). Ezekiel's ideal temple was to be provided with hewn stone tables for slaying the sacrifices (Ezk 40°) (see ALTAR, vol. i. pp. 75, 76, and Iłobertson Smith, RS 184 ft., 214). º, Il:UI’l”:l,- tive in Gn 31 mentions a cairn (%) as well as a pillar at Mizpah. The stones set up by Joshua at Gilgal (Jos 4) were an example of a circle with a memorial significance (Conder, Syrian Stone-lore, 220; Ben- zinger, Heb. Arch. 56 ft., 379, 380). Inscriptions might be placed upon monumental stones (Dt 27**), on altars (Jos 8”), or on stone tablets such as those on which the Law was engraved. Stone, like wood, was among the commonest materials out of which idolatrous images were made (Jer 297, Hab 2" etc.). Such images, as well as sacred pillars, were forbidden in Lv 26". The most important use of stone was, of course, for building. For this purpose it was regarded as superior to brick (Is 9"), which was substituted for it in Babylonia (Gn 11”). The chief references to stone as a building material are in connexion with the temple. Stone was among the preparatory stores collected by David (1 Ch 22'4" lº 29°). The foundation of the ºpl; consisted of great costly hewn stones (1 K 5'7: 18 7"), and the superstructure was also of stone, though covered with wood (1 K 6° 7". " "). The stones were brought to the site in a prepared state (1 K 67). Hewn stone is men- tioned in connexion with the repairs executed by Joash (2 K 121*) and Josiah (2 IK 22", 2 Ch 3411), and stone was among the materials of the second temple (Hag 2", Ezr 58 64, 1 Es 69. *). The size and splendour of the stones of Herod's temple are referred to in Mt, 24* *||. Contrasted with the rocess of building is that of demolishing (Mic 1", a 4"). The stones in the ruins of Jerusalem were dear to the exiles (Ps 102*). The opponents of Nehemiah laughed at the idea of rebuilding the city walls with stones from among the rubbish (Neh 42.8). Some of the great stones in the foundation wall of the temple are visible in the Jews' Wailing Place. Other parts of the wall have been reached by recent excavation, notably at the S. E. corner. The lowest stone at this point is 14 ft. long and 3 ft. 8 in. high, “squared and polished, with a finely dressed face.” If the present foundation, which rests on the solid rock, be really that of Solomon’s temple, then this stone is the ‘founda- tion' or ‘clief corner stone’so often referred to in Scripture (Is 281", Ps 118*, Mt 214" || Ac 411, 1 P 29). While the ‘head of the corner’ is a founda- tion stone, the ‘head stone” (nºn lºs Zec 47) is the highest and the last to be placed. Large as the temple stones are, they are small compared with some found in the ruins of Baalbek. Three of these, forming one course, are the largest hewn stones in the world. They are all 13 ft. high and as many thick, and their respective lengths are 64, 634, and 63 ft. A still larger stone, 70 ft. long, 14 ft. thick, and 14 ft. high, lies in the adjacent quarry. For methods of transporting such stones, see Wilkinson, Amc. E.g. ii. 302–10. The remains of quarries are visible in many places in Palestine, and their extent affords a measure of the antiquity of the building sites near them. The greatest quarries at Jerusalem are the caverns under Bezetha, from which a great part of the stone work of the city has been excavated. Traces of the process of working the quarry still remain. The blocks were separated from the rock by cut- tings from 3 to 6 in. wide made all round them with some instrument like a pick. The margins of the stones were dressed with toothed chisels (Benzinger, Heb. Arch. 238). In the basaltic rocks of Bashan there, are many circular holes 4 or 5 ft. deep, and as great in diameter, from which millstones have been quarried (Merrill, E. of Jordan, p. 25). A few references to stone are of a symbolic character. Jeremiah was directed to hide some great stones in the clay of a brick-kiln at the entrance to Pharaoli’s house at Tahpanlies, to be a foundation for the throne of Nebuchadnezzar, which would be set up in that place (Jer 43" "). In Zec 3" a stone with seven eyes (or facets) is set before Joshua, the high priest, and an inscription is to be placed upon it. This stone has been vari- ously understood as referring to the foundation stone of the temple, the ‘head stone’ of Zec 47, a jewel in the high priest's breastplate, or in Zerub- j. crown, or the finished temple as a whole (see G. A. Smith, Twelve Prophets, ii. 296). The white stone with a new name written on it (IRev 27) is likewise an obscure symbol. From the reference in the same verse to the ‘hidden manna’ the “white stone’ has been connected with the Roman tesse,'a hospitalis—the token divided be- tween two friends who had entered into hospitiatºm, and handed down to their descendants, so as to secure perpetual mutual hº or with the tessera frit mentaria—the token in exchange for which a free grant of corn was given to the poorer citizens of Rome. Putting aside the reference to the manna, a possible explanation may be found in the tessera º an oblong token of ivory given to a gladiator when he had !". Sll C(;CSS- fully through a certain number of contests. It had inscribed on it the name of the combatant and STONES, PRECIOUS STONES, PRECIOUS 619 that of his trainer, the date of his first victory and the letters. SP (spectatus). In Rev 18*, the de- etruction of ‘Babylon’ is symbolized by an angel casting a great stone into the sea. The various properties of stone give rise to numerous comparisons. The Egyptians sank in the sea like a stone (Ex 15", Neh 9”). Rear made the enemies of Israel still as a stone (Ex 15%). Nabal became as a stone before his death (1 S 25”). The heart of leviathan is firm as a stone (Job 41*). The strength of stone is also alluded to in Job 6”. Ice is compared to stone (Job 38”). Other figura- tive usages are frequent. The deadness and sterility of stone gives point to the Baptist's say- ing in Mt 3" |; so with its dumbness (Hab 2", Lk 1919), and imedibility (Mt.4° 7" |). Its weight suggests what Jerusalem will be to the nations (Zec 12°), and what wisdom is to the unlearned (Sir 6”). Its hardness supplies a metaphor for hardness of heart (Ezk ll” 36”). As a contrast to this, Ezekiel’s figure is combined with an allu- sion to the inscribed tables of the Law in 2 Co 3°. The new name IIérpos given to Simon (Jn 1*) demoted the firmness of his character in the future. A slothful man is compared to a “defiled stone’ (Sir 22). God is called ‘the stone of Israel’ (Gn 49*). The Messiah’s kingdom is represented in D11 2* as a stone cut out of the mountain without hands, which breaks in pieces the composite image symbolizing the kingdoms of this world. Christ uses a similar figure regarding Himself (Mt 21* TR, Lk 2013). Isaiah describes the Deliverer of Judah as a ‘foundation’ and a ‘corner stone.’ Christ applies Ps 118° to Himself (Mt 21* |), and similar applications are found in Aç 4'', 1 P 2". In the latter passage Christ is called a ‘living stone,’ and cºś, are also called ‘living stones.” The same ideas of Christ as the corner stone and Christians as forming a building along with Him, appear in Eph 2**. 2. Anatomical—a testicle, Lv 21” (Tºys), Dt 23" (in a free tr. of Tºryism), Job 40" (TB, |RV thigh '). JAMES PATRICK. STONES, PRECIOUS. — This subject is both obscure and complex, and one on . no help is to be gained by relying on modern traditional results. The only satisfactory way to treat it is as a series of quite independent stages of re- search :—i. The actual stones known to (a) the ancient Egyptians, (b) the early Greeks, (c) the Roman writers, ii. The equivalence of Hebrew and Greek names. iii. The substances designated by the Greek names. iv. The side-lights on the sub- ject from (a) the Arabic or other versions, (b) the colour arrangement, (c) beliefs about stones, etc. i. It is obviously useless to attempt to identify gems which were unknown before the Itoman age with any of the earlier names, and hence the diamond and the sapphire are outside of the question. It is also quite useless to expect the same distinctions between stones that we now make by chemical and crystallographic classifica- tion. I)iſferent materials, if of the same appear- ance, were doubtless classed under the same name, such as beryl and green felspar, or earnelian and fleshy felspar. On the other hand, the same material, under different appearances, would have different names, such as the many different aspects of quartz, in rock-crystal, amethyst, Chalcedony, car- nelian, red jasper, green jasper, and yellow jasper. Thu stones commonly known to the Egyptians for jewellery and engraving are as follows, those not known as engraved being in brackets. These are arranged according to the colours, which would be natural classiſication, and which shows what is liable to be confounded under a single name. The transparent stones are in italics, according to the varieties actually found. ISLACK : [hæmatite], obsidian. BLUE : º lazuli. GREEN : serpentine, felspar, [beryll, jasper, turquoise. YELLOW: agate, jasper. BRowN. sard, ſcorun. dum]. RED : red sard, [garnet], felspar, carnelian, asper. WHITE : quartz, milky quartz, chalcedony. Two stones that might jº be expected in early use, but have never yet been found in Egypt before Greek times, are the onyx or nicolo (known to the Romans as Alºgyptilla), and the olivine= peridot (modern .#. from the Red Sea. And the beryl is rare before Graeco-Roman times. The early Greeks, down to Theophrastus, appear to have had much the same series as the Egyp- tians; but in Roman times, with extended com- merce, more of the stones became known which we now class as gems. With these, however, we are not here concerned in OT usage. ii. The second consideration is the equivalence of the Hebrew and Greek names. For, as we have only a few vague indications of the meanings of the Hebrew names, or connexions of those with other languages, it is really the tradition of the times of the Îxx that has to be almost entirely trusted. Of lists of stones there are five to be considered, - The list of the breastplate (Ex 287-9), that of the king of Tyre (Ezk 281*), the translation of these two lists in the LXX, and the foundations in Rev 21*. All these lists are certainly connected, as we shall see by the state- ment of them. TILE BREASTPLATE. 2 Pitclah 5 Šappir S §§ 11 Shôham 1 (jdem 4 Núphelºh 7 I.eshem 10 Tarshish 3 Bäreketh 6 Yahūlóm 9 Ahlāmah 12 Yāshēpheh TIIE KING OF TYRE, 2 Pitclah 5 Shôham 8 Nöphekh 1 *Čdem 4 Tarshish 7 Sappir LXX. 1 Sardion 4 Anthrax 7 Ligurion 10 Chrysolithos 8 Yahūlóm. 6 Yāshēpheh G 9 Bärekath BREASTPLATE AND KING OF TYRE. 3 Smaragdos 2 Topazion G S 6 Iaspis 5 Sappheiros 9 Amethystos 8 Achatés 12 Onychion 11 Beryllion TIIE FOUNDATIONS, 2 Sappheiros 5 Sardonyx 3 Chalkedøn 6 Sardion 9 Topazion 1 Iaspis 4 Smaragdos 7 Chrysolithos 8 Beryllos 10 Chrysoprasos 11 Hyakinthos 12 Amethystos Several problems meet us here. The LXX must either have found the lists of Ex. and Ezek. alike, or else have altered one into conformity with the other. There is one sign of confusion in the LXX, where silver and gold are interpolated in the midst of the series (marked S and G here); where- as the Heb. in Ezek, has gold at the end (marked G here); so far the Hebrew is the more consistent. On the other hand, it is evident that the list in Ezek. has been written with the list in Ex. in view : the first two names being the same, the 2nd line being the 4th line in Ex., and the 3rd line being 5, 4, 3 of Ex. in inverted order, all show that Ezek. is apparently a corrupted copy of Ex., perhaps changed by the prophet quoting from memory. But here Aº difficulty arises: the yūshëphch 12 in Ex. cannot but be intended by aspis 6, while the yāshēpheh is 6 in Ezekiel. Here LXX agrees with Ezek. ; while, in Sappir 5 in Ex, and 7 in Ezek., the LXX agrees with Ex. in 5 Sapphºros. In another point probably Ex... agrees with LXX: bāreſſeth, the ‘flashing or “lightning', stone, is probably quartz crystal : and smaragdos, which it parallels in Ex., is also probably quartz, as we shall see further on. On the Whole, it seems safest to take Ex. and LXX as equivalent lists; * The Greek forms are lºept here to avoid confusion with English names derived from them, which now denote different stones. 620 STONES, PRECIOUS STONES, PRECIOUS granting a transposition of 12 and 6, probably in the Hebrew. iii. Next we come to the third section — the meaning of the Greek names; and for this we must remember that the series should correspond to the stones actually in use in early times, and not to those which may have had those names in Graeco-Roman writings. (1) Sardios = '6dem, is the ‘blood’-coloured stone (Heb.); and as none of the early ones except, red jasper can be so de- scribed, it seems that this must be intended. (2) Topazion = pitclah, is reputed to be the peridot, because .# its being described as imported from the Red Sea, as of a greenish-yellow colour, and as the softest of precious stones. The diffi- culty in this is that no instance is known of peridot in Egyptian work; and this would lead us to look for some similar stone as the earlier repre- sentative of pitaláh. The transparent P. serpentine was in use in Egypt, and is of closely the same colour; in fact, of the same composition, but hydrated. This, then, has the best claim to be the original stone, for which the harder olivine, peridot, was later substituted. The Arabic has asfar, “yellow,” which corresponds with peridot. (3) Smaragdos = bareketh. This is commonly º to be emerald ; but, as there is beryl also in the list, it is unlikely that a slight variety of purer and less pure colour should give occasion to repeat the same stone. There are two indications that in smaragdos is included rock-crystal. Pliny mentions the shortsighted Nero using an eye-glass of smaragdus; the difficulty of getting emerald free from flaws and large enough for an eye-glass, the depth of colour (for this was not the lighter beryl), and the greater hardness of emerald, all make that stone very unlikely. The colourless rock-crystal is far more probably the material used. And in Rev 4” there is described—a rain- bow like a smaragdus : now a colourless stone is the only one that can show a rainbow of pris- matic colours; and the hexagonal prism of rock- crystal, if one face is not developed (as is often the case), gives a prism of 60°, suitable to show a spectrum. The confusion with emerald seems to have arisen from both stones crystallizing in hexagonal prisms; and, as the emerald varies through the aquamarine to a colourless state, there is no obvious separation between it and Quartz crystal. The meaning of bàreketh, the ‘flashing’ or “lightning' stone, agrees with the brilliancy of rock - crystal. The Arabic has samºrod = smaragdus. (4) Anthraa: = nophekh. The former name is generally agreed to be the carbuncle, which is the ark clear red garnet. Garnet was a favourite stone in Egypt for beads, but is not found en- graved, at least not till late times. (5) Sappheiros = Sappèr. There can be no doubt of the equivalence of these names; yet they do not mean our sapphire or corundum, as that was quite unknown in early times, and probably too hard to be engraved. Pliny’s description of it as opaque and speckled with gold, shows it to have been our lapis-lazuli, which was used and greatly valued in early times. (6) As we cannot sever the iaspis from the 3/āshēpheh, we must assume a corruption in either the Heb. or Greek. The Greek is more probably correct, as the iaspis was certainly opaque, and would well consort with the opaque lazuli. We must restore, then, (6) inspis = yāshēpheh. The ear- liest jaspers mentioned by Greek writers appear to have been green ; and a dark green jasper was a favourite stone among early Greek engravers, and used also by Egyptians. This is probably, then, the laspis. (7) Ligurion = leshem. The ligurion is a cor- w ruption of lyncurion, described as brilliant yellow, and in Greek times apparently identified with the jacinth = zircon. As this is unknown in Egyptian work, probably yellow quartz or agate (R.) was intended by leshem. (8) Achatós = shébù. This is agreed to be con- nected with some varieties of modern agates. The black and white banded is said to be probably the variety earliest known as achates to the Greeks; but this is little, if at all, known in Egypt until Greek times. From the contrasts of colour in the series a red agate would be the more likely here : but a grey and white is the only closely-banded agate that occurs in Egyptian work. If possible we should expect the carnelian here, as it is a usual stone, and yet does not appear elsewhere in the list. (9) Amethystos=’ahlāmah. There is no question as to this being the modern amethyst, which was frequently used in Egypt at an early date, and well engraved. - (10) Chrysolithos= tarshish. This stone among later Greeks is probably the topaz; but, as that was quite unknown in earlier times, some other golden-coloured stone must be intended. As clear yellow quartz is already fixed to the ligurion, that is not in question ; nor would a transparent yellow stone be so appropriately termed ‘golden as an opaque one. The bright yellow jasper was finely engraved by the Egyptians of the 18th dynasty and onward, and that may well be the ‘golden stone’ or chrysolithos. (11) Beryllion =Shôham.—It is generally agreed that this is the modern beryl, the opaque green variety of the emerald ; and with this was doubt- less confused the green felspar, which is only dis- tinguished in appearance by its brighter cleavage and lustre. As the felspar was far more usual for jewellery than the beryl in early times, it is pretty certain that it was the shöham, afterwards confused with the beryl. (12) As we have already noticed, the yāshēpheh has probably changed places in the Hebrew with yahálóm, and therefore (12) onychion = yahálóm seems to be the probable equivalence. This is usually accepted as being the modern onyx ; but such a stone in layers was apparently not known to early engravers, the first dated example being of the 26th dynasty. There is, however, no other stone which, seems more probable for this name. It may be as well now to state what stones that were used for early engraving stand outside of the identifications we have arrived at, and appear not to have been used in the breastplate. The follow- ing were all wrought in Egypt : obsidian, black jasper, haematite, fawn-coloured chert, milky quartz, chalcedony, and turquoise. Thus no striking or important stone is omitted from the list of Ex. except turquoise, which was mainly used before 4000 B.C., and in late times. Iłut we have in several cases put down two stones to one name, where they were such as were likely to have been confounded in one class together. iv. We now turn to the question of colour. The breastplate would apparently have stood thus—— 3 White quartz 6 Green jasper 9 Purple amethyst 12 White and black onyx 1 IRCd jasper 4 Red garnot 7 Yellow agate 10 Yellow jasper 2 Yellow serpentine t; Blue lazuli 8 Red carnelian 11 Green felspar Here there is good contrast maintained except in the right column, where there are two reds together and two yellows; but none of these are in serious doubt, and if any change is suggested it would be by transposing two of these. The ſirst entry seems well fixed in the lists; and the fourth cannot change with the seventh without bringing red garmet and carnelian together. If, however, the STONES, PRECIOUS STORIK 62) fourth and tenth interchanged, then the opaque yellow jasper would be next to the opaque lazuli and in line with opaque green jasper, which would be harmonious. §. this be accepted, then the red garnet, anthraac, would be tarshish (R.); and the yellow jasper, chrysolithos, would be n0phekh. There now remains the question of the relation of the stones in Rev. to those in the OT. They have evidently some connexion; but sometimes in the object order, sometimes in the verbal order, the Heb. reckoning running contrary to Greek. Thus there is— Ex. LXX 6 Iaspis 5 Sappheiros Rev. 1 Iaspis 2 Sappheiros Ex. 8 Smaragdos 2 Topazion 1 Sardion Rev. 4 Smaragdos 5 Sardonyx 6 Sardion Ex. 10 Chrysolithos 11 Beryllion 12 Onychion Rev. 7 Chrysolithos 8 Beryllos 9 Topazion Ex. 7 Ligurion 8 Achatós 9 Amethystos Rev. 10 Chrysoprasos 11 Hyakinthos 12 Amethystos IHere topazion and sardonya appear to have changed places; as, if so, the topazion would agree in both, and the onychion compare with the sar- domya. The chrysoprasos may well be a later name of the ligwrion. There is, in any case, a strong influence of the LXX lists on the Rev. list ; but yet it seems much like the apparent relation by memory of the Ezek. list with the Ex. list in the Hebrew. A few stones occur in Rev. that are not in LXX. (3) Chalkedom was a green stone according to Pliny, from the copper mines near Chalcedon. As it was only found in very small pieces, the sugges- tion that it was dioptase (silicate of copper) seems not unlikely, as that is in small crystals. (5) Sardonya is doubtless the red and White onyx. (7) Chrysolithos in the Roman age was the present topaz; while (9) topazion was the present chrysol- ite=peridot. (10) Chrysopraeos was probably the green chalcedony, or the plasma. (11) Hyakimthos was the present sapphire, according to the account of it by Solinus. Of these stones in Rev. there is far less doubt than of those in OT, as the writers on gems are nearly contemporary with IRev., and describe the gens in detail. The shūmīr of Ezk 3” “harder than flint' is evidently connected with the Egyptian as mer and the Greek smiris, both of which mean corundum or emery. The hardness of that stone agreeing with the description in Ezek., leaves no doubt that it is the shſimir. l'inally, we may here summarize the results— IIeb. Greek (LXX). Iºarly. Late. Ödom Sardion Red jasper Sard 'Alylämeh Amethystos Amethyst Båreketh Smaragdos Quartz crystal Emerald Leshem Ligurion Yellow agate Nöphelch Anthrax Gal not - Carbuncle (or Chrysolithos? Yellow jasper Topaz) Pit(lah Topazion Yellow - green Peridot; serpentine Sappir Sappheiros Lazuli Shāmir Smiris Corundum Shebø Achatós Agate? Black and Red carnelian 7 white and felspar? agate Shôham Beryllion Green felspar Beryl Tarshish Chrysolithos Yellow jasper Topaz (or Anthrax Garnet = Carbuncle) Yāshēpheh laspis Dark green jasper Yahūlóm Onychion Onyx 7 Onyx Also in Rev. IIyakin thos Sapphire Chalked on Dioptase? Chrysoprasos Green chal- cedony or plasma Sardonyx Red and wnite onyx The lists of stones anciently used in pre-Greek times are from the writer's own observation. For the greater part of the information on tºreek names and gems, king's Antique Gems has been the Source here used. But for corroborations and modifications of the general views, the results of Prof. Ridgeway's private studies have been most generously communicated, especially in points marked (R.); and it must be remembered that the details of the reasons for some of the identifications cannot be fully stated or discussed in a brief out- line like the present. See, further, the separate artt. on the EV names of the precious stones mentioned in the Bible. W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE. STONING. — See CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTs, vol. i. p. 527*. STONY.—1. In the Preface to AV the word ‘stony’ is used with the meaning ‘made of stone’: ‘Although they build, yet if a fox go up, he shall even break down their stony wall.’” Cf. Shaks, Jul. Caesar, I. iii. 93, ‘Nor stony tower, nor walls of beaten brass,” 2. In Mt 13° 49, Mk 4%. 10 stony' means ‘rocky’ (tà reſpºëm, AV ‘stony places,’ IRV ‘rocky places '). This is the meaning also in PS 1410 §W. their judges are overthrown in stony places” (whº ºra, RV ‘by the sides of the rock ’). Cf. Raleigh, Guiana, 69, ‘The maine banks being for the most part stonie and high.” So ‘stone’ is used for ‘rock’ in Peres the I’lough- mans Crede, 806— “And sythen his blissed body was in a ston byried, And descended a-doune to the dark helle'; and by Coverdale in Is 51* “Take hede unto the stone, wherout ye are hewen, and to the grave wherout ye are digged.’ 3. In Ezk 111° 36” and Sir 17* “stony' means ‘hard as stone,’ as in Shaks. Merch. of Venice, IV. i. 4.— ‘Thou art come to answer A stony adversary.’ - J. HASTINGS. ST00L.—1. A chair of honour for a guest, 2 K4” ‘Let us set for him there a bed, and a table, and a stool.’ (So RV, though the Heb. is Nº, which elsewhere means a royal throne or other seat of state : the LXX gives 6tppos, which is trºl ‘stool’ in AV of 2 Mac 14*, but in IłV ‘chair of state’). In older English “stool” was used freely for any kind of seat, as in Chaucer, Wife of Bath's Prol. 287, ‘Spones and stoles, and al swich housbondrye’; Mk 1115 Tind.“the stoles of them that sold doves' (za.0%po.g., AW ‘seats'); 1 S 19 Cov. “I’li the prest sat upon a stole by the poste of the temple of the Lorde' (AW “upon a scat'); Job 269 Cow. ‘IIe holdeth back his stole, that it cannot be seen' (Tºrº, AV and RV ‘the face of his throne'); Jer 1725 Cov. “Then shal there go thorow the gates of this cite, kinges and prynces, that shall syt, upon the stole of David' (Nº, AV and RV ‘throne’): 2916 Cov. ; 3317 Cov. “David shal nover want one, to syt upon the stole of the house of Israel' (Nº-ºw, AV and RV “upon the throne,’ which is Cover- dale's own tr. of the same IIeb. in v.21). 2. Mother's bearing stool (but see Holzinger in loc., and Earpos. Times, xii. 165), Ex_l" ‘upon the stools,” RV upon the birthstool” (Heb. Bºnsºrºv, found only in dual, its only other occurrence being Jer 18", where it describes the potter's wheel, “two discs revolving one above the other’; cf. vol. iii. p. 36.7"). J. HASTINGS. STORAX. —See MYRItII, POPLAR, STACTE. STORK (nºrt húsidāh).-Although one of the commonest and the largest birds of Bible lands, the LXX translators do not seem to have known its name, as they render hāsiddh in the six passages where it occurs by four different words (LV 11", I’s 10417 epw80s, Ijt 14° TeXekáv, Jer, 8", Job 301; ãortôā [transliterated], Zeg 5" &moy). There is, how- ever, no doubt as to its identity. Two species are found in the Holy Land—the black stork, Ciconia migra, L., and the white stork, C. alba, L. The * In the text of Neh 48 it is ‘their stone wall,' the form ‘their stony wall’ being from Coverdale and the Geneva Bible 622 STRANGE, STRANGER STORY former is a little smaller than the latter, and less common in the southern and western districts. It is more common towards the north-east. Its colour is black, and it is a shy bird, frequenting the desert, where it lives in flocks. The white stork is 44 in. long and has black wings, but the coverts and rest of its plumage are white. The beak, legs, and skin about the eyes are red; the iris is dark brown. Few as are the passages in which the stork is mentioned, we can gather from them some of its chief traits: (1) It was an unclean bird (Lv. and Dt. l.c.); this corresponds to its food, which con- sists of reptiles, amphibians, and garbage. (2) In the obscure passage (Job 30”) there may be a reference to the contrast between the supposed indifference of the ostrich to its young and the proverbial affection of the stork. This, however, is uncertain ; see the Comm. ad loc. (3) The stork nests in fir trees (Ps 104"). Most storks in Pales- time now nest in the tops of ruins. In many places in other countries they build on chimney tops. But there is abundant evidence that they even now sometimes nest in trees in the Holy Land, as well as in other countries. It has been well observed by Tristram that, in ancient times, when there were fewer ruins and more trees, storks must perforce have resorted to the trees and rocks. He says that the black storks still always prefer trees. (4) The migrations of the stork at deſinite times (Jer 87) did not escape notice. At such times it flies high ‘in the i. There are abundant illustrations of the regularity with which these birds return to their old haunts year after year, and repair the very nests which they had efore occupied both as offspring and parents. (5) Their power of wing and the sound as of wind made by their flight are alluded to (Zec 5"). The spread of their wings is nearly 7 feet. G. E. POST. STORY.—In older Eng. ‘story’ and ‘history’ (of which ‘story' is an aphetic form) were used interchangeably. We accordingly find ‘history’ applied to romance, and ‘story’ to continued his- torical narrative. In Pref. to AV the translators even use the word ‘story’ of history in general, ‘This will easily be granted by as many as know storie, or have any experience.’ The word ‘story’ occurs in AV (outside the Apocr.) only in 2 Ch 13” 24”, for which see art. COMMENTARY in vol. i. p. 459". In the Apocr. it is used as the tr. of to topia in 2 Mac 2*, *, *, of Övöymats in 2*, and of a 'vrašas in 15**, and in 1 Es 1” # 3ig\os róv taro- poupévov trepi Tôv Baat)\éav tís 'Iovöaias is tr" “the book of the stories of the kings of Judah.” Cf. Rhemish NT, note on Jn 5” “The force of divers waters in the world is justly attributed by our forefathers and good stories to the prayers and presence of Saincts, which profane incredulous men referre onely to nature.’ Tindale says (Eajos. 201) ‘We believe not only with story faith, as men believe old chronicles.’ Story writer, for ‘historian' (i.e. chronicler), occurs in 1 Es 2" (6 ypaupore's ; It Vm ‘recorder’), and 2* (6 ypdºpajv Tó, trpoo Tittovra); in the latter verse Ypappareiſs is trº ‘scribe.” J. HASTINGs. STOUT, STOUTNESS.—The modern meaning of the Eng. word ‘stout,’ viz. solid, substantial (and then corpulent), suggests a connexion with Lat. stolidats and the root sto, to stand ; but the word is of Low Germ. origin (coming to us through the French), and in its earliest use signified “brave,’ “bold,” “impetuous.” In AV the meaning is bold in Job 4”, Dn 799, and presumptuous in Is 10”, Mal 3”. Stouthearted occurs in Ps 76°, Is 46” with the former meaning (Heb. a "zs). The subst. stoutness is found in * Is 9°, also with the meaning of boldness, as in Golding, Calvin's Job, 570, ‘For what is the causa that oftentymes wee dare not undertake a good quarell, but for that we have not the stoutnesse and skill too resist so stedfastly as were requisite?’ J. HASTINGS. STRAIT.—The Eng. words ‘strait” and ‘strict’ are doublets, the latter coming directly from Lat. strictus,” ptcp. of stringere, to draw tight ; the former through the Old Fr. estreit or estrait (mod. étroit).f ‘Strait’ is an adj., an adv., a subst., and a verb. As an adj. ‘strait” means in AV either lit. narrow, confined, or fig. strict, rigorous. 1. Narrow, confined: e.g. 2 K 61 “The place where we dwell with thee is too strait for us' (ºp ns, LXX wrºvº; &º hºv); Mt 713. 14 “Enter ye in at the strait gate . . . because strait is the gate’ (arsvöz). 2. Strict, rigorows.—The transition from the lit. to the fig. sense is seen in 2 Es 714, 18 bis, thus 718 “The righteous shall suffer strait things, and hope for wide (ferent amgusta speranies spatiosa); for they that have done wickedly have suſtered the strait things, and yet shall not see the wide.” Then the fig, sense appears in 721 ‘God hath given strait commandment’ (inandams mandavit ; RV “straitly commanded'). As an adv. ‘strait’ means closely, marrowly. It occurs in 1 Es 5” “The heathen . . . holding them strait” (troAtopkoúvres, RV m ‘besieging them ’); and 1 Mac 1349. As a subst. : e.g. La 1" ‘All her persecutors over- took her between the straits’ (Dºnyºn jº, I&V “within the straits’). As a verb ‘strait ’ occurs only in Sus * “I am straited on every side,” where mod. editions give ‘straitened ' (a revd Aloi trčvroſ)ev). The verb straiten is used both literally and figuratively. 1. Literally it means (1) to shorten or marrow, e.g. Job 3710 ‘The breadth of the waters is straitened' (psºph, lit. ‘in narrow- ness,’ i.e. ‘in a narrow channel,’ 18Vm “congealed'). 2. Figuratively, “straiten' means marrow (opp, “enlarge') or confine, and so hamper: Job 1223 “He enlargeth the nations and straiteneth them again” (Heb. as RV ‘bringeth them in,’ RVm “leadeth them away'), 187, Pr 412 (both of the straitening of steps—“Widening of the steps is a usual Oriental figure for the bold and free movements of one in prosperity, as straitening of them is for the constrained and timid action of one in adversity’ —Davidson on Job 187). * The adv. straitly means either (1) closely, Jos 61 ‘Jericho was straitly shut up’ (nººp nylb, RV “shut the gates, and was shut in ’); Wis 1710 “was straitly kept (éppoupétro, TV was kept in ward’); Sir 23” “keep her in straitly (a repéajorov pu)\akºv, IRV ‘keep strict watch ') : or (2) strictly, as Ac 417 ‘Let us straitly threaten them ' (TR &Tet)\; dtret)\matºpeſa ; edd. omit diret)\m, whence RV ‘let us threaten them ’). Straitness.—Dt 28° “In the siege and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee” (IRV ‘shall straiten theo’), so vv.” ”, Jer 19%. The word also occurs in Job 36" opposed to ‘a broad place,’ and 2 Mac 12” (a revörms). Cf. Is 58° Cov. “Wherfore fast we (saye they) and thou seist it not ? we put our lives to straitnesse, and thou regardest it not ?’ J. HASTINGS. STRANGE, STRANGER.—Both these words have shades of meaning in AV which are now almost obsolete, and they are also used to represent various Heb. terms, whose significations are materi. ally distinct. On the other hand, the word ‘strange’ has a connotation in modern IEnglish which it nover possesses in the OT, and very rarely in the NT. Hence in many passages considerable con- fusion, which might have been obviated by a * Chaucer uses the ptcp. in its lit. sense, ‘drawn,' applying it to a sword: Nomme Preestes Tale, 537— “I’irrus with his stroite swerd When he haddo hent king Priam by the berd, And slayn him.’ # ‘Straight' is a distinct word, from Anglo-Sax. 8treht, ptcp of streccam', to stretch. STRANGE, STRANGER STRAW 623 change of rendering in the IRV, is produced in the mind of the English reader. • ‘Strange' (Old Fr. estrange, Lat. extraneus) and ‘stranger’ mean in a great many instances simply “foreign'" [a word unknown to AV except in 1 Mac 15%, 2 Mac 10”; but introduced by RV in Zeph 18, Ac 26” in place of AV ‘strange'] and “foreigner’ (AV only Ex 12" [wrongly for ‘so- journer,’ nºn], Dt 15°, Ob", Eph 2" [wrongly for ‘sojourner,’ trópoucos]; but introduced by IRV in Lv 22*, Dt 1710 23° 29*, by Amer. RV in Ru 210 and 2 S 15” for AV ‘stranger,’ and by RV in Dt 14” for AV ‘alien'). It would conduce to clear- ness if, in the great majority of instances where (as in all the above OT passages except Ex 12" as noted) derivatives of the root ha) are employed, the renderings ‘foreign” and ‘foreigner’ were adopted. Thus we should have ‘foreigner(s)” for h;(n)"); (lit. ‘son of foreignness’) or 'i(n) ºn in Gn 17*(defined by the || “not of thy seed’)”, Ex 12” [all P], Ly 22* [H], 2 S 221B, 46 =Ps 1818.40, Ezk 447.9 bis, Neh 9°, Is 56° 0 6010 610 628, Ps 1447. 11; and ‘foreign (not ‘strange’) god(s)' (n2) ºs Dt 32°, Mal 2", Ps 81*; '; ºbs in 1139; 'i(n) ºbs Gn 35*, *, Jos 2420. "[all E], Jg 101", 1 S 73, Jer 519, 2 Ch 33%; pºsſ-nº ºn Di 31*); ‘foreign vanities,’ i.e. idolatries (') ºn: Jer 8”); ‘foreign altars” ('i ninjap 2 Ch 14*); ‘foreign soil” ('i nois Ps 1374); “everything foreign’ (‘rº Neh 1329). The same rel, dering would reproduce nº in Gn 31” [but here, perhaps, in narrower sense of ‘not of one’s father's family’], Dt 14* [|| "...] 15° (cf. ', cºs 17") 23” [opp. ‘thy brother’] 29* [+, who cometh from a far distant land’], Jg 17” (defined by “who is not of the children of Israel’), Ru 2", 2 S. 15” [|| nº “exile’], l K8" [+ ‘who is not of thy people’] =2 Ch 692, v.43–2 Ch 638, Is 29, La 5°, Ob II (both | Dºn). So we should have a ‘foreign (not ‘strange’) peoplg’ (ºnny Cy Ex 21° [E]), “foreign apparel” (‘) viaºp Zeph 1°), “foreign land’ (Tinº, ris Ex2*[J] 18° [E]); note esp. mºniº) Dºg of “strange (i.e. foreign [non-Isr.]) wives” (1 K 111.8, Ezr 10°. 19. ii. 14. 17. 18. *, Neh 13%. 27). A “strange woman’ (ºniº) is a techn. term in Proverbs for a harlot (perhaps because in Israel harlots were originally chiefly foreigners): Pr 21, 75 5” [all || Hill (mys)] 6* [| yº ng's] 23” [| n \il. The word nj, which is also frequently rendered ‘stranger’ in AV, can in some of its usages hardly be distinguished in sense from "nº (see art, ForLIGNER), but, if a distinctive Eng. term be desired, we would suggest ‘alien’ (used in AV in Ex 18° [wrongly for ‘sojourner,’ gēr), Dt 14*, Job 1915, Ps 698 (), La 5” [all Tºl, Is 61° [np) ºn], He 11*[äXXóTptos], Eph.2°ſdºrm)\@Tptopévot | {{vot]; and introduced by RV in Prä"[n], Ezk 447 [naria], and by Amer. RV in Ps 1447. *[n]] }}]). Zār may denote ‘alien’ or “strange’ in a nar- rower or a wider sense ; (a) strange to a person : Job 1927 ° and mine eyes shall behold, and not another' (m. ‘as a stranger’), a passage of doubtful meaning; Prlá” “The heart knoweth its own bitterness, and a stranger doth not intermeddle with its joy’; 27” “Let another man praise, thee . . . a stranger . . . .'; cf. the ‘alien woman’ (Tys Hill) of Pr 21° 5' 2" 7"22" 23” [several times || 1:15, see above]. (b) Strange to a family, i.e. belonging to another household : Dt 25°, 1 K 3°, Job 19°, Ps 10011, Pr 510, 176' 111° 20'" 27”; fig. of another house- hold than God's, Hos 57; esp. of another family than the priests (Ex 20° 30′, Nu 3". " 17" (Eng. 16") 187 [all P], Lv 2219. 19. "[all H]), or of another tribe than Levi (Nu 1", 18" [both l’]). (c) Strange to a land, i.e. foreign ; so freq. plur. Dºn] ‘foreigners,’ * Cf. Udall, Erasm. Paraph. i. fol. 65, ‘the straunge woman’ (of the Syro-Phoenician); IIomilies, p. 512, “a certain strange philosopher’; Shaks. Ilenry VIII. II. iv. 15– ‘I am a most poor woman, and a Btranger, Born out of your dorminions.' ‘aliens’ (often with the implication of hostility): Hos 79 87, Is 17 bis 252. 5 295 61°, Jer 519 308 51%. º, La 5*, Ezk 72, 11° 16° 287. 19 3012 311”, J1 4 (3) 17, Obu, Job 15", Ps 54” (”); note esp. the phrases a “strange god’ (n) ºs Ps 44” (*) 81" (), Is 432 [n] alone, cf. Dºn) “strange ones’ in Dt 321° and in Jer 2* 31°]), ‘strange (i.e. foreign) waters’ (2 K 1994, Jer 1814), ‘strange slips’ (T, n.131, lit. ‘vine-slip of an alien,” Is 1719); God’s térah is counted as Whº (ºwn, nrip? Hos 81*); ‘his work is alien' (Is 28”, see below). (d) Strange to the Law: ‘strange incense” (nº nºop Ex 30” [P]); ‘strange fire’ (T) ºn Lv 10, Nu 34 26% [all P]). See NADAB. The LXX and NT equivalents of ‘strange’ and ‘stranger’ in the senses discussed above will be found under art. FOREIGNER. The idea of foreign naturally leads to that of wnfamiliar or unknown : Job 19” “I am become a foreigner ("P.) in their eyes’; Ps 69° (9) “I am become estranged (nºp) unto my brethren, and a foreigner ("Th;) to my mother's children’; Ec 6* “a stranger (º) eateth it’; Is 28* ‘foreign (ITP) is his task, alien (n)) his act’ [cf. the common ex- pression ‘this is foreign to one's nature'; or is the meaning here that he acts as if dealing with (foreign) enemies?]; Jer 2** a foreign vine” (Tºny; º; fig. of degenerate Israel); Pr20" 27°, where nj and "nº are both used of persons whknown to one.” This last usage approaches, but does not reach, the modern sense of “strange,” namely peculiar or wonderful, a sense which is pretty near to that re- presented by Ševišovrá Tuva (‘certain strange things’) of Ac 17” (cf. §evišovo at a vpºpopat, “strange sufler- ings’ of 2 Mac 9"), ševićourat (‘they think it strange’) of 1 P 4", and ui, Ševčeo 6e (‘think it not strange’) of v.”. Once only is this sense unmis- takably conveyed by ‘strange' in canonical Scrip- ture, namely in Lk 5” “We have seen strange things to-day.’ The Gr. is trapdóošos, which occurs in the same sense in the Apocrypha in Jūh 13”, Wis 52 19° (cf. v.8 0avuagiros), Sir 43*, 2 Mac 9*[EV in last “contrary to expectation'). It is most unfortunate and confusing that AV uses “stranger’ also to represent nº or (thrice, Lv 25%. 48.47) the allied term nººn, words which would be much more happily rendered ‘sojourner.’ ‘Stranger’ might suitably be retained as trº of both nº, and nj in the few instances where their specific renderings ‘foreign(er)’ and ‘alien' hardly suit the idiom or the context. The standing and privileges of the gēr (the familiar “stranger within thy gates’) are described fully in art. GER. J. A. SELBIE. STRAW (ºn teben, in Is 25" janp mathbān; dxupov, palea). — The Hebrew teben is the same as the Arabic tibn, which is the straw of wheat and barley cut by the threshing machine into pieces from # to 2 in. long, and more or less split and torn, and mixed with chaſl. It is the universal accompaniment to the provender of the domestic herbivorous animals. It is usually mixed with barley, and takes the place of hay. It was mixed with clay in the manufacture of unbaked bricks (see Dillm.-Ryssel on Ex 5'). In one passage (Jer 2328) AV tr. it “chaff,” RV ‘straw' (see CHAFF). In one (Job 2118) AV and RV tr. it ‘stubble.’ In all the rest (Gm 2425. 32, IX 57. 10, 1]. 12, 18, 16. is, Jg 1919, 1 K 428, Job 4127, Is 117 65*) both VSS tr., it ‘straw.” As ‘straw' in Western languages refers to whole stalks of the cereals, it might be better to adopt the Arab. tibn, a word now well under- * The denom, verb hill occurs in Hithp, in sense of “make oneself strange,’ ‘act as a stranger' in Gn 427 (of Joseph's attitude to his brothers) and 1 K 14° 5 (of Jeroboam's wife feign- ing herself to be a stranger). In Dt 32°7 the words \p'ny sº is (AV ‘lest their adversaries should behave themselves strangely') appear to mean ‘lest. . . . should misdeem' (RV), i.e. fail to recognize the truth (lit. ‘treat as foreign,' cf. Jer 19°]. 624 STREAM STRIKE, STROKE stood, and which is better than “cut straw,’ as it includes the chaff. There is no reason for the rendering ‘stubble’ or ‘chaff.’ Whole straw is seldom used for any purpose in the East. G. E. POST. STREAM.—See BROOK and RIVER, STREET.—In Oriental towns the streets seem to owe their form and direction more to accident than design. The houses are built with a view to seclusion and comfort within, and with little care as to what is without. Space is precious, so the streets are narrow ; and as no order is enforced in building, they twist and turn among the houses with bewildering effect. They are usually un- paved, and go swiftly to mud in rainy weather. Often, in spite of the industry of innumerable dogs, the refuse cast out is at once offensive and dangerous to health. The upper storeys frequently project over the street, leaving only a narrow opening overhead. This utilizes space, and forms a shelter from heat. In unwalled towns and vil- lages, in obedience to the instinct of defence, the houses are crushed closely together : the openings between them are rather alleys than streets. Schick gives the average width of the streets in Jerusalem as 2.75 m. (ZDPV, 1884, iv. 217); the a revajrot of Josephus (BJ V. viii. 1) would still accurately describe most of them. Where a town is built on a steep slope, as, e.g., in Safed, the roofs of the lower houses sometimes form the street in front of the higher. Tobit (1317) sees the streets of the future Jeru- salem paved with beryl, and carbuncle, and stones of Ophir' (cf. Rev 21*). Herod the Great laid a main street in Antioch with “polished stone” (Jos. Amt. XVI. v. 3). This is the first mention of actual pavement. Agrippa II. con- sented to the paving of Jerusalem with white stone (ib. XX. ix. 7). The two spacious thorough- fares characteristic of Syro-Greek and Syro-Roman cities, which cut through the city at right angles, were commonly paved with stone. Their remains can be traced in Bozrah, Damascus, etc.; but by far the finest example is found at Shuhba, on the north - western shoulder of Jebel Haurán. In some cases the central roadway was separated from the passage for foot passengers on either side by a stately colonnade. The imposing effect of this arrangement may still be seen among the ruins of Jerash. Men of the same trade are usually found in one street. In Jer 37% we read of the ‘bakers’ street.’ Josephus (B.J. V. viii. 1) says Titus entered through the second wall “at the place where are the mer- chants of wool, the braziers and the market for cloth.” So in Cairo and Damascus, for instance, we have the bazaars of the braziers, the silver- Smiths, the saddlers, etc. The goods are exposed for sale in little shops whose fronts are entirel open. The bazaars are frequently roofed º, glass. As strictly business streets, they are shut at sunset, and closely guarded. yºn, ‘what is without,’ is the Heb. word which properly corresponds to street : airin is unhappily often so rendered, esp. in AV (less often in IRV), but it really means broad or open place (cf. Driver on Am 51" or Dn 9”). For ºn *::: gives 66ós (Is 5” etc.), ££06os (2 S 1% etc.), 6toôos (Is 7*), tr}\ateſa (Ps 18*, etc.); for fºr-º-ºy (Job 1817), dirt rpóo wrov éčwrépay, where the sense is obviously ‘on the face of the earth' (1)avidson, Job, ad loc.). In each case AV and RV render “street.” This is right when the reference is to the outside of the house. The context determines the meaning. In Ps 144” RV gives correctly “in our fields.’ Hinn is repre- sented in LXX by 660s (Is 59"), 5to80s (Dt 1319), étravXts (Ps 144*); but the usual equivalent is tr}\ateſa, in which the root idea is the same. It applies to the open space at the gate (see OPEN PLACE) where assemblies met, cases were tried, and business done ; also to any square or open space in the city, as, e.g., before the house of God #. 101"). p-v occurs in Pr'78, Ec 12" ", Ca. 3%. In the first LXX renders 5to80s, ‘thoroughfare’; in the others dyopd. This corresponds with Arab. súk = ‘market,” or ‘place of concourse' : zukak is used for the connnnon passages between the houses. In NT TAareia and ſum are practically synony- mous. Although in Lk 14*. we read tr}\aretas Kal ºpas, i. here implying distinction in breadth, and renderec ‘streets and lanes,” yet the street called Straight in Damascus is called ºut. (Ac 9”), and it was one of the finest streets in Syria. For dyopa (Mk 6") TV gives correctly ‘market place.” . EWING. STRENGTH OF ISRAEL. — The EV tr. of the Divine title ºstly, ns) in 1 S 15*. The word ns) occurs parallel with Tin, nysºn, Thai, Hº, in a list of I\ivine attributes in 1 Ch 29", where it is tr. in EV ‘victory’ (so LXX vlkm). Driver (Heb. Teact of Samuel, p. 98) points out that the proper meaning of the root ris) is splendatit, and argues that the sense of victory is a special and derived one. He adopts for "snº ris, the tr. ‘the Glory of Israel' (similarly, Löhr). H. P. Smith (following the Vulg., triumphator) renders ‘the Victor’; Wellh. ‘the Faithful one.” The LXX in 1 S 15* has kal 6taupe&#geral 'Japaj)\ els öö0, which implies that the Gr. translator read or misread rism" for ms). J. A. SELDIE. STRIKE, STROKE.—The verb ‘to strike” is of Anglo-Sax. Origin, coming from strican “to ad vance swiftly and smoothly' (Middle Eng. strikem),” though it is allied to Lat. Stringere ‘to touch swiftly and lightly, graze.” It is thus properly an intrans. verb, its trans. form being ‘stroke (from Anglo-Sax. stracian, causal of strican). But ‘strike' early adopted a transitive sense, and the two verbs were not kept distinct. - 1. In AV ‘strike ’ occurs transitively in the phrase “strike through.” For example: Jg 523 “When she had pierced and stricken through his temples' (nºn Hºm, RV ‘she struck through his temples’; Moore ‘she . . . . demolishes his temple, lit., makes it vanish,’ with a long note justifying the tr.; the Oa:f. Heb. Lea. gives “pierce’; the Heb. v.b. is usually intrans. ‘pass on or away,’ but here and in Job 2024 it is trans. ‘pass through'); Job 2024 “The bow of steel shall strike him through,” Ps 1100, Pr 793, La 49, Hab 314 (RV “pierce'). It is a strong phrase meaning to crush, and the verb ‘strike' has its original meaning of swift motion. Cf. Milton, Reform. in 197ug. i. “The bright and blissful Reformation (by Divine Power) strook through the black and settled Night of Ignorance and Anti-Christian Tyranny.” 2. Through the confusion between ‘strike' and ‘stroke,” the former came to mean rub smoothly. There are some examples in AV. Ex 127 ‘They shall take of the blood and strike it on the two side-posts’ (ºn, LXX %rovaly, RV “put it'); so 1222; also 2 K 511 ‘He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the Lord his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper' (pipin-º's in: Tjil, LXX iriſkati r?v × sipo. o.ºroſ, ºr roy réºrov, RV ‘wave his hand over the place’ —because it is the same Heb. verb that is used for ‘waving' the ‘wave-offering' [ICx 2924, 20 etc.], for waving the hand as a signal [Is 132], and the like—see Oaſ. IIeb. Lea. s. m.); To 111] ‘ He strake of the gall on his father's eyes’ (ºrpoortºroca's rºw x0x?y iri rows 340ozaaois). Cf. Holland, Pliny, ii. 313, ‘If the side-posts or doore-cheeks of any house be striked with the said bloud, where- soever magicians are busie with their feats and juggling casts, they shall take no effect.” * This early meaning is most nearly seen in the phrase 8tricken in age or in years : Gn 1811 ‘Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age” [D'p?? D'S3', which is always the Heb. whether the Jºng. be ‘age' (Gn 1811 241, Jos 231, 2) or “years’ (Jos 131 bis)]; Lk 17 “They both were now well stricken in years’ (ºrpoğ43%zors; $v roºf, hºw#00:15 octºrów), 118. Of. Robinson's More's Utopia, 29, “I chaunced to espye this fore- sayde Peter talkynge with a certayne Straunger, a man well stricken in age.’ STRIPES 625 SUCCEED, SUCCESS *--— 3. To ‘strike sail’ is simply to haul it down in order to ease the ship : Ac 27” “strake sail,” Gr. XaXágavres rô gredos, RV ‘they lowered the gear – see Smith, Voyage and §."; p. 105 ft.; Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 329 f.; and the notes by Page and by Knowling. 4. To ‘strike hands’ is to become security, as Pr 1718 ‘A man void of understanding striketh hands, and becometh surety in the presence of his friend,” so 6, 1110m. 22*, Job 17°, Ad. Est 148. The expression is Heb. and arises from the action. 5. In the Pref. to AV occurs the rare but intel- ligible phrase “strike the stroke ’; ‘The vintage of Abiezer, that strake the stroke ; yet the glean- ing of grapes of Ephrain, was not to be despised.’ 6. The verb ‘to strike' is used for the action of God’s hand in disease or death, and the result is a ‘stroke.” Strike: 2S 1216 “The Lord struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick'; 2 Ch 1320 “The Lord struck him, and he died”; Is 10 “Why should ye be stricken any more?”; 167 ‘Surely they are stricken' (D’sprils, RV “utterly stricken'); 584 “We did esteem him stricken'; 538 ‘For the transgressions of my people was he stricken' (p? y2), RVm “to whom the stroke was due'—see Cheyne's and Skinner's notes). Cf. Knox, Works, iii. 231, ‘I can not but feir lyke plagues to stryke the realme of England’; Bunyan, Iloly War, 27, ‘My brave Lord Innocent fell down dead (with grief, some Say; with being poisoned with the striking breath of one Ill- Pause, as say others).’ Stroke : Job 232 “My stroke is heavier than my groaning” (so RV ; Heb. lit. as AVm “my hand': but it is scarcely P. says Davidson, that “my hand’ should mean ‘the hand of God upon me,’ i.e. “my stroke'; see his note); 3618 “Beware lest he take thee away with his stroke’ (p;V+ iſn't Yº, RV ‘lest thou be led away by thy sufficiency,” RVm “lest wrath lead thee away into mockery’); Ps 3910 * Remove thy stroke away from me’; Is 146 “He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke’; Ezk 2410 “I take from thee the desire of thine eyes with a stroke. The ‘stroke” of OT, as of Is 534, 8, was prob- ably leprosy ; in modern language a ‘stroke’ is paralysis. See art. PLAGUE in vol. iii. p. 8870. Cf. Shaks. Rich. II. iii. i. 31– “More welcome is the stroke of death to me Than Bolingbroke to England.” Timon of Athem.8, IV. i. 23– “Plagues, incident to men, Your potent and infectious fevers heap On Athens, ripe for stroke.’ J. HASTINGS. STRIPES. — See CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS, vol. i. p. 527. STUBBLE.—In one place (Job 21*) this is the unfortunate trº (AV and RW) of teben (see STRAW). In all other places it is the equivalent, in both Eng. VSS, of cºp kash. The LXX tr. this word in two places (Job 13° 41*) xópros; in eight ka)\dum (= ‘stubble’ or “straw'), and in four ºppū- 7ava (“dry sticks’ and ‘stems,’ including stubble, such as are gathered for fuel). This is the current (not classical) meaning of the Arab. cognate kash. Once (Is 33") the expression ‘ye shall bring forth stubble’ is tr. by LXX alo'0m.0%geq 0e (B), ‘ye shall perceive,” or aloxuv6%reaffe (N*"), ‘ye shall be ashamed,’ evidently a diſlerent reading. Grain in Bible lands is not cut by the sickle, but pulled up by the roots, or the straw broken off short near them. Consequently there is little stubble in the harvest field, in our sense of the term. When teben was withheld from them, the Israelites had to utilize kash for the manufacture of their bricks. Kash refers to such remnants of grain stalks, with sticks and stumps of small plants, as are ex- pressed by pp.9)ava. , Such furnish the pasturage of countless herds of cattle and flocks of sheep. They are liable to catch ſire and burn. Most of the allusions to stubble are with reference to such conflagrations (Ex 157, Is 5*, J1 2" etc.). . It is finally rooted up and carried away by the wind * In the same way the subst. ‘blow' is used in PS 3919 and Jer 1417. In the former passage lºv retains, the Heb. being found only there; in the latter it changes into ‘wound.' VOl. IV.-4O (Job 13”, Is 40”, Jer 13% etc.). One of the most characteristic spectacles witnessed in passing over the breezy plains of Syria, after the harvest is over, is that of the uprooted plants of the large Umbelliferas, Compositae, and others, often with a spherical contour, dried to excessive lightness by the hot winds and whirled across the fields, leaping madly over stones and inequalities in the surface, and sometimes taking long flights in the air, then pausing a moment, only to bound off again, until they are caught in some thorn bush, or lost to view beyond the distant horizon. G. E. POST. STUFF (Lat. stupa, stuppa, the coarse part of flax, tow, Old Fr. estoffe) is used in AV in the sense of goods, esp. household furniture. The Heb. is "º kélé, except in Ex 367 (Hysºn, lit. ‘work,” of the furniture of the tabernacle). The Gr. is rô. orkeváguara, Jth 15” ; or rà, a keym, Jth 1619, Lk 1781. Cf. Udall, Erasmus' Par. i. 7, ‘All that ever they had about then of stuffe or furniture, shewed and testifyed povertie and simplicitie’; North, Plutarch, 871, “This man after #. had spent the most part of his father's goods, was so sore in debt, that he was driven to sell his household stufte, by billes set up on every post.’ In 2 Ch 2 heading ‘stuff” means ‘materials” for building. Cf. Erasmus, Crede, 39, “Certayne men . . . have taught that he doth create which doth brynge forthe and make somewhat of nothynge, which belongeth onely to God, and that he doth make which frameth or shapeth ony thing of some matere or stuffe’; Ex 39" Tind. “And the brod- rynge of the girdel that was upon it was of the same stuffe and after the same worke of gold.” J. HASTINGS. STUMBLING BLOCK.—The word “block ’ was formerly used of a lump of wood, stone, or the like, in one's way, and was then applied fig. to any obstruction. Thus Payne, }.} Eacch. 38, ‘At which common block many weakelings do stumble.” The expression exists now only in the compound ‘stumbling-block,” and only the compound is found in AV. The words so trú are in Heb.: (1) mikshöl (Lv 1914, Is 57.14, Jer 621, Ezk 320710 143.4"); and (2) nakshelah (Zeph 13). The Gr. words are: (1) ºpéozoº.o. (Sir 89%, Ro 1413, I Co 89); (2) &Aoy ºrpoozópºpºros (Sir 317); and (3) orzczy82Xoy (Wis 1411, Sir 79, Ro 119, 1 Co 129, Rev 214). See OFFENCE, vol. iii. p. 586*. In the same way stumblingstone is used in Ro 9**(\ldos trpooköpparos), for which RV gives ‘stone of stumbling,’ the AV expression for the same Gr. in 1 P 2°. ‘Stone of stumbling' occurs also in Is 8* for 'eben megeph, the latter word meaning lit. “plague,” “stroke' (see STRIKE, STROKE). J. HASTINGS. SUA (B Xová, A 20vorá, AV Sud), 1 Es 5*= Siaha, Ezr 24"; Sia, Nell 747. SUAH (nºb; B Xouxt, A and Luc. Xoje).--An Asherite, 1 Ch 7”. SUBAI (Xuffael), 1 Es 5” – Shamlai, Ezr 2"; Sal. mai, Neh 7*. SUBAS (Xougás, AV Suba), 1 Fs 5*.—His sons were among the sons of Solomon's servants who returned with Zerubbabel. There is no correspond- ing name in the lists of Ezr 2, Neh 7. SUCATHITES (Dºnºv; B Swxadelp, A Xavka.0telu, Luc. Xouxadelp!).-A family of scribes that dwelt at Jabez, 1 Ch 20". See SIIIMEATIIITES, and cf. GENEALOGY, iv. 39, and Wellh. de Gentibus, 30 fl. SUCCEED, SUCCESS.–To succeed (Lat. suc, cčdere, from sub, next, and cédere, to go ; Fr. Sue * On Ezekiel's ‘block-gods’ see Davidson's note to 64. 626 SUCCOTH SUCCOTH-BENOTH céder) is simply to follow ; and success (Lat. successus, Old Fr. succes) is that which follows. Thus, Shaks. II. Henry VI. II. iv. 2— “After summer evermore succeeds Barren winter’; Tymme, Calvin's Genesis, 785, ‘This verily was rare honour, to be tolde of the event, and successe to come of fourteene yeares”—in reference to the interpretation of Pharaoh's dreams. In modern Eng." when the reference is to the result of an enterprise, “succeed’ and ‘success’ denote pro- sperity, but in older Eng. the nature of the result was not contained in the words themselves, but had to be indicated by an adv. or adjective. Succeed: In Sir 488 the verb occurs in its simple sense, and the prep. is expressed, ‘Who anointedst kings to take revenge, and prophets to succeed after him (31236xov: Azºr' octºrów). We still say ‘follow after,' but not ‘succeed after.” The nature of the result is iP. by an adv. in To 46 “If thou deal truly, thy doings shalf prosperously succeed to thee...(sºobie, idovr& iv roi; pyou; orov). Cf. Shaks. Lear, I. ii. 157, ‘The effects he writes of succeed unhappily.” Success: It was possible in 1611 to use ‘success’ in a good sense; * it occurs so once in AV, 2 Mac 1028 ‘For a pledge of their success and victory’ (ty yuoy stºnºspío., zoºl wizºº). So Fuller, Holy State, 258, ‘God causeth sometimes the sunne of successe to shine as well on bad as good projects.” But elsewhere in AV an adj. is used, either “good” (Jos 18, 1 S 18 hoading, To 712, Wis 1319, Sir 200 3818, 1 Mac 400 828, 2 Mac 1023 1310) or “prosperous’ (Sir 4326). Cf. Fuller, Holy State, 109, “God mouldeth some for a scholemaster's life, undertaking it with desire and delight and discharging it with dexterity and happy successe.’ On the other hand, 1ſoly State, 79, “Sorrow-struck with some sad signe of ill- successe'; and Milton, Pl: iv. 1– “Perplexed and troubled at his bad success, The tempter stood.’ J. HASTINGS. SUCCOTH.-1. (nºp) A place so called accord- ing to Gn 337 because of the booths (Heb. Sukköth) which Jacob made there for his cattle. In the Heb. text of this verse sukkºth occurs three times and is rendered ‘Succoth '— ‘booths’—‘Succoth ' in AV and RV. The LXX by using a kmvat three times makes clear the identity of Succoth with booths, which has to be explained in the margin of AV and It V, but conveys the impression that the name of Succoth was then XKmvat. Josephus (Amt. I. xxi. 1) states that the place was so called in his time; but this name would not have been given before the period of Greek supremacy. The Targ. and Syr. preserve the proper name Succoth, but in place of the second sukkóth (tr. ‘booths’ in EV) use ºpp, sºpp, words which in a modified form are employed as equivalents for tabernacles' and ‘booths’ in Lv. 23* * and other places where reference is made to the Feast of Tabernacles. The Vulgate explains ‘Socoth, id est tabernacula,' though “tentoriis’ corresponds to ‘booths' in the earlier part of the verse. The passages where the name occurs are: Gn 3317 Xzzvozí ; Jos 1327B Xozzo,0&, A Xiox4, Luc. 212.40; Jg 89-10 B Xozzó0, in v.1% Tâc ºrdxto:, A Xozzó0; 1 K 740 (v.33 in LXX) Xozz40; 2 Ch 417 B 26%z40 (?), A Xoxx40; PS 608 B roy ozavºy, Aq. orvaxiozakºv; Ps 1088 N Tày orzvapºray, AIRT orzywów. The passages in Joshua, Judges, Kings, and Chron. refer to a place E. of Jordan. Jos 1327 mentions Succoth as in the territory of Sihon, king of Heshbon. In Gideon's pursuit of the Midianites as related in Jg 8, he comes to Succoth after crossing the Jordan. From the references in Ps 60° [Heb. 8] 1087 ſiteb. *] to the valley of Succoth' nothing definite as to geographical posi- tion can be inferred, but a locality east of the Jordan is suitable (note that the LXX in these two passages does not treat Succoth as a proper name). Jerome on Gn 337 (Quast. Heb. in lib. Gen.) ob- serves with reference to Succoth : “Est autem usque hodie civitas trans Jordanem hoc vocabulo * On the other hand, it is found in the Rhemish NT in a bad sense : “As God hath shewed by the successe of all Heretical Colloquies, Synodes, and Assemblies in Germanie, France, Poole, and other places in our daies' (note on Ac 1528). inter partes Scythopoleos.” Jerome testifies to the survival of the Heb. name, while Josephus (as already remarked) testifies to the existence of its Gr. equivalent. The Talm. Jerus. (Shebiith, ix. 2) gives nºynn (in some edd. Hºynn) as yet another name for Succoth, and Merrill (East of the Jordan, p. 386), followed by Conder (Heth and Moab, p. 183) and G. A. Smith (HGHL, 585), proposes Tell Deir 'Alla, a mound about 1 mile N. of the Jabbok, as the site of the ancient Succoth, and the present equivalent of Hºyº". A place Sākūt, about 10 miles south of Beisan, on the west of the Jordan, has also been proposed as the site; but, though this may meet the requirements of the narrative in Gn 33, a place E. of the Jordan seems necessary for some of the other places where the name is mentioned. Tristram (Bible Places, p. 345) failed to find any trace of the name Succoth east of Jordan. 2. (Sokx69, Ex 1297 1329, Nu 33%. 8) The first encampment of the children of Israel on leaving Egypt. The word is a pure Heb. one, signifying ‘booths’ or ‘tents’ (see above), but Egyptologists regard it as the equivalent of an Egyptian word Thuku or Thuket, the name of a region of which the capital was Pithom. Brugsch and Naville are agreed on this point, but not as to the situation of Pithom. Ebers proposes a different Egyptian word as the equivalent of Succoth, but agrees with Naville as to the position of the region so desig- nated. Iteferring to art. EXODUS, vol. i. p. 802, it will be seen that the neighbourhood of the station Ramses, on the railway from Zagazig to Ismailia, corresponds to the ancient . Succoth. The children of Israel must have remained here a short time to arrange themselves in order for their future march ; and whether the name was used by them in imitation of a similarly sounding Egyptian word, or because they then began to dwell in booths, may be left an open question. A. T. CHAPMAN. SUCCOTH-BENOTH (nila-map; B'Poxx998aivetoeſ, Sokxw03evidel; Sochoth-benoth).-In 2 K. 17” it is said that the colonists from Babylon at Samaria ‘made Succoth-benoth,’ just as the colonists from Cuth ‘made Nergal.” . The parallelism between Nergal and Succoth-benoth shows that the latter must be the name of a deity. As Nergal was the patron-god of Cuth, it is reasonable to infer that in Succoth-benoth we have a corrupted form either of Bel-Merodach, the patron-god of Babylon, or of his wife Zarpanit. There is consequently a good deal of probability in the conjecture of Rawlinson (Herodotus”, i. p. 654) that we have in it a corruption of the Babylonian Zarpamit, “the silvery one,’ which, in accordance with a popular etymology, is generally written Zer-bºmit, “the seed-creatress,’ in the cuneiform texts. The spell. ing of the name in the LXX lends support to this view ; and it is just possible that Rawlinson may be right in suggesting that the biblical Succoth is due to a confusion between zerit, which seems to be a derivative form from zerot (see Haupt, Nimrod- Epos, 8, 35), and zardt, “tents’ or ‘booths.' . In Am 52" the name of the Babylonian god Sakkut has been transformed into n2P, if we accept Schrader's explanation of the passage (SK, 1874, pp. 324-332). Perhaps the fact that the images of the Babylonian divinities were carried in pro- cession in ‘ships’ or arks, assisted in the change of the name. It is even possible that by Succoth the Hebrew writer intended to denote these pro- cessional shrines, Bemoth (from Benith) being corrupted from Belith or Belit, the classical Beltis, a common title and synonym of Zer-banit. LITERATURE.—Schrader, COT i. 274 f.; Delitzsch, Paradie8 216; Jensen, ZA iv. 352; and the Comm. ad loc. A. H. SAYCE. SUD ſº----- SUD (2006, Sodi).-The “river' of Babylon, on which dwelt ‘Jechonias, the son of Joakim, king of Judah,” and his fellow-exiles (Bar 14). The canal on which Babylon was situated before its destruction by Sennacherib was called the Arakhtu ; but the whole of Babylonia was intersected by Small canals, each of which had a name, and it is therefore quite possible that in the time of Nebuch- adrezzar one of those in the neighbourhood of the Capital bore a name which resembled Sud. As, however, the Greek sibilant can represent more than one Semitic letter, it is useless to speculate about the Babylonian form of the name until we know how it was written in Hebrew or Aramaic. A. H. SAYCE. SUDDENLY.—The adj. ‘sudden' and the adv. ‘Suddenly’ were often used formerly without the element of surprise which belongs to their root (Lat. Subitaneus, from subire, ‘to come steathily’), and is always associated with their use in mod. Inglish. Thus Shaks. uses ‘sudden' in the sense of soon (Meas, for Meas. II. ii. 83, ‘To-morrow ! O, that's sudden'); and of hasty (As You Like It, V. ii. 8, “My sudden wooing, nor her sudden con- senting’) and of impetuous (Iðich. II. II. i. 35, ‘Small showers last long, but sudden storms are short'). So also he uses ‘suddenly ” in the sense of quickly (Tam. Shrew, ii. 327, ‘Was ever match clapped up so suddenly 2') or presently (1 Henry IV. I, iii. 294, ‘When time is ripe, which will be suddenly '). In AV ‘Suddenly ” means speedily in Ps 610 “Ilet them return and be ashamed suddenly ” (91), LXX Suð réxovs); and in Jer 491° 5014. In 1 Ti 5% “Ilay hands suddenly on no man,” the meaning is hastily (Gr. Taxéws). J. HASTINGS. SUDIAS (BA Xovötas, Luc. 'Qöoviá).—A Levitical family that returned with Zerubbabel, 1 Es 529, called in Ezr 24) HODAVIA II and in Neh 748 HODEVAH. SUICIDE.—See CRIMES AND PUNISIIMENTS, vol. i. p. 522*. SUKKIIM (b":R; B Tpayoóðrat, A Tpany)\odºtal, Luc. 20vXuelp.). —The name of a tribe mentioned together with Libyans and Cushites as led by Shishak against Judaea (2 Ch 128). The passage is not found in the corresponding text of Kings. The LXX rendering “Troglodytes' was probably suggested by the fact of a place called Suche (Pliny, II.N. vi. 172) being mentioned among Troglodyte possessions; the same is called by Strabo (iii. 8) ‘the fortress of Suchus,” and Suchus, he tells us, is a name for a sacred crocodile (ib. xvii. 1). Several geographers identify this place with the modern Suakin, which, however, may well be an Arabic word (sawākim). The identification of the Sukkiim with the inhabitants of Suakin (though accepted by Forbiger and Dillmann) is therefore very un- certain ; nor is the view of Gesenius, that the word should be treated as a Hebrew adjective, ‘ dwellers in tents,” much more probable. I). S. MARGOLIOUTII. SULPHUR.—See BRIMSTONE. *# SUN.—The usual word in the OT for the first of the great lights of heaven is "gº, Phoen. Upe, Aram. Rºº (Dn 614) and shemsha, Arab. Shamsun, Assyr. Sam Nu (sansw in the name Samsu-iluna, c. 2200 B.C., evidently a west Semitic form). There is consider- able uncertainty as to the etymology (for conjec- tures see Levy, Würterb. iiber die Targg. ii. 578 f.). Other words for sun are "ºn, lit. ‘heat,” or, adj. [?], “hot” (Job 3028, Ca610, Is2428.30%), and P.M. (Jg 8181418, Job 07), of doubtful derivation. Both these terms are used poetically, and the latter occurs in the place-name Ir-ha-Heres, ‘city of the sun” (Helio- SUN 627 polis), RV “city of destruction’ (see IR-HA-HEREs). In Job 81* the word used is ns, marg. “light.” The earliest mention of the sun in the Bible is in Gil 1*-* [P], in which, however, none of the above words are used, the luminary being referred to as the greater of the two “great lights' (mě'öröth), created to rule the day, the lesser light being to rule the night, and to divide the light from the darkness (V.4°). Both of them were placed in the firmament for signs and for seasons, and for days and years (V.4). As the lesser light, the moon was the measurer of time, by her constant and clearly- marked phases; the sun was, by the constancy and regularity of his apparent motion, the real indicator. With those of the lesser light, his eclipses were regarded as signs foretelling events. He indicated the beginning and the end of each day; seasons, both religious and agricultural; regulated the festivals; and determined the com- mencement and termination of every year, his movements forming, at the same time, the basis of all chronological data. Naturally, the ideas of the ancient Hebrews con- cerning the movements of the sun, when tested by modern science, were erroneous. As we, in the language of everyday life, speak of the sun as “rising' and “setting,” so they spoke of him as ‘going forth ' (yāzā’, Gn 1923 etc.; 2ürah, Jg 938, 2 S 23' etc.) and “entering' (b6', Gn 1512, 17 etc.). From 2árah and bà’ came the expressions, mizral, (shemesh), ‘the rising (of the sun),” also east"; and mébó' (shemesh), ‘the setting (of the sun)," also ‘west.” The equivalent Assyrian expres- sions are similar, being zit (for azit, from azà– gāzā') Šamsi and érib Šam Si, the ‘coming forth’ and the ‘entering of the sun' (cf. for the latter, the Heb. 2D ‘to become evening'). Poetically, this idea of going forth and entering was extended, and the Sun, as well as the moon, was regarded as possessing a habitation (Hab 311) and a tent or taber- nacle (Ps 19%. 9), set for him by God, from which he came forth as a bridegroom from his chamber, rejoicing as a strong man to run his course. This idea seems to be illustrated by the designs on certain of the cylinder-seals of Babylonia, on which a deity, evidently the sun - god, is represented coming forth through the open doors, which the attendants hold back for him, at the same time turning their faces away, in order not to be blinded by his brightness. In connexion with this, it is also worthy of note that the Babylonians speak of the bolts of the high heavens greeting the sun at his setting, and his beloved wife going to meet him. There is hardly any doubt that these poetical similes are based upon the unfailing regularity of the sun's daily course, which, in more southern latitudes, varies less than with us, marking the two cardinal points, and also the divi- sion of day and night, with less variation. Such expressions as ‘the time when the sun is hot (1 S 119, Neh 78) were therefore more precise than they would be in our latitudes. Having risen, and run his fixed path in his might (Jg 591) until the time of his greatest heat, the sun went down at the hour which, like a living thing, he was supposed to know (Ps 10419). Like all God's creatures, the sum was altogether dependent on His will, and at His command would cease to shine (Job 97); and, this being the case, the sun could also undergo a chango of his course. Of this there are two examples : Joshua's order to the sun to stand still (Jos. 101*, Sir 46°), and the going back of the shadow on the dial of Ahaz (2 K 208-11, Is 387). The former has given rise to a considerable amount of discussion, the impro- bability of such a change as the stoppage of the earth's rotation implied thereby being generally recognized, notwithstanding that God's power to **Copyright, 1902, by Charles Scribner's Sons 628 SUN SUN do so without harm to the world and its inhabit- ants cannot admit of doubt. The probability, however, is that this passage, being a poetical extract from another work, ‘the Book of Jashar,” is not to be understood literally, the statement being made by poetic licence for some such expres- sion as ‘the sun did not set until the enemies of Israel were completely defeated,” i.e. the opera- tions were carried out so rapidly, that as much was done as if the day had been twice as long (cf. v.14). On the other hand, the explanation that the lengthening of the day, and the continued appearance of the Sun above the horizon, may have been due to a considerable increase of the refrac- tive properties of the atmosphere, is also possible. The return of the shadow on the dial has also been referred to various causes, and may, according to some, have been due to an eclipse (see 13osanquet in G. Smith's Assurbanipal, p. 346, and TSB.A. iii. 31 ff., v. 261). In 2 K 208-11 it is the shadow only that is spoken of ; but the parallel passage in Is 387 mentions also the sun, and on account of this it has been contended that the movement recorded must have been purely optical. The phenomenon referred to in Mk 1588, Lk 2344. 46, where it is stated that the sum was darkened, cannot refer to an eclipse, as it was the time of the full moon. The sun is in these passages, to all appearance, represented as hiding himself in order to cast a veil of darkness over the death of the Son of God. Whatever be the explanation of these three apparent departures from the Sun's daily routine, there is no doubt that they are intended to em- phasize the power of God, and His active interest in the affairs of man. The same ideas were, to all appearance, generally current with regard to eclipses in general, these being looked upon in like manner as extraordinary manifestations of the power of God over nature, or as foreshadowing the terrible tokens of the day of judgment (Is 1319, J| 210 316– Ac 22), Mt 2429, Mk 1324, Lk 21%, Rev 612 812).” The setting of the sun at bright noonday is figurative of loss of happiness, prosperity, or success (Is 602), Jer 159, Am 89, Mic 39), whilst the reverse of this is indicated by the rising of the ‘sun of l{ighteousness” of Mal 42 (see also vol. i. p. 1939). Like the moon, the sun was also regarded as an emblem of constancy, on account of the unerring daily repetition of his course (Ps 72%. 17.89%). The man who loves God (Jg 581) and the just ruler (2S23*) are both compared with him as the thing of all God’s creation shining with the greatest brilliance, whilst, for the same reason, he became the image of God IIimself (Ps 8411). His pure, unfailing light became also an emblem of beauty (Ca, 61%), and his force in- creasing daily, or at certain seasons, typified the progress of a good man towards perfection (Pr 4*). The great luminary (Sir 1791) and adornment of the heavens (Sir 2010), his light shone on all things; and is surpassed in brilliance only by the heavenly world to come, of which God Himself is to be the light and the glory (Is 6019, Ac 2013). - It is to the penetrating heat of the sun that the poetical expression "PQ, hammāh, is applied (cf. Ps 19%); and by means of this, as well as by his light, he exercises his beneficent power, bringing forth the fruits of the earth (Dt 3314), grass with the help of the rain (2 S 234), and giving man the desire of life (IEC 117). Ibut the sun has also the power of injuring, smiting, and scorching men and the fruits of the earth by his heat (Ps 1219, Is 4919, Jon 48, Rev 71° 168 etc.). Observation of the movements of the sun, and his influence upon the earth and upon all nature, * Mahler, in JJ’AS, 1901, p. 42, explains the plague of dark- ness referred to in Ex 1021ſt as an eclipse of the sun, which took place in B. c. 1335 (Sitzungsber, der k. Akad. der Wł88, Vienna, 1885). w caused all the ancient world, with but few excep- tions, to regard him as a living thing; and from this view, dwelling, as they did, in the midst of heathendom, the ancient Hebrews were not wholly free, especially during the time of the kings. Ex- cept, however, where a direct reference to idolatry is made, the sun is spoken of as a personal living being only in the domain of poetry, though, as will be seen further on, the writers of the Hebrew poetical books had been apparently influenced by the heathen teaching concerning the luminary of day. He ruled over the day, not as a god but as the source of light, heat, and the divisions of time, and came forth from his chamber to run lais fixed course as one of the great creations of God, not as being himself a deity whom men should worship. Nevertheless, the Hebrews were attracted by the worship of the sun, under the influence of the heathen nations by whom they were surrounded. A common act of worship is that mentioned in Job 3123, 27, in which the hand was kissed, and which is described as an iniquity to be punished by the judges. The law against idolatrous wor- ship of the sun and heavenly bodies is given in I)t 419, and from 17% we learn that the penalty was death by stoning at the gate of the city. The open idolatry which took place in the time of the kings, however, shows clearly that the laws re- corded in the passages quoted were not generally Observed. On the entrance of the Israelites into the Holy Land, they found there the worship of the sun under the name of Baal-hammon, the last com- ponent part of this appellation being the singular of the word hammānīm, meaning “Sun-images,” and connected with the word hammāh, “heat or hot,’ one of the words used in the OT for the sun (Job 3028 etc.). As pointed out in the article BAA L, however, it is not certain that IBaal was regarded as the sun, but the sun was a baal, or “lord,” just as the Babylonian sun-god, Samaš, bore the title of b&lu, ‘lord,” in common with the other deities of the Assyro-Babylonian pantheon. In all proba- bility, therefore, the worship of the sun, properly so called, came from Babylonia, in which country there were at least two shrines to this god—one at Sippar (Abu-habbah), and the other at Larsa, which is identified with the Ellasar of Gn 141. He was also worshipped, however, at many other places in Babylonia and Assyria. Noteworthy in connexion with the worship of the sun by the Jews, and its origin, is the reference to the chariots of the Sun in 2 K 2311. To all appearance the chariot, as well as the horses, had been dedicated by various idolatrous kings of Judah, and they were stationed at the western entrance to the temple, ‘by the chamber of Nathan-melech the chamberlain, which was in the precincts.” At the temple of the sun at Sippar in Babylonia, there was also a chariot, and presumably horses, dedi- cated to that deity ; and it is worthy of note that, as one of the sacred objects belonging to the temple of the god, it was the custom to make sacrifices to it.* In the 19th year of Nabopolassar this was transferred from the keeping of the men who had care of the horses (? of the sun at Sippara) to a man named Bél-āliè-iddina, and a list of the furniture (àdé) of the chariot was drawn up, enumerating about 140 objects belonging to it, many of them of silver, though some were of gold and of bronze. It is doubtful whether the Baby- lonians ever thought of the sun-god coursing through the heavens in a chariot drawn by swift steeds of fiery breed typifying his brilliant daily journey through the heavens, as the inscriptions, as far as * One of the tablets referring to this states that on the 13th of Iyyar, in the 14th year of Nabopolassar, a full-grown whito sheep was offered bofore it. SUN SUR 629 they are known, do not refer to this, and the representation of the sun-god on the stone found by Mr. Rassam at Abu-habbah shows the deity seated in his shrine, with the representation of his disc before him, and two small figures coming out of the top of the shrine, seemingly guiding the disc by means of the cords attached to it, which they hold in their hands. The sacrificial instru- ments which formed part of the furniture of the chariot suggest that it was used in connexion with the worship of the sun ; and as, in its equipment, swords or daggers of gold (3 in number) and of some other material (2 in number) are referred to, the suggestion that it may have accompanied the armly on certain occasions would not be without probability. The ceremonies in connexion with the chariot of the sun at Sippar, in all probability, had their reflexion at Jerusalem. It is hardly likely, however, that the chariot of the sun at Jerusalem, which Josiah burned with fire, was so splendid as that at Sippar in Babylonia.” The worship of the sun at Jerusalem is described by Ezekiel, who speaks of the five and twenty men (? priests) with their backs towards the temple of the Lord, and their faces towards the east, wor- shipping the sun (Ezk 810). During this ceremony it is said (v.17) that ‘ they put the branch to their nose,” a doubtful phrase which has been the subject of much discussion. The general opinion, however, is, that this is a reflexion of a Persian custom in which, when repeating the liturgy, the priests held from time to time in the left hand a bunch of twigs called baregman, and wore, at the offering of the daily sacrifice, a kind of veil. It may be noted in connexion with this, that, in the list of things belonging to the chariot of the sun at Sippar, 2 murmº are mentioned. Now the word. nurnſ, as is suggested by Frd. Delitzsch (Assyr. IIWB), possibly means ‘fig,’ ‘fig-tree,” and two models of a tree of this kind, or of branches, probably belonged to the chariot as ornaments, and may have been carried ‘before the face " when worshipping the sun, as his emblems. Whether this practice originated in Persia or in Babylonia is doubtful. These idolatrous Jews of old are represented as worshipping the sun towards the east, i.e. at his rising. This was a custom with the Persians, and also, in all probability, with all the nations which adored that luminary. At the temple of Borsippa, which is generally regarded as the Tower of Babel, the worship of the sun was possibly an institution of long standing, and at the beginning of a new day, that is, at sunset, the following hymn was Sung :- “Sun-god in the midst of heaven, at thy setting, May the bolt of heaven lofty speak thee peace— May the (loor of heaven bloss thee. Mišºvu, the messenger, thy beloved, let him direct thee. At £-babarra, the seat of thy dominion, thy supremacy Shines forth. May Aa, thy beloved wife, gladly come to meet thoe ; May thy heart take rest : May thy divine refreshment be preparod for thee. Warrior, hero, sun-god, may they glorify thee. Lord of £-babarra, may the course of thy road prosper. Sun-god, direct thy path, make firm the road, go to thino abode. Sun-god, thou art judge of the land, (and) director of its decisions.” In this hymn the sun is not only represented in a manner similar to that of the psalmist, as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber (Ps 19°), but his bride is conceived as going to meet him, * Among the Babylonians, the important thing in connexion with the ceremonies seems to have been the chariot, and this was probably the case at Jerusalem. With the l’ersians, on the other hand, the horses seem to have been at least as important, and sometimes the ono, sometimes the other, followed in the processions. The colour of these sacred horses was white, and they were on certain occasions sacrifleed to the Sun (IIerod. i. 188, vii. 40, 55; Xon. Cyn'. viii. 8). * and he takes rest and refreshment after his weary- ing course. The last line of the inscription shows him also in the character which he commonly had with the Babylonians, namely, that of judge, which he apparently possessed as witness of every- thing that passes on the earth (‘under the sun,” as so often occurs in Ecclesiastes, e.g. 18, 9 etc.). The tablet which followed the above was a hymn to the rising sun, beginning (the Akkadian version only is preserved), Utu ama-azaga-ta ča, “Sun-god in the glorious heaven rising,” and may have resembled that with which the heathen Jews greeted the luminary, when performing the ceremony referred to by Ezekiel.” The judgment pronounced against the sun and moon (Is 24*), in which the former was to be ashamed, is regarded by some as resting upon the fact that the idolatrous worship which was paid to it was accounted as a sin, the consequences of which rested upon the object causing it, and would be visited upon it by God at the last day. This is probable; but the end of the verse ought to be taken into account, for when the Lord reigns in Zion gloriously the sun may well be put to shame on account of his inferior lustre. LITERATURE.—Riehm, If WB ; Sayce, IIibbert Lectures, 1887 ; Pinches in TSBA, 18S4, pp. 164–169 ; Transactions of the Victoria Institute, 1894, pp. 10, 16, 17. T. G. PINCHES. SUPERSCRIPTION (greypaqº).-1. The legend on a coin (Mt 2220, Mk 1219, Lk 2024). See MoW EY. 2. The accusation on the Cross of Jesus (Mk 1520, Lk 2338). See TITLE ON THE CROSS. SUPH.—One of the expressions used in IDt 11 to define the locality of Moses’ address to Israel [?; on the difficulty of this interpretation see Driver] is ‘in the Arabah, over against Suph’ (TD ºr [i.e. by dissimil., for ºp], AV “over against the Red Sea"). If the MT be correct, Suph is a place- name, possibly identical with SUPHA II of Nu 2114, but, upon the whole, it appears more probable that rºb ºn is a textual error for TDTEN (cf. LXX TAmatov rås épubpás [6a)\áo'ams], Vulg. contra mare rubrum). Yam stiph t means probably “sea of reeds,” and appears to have been originally a title given to the upper end of the Gulf of Suez, which would be shallow and marshy, and abounding in reeds (W. M. Müller, As. w. Europ. 42 f.). In the OT this designation is usually confined to the W. (Suez) arm of the Red Sea: Ex 1019 (J) 1318 154 * 2381 (all four E), Nu 330 li (P), Dt 114, Jos 210 (J) 428 (D), Neh 99, Ps 1067.9, 22 13618, 15. It stands, how- ever, for the Gulf of 'Akabah not only in Dt 11 (if the above suggestion is correct), but in Nu 214 (E) and I K 923; prob. also in Nu 1425 (E), Dt 140 21; and perhaps Jg 111", Jer 4921. - J. A. SEI.B.I.E. SUPHAH (Tºp).—The name of an unknown locality E. of Jordan, found only in an obscure fragment of ancient poetry preserved in Nu 2114 ( Valeb in Suphah’). The suggestion of Tristram (Land of Moab, 50 f.), that it may be the modern Safieh, is exposed to the objection of which he himself is aware, that the initial D of the Heb. word could hardly represent an Arabic The same difficulty attaches to Knobel's identification with Wałb es-Safi, some 25 miles W.S.W. of the Dead Sea. See, further, the Comm. ad loc. J. A. Sl. LBI E. SUPPER.—See FOOD, vol. ii. p. 41b ; and for the “Last Supper' see LORD's SUPPER. sur (B 'Aggoºp, A 20%p).—One of the towns on * For other forms of the sun-god and sun-worship see the articles B.A.A., Cut Mosul, Mo Leon, and TAMMI". . . + Sºph is attributed also to the Nile in Ex 28.5 (cf. Is 196). 630 SURE, SURELY, SURETY SUSANNA the seacoast of Palestine upon whose people the fear and dread of Holofernes fell when they heard that he had reached Damascus (J th 2-8). The towns are mentioned in order from north to south ; and Sur comes between Tvre and Ocina—the next place to the south being Jemnaan (Jamnia). The site, if a different place from Tyre (Heb. Zör, Arab. Sör), is unknown. C. W. WILSON. SURE, SURELY, SURETY. — The adjectives “secure,’ ‘sicker” (or ‘siker’), and ‘sure’ all come from the Lat. securus; the first being taken directly, the second through the influence of the Teut. siker, sicher; the last through the Old. Fr. seir (mod. Stin'). “Secure’ retained the meaning of the Lat. (se “without,’ catra ‘care’; see SECURE); between ‘sicker’ and ‘sure’ the difference was mainly one of dialect, till ‘sicker” dropped out of literary English. Thus Chaucer, Melibeus, 2642, ‘Whan thow trowest to be most seur or siker of hir [fortune’s] help, she wol faille thee and decey've thee.” Both had a wider use than ‘sure' has now. *Sure' was often used where we should now use “secure.” Thus Udall, Erasmus' Par, i. 13, “Solitarines doeth quicken and make lustye the mind of a Christian souldier, and some time it is more sure for a man to count himself to the wild beastes, than to men. Baptisme taketh away al sinnes of the former life, but for al that, no man is sure from the assaultes of Satan which liveth sluggishly.’ So Pr. Blc. Pref. (1552), ‘There never was any thing by the wit of man so well devised, or so sure established, which (in continuance of time) hath not been corrupted.’ And in AW 1 S 235 “I will build him a sure house’; Is 2223 ‘I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place'; 3218 “My people shall dwell . . . in sure dwellings.” The adverb surely, in like manner, means some- times securely: Prlo” “He that walketh uprightly walketh surely.” Cf. Robinson, More's Utopia, 141, “They fence and fortifie their campe sewerlye with a deape and a brode trenche.” Jer 35* Cov. ‘The wordes which Ionadab the sonne off Rechab commaunded his sonnes, that they shulde drynke no wyne, are fast and surely kepte’; Elyot, Gover- ºnour, ii. 237, ‘David . . . came to the pavilion of king Saul, where he found lym sueyly slepynge, havinge by him his speare and a cuppe with water.’ But it is of more importance to observe that in its ordinary meaning ‘surely” has now lost so much of its force that its use in AV sometimes suggests to the reader the ºppºsit; of that which is intended. Thus in Gn 2", the first instance of its use, “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” the assertion is the strongest possible. The Hebrew is the idiomatic phrase, “dying thou shalt die.’ But the English suggests a slight doubt. So in Gn 3” “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die,” i.e. Ye shall certainly not die. This Heb, idiom, an account of which will be found in Davidson's IIebrew Syntaa, § 86, or in Gesenius - Kautzsch, § 113, is variously rendered in AV. Sometimes the idiom is preserved, as Gn 2217 ‘in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed.” More frequently an adverb, or adverbial phrase is inserted, such as “exceedingly ' Gn 1610, ‘certainly' Gn 1810 437, ‘doubtless' 2 S 510, “utterly' 1)t 12°, Jg 128 152, Zec 1117; “clean” Zec 1117; “solemnly' Gn 433; ‘ earnestly 1 S 209; ‘altogether’ Nu 1613, Jer 3011; ‘needs' Gn 245; ‘indeed ' Gn 3.; * ever’. Jg 1125; ‘plainly 1 S 227 1010; ‘ at all' 2 K 1899, Jer 2019; ‘straitly Gn 437, 1 S 1423; ‘freely' Gn 219. But by far the most frequently used adverb is ‘surely”; and in every instance it has the force of “assuredly' or “cer. tainly.’ Thus Gn 2822 “I will surely give the tenth unto thee'; Jg 1322 “We shall surely die, because we have seen God’; Hal) 23 “It will surely come, it will not tarry.” Cf. Sir 4811 “We shall surely live" (šo? Yzoréºsſo). ‘Surely 'is also the translation of certain Hebrew and Greek adverbs and other expressions, some of which are very forcible. Thus (1)'ākān,” Gn 28" ‘surely the Lord is in this place’; Ex 27” “surely * A rather less emphatic particle is 'ak, the force of which is well seen in 1's 39%, 0.11, esp. in RV. In Ps 02 this word is tr. five times ‘only” (both AV and IRV), once ‘surely '; cf. Ps 731. Tale of this thing is known'; 1 S 15” “surely the bitter- ness of death is past”; Is 407 ‘surely the people is grass'; Jer 4” “Ah, Lord God I surely th. hast greatly deceived this people.’ The same word is tr. ‘ verily’ in Is 45*, “truly’ in Jer 3* bis, ‘cer- tainly’ in Jer 8*. (2) 'I'm (an emphatic negative), as Nu 14” “surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers’; or 'im-lo' (an emphatic affirmative), as Ezk 36° ‘Surely in the fire of my jealousy have I spoken against the residue of the heathem.’ (3) 'Omnám (a strong asseverative from ‘āman, “to confirm’), as Job 34” “Yea, surely God will not do wickedly’ (RW ‘of a surety’). (4) 2 S 12” “The man that hath done this thing shall i. die” (Heb. ‘is a son of death'; cf. l_S 20° 2619). (5) d\m00s, as Mt. 2678 ‘surely thou also art one of them 7” (RV of a truth’); Jn 17° “They have known surely that I came out from thee' (RV ‘of a truth’). (6) Trévros, Lk 4” “Ye will surely say unto me this proverb’ (RV ‘doubt- less ye will say’). (7) || [el] aſſu, He 6* ‘Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee' () [edd. el] plºv et Noyºv et)\oyſia'a ore, kal TNmóðvøy trx)0vvæ ge). (8) waſ, Rev 22” ‘Surely I come quickly” (RV ‘yea”). Examples of ‘surely’ are Knox, Hist. 815, ‘I thinke and am surely perswaded.” Rhemish NT, Preface, ‘Vulpilas tº. gave the Scriptures to the Gothes in their own tonge, and that before he was an Arrian.’ Generydes (E.E.T.S.), 1317— “They were fully accordid all in one That Auferius suerly shuld be ther kyng.” Surety occurs in the phrase ‘of a surety,’ Gn 15* 1818 269, Ac 12” (äX700s, RV ‘of a truth’). Cf. 1 S 264 Cov. “David . . . . . sent out spyes, and knewe of a suertie, that he was come in deede.” Elsewhere the word means ‘security’ in the legal sense; cf. Paraph. in Verse, 58%– “He who for men their surety stood.” Suretiship occurs only in Prill” “He that hateth suretiship is sure’ (Heb. as AVm and RVm ‘ those that strike hands'; see STRIKE). See DEBT, PLEDGE. J. HASTINGS. SURGERY.—See MEDICINE, vol. iii. p. 333. SUSA.—See SHUSHAN. SUSANNA (Xova'avvá). —i. TEXT AND VERSIONS. —The history of Susanna forms a part of the Bls. of Daniel in the Greek Ibible and in those versions which are taken from the Greek. In Gr. MSS, and also in the Old Latin and Arabic, it stands before Dn l ; but in the Latin Vulgate it stands as Dn 13. Swete prints it as a separate work after Daniel. The LXX is the oldest extant text, but there may have been a Semitic original. so, it is antecedently probable that it would be in Aramaic, not Hebrew. Hebrew was the language of legal discussions, hymns, and prayers. Aramaic was the language of such anecdotes and histories as circulated freely among the people. The LXX of the History of Susanna, as indeed of the whole of the Gr. Daniel, was lost for many centuries, because of the preference of the Church for the text of Theodotion. The LXX of Susanna is, even now, extant only in Cod. Chisianus, otherwise known as 87, a cursive of the 9th cent. Theod. for the most part transcribed the LXX literally, but in ºal instances he made additions and alterations meant to relieve improbabilities, or to supply details which seemed to make the narrative more smooth and intelligible. The Latin Vulg. is an accurate rendering of Theodotion. In Syriac Versions, our “History’ is exceptionally rich. We have (1) the śiej which is a close translation of the LXX; (2) the l’eshitta, which is SUSANNA SUSANNA 631 * w iven in Walton’s Polyglott, Ceriani's Codex: Am- rosian&s, and in Lagarde's Libri VT' Apocr. Syriace, and designated W1; (3) and (4) from v.” onwards Lagarde gives two other Syriac recensions, both differing in many respects from each other and from Wi; and known as Li and Le S (5) there is a remarkable WS given by Walton, the so-called Harklensian VS, known as W2. ii. THE STORY.—We intend first to give the story in those features which are common to all our sources, and them to specify the important additions or alterations made in each. In the early days of the captivity in Babylon, there was a woman named Susanna, very beautiful, very }. the daughter of a priest. Her husband oakim was very wealthy and honourable. He had a park adjoining his mansion, and his fellow- exiles were always welcome to both (vv.”). There were two elders in Babylon, who were also judges, and were held in high repute ; but both so far forgot God and the judgments He has pro- nounced against adultery (y.") as to foster impure desires towards Susanna. Neither dared divulge his secret to the other; but one day they met in the park unexpectedly and agreed to coerce her; but she strenuously refused to listen to them, saying that she would rather die than sin against God (vv.**). Shortly afterwards, the elders sum- moned Susanna before the assembly of the Jews, and laid against her the false charge that they both saw her lying with a young man in the park, who, however, fled when they came near. Susanna protested her innocence, but the people felt obliged to believe two such honourable witnesses, and con- demned her to death (v.v.”). As they were leav- ing the judgment-hall, Daniel, then a very young man, met them, and undertook to prove Susanna's innocence. He insisted on cross-questioning the witnesses apart, and put the same question to each : Under what kind of tree did the adultery occur 2 Each gave the name of a different tree (vy.”). . The people being thus convinced of the falsity of the charge, praised God, applauded Damiel, and put to death the false accusers (v.ºr). This is, in the main, the story as it appears in the LXX. Theod. adds many details. It is probable that vv. 1-4 originated in Theod. and were transferred from him verbatim to our solitary codex of the LXX ; because LXX in v.7 introduces Susanna, as though she had not been mentioned before. LXX simply states that the elders saw her walking in the park one evening, and they both came thither early next morning ; but Theod, adds that the house of Joakim was used every morning as a court of justice, and, after the people had been dismissed, Susanna walked daily in the park, and both the elders became enamoured of her. One day they both lingered when the court closed ; aud after they had separated, saying it was dinner hour, they both came back, and confessed their lust. Theod. and the VSS taken from it then insert a part altogether lacking in LXX, how the elders watched her go into the park and concealed them- selves among the trees, surmising that she was going to bathe. When Susanna sent her maids for oil and cosmetics (W2 “soap') the elders rushed on her, tempted her to adultery, and threatened to testify that she had sent her maids away, so as to have inter- course with a young man. When the maids came back and heard this accusation from the elders, they were utterly ashamed. Further, while LXX states that the trial was held in the synagogue, Theod. Says it was held in the house and presence of Joakim. He onlits from 1,XX that 500 of Susanna's relatives and friends came to the trial : and he puts Susanna's protestations before the charge; LXX after. Theod, says the #"; man escaped because he was stronger than the elders. In LXX the elders did not recognize him because he was masked. LXX introduces an angel as inspiring Daniel with wisdom at the moment when Susanna was being led to death. This Theod. onlits ; but he adds to the LXX that Daniel Said aloud, “Turn back to the tribunal'; and that Daniel was invited to an elder's chair. Theod. Onits most of V.01 in LXX where Daniel says, “Do not suppose elders cannot lie.” I,XX puus two questions to the wicked elders: “Under what tree ?' and “In what part of the garden?', The punishment in LXX is : “they threw them down the precipice'; in Theod. “they slew them.” LXX only says: “And the angel of the Lord cast fire through the midst of them,' and it alone adds a eulogy on young men meant to secure for them larger influence in public affairs, The Vulgate translates. Theod. very accurately; the chief deviation being the addition of one verse at the end : “And —-º king. Astyages was gathered to his fathers, and Cyrus, the Persian, took the kingdom.' This contradicts Dn 1, where º: is ‘a Young man’ in 597, whereas Cyrus began to reign ill 53S. The Peshitta is given, as we have said, by Ceriani, Lagarde, and W1. Pesh. agrees in the main with Theodotion. The chief exceptions are that in v.”f Pesh, lengthens Susanna's soliloquy and consequent repudiation of their overtures; and between vv.28 and 27 Pesh. inserts a verse which may well have dropped out from Theod., giving the testimony of the elders to the household which gathered when Susanna cried aloud. It is almost verbatim with 87-89. After v.41, W, presents a recension of l’esh., different from Lt. L, inserts, after the sentence on Susanna, these words: ‘That all women may fear and not do again according to this shame.’ This W1 omits. Li adds after v.43 “concerning this which I have not done'ſ am willing that they should ask me anything.' E, calls the first tree a pistic tree’; W1 ‘a terebinth.” The second tree, in L1, La is ‘a omegranate'; in W, “a chestnut.' . At the end of v.64 L1, 2, and We give a eulogy on Daniel, which W, omits. Tagarde gives, as we have said, a second Syriac recension, from v.42 and onwards (L2), which has several interesting read- ings. Two are unique. After v.48 Susanna's prayer continues: “Appear for me and send a Redeemer from before thee, that thy truth may be believed by those that fear thee.” In v.68 Daniel says to the first elder: “These things, thou hast done and thou saidst : God is righteous, and the righteous He will not destroy ; and thou hast not obeyed what thou hast taught to others.” Much more important are the variations in Walton's second Syriac Version (W2). It almost amounts to a distinct tradition. W2 states that Daniel was 12 years old at the time : that the synagogue was held in the house of Joakim ; that Susan was a widow, having lost her husband after a married life of a few days, and devoted herself to the Lord : that the names of the elders were Amid and Abid, and they were chiefs of the synagogue: that before the trial Susan was in chains in prison three days: that the two elders were not witnesses, but judges of Susan : that it was decided that at the 9th hour Susan should be cast down a precipice : that a throne was brought from the treasury for Daniel to sit upon, but that he refused to sit upon it. iii. ITS ORIGIN.—There are several indications that the story before us cannot be regarded as historical. (1) The discrepancies in the several accounts, e.g. those just given from W2. (2) The improbability that in the first days of the Captivity, when Daniel was “a young youth' (v.”), any Jew in Babylon could be so affuent as J oakim, or that so soon after the deportation of Jehoiachin the Jews should, in exile, possess the jus necis. (3) The reasons for Susanna's condemnation are very flimsy, and the behaviour of the very youthful IDaniel is, at least, arbitrary. He loudly condemns both culprits before he adduces any proof of their guilt. . tº * Assuming that we have here an ºthical mythus, can we find its origin and motif? Ball (Speaker's Apocr. ii. 325 f.) has a probable tileory, borrowed in the main from Rabbi Brüll (Das apokr. Susanna- Buch). He adduces evidence from several sources of a tradition of two elders, who, in the Captivity, led astray silly women, by the persuasion, that, through them, they would become the mother of a great prophet, or of the Messiah. These stories are an amplification or embellishment of Jer 29*, where we read of two prophets, Ahab and Zedekiah, whom ‘Nebuchadnezzar roasted in the fire because they committed folly in Israel, and committed adul: tery with their neighbours' wives.' Origen and Jerome both knew of the elaborated form of this incident, and it occurs with sundry variations in Midrash Tanhuma on Leviticus; Bab. Talm. Sºtº- hedrin 930 ; Boraitha of R. Eliezer, c. 33, and in Pesikta, No. 25. Here we have materials for the former half of the story; but not for the trial. The reasons for the rehabilitation of the tradition, with the trial attached, are ingeniously supposed to have arisen about B.C. 100, when Simon. ben Shetach was president of the Sanhedrin. Simon was extremely anxious to introduce reforms into criminal procedure. It is said that his son was falsely accused of a º offence. On the way to his execution the false witnesses confessed the crime, but the son said to his father, “If the salvation of Israel can be wrought; through you, consider me the threshold over which you may pass.’ Simon, the Judaean Brutus, let the law 632 SWALLOW SUSANNA take its course, that by the death of one he might save the innocent lives of many. He advocated a more vareful examination of the witnesses—his favourite dictum being : “Examine the witnesses abundantly’ (Pirke Aboth i. 9). He sought also to suppress perjury by insisting that he who swore falsely should, if detected, be punished with the same penalty as he sought to inflict on another. (N.B.-The elders were put to death for seeking to cause Susanna's death). The Sadducees, against Simon, interpreted the law, ‘an eye for an eye,’ etc., to mean that the false witness should be punished, if his crime were detected after the benalty had been inflicted on the innocent one. We must confess that the appearance of our ‘IIistory’ at such a }...". would be most opportune for Simon. There is, it seems to us, a further coincidence. The moral of the narrative is, in LXX, summed up thus: “Because of this, young men are beloved in Jacob, by-virtue-of (êv) their ingenuousness (ār)\örmti): and as for us, let us take heed that our youths be powerful; for young men will be pious, and there will be in them a spirit of knowledge and understanding for ever and ever.’ Clearly, this is a eulogy on youth ; and may well have been meant as a com- pliment to Alexander Jannaeus, whose adviser Simon was, and who ascended the throne at the age of twenty-three. This assumes that the ‘History’ is of Palestinian origin ; and there is nothing against this. If it cannot be proved to have been originally written in Aramaic, it cannot be proved that it was not. An argument, as old as the time of Origen, which has been adduced in favour of a Greek original, seems to the present writer untenable. In vv.ºf and ºf there occur two paranomasio. Daniel asks the first elder: “Under what tree didst thou see them 7” and the reply is : “Under a mastic tree' (Gr. ozivos); and lºaniel says: ‘The angel of God shall cleave (axio's.) thy soul to-day.' The second elder replies: “Under a holm-tree' (72 woº); and Daniel says: “The angel of God has a sword to cut thee in two' (ºrpiarczi ors). These verbal plays are so ingenious that they have been held by many to prove, beyond all con- troversy, a Greek original. There is no more cogency in this, it seems to us, than if, supposing all early WSS to be lost, we should read in English: “Under a clove tree' . . . ‘the Lord shall cleave thee,” “ Under a yew tree' . . . ‘the Lord shall hew thee,” and should therefrom infer English authorship. Origen says that he asked many Jews to furnish him with Heb. words that would produce a similar assonance : but always in vain (Migne, xi. 61–65). If Heb. fails, Aramaic is equal to the de- mand. The “mastick” is in Syriac VSS Npnºs) (using Heb. letters); and the verb ‘to cut in two' is pop : the word which occurs in Pal Syr of Mk 610 “I beheaded John.” In the second case L2 and W.2 have NJohn ‘a pomegranate'; opposite which, we surmise that there originally stood the words: “The angel of God shall precipitate thee' (Non). This is the punishment stated in LXX to have been inflicted : “They muzzled them and threw them down into the ravine.” The verb Nº") is used in this same sense in the Aram. of Dn 320 616, and in the Targ. of Jon 110, Ezk 165. iv. CANONICITY. —The History of Susanna was included in the Canon by the Greek, Syrian, and Latin Churches. The first to dispute its claim was Julius Africanus. In his Letter to Origen he powerfully questions its historicity (Bissell, 446), and calls it a gifty-ypaſpa vecotepuköv kal retriNao- Aévov. Origen makes a rejoinder to each of his objections, but the replies are far from satisfactory. Irenaeus cites v.v.” ” and * as “voices from Daniel the prophet” (adv. Hair. iv. 26. 3), and Tertullian refers to our history (tle Coromat, iv.). Hippolytus treats it exegetically at the commencement of his Commi. on Daniel ; and fragments are extant of a Comm. by Origen in Book x. of his Stromata, from which Jerome makes extracts in his Comm. on J)aniel, c. xiii. Schürer (II.JP II. iii. 186) vollects Origen's citations from Susanna. Litiºn ATURE.-Ball in Speaken's Apocy’. ii. 323 ff. ; Fritzsche, II &ndbweh zu den Apokr. i. 116 f., 132 f.; Schürer, II./P. II. iii. 183 ft ; Zöcklow, Apokºr. deg AT' 213 ff. ; 13issell in Lange's Apocr. 445ff. ; Eichhorn, Einleitung in die Apokr. Schriften 447 ff.: Rothstein in Kautzsch's Apokº. wo. Pseudepigr, d. Aſ i. 176 ft J. T. MARSHALL. SUSI ('ºp ; B Xovoet, AF Xoval).—A Manassite, Nu 13” (*). The text, however, is doubtful (see Nestle, Eigennamen, 209; Gray, HPN 92; Dillm. Nw. ad loc.). SWADDLE, SWADDLING - BANDs (nºnſ, Aath. tllah; ‘to swaddle' [ºn] hithal, a rapyavóð).—The wrapping in swaddling-clothes is at the present day, as it was in ancient times, one of the first services rendered to the newborn infant in the East. The child is laid across the diagonal of a square of cloth of which the corners are folded over the body and feet and under the head. The bandages, which are of plain cotton among the poor and of silk and embroidered work in the case of the rich, are then wrapped round the cloth which encases the child. The custom seems to point back to the INFANT IN SWADDLING-CLOTHES. early nomadic life, as the bandaging not only affords protection against cold and support to the spine, but also by the confinement of . limbs enables the mother more easily to carry the child on the day's journey. During the first week salt water (Ezk 164) is . daily to the lips and flexures of the body wherever the tender skin might become inflamed. This hardening process as a protection against chaſing is further assisted by dusting the joints with a powder of pounded myrtle leaves, and any tender or irritated parts of the skin are rubbed with olive oil. The absence of these attentions at the birth of Israel (Ezk 16") indicated the outcast insignificance of the nation at the beginning. Annid the privations of the manger at Bethlehem this maternal duty was carefully attended to (Lk 2” ”). The swaddling-bands are daily unfastened in attending to the child, but the practice is kept up for about a year until the child is strong enough to use his limbs. The Oriental cradle has not the high sides of the Western cradle or infant's crib, and the infant is firmly tied down by long straps resenbling the Swaddling-bands round the body. This idea of restraint appears in the majestic figure of the clouds as the swaddling-bands of the sea (Job 38"). In La 2* the AV “swaddled' ('pist, tippahti) is in RV tr. ‘ dandled.’ The word is a denominative from nº ‘span or ‘palm of the hand.’ The English words “swaddle' and “swathe' are merely different spellings of Anglo-Sax, swethel or Swethil, a strip of cloth for wrapping a child, or for bandaging in any way. Cf. Purchas, Pilgrimage, 446, ‘Their feet to this end so straitly swadled in their infancie that they grow but little.’ G. M. MACKIF. SWALLOW.-Two words are trºl “swallow in AV, and a third in RV. 1. in dérôr (Ps 84. LXX Tpvyºv ; Pr26*. LXX a Tpov6ós=" sparrow’ or other small bird). The allusion to the nesting of this bird in the sanctuary and its swift (unalighting) SWAN SWORD 633 flight fit the swallow. 2. may ‘āgúr (Is 3814 LXX reptorepā = “pigeon '; Jer 87 LXX arpovělov = ‘spar- row' or other small bird). A yūr (see CRANE) seems to be an adjective, and perhaps signifies “twitterer’ instead of ‘crane' (RV), and is ex- planatory of sits or sis; see, further, Dillm.-Kittel on Is 38%. 3. Bºb sits, bºp sis, should be trº as in It V (Is 3814, Jer 87), “swallow ’ instead of ‘crane’ (AW; see CRANE). If sits or sis be the swallow, or better, the swift or martin, the twittering could only refer to its note in its nest. The allusion to the migratory habits of the bird would suit the swallow. The following swallows and swifts or martins are common in the Holy Land :—Hirundo Savygni, Steph., the Oriental swallow ; H. rustica, L., the common swallow (Arab. Sºmºntº, or sits or $áš); H. rufula, Temm., the red-rumped swallow ; Chelidon wrbica, L., the martin ; Cotyle riparia, L., the sand martin ; C. rupestris, Scop., the crag martin ; C. obsoleta, Cab., the pale crag martin ; Cypselus apus, L., the black martin or swift ; , C. melba, L., and C. Galileensis, would be included under the popular conception of the swallow or swift. Any or all of them would sometimes be called Şăş or sis. G. E. POST. SWAN.—The AV trº (twice) of nº tinshemeth, a word which occurs thrice in the list of unclean creatures, once at the end of a list of lizards (see MOLE, 1 (b)), and twice among the birds (Lv ll” LXX tropºpvplay = ‘water-hen,” Vulg. porphyrio, RV ‘horned owl,” m. ‘swan’; Dt 14" LXX #3ts, Vulg. ibis, RV ‘horned owl '). The arguments against the swan are—(1) There is no reason why the swan should have been held unclean. (2) The swan is very rare in the Holy Land and Egypt, and therofore would have been little recognized. (3) The ancient VSS are against it. The gallinule or water-hen (Porphyrio) and the ibis are, however, hirds which would have been held unclean, which are quite common, and each of which has the support of one passage in the VSS. Porphyrio carrulºus, v.il. the Purple Gallinule, and Ibis religiosa, L., or I. falcinella, L., the Glossy Ibis, would suit the requirements of the passages. G. E. POST. SWEARING.—See OATH. SWEAT.-See MEDICINE, vol. iii. p. 330°. SWEET GANE.-See REED. SWINE (n'ſ hāzār).—This word is cognate to the Arab. khimzir. The LXX tr. hdizir in Ps 80° ori's (AV and RV “boar’), Lv 117, Dt 14°, Pr 11° 5s (AW and l&W ‘swine’) There is no question as to the identity of the animal intended. The NT word for it is xoſpos. The eating of swine's flesh is for- bidden in Israel (Lv 11", Dt 14°), hence the in- fringement of this rule was one of the practices to which the Hellenizing part, Sought to compel the faithful (2 Mac 6*). The flesh (is 65' 6617) and blood (66°) of swine are described as characteristi- cally heathen and repulsive offerings (cf. 1 Mac l’). A jewel of gold in a swine's snout is used as a simile of a fair woman of doubtful character (Pr 11”). A wild boar appears as ſig. of the foes of Israel (Ps 80°). The ancient Egyptians and Phoen- icians, as well as the Jews, regarded swine as unclean. Mohammedans are, if possible, more intense than the Jews in their disgust for them. To call a man a hog is worse than to call him a dog. This feeling is shared by most of the Chris- tians in Palestine. 13ut a considerable number of them breed swine and eat their flesh. Swine's flesh i , sold in a number of shops in Beirut. The writer has seen native Christians in Amanus hunting wild swine, which are very abundant in that, range, as also in the Jordan Valley, and in the higher regions of Lebanon and Antilebanon. it would appear that, in the time of Christ, Jews had come to raising swine in large herds (Mt 8” etc., Lk 154*). G. E. POST. SWORD in OT is the rendering of several Hebrew words:–1. Tºn měkhārāh, Gn 499 RV ‘ weapons of violence are their swords’ (better RVn .."..."; The word is of very doubtful meaning, the VSS being at fault ; cf. Dillmann, Genesis, ad loc. 2. nº shelah, JI 28 AV (bette RV “weapons'). 3. ii.2 kidon, Sir 46°, through the Éouqala of LXX (better ‘spear’ as Jos 818. * or ‘javelin'). 4. Tº herebh (the usual word, occurring with great frequency in OT), which can nearly always be trº ‘sword” or “dagger’ (Jg 3*), but once had a more general meaning; cf. the Arab. lºſtrb “war.’ Thus herebh is “tool’Ex 20°, ‘axes’ Ezk 269, and “mattocks’ 2 Ch 34% AW (RVm ‘axes’; RV, following a different reading, ‘in their ruins’; the text is quite dubious), and in Jos 5° nºis mann Jarbhôth zárim is ‘knives of flint.” Probably therefore herebh denoted originally the primitive flint implement, which, according to its varying shape and size, might serve the purpose of spear. head, arrow-head, axe, hammer, or knife. Such inplements have been found during the excava- tion of Tell el-Hesy (Lachish). The ‘blade’ of a sword and the ‘head’ of a spear are alike called an’, lahabh. --- * * ---> * r". - § : * STONE KNIFE FROM TELL EL-IIESY (LACHISII). (By kind permission of the PEI'). In size the herebh was probably quite short. Ehud’s ‘sword’ (Jg 3" RW) was a cubit (about 17 inches) long, and Goliath's (1 S 21") was a possible weapon for David. The material of all weapons of offence was sometimes iron and sometimes bronze (cf. Gn 4”, Jos 8”, l S 177, Jg 1", Is 10°); at the excavations at Tell el-Hesy (Lachish) spear- heads and a battle-axe of bronze were found as well as arrow-heads and a curved dagger (khamjar) of iron (F. J. Bliss, PEFSt, 1892, pp. 101–113, with illustrations; for mines in Palestine cf. Driver on Dt 8"). Roughly speaking, the difference of metal marks a difference of time, bronze weapons being earlier than those of iron or steel. In shape the herebh was sometimes curved with a sharp inner edge like the Egyptian sword, sometimes straight like the weapon worn by the Assyrians; for illus- trations see R. F. Burton, Book of the Sword, pp. 156, 205. The ‘double-edged herebh (Jg 3", Ps 149", Pr 5*, Sir 21*) might be either curved or straight ; cf. Burton, as above. The use of the sword was twofold : in War to despatch the flying or fallen enemy after the bow and the spear had done their work, in peace to execute malefactors; cf. 1 K 2°. ". The sword was carried in a sheath (nçE ta'ar, Jer 47", or IT, mádám, 1 Ch 21-7) ‘probably of leather’ (Nowack, Heb. Archäologie, i. 363), but ancient sheaths were made also of metal (Burton, p. 222, with note ll), of wood (Schliemann, Mycente, p. 281 ; cf. p. 303), of ivory (Odyssey, viii. 404), and perhaps even of linen (Schliemann, p. 283). When not worn a swold might be Yºlº in a cloth (1 S 21°), just as blades are bandaged with greased rags by the natives of India (Burton, p. 232). The sheathed sword was worn hanging from a girdle (muſ hågør, 2 S 20° ; cf. Ps 45814). Among the many interesting sword-passages of the OT are :—Gn 3* RV (the two guardians are 634 SWORD SYCAMORE, SYCOMORE the cherubim and the darting flame, i.e. prob- ably the lightning; cf. Burton, p. 183, who sug- gests the disc-like sword of Merodach); Gn 48 (the Song of the Discovery of the Sword, according to some); Dt 33° (the Lord Israel's sword, so EW rightly); Jg 7" " (the war-cry a sword for the LoRD and for Gideon'); Is 271 (the Lord's sword of chastisement); Is 2"–Mic 4” (“swords into plow. shares” a symbol of peace); J13"[4" ("plowshares into swords” a symbol of war); 2 Mac. 15” (the ºrophet Jeremiah delivers a golden sword to Judas accabaeus in a vision). In LXX and NT sword” is represented by three words:–1. Šipos, a long straight sword, only in LXX. 2, uáxapa, a word useſ to describe a mere knife (Gn 22", Jº 19. LXX (A) for nºsº ma'akhe- leth; cf. Lk 22* in F. Field, Notes on the Trans- lation of NT, RP. 76, 77), as well as the legionary's sword (Eph. 6"), and the executioner's weapon (Ac 12*). Máxapa is used in Mt. 26", a verse sometimes supposed to refer to war, but really referring to ordinary violence; in Eph 67 of the "sword of the Spirit, the word of God (pºwa deoſ)” received (not “taken') by the Christian warrior; and in He 4” of the two-edged sword with which the word (ó Nóyos) of God’ is compared." 3. poupala, a word of somewhat doubtful meaning, but used in several interesting passages. It is found in Latin in the forms romfºa (Sir 46°) and rumpia (Livy, xxxi. 39). It is certain that it was a Thracian weapon of large size (Livy, loc. cit.), but whether it was a sword or a spear is not quite certain. In Plutarch (AEmil. 18) the Thracians are spoken of as ºptºs poupaias Bapuriºſipovs diró row betww ºuw ºrwetoures ( having straight runnie of heavy, iron swaying from their right shoulders'). Suidas (ed. Bern- lardy, 1853) gives tº wakpov drºv.rtow uáxapa, and Hesychius (Leyden, 1766) waxalpa, Šipos, ) akóvrtov Marpºv. In the “Vulgate’ Psalter (taken from the LXX) outpatat is rendered frameſe (i.e. large spears such as were used by the Germans) in Ps. 97, where Jerome's ‘Hebrew” Psalter gives solitudines (=mann). The usual Syr, rendering is “sword,” but in Ll 2" both Pesh. and Syr" give rumha ‘lance,” and in Rev 1" the Philoxenian (ed. Gwynn, 1897) gives ruha (apparently a mistake for rumha). General Pitt-Rivers, quoted by Burton (p. 183), |. of a "...". sword-blade attached to the end of the spear like the Thracian romphew,' but Burton himself (p. 237) says that in modern Romaic it denotes the flamberge, the wavy blade carried by angels in art (ib. pp. 136, 138). That poupata may possibly mean 'spear' is disputed by W. Wayte (Smith's Diet. Antiq.” 1890), but acknowledged by Plummer on Lk 2". Instances of the use of foupala are—Gn 3” (rºw ºxo)iumv p., see above); 1 Ch 21” (the sword of pestilence); Sir 46° (Heb. Tº kidón ‘javelin'); 2 Mac. 15” (“the sword seen in vision); º 2” (the sword of anguish), Rev. 1" 19" (the sword of judg- ment proceeding out of the mouth of the glorified Christ; cf. Is 11° 49°). This last image is not so strange as appears at first sight, for the short Roman sword was tongue - like in shape, as the annexed illustration (taken from Lindenschmit, Tracht u. Bewaffnung, Tab, xi, fig. 11) shows. RøMAN DArdrºſt. (By kind permission of Messrs. Vieweg u, Sohn). * Cf. - IBah. Tam, perakhon ºn, R. Isaac said, Every one who recites the Shºna (Pt. 64) upon his bed (Ps 1490) is as if he held a two-edged sword in his hand." LITERATURE.-Sir Richard Burton's Book of the Sword (London 1884) is a work of great but unequal merit, with many hºmºi illustrations; pp. 183-186 are on The Jewish Sword, Schlie- mann's Mycena (London, 1878) contains a good deal of in. formation about ancient Greek swords. For other works sea Air Ms. W. EMERY BARNEs. SYCAMINE (rukápavos, Lk 17"). – As St. Luke alludes by name to the sycomore (ovkowopéa), it is prob, [but see Plummer, ad loc.] that he |.º. ates between it and the sycamine. By consent of scholars, runduwos is the Black Mulberry, Morus migra, L., the strict signification of the word. Yet gurdwos undoubtedly signifies also the sycomore. In all the passages in the OT where nºw and n\rhº occur (1 K 10°7, 1 Ch 27*, 2 Ch 10 927, Ps 78°7, Is 9", Am 7”), the LXX tr. it by rukáuvos (or -ov). As it is undoubted that shikmim and shikmºth refer to the sycomore, we conclude that the LXX so understood avºuvos. The true sycamine is therefore mentioned but once in the canonical books of the Bible and once in Apocr. (1 Mac 6* uðpos, AV and RV ‘mulberry”). t is a fine tree of the order Urticaceae, with a hemispherical comus, 20–30 ft. high. Its leaves are cordate - ovate, undivided or more or less lobed and toothed. They are too tough to be suitable food for the silk- worm, like those of the White Mulberry, Morus alba, L. The fruit resembles in size and shape the larger varieties of blackberries. It really consists of an aggregation of flowers, in an oblong spike, the succulent part of the fruit being the |. | ". It has a "º" acid taste, and is sold in all Oriental fruit markets. It is so abundant in Damascus as to be known as fºſt- shømi-Damascus Mulberry. Neither it nor the white mulberry is to be confounded with the mulberry trees’ of 2 S 5**, 1 Ch 14" ": see MULBERRY. G. E. Post. SYCAMORE, SYCOMORE.-As pointed out under SYCAMINE, the Heb. cºpy and nºrmº refer to the sycomore, which must not be confused with the tree known by that name in England and America —A cer pseudo-platanus, L., the false plane tree. The reference is to a tree of the same order, Urticaceae, as the sycamine. It is of the same genus as the fig, and known in botany as Ficus Sycomorus, L., Arab. ſummelz. It has a flattened spherical comus, from 15–50 ft. high, often one- sided, as in the illustration, and sometimes shading sy Coxſoft E TREE OVER HANGING A. ROADWAY. (The hedge to the right is Indian Fig). an area 60–80 ft. in diameter. As it is very fre: quently planted by roadsides, its long, nearly horizontal branches project over the road. It was therefore eminently a suitable tree, for Zaccheus to climb (Lk 10") in order to see Jesus passing. Seated on its lowest branch, he would be within easy speaking distance of the Saviour. The SYCHAR SYMMACHUS 635 foliage also is not usually dense, esp. in the old trees by waysides. The trunks often attain a very large size, sometimes 30–40 ft. in circumfer- ence. The leaves are ovate-subcordate. The fruit is a simall, not very palatable ſig, about 1 in. long, growing thick together on curious little leafless twigs on the trunk or large branches. Whatever may have been the custom in ancient times in re- gard to puncturing the ſigs of the sycomore to cause them to ripen, or to improve their flavour, this is no longer done in Palestine. The fruit is either shaken down or plucked as it ripens, and eaten without any preparation. It ripens in suc- cessive instalnients almost throughout the year. The wood of the sycomore, although light and porous, is durable. It was used in Egypt for mummy cases. It is not now so common in the Holy Land as to furnish much available timber, but it was formerly very plentiful, esp. in the low lands (1 K 10”, l Ch 27*). It occurred, however, in the hill-country also. Amos, a Judaean shep- herd, collected (?)" its fruit (7"). The destroying of sycomore trees by frost (Ps 78") was phenomenal, as frost is exceedingly rare in Egypt. At the same time it was a great disaster, as the sycomore was much cultivated there for the industrial uses of its wood. Sycaminopolis (Haifa) derived its name from this tree. G. E. POST. SYCHAR (ABN Xuxap; Vulg. Sichar). — Jesus passing through Samaria, on His way from Judaea. to Galilee, came “to a city of Samaria called Sychar,’ which was “near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph’ (Jn 4"); and Jacob's well was there (v.9). The identification of Sychar has been the subject of much discus- sion. All commentators now agree that “Sychar’ is the correct reading, and not a copyist's error for “Shechem' as Jerome and Epiphanius held. But the question remains whether Sychar was Shechem or another place in the vicinity of Shechem. It has been urged that, in consequence of the hatred which existed between the Jews and the Samaritans, the Jewish common people ironically called Shechem Shikkor, ‘drunken,” or Sheker, “falsehood.” But there is no evidence either in Josephus, the Targum, or the Talmud of their ever having done so ; and the only support of the theory seems to be that Isaiah (28" "), referring, apparently, to the city of Samaria, denounces the ‘drunkards’ (Shikkörim) of Ephraim ; and that the expression in Hab 2°, a “teacher of lies' (mūrch Sheker), which refers to idolatry, contains an allusion to Moreh and Shechem. These interpretations are too forced, and the suggestion of Trench (Studies in the Gospels, p. 86), that St. John “was himself the author of the nickname,” is too far-fetched. Another view is that on and r are often confounded in pronunciation (Olshausen and Lücke, Com. 2. I'v. Joh. i. 512), and that Sychar comes from Sychem as pronounced by the Greek residents (cf. Beliar for Belial, 2 Co 6”, Eph 2*). The change from 6 to a is not, however, explained. Jerome (Jºp. Paul. and Quast. Gen.) says that Sychair and Sychem are the same place, but he gives no evi- dence, and attributes the altered form to a copyist's error. This view has been adopted by E jº and the pilgrims Arculf (A.D. 670), Theoderich (A.D. 1172), Maundeville (A.D. 1312), etc. ; and in modern times by Robinson, Stanley, Guérin, and IRiehm (HPVB). It is more logical to take Sychar to be another * AV tr. bolds shikmim, “a gatherer of sycomore fruit,” RV “a dresser of sycomore trees.' It is possible that the Heb, ex- pression (cf. LXX zvíčov, Vulg. vellicans) refers to the above- mentioned method of improving the fruit. See, further, Driver, ad loc. place in the vicinity of Shechem. The writer of the Fourth Gospel was well acquainted with the QT, which sufficiently indicates the position of Shechen) ; and it is inconceivable that he should have described a well-known town with such a history and with so many sacred associations as ‘ a city of Samaria, near the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.”. It is also highly improbable that St. John, in this particular narra- tive, would have referred to Shechem by a nick- name. St. Stephen (Ac 7*) uses the LXX form, Sychem (2uxép), and this would probably have been employed by the evangelist if he had not intended to indicate another place. Sychar and Sychein are, in fact, distinguished in ancient docu- ments. Eusebius (Onom.) says that Sychar was * before,” that is “east’ of Neapolis (N4blus), which . he distinguishes from Sychem—a place in its suburbs, near Joseph’s tomb. Jerome (Onom.) translates this description without remark. The Bordeaux Pilgrim (A.D. 333) makes a distinction between Neapolis, Sichem, and Sichar, and places the last one Roman mile from Sichem. Sychar is also mentioned as a distinct place from Neapolis and Shechem by Abbot Daniel (A.D. 1106), Fetellus (A.D. 1130), and John of Würzburg (A.D. 1160). All these pilgrims apparently refer to el-'Askar, a village on the lower slopes of Mt. Ebal, which has a fine spring,-'Ain el-'Askar, and gives its name, Sahel ‘Askar, to the northern portion of the plain of el-Mukhma. This village answers much better than such a well-known place as Shechem to the casual notice of St. John. Iłobinson (Later Re- searches, p. 133) held that ‘the fact that ‘Askar begins with the letter 'Ain excludes all idea of aflinity with the name Sychar.” But there are cases, such as Ascalon ("Askulán), in which the Aleph of the Hebrew has changed to an 'Ain. In the Samaritan Chronicle, which cannot be later than the 14th cent. A.D., mention is made of a town, apparently near Shechem, that is called Ischar, -merely a vulgar pronunciation of Sychar, —and the Samaritans, in translating their Chron- icle into Arabic, call this place ‘Askar. Thus the transition is traceable from the Hebrew , form, through the Samaritan Ischar, to the Arabic ‘Askar (Conder, Tent- Work, i. 75). The Mishna mentions a place called ‘the plain of En-Sokher,’ which is perhaps Sychar (Neubauer, Géog. du Talmud, p. 169). Schwarz (III, p. 127) correctly identifies En-Sokher with 'Aim cl-'Askar, and the plain with the Sahel 'Askar. There is thus a strong case for the identification of Sychar with el-'Askar. This view is supported by Thomson (L. and B. cli. 31), Williams (Smith's D. of G. ii. 412b), Raumer (Pal. p. 163), Ewald (Gesch. iv. 284, v. 348, 3rd ed.), Derenbourg (Géog. du Talmud, p. 169), Caspari, Neubauer, Conder, Smith (HG III, p. 367 ff.—a good summary of the question), Tristram, and others. C. W. WILSON. SYCHEM (Suxéu ; Sichem).—The Greek (LXX Gn 12" etc.) form of Shechem. It occurs only in the speech of St. Stephen (Ac 7”), according to which the twelve sons of Jacob were buried in Sychem, in the tomb that Abraham bought of Hamor (Emmor) in Sychen. See SH1 CHEM. Although in the above-named passage in Acts the strictly accurate reproduction of the original demands Sychem (so AV), IRV, consistently with its practice of following the Hebrew in the case of OT names, gives Shechem. C. W. WILSON. SYENE.—See Slºv ENEH. SYMEON.—See SIMEON. SYMMACHUS.—See WERSIONS (GREEK), B36 SYNAGOGUE SYNAGOGUE SYNAGOGUE.— . The name. ii. Origin and history. iii. Situation of the building, style of architecture, etc. iv. Synagogue worship, officials, etc. v. The synagogue as an elementary school. vi. Other uses of the synagogue. vii. Latest history of the synagogue. Literature. i. THE NAME.—Synagogue is the name applied to the place of assembly used by Jewish com- munities primarily for the purpose of public worship. The Gr. ovva-ywyſ, stands for the lº, itself, and represents in the LXX in most instances the Heb. Ty. So also in the Heb. i Sirach (e.g. 47 41*) Ty answers to the avvaya, yì of the Gr. text. The Aramaic versions of the Bible reproduce Ty by Nº. (Syr. Rnwijn). The verb whº, from which this Aram. substantive is derived, has its representative in Hebrew in the rare verb blo, which is used in Est 4% of the assembling of the Jews of Susa for a religious fast. The common Heb. verb pn is translated in Aramaic by win, in Greek by avváyo (cf. e.g. Jl 2*). From Dji (of which the verbal noun is nº in the special sense of assem- bling for worship, Megilla, i. 1, Gen. rab. ch. 49, on Gn 18°) was formed, as the equivalent of the Aram. Nnºn, the subst. nº?, which may indeed stand for any gathering, but which appears at a very early date to have acquired the special sense of an assemblage for worship. It was perhaps originally this special sense that was attached to the word when the gathering of which we read in Neh 9–10" was called nºmin nb): “the great assembly’ [Benj of Neh 91 is translated in Pesh. by wann, in LXX by avvix0mgav]; for this epoch- making assembly had the marks of a worshipping body (fasting, reading of the Torah, confession of sin, prayer). See art. SYNAGOGUE (THE GREAT). The house, in which the meeting for worship was held, was called nºn nº (Aram. Nº 3), but the words nº and Nº standing alone may also be used for the place of meeting. It is noteworth that in the Pal. Talmud the use of Nne"ji predomi- nates, in the Bab. Talmud Rnw"): 'i. The plural of nº is nºpy? (from a supposed *n"p); ; cf. mºwo, plur. of Hjøp), hence npº 'n; = ‘synagogues.’ To this plural goes back the sing, form nº, of which there is only an isolated occurrence (Aboth, iv. 11; the reading nº, cited by Taylor, is not suffi- ciently authenticated), which is not the equiva- lent in meaning of nº?, but stands for an associa- tion or society in general. In this more general sense of Tºry? we should also understand the plural found in Aboth, iii. 10, and Echa rabbathi, Prooem., No. 10.-The shorter expression nº or Nº (with- out nº or 3) finds its representative in the Gr. ovvaiyayyú, which in the § and Josephus stands for the place of worship, the synagogue. Philo, Quod omnis probus liber, § 12 (of the Essenes): els lepots diſpukvoºgevot rôtrovs of ka)\otivtat ovva Yayyat. Another Gr, name for the synagogue is trpoor- evXà, which occurs especially in Philo (in Flaccwm, § 6, 7, 14, Leg. ad Gaium, $ 20, 23, 43, 46), but is found also elsewhere (3 Mac 7”, Ac 16”; Jos. Vita, 54; inscriptions, ap. Schürer, GJ V* ii. 443). It appears in Latin (prosewcha) in Juv. Sat. iii. 296. As ovva-yajyū is shortened from otros avvatywyſis, so is trpooleuxh from olkos Tpogeux'ſs. The corresponding Heb. expression is found in Deutero-Isaiah, not only in 567 ("nºen n'a, Fiºn n’a), but also in 607, where "ninen n'a is ren- dered in the LXX by 6 oikos Tſis ºrpoa euxis pov, so that the original reading must have been nººn 'a. The Jewish tradition-literature offers only once, in an anecdote of the Bab. Talmud (Gittim, 39b), the half-Aramaic half-Heb. nºn ºn. Once (Midrash Tehillim on PS 4) the synagogue is called Dipp inben, ‘ his (God's) place of prayer.’ Philo has alsc Tporevkriptov, ‘place of prayer’ (Vita Mosis, iii. 27). In an edict of the emperor Augustus the syna- gogue is called gaggaretov, “house of , Sabbath- keeping’ (Jos. Ant. XVI. vi. 2), to which corre- sponds in later times the Syr. "Tri" Nnaw n°n, plur. 'iw nºn (see Payne-Smith, col. 497). One other term may be mentioned, ºr nº; used by the Agada as a personification of the whole body of Israel, the Jewish people. In the Tannaite łº the expression is still rare (see Bacher, Die àlteste Terminologie der jūdischen Schriftauslegung, p. 85), but it is very frequent in the post-Tannaite Agada (from the 3rd cent., on- wards; see the passages cited under ‘Gemeinde Israels’ in the Index to Bacher's Agada der pal. Amorãer, vols. i. ii. iii.). It is the same kind of personification as took place when the analogous term ékk\mata was adopted as a designation for the whole body of adherents of the Christian faith. For the use of the term by the Church Fathers see Schürer”, ii. 432. ii. ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE SYNAGOGUE. —1. The first beginnings of the synagogue as an institution of Judaism are involved in complete obscurity. The later Tradition represents it, like other more recent institutions, as in existence from the earliest times. According to the Pal. Targ. on Ex 18*, this verse already contains an allusion to the prayers to be repeated in the synagogues; the }. on 1 Ch 16” states that the great place of offering at Gibeon was a synagogue. An anonymous Midrash (Pesikta, ed. Buber, 129b) makes three contemporary prophets proclaim the word of God in three different i. Jeremiah in the public squares, Zephaniah in the Synagogues, Huldah among the women. The ‘house of the people’ (Jer 39°) was, according to a Midrash cited by D. Kimchi, the synagogue (see also Rashi's Com. ad loc. ; L. Löw, Gesam. Schriftem, iv. 8, wrongly cites here the Targum). Although a tradition of the 2nd cent. tells us that uneducated people were accustomed to call the synagogue nº spy (Simon b. Eleazar, Shabbath, 32a), this ex- planation of the expression Dyn nº in Jeremiah cannot be taken seriously. Philo and Josephus (see Schürer 8, ii. 429) both believed that the institu- tion of the synagogue goes back to Moses, and the same notion perhaps finds expression in the words of the Apostle James in Ac 15” “For Moses from generations of old (ék yewedu dpxatwu) hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the Syma- gogues every Sabbath.’ n all probability, the germs of the future in- stitution of the synagogue should be sought during . the Babylonian exile. Thus the historical reality is not so very far removed from the view which the Targ. on Ezk 11” attaches to the words Dº? Tº byn cºpº, namely, that when Israel was scattered among the nations God gave them the synagogue as a compensation for the loss of the sanctuary. Amongst the exiles torn from their homes, but brought nearer to God and His teaching, the need must have made itself felt of a medium for cultivating, in common, religious emotions and for receiving religious instruction. The absence of the sacrificial cultus during the Exile, the higher significance to which Sabbath observ- ance attained, the regular fast-days (cf. Zec 7". Is 58) augmented this sense of need, which would find satisfaction in gatherings at fixed places and times. All these considerations, which were at work in Babylon, made their influence felt also in Palestine, when Israel after the IReturn struck new roots in the old home, and the religious life, in spite of the fact that the newly-built temple at Jerusalem was its central point, gained a basis independent of the sacrificial cultus. In particular, SYNAGOGUE SYNAGOGUE 63? the activity of Ezra and his successors the scribes #. the development of the religious life in a direction which was bound to lead to the rise of synagogues all over the country. Hence we may confidently place the origin of the synagogue in Palestine at the period of the Persian domination. There is indeed no express and unmistakable mention of the synagogue either in the Persian or in the first two centuries of the Greek era. Even the narratives about the religious persecutions under Antiochus Epiphanes are silent as to syna- gogues. At most, the 74th Psalm, if it really belongs to the Maccabaean age, may be cited as the earliest source where the synagogue is named ; for ºs Typ (v.*) may very well }. interpreted, with Aquila and the Midrash on Psalms, as a name for the places of assembly throughout the land con- secrated to God, Typ being thus a poetical equiva- lent of nojan nºn (Löw cites, in illustration of the expression, Typ nº of Job 30”; cf., also, Tyn nºn, A both, i. 4).-Express notices of the synagogue, so far as these are found in the literature, belong for the most part to the last century of the Second Temple. But in all cases where it is mentioned the synagogue appears as an institution that has long existed, and as the central point of the organ- ized social life of the Jews. 2. In Jerusalem itself, immediately before the destruction of the city by Titus, there were 394 (Bab. I(ethntb. 105a), or, according to another version (Jerus. Megilla, 73d and oft.), 480 syna- gogues. Even if these figures are exaggerated, the number of synagogues in Jerusalem must be thought of as very large. Apart from the syna- gogues belonging to the inhabitants proper of the capital, there were others for the various com- munities of foreign Jews settled in Jerusalem. A Tannaite tradition mentions the synagogue of the Alexandrians at Jerusalem (Tos. Megilla, ii. %24*, Jerus. Megilla, 73d"; otherwise Bab. Megilla, 213a). The Acts of the Apostles (6') also names the synagogue of the Alexandrians, along with the Synagogues of the Cyrenians, Cilicians, and Asians; the Hellenistic members of these synagogues dis- pute with Stephen (ib. cf. 9”). In the temple itself there was a synagogue, which Joshua b, Chananja mentions from recollections of his own (Tos. Sukka, iv. 1981°), and of whose function- aries we hear also from other quarters (Yoma, vii. 1; Sota, vii. 7, 8). On the synagogues of Jerusalem cf. also Jerus. Sukka, 54a *. Of the synagogues of Palestine the Gospels name Nazareth (Mt 13", Mk 6°, Lk 4") and Capernaum (Mk 1*, Lk 7", Jn 6”) as those in which Jesus taught. The synagogue of Dora was built by Agrippa I. (Jos. Amt. XIX. vi. 3); the synagogue of Caesarea became a moving cause of the rising against Rome (BJ II. xiv. 4-5), and in memory of this con- tinued to be called in the 4th cent. ‘the revolution synagogue' (Rntipº Nney").5, Jerus. Bikkurim, 65d.” et al. ; see Graetz, Gesch. d. Juºden ", iv. 313). The great synagogue of Tiberias is mentioned by Josephus (Vita, 54). During the three centuries that followed the destruction of Jerusalem, the Talmudical literature names various Pal. syna- gogues : for instance, those that were the centres of scribal activity: Sepphoris (the “great syna- ogue,” Pesikta, 136b; the ‘synagogue of the Babylonians,’ Jerus. Berakhoth, 9a 9%, Shabb. 8a, *; the ‘synagogue of the vine' [N]eit '5], Jerus. Iłerakhoth, 6a, et al.); Tiberias (Erubin, x. 10; ‘the 13 synagogues of Tiberias,” Berakhoth, 8a, 300 ; the ‘synagogue of the senate-house ’ [Bow\ij, *ini '5], Jerus. Tºtam. 64a ", see Die Agada der pººl. Amor. iii. 100); Caesarea (see above); Lydda, (Jerus. Shekalim, V., cmd). There is mention, further, of the synagogues of Beth-shean [Scytho- polis] (Jerus. Meg. 74a"); Kiphra or Kuphra (Jerus. Taan. 68b *, Meg. 70a 49; in Pesikta rabb., ed. Priedmann, p. 196" Nºn-p ‘w -55 ‘village of Tiberias’); Maon (Shabb. 139a, Zebach. 1186); jºin (Jerus. Meg. 750 *); Tibein (Tos. Meg. 3). In Babylonia, the oldest synagogues were counted to be that of Shaph-Jethib at Nahardea (Megilla, 200, Rosh hash. 24b, Aboda zara, 43b, Nidda, 13a), and that of Huzal (Megilla, 29b). The founding of the former was ascribed to king Jehoiachin. From the 3rd cent, there is witness for a ‘synagogue of Daniel' (Erubin, 21a). In Machuza, there was in the 4th cent, a “synagogue of the Romans’ ('5 'spinn, Meg. 26b). In Syria specially famous was the great syna- gogue of Antioch, to which the successors of Antiochus Epiphanes presented the brazen vessels which had been carried off from the temple at Jerusalem (Jos. BJ VII. iii. 3). On , this syna- gogue, on whose site arose in the 4th cent, the Christian basilica dedicated to the Maccabaean martyrs, see Cardinal Rampolla in Revue de l'Art Chrétien, 1899, p. 390.-The Apostle Paul preached in various synagogues at Damascus (Ac 9", cf. v.”). The narrative of the journeys of the same apostle makes mention of synagogues in Asia Minor, Macedonia, Greece: for instance, those of Pisidian Antioch (Ac 13”), Iconium (14%), Ephesus (18"), Philippi (16”), Thessalonica (17), Beroca (17"), Athens (1717), Corinth (18%. 7). There were several synagogues at Salamis in Cyprus (13'). The numerous Jewish population of Alexandria had, according to the testimony of Philo (Leg. ad Gaium, $ 20), many synagogues in the different quarters of the city. The Targest of these was the famous basilica, of which the Tannaite tradition of the 2nd cent. gives a hyperbolical but yet very graphic description (Tos. Sukka, iv. 198* ; Jerus. Sukka, 55a, bottom ; Bab. Sukka, 51a). The founding of the synagogue of Ptolemais is related in 3 Mac 799. We learn from Philo (Leg. ad Gaiwm, § 23) that as early as the time of Augustus there were a number of synagogues in Rome. The names of several of these have been preserved in the in- scriptions (see Schürer", iii. 44 ft.). An ancient literary tradition names the ‘synagogue of Severus’ at Rome (see Epstein in Mortatsschrift für Gesch. u. Wiss. des Jutlemthums, 1885, p. 338). The memory of many synagogues of the Diaspora is preserved in early Greek inscriptions. Specially noteworthy are the ruins of ancient synagogues at several spots in northern Galilee, ‘of which the oldest date from the second or even the first cent. A.D.’ (Schürer”, ii. 445). 3. At the time of the rise of Christianity every Jewish community, whether in Palestine or in the Diaspora, certainly had its synagogue. The words of St. James quoted above are in harmony with the testimony of Philo, who speaks of the places of prayer that existed in every city as so many places of instruction in virtue and piety (Vita Mos. iii. 27: Tà karū tróNets trpooſevkTipta ri &repôv éotiv 3) 5uðaoka)\eta K.T.A.). Hence there is a reflexion of the real con- dition of things when in a Tannaite saying of the 1st or 2nd cent. (R. Akiba already glosses it) the synagogue is named as one of the qualifications of a city in which a scribe may settle down (Sanhedrin, 17b, bottom). When in the Tannaite hālāchā the synagogue is looked upon, as the property of the city (Nedarim, v. 5), the places in view are such as are inhabited wholly or for the most part by Jews, for in these the political and the religious body are one and the same. Where there is no synagogue, the citizens (nºwn ºn ‘sons of the city’) have the right to demand that one be built and ‘to compel one another to do this ' (Tos. Baba mezia, xi. 3962). The same rule applies to the procuring of 638 SYNAGOGUE SYNAGOGUE the necessary copy of the Pentateuch and the Prophets for the synagogue (ib.).—The members of .. community belonging to the same synagogue are called non-m "ja (‘sons of the synagogue’), a designation which has a special significance when there are a number of synagogues in the same place. See the use of the expression in Tos. Megilla, ii. 223”; Bar. Moed katon, 22b, bottom ; Bekhoroth, v. 5; Zabim, iii. 2. In Tos. Megilla, iii. ad imit. (224") the members of the synagogal community are opposed to the rulers of the city (n'yn "tºne).- With reference to the right to alienate a synagogue to another use, the casnistry of the Pal. Amoras draws a distinction between private synagogues (Tn" ºwnplan n’a) and public synagogues (ºv 'n 'a Dºnn); see Jerus. Megilla, 73dº and 74a "7. The corresponding passage of the Bab. Talmud (Meg. 26a) distinguishes village from city synagogues (nºn-, pn=2 ºv'n 'a).--The possibility of a private house being converted into a synagogue is con- sidered in the Tannaite hālāchā (Nedarim, ix. 2, cf. Jerus. Meg. 73d "). As a rule, the synagogues were buildings specially erected for the purpose. In spite of the public character of the synagogal buildings they were subjected to certain ceremonial regulations applicable to dwelling - houses (Tos. Negain, vi. 625”, Bar. Yoma, 11b). A varying tradition (Yoma, ib.) distinguishes between syna- gogues which contain a dwelling for the synagogue attendant (nplan nº rin") and those that do not.— The Tannaite hālāchā deals with the contingency of a non-Jew supplying the building material for a synagogue (Tos. Meg. iii. 224*). This recalls the case of the Roman centurion at Capernaum, who had built a synagogue for the Jews (Lk 7°).--The consecration attaching to the synagogal building in virtue of its sacred destination does not cease entirely even when the building is no longer used for its original purpose. . A synagogue may be sold only on condition that it is not used for dishonourable purposes (Meg. ii. 2). It is even considered a profanation of its sacred character to enter a synagogue for shelter from the burning sun or from frost or rain (Tos. Meg. iii. 224”; Bab. Meg. 28a b). Citing the circumstance that even the ruined holy places are called sanctuaries (Lv 26”), Jehuda, b. Ilai (2nd cent.) teaches that even the ruins of synagogues are not to be used for profane purposes (Meg. iii. 3). The Bab. Anora Chisda (3rd cent.) prohibits the pulling down of a synagogue until another has been built (Meg. 26b, Baba bathra, 3b). —In Babylonia, there appear to have been two kinds of synagogue—winter and summer synagogues (Baba bathra, 3b ; see Löw, Gesam. Schriftem, iv. 97). iii. SITUATION OF THE BUILDING, STYLE OF ARCHITECTURE, ETC. — 1. A Tannaite tradition, appealing to Pr 1*, lays down the rule that the synagogue should be built “on the height of the city,’ i.e. upon a commanding point (Tos. Meg. iii. 2271%). With reference to this, a later Midrash (Tanchuma, "nopnil 4, ed. Buber, iii. 10) declares : “In early times the synagogue was built on the height of the city.’ So also Rab in Babylon (3rd cent.) taught : § city whose roofs overtop the synagogue is given over to destruction (Shabb. 11a). Of course these words can apply only to synagogues built within the city, and there can be no doubt that this was the case with the syna- gogues in Palestine. On the other hand, there is evidence that in Babylonia, the synagogues were frequently outside the city. The 13ab. Talmud speaks of synagogues which are ‘in the neighbour- hood of the city, and presupposes, others which are at a greater distance from it (Kiddush. 73b, cf. Shabb. 24b, and also the Comm. of Rashi, S. 7125). Allusion is made to such extra-mural Synagogues in a Midrash on Ec 129, where the old man, to whom the walk to the syna- gogue is a hard task, is addressed in the words nºn ºn Rºll nºi nblºm (“come let us go to the synagogue,’ Tanghwma, ed. Buber, Finly "n, 7). On the other hand, we are not to follow L: Löw (Gesam. Schriftem, iv. 15) in seeing in the interpretation of the ‘well in the field’ (Gn 29°) as an allegory of the synagogue (Gem, rabbit, ch. 70) an allusion to the situation of synagogues outside the city; for the expression “in the field’ is as indifferent for the purpose of the allegory as it is in the immediately pre- ceding interpretation of the well as an allegory of the Sanhedrin. Nor does the passage Pesikta, 1584 (ed. Buber), refer to syna. gogues in the country (Löw, ib. note 2), but the contrast there is between d.º. in the open country and prayer in the syna- gogue inside the city (cf. Midrash Tehillim on Ps 3, ed. Buber, p. 40). The fact that the synagogues in Babylonia were — partly at least — outside the cities was perhaps connected with the circumstance that at the beginning of the Sassanide rule the synagogues were destroyed by the Persians (Yoma, 106), and the rebuilding of them within the cities was not allowed. To another category belong the statements from which it has been inferred that it was customary to build the synagogues by a running stream or by the sea. None of these statements, moreover, refer to either Palestine or Babylonia. During St. Paul's stay at Philippi it is said (Ac 1618): “ Ånd on the Sabbath day we went forth without the gate, . a river side, where we supposed there was a place of prayer.’ The synagogue of Philippi was thus situated by a river outside the city. The assumption that it would be found there shows that this must have been the case elsewhere also. The municipality of Halicarnassus , expressly #. permission to the Jews to perform their devotions, according to their ancestral habit, by the seashore (Jos. Amt. XIV. x. 23). But here there is no mention of a synagogue, but simply of prayer in the open air. We may recall in this connexion the religious fasts that were held in Palestine in the open market-place of the town (Taanith, ii. 1). It is the same allusion to the fasts of the Jews that underlies the similar state- ments of Tertullian (de Jejunio, 16; ad Nationes, i. 13; see Schürer", ii. 447). In like manner the Jews of Alexandria, betook themselves, in their time of straits, to the seashore, to pray there ‘in the purest place’ (év ka0apgrárq, ; Pllilo, in Flaccwm, § 14). This remark of Philo' throws light upon the custom of the Jews living among the º of praying by the seashore, and perhaps also upon the building of the synagogue by a river, ...; is witnessed for Philippi. The motive would be to avoid the interior of the city polluted by idolatry, and to seek the ‘purest places for prayer, namely, the banks of rivers and the seashore. The same notion finds expression also in the ancient Midrash on Ex 12' (Mechilta, ad imit.); Moses prays out- side the city (Ex 9”), because it was j}. abomi- nations and idolatry (see Kohler, Monatsschrift, xxxvii. 442; Blau, Magyar-Zsidoſ Szemle, x. 494). Once more, it may be noted that at Corinth the synagogue was inside the city; for the house of Titius Justus, where St. Paul lived, “joined hard to the synagogue' (Ac 187). 2. The style of building adopted in the ancient synagogues of l'alestine is illustrated by the above- mentioned ruins in N. Galilee. “Almost all these synagogues lie north and south, so that the entrance is at the south. As a rule they appear to have had three doors in front—one principal entrance and two smaller side doors. In some instances it can still be seen that the building was divided by two rows of pillars into three aisles. Some had a portico in front. In general the style was influ- enced by the Graeco-Roman, although it shows very characteristic differences from it. In par- ticular it was marked ly a wealth of overladen ornamentation ' (Schürer", ii. 446). This orienta. tion of the synagogue from north to South contra. SYNAGOGUE SYNAGOGUE 639 dicts a prescription of the Tannaite hālāchā (Tos. Megilla, iv. 227*), according to which the syna- gogue entrance, like that of the sanctuary (Nu 3*), is to be at the east. One is tempted to assume that this rule, found only in the Tosephta, has in view Babylonia and other lands to the east of Palestine; for in these the orientation from east to west corresponds with the direction prescribed to the congregation at prayer in the synagogue. In the Tosephta, there are other traces of Baby- lonian redaction. As far as the synagogues of Galilee are concerned, their orientation, as the ruins show, was the opposite of , the direction prescribed for prayer. In an early halachic tradi- tion (Siphrē on Deut. § 29, 70b ; Bab. Berakh. 30a) it is said, upon the ground of 1 K 8*, that during prayer the worshipper must face towards Jerusalem and the sanctuary : those dwelling in the north stand with their face to the south, those in the south face the north, those in the west the east, those in the east the west. From this it follows that the worshippers in the synagogues of N. Galilee would turn in prayer towards the entrance. The direction towards the sanctuary, i.e. towards that part of the synagogue which is turned towards the sanctuary, is dealt with in the following rules, which are likewise found only in the Tosephta (Megilla, iv. 227*):— “The elders (nºpi) take their places facing the people, and with their back to the sanctuary (wn)p *595). The book-press in the º: is so placed that its front is towards the people, its back to the sanctuary....When the priests lift up their hands to bless, they stand with their face to the people, their back to the sanctuary. The synagogue attendant (hazzam) stands with his face turned towards the sanctuary, which is also the direction in which all the people face.” In the above quotation wºmp may be a designation of the particular side of the synagogue itself. In any case, we may assume that this part of the building was not always opposite the entrance. In the case of two considerable synagogues, we know that they had the form of a basilica with a double row of pillars. The expression ÖltrAſ a rod. is used of both of them. One is the famous great synagogue of Alexandria mentioned above; the other is that of Tiberias, to which an author of the 4th cent. (see Agada der pal. Amor. iii. 672, from Midr. Tehillim on Ps 93, end) applies that designation. According to Philo (in Flaccwm, $ 7) there were exhibited in , the replgoNot of the synagogue of Alexandria dedicated gifts and inscriptions set up in honour of the emperors (Schürer", ii. 446, iii. 52). 3. Of the furnishings of the synagogue the most important was the press (77°F) in which the sacred writings were kept. The complete expression is D"Ep 99 nan (Tos. Yadayim, ii. 683°); rarely do we find the Aram, term Nynx (= Heb. iins), Jerus. Meg. 73d". ". The same 2nd cent. tradition which censures the use of Noy nºn by uneducated persons as a term for the synagogue (see p. 636°), condemns in the same way the employing of the term Nynx for the book-press (Shabbath, 32a). It º. that in popular speech inns or Nons meant either a coffin or a press for keeping victuals (see Relim, xii. 3), and hence the word Tiºn established itself for the press of the synagogue which served a sacred purpose. It appears in Aram. as sma"n (Jerus. Berakh, 90 * *; Bab. Meg. 26b), and is re- produced by the Gr. kugorós (Chrys. Orat. adv. Jud. vi. 4). The press was furnished with a species of canopy called abº (Jerus. Meg. 73d"; see Levy, ii. 318b), which was spread over it before the commencement of the Sabbath (Jerus. Shabb. 170 *). In Babylonia its name was Non'5 (Meg. 26b). As long as the congregation remained in the synagogue the press was not to be denuded of this adornment (Bab. Sota, 39b, mann bºwen'). The press appears to have been placed in a shut- off part of the synagogue, with a curtain in front of it which, like the curtain in the sanctuary, bore the name non-B (Aram. Nnone). Behind this curtain took place the rolling up of the Torah after the reading of the Scripture lesson (Jerus. Sota, 22a, 4%; Jerus. Meg, 75b "; Soph. xi. 3). The cloths in which the copies of the sacred writings kept in the press were wrapped were called n\nºr, or, in full, nep ºw ‘p or nºnB5%ry ‘p, also DºnPD ‘p (see Kelim, ix. 3, xxiv. 14; Negain, xi. 6; Tos. Kilayim, v. 80”; Tos. Yadayim, ii. 6839). Such cloths were used elsewhere ... to wrap up the books of Scripture : thus in Sanhed. 1006, we read of the cloths in which, in the house of the Bab. Anora Jehuda (3rd cent.), the books were wrapped ("Tim" an 'an nED 'p). By Ha'n 'p (Tos. I(?layim, v. 80*) appear to be meant the cloths used to wrap up the books that lay in the synagogue press. From a controversy between the schools of Hillel and Shammai (Kelim, xxviii. 4) we learn that these cloths used to be adorned with em- broideries (mºsp). Little bells were also attached to them (nºnBo 'o'; nº, Tos. Kelim, i. 1, 579”; Bab. Shabb. 58b). In the graduated scale of consecration attaching to the synagogue and its furnishings, the press is holier than the building, the cloths for the Scrip- tures are holier than the press (Meg. iii. 1). In the hālāchā in question there is no mention of the chest (0%km); hence it is probable that the nEon pºn of Shabb. xvi. 1 and the B'neon pn of Tos. Yadayim, ii. 683°, do not refer to the chest in which the synagogue Scriptures were kept. Amongst the ſittings of the synagogue was the tribune (Tpºn, i.e. 8ſipa). There was a tribune of wood (ry ºwnpa, cf. py ºup of Neh 8°; see art. PULPIT), also in the temple at Jerusalem, upon which king Agrippa I. stood—instead of sitting— and read the Torºn at the Feast of Booths (Sota, vii. 7; Tos. Sota, vii. 307”). There was a similar structure in the centre of the great synagogue of Alexandria, from which the signal to utter the Amen was given to the congregation (Tos. Sukka, iv. 198°). In small Synagogues the tribune appears to have been in close proximity to the press; hence the pronouncement of the Bab. Amora. Samuel (3rd cent.), preserved in the Pal. Talmud (Meg. 73d%), that the tribune and the tablets ("mºn Fibºn) possess the degree of sacredness of the building but not of the press. The 13ab. Talmud (Meg. 32a) speaks in like manner of the tablets and the tribunes (mpºnn) mmºn). In the Midrash (Pesikta, ed. Buber, 84a) there is a story of how some one had jºbso mson msºno made of a cedar tree (where msºap is the same as mm.9). But there is nowhere sufficient evidence what is to be under- stood by these “tablets’ which belonged to the furnishings of a synagogue. They may have been tablets inscribed with Bible texts (cf. is 30°), such as were used in connexion with elementar Scrip: ture lessons (see Jelamdenu, cited in Friedmann's introduction to his edition of the Mechilta, p. xxxiv). The above - mentioned PhDED (i.e. subsellia), seats for the congregation, are named in Jerus. Meg. 73d" as among the furnishings of a syna- gogue ; they have the same degree of sacredness as the building. Along with the seats are named also ºn tºp; but this word should be emended to Finn tºp, which stands for the usual sm"mp (or ThThp), i.e. cathedra (cf. Jerus. Shabb. 6a 3 NYi'npm ºpepn). Chairs were, no doubt, provided for the elders and scribes, who sat in a prominent place (see above, ii. § 5, and cf. the Trparoka.0eópta of Mt. 23", Mk 1299, Lk ll”). So also in the great synagogue of Alax. 640 SYNAGOGUE SYNAGOGUE andria, there were 71 chairs of gold (nnnn D'yaw in ºwninninp) for the members of the great council there (Tos. Sukka, l.c.). On the ‘chair of Moses,” which the Chinese Jews had in their synagogue instead of the bímă (Almemor), see REJ xxxv. 110, and on the Movéws kaðéópa spoken of by Jesus in Mt. 23* see ib. xxxiv. 300. At the reading of the Scriptures a reading desk (nep ºw piºns, or, shortly, Fiºn [áva\oyetov]) was used (Kelim, xvi. 17), which, as a piece of the synagogue furniture, had the same degree of * as the building itself (Jerus. Meg. 3d6). N We hear also of candelabra and lamps (n), Finnip) being provided for the synagogue (Tos. Meg. iii. 22410). The Pal. º tells of a candelabrum which Antonine, to the great joy of the patriarch Jehuda, presented to a synagogue (Meg. 74a "); the Bab. Talmud (Arakhim, jöö) relates how an Arab, named pnly, presented a lamp to the syna- i. of Jehuda, the head of the school of Pum- jeditha (3rd cent.). The Mishna (Terumoth, xi. 10) speaks of the oil which was burned in the synagogue, , and also of the custom of keeping lamps burning in the synagogues on the Day of Atonement (Pesachim, iv. 4). iv. SYNAGOGUE WORSHIP, OFFICIALs, ETC.— For the holding of public worship in the synagogue the presence of at least ten adult male persons is required. These constitute the minimum of a congregation (Ty=nº}}). (See Sanhed. ii. 3, Meg. iv. 3). It once happened that Eliezer b. Hyrcanus (1st cent.), accompanied by his slave, came into the synagogue, and, finding that the requisite ten were not present, he gave the slave his freedom in order to make up the proper number (Pesach. 47b; Gittin, 38b). With this story may be compared the testimony of the inscription of Pantikapaum, according to which a manumitted slave was bound to attend the synagogue regularly (Schürer", iii. 53). That was considered a great city in which there were at least ten synagogue members un- encumbered by business (D'lºon), and who thus made it possible to hold a daily service (Meg. i. 3; Baba kammua, 82a ; Sanhed. 17b; Jerus. Meg. 70b"), whereas the great mass of the congregation could attend only on the Sabbath and on the festival days. At a later period the ‘ten men of leisure' became a kind of institution in the con- gregation. Women were not counted as members of the synagogue congregation. Yet even a woman could take part in the reading of the Sabbath lesson as one of the seven persons required on such an occasion ; but it was considered objectionable, on grounds of decency (Tasm Tai JEp), for a woman to read in public from the Torah (Tos. Meg. iv. 2264; Bab. Meg. 23a). Women were zealous attenders of the synagogue. A Tannaite hālāchā (Aboda zara, 38a b) names as the two places for which a woman is wont to leave her house, the baths and the synagogue (cf. also Yoma, 15b). Characteristic is the anecdote of the woman who had become very old and longed to leave this world. When she went to Jose b. Chalaphta (2nd cent.) with her complaint, he asked her : “What duty art thou accustomed daily to perform 7” She replied : ‘It is my custom to neglect even what is dearest to me, in order that I may visit the synagogue daily.” Then he advised her to leave off for three successive days attending the synagogue. She followed his counsel and died on the thirdſ day (Jalkut Shimeoni, i. 871, from Jelamdenu). In the Diaspora, women played an important rôle in synagogue life. St. Paul found in the syna- gogue of Philippi (See above) a gathering of women (Ac 16”). On the inscriptions of S. Italy mater 8/magogae º side by side with pater syna- offa, as a title of honour (Schürer”, iii. 50). From 3a.hylonia we have the information (ICiddushin, 814) that two school heads of the 4th cent., Abaji -* and Raba, arranged that men and women should sit apart from each other in the synagogue. The members of the synagogue congregation were called nbyºn ji (see above); at their head was the 'an wrºn (“head of the synagogue,” Gr. Öpxuoruvá- Yoyos or [Lk 8*] úpxov tís ovva YoYās). The synagogue of the Jerus, temple had in like manner its head. The ‘ruler of the synagogue' had the responsibility of maintaining order in the syna- gogue (see Lk 13"); it was his part to decide who was to conduct the public worship (Ac 13°). If he himself wished to take part in the reading of the Scriptures, he had to be invited by others to do so, because he could not of himself assume an honour- able function (Tos. Meg. iv. 227"). The ‘ruler’ was not a scribe, but he stood in rank immediately after the scribes (Pesachim, 49b, top ; Gittin, 60a, top). At mourning feasts it was customary, follow- ing a rule dating from the 2nd cent. (Jerus. Berakh. 6a 38; Semachoth, ch. 14, end), to drink a cup, with a blessing, to the health of the ruler of the syna- gogue. A more extended sense was assumed by the title ‘ruler of the synagogue’ in the Diaspora, as is evident from the Gr. and Lat. inscriptions, in which it frequently implies no function, but is simply an honorary title, bestowed even upon women and children (Schürer”, ii. 438 f., iii. 49 f.). The service of attendant in the synagogue as well as charge of the building and its furnishings was assigned to the synagogue official called nºn HD (shortly lin). The word ºn was derived not only by Nathan b. Yechiel (Aruch, 8.v.) but, before him, by Dúnash b. Labråt (10th cent.) from the verb nim (Kritik gegem Saadja, ed. Schröter, No. 170). But this derivation is unsatisfactory from the point of view both of grammar and sense. It is better to assume that the root in has the same meaning as the identically sounding Arab, root cy- (see Perles, Monatsschrift, 1870, p. 521). This root is indeed unexampled elsewhere in Hebrew, but it is readily conceivable that alongside of ibn there existed also a root in with the same meaning (cf. 179 side by side by cºy). From the verb |in=“keep charge’ was formed the subst. In which was used to designate the man who had charge of the synagogue and its furnishings, and who had also to give attendance at the con- ducting of public worship. Even the synagogue of the temple at Jerusalem had its hazzām (see Yoma, vii. 1; Sota, vii. 7, 8). The temple, however, had other attendants also called hazzānīm ; see Sukka, iv. 4, where the sub- ject is the keeping of the palm branches at the Feast of Booths, and Tamid, v. 3, where the keeping of the priests' garments is spoken of. The synagogue attendant is called in Greek Urmpérms (Lk 4*); Epiphanius (c. Hair. xxx. 11) knows also a Grae- cising of the Heb. word: 'Afavºrów Tóv trap abro's 6ta: kóvoy ºppºnwevouévov ) Virmperºv. — From the period while the temple at Jerusalem yet stood it is re- lated that, along with the pilgrims who brought the firstlings to the sanctuary, the synagogue attendants (nbiºn nº ºn, war. lec. 25 mi 95 ºn) also went up (Tos. Bikkurim, ii. 101*). – The advent of the Sabbath and of festival days was announced by the hazzán from the roof of the synagogue, with a thrice-repeated trumpet blast which was the signal for the suspension of work (Tos. Sukka, iv. 199°; cf. Chullin, i. 7 ; Jerus. Shabb. 16a 38; Bab. Shabb. 35). In the legend of the schoolmaster Nakkai (a contemporary of the Hadrianic persecutions) the latter is called both swpw (attendant) and NTED. Every Priday he arranges the lamps of the synagogue at Migdal- Zabba'aya (Jerus. Maaser sheni, 56a ", Edha arabbathi on EC 37). § During public worship it is the Mazzăn that calls to the performance of any function (Jerus. Berakh. 9001). He hands the copy of the Scriptures to the reader, and receives it back from the hands of the SYNAGOGUE SYNAGOGUE 64) man who has read the final lesson (Soph. xiv. 3). Cf. Lk 4”, where Jesus, having read the passage from the Prophets, returns the book to the attend- ant. The hazzān rolls up the Torah roll after the reading (Jerus. Meg. 75b "), and, after holding it up to view (Jerus. Sota, 21d, top), deposits it in the press. He calls upon the priests at the º. moment to pronounce the benediction (Siphrē on Nu 6*, § 34, end; cf. Jerus. Gittin, 47b ", Bab. Sota, 38a). On the occasion of religious fasts he indicates when the priests have to blow the trumpets (Bab. Taanith, 16b). In the great synagogue of Alex- andria, he waved a handkerchief as a signal to the congregation for the Amen (Tos. Sukka, iv. 198*). When the hazzān himself read the Scripture lesson, another had to wait upon him (9 Hin insi [this denom. verb does not occur elsewhere], Tos. Meg. iv. 227"). The hazzām belonged to the scribal body, of which he constituted, as it were, the lowest grade. In an Aram. Saying of Eliezer b. Hyrcanus (1st cent.) the scale is stated thus : R*bºn (scribes), sºnBD (schoolmasters), Nºrſ. At mourning feasts a cup was drunk in his honour (Jerus. Berakh. 6a "), as in the case of the ruler of the synagogue (see above). Even in early times it must have been customary, especially in smaller congregations, for the hazzām to read the Scripture lesson. An instance of this from the beginning of the 2nd cent. occurs in Bab. Meg. 25b. He acted also as leader in prayer. I'or an example from 3rd cent. see Jerus. Berakh. 12d".-The patriarch Jehuda I. was requested by the inhabitants of an inconsiderable place to recom- mend to them one of his pupils to discharge the duties of preacher, judge, hazzām, and schoolmaster. His recommendation fell upon the afterwards so well-known Levi b. Sisi (Jerus. Yebam. 13a*7; Gen. 7'abba, ch. 81, ad imit.). In the 3rd cent. the Jewish inhabitants of Bostra (Nisha) beg of Simeon b. Lakish to recommend to them some one capable of exercising all the functions necessary, as preacher, judge, schoolmaster, and hazzām (Jerus. Shebiith, 36d"). In the Midrash Koheleth rabba (on Ec 7° and 9") the hazzān already appears as leader of the Yrayer, in virtue of his oftice; i.e. the word hagzām. }. the character which it gained in the period of the Gaons, and which it has retained down to the Oresent day (see also Soph. x. end, xi. ad imit. ; }. R. Eliezer, xiii. end). Seeing that, as a rule, the instruction of children was also carried on in the synagogue, the haczām. acted, further, as assistant to the schoolmaster, or was himself schoolmaster, in addition to his other duties (Shabb. i. 3: Denmp mplynn ºn Finn linn). He discharged the functions also of an officer of the law court, carrying out, for instance, a sentence of scourging (see Makkoth, iii. 12; Tos. Makkoth, v. 444* *; cf. also Tos. Samhed. ix. 428* [=Jerus. Samhed. 234%: m'bi Jin]). It appears, however, that officers of the law court bore !. title hazcán, even when they were not at the same time syna- gogue attendants (see Jerus. Riddushim, 65C ", Samhed. 19e 44 and 23d 10 ; Bab. Shabb. 56a, 139a, Makkoth, 23a). —It is only in the Bab. Talmud (IY ethntboth, 8b) that we meet with the title in ‘,-yn [the parallel passage of the Jerus. Talmud (Pestch. 6a) has nojan jin], Aram. Nno Jin (Baba megiſt, 93b). Cf. A rakhim, 6b : Rn Tips" ºn. The leader in prayer who as the representative of the congregation recited aloud the prayers in the synagogue, was called may nº, delegate of the whole' (max is the name of the collective body assembled in the synagogue, in opposition to the individual, TII). This leading in prayer was a voluntary function disclarged by members of the congregation who were qualified for it and invited to undertake it. According to a Tannaite tradi- tion, the formula addressed to the person selected was not ‘Come and pray,' but ‘Come and offer' (Rhin VOI.. I V. —4 I and was loaded with honours and gifts. anpi, Jerus. Berakh. 8b "). The uttering of prayer was considered the equivalent of the offering of sacrifice; hence the leader was called Nºnº (see Jerus. Berakh. 36, bottom ; Leviticus rabbo, chs. 19. 20). —The leader in º stepped in front of the synagogue press ; , hence the function was known also as Hänn 'is', nay (see Berakh. v. 3, 4; Meg. iv. 3), Aram. Rmain plp nay (Jerus. Berakh. 9c *). The prayer is preceded by the reciting of the Shema' and the Bºi. connected with it ; this function was called yow 99 one [phe means pro- perly to break off a piece of bread and ask a bless: ing over it ; in the expression before us it is used in the sense of to pronounce the Blessings attached to the Shema]. A principal part of the public worship of the synagogue is the reading from the Pentateuch and the Prophets. This office is discharged by members of the congregation, among a fixed number of whom the particular passage of the Pentateuch is portioned out. On the Sabbath the number of readers is seven, on festival days five, on the Day of Atone- ment six, at the New Moon and on the half-festival days of Passover and Feast of Booths four, on week days and on the afternoon of the Sabbath three (Meg. iv. 1, 2). After the reading of the Penta- teuch lesson, a passage is read from the Prophets by one who may at the same time act as leader in prayer (ib. 5). When there is only one of the members of the synagogue who can read from the Scriptures, he reads the whole section (Tos. Meg. iv. 226%). The reading of the Scriptures was coupled with the translating of the Heb. text (in Palestine and Babylonia into Aramaic). The man who publicly gave the translation (Targum) in the synagogue was called ſpinº, also pain or jºininn (see, on the correct pronunciation, 13acher, Die àlteste Termin- ologie der jüd. Schriftauslegung, p. 206). The larger synagogues would have a Targumist or Mëthôrgémán of their own. There was one of this class at Jamnia in the time of Gamaliel I. (1st cent.), namely Rabbi Chuzpith, who was surnamed joininn (Berakh. 27b). In the 3rd cent, there was a Rabbi Hoshaya in Palestine with the (Aram.) sur- name sºn F (Gen. rabba, ch. 51, ad fin.). But as t rule it was the schoolmasters, those who from their calling were familiar with the Bible and had a tra- ditional acquaintance with the Targum, that gave the translation. From the beginning of the 4th cent. comes a story of how Samuel b. Jizhak once came into a synagogue and saw that the schoolmaster read the translation from a written Targum (Jerus. Meg. 74d in a p splinn behp -55 in son she jºb ºsy Nºbb). But any one who was capable, even a minor, was entitled to give the Targum in the synagogue (Meg. iv. 6; Tos. Mcq. iv. 227*). The reading of the Scriptures was followed, when a competent person was present, by an exposition of the lesson, or, in other words, by a sermon. It was customary to invite any stranger scribe who happened to be there, to deliver this address. It is told of a Palestinian Amora of the 4th cent, how he once came to a strange place and followed up the lesson by a sermon (Lev. rabba, 3). Nahum b. Simai, a Pal, teacher of the 3rd cent. preached in Tarsus (Pesikta rabbathi, ch. 15, 7SD). In Midrash Tanchuma (Teruma, 1, ed. Buber, ii. p. 89) an anecdote is told of a scribe who, travelling by sea in company with some merchants, was derided by them when he boasted of the wares which he had by him, and which they sought in vain. When they landed, the merchants had their goods taken from them by the custom-house officials, while the scribe went into the synagogue, preached there, In like manner Jesus travelled about in Galilee, teaching in the zynagogues (313&orzov ty rais ovvo., 3)) &is); see Mt 4”, Lk 415; and cf. Mk 121 62, Lk (;0 1310, Jn 659 1820. The synagogue, as has been already said, was called also orabf{arciou, because its principal purpose was to serve as the meeting-place of the congrega- tion for public worship on Sabbaths (and festival 642 SYNAGOGUE SYNAGOGU E . days). From the period when the temple and its sacrificial cultus still existed at Jerusalem, the tradition is preserved that the body of men (Tºp) belonging to the division of priests in charge of the temple service for the week, assembled daily in the synagogue of their dwelling-place and read the Creation story of Gn l (Taanith, iv.2; Tos, Taanith, iv. 219°; Bab. Taanith, 27b). The second and fifth days of the week also saw from early times the congregation assembled in the synagogue, because on these days there was reading from the Torah (Tos. Taanith, ii. 217"). But the practice of daily service could prevail only in larger towns where there were at least ten members unencumbered by business and thus able to give daily attendance at the synagogue (see p. 640"). far as was in his power, discharge his duty of prayer by taking part in the common prayer of the Synagogue. An early Tannaite, Eliezer b. Jakob (1st cent.), introduces his pronouncement on prayer with the exhortation to pray in the synagogue (Pesikta, ed. Buber, 158a). A Tammaite of unknown date, Abba Benjamin, derives from 1 K 828 the thesis that it is only prayer offered in the synagogue that is heard (Berakhoth, 5b). Joshua b, Levi (3rd º gives this instruction to his sons; ‘Going into the synagogue morning and evening prolongs life' (Berakhoth, 8a). Jizhak, a great Agadist of the 3rd cent., says in a paraphrase to Is 601" il: ‘If there is a man who is wont to go into the synagogue and on some particular day comes not, God inquires after him, saying, Where is the God-fearing one who is wont to be among you? He ought to have trusted in the name of the Eternal and left himself in the hands of his God, and not have absented himself from the house of God for the sake of gain or any worldly end' (Berakh. 60). Another great Agadist of the 3rd cent., Levi, applying Jer 1214, says: ‘The man in whose place of abode there is a synagogue and who does not frequent it is called an “evil neighbour” of God’ (Berakh. 8a). Another Pal, teacher of the 3rd cent, adopting an artificial ex- planation of Job 36°, says: “God does not leave unheard the prayer that is offered in company with the assembled congrega- tion' (Berakh. 8a). . A Pal, Agadist of the 4th cent., Jehuda b. Simon, makes Israel sing (Midrash, Tehilliºn on Ps 5): ‘Behold, O God, to how much persecution and oppression I am subjected by Edom (i.e. Rome), to keep me from owning thee as my God and king. ... But we go daily into our synagogues and own thee in our confession of faith (the Shema) as God and king.' . The same Agadist applies to Pr'895 the oft-recurring idea that God's glory is present with the congregation assembled in the syna- gogue: ‘Who ever came into the synagogue without finding my glory there' (Deut. rabba, 7)? The above and similar sayings (cf. e.g. also Derech Erez zitta, 9, ad init.) show not only the importance attached to the prayer of the congre- gation in the synagogue, but also the constant need there was of warning the members against negligence in their attendance. In the 3rd cent. it was told in Palestine to the credit of the Baby- lonian Jews that they visited the synagogue every morning and evening (Berakh. 8a). v. THE SYNAGOGUE As AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL-The synagogue was not only the place of public worship ; it embraced also the school in which the first instruction in the Holy Scriptures as the principal or the sole subject of education was given. As the bêth hammidrāsh served for the studies of more advanced youths and adults, the synagogue was the place in which—perhaps in a special room—the children were taught. In a homiletical exposition of La 19 Abba b. Kahana (3rd cent.) adds to the words of Jer 991 [Heb. 20) ‘to cut off the children from the street, the youths from the squares' the gloss but not from the synagogues and the schools' (Echt, tabbathi, ad loc.). Joshua b, Levi himself conducted his randson to the synagogue, i.e. to school (ICiddush. 30a). Jhija b, Abba (3rd cent), as he passed a synagogue of Sep- phoris, heard children being taught to repeat Gn 201, and º this the subject of a remark (Gen. rabba, 52). In an anecdote of the 4th cent, we are told how a teacher in the synagogue punished a child excessively and was cursed for this by a woman who happened to be passing by (Jerus. Moed kaion, 810 *). Itab, the Bab. Amora, said that women gain special merit by conducting their children to the synagogue, i.e. to school ſº 17a). See also the saying of the Pal. Amora Simon (end of the 4th cent.) reported in Jerus. Challa, 57l) 18, That in Babylonia the synagogue was the place of elementary education is evident from Meg. 28b; Yebamoth, 21b, top ; Baba bathra, 21a. — According to the above - mentioned tradition * * Nevertheless, it was enjoined by the scribes that every one should, as -ºš (ii., § 2, ad imit.) regarding the synagogues of Jerusalem, en h of these was provided with a school for children and one for more advanced students. In a hyperbolical statement about Bethar, the capital of Judaea in the time of Bar Cochba, it is said (Gittim, 58a): “There were 400 synagogues in Bethar, and in each of these there were 400 teachers (nºphl'n "mp?p), each with 400 children under his instruction.” vi. OTHER USES OF THE SYNAGOGUE. — The synagogue was also the scene of legal decisions. f Ābāhu, the head of the school of Caesarea (beginning of 4th cent.), it is expressly recorded that he lectured (Jerus. Berakh. 6a, bottom) in tho ancient synagogue there (see above, ii. § 2), and also decided questions of law in it (Jerus. Samhed. 18&, bottom). In the same synagogue Jochanan the famous teacher of Abahu, also acted at one time as judge (Bab. Yebamoth, 65a). From the NT we learn that the punishment of scourging was inflicted in the synagogues (Mt 107 23", Mk 139, Ac 2611; cf. Lk 121 2112, Ac 2219, 2 Co 1124). It has already been mentioned (above, § iv.) tha\ the hazzān carried out this sentence and acted in other ways as an officer of the law court. There is mention in Lev. rabba, G, ad imit., of an oath in a civil process being taken in the synagogue. The mowrming for a man who was lamented by . the whole community was held in the synagogue (Tos. Meg. iii. 225°; Bab. Meg. 28b; cf. the story of the funeral of Jehuda I. in Koh. 1'abba, on Ec 919). A Bab. Amora of the 5th cent. held the mourning for his daughter-in-law in the syna- gogue (Meg. 28b). At the time of the war against Rome, gatherings of a political character were held in the great synagogue of Tiberias on the Sabbath and the fol- lowing day (Jos. Vital, 54). R. Joghanan (3rd cent.) gave express permission to deliberate about public affairs in the synagogues and schools on the Sabbath (ICethwboth, 5a). After the destruc- tion of Jerusalem it was customary—so a Tannaite tradition tells us—to give out in the synagogues and schools a list of articles lost (Baba mezia, 28b). Thefts were also intimated in the syna- gogue with a view to the detection of the per- petrator (Lev. rabba, 6, ad imit.). I'or other announcements made in the synagogue, see Yeba- Anoth, 63b. An Agadist of the 4th cent, once fol- lowed up an address in the synagogue by calling upon the congregation to contribute alms for a stranger (Lev. rab. 32, ad fin.). In a Tannaite rule, amongst the prescriptions concerning what is due to the dignity of the synagogue, there is one forbidding eating and drinking in it (Meg. 28a, bottom). Nevertheless, common meals were held even in the synagogue (see on this point IK. Kohler, Monſttsschrift, xxxvii. p. 494, who suggests a connexion between this custom and the meals of the TSSenes). An anecdote from the 3rd cent. mentions a meal as held on the Sabbath evening in the synagogue of the Pal. Keplmar-Chittaja (Gem. rab. 65); while a testimony from the 4th cent. refers to a great meal in the school (Jerus, Berakh. 116, bottom). — Joshua, b. Levi (3rd cent.) laid down the principle that the synagogues and Schools belong to the scribes and their pupils (Jerus. Meg. 74a", cf. Bab. Meg. 28b). His younger contemporary, Amni, ordained that the schoolmasters (who at the same time filled the post of synagogue keeper) should provide quarters in the synagogue building for travellers who had the slightest acquaintance with the Torah (Jerus, Meg. 740."). Chija and Assi, the colleagues of Ammi, used to insist on quartering themselves in the synagogue (ib.). Measha and Samuel b. Jizhak, Pal. Amoras of the beginning of the 4th cent., º: of eating in the synagogue (Jerus. Berakh. ch. ii. end [5d "), Shabboth, 3a "). In Babylonia also travellers were accommodated in the synagogue and there tool, SYNAGOGUE SYNAGOGUE, THE GREAT 643 their Sabbath meal; upon which is founded the rule that the blessing over the wine, which else- where is the introduction to the meal, is to be spoken also in the synagogue (Pesachim, 101a). In a great many passages of the Jewish tradition- literature (Talmud and Midrash) the synagogues are named along with the schools. They #. pear as the two institutions which are specially characteristic of Israel, and whose extreme in- §". for Judaism finds expression in mani- old ways. In order to see what the synagogue was in the life and thought of Israel during the first centuries of the Christian era, one must make acquaintance also with those sayings of the Tannaites and Amoras, in which synagogue and school are glorified as inseparable institutions. In these it must be observed that the synagogue means not only the place of public worship, but that of instruction for the young. As a rule, in these sayings the synagogue precºdes the School (mºnºp 'nan m'bii, na), a circumstance which indi- cates the higher repute in which the synagogue stood. But the ºº:: view had also its repre- sentatives: from the 3rd cent. there has come down the saying of a Pal, scribe (Meg. 27a), and from the 4th cent. that of a Bab. Scribe (ib. 26b), according to which the school has a higher rank than the synagogue. The following are some of these sayings about synagogue and school :— An Agadist of the 4th cent. attributes to the philosopher QEnomaus of Gadara, known through his intercourse with the famous R. Meir, the saying that, so long as the “voice of Jacob’ Gn 2722) sounds in synagogue and school, the ‘hands of Esau’ i.e. Rome) are powerless against Israel (Gen. rab. 65 ; Pesikta, 121a). —Abahu said : “Seek the Eternal where he is to be found (Is 550). Where is he to be found 7. In the synagogue and the school” (Jerus. Berakh. 8d, bottom).—Levi said: “While the descendants of Abraham sit in the synagogue and the school, God's glory stands over them.” [in allusion to PS 821.] (Gen. rab. 48; Pesikta, 48b).-By ‘your sanctuaries’ (Lv 2631) are to be understood synagogue and º (Siphºrd, ad loc. 112a). — Jizhak declared that by “our dwellings” (Jer 919) are meant synagogue and school (Echa rabba, ProCom., No. 8). —Samuel b. Jizhak interpreted the “sanctuary byp’ (Ezk 1116) of the synagogues and schools of Babylonia (Meg. 29a).-The “holy Slace’ (EC 810) means synagogue and School (Koh. Tal). ad loc.; Tanchuma, ed. Buber, Jith ro, ad imit.). —“My heart is awake’ (Ca, 52) in the synagogue and the school (Shir rab, ad loc.). —In the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs many other Dassages are also applied to the synagogue and the school § rab, passim ; Bab. Erub. 21b ; Pesach. 87a), —Jose b. Chanina (3rd cent.) discovers in the ‘gardens’ of Ca 63 the synagogue and the school (Shir rab. ad loc.). —Attending syna- gogue and school is contrasted with attending theatre, and circus (Jerus. Berakh. 7d 37 ſprayer of Nechunja, b, Hakkana in 1st cent.]; Gen. rab. 67 [Levi); I(oh. rab. on Ec 17). —When David prays (Ps 614), May I dwell for ever in thy tent,' be means, ‘May it be vouchsafed to me that my words may be re- beated under my name in the school and the synagogue' (Jerus. 3erakh, 4b). —The ‘refuge from generation to generation' of Ps 901 is interpreted by Raba (4th cent.) of synagogues and schools. As a matter of fact, even in later centuries, tiless were the refuge of Israel Scattered through all lands. vii. LATEST HISTORY OF THE SYNAGOGUE.—Yn the present article regard has been had only to the synagogue of antiquity, i.e. of the last years of the Second Temple and the first five centuries of the Christian era. But the synagogue suryived also in the following periods, through the Middle Ages down to the present day, as the most notable institution of Judaism, the focus of the religious life of the Jewish community. A history of the synagogue in the Middle Ages and in modern times would be an integral part of the history of Judaism, from the point of view alike of its out- ward fortunes and its inner development. The manifold character which Jewish history displays in virtue of its having the whole of the inhabited globe for its stage of action and in virtue of the influences exercised upon it by different forms of civilization, is exhibited also in the character of this Jewish institution, which is ancient indeed, but is ever renewing its youth. It may suſlice to point out that in the most recent times, during something like the last 80 years, the synagogue was the central point and also the principal object of Jewish attempts at reform, and that the im. portance of the institution has been marked even externally by the synagogue buildings which have been everywhere reared, on both sides of the Atlantic—a testimony to the spontaneous effort of the builders and sometimes their almost exces sive love of splendour. LITERATURI.-As far as concerns articles on the Synagogue in the various Encyclopædias, or the treatment of the subject in the works on the History of the Jews, on Biblical Archaeology, and the History of NT Times, a gº reference may suffice. Schürer devotes a long section § V8 ii. (27–404) to the Syna- gogue. Of the literature cited by him the following deserve Special notice : Vitringa, De Synagoga vetere, libri tres (1696); Leopold Löw, ‘Der synagogile iritus’ (Momatsschrift, 1884, Gesam. Schriftem, iv. 1-71. In the 5th vol. of the Gesann. Schriftem, pp. 21–33, are ‘Plan und Collectaneen’ to a detailed account of ‘synagogalen Alterthümer,’ supplemented by the editor, Immanuel Lów). We may mention also : K. Kohler, ‘Uber die Ursprünge und Grundformen der synagogalen Liturgie' (Momatsschrift, xxxvii. [1893] 441-451, 480–407); S. H. Goldfahn, “Die Synagogen der Talmudzeit.” (Jiā. Litteratwº- blatt vom Italhºner, xiii.); J. Reifnnann, ‘Uber Synagogen und Lehrhäuser zur talmudischer Zeit' (in N. Keller's Heb. peri- odical Bikkurim, ii. Theil, 1866). —On the place of the synagogue in the Middle Ages, see I. Abrahams, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, 1890, pp. 1-34. W. BACIII.R. SYNAGOGUE, THE GREAT. — An alleged col- lege or senate, whose founder and first president is said to have been Ezra, and which, according to tradition, exercised control over the Jewish coin- munity, especially in religious matters, from about 450–200 B.C. Its membership is generally given as 120 (e.g. Jerus. Berakhoth, ii. 4), but sometimes as 85 (e.g. Jerus. Meg. i. 7). The important part attributed by some to this institution in connexion with the forming of the CANON OF THE OT (see below) demands that we should examine, as briefly as possible, the evidence for its existence and activity. There is no mention of the Great Syn, in Philo, Josephus, or the Apocrypha, not to speak of the OT itself. Nothing can be built on 1 Mac 14*, where prey&\m a vyaya, yū is not a technical term, Jút means simply ‘a great gathering.’ Only once in the Mishna (Pirke Aboth, i. 1) are the Men of the Great Synagogue (nºn nº ºfts) mentioned : “Moses delivered the Torah to Joshua, Joshua to the Elders, the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets to the Men of the Great Synagogue. These spake three words : Be cautious in pro- nouncing judgment, Make many disciples, 13uild up a hedge around the Torah.” Simon the Just is said (ib. 2) to have been ‘of the remnants of the Great Synagogue ('in '5 ºn ep).’ This last statement does not imply that the Great Syn. had existed for centuries, for, although the Simon who was surnamed ‘the Just was probably high priest c. 200 B.C., the author of the above notice is more likely to have identified him with Simon I. (c. 300). Now we know that the utmost confusion prevailed amongst the Jews as to the chronology of the period between the Return from Iºxile and the conquests of Alexander the Great. Ilence it would be nothing extraordinary to find Simon, a con- temporary of Alexander, represented as a member of the same body as Ezra ; and, in the other direction, to ſind Joshua, Zerubbabel, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and even Daniel, introduced as members. As far, then, as the testimony of Pirke Aboth goes, it would seem to favour the conclusion that the Great Syn., whatever it was, continued only for a single generation, instead of having a succession for centuries. It is noteworthy that the Talm. treatise Peah (ii. 6) omits the Great Syn. as a connecting link, and the succession passes direct from the Prophets to the Zugoth or * Pairs.” In Babcº bathra (14b) we read that the Men of the Great Sym. wrote Ezekiel, the Minor Prophets, 644 SYNAGOGUE, THE GREAT SYRACUSE Daniel, and Esther; and in the Aboth of R. Nathan (a post-Talm. treatise) they are said to have secured the acceptance of Proverbs, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes, which had been formerly dis- puted. . In Pesachim (50b) it is said that they fostered the work of copying the Torah and tephillim and mézuzóth (see Dt 6*). In an im- portant passage of Midrash Tanchuma (26a) certain corrections in the text of the OT, introduced in order to prevent misunderstanding, are also traced to the Men of the Great Syn., who are reported elsewhere (Jerus. Berakh. ii. 4) to have drawn up certain prayers, in particular the Shemomeh, 'B'sreh, or 18 Blessings (běrákhôth). To them are attri- buted also the directions for the reading of the Book of Esther, and the keeping of Purim not on the 14th and 15th, but on the llth, 12th, and 13th of the month Adar (Makkoth 23; Jerus. Meg. i.). It is not, however, till the 16th cent. that we meet with the notion that the Men of the Great Synagogue collected the sacred books, and fixed the Canon of the OT. This notion makes its first appearance in the pages of the Massoreth Hammºtssoreth (1538) of Elias Levita, a Jewish contemporary of Luther. r * The whole question of the Great Syn. was thoroughly investigated by Kuenen (see Literature at end), whose conclusions are accepted by the great majority of modern scholars. The institu- tion, as it appears especially in mediaeval Judaism, is held by Kuenen, to be simply a characteristic transformation of the great assembly described in Neh 8–10. Just as the Talmud represents the SANIIEDRIN as an assembly of scribes, because such were the schools at Jamnia and Tiberias, so the Great, Synagogue, instead, of being, a popular assembly once called together for a definite pur- pose, is converted into a permanent institution discharging functions similar to those of the scribes at a later period. That a dim reminiscence of the original identity of the Great Syn., and the convocation of Neh 8–10 still lingered on even in Rabbinical circles, may be gathered from some of the references. For instance, in Midrash I&uth we read, ‘What did the Men of the Great Syn. do? They wrote a book and spread it out in the court of the temple. . And at dawn of day they rose and found it sealed. This is what is written in Neh 998.” Again, there occurs in Dt 1017 this collocation, “God the great, the strong, the terrible (Rºn) ºn ºn 9sſ).” It is repeatedly stated in the Talmud (e.g. Jerus, Berakh. ii. 4) that this formula, which had fallen into disuse, was again brought into currency by the Men of the Great Synagogue. It seems impossible to doubt that Kuenen is right in finding an allusion here to Neh 932, where all these epithets are found. Similar Talm. statements appear to allude to Neh 95.0. 7. 18. Once more, the variety of statement as to the number of members that constituted the Great Syn. (sometimes 120, sometimes 85) may be explained from Neh 8–10. There were 84 that sealed the covenant, according to Neh 101-28, and the number 85 may be obtained either by adding the name of lºzra (who is not mentioned), or by º that a name has dropped out of the list (either in v. 10 or in v.4, where the Pesh, actually supplies an extra name, Shephatiah). If, on the other hand, we wish to obtain the number 120, this may be done, at least º by contbining the above list with the lists in Neh 847 and 9%.", or in Ezr 2 and 8 (for other arguments of a Similar kind, see IYuenen's lºssay). The very nam’: ‘Synagogue” seems inexplicable except upon Kuenen’s view. It calls up neither a college of scribes nor a legislative body, but an assembly for religious service. The word npº (see SYNAGOGUE) denoted either a congregation met for worship on the Sabbath day, or, by metonymy, the building where it met. The name might be fittingly enough applied to the convocation of Nehemiah, which, as Kuenen remarks, was not a law-imposing, but a law-receiving assembly; and in the account of whose proceedings we ſind all the exercises characteristic of Synagogue worship, such as prayer, the reading of the Law, etc. To this memorable convocation the epithet “Great' would, for a variety of reasons, be eminently suitable. , W. It. Smith agrees with Kuenen that what —w came afterwards to be spoken of as the Great Synagogue was originally a meeting, and not a permanent institution. “It met once for all, and everything that is told about it, except what we read in Nehemiah, is pure fable of the later Jews’ (OTJC * 169). Historical criticism thus leaves no place for the Great Synagogue of tradition. LiterATURE.-Buxtorf's Tiberias sive Comm. Massor. (1620) strenuously upholds the traditional view, and is still of value for its copious citation of testimony, which, however, is used in a very uncritical fashion. On the other side is Rau's Diatribe de Sym. magma (1726), which, although marked by an excess of anti-Jewish prejudice, shows true critical instinct, and antici- pates. Some of the weightiest of Išuenen's arguments. The question may be considered to have been finally settled, in the sense advocated above, by IXuenen in his famous monograph, Over de mannen der groote symagoge, Amsterdam, 1876 ſtr. by Budde in Gesam. Abhandlungen, pp.125–160], whose conclusions 8, re º; by Ryle, Camom of OT, 250 ft. [valuable as con- taining the Jewish testimonies relied on by Buxtorf); Wildeboer, Entsteh. des AT Kamoms, 120ff, ; Buhl, Canon, and Teact of OT, 33 ff.: W. R. Smith, OT'JC2 169 f.; and many others. Cf. further, Hartmann, Die enge Verbindwng d. AT mit d. NT, 120-166; Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish ſºathers 2, 110 f.; Driver, LOT-6 Introd. viif.; Fürst, Kamom d. AT (1868), 12–32; Jost, Gesch. d. Jud. w; 8eim. Sect, i, 41–43, 91, 95 f.; Geiger, Urschrift w. Uebersetz, d. Bibel, 124 f.; Wellh. Phar. w. Sad. 11 f.; *...º. Essai sur l'histoire de la Palestime, 20–40 (tradiº tionalist); Montet, Essai sur les origines des partis Saducéem et pharisiem (1883), 91–97; Schürer, GJ V 3 ii. 354 f. [II.JP 11, i. 354 f.]; Heidenheim, “Untersuch, tiber die Syn., magna' (SK, 1853, pp. 93-100); Herzfeld, Gesch.'d. Judenth. ii. 22–24, 380ff., iii. 244 f., 270 f.; Graetz, ‘Die Grosse Versammlung’ (Momats- schrift, 1857, pp. 31-37, 61-70); Bloch, Studien z. Gesch. d. Samml. d. altheb. Lit. (1876) 100-182; Iſamburger, R.E. ii. 318– 323; D. Hoffmann, “Die Mämmer der grossen Versammlung’ (Magazim f. Wissensch. des Judenth. x. (1883) 45-63; S. Krauss, “The Great Synod’ (J918 x. (1808) 347–377). J. A. SELDIE. SYNTYCHE (Suvròxm).—A member of the Philip- pian Church whom St. Paul exhorts to become reconciled to EUODIA, another member of the same Church. They appear to have held a position of importance in the Church as ladies of some wealth and position, or possibly as deaconesses, like Phoebe in the Roman Church (Ro 16"). Their disagreement was therefore not only unseemly, it was a calamity for the entire Church. Both the names, Euodia and Syntyche, occur in the inscrip- tions (Lightfoot, Ep. to the Philippians”, p. 158). There is no need, therefore, to introduce the far- fetched interpretation of the Tübingen school, that they are allegorical personages representing the Jewish and Gentile sections of the Church. J. GIBB. SYNZYGUS (TR Sºvyos, but modern edd. Søv- {vºyos). —If Sym2/gºts is a proper name, he was a º to whom St. Paul addressed an entreaty to oring about a reconciliation between Euodia and Syntyche, two members of the Philippian Church who were at variance (Ph 4*). He was at the time in Philippi, and may have been the chief presbyter or bishop of the Church. The sole objection to this interpretation—the only natural one—is that Symzygºus is nowhere used in Greek literature as a proper name, nor is it found in the inscriptions (but see Vincent, ad loc.). It was suggested by Weizsäcker that it may have been adopted by the bearer after his conversion to Christianity. The other lº is that gºvKuyos here, as in classical Greek, signifies “yoke- fellow,’ and that the exhortation was addressed to a companion of the apostle who was with him when he wrote, who was possibly his a manuensis (see vol. iii. p. 841"). Darnahas, Silas, Epaplino- ditus, and Timothy have been suggested. Itamsay (St. Petul the T'rativ. 358) thinks that Luke was either ‘the true yoke-fellow' or the actual bearer of the Epistle to Philippi. . The suggestion of Renan (Saint Paul, p. 148), that the ‘true yoke- fellow' is Lydia, who had become the wife of the apostle, is hardly to be taken seriously. . . J. GIBB. SYRACUSE but Vulg. (>upókovo'at, Wrongly SYRACUSE SYRIAC VERSIONS 6 #5 1. * - sing. Syracusa), situated on the west coast of Sicily, was the principal city of the island, and under the Ikomans was the capital of the eastern half. After the western half of Sicily was taken from Carthage by the Romans (B.C. 241) at the close of the first Punic War, the eastern half con- tinued to belong to the kingdom of Syracuse in alliance with Rome. In the second Punic War, Syracuse took the side of the Carthaginians, but was captured by Marcellus in 212, and the whole island thenceforward continued to be a Roman Province, though in two distinct divisions, in each of which a quaestor was stationed, under the authority of the single governing praetor, who presided over the whole island. Syracuse was one of the most famous and magnificent colonies of Greece. Its defeat of the great Athenian expedi- tion in B.C. 415 was one of the most critical events in Greek history; and its kings were among the leading powers in the Greek world. Whether it preserved its old prosperity in the first century after Christ is uncertain, as Sicily suffered severely in the Civil Wars, especially from the exactions of Sextus Pompey and in the contest between him and Augustus. Strabo, 272 f., describes the whole island as in a state of decay in his time, some of the cities having disappeared, while others were declining : the interior was to a large extent given up to grazing and horse-breeding, peoplcd by herdsmen, and devoid of educative influences. Its ancient importance as an arable and Corn-growing country had disappeared ; and the reason for this lay pºrtly in the economic conditions of the empire, and partly in the dreadful circumstances of the Servile Wars, B.C. 135-132 and 103–100. The land belonged for the most part to absentee landlords. - Syracuse was one of the 26 censoriae civitate& of Sicily, which had been conquered in war, and whose territory had been appropriated by the Roman State as ager publicw8. Julius Caesar, as was natural to his statesmanlike mind, had been revolving schemes for the restoration of prosperity to Sicily, but his plans were interrupted by his assassination. Antony produced a plan which he declared to have been found among Caesar's papers, and proposed a law to extend the Roman franchise to Sicily. This was not carried out com- pletely ; and Augustus was content with a much more gradual process of elevating Sicily to the full IRoman rights. He ounded seven Roman colonies of military origin, one of which was Syracuse.* Pliny mentions also that there were in Sicily two Roman towns (oppida civium, Itomnamortún) and threo cities with Latin rights; but his enumeration is very imperfect, and it is certain that IRoman and Latin rights were much more widely spread in Sicily before the middle of the first century after Christ than he allows. It was during this process of transition from the position of a conquered province to that of a con- stituent part of the Roman State that St. Paul approached the Sicilian coast. Syracuse is mentioned in the NT only as having been a harbour where St. Paul lay at anchor for three days on his voyage from Malta, to Itome. The shipwrecked crew and passengers, after spend- ing three months in Malta, set sail on the Dio- scuri, evidently one of the Alexandrian fleet of in perial transports carrying grain from Egypt to maintain the food º!". in Rome. They started, evidently, very early in the year, probably in I'ebruary, before the settled weather and the customary season for navigation (mºre clawsum 11 Nov. to 5 March) had begun. That implies that a suitable and seemingly steady Wind was blowing, which tempted them to embark, and carried them straight to Syracuse, a distance of about 100 miles. On the voyage from Malta to Itone as a whole, see IRIIEGIUM. Nothing is said with regard to any preaching by St. Paul in Syracuse, nor could any be expected to occur. The ship was certainly waiting for a suit- able wind to carry it north to the straits of Messina; and under such circumstances no prisoner was likely to be allowed leave of absence, as the ship must be ready to take instant advantage of * Pliny (Nat. IIist. iii. 88-00) wrongly mentions only five (one being Syracuse). - IBy a strange mistake, in contradiction of Ao 2811, the Dioscuri is described in Smith's DIB iii. 1403 as a ship in the African corn trade, which had sailed from the province Africa intending to round Pachynum to Syracuse, and was carried out of its course to Malta. On the nano of the ship, and the grammatical construction of the clauso describing it, see Rii EgluM. lation was made. g = mºms ~g the , wind. A survey of the progress of early Christianity would show that it rarely spread through the activity of coasting travellers, even on shores where their voyages were very tedious and subject to frequent and long interruptions (as, for example, the coasts of LYCIA and PAMPHYLIA). It is more probable that the new religion spread from Italy to Sicily in the course of direct com- munication between the two countries. Many Christian memorials of a fairly but not very early date have been found at Syracuse : see the papers by Orsi in Notizie degli Scavi, 1893 and 1894, and esp. in Römische Quartalschrift f. christl. Alt. 1896, pp. 1–59. W. M. RAMSAY. SYRIA, SYRIANS.—See ARAM, ARAMAEANs. syRIAG LANGUAGE.-See LANguage of OT, vol. iii. p. 25". SYRIAC VERSIONS.—No branch of the Early Church has done more for the translation of the Bible into their vernacular than the Syriac-speak- ing. In our European libraries we have Syriac Dible MSS from the Lebanon, Iºgypt, Sinai, Meso. botamia, Armenia, India (Malabar), even from {. And many of the 13ible versions in other Oriental languages are dependent on, or at least influenced by, the Syriac, as the Armenian, Arabic, Ethiopic. Some of the Syriac MSS ap- pear to be the oldest 13ible MSS, in any language, which have an exact date: a Syriac Pentateuch in the British Museum (Add. 14425) is dated from the year 464, written by a deacon John at Amid.” A Syriac - Chinese stone inscription, erected at Singan-fu in the year 781, discovered by Jesuit missionaries in 1625, speaks of the 27 books of the NT. It would be a pleasant task to follow up the history of the Syriac Rible versions through all times, regions, and departments of culture : want of space, however, obliges us to contine ourselves to the importance of the Syr. VSS for the modern student of the Bible. We begin with the NT. I. NEW TESTAMENT.—Older scholars spoke of that Syr. VS of the NT which alone was known to them as ‘the Queen’ of all Bible versions. But now we have more than one, at least for the Gospels. 1. Tradition. — When, in the 16th cent., the Syr. VS of the NT became known in Europe, the belief prevailed that it was due to the evangelist Mark, who was said to have written his Gospel first in Latin and then to have translated it, with the other books of the NT, it to Syriac. Jacob of Edessa ( 701) and others were of the opinion that Addai the apostle (THAIDDAEUS) and king Abgar sent interpreters to Palestine (see Moses bar Cepha [+ 913] and Barhebraeus, Scholia in l’s 10). What Theodore of Mopsuestia, says of the Syr. translation of the OT holds equally good of the NT : hpuijve vrat 6é raûra els uéu T’u Tów Stºpwu Tap' Örov 6% tore otöé yöp &yvoortat péxps rās Tijuepov čotus Toré oërós éarty (Comm. in Soph. [], 6] ; Mai, Nova Patr. Bibl. vii. 1854). 2. Place. —We do not know where the trans- On the ground of some lin- * W. Wright, A Short History of Syriac ſiterature (London, 1804, p. 5 = 1)nc. Brit.0 xxii. 824). e e # ‘Syri constanter asserunt S. Marcum , , , latine primum scripsisse Evangelium suum. Deinde eundem ipsum Margum lingua patria, hoc est, Galilaea Syra, non modo lºvangelium suum transtulisse, sed etiam casteros omnes N'T libros. ld nihi litteris significavit Guilielmus Postellus, aſſirmavitgue se ita, a Syris ipsis accepisse' (Boderianus (Guido I'evre de la Roderic] in the 1’reface of the Syr. NT 1571). Widmanstadt, the first editor of the NT in Syriac (1555), agrees that Mark wrote in Latin, but contents himself with affirming that the books of the NT (except Matthew and Ilebrews) were translated into Syriac ‘ab initio rerum Christianarum.' 646 SYRIAC VERSIONS SYRIAC VERSIONS guistic peculiarities, Syrian grammarians, as Elias I. and Barhebraeus, reached the same conclusion as Jacob of Edessa, that the translation originated in Palestine ; European scholars thought first of Antioch, because the translation became known to them through the Patriarch of Antioch : in recent times Edessa has found most favour; but nothing can be said with certainty. 3. History.—(a) The first mention of , a Syriac NT seems to be the statement of Eusebius (HE iv. 26) on Hegesippus (about 160–180) : ék re rod ka0''Egpaiovs stayyektov kai row Xupuakov Kal lötws ék rās 'E3patóos 6ta\éktov two riðmov, Šuqalvøv é$ ‘Eğpatwu avròw tre+to revkéval (Rufinus: ‘de Evan- gelio secundum Hebraeos et Syros’; Syr. VS of Eusebius : ‘from the Gospels of the Hebrews and Syrians’; see on the passage Th. Zahn, For- schººngen, vi. 246). (b) About the same time or a little earlier we hear that Tatian, who was born, according to his own statement, €v rm rôv 'Aagupta'v yń, and had been in Rome the hearer of Justin Martyr, re- turned home—as it seems, in the year 172—and composed (probably there; not at Iłome, about 153–170 [so Harnack formerly, TU i. 213]), his famous Diatessaron, i.e. a harmony of the four Gospels (avvāqelāv Tuva kal avvaywyńv oëk olò' 8tra's Töv eſſay ye), toy avv0els to Övö regorápaſy todro trpoo wwó- pagev, 6 kal trapó, tworuv ela'étu vēv péperat, Eus. HE iv. 36; in the Syr. Eusebius : “he gathered and mixed and composed a Gospel, and called it Diates- Saron, i.e. of º. Mia!ed (spºrnº), which is still with many’). It appears to be simply to a mis- understanding that we owe the remark of Epi- phanius (Har. 46. 1, ed. Dindorf, ii. 412): Aéyérat 6é rô 6td. regardpaw ebayyéAtov Útr' atyroſ, yeyevåo'0at, 8trep karū ‘E3paíous ruvès kakovoru. Of this work Theodoret (till 457 bishop of Kyrrhos) tells us that it was in his times used not only by the fol- lowers of Tatian, but also in orthodox congrega- tions; that he himself found more than 200 copies in use in the churches of his diocese; that he col- lected and removed all (trégas a vuayaydºv dire0épmv),” substituting for them the Gospels of the Four (rù. rów reorgápav eſſay yextorów &vreto'ſ ya'you evayyáAwa). A little earlier, bishop Rabbula of Edessa (412– 435) ordered that presbyters and deacons should take care that in all churches the ‘Gospels of the Separate” (sº nºrms; S. Ephraemi Syri, Itabula. . . . opera selecta, ed. Overbeck, Oxf. 1865, p. 220) be kept and read. Of the same Rabbula, his biographer tells that he occupied himself with ‘translating the NT out of the Greek into Syriac, because of its variations, eacactly as it was ' (ib. 172). This Harmony of Tatian was apparently in Syriac, not in Greek [the latter is (or was) the view of Harmack]. See, on all questions connected with Tatian, Arthur Hjelt, Die altsyrische Iºvangelieniibersetzung und Tatians Diate&sarom, besonders in ihren gegenseitiqen Verhältnis, unterbucht, Leip- zig, 1901, pp. 10–75 : the Literature is quoted in part in vol. ii. 697 f., iii. 530, 638. Add : E. Lippelt, Qwo fuerint Justin. Martyris &ropowwºovsø to quaque ratione cum forma evan- geliorum 8/ro-latina cohoegerint (Diss.), i., Halle, 1901. The great question is now whether this Diates- saron of Tatian was the first form in which the Gospel came to the Syrians, or whether there was already, before Tatian, a Syr. VS of the Gospels, which he may have used. The question is diffi- cult, because Tatian's work has not survived in its original form, but only in a late Arabic recension, due to Abulfaraj Abdullah ibn at Tajib (+1043); further, it seems to have been the basis of the Latin Harmony of Victor of Capua ; it was com- Imented on by Ephraem Syrus ; but this com- * There is no ground for the statement which is sometimes made (for instance by Jülicher, Einleitung, § 37) that he ‘ burned ' the copies. -** mentary is again preserved only in translation (in Armenian); it was used by Aphraates, and few direct quotations have been preserved by Syriac lexicographers and commentators: these have been collected by Hall, Harris, Goussen. Some help to- wards answering the question was given when, in addition to the Syriac NT, known since older times, there came in 1858 the version of the Gospels dis- covered by Cureton, and in 1892 that found on Mt. Sinai by Mrs. A. S. Lewis, and edited in 1804 by Bensly, Burkitt, and Harris. But, on the other hand, the question became the more complicated. (c) The history of these discoveries cannot be told here ; suffice it to say, that of the fragments published by Cureton (Remains of a very antient Yecension of the Four Gospels in Syriac, hitherto wn/cnown in Europe, London, 1858),” the Gospel of Matthew has the very title used above by Rabbula, ‘Gospel of the Separate,’ and that in the Sinai Gospels the same expression is used in the subscription. [In what follows we designate Tatian by Øſ, Cureton's Gospels by $", the Sinai Gospels by $*, the common Syr. VS called Pēshittà (Nºbº) by $P]. (1) Nºbº, to which supply NFR50, means ‘the simple,’ i.e. the simple version. It is first used, so far as known at present, in Massoretic MSS of the 9th and 10th cents. in contradis- tinction to the Harclensis ; and in Moses bar Cephas (#913) in opposition to the Syro-Hexaplaris. The latter says: “One must know that there are in Syriac two translations of the OT : the one, this Nntb"wp in which we read, was made from Hebrew into Syriac ; the other, that of the Seventy-two, from Greek’ (see Urt. p. 229 f.). On the pronunciation, spelling, and mean- ing of the name (Pèshittà, simplified to Peshito), see the Lit. quoted l.c. p. 230. 2) Its origin and the spread of its use are quite obscure. Till 1842 the Peshito was the only known older Syr. VS of the Bible ; it is still held by G. H. Gwilliam to be the oldest (see Studia Biblica, i. 151 ff. [“A Syriac biblical MS’], iii. 47 ff. [“The materials for the criticism of the Peshito NT']; Eaſpos. Times, Jan. 1895, 157 ff. (‘The new Syriac Gospels’); Crit. It ev, Jan. 1896, 14–22 (“Communication on the Lewis Palimpsest the Curetonian Fragments, and the Peshitta'); The dºorſ; debate on the teactual criticism of the NT' held at New College on May 6, 1897, Lond. 1897). IIis view is shared by A. Bonus, who thinks ºp ‘scarcely later than the latter half of the second century.” With this contrast the statement of Burkitt (JThSt, i. 571): “I confess that I am unconvinced that what we call the NT Peshitta was in existence in S. Ephraem's day, and I believe that we owe both its production and its victorious reception to the organizing energy of the great Rabbula, bishop of Edessa from 411-435 A.D.).’t The following answers to the above question have been given 3– (1) Abbé P. Martin : $” “is a revision of the Peshito made with the help of a MS closely re- sembling Codex Bezae. The Curetonian recension dates from the end of the 7th or the beginning of the 8th cent., probably from this last period. It never had much vogue. Its author was probably Jacob of Edessa, [t 703]” (Introduction & lºt critique textuelle du NT, Paris, 1883). The latter hypo- thesis may be dismissed at once. (2) Gwilliam (Bonus): $" and $" were not the origin of $P; $" is more modern than $P (Ch'it. Ičev. 1896, p. 19); Rabbula intended that copies of $P should be substituted for U. (p. 21); but it might be, probably was, difficult to procuro copies of the Peshitta, in obedience to Rabbula's order. The term Mepharreshé used by Rabbula would easily become a title for copies subsequently made, ‘Are $" and $9 relics of copies made by order of Rabbula 2 ° The position of $P is of great importance, because it is, as Sanday styled it, “the sheet-anchor’ of the * The edition is out of print; a new edition by F. C. Burkitt, “The Curetonian Syriac Gospels, re-edited together with the readings of the Sinaitic Codex, and a translation into lºnglish,” advertised by the Camb. Univ. Press (Academy, Sept. 29, 1804, p. 233b ; JThSt, i. 569), is approaching completion. # Comp. with this the statement of the present writer (PRE” xv. [1885) 105), on the work of Rabbula, that 2ne might be inclined to see its result in $50 resp. 5 [=5p]. SYRIAC VERSIONS SYRIAC VERSIONS 647 tiºn theory of Burgon-Miller on the textual criticism of the NT. See, further, p. 740°. r (3) $*—$8–$P are three recensions of one and the same version, and this is their historical order (adopted by many, for instance Allen at the Qxford Debate). ŠP—s"—$" is impossible, equally impos- sible is the genealogy §3. (4) $"—$9–0. Conybeare: “I believe scholars are beginning to recognize that Tatian . . ; used the Curetonian version of the Gospels, which in turn rested on the new Syriac [Academy, Jan. 12, 1895). §§" also older than (E (Burkitt, Holzhey, Bewer). º older than $" (Resch, Duval; see Hjelt, • Jº) ). fº C–$° (Baethgen, Zahn), before the discovery of lºº. (b) Q.--S$*—$" or (e) tºº. C older than $ (Zahn, Nestle, Hil. genfeld, Bardenhewer, Gwilliam, Cundberg). (6) $8–C–$9–$P. So in the main Hjelt ; $" on the whole a faithful witness of the Old Syr. WS of the 2nd cent., $9 a later recension of it probably from the first half of the 2nd cent, formed under the influence of C ; $P a revision of the old version, which eliminated the influences of Úſ and became the Vulgate; at last $P in its turn influ- enced Qſ, which remained in use with the Nes- torians longer than with the Jacobites. * The priority of $º would be certain, if the thesis of Hjelt were proved that $" is not a unity, but that the various Gospels were due to different hands and that nevertheless all were used by C. The first part of his thesis, Hjelt seems to have proved. There is a decided difference in the vocabulary of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (see p. 96 ft.); he may be even right in his sup- position, that the translation of Matthew was the oldest, due to a Jewish Christian (cf. Mt 9” head of the synagogue, 23° tephillin and purple snºon)." But the second part, that $" was used by Q, does not seem to be proved. But in any case $" and Uſ belong to the most important witnesses for the text of the Gospels. Acts and Epistles.--Amidst the absorbing interest caused by the discovery of $", little attention has been paid of late to the rest of the Syriac NT, Acts and Epistles. They are known as yet only as parts of Šp, but there are indications that for the Acts and the Pauline Epistles also an older version was in existence. And it is of great interest that these two parts, together with the Gospels, made up the whole of the NT of the Syriac Church; º the Catholic Epistles, and not only the minor ones, being unknown. . . This is proved not only by the Doctrine qf,46'dai, (ed. Phillips, Lond. 1876, p. 44), where Addai orders : ‘But the Law and the Prophets, which you read every day before the people, and the ſº of Paul, which Simon Peter sent us from the city of Rome, and the Acts of the Twelve Apostles, which John the son of Zebedee sent us from Ephesus; these books read ye in the Churches of Christ, and with these read not any other, as there is not any other, in which the truth that ye hold is written, except these books which retain you in the faith to which ye have been called.’ This is corrobor- ated by the quotations of Aphraates, which are restricted to Acts and Paul, to the exclusion of the Catholic Epistles. * A great aid in these studies would be a Concordance to the Syriac Bible, which was desired by Lagarde as early as 1857. A prospectus of a Concordance of the Peshittu was sent out by JBenj. }. and Wm. A. Shedd from Urumia in Oct. 1897, * with some “Specimen pages'; but the arrangement was not such as to satisfy the wants of the student. A Syriac Con- cordance in the manner of Hatch-Redpath is one of our needs. The passages cited by Wright as references to 1 P 418 and 1 Jr. 324 419 have been shown by Zahn not to refer to these passages (but the former to Prllbl.; the latter to the Gospel of John), At last there was published in the Studio Sinaitica, No. 1 (p. 11 ff.) from extracts made by J. R. Harris from cod. Syr. 10 on Mt. Sinai, a list of the canonical books of the Syriac Bible, giving for each book and group of books the number of fºuara (stichi). * Åfter the four Gospels (Mat. 2522, Mark 1675, Luke 3083, John 1737 [write 1937], total 92.18) follows Acts (2720), then ‘ Paul the Apostle” with a total 5076 for ‘the apostle,” in mediately followed by the total for ‘the holy books, which the holy Church receives.” There are some errors and confusions in this list ; but as to the primary importance of it there can be no doubt. This exclusion of all the Catholic Epistles from the old Syriac Canon is further in full agreement with the statement of Leontius on Theodore of Mopsuestia : at Tiju Te . . . toº peºyáNov 'Iakó8ov Tiju étrio roMilv Kal r&s éčfis róv & NAwu ätrokmotºrret kaðo- Xucás. He followed in this the older tradition of the Syriac Church. Neither do the Apostolic Constitutions recognize the Catholic Epistles. See Th. Zahn, Das NT. Theodors von Mopsuestia und der syrische Ramon ; Gºwndriss der Geschüchte des new test. Ramoms (Leipzig, 1901, § 6); Jülicher, Einleitung, in das NT*. 4 (1901, § 41); J. A. Bewer, The LIistory of the NT' Camom in the Syriam Church (Chicago, 1900). About the middle of the 4th cent., therefore, the Church of Edessa had no Catholic Epistles in its Canon. But it was not only the contents but the text of its Bible that differed at that time from $P. See in Bewer, p. 51, “A comparison of the Acts and Epistles in Aphraates with those of the Peshitta.” . A most significant example is not quoted by Bewer. Matthias in Ac 129.99 is called by Aphraates Tulmai ; this is now corroborated by the Syriac version of the lºcclesiastical History of lºusebius (see T'U vii. 2, p. v.; the same version called Agabus of Ac 11 Addai). In 1 Co 1551-Aphraates testifies for the reading of N, 5P for that of B. The quotations from Ephraem have been investi- gated by F. H. Woods (Studia Biblica, iii. 132 ft.): the result is the same ; the influence of another version than $P cannot be denied ; but that in- fluence is not half so strong, as in Aphraates. But the Roman edition of Ephraem's work is ex- cessively uncritical, and we can “never trust, a biblical quotation where it agrees with the Peshitta,” (see 13urkitt, JThSt, i. 570, and now Teacts and Studies, vii. 2). Ibut not only so, we cannot even trust the references to $" in the critical apparatus of Tischendorf’s ed: oct: ; they are neither complete nor correct ; cf. 1 Co 157, where $p adds or of barley’ between girov and # rivos rôy Xottrów ; on 2 Co 1* see Nestle, Intº- duction, 309. All references to $1 in Tischendorf's apparatus ought to be verified in the way in which Gwynn did this work for the four minor Cath. Epp. (Hermathcnct, 1890). But not only in details of text did the older Syriac NT differ from Šp as now current : ...it differed also as to the arrangement. In the list of the canonical books mentioned above, Galatiºns stands at the head of the letters of Paul, before Cor. and IRom., which are followed by Hebretos. The same order, Gal., Cor., lºom, seems to have been that of Ephraem (see J. R. Harris, Four Lectures on the Western Teat, p. 21), and it is expressly testified to in Marcion, From this, Zahn is inclined to conclude that Tatian may have brought with him to the East at the same time the Western Text of the Gospels and the Mar- cionitic order of the letters of Paul : the more tº as Eusebius says of Tatian that lie altered the text * See on these #492 to the latest communication, that of F, O Burkitt (JThSt, ii. 429–482). 648 SYRIAC VERSIONS SYRIAC VERSIONS of § Epistles of Paul (see Nestle, Introduction, Further, the Church of Edessa had in the time of Ephraem in its Canon the Apocryphal Corres- pondence of St. Paul and the Corinthians, of which we now know for certain that it once be- longed to the Acta Pauli (see vol. i. p. 498). On the other hand, the short letter to Philemon seems to have been wanting in the 13ible of Ephraem (see Zahn, Gesch. Kan. ii. 664, 1003, Gawndriss, p. 52; Jülicher, Einleitung, doubts this). It is totally unknown when the three greater Catholic Epistles were received. There has not been as yet even an examination of the question whether the translation of all the letters of Paul is due to the same hand, and that of the three Catholic Epistles to another. What is certain is that the four Antilegomena of the Catholic Epistles and the Blº. of Revelation never formed part of $P, and were wanting therefore even in the first printed editions of the Syriac NT till 1630. It is the more surprising that the Nestorian Stone-inscription at Singan-fu speaks of 27 books left by Christ to further the soul in what is good (see J. E. Heller, Das Nestorianische Denkmal in Singanºfu, Buda- est, 1897, 4to, reprint from ‘Wissenschaftliche £rgebnisse der Reise des Grafen B. Széchenyi in Ostasien’ (1877–1880), pp. 31, 45). LITERATURE. — 1. On Tatian : C. A. Credner, Beiträge zur Einleit. in die bibl. Schriften, 1832, 437 ff., Gesch. des newtest. Hanoms (herausgegeben von G.Volkmar), 1860, 17 ff.; H. A. Daniel, Tatianus der Apologet, 1837; C. A. Semisch, Tatiani Diates. Saron, 1856; Th. Zahn, I'orschungen zwr (#esch. des new test, Kanons, i. 1881 (“Tatians Diatessaron')," ii. (1883) 286 f., iv. (1891, ‘Der Text des von A. Ciasca herausgegebenen arabischen Diatessaron von Dr. Ernst Sellin'), Gesch. des Ramons, i. 387–414, ii. 530-536, “Zur Geschichte von Tatians Diatessaron im Abend. 1and” (Newe Kirchliche Zeitschrift, 1894, pp. 85–120), art. “Evan- gelienharmonie’ in PRE3 v. (1898) 053 ff.; Westcott, Canon, St. i. ch. iv. § 10; [the works of Ephraem Syrus in Armenian, enice, 1836, vol. ii.).; Evangelii Concordantis Ea:positio facta, a doctore Sancto Ephraemo Syro [in Latinum translata a J. B. Aucher, ed. G. Moesinger], Venice, 1876 #; J. P. Martin, Le At& Tso-oºpov de Tatian, Extrait de la Revue des questions histor- iques (Avril 1883), Paris, 1883; S. B. Pitra, Amalecta sacra 8picilegio Solesnensi parata, tom. iv., Par. iS83, p. xxviii if., 465-487 (‘Ciasca, de Tatiani D, arabica versione'); Tatiani evan. geliorum harmonia arabice : nunc primum ex duplici codice edidit translatione latina donavit P. Augustinus Ciasca, Romas, 1888, gr. 8vo; Hemphill, The Diatessaron of Tatian, 1888 (cf. Chºwrch Qwarterly ſteview, 1888, p. 127); W. Elliot, Tatian's Diatess, and the Modern Critics, Plymouth (cf. Church Qwart. Ičev. 1888, p. 128); J. R. Harris, The Diatessaron of Tatian, a preliminary study, Cambridge, 1890; Isaac H. Hall, “A pair of citations from the JDiatessaron (JBL x. 2 (1801), 153–155); J. Hamlyn Hill, The Earliest Life of Christ ever compiled from the Powr Gospels; being the Diatessaron of Talian (circa A.D. 16Q). Literally translated from the Arabic Version, and con- taining the Fowr Gospels woven into one story, with an historical and critical Introduction, Notes and Appendia, Edinburgh, Clark, 1893, 376; Hope W. Hogg, The Diatess. of Tatian in Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Additional Volume. . . . Edited by A. Menzies, Edin., 1897, 33–138; W. R. Cassels, ‘The Diatess. of Tat.' (Nineteenth Century, April 1895, 665-681, worthless; see J. Rendel Harris, ‘The Diatess., a reply' (Contemporary IReview, August 1895, 271-278)); C. Taylor, “St. Mark in the Diatess.' (Classical ſteview, 1894); J. A. Robinson, ‘Tatian's Diatess, and a Dutch Harmony” (The Academy, 1804, 24th March, 2499–250"); J. R. Harris, Fragments of the Commentary of Ephrem Syrus upon the Diatessaron, London, 1895; H. Goussen, Studiº. Theologica, Fasciculus I. : Apocalypsis S. Johannis Apostoli versio Sahidica. Accedunt pauca fragmenta enuina Diatessaroniana, Lips. 1895 (pp. 61-67); J. Iſamlyn Hill, A Dissertation on the Gospel Cominentary of S. Ephragm the Syriam, Edinburgh, 1896. 2. On Cureton's text (title above), cf. Pragments of the Cwre- tonian Gospels, edited by W. Wright [London, 1872), 4to, only 100 copies printed for private circulation, first published by E. Roe- diger in Monatsberichte der Berliner Akadenie, 8. Juli 1872, pp. * Cf. the important notice of P. de Lagarde, Mittheilungen, I. 111-120, 194–196; further, p. 31, ii. 30–38, ‘Die arabische Uebersetzung des sºo.72; Aloy huē, ruraºpov,” # The first to call attention to the importance of this Com- mentºry of Ephragm was not Ezra Abbot (The Authorship of thſ. Fourth Gospel, Boston, 1880), but P. de Lagarde in his edition of , the Apostolic Constitutions (Pref. p. vii), 1862. Already in his earlier paper, de Movo Textamento ad version win. orientalitant ſident edendo (Herolini, 1867), he made use of Ephraeim's Armenian Commentaries. ** 557-559 and 6 pp. Syr. ; J. R. Crowfoot, Fragmenta Evangelica was ea; antiqua recensione versionis Syriacoe Novi Testamenti #jä. dictae) a Gul. Curetono vulgata sunt, Lond, Pars rima 1870, Pars altera. 1871, Observations on the Collation in reek of Cureton's Syriac Pragments ºf the Gospels, 1872 (to be used with caution); Fr. Baethgen, L'vangélienfragmente : der Griechische T'east des Cureton'schem Syrers wiederherºſestellt, Leipzig, 1885; H. H. Harman, “Cureton Fragments of Syriac Gospels' in Journ. of the Soc. of Bibl. Lit. and L'aſegesis, June- Dec. 1885, pp. 28–48. On Bowes and Holzhey see immediately. Other papers of Hermansen, le Hir, Wildeboer; espectally on the meaning of the superscription Nºnºp" (by Mai, Gildemeister, Land, Tregelles, Wright, Cowper, Ewald) see PRE3 iii. 172= Urt. 112. For a recent discussion on it see Jowrm. Anne,'. Orient. Society, xviii. (1897) 176–182 and 361f., between Charles C. Torrey and R. Gottheil. That it forms the opposition to ‘Gospel of the Mixed,’ i.e. Tatian's Diatessaron, and means ‘Gospel(s) of the Separate,’ cannot be doubted any longer. 3. Literature on the Sinai-Palimpsest : (a) On the discovery and the copying of the Sinai-Palimpsest, see, on the one hand, M. D. Gibson, Ilow the Codea, was found : a Narrative of two visits to Sinai from Mrs. Lewis' Journals, 1893–93, Cambridge, 1893; on the other, Mrs. Bensly, Owr Jowrmey to Simai : a visit to the Convent of St. Catarina, with a chapter on the Sinai Pal- impsest, London, 1896. Editio princeps: The Four Gospels in Syriac, transcribed from the Sinaitic palimnpsest by the late Isobert L. Bensly, M.A.” . . . and by J. Rendel Harris, M1. A. . . . and by F. Crawford Burkitt, M.A., with an Introduction by Agnes Smith Lewis, edited for the Syndics of the University Press, Cambridge, 1894. t. This has to be supplemented by A. S. Lewis, Some Pages of the I'own' Gospels, retranscribed from the Sinaitic palimpsest, with a translation of the whole teat, London, 1896. An earlier translation had been published by Mrs. Lewis, London, Macmillan, 1894; a German one, with an Appendix, is due to Ad. Merx, Die vier Iºanomischen Iºvan- gellen mach ihrem ältesten bekammten Teate : Uebersetzung der syrischem im Sinaikloster gefundenenn Palimpsesthandschrift, Berlin, 1897. The second part (12cláuterwmgen) has not yet appeared. Cf., finally, ‘Last Gleanings from the Sinai Palimp- sest' (Eagositor, Aug. 1897, pp. 111-119), and “The Earlier Home of the Sinaitic Palimpsest' (I'vpositor, June 1900, 965), and Studia. Sinaitica, No. 1x. (1900) pp. viiiff., xxiii f., where it is shown that John the Stylite, who in the year 778 used the Codex as Palimpsest, was a monk of Mar Conon, a cloister of Ma'arrath Mesrén in the district of Antioch (a small town about equidistant from Antioch and Aleppo). The Ea:pos. Times (vols. xi. xii.) contains a series of papers by Mrs. Lewis entitled ‘What have we gained in the Sinaitic Palimpsest ?’ (b) Convenient collations are : A. Bonus, Collatio Codicis Lewisiani rescripti Evangeliorum sacrorum Syriacoruary cum Codice Curetomiano (Mus. Brit. Add. 1//51): cwt adject a swnt Lectiones e Peshitto deswºmptoe, Oxonii, 1896, 4to ; and Carl IIolzhey, Der newentaeckte Codea, Syrus Sinaiticus ºwnte, sucht : mnit einenn vollständigen. Verzeichnis der Variamten des Cowl. Sinaiticus wrid Cod. Curetonianus, München, 1896, 4. On 5P see the Literature quoted in Nestle, Introduction, p. 103; , Urt. p. 227 ff.: Scrivener, ii. 6–40, with the help of Gwilliam and Deane. On the printed editions, Church Quart. ſºev. 1888, July, 257–207; The Syriac New Testament trans- lated into English from the Peshitto Versions, by James Murdock, with a historical introduction by Horace L. Hastings, and a bibliographical appendix by Isaac II. IIall, 6th ed., Boston, 1893. The first edition of Widmanstadt (1555) is still the best, or that of [Leusden and] Schaaf, Lugd. Bat. 1709, 4to, together with the Lea. Syr, Concord. of C. Schaaf (ed. sec. 1717); then the editions of the American Bible Society of New York (with Nestorian vocalization), except for the Gospels, which are now at hand in the ed. of Pusey-Gwilliam (Oxf. 1901). Of l)issertations on the text of the NT besides those con- nected with the discovery of $53, there are none to be mentioned of recent times. T'IIE LATER VERSIONS OF THE YT.—1. The Philoxeniana.--Syriac scholars did not rest satis- fied with the Pesh. NT. In the year 508 Aksöniyä. or Philoſcenus, bishop of Mabbogh (485-519), with the help of his chorepiscopus, Polycarp, undertook a literal translation of the whole Bible. Besides the NT, the Psalms in this version are mentioned by Moses of Aggèl (between 550 and 570), and portions of Isaia/, survived in the Add. MSS 17106 of the British Museum, and have been edited by * Bensly dicq a few days after the return to Cambridge, 23rd April 1893. # Reviews and papers called forth by the publication are mentioned, Urt. 112 ſ?. ; add to them Farrar in the L'apositor, Jan. 1895. On the reading Mt 110 “Joseph, to whom the Virgin Mary was betrothed, begat Jesus,' see the correspondence in the A cademy, 1894, Nov. 17, 24, 1).cc. 1, 8, 15, 22, 29; 1895, Jan. 5, 12, April 13, May 18, June 8, 29, by Allen, 13adham, Charles, Conder, Conybeare, Farrar, Lewis, Nestle, Itahlfs (who ſirst pointed out that it was also found in Greek, 29th Dec.), Sanday, Simcox, White; further, G. H. Skipwith, “The first chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel in the light of recent research' (Nottingham, T'racts, iii., London, 1895); and the Additional Notes in the second vol. of Westcott-Llort's Greek Testament, (reprint 1890). * SYRIAC VERSIONS SYRIAC VERSIONS 649 wºr- Ceriani (Monumenta sacra et profana, V. i. 1–40, 1873). The text of the Gospels exists, according to Bernstein (Das Evailgelium des Johannes, 1853, pp. 3, 29), in the codex A2 of the Bibliotheca An: gelica at Rome. In 1884 Isaac H. Hall published Syriac Manuscript Gospels of a pre-Harklensian wersion, Acts and Epistles of the Peshito version, written (probably) between 700 and 900 (Phila- delphia). - The minor epistles of the Philoxeniana were first published by Ed. Pococke (Leiden, 1630), and still earlier (1612) at Mayence a Latin translation of them (by Nicolaus Servasius, Comment. in Jºpist. Canonicas) from a MS brought to Rome. Pococke's text was taken over into the Peshito editions of the NT and emended by Lee (1823); still more in the New York impression, 1888. Gwynn collated fifteen MSS and gave a survey of the chief points, pending the publication of the emended text with a complete Apparatus Criticus (Hermathema, No. 16, vol. vii. Rp. 281-314 f. : “The older Syriac Version of the Four Minor Catholic Epistles’). Cf., further, Ad. Merx, “Die in der Peschito fellenden Briefe des Neuen Testaments in arabischer der Philoxeniana entStammender Uebersetzung. Nach der Abschrift eines Manuscripts des Sinaiklosters von Frau A. Persis Burkitt voróflentlicht und mit Anmerkungen versehen’ (ZA xii. 240–252, 348–381, xiii. 1–28). Merx fre- quently disagrees with Gwynn as to the value of the variants. 2. The Harklensis.-A hundred years later the work of retranslation and revision was taken up at Alexandria for the OT by Paul of Tella (see p. 445"), for the NT by Thomas of Harkel (Heraklea. in Mesopotamia). . This version comprises (as Srinted at present), like the Philoxeniana, all the ooks of the NT except Revelation, and was pub- lished under the (inappropriate) title of Versio Philowevittma by Jos. White at Oxford, between 1778 and 1803. A lacuna in the Epistle to the Hebrews (11”–13”) has been supplied by Bensly (Cambridge, 1889). Its importance rests on the fact that one of the Greek MSS of Acts used by Thomas bore the closest relation to codex D, and that for the Epistles of Paul his text goes back to the library of Pampllilus (codex H). On Acts see Aug. Pott, Der Abendländische Teact der Apostel- geschichte und die Win'-Quelle, Leipzig, 1900; R. Corssen, “Die Recension der Philoxeniana durch Thomas von Mabug” (ZNT'PV, 1901, 1–12); " A. Hilgenfeld, “Thomas von Heraclea, und die Apostel- geschichte’ (ZWTh, 43, 1900, 3). W. Deane had prepared a new edition; it is an urgent want for the textual criticism, especially of Acts. 3. Revelation.—A Syriac text of the last book of the NT was first published by L. de Dieu (Leiden, 1627) from a MS of Scaliger, now at Leiden, written by a certain Caspar from the land of the Hindus (“Hanravitarum,’ as de Dieu read). The text of the l’aris (and London) Polyglot seems to be taken from an independent MS. It does not belong to the original work of Polycarp, but to that of Thomas—a fact veriſied at last by the docu- mentary evidence of the lºlorence MS rediscovered by Gwynn (Hermathema, 1898 : ‘On the recovery of a missing Syriac Manuscript of the Apocalypse,' pp. 227-245). The same scholar discovered, in 1892, in a codex belonging to Lord Crawford, another and older translation of IRevelation, and published it as the first Syriac book issued from the Dublin University Press, in 1897 (The Apocalypse of St. John in a * To be used with caution. The intention of Thomas was certainly not ‘to restore with the help of his Greek MSS the original text of Philoxenus,' and ‘the old Syrian' mentioned by him in Mt, 27.5 285 Milk S17 is not, Philoxenus, but the Peshito. Cf. also A. Hilgenfeld, Z WT'h, 44 (1901), 318–320. Syriac Version hitherto unknown ; edited . . . with Critical Notes on the Syriac Teact wad an annotated Ičeconstruction of the underlying Greek Teact. To which is added an Introductory Dissertation on the Syriac Versions of the Apocalypse, Dublin, 4to). 4. The pericope de adultera, and other passages. (a) The passage Jn 8** missing in the common Syriac Bible became known to the learned at an early date. Mara, bishop of Amid (about 519), wrote a Greek prologue to a copy of the Tetra- evangelium, in which this pericope had a place in canon 89, i.e. at Jn 8”, where also the pseudo- Athanasian Synopsis mentions it. With the l’ro- logue this pericope has been translated into Syriac in the so-called Church history of Zacharias Rhetor (Land, Anecdota Syriaca, iii. 252, 255). From a MS of Ussher (now in the Trinity Library of Dublin) the same passage had been printed by de Dieu, 1631 (Animadversiones in quattuor Evan- geliſt). A third translation was due to the abbot Mar Paul, apparently Paul of Tella; a fourth has been printed by J. White (eac codice Barsalibaei at the end of the Gospels in his edition of the l’hiloxeniana, i. [1778] p. 559). See on these and other points J. Gwynn (Transactions, Dublin, 1881). (b) W hile scarcely one Syriac MS is known in Europe containing all 27 books of the present NT (see on this Gwynn, Transactions, 1886 and 1893; and compare what Rahmani states about the Mosul travöékrms, from which he published the Testamentum Domini nostri Jesu Christ; [Praefatio, pp. ix, x]), there are some MSS that contain books which are no longer included in the NT, e.g. cod. 1700 in the University Library at Cambridge, from which The Epistles of St. Clement to the Corinthiams in Syriac were edited by the late Ił. L. Bensly (Cambridge, 1899). In the MS the Clementine Epp. stand between the Catholic and Pauline Éiº. and are divided like these into lectures for Church use. There are, again, the MSS from which that other pair of letters ascribed to Clement, de Virginibus or de Virginitate, were published by Wetstein (NT Gr. t. i. 1751, Prol. pp. 1–26) and J. Th. Beelen (Lovanii, 1856; see on them J. P. N. Land, “Syrische Bijdragen tot de Patristik,’ in Godgeleerde Bijdragen van 1856–7). (c) On the Clementine Octateuch added as number 77–83 to the 76 books of the OT and NT in º Mosul Pandeletes just mentioned, see Itahmani, .C. l]. X. Tº and other instances show that the history of the NT Canon was in the Syriac Church different from its history in most other branches. 5. The Palestinian Syriac.—One other version remains to be noticed, namely, that used by the Malkite (Greek) Church in Palestine and Egypt, Written in a dialect more akin to the language of the Jewish Targums; long known exclusively from a lectionary in the Vatican Library, called the Evangeliarium Hierosolymitat num; described by Assemani and Adler (1789); published in 1861–64 in two vols, by Count Fr. Miniscalchi Frizzo, and again—as his last work—ly l’. de Lagarde in his Bibliotheca Syriaco (Göttingen, 1892); republished by Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gibson on the strength of two other MSS found on Mt. Sinai (The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary of the Gospels, London, 1899, 4to). Quite recently new texts have been added from Acts and the Epistles of Paul, including Hebrews and James (Studiº Sinaitica, No. vi.), and the date and birthplace of this whole branch of literature have been elucidated by R. C. Durkitt (JThSt., ii. 174–185). In spite of its secondary character, it is not devoid of interest for textual criticism. In the Aºtus its symbol has been hitherto syrh or * or *.* * One of the urgent needs of textual criticism is ſitting symbols for the Syriac versions of the NT. Tischendorf used 650 SYRIAC VERSIONS SYRIAC VERSIONS II., OLD TESTAMENT.-1. Tradition.—The Syri- ans themselves believed that a part of the OT was translated already in the time of Solomon at the request of king Hiram. Jesudad, bishop of Hadeth, c. 852 A.D., mentions the books then trans- lated. Another tradition is that the version was due to the priest sent by the king of Assyria to Samaria ; whose name is variously given as Asa, Asya, Ezra, Uria, NDR, Rºbs 2 K 17%, l Ch 1518, ed. Lee and Ceriani; see the Literature quoted in Urt. p. 231, and add there Schatzhöhle, ed. Bezold, 192. 3 "ms, codd. PL nºns.n, in Arabic & ºl. The rest of the books are said to have been added in the days of Addai and Abgar (see p. 645"). 2. Origin.—Whether part of the version is of re-Christian, or at least of Jewish origin ich. Simon, Hug, Geiger, Perles, Íngarde), is not certain, but it is possible.” There were many Jews in Mesopotamia, especially in Edessa, in early times. It may suffice to recall queen Helena and Izates, and the Abgar legend. In the latter a daily reading of ‘the OT and NT’ (p. 34) or ‘the Law, and the Prophets’ º 44) is presupposed besides that of the Gospel, Acts, and Epistles (see p. 647"). 3. Eactent.—The Syriac OT was, on the whole, the same as the Hebrew Bible. Jesudad, for instance, knows that it counts 22 books; but at a very early date the influence of the Greek Bible is felt. There are some notable peculiarities. Chronicles seems to have been wanting in the canon of the Nestorians, nor is it represented in the Massoretic labours of the Jacobites; but it is found already in MSS of the 6th cent. (cod. Am- brosianus, Brit. Mus., Wright 25), with a division at 2 Ch 6' (in most MSS, not in Ambros. and I'lorent.). Neither is Ezra-Nehemiah found in the Massorctic MSS, nor Esthen in those of the Nes- torians. In the Bibles of the Jacobites Esther forms, together with Judith, Ruth, and Susanna, the “book of the women,” with 4463 stichi. The arrangement of the books varies according to the MSS. The list on next col. gives them accord. ing to the order in the canonical list mentioned above, p. 647°; the figures for cols. 2–5 are taken from Abbé Martin's Introduction & la critique teactatelle du NT, Partie théorique, Paris, 1883, p. 667; cf., further, Gregory-Tischendorf, 3. 112, 1303; J. R. Harris, On the Origin of the Ferrar Group, Lond. 1893, 10, 26. Note.—The Nomnocanon of Barhebraeus, ch. 7, § 3 (p. 103, ed. Bedjan) on the number of the holy books and those besides (#o), quotes canon 81 of the Apostles, that all clergy and laymen ought to have the Holy Scriptures of the OT, i.e. 5 books of Moses, Josh., Judges, Ruth, Judith ; 4 books of Kings; 2 of Chron. ; 2 of Ezra ; Iºsth., Job ; 3 of Mac. ; Job, David ; 5 of Solomon ; 16 Prophets. Of “books without,’ there is to be Bar Asira for the teaching of the young. The NT is to include 4 Gospels, 14 letters of Paul, 2 of Peter, 3 of John ; James, Jude ; 2 of Clement, 8 books of the mysteries of the same Clement, and the Praxeis of the Apostles. The elucidation says that the 4 of Kings are Samuel and Kings, and of Solomon we know only 4 (Prov., Jºccl., Cant., Wisd.); and it is possible that the 5th is that which is in- scribed ‘the deep Proverbs of Solomon’; and the Book of Susanna is reckoned with Daniel. Then he quotes the great Athanasius on the great Wisdom, Bar Asira, Esther, Judith, Tobia, what is called Xuz'rážst; &ºrza- różay, and the Shepherd ; Dionysius of Alexandria on 1&evela- tion as being by Cerinthus or another John ; Origen on He- brews, Apocalypsis Pauli, and other Revelations, The Doctrine of the Apostles, Epistle of Barnabas, Tobia, the Shepherd, Bar syrcu, syriar or hior, syrsch (= Schaaf-Peshito), syrp (= posterior = Philoxeniana), syrwhiv (=White = Heraclensis). Westcott-Hort used syrvt=syrcu, and now syr crt and syr 8im (see vol. ii. 1896, notes, p. 5), syr vg (= Peshito), Syr Hil (= Harklean), syr hr. Zahn proposed S1 = Peshito, S2= Philoxeniana, S3 → IIarklensis: for the Gospels Sc, Ss, Sh. To avoid figures, the Philoxeniana might be represented by $59, the versions of Thomas by $50. * In support of the Jewish origin of the Syr. version of Chronicles, Nöldeke (Alttest. Jºit. p. 109) quotes the translation of 1 Ch 52 “from Judah will go out (plex) the king Messiah’; the copyist of cod. F wrote p53 (“has gone out'). (thus ~-s-sa Asira; the Patriarch Cyriacus on the Book of Hierotheos as § not by him, but probably by the heretic Stephen bar UlOlſ\ll18, 1 2 8 4 5 | Cod. Cod. Cod. Cod. Ed Sin. Vat. Barb. l'aris Le e 10. 159. Wi. Ú2. Ü4. g Gen. . . 4516 || 4631 =2 | 4638 || 4509 Ex. . . 3378 || 3560 =2 | 3660 || 3626 Lev. . . 2684 || 2445 = 2 =2 | 24.54 Num. . 34S1 356) = 2 =2 | 3521 Deut. . 2982 2979 2783 =3 | 2796 Perit.* . 17041 & ſº tº * tº tº § tº º & © e Josh. . 1953 2167 || 2150 2160 = 2 Judges. 2088 2249 =2 | 2U89 | 4033 Sam. . 3436 j230 = 2 = 2 > Kings . 6l 13 5323 =2 | =2 | ... Ruth . 246 ë e & = 1 = 1 & tº David . 4830 = 1 = 1 = 1 & º & Chron. † 3553 tº £ tº tº e > 5630 Job . . 1548 tº º º 25.53 = } = } Prov... . 1762 | 1866 = 2 =2 | 186: [Cant..] . à tº tº 296 || = 2 29() ... [Eccles.] tº tº e 616 || =2 | 627 Twelve $ 3643 ë tº e 332 l = 3 tº º Isaiah . 3656 ... 4801 = } ſº tº Jer, . . 4252 ... 4824 = . º Lam. . 433 tº º q tº 8 ºt tº º tº Dan. . 1555 e & tº 2273 ~ : tº e Ezek. . 4376 || 4154 := 2 = 2 Esth. . 650 e & , a tº e Ezra . 2308 tº º & tº º ſº tº e ºs 2361 1 Mac. . 2766 tº º º tº º º tº e tº ... 2 Mac. . 5600 tº º º tº ſº tº # . . . Judith . 1268 tº tº º == = 1 Wisd.|| . 1550 tº º ſº 1236 == 3 * Sir." . 2550 | ... 2500 =3 | ... Total . 71574 | A singular division found in some MSS is that the Law (snººns) is directly followed by nºn-i Rani samp= liber session um, Big\os ka0uguárwu, i.e. Job, Josh., Judges, Sam., Kings, Prov., Sir., Eccl., Iłuth, Canticles. The Psalter also is divided into ka0tguara (20). This is the favourite book of the Syriac Church, which must be known by heart if one wishes to become a deacon, and was recited daily by certain monks. In accurate MSS there are Massoretical notes; cf. the edition of Iłedjan (Liber Psalmorum, horarum diurnarum, ordinis officii divini et homi littrum rogation wºn ad usum scholarum, I’arisiis, 1886, p. 117). The number of Psalms is 150, of IIallelujahs 20, Sections (NTIns) 29, Embolisms (Nnſpº) 57, Stichi (Nonnb) 4833, and Books 5. The number of Words is 10,934, and the number of Letters 90,852. ‘Lord’ occurs 732 times, “God' 400, ‘because' (?top) 285, ‘Moses' 6, ‘Aaron’ (, ‘Jacob' 24, “Samuel 1, “Benjamin' 2, ‘Israel’ 44, ‘namely' (nº) 5, ‘but" ("T) 5. And “know that there is not found in David the form n"nn for the preposition “under,” as there is not found mrin in the Apostle', ninn occurs 13 times; and ‘from now and to eternity’ 4 times, There is a strange statement at the head of many Psalter MSS (already in the cod. Ambr.) that the Psalms were translated from the l’alestinian language into Hebrew, from Hebrew into Greek, from Greek into Syriac. In the cod. Hunt 109 (Oxford, Bodleian) this statement is transferred to the whole Syriac OT, and in cod. Iłich 7,154 4. Nºn”) S. ; snº, Nnoºn (read sºn#1). | Nnin". Ninpon, # D'pºnin-i –pp. § nbyºn. * NYDN hi. SYRIAC VERSIONS 651 SYRIAC VERSIONS (Brit. Mus.) it is stated that the (Syriac) Psalter was translated from the l’alestinian into Hebrew, according to the translation of Symmachus the Samaritan. Other Psalters have the heading sºnEp1, which is intelligible of the Gospels of the Separate (see pp. 646, 648), but scarcely of the Psalms. (Does it mean a Church-Psalter, detached from the Bible 2") Many liturgical additions are found in the Church. Psalters (see, c.g., the edition of Bedjan, which contains, of “Canticles’ at the end of the Psalter, Ex 15, Is 42, Dt 32). Besides the books of the Greek and Hebrew Bibles, complete MSS called ka00Xukol or trav- 6ékrms (stopils in N'pºnsp), like the cod. Ambro- sianus, have *: the Apocalypse of Baruch,+ 4 Ezra, 4 and 5 Maccabees, i.e. the listory of Samuna, and Josephus B.J. v. Apart from Bible MSS, many other pieces of apocryphal and pseud- epigraphical literature have been preserved to us in Syriac.S. On the Syriac text of Sirach see above, p. 546; of Tobit only the version of Paul of Tella IS lº, and this only down to 7”; the rest is still later. Of the first Book of Maccabees the cod. Ambrosianus preserved a second recension. 4. Chart cter of the Version.—The value of the Version varies greatly, as it is not the work of a single hand. The Pentateuch keeps close to the Heb. text and Jewish exegesis, but has interesting details; it knows, for instance, or thinks it knows, that the rare word This denotes the “parasang.’ Genesis, Isaiah (30° 46" "), the Twelve, the Psalter, show marks of having been influenced by the Septuagint ; , Ruth is paraphrastic, Job literal, Chronicles like a Targum ; the version of Pro- verbs has been used by the Targumists. Many oi the books of the OT have been made the subject of special studies, whose results we now possess, mostly in the shape of Inaugural Dissertations; but new investigations are necessary. 5. Editions.—The printed text of the Syriac OT is in a most dºli, state, all editions going back to the Paris Polyglot of Michelle Jay (1’aris, 1645). This was reproduced without any note- worthy in provements in Walton's London Poly- glot (1657); Lee reproduced the same text with a few emendations and several misprints for the British Bible Society (1821). The Urmia edition of the American Missionaries (1852) is a reproduc- tion of Lee in Nestorian characters with Nestorian vowels and with improved spellings. At last the I)ominicans at Mosul º an edition of the Syriac Bible (3 vols., 1887–92), which the present writer has not seen, but which, he is afraid, will not satisfy our wants. Ceriani's photolithographic reproduction of the cod. Ambrosianus (1876–81, Milano, 200 frs.) is not within the reach of the general student ; and as the editions of Urmia and the Bible Society are scarce or out of print, there is a crying need for a new edition of one of the most important versions of the OT. Only for the Libri Apocryphi or (as he wished afterwards * Seo Wright's Catalogue of Syriac MSS in the Brit. Mus, i. 116 n., and Church Qwart. It ev., ;" 1805, p. 130. # See The Apocalypse of IBaruch translated from the Syriac, chs, i.-lxxvii. from the 0th cent. MS in the Ambrosian Library, and chs. lxxviii.-lxxxvii, ; The Iºpistle of Baruch from a metv and critical teact based on the MISS, and published herewith, edited with Introduction, Notes, and Indices by R. H. Charles, London, 1896. f The Fourth Book of Maccabees and Kindred Documents in Syriac: edited by the late R. L. Bensly ; with Introduction and Translation by W. E. Barnes, Cambridge, 1806. § ‘The Colloquy of Moses on Mount Sinai,' by Isaac H. Hall [Text, and Translation] |º vii. 3, Apr. 1891, 161-177); it. II. Charles, The 19thiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees, Oxf. 1895, App. iii.; ‘The Apocalypse of Adam', (cd. Renan, Journ. A8. v. 2 (1853), 427 ff.); James, Apocrypha 40-00- dola. | W. Emery Barnes, ‘On the Influence of the sº Oſl the Peshitta' (JThSt., ii. 186, 187); J. Fred, Berg, The Influence of the Somtºwagint upon the Pešitta Psalter (Diss. Columbia Coll.), New York, 1895, p. v., 160. to entitle the book) Libri Deuterocanonici we have the edition of P. de Lagarde (Lips. 1861). The country of Ussher, who intended himself to bring out such an edition, the country of Walton and of Duchanan, has here a task to discharge that will amply reward itself.” LITERATURE.—A. Ceriani, ‘Ie edizioni e i manoscritti delle versione Siriache del vecchio testamento” (1809, Atti of the Lombardian Institute); Bernstein (“Syrische Studien’ in ZDMG iii. 887-896; Dmendations); Alfr. Rahlfs, ‘Beiträge zur Text- kritik der Peschita.” (ZAT'W, 1889, 161–210); R. Gottheil, ‘Zur Textkritil, der Pošittà" (Mitteilungen des akademnischem orien- talischen Vereins zu Berlin, No. 2, 1889, 21–28); J. Prager, de Veteris Testamenti versione Syriaca, quam Peschittho vocant, wastiones critica), pt. i., Gottingae, 1875; J. A. Edgren, ‘The 2eshito’ (Hebrew Student, i. i. 1882); P. J. Gloag, ‘The early Syriac Versions’ (The Monthly Interpreter, April 1885, p. 244 f.); G. Hoffmann, Opuscula, Nestoriana, Kiel, 1880, and ‘zur Gesch des syr. Bibeltextes’ (ZATW, 1881, p. 159 ft.). On the Pentateuch: L. Hirzel, de Pentatewchi versionis 8yn'. (peschito) indole commentatio critico-eaegetica, Lips, 1815; S. D. Luzzatto, Philoaemw8 s. de Onkelosi chald. Pentatewchi, versione, Acc. appendia; de Syriasm is in chalda. paraphrasilius Veteris Testamenti, Windob. 1830; J. M. Schönfelder, Omkelos wnd Peschittho, München, 1869 ; Jos. Perles, Meletemata Pes- chitthomiana, Vratisl. 1800; F. Tuch, de Lipsiemsi cod. Penta- tewcht syr. MS, pt. i., #. 1849, 4to. A reprint of the Penta- teuch from Walton's Polyglot was intended by J. D. Ammon, 1747 (see Urt. 227), and executed by G. Kirzsch (Hofa et Lips. 1787, 4to).-Samuel: Emanuel Schwartz, Die syrische Ueberset- zwnſ, des erstem. Buches Samwelis (Inaug. Diss., Giessen), Berlin 1897, 104 pp.—Kings: J. Berlinger, Die Peschitta zwīn I (III. Buch der Könige, l'rankfurt, 1897, 50 pp.–Chronicles: Cl. A. Reg. Töttermann, 'pºnin sn'pºp sm.175 cum hebra is collata, Helsingforsio, 1870; S. Fränkel, “Die syrische iſſbersetzung zu den Büchern der Chronik’ (Ztschr. f. prot, Theol. 5 (1879), 508– 536, 720–759; W. E. Barnes, Am apparatus criticus to Chronicles in the Peshitta, Version, with a discussion of the value of the Codea; Ambrosianws, Cambridge, 1897 f ; see also A. Rloster- mann (art. ‘Chronik'., in PIR.E.8 iv. 85 f.).—Esther: Jul. Grunthal, Die syrische Ubersetzung zum Buche Esther (Diss.), Breslau, 1900, 55 pp.–Job: Edu. Stenij, De Syriaca libri Jobi in- terpretatione quae Peschita vocatwr, Pars prior, Helsingforsiao, 1887; A. Mandl, Die Peschittha zw LIiob (Diss.), Leipz. 1892, 36 pp.; Eberh. Baumann, “Die Verwendbarkeit der Pešita zum uch Ijob für die Textkritik” (ZATW xviii. 257–266, xix. 15-95, xx. 177–201, 264–307).—Psalms: Fr. Dietrich, Commentatio de psalterii wsw publico et divisione in ecclesia Syriaca, Marburg, i862, 4to (Indices lectionum); Andr. Oliver, A Translation of the Syriac Peshito Version of the Psalms of David, with motes critical and ea:planatory, Boston, 1861; Prager, see above ; Berg, see preced. col. n. || ; Fr. Baethgen, Untersuchwngen über die Psalmen mach der Peschita, i., IXiel, 1878, 4to, sequel in Ztschr. f. prot. Theol. viii. 405–459, 593-667; Berth. Oppenheimer, I)ie Syr. Ubersetzung des fünften Buches der Psalmen, Leipzig, 1891; L. Techen, “Syrisch-Hebräisches Glossar zu den Psalmen nach der Peschita.” (ZAT'W xvii. ſº ) 129–171,280-331) (similar glossaries for other books would be useful and supply a Con- cordance]; G. 1)iettrich, “Eine jakobitische Einleitung in den Psalter' . . . Giessen, 1901, xlvii. 167 (Beihefte zu ZAT'W 5). — Proverbs: J. A. l.)athe, De ratione consensus vers. Chaldaicaº et syriacae Proverbiorwm Salomomis, Lips. 1764; S. Maybaum), “ Uber die Sprache des Targum zu den Sprüchen und dessen Verhältniss zum Syrer' in Merx, Archiv, ii. 1 (1871), 60–93; Th, Nöldeke, ‘Das Targum zu den Sprüchen von der Peschito abhängig... (ib. ii. 2 (1872), 246-249) ;... Herm. Pinkuss, ‘Dio Syrische Übersetzung der Proverbien.” (ZAT'ſ) xiv. [1804) 1, G5- 141, 161–222); II. P. Chajes, ‘Etwas tiber die Pesita Zu den Pro- verbien' (JQI, Oct. 1900, 86-91).-Canticles: S. Euringer, ‘Die Bedeutung der Peschitto für die Textkritik des IIohenliedes' (IBiblische Studien, vi. 115–128).-Ecclesiastes: A mim adver- stones criticce in versionem syriacam Peschitthoniana in Libro- rum, Roheleth et Iºwth, Auctore Georgius [!] Janichs, Vratis- lavia, 1871 (Diss.), Marb. 1860. — Prophets: A. Klostermann (PIRE 3 viii. 767, on Isaiah); Warzavoski, Peshita zit Jes. 1-89, ūiessen, 1807; Ileinr. Weiss, Die Peschitta zu Dº!!terojesaja (Diss.), Halle, 1893; Armin Abelesſ, Diº syrische Übersätzung der Klagelieder (Diss.), Giessen, 1800, 43 pp. ; II. Cornill, Daº Duch dés I’ropheten Jºzechiel, 1886, pp. 137-150 (cf. Rahlfs and Pinkuss); C. A. Credner, De propheta.rºm minºrum versiºne syriaca quann, Peshito, dicumt indole, Diss. i. [unical, Gött. 1827; Mark Sebük (Schönberger), Die syrische Uebersetzung der Zwölf kleinen Propheten, Breslau, 1887, 75 pp. ; V Ryssel, * Cf. W. E. Barnes, ‘The printed editions of the Peshitta of the OT” (Eaſyos. Times, Sept. 1898, 560-562). . An edition of the i’salms may be expected from this scholar in 1902. An ed. of the OT is advertised from Berlin (Reuther & leichard) as in preparation by Beer and Broekelmann, - º º t’shows how deplorable the text of Qur printed Bibles is, resting as it does on the authority of MS Syr.0 at Paris, a wretched copy of the 17th cent, and its correctiºns, Quitting several clauses and a passage of 54 verses (1 Ch 2618–27:4). Cod. In adds to the title "pºnni nep the note that it is written by the priest |im (see Neh 12”), and is also called Ninj knºbnn book of the missing (things)' (= repoxurékºvº). 652. SYROPHOENICIAN TAANACH Unterswchungen über . . . Micha, 1887; Wahl, “Vergleichung der syr. kirchl. Uebersetzung des Propheten Amos, nach der Londoner Ausgabe, mit Ephraem des Syrers syr, Texte' (Maya- zin f. alte, bes. morgemdl. wºnd bibl. Lit., zweite Lieferung, Cassel, 1789, p. 80ft.).-Apocrypha: J. J. Kneucker, Das Buch Baruch, Leipzig, 1860, pp. 190-198; Th. Nöldeke, ‘Die Texte des Buches Tobit' (Monditsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1897, 45–69); Trendelenburg, “Primi libri Maccab. Graece cum versione syriaca collatio’ (Repert. für bibl, w, morgenl. Lit. xv. 58–153); G. Schmidt, “Die beiden syrischen Uebersetzungen des ersten Makkabáerbuchs' (ZAT'W xvii. (1897) 1–47); Fabwla Josephi et A senethte Apocrypha e libro syriaco latine versa, Diss. . . . Gust. Oppenheim, Berolini, 1886, 50 pp. e On the other translations of the OT into Syriac we must be very brief. (1) On the labours of Paul of Tella on the Syriac Hexapla, see art. SEPTUAGINT, p. 446 f., and Urt. p. 235; and add to the Literature : G. Kerber, ‘Syrollexaplarische lºragmente zu Leviticus und Deuteronomium aus Bar - Hebraeus gesammelt’ (ZATW xvi. (1896) 249–264). (2) On the revision which Jacob of Edessa under- took in the years, 704 and 705, see Urt. 236; Wright, p. 17. Michael the Great (1167–1200) tells of him that he became a Jew, because he suspected that the Jews, out of jealousy, had not communi- cated to the Gentiles all their books (see Die Canones Jacobs von Edessa ibersct2t . . . von C. Kayser, 1881, p. 52 f.). (3) The statement that Mar Abba (+552) “trans- lated and explained' (pe's and Dinn) the OT and NT from the Greek is made by Barhebraeus, Ebedjesu, and seems to hint at more than a commentary. (4) On the version of the Psalms ascribed to Polycarp, the author of the Philoxeniana, see Ceriani, le edizioni, p. 5, and Merx (ZA 349). (5) From Greek ecclesiastical writers, Fred. Field (Origenis Hearapla i.) collected more than 90 quota- tions introduced by 6 ×pos. Most of them seem to refer to the Peshito ; * see Swete, Introd. p. 56, and Harnack, TU vi. 3, 31, 44 f. (6) The fraguments of the Malkite Version of the OT comprise now portions of Gen., Ex., Nu., Deut., * One of the tasks to be discharged by future workers is to collect from the Greek Fathers all references to the Syriac language and literature. 1 and 3 Kings, Is., Joel, Zech., Job, Ps., Prov., Wisd.; see p. 447" and Urt, p. 237. On the work of the Massoretes (formerly believed to be itself a version called versio Karkaphensis or Montana) see the Abbé Martin, ‘Histoire de la ponctuation ou de la Massole chez les Syriens,’ in Journal Asiatique, Mars-Avril, 1875). From the Syriac MSS lying in the libraries of Europe the history of the transmission of the Bible might be very well illustrated ; and much useful material might be gathered from the Com- mentaries of the Syrian divines, even from so late a scholar as Gregory Barhebraeus (see J. Goetts- berger, “Barhebräus und seine Scholien zur heiligen Schrift,” in Biblische Studien, v. 4, 5, 1900). EB. NESTLE. SYROPHOENICIAN (Supodotutora'a, Supoqolvikaga WH, Xópa Polytkugora WHmg) occurs only in Mk 7* as the national name of a woman who is called in Mt. 15” “a, Canaanitish (Xavavata) woman,’ i.e. not a Jewess, but a descendant of the early in- habitants of the Phoenician, coast - lands (see CANAAN). On ethnic and other grounds it is unlikely that the prefix Xupo- was meant to dis- tinguish the district from the Carthaginian sea- board, called by Strabo (xvii. 19) h Tôv Aubuqouvikav yń, the latter being a mongrel race (Livy, xxi. 22), and the alleged contrast being of no moment in the narrative. The term probably denotes a Syrian resident in Phoenicia proper, and may have been in current use before Hadrian adopted it as the official title of one of the three provinces into which he divided Syria. In Ac 21* * the two parts of the term are already used interchangeably. Tradition (Clementine Homilies, ii. 19, iii. 73) gives the name of Justa, to the woman concerned in the incident, and that of Bernice to her daughter. Swete, following but correcting Euthymius Ziga- benus, argues from the context, with some force, that the woman, though of Phoenician extraction, was Greek in speech as well as in religion. R. W. MOSS, SYRTIS.--See QUICKSANDS. SYZYGUS.–See SYNZYGUS, p. 644, T TAANACH (Tyn; once, Jos 12” migh; twice, 1 K. 4”, 1 Ch 7” lyn, which is the form adopted uniformly by Baer).--An ancient royal city of the Canaanites, whose king was amongst those whom Joshua smote (Jos 12*). It lay within the terri- tory allotted to Issachar, but belonged to Man- asseh, and was given to the kohathite Levites. The Canaanites were not driven out, but they were put to tribute, or obliged to do personal Service, as the Israelites increased in strength (Jos 17” 21°, Jg 127, 1 Ch 729). Near Taanach, perhaps on lands belonging to the city, was fought the decisive battle between Barak and the kings of Canaan, which is celebrated in the triumphant song of Deborah (Jg 5"). The city was in the rich district from which Baana, one of Solomon's twelve commissariat officers, drew supplies for the royal household (1 K 4”); and is mentioned in close connexion with Megiddo—“Taanach by (or “upon') the waters of Megiddo’ (Jg 5”). It was apparently one of the line of fortresses (Dor, Megiddo, Taanach, and Bethshean) which stretched across the country from west to east, and guarded the main avenues of approach to the great plain of Esdraelon from the south. As such it is men- tioned with Megiddo in the list of Thothmes III. at Karnak, and again in the list of Sheshonk, (Shishak) (Max Müller, Asion w. Europ. 158, 170). Eusebius and Jerome (Onour. S. 9aavdx, 0avák, Thºſtnach) describe it as “a very large village,’ 4 or 3 Iłoman miles from Legio, and it is now Ta'ammuk, about 45 miles from Jºjjām. In the 13th cent. the manor of Thanis (Ta'anach) is noted as forming part of the possessions of the Abbey of St. Mary in the valley of Jehoshaphat at Jerusalem. Ta'annºuk is a small village on the S.E. slope of a large isolated mound, Tell Ta'annºuk at the S. edge of the plain of Esdraelon. The mound is covered with fragments of pottery and shapeless ruins, and there are ancient cisterns, wells, and rock-hewn tombs. Iłelow the village is a small mosque, which was perhaps a church. The LXX readings are as follows:— Jos 1221 B om., A Qozy zz, Luc. 0xxy &z. ,, 17, , , do., ,, Toºwºx, 3 y do. , 21.9% ,, Toyºz, , , 922 woºx, 29 do. Jg 127 , 6.xv, x, ,, 'Extſovo. &3, , , 'Exllovo. 43 (?’Ex=nN |Redpath). ,, 519 , 6.xyzęż, , , (98wv&x, , 6999 &x. 1 K 419 ,, om., , 690&0&wo.z, , Aillºw. 1 Ch 729 º 92%, , , 0x0,y0, z. Litºr ATURE.-Guérin, Samnarie, ii. 226; PIE I' Mem., ii., 46, (8; G. A. Smith, IIG III, 386, 389; Baedeker-Socin, Pal.2 241; IRobinson, BI: P2 ii. 316, iii. 117. C. W. WILSON. TAANATHI-SEIILOH TABERNACLE 653 TAANATH-SHILOH (nºw nºn; B 9mvagā Kal Xe)\\mad, A Trivatorm)\d, ; Luc. 67)waffaq m}\}).-A town on the N. E. 'boundary of Ephraim, mentioned between Michmethath and Janoah (Jos 16"). Eusebius and Jerome (Omom. s. 6) muá0) state that Tannath-shiloh was 10 Roman miles E. of Neapolis on the road to the Jordan, and called in their day Thena. This is probably the Thena (0%va) men- tioned by Ptolemy (V. xvi. 5) as one of the towns of Samaria. It was identified by Van de Velde with Tána about 7 miles from Nablus (Neapolis), and 2 miles N. of Yámùn (Janoah), The ruins, foundations, caves, cisterns, and rock-hewn tombs are on one of the Roman roads leading from Neapolis to the Jordan Valley (PEI' iſom. ii. 232, 245). The Talmuds explain the word Taanath by ‘threshold,’ and hold Taanath-shiloh to have been a long, narrow strip of land belonging to Joseph which ran southwards into the territory of Ben- jamin, and included the site of Shiloh. C. W. WILSON. TABAOTH, 1 Es 529 (90) (B Tagad;0, A Tagº0), and TABBAOTH (niyat), Ezr 218 (B Tagú0, A Taggad,0, Luc. Tabad,0) = Neh 7" (B Tagº0, A and Luc. as before).-The eponym of a family of Nethinim who are said to have returned with Zerubbabel. TABBATH (nºt ; B Tagdò, A Tagá0; Tebbath).— The Midianites, after Gideon's night attack, fled to IBeth-shittah, towards Zererah, as far as the border of Abel-meholah by Tabbath (Jg 7*). No trace of the site of Tabbath has yet been found, but it must have been in the Jordan Valley, and }. not far from the spot, to the south of 3ethshean, where the hills of Samaria, approach C. W. WILSON. TABEEL (ºsnº “God is good” or [Winckl.] “God is wise’; the pointing ºshi) in Is 7" may be simply due to pause [Ols., Rönig), or, more probably, may be designed to suggest the sense ‘good for nothing’ [9s neg. ; so Del., Dillm., Nöld., Duhm, Stade, Marti, and Oaf, Heb. Lea..]; LXX Tageº).-- 1. See REZIN, p. 267". 2. A Persian official in Samaria, who was one of the parties to the letter to Artaxerxes, which was designed to hinder the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem, Ezr 47. J. A. SELDIE. TABELLIUS (TagéX\tos), 1 Es 219 (LXX 1")= Tabeel, Ezr 47. the river. TABER.—Only in Nah 27, in the description of the destruction of Nineveh, when HUZZAB ‘is carried away, and her handmaids mourn as with the voice of doves, tabering (Amer. RV beating') upon their breasts’ [lit. “hearts’; Wºn'?-by n\Bºnº). Beating the breast was a familiar Oriental custom in mourning (see the illustration in Rall's Light from the Jºast, } 110, and cf. Is 32” [l{V, but the text is doubtful]). The word here used means lit. ‘drumming’ (cf. Ps 68°, its only other occurrence, and see illustration in vol. iii. p. 462"). The LXX q,0eyyóueval implies a reading mesºsn, which is used in Is 29% of the voice of a wailing woman. Stade is inclined to prefer this to the MT. The English word “taber’ means a small drum, usually accompanying a pipe, both instruments being lº! by the same performer. Other forms are “tabor,' ' tabour,’ and “tambour'; and dim. forms are “tabret,” and ‘tumbourine.’ The words are originally Arabic, and entered the lºnglish language through Old lºrench, a step between French and Arabic being the Spanish. For the subst. cf. Shaks. Winter's Tale, iv. iv. 183—“If you did but hear the pedlar at the door, you would never dance again after a tabor and pipe.” The verb is rarer, cf. Chaucer, Good Women, 354– “In your court is many a losengeour, . . . That tal)ouren in your eres many a soun, lłight after hir imaginacioun,” J. A. SELBIE. TABERAH (Ty:E; LXX ’Eviruptop.6s).—A station in Israel's journeyings in the wilderness of Param (Nu 1.1°, Dt 9*). Its name Tabárah (= ‘ burning or place of burning’) is said to have been given to it “because the fire of the LORD burnt among them (Null” [prob. E]). The place, which is not named in the itinerary of Nu 33, has not been identified. TABERNACLE.— i. The Tabernacle of the oldest Sources. ii. The Tabernacle of the priestly writers. SOUll'CCS. iii. The nomenclature of the Tabernacle. iv The fundamental conception of the Sanctuary in P. Nature and gradation of the materials employed in its construction. v. General arrangement and symmetry of the Sanctuary. The Court of the Dwelling. The furniture of the Court—(a) the Altar of Burnt- offering ; (b) the Laver, - i. The Tabernacle proper—(a) the Curtains and Coverings; (b) the wooden Framework; (c) the arrangement of the Curtains, the divisions of the Dwelling, the Weil and the Screen. viii. The furniture of the Holy Place—(a) the Table of Shew- bread or Presence-Table; (b) the golden Lampstand; (c) the Altar of Incense. ix. The furniture of the Most IIoly Place—the Ark and the Propitiatory or Mercy-seat. . Erection and Consecration of the Tabernacle. xi. The Tabernacle on the march. xii. The Historicity of P's Tabernacle. xiii. The ruling Ideas and religious Significance of the Tabernacle. The literary vi. i V X Literature. The term tabermacºtlum, whence “tabernacle’ of the Eng. WSS since Wyclif, denoted a tent with or without a wooden framework, and, like the a kºmuſ of the Gr. translators, was used in the Latin VSS to render indiscriminately the 90s or goats'. hair ‘tent” and the Hyp or ‘booth’ (which see) of the Hebrews. Its special application by the Romans to the tent or templum minus of the augurs made it also a not altogether inappropriate ren- dering of the lººp or ‘dwelling’ of ū. priestly writers (see Ś iii.), by which, however, the etymo- logical signification of the latter was disregarded, and the confusion further increased. The same confusion reigns in our AV. The lèevisers, as they inform us in their preface, have aimed at greater uniformity by rendering mishkān by “tabernacle’ and '6hel by “tent” (as AW had already dome in certain cases, see Ś iii.). It is to be regretted, however, that they did not render the Heb. sukköh with equal uniformity by ‘booth’ (e.g. in Mt 17° and parallels), and particularly in the case of the I'east of Booths (EW Tabernacles), i. THE TENT OR TABERNACLE OF THE OLDEST SOURCES.—Within the limits of this art, it is manifestly impossible to enter in detail into the problems of history and religion to which the study of ‘the tabernacle’ and its appointments, as these are presented by the priestly authors of our l’entateuch, introduces the student of the OT. The idea of the tabernacle, with its Aaronic priesthood and ministering Levites, lies at the very foundation of the religious institutions of Israel as these are conceived and formulated in the priestly sources. To criticise this conception here—a conception which has dominated Jewish and Christian thought from the days of Ezra, to our own—would lead us at once into the heart of the critical controversy which has raged for two centuries round the literature and religion of the OT. Such a task is as impossible to compass here as it is unnecessary. The almost universal accept- ance by O'I' scholars of the post-exilic date of the books of the l’entateuch in their present form is evident on every page of this 1)ictionary. On this foundation, therefore, we are free to build in this article without the necessity of setting forth at :654 TABERNACLE TABERNACILE . stage the processes by which the critical results are obtained. - Now, when the middle books of the Pentateuch are examined in the same spirit and by the same methods as prevail in the critical study of other ancient literatures, a remarkable divergence of testimony emerges with regard to the tent which, from the earliest times, was employed to shelter the sacred ark. In the article ARK (vol. i. p. 149") attention was called to the sudden introduction of the ‘tent’ in the present text of Ex 337 as of some- thing with which the readers of this document— the Pentateuch source E, according to the una- nimous verdict of modern scholars — are already familiar. This source, as it left its author's pen, must have contained some account of the con- struction of the ark, probably from the offerings of the People (33%) as in the parallel narrative of P (25*), and of the tent required for its proper protection. Regarding this tent we are supplied with some interesting information, which may be thus summarized :-(a) Its name was in Heb. 'Ohel mó'éd (337, AV ‘the tabernacle of the congrega- tion,’ RV ‘the tent of meeting’). The true sig- nificance of this term will be fully discussed in a subsequent section ($ iii.) , (b) Its situation was ‘without the camp, afar off from the camp,' recall- ing the situation of the local sanctuaries of a later E.; outside the villages of Canaan (see HIGH LACE, SANCTUARY). In this position it was pitched, not temporarily or on special occasions only, but, as the tenses of the original demand, throughout the whole period of the desert wander- ings (cf. RV v.” “Moses used to take the tent and to pitch it,” etc., with AV). Above all, (c) its pur- pose is clearly stated. It was the spot where J", descending in the pillar of cloud which stood at the door of the tent (v.", cf. Nu 12°, Dt 31°), ‘met his servant Moses and spake unto him face to face as a man speaketh unto his friend’ (v.”). On these occasions Moses received those special revelations of the Divine will which were after- wards communicated to the people. To the tent of meeting, also, every one repaired who had occa- sion to seek J" (v. 7), either for an oracle or for purposes of worship. Finally, (d) its a ditºts was the young Ephraimite Joshua, the son of Nun, who “departed not out of the tent” (v.”, cf. Nu 1.1°), but slept there as the guardian of the ark, as the boy Samuel slept in the sanctuary at Shiloh (1 S 391.). The same representation of the tent as pitched without the camp, and as associated with Moses and Joshua in particular, reappears in the narrative of the seventy elders (Nu 1.11". 94-99), and in the incident of Miriam's leprosy (12", note esp. v.”), both derived from E ; also in the reference, based upon, if not originally part of, the same source, in L)t, 3114f. The interpretation now given of this important section of the Elohistic source is that of almost all recent scholars, including so strenuous an opponent of the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis as August Dillmann (see his Com. in loc.). I.ittle, therefore, necd be said by way of refutation of the vicws of those who have endeavoured to harmonize this earlier representation with that which dominates the Priestly Code. The only one of these views that can be said to deserve serious consideration is that which sees in the tent of Ex 337ſ, a provisional tent of meeting pending the construction of the tabernacle proper. This in- terpretation is generally combined with the theory that the tent in question was originally Moses' private tent—an opinion which dates from the time of the Gr. translators (Ao:3&v Movrä; rºy orzavºy ozºrov, 2 ra., so also Pesh.), and has found favour with commentators, from Itashi downwards, including most English expositors. This view is a priori plausible enough, but it i. to Jieces before the fact disclosed above, that the same representation of the tent of meeting situated without the camp, with Joshua as its solitary guardian, is found in the Pentateuch, even after the erection of the rºore 8plendid taber- nacle of the priestly unriters. Moreover, there is no hint in the tº-xt of Ex 337-11 of the temporary nature of the tent ; on the contrary, as we have been, the tenses employed are intended to describe the habitual custom of the IIebrews and their leader wºm during the whole period of the wanderings. The closing verse of the section, finally, proves conclusively that Moses had hit abode elsewhere, and only visited the bent when he wished to meet with J". At the same time, the preservation of this section of E by the final editor of the Pentateuch, when the preceding account of the construction of the ark (cf. Dt 101-5 with 1)river's note) was excised, onn hardly be explained other- wise than by the supposition that he regarded the tent of meet- ing here described as having some such provisional character as this theory presupposes. During the conquest and settlement, the tent of meeting presumably continued to shelter the ark (which see) until superseded by the more substan- tial ‘’temple’ of J" at SHILOH. The picture of this temple (97°F) with its door and door posts (1 S 1' 3") disposes of the late gloss (2*), based on a similar gloss, Ex 38°, which assumes the continued exist- ence of the tent of meeting (see the Comm. in loc.). So, too, Ps 78°, which speaks of the sanctuary at Shiloh as a tent and a tabernacle (mishkān), is of too uncertain a date to be placed against the testinomy of the earlier historian. In the narra- tive of the older sources of the Book of Samuel (1 S.4ff.) there is no mention of any special pro- tection for the ark until we read of the tent, pitched for it by David in his new capital on Mt. Zion (2 S 6", cf. 1 Ch 16', and the phrase “within curtains,’ 2 S 79, 1 Ch 17"). The later author of 2 S 7°, however, evidently thought of the ark as housed continuously from the beginning in a tent. ‘I have not dwelt in an house,’ J" is represented as saying, ‘since the day that I brought up the chil- dren of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent ('6hel) and in a tabernacle (mishkān),' or, as the text should more probably run, “from tent to tent, and from tabernacle to tabernacle” (so I (lost., Budde, basing on 1 Ch 17"). I)avid's tent was known as ‘the tent of J"? (1 K 2*). Before it stood the essential accom- paniment of every sanctuary, an altar, to which the right of asylum belonged (ib. 1"). What the tent may have contained in addition to the sacred ark is unknown, with the exception, incidentally mentioned, of ‘the horn of oil,’ with the contents of which Zadok the priest anointed the youthful Solomon (ib. 1"). A solitary reference to ‘the tent of meeting' in a pre-exilić document yet remains, viz. the late gloss 1 K 8", the unhistorical character of which is now admitted (see Kittel, Benzinger, etc., in loc., and cf. Wellh. Proleg. [I2ng. tr.] 43 f.). To sum up our investigation, it may be affirmed that the author of 2 S 7 not only accurately repre- sents the facts of history when he describes the ark as having been moved ‘from tent to tent, and from tabernacle to tabernacle,’ but reflects with equal accuracy the opinion of early times that a simple tent or tabernacle was the appropriate housing for the ancient palladium of the Hebrew tribes. This is conſirmed both by the analogy of the practice of other branches of the Semitic race, and by incidental references from the period of religious decadence in Israel, which imply that tent-shrines were familiar objects in connexion with the worship at the high places (2 K. 23". It Vm, Ezk 16"; cf. the names Oholibſt/v and 0/0/iba mºth, and art. OHOLAH). - ii. THE TABERNACLE OF THE PRIESTLY WIRITERS. —The literary sontº'ces. – These are almost exclu- sively from the hand of the authors of the great priestly document of the Pentateuch. This docu- ment, as has long been recognized, is not the product of a single pen, or even of a single period. The results which recent criticism has achieved in disen- tangling and exhibiting the various strata of the composite literary work denoted by the convenient symbol l’, and the grounds on which these results are based, must be sought else where, as, e.g., -to name only a few ſuccessible in English, – IKuenen, 11 eacal euch, 72 ft., 1) river, LOT't 40 ft., the more elabor- ate tables of the Oa;ford I leazateuch, i. 255, 201, ii. 138, and the art. IºxoDU8 in vol. i. p. 808 ſº., with the table, p. 810b. Iteſor- ence may also be made here to the present, writer's forthcoming commentary on Iºaxidw8 in the Internat. Critical Series. TABERNACILE TABERNACLE 655 The sections of the Pentateuch dealing with the subject of this art. are the following:— (1) Ex 25–29, a fairly homogeneous section (but cf. Oa'ſ. Hea.. ii. 120) of the main or ground-stock of P (hence the symbol P8), containing minute directions for the construction of the furniture and fabric of the sanctuary (25–27), followed by instruc- tions relative to the priestly garments (28) and the consecration of Aaron and his sons (29). (2) Ex 30, 31, a set of instructions supplementary to the foregoing. ... I'or their secondary character (hence the symbol Pº) see the authorities cited above and § viii. (c) below. (3) Ex 35–40, also a fairly homogeneous block of narrative, reproduced in the main verbatim from 25–31 ‘with the simple substitution of past tenses for future,’ but in a systematic order which em- bodies the contents of 30.31 in their proper places in the older narrative 25 ft. (see authorities as above). It is therefore younger than either of these sections, hence also Pº. The critical problem is here complicated by the striking divergence of the LXX in form and matter from the MT, to some points of which attention will be called in the sequel. (4) Nu 3* 4* 71ſt contain various references to the tabernacle and its furniture, which also belong to the secondary strata of P (see NUMBERs, vol. lii. p. 568). To these sources have to be added the description of the temple of Solomon in 1 K 6 ft. and !. sketch of Ezekiel's temple (Ezk 40 ft.), which disclose some remarkable analogies to the tabernacle. The references to the latter in the Blºs. of Chronicles are of value, as showing how completely the later Heb. literature is dominated by the conceptions of the Priestly Code. Outside the Canon of the OT, the most important sources are the sections of Josephus’ Antiquities which fieal with the tabernacle (III. vi.), Philo's De Vita Moysis (ed. Mangey, vol. ii. p. 145 ft., Bohn's tr. iii. $8 tº.), and the 3rd cent, treatise, containing a systematic presentation of the views of the Jewish authorities, invon n>bon snººn (ed. Flesch, Die Barajtha von der Herstellung der Stiftshiitte ; Eng, tr, by Barclay, The Talmud, 334 ft.). The Epistle to the Hebrews, finally, supplies us with the first Christian interpretation of the taber- nacle (§ xiii.). iii. THE NOMENCLATURE OF THE TABERNACLE.” —(a) In our oldest sources the sacred tent receives, as we have seen, the special designation (1) Typ ºns 'öhel mó'öd (Ex 337, Nu 111° 12", I)t 311”, all most probably from E). This designation is also found about 130 times in the priestly sections of the Ilexateuch. The verb Ty" (Ty) from which Typ is derived signifies “to appoint a time or place of meeting,” in the Niphal ‘to meet by appointment' (often in P). Hence Typ ºns—as the name is understood by P, at least—signifles “the tent of meeting” (so RV) or ‘tent of tryst” (OT'/C2 246), the spot which J" has appointed to meet or hold tryst with Moses and with Israel. As this meeting is mainly for the purpose of speaking with them (Ex 2012 3311, Nu 789 etc.), of declaring IIis will to them, the expression ‘tent of meeting' is practically equivalent to ‘tent of revelation’ (Driver, Dewt, 330, following lºwald's “Offen- barungszelt'). It has lately been suggested that behind this lief, a more primitive meaning. I'rom the fact that one of th 2 functions of the Iłabylonian priesthood was to determine the proper time (dd.6 mu, from the samo root as m0'éd) for an undertaking, Zimmern has suggested that the oxpression ºns T}^p may originally have denoted ‘the tent where the proper thme for an undertaking was determined,' in other words, “tent of the oracle' (Orakelzelt). See Zimmern, Beiträge zwr Kenntnis d. bab. 1'eligion, p. 88 n. 2 (cf. Haupt, JBL, 1900, p. 52). Still another view of P's use of the term "yip has recently been suggested (Meinhold, Die Lade Jahves, 1900, p. 3 f.). , 1’, according to Meinhold, intends to give to the older term (bºs Tºp) of E the same significance as his own mily: ºns ‘tent of * Cf. the suggestive note on tho various designations of the tabernacle with the inferences therefrom in Oaf, Ilea. ii. 120; also Klostermann in the Newe kirchliche Zeitsch, 1807, 288 ft. ; Westcott, LIebrew8, 234 fº. .* the testimony” (see No. 10 below), by giving to the Niphal of Ty; (“make known,' ‘reveal one's self,’ as above) the sense of Thy ‘to testify of one's self.” The LXX, therefore, according to this §cholar, was perfectly justified in rendering both the above designations by ozºvº toº &prwpíov (see below). The rendering of AV “tabernacle of the congregation’ is based on a mistalcen interpretation of the word mó'éd, as if synonymous with the cognate mily. (2) The simple expression ‘the tent” (ºrikº) is found in P 19 times (Ex 269, 11 etc.), ... We have already (§ i.) met with the title (3) “the tent of J''' (1 K 223ſ). To these may be added (4) “the house of the tent” (1 Ch 923), and (5) “the house of J’’’ (Ex 2319). (b) In addition to the older ‘tent of meeting' a new and characteristic designation is used extensively in P, viz. (6) ºn mishkān (about 100 times in the Hex.), ‘the place where J” dwells’ (2%), ‘dwelling,' ‘habitation' (so Tindale); by AV rendered equally with $5s “tabernacle’ (but 1 Ch 632 “dwelling- place'). A marked ambiguity, however, attaches to P's use of this term. On its first occurrence (Ex 259) it manifestly denotes the whole fabric of the tabernacle, and so frequently. It is thus equivalent to the fuller (7) “dwelling (EW ‘tabernacle') of J”’ found in Lv 174 (here || (1), Nu 109 etc., 1 Ch 1030 2129), and to ‘the dwelling of the testimony” (No. 11 below). In other passages it denotes the tapestry curtains with their supporting frames which constitute “the dwelling' par eacellence (261. Of etc.), and so expressly in the designation (8) “dwelling (EV * tabernacle’) of the tent of meeting' (Ex 3939 402 etc., 1 Ch 692). In the passages just cited and in some others where the '5hel and the mishkān are clearly distinguished (e.g. Ex 35ll 3940 4027th, Nu 325 915), the AV has rendered the former by “tent' and the latter by “tabernacle,” a distinction now consistently carried through by IRV.” In 1 Ch 648 [MIT 33] we have (9) “the dwelling of the house of God.” (c) Also peculiar to P and the later writers influenced by him is the designation (10) nity: 978 (Nu 915 etc., 2 Ch 245, RV throughout ‘tent of the testimony'; so AV in Nu 915, but else- where ‘the tabernacle of witness'). The tabernacle was so called as containing ‘the ark of the testimony” (see § ix.). IIence too the parallel designation (11) miyº j2;"p (Ex 3821, Nu 150 etc., EV “tabernacle of [the] testimony'). (d) In addition to these we find the more general term (12) ºpp ‘holy place or sanctuary,’ applied to the tabernacle (Ex 258 and often ; in the Law of Holiness (Lw 17 ff.) almost ex- clusively. * Passing to the versions that have influenced our own, we find {LS regards the LXX a uniformity greater even than in our A.V. Owing to the confusion of jºyº and ºns (both = orzºvá) on the one hand, and of Tyin and ny on the other (but cf. Meinhold, op. cit, 3 f.), we have the all but universal rendering # orzzyż roſ; Azoºprwptov, “the tent of the testimony,’ to represent (1), (8), (10), and (11), above. This, along with the simple a 24%, is the NT designation (Ac 744 AV ‘tabernacle of witness,” Rev 155 AV ‘tabernacle of the testimony'). In Wis 98, Sir 2410 we have a new title (13) “the sacred tent" (ozzy) & yix, with which cf. the ispö orznyà of the Carthaginian camp, Diod, Sic. xx. 65). The Old Lat. and Vulg. follow the LXX with the rendering tabernaculwin and tab. testimonii, though , frequently also (“habitually in Numbers,’ Westcott, Ep. to the Hebrents, 234 f.) tab. foederis, the latter based on the designation of the ark us the “ark of the covenant' º § ix.). As to the older Eng. WSS, ſlnally, those of Hereford and Purvey follow the Vulg. closely with “tab, of witness, witnessynge, testimonye,’ and “tab, of the boond of pees (t. Joederis).' Tindale on the other hand follows LXX with the rendering ‘tab. of witnesse' for (1) and (10), but then again he restores the distinction between 'ohel and onishkūm. by rendering the latter, ‘habitacion,' except in the case of (7), ‘the dwellinge-place of the Lorde.” Coverdale in the main follows Tindale. It is to be regretted that this distinction was obliterated in the later versions, iv. THE UNDERLYING CoNCEPTION of THE TABERNACLE - SANCTUARY. —Nature and grada- tion of the materials employed in its construction.— In Ezekiel's great picture of the ideal Israel of the Restoration (Ezk 40 ft.) “the ruling conception is that of J" dwelling in visible glory in his sanctuary in the midst of his people.’ The prophet's one aim is to help forward the realization of the earlier promise of J’: ‘My dwelling (mish/ºn), shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people’ (37”). The same grand conception, the same high ideal, took possession of the priestly writers on whom lºzekiel's mantle fell. The foundation on which rests the whole theocratic structure of the l’riestly Code is the provision of * The authors of the Oa;ford IIea:atewch call attention to ‘the curious fact that in Ex 25–2710 the sanctuary is always called the “dwelling" (mishkān), while in 28. 29 this name is replaced by the older term “tent of meeting.” . . . The title “dwelling” is, of course, freely used in the great repetition, Ex 35–40, but the main portions of the Priestly Law in Leviticus ignore it.' (ii. 120, where see for suggested explanation). 556 TABERNACLE TABERNACILE a sanctuary, which in its fabric, in its personnel, and in all its appointments, shall be for future ages the ideal .# a fit dwelling for J", the holy covenant God of the community of Israel, once again restored to His favour. That this is the point of view from which to approach our study of the tabernacle of the priestly writers is placed beyond question, not only by the characteristic designation of the tabernacle proper as the miskhān or dwelling (see above, Ś iii.), but by the express statement at the opening of the legislative section: ‘Let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them.” (Ex 25°, cf. 29*). Such a dwelling could only be one reared in accordance with the revealed will of J" Himself. Moses, accordingly—according to the representa- tion of P−is summoned to meet Jº in the cloud that rested on the top of Mt. Sinai, soon after the arrival there of the children of Israel (Ex 24*). The command is given to summon the Israelites to make voluntary offerings of the materials neces- sary for the construction of the sanctuary. attern or model of this dwelling and of all its urniture is shown to Moses, who is at the same time instructed in every detail by J" Himself (Ex 251-9 [PG] = 354-20 [Ps], cf. 3821-81). In the later strata of P we find the call of Bezalel (so IRV), the son of Uri, and his endowment by J" as con- structor-in-chief, assisted by Oholiab (AV Aholiab), the son of Ahisamach (311-M =350–36; 38%). A list of the materials employed is succinctly given at the head of each section (25* =35*). Of these the three great metals of antiquity, bronze (see BRASS), silver, and gold, are used in a significant gradation as we proceed from the outer court to the innermost sanctuary. Of the last-named, two varieties are employed—the ordi- nary gold of commerce, and a superior quality in which the pure metal was more completely sepa- rated from its native alloys, hence known as re- fined or ‘pure’ gold (mm) nº). As to the technical treatment of the metals, we find various methods employed. They might be used in plain blocks or slabs, as for the bases of pillars and for the mercy- seat ; or they might be beaten into plates (Nu 179 [Heb. 1693) and sheets (Ex 39°) for the sheath- ing of large surfaces, like the great altar, the frames (but see Ś vii. (b)), and most of the furni- ture. The most artistic work is the hammered or repoussé work in gold, of which the cherubim and the candlestick are examples.” The wood used throughout was that of the tree named nº shiftah (AV “shittim wood,” IRV ‘acacia wood’), now usually identified with the Acacia seyal or A. milotica (see, further, SHITTAH). Its wood is noted for its durability (cf. LXX render- ing $9Xa diamTra). We come next to a graduated series of products of the loom. At the bottom of the scale, we have the simple shºsh (cº). This material has been variously identified with linen, cotton, and a mixture of both. The history of the textile fabrics of antiquity favours linen (see LIN EN, and Dillmann's elaborate note, Eacod.- Levit.” 305 fſ.). A superior quality of it was termed “fine twined linen’ (nºp Ug), spun from yarn of which each thread was composed of many delicate strands. When dyed with the costly Phoenician dyes, both yarn and cloth received the names of the dyes, ‘blue, purple, and scarlet,” (25" etc.). The first two represent different shades * No account is taken here of the quantities of these metals provided for the tabernacle, for the passage Ex 3824.9) was long ago recognized (Popper, Der bill. Ilericht tiber die Stiftshiitte, 1802) as a late insertion in a late context. This is evident from the one fact alone that the silver, which provided, inter alia, for the sockets or bases at a talent each, is thought to be the pro- duce of the poll-tax of half a shekel, which was not instituted till some time after the tabernacle had been set up (cf. Nu 11 with Ex 401), of purple (see COLOURS), and may be conveniently rendered by ‘violet' and ‘purple’ respectively. The spinning of the yarn was the work of the women, the weaving of it the work of the men (35*, *, cf. 39°). Among the latter a clear dis- tinction is drawn between the ordinary weaver and the more artistic rökém and hôshöö, who re- present respectively the two forms of textile artistry practised from time immemorial in the East—embroidery and tapestry. The rókém or embroiderer (so RW) received the web, complete in warp and weft, from the loom, and §. his figures in colours upon it with the needle. The hôshöö (lit. ‘inventor,’ ‘artist,’ as 31*; EW ‘cun- ning workman’), on the other hand, worked at the loom, weaving with ‘violet, purple, and scarlet’ yarn’ (cf. LXX 28° pyov Úqavrov trouti)\to 0) his figures into the warp, and Fº the tapestry for which the East has always been famed. A gradation from without inwards, similar to that in the application of the metals, will meet us in the jº. of these varied products of the loom. v. THE GENERAL ARRANGEMENT AND SYM- METRY OF THE SANCTUARY. —The Court of the Dwelling (Ex 279-19 [PA]=38” [P]; cf. Josephus, Ant. III. vi. 2).-Once again we must start from Ezekiel. For the realization of his great ideal, Ezekiel places his new temple in the centre of a square tract of country, 25,000 cubits in the side, ‘a holy portion of the land” (Ezk 45 tº 48*). Within this area is a still more sacred precinct, the property of the priests alone, who thus surround the temple on every side to guard it from possible profanation. The same idea of the unapproachable sanctity of the wilderness ‘ dwelling’ is emphasized by P through his well- known symmetrical arrangement of the camp of the Israelites. Around four sides of a huge square the tents are pitched; three tribes on each side (Nu 21ſt. 101*). Within this square is another, the sides of which are º by the priests and the three divisions of the Levites, the sons of Gershon, Rollath, and Merari (Nu 3*). In the centre of this second square, finally, we find the sacred enclosure (Tépcevos) which con- stitutes the wilderness sanctuary. This enclosure is the “court of the dwelling’ (ºn hsſ 27", aú)\}, Tſis okmvijs, atrium tabernaculi), a rectangular space, lying east and west, 100 cubits” in length by 50 in breadth (proportion 2: 1)—in other words, a space made up of two squares, each 50 cubits in the side. At this point it will help us to over- come subsequent difficulties if we look more closely at the ſºlº of the sanctuary as a whole, as revealed by the accompanying diagram. I3eginning with the eastern square we note as its most prominent feature the altar of burnt-offering, lying “four square' (5 cubits by 5) presumably at the intersection of the diagonals. #. the Western square stands ‘the dwelling,’ occupying three of the small plotted squares, of 10 cubits each way, its length being to its breadth in the proportion of 3: 1. Like the temples of Solomon . Ezekiel, it consists of two parts, the outer and inner sanctuary, in the proportion of 2: J. The latter is the true sanctuary, the special abode of J", a perfect cube, as we shall afterwards see, each dimension one - half of the inner shrine of the Solomonic temple. It stands exactly in the centre of its square, while its own centre in turn is occupied by the most sacred of all the objects in the sanctuary, the ark, the throne of J", the dimensions of which, we shall find, are 5 × 3 × 3 half-cubits. These data are meanwhile sufficient to prove P's love for “order, measure, number * The ſength of P's cubit is uncertain. For convenience of reckoning it may be taken as 18 inches. TABERNACILE TABERNACLE 657 *=d and system,” which has long been recognized as one of his most prominent characteristics. Trom the first section of Genesis (11–2") onwards, with its arrangement by 10 and 7 and 3 (see art, NUMBER, vol. iii. p. 565"), his genealogies, his chronology, his theory of the religious development of Israel, |O 2O 3O 4O 50 § -U-w UTV, V T-W- *TI ss I º | | 10, lº U ! ! . . . § \ | | ! !," N | | º * - as ºr ºr as se - * * * * * * * * = * * * :-- - - - - 3 * ſº | | ,” i \s ! ſ e | s | N | I , " | t | *S ! 1,” | tºo l N. - - - - --!----- a P----------- * * | [. | * | h º Dºj ! s t 2. ' SS | ! a' & P * - -s º º F - - - - - 4.- : ------- * ! z [I. YS | h ; ," O D ~ | º : ,” !---> T | as me tº sº s as w as E F-º-------|-- F. H. h 2 : ! Y- H. ," t * * 0. | ^ * ſ ID Or: § - - - - - - ,----- * ºr us - ºr 'F - - - - - !------ N t º g * O | `s t t ! ! 2^ º O 2. SS f t i , f' CD * º * d | * * - - *k--->;---4-o:-----4--- • * \ t ! ,” p D : SS º º .” l t * , ; ," I t ! t $ --------------->4. - - - - - F - - - - ſ g : | ! I º t º i l ſ ! | * , ! $H --------------->k ---------- l , l º * h { ū d t e l ! ,” º t w | e e '- - - - - º •- - * * -% - - - - - -i- - - - - - . * - - sº º | - - s ...' . . ! s ! * Gº ,2' ! ! ! , sº • 3 2 | 4 3 2 | 3. 2 - 1 T in º i 1 a ºl PLAN OF THE COURT OF THF, TABERNAOLE. Scale sº inch = 1 cubit. are all constructed on a definite system.” Nowhere is this fondness for symmetry and proportion so evident as in the measurements of the tabernacle. Three, four, seven, ten, their parts and multiples, dominate the whole (see further, Ś xiii.). The desire to preserve the proportion and ratio of certain parts º measurements has led to awkwardness and even inconsistency in other parts—a fact which lies at the root of not a few of the difficulties that beset the path of those that attempt to construct the tabernacle from the data of the priestly writers. The court of the tabernacle is screened off from the rest of the encampment by five white curtains (byºn Kölä'im) of ‘fine twined finen' of the uniform height of 5 cubits, but of varying length. Those on the N. and S. long sides measure each 100 cubits, that on the W. 50, while the two remaining cur- tains of 15 cubits each screen off the E. side, one on either hand of the entrance to the court. The latter is a space of 20 cubits, which is closed by a hanging or portière (Tºp) of the second grade of workımanship explained above, i.e. embroidered in colours on a white ground. All six hangings are suspended from pillars of the same height, standing on bases (ils, EV “sockets’) of bronze. The shape and size of these bases can only be conjectured. Elsewhere in OT (Ca, 5”, Job 38", and corrected text of Ezk 41*) Iºs is the base in the shape of a square plinth on which a pillar or an altar stands. So most probably in the case before us, the wooden billar being sunk well into the plinth (so the Baraitha), which would thus be reckoned to the height of the pillar. The Willº were then kept in position by means of the usual ‘cords” or stays (nºn-p) fastened to pegs or “pins” (nūn) of bronze stuck in the ground. This seems prefer- able to the view first suggested by Josephus that the bases ended in spikes (gauparſipes) like that by which the butt-end of a spear was stuck in the ground—a method scarcely in place in the sand of the desert. According to Pº (3817), the pillars had capitals (EV ‘chapiters’) overlaid with silver. Further, ‘the hooks or pegs (nº) of the pillars and their fillets (pºpur) shall be of silver’ (2710ſ, but 38" makes the latter only overlaid with silver). The word rendered “fillet” probably signifies a band or necking of silver (Ew., Dill. et al.) at the base of the capital, rather than, as is more generally supposed, silver rods connecting the pillars. And this for three reasons : (1) only on this view is the phrase “filleted with silver’ (277) intelligible; (2) no mention is made of any such connecting-rods in the minute directions for the transport of the tabernacle furniture (Nu 4); and (3) the screen and veil of the tabernacle proper (§ vii.” (c)) were evidently attached to their pillars by hooks. \ At this point we encounter our first difficulty. How are the pillars placed, on what principle are they reckoned (27*) Ezekiel begins º: de- Scription of his outer court with the wall ‘round about ’ (40%). P does likewise, only his curtain- wall is like a mathematical line, having length without breadth. It is as though the writer were working from a ground - plan like our diagram. The periphery of the court measures 300 cubits. This and no more is the length of his six curtains. Not even in the case of the entrance portière is allowance made for folds “—the first hint that we are dealing with an ideal, not an actual, construc- tion. The pillars must be thought of as standing inside the curtains, otherwise, they would not belong to the sanctuary at all. The principle on which they are reckoned is clear. It is that one pillar, and one only, is assigned to every five cubits % curtain. Now, a curtain of 20 cubits’ length, like the entrance screen, requires not four, which is the number assigned to it, but five pillars; and on the same principle each of the two smaller curtains on either side of it requires four pillars, not three, and so with the rest. But to have counted twenty-one pillars for the sides, eleven for the end curtain, and 5-H 4 + 4 for the front, would have spoiled the symmetry, and so the artificial method of the text is adopted. Counting four for the entrance, as on the diagram, and three for the curtain to the left (vy." "), we proceed round the court, reckoning always from d. first corner pillar met with and counting no pillar twice. It is thus absurd to charge P with mis- calculation, as his latest commentator still does (Baentsch, in loc.). But the charge is the price paid for the determination to reckon the pillars on the E. side as only ten in all, arranged symmetri- cally as 3+4+3 (when there are really eleven), and those of the N. and S. sides as multiples of ten. vi. THE FURNITURE OF THE COURT.—(a) The altar of burnt - offering, Ex 27-8–38-7 [LXX 38**].—In the centre of the court, as the synt- metry requires, stands ‘the altar’ (27 RV ; for the significance of the article see S viii. (c)) of the sanctuary, also termed more precisely ‘the altar of burnt-offering' (30° 31' and oft.), and, from its appearance, ‘the altar of bronze,” AV ‘brazen altar’ (38° 30'"), both sets of passages probably belonging to Pº. ‘Foursquare it stands, 5 cubits in length and breadth, and 3 cubits in height, a hollow chest ºf of acacia wood sheathed with * Cf. I)illmann, Num.-Josua, 649 f., who also considers P to have distinguished four periods of the world's history char- acterized by the decreasing length of human life in the propor- tº: tº first mentioned in P. (3518 ‘the pins of the courts and their cords,’ 3040 etc.). VOL. IV. —42 * Josephus is quite wrong, therefore, in speaking of the curtains hanging in a ‘loose and ſlowing manner' (l.c.). i Nothing in the text suggests a mere four-sided frame to be filled with earth, as is usually supposed. 658 'TABERNACLE TABERNACLE bronze. From the four corners rise the indis- from the true Heb, tradition (Ex 20°"). The ensable horns, “ of one piece with it.” (RV), the orm and significance of which have been much debated. From the representations of similar horns” on Assyrian altars (see Perrot and Chipiez, Hist. of Art in Chaldea and Assyria, i. 255 f.), they would appear to have been merely the prolongation upwards of the sides of the altar to a point, for a few inches at each corner. . The horns of Ezekiel's altar, e.g., form ºth of the total height (see 43*" with Toy's diagram in The horns play an important part in SBOT). the ritual of the priests’ consecration (Ex 29*), the sin-offering (Lv 4”), the Day of Atonement (1618), and elsewhere.” According to a later tra- dition, the ‘beaten plates’ of bronze for the P'º --> . . ; ALTAR OF BURNT-OFFERING, ' covering of the altar” were made from the bronze censers of the rebellious company of Išorah (Nu 16”). Round the altar, ...}. between top and bottom, ran a Fº ‘ledge” (so IRV for the obscure aſſº, only 27° 38'; AV ‘the compass,” etc.), attached to which and reaching to the ground was a grating (RV ; AV “grate,’ which see) of bronze. The purpose of these two append- ages can only be conjectured (see the Comm. and works cited in the Literature for the numerous conjectures that have been put forward). Con- sidering the height of the altar, at least 43 feet, one naturally supposes that the ledge was for the priests to stand upon during their ministrations at the altar, and in Lv 9° we actually read of Aaron ‘stepping down from the altar. Together with the grating, it may also have been a device to prevent the ashes, etc., from falling upon and deſiling the sacrificial blood, J"'s peculiar portion, which could still be dashed against the base of the altar through the wide meshes of the network. Pour bronze rings were attached to the corners of the grating, presumably where it met the ledge, to receive the poles for carrying the altar. The necessary utensils were also of bronze ; they com- prised shovels or rakes (D'yº) for collecting the ashes, pots (AV pans) for carrying them away, the large basins for catching the blood of the animals sacrificed, the flesh hooks or forks, and the fire-pans. The fire is to ‘be kept burning upon the altar continually, it shall not go out ’ (Lv (;19), which hardly accords with the prescriptions of Lv 17 and Nu 419ſ. The idea underlying this unique structure — a hollow wooden chest with a thin sheathing of bronze, little adapted, one would think, for the purpose it is to serve—is now generally recognized as having originated in the desire to construct a portable ſultar on the lines of the massive brazen altar of Solomon, which was itself a departure * For the special sanctity attaching to the horns see ALTAR (vol. i. p. 77). It is open to grave doubt whether this wide- spread custom of providing altars with these projections has anything to do with the ox or calf symbolism (see CALF [Goldſºn], vol. i. p. 342), as Stade and others suppose. ‘Horn' is rather a popular metaphor for the more correct wisº) of Ezekiel (4192; cf. Josephus' phrase yovicz, 24¢2tosubsis), and their ultimate raison d'étre is probably to be sought in the same primitive circle of thought, as as:'ribed a special sanctity to the four corners of a robe (see FRINGE8, vol. ii. p. 69*). Another view is suggested by RS2436. Baentsch (Com. in loc.). account of the making of this altar, which was one-fourth larger in cubic content than the whole tabernacle of P (2 Ch 4"), has now disappeared from the MT of 1 K 7, but was still read there by the Chronicler (l.c.), and references to it still survive (1 K 8* * 9”, 2 K 16*). Its disappear- ance is easily accounted for by the fact that its construction appeared to a later age as quite un- necessary, since the ‘tent of meeting’, and all its vessels, including the bronze altar of this section, were considered to have been transferred by Solomon, along with the ark, to his new temple (1 K 8*; see Wellh. Proleg. [Eng. tr.] 44; Stade, ZA TW iii. 157 = Akad. Iteden, 164; and the Comm.). (b) The Layer (Ex 3017-?), cf. 389 [LXX 38%]),— Between the altar above described and the taber- nacle stood the laver of bronze (nº, Novrijp), to the description of which only a few words are de- voted, and these few are found not in the main body of P, but in a section (30. 31) bearing internal evidence of a later origin (see Ś ii., and more fully $ viii. (c)). Beyond the fact that it was a large basin of bronze, and stood upon a base of the same material, we know nothing of its work- manship or ornamentation. It served to hold the water required for the ablutions of the priests in the course of their ministrations, and is fre- quently mentioned in the secondary strata of the priestly legislation (30°31' etc.; it is omitted, how- ever, from the directions for the march in Nu 4). A curious tradition grew up at some still Jater eriod, to the effect that the laver was made of the 3ronze ‘mirrors of the serving-women which served at the door of the tent of meeting’ (38°, cf. 1 S 24°). The latter, needless to say, was not yet in exist- ence. The temple of Solomon had ten lavors of elaborate construction (see LAVER), the second temple apparently had only one (Sir 5%). vii. THE TABERNACI,E PROPER—(a) The Curtains of the Dwelling and the Tent, the outer coverings (Ex 261-14 =368-19 [LXX 37"]; Jos. Amt. III. vi. 4 [ed. Niese, § 130 ft.]).—Probably no section of the OT of equal length is responsible for so large a number of divergent interpretations as the chapters now before us. It is clearly impossible within the limits of this article to refer to more than a very few of these interpretations, even of those asso- ciated with scholars of repute. What follows is the result of an independent study of the original in the light of the recognized principles under- lying the scheme of the wilderness Sanctuary as conceived by the priestly writers (see § 1:...). I'uller justification of the writer's position with regard to the many matters of controversy that emerge will be found in his commentary on Eacodus (Internat. Crit. Series). Now, on the very threshold of our study of Ex 26, we meet with a clear statement, the far- reaching significance of which has been overlooked by most of those who have written on this sub- ject. It is contained in these few words: ‘Thou shalt make the dwelling (liº, R.V ‘tabernacle’) of ten curtains” (26"). To this fact we must hold fast through all our discussion as to the measure- ments and arrangements of the tabernacle. It is the curtains, mot the so-called “boards,’ that con- stitute the dwelling of J". The full learing of this fact will appear as we proceed. The walls of the true dwelling, then, are to consist, on three sides at least, of ten curtains of beautiful Oriental tapestry, full of figures of the Inystic cherubim, woven in colours of the richest dyes, violet, purple, and scarlet (see Ś iv.). The curtains form, as it were, the throne-room of J". It is therefore ap- propriate that the mysterious beings that minister around His heavenly throne should be represented TABERNACILF TABERNACLE 659 in J”s presence-chamber upon earth (see, further, $ ix. for cherubim upon the mercy-seat). The curtains measure each 28 × 4 cubits (7: 1), and are sewed together in two sets of five. Along one long side of either set are sewed fifty loops (ns';*) made of violet thread. By means of an equal number of gold clasps (b'pºp, RV ; AV “taches”) the two hangings are coupled together to form one large covering, 40 (4 x 10) cubits in length by 28 c. in breadth, for ‘the dwelling shall be one’ (26%). I'or a tent (ºk) over the dwelling (v. 7), eleven curtains are to be woven of material usually em- ployed for the Eastern tent (see CURTAINS), viz. goats’ hair, and, to ensure that the dwelling shall be completely covered by them, they are each to be 30 cubits in length by 4 in breadth. These are to be sewed together to form two sets of five and six curtains respectively, coupled together as before by loops and clasps; the latter, in this case, of bronze, and forming one large surface (44 x 30 cubits), that the tent also “may be one’ (v."). Thus far there is no difficulty such as emerges in the verses (v.”) that follow, and will be considered later (§ vii. (c)). As the dwelling is to be covered by the tent, so the tent in its turn is to receive two protecting coverings, the dimensions of which are not given. Immediately above it is to be a covering of ‘rams' skins dyed red ' (D'ºn, pv6poôavouéva). The dye employed is not the costly Phoenician scarlet or crimson dye previously met with (obtained from the coccus ilicis, see COLOURS, vol. i. p. 457 f.), but, as the Gr. rendering suggests, madder (épuðp56avov, rubia tinctoria), a vegetable dye.” The outermost covering is formed of the skins of an obscure animal (UHF, AW ‘badger,’ RV ‘seal,” RV m ‘por- poise ’), now most frequently identified with the dugong, a seal-like mammal found in the Red Sea. (see note with illustration in Toy's ‘Ezekiel’ [SB07], p. 124). At this point in P's statement, one naturally expects him to proceed to give directions for the pitching of this fourfold tent and for the prepara- tion of the necessary poles, ropes, and pegs. There is thus every a priori probability in favour of the theory of the tabernacle associated in this country, with the name of Mr. Fergusson, that the four sets of coverings now described were in reality intended by the author to be suspended by means of a ridge-pole or otherwise over the wooden framework about to be described. But it is inconceivable that so radical a part of the construction as the provision of a ridge-pole and its accompaniments should have been passed over in silence in the text of P. (For this theory see Fergusson’s art. ‘Temple’ in Smith's D13; the Speaker's Commentary, i. 374 f.; more recently, and in greatest detail, by Schick, Die Stiftshiitte, der Tempel, etc.). On the contrary, P’s wilderness sanctuary is to combine with certain features of a nomad’s tent others suggestive or reminiscent of the temples of a sessile population. In short, as Josephus puts it, the finished structure is to “diſſer in no respect from a movable and ambu- latt vy temple (Amt. III. vi. 1 [Niese, § 103]). (h) The wooden framework of the Dwelling (Ex 260-30–36%-44 [LXX 3818-9)]; Jos. Amt. l.c. 116 ft.). —The right understanding of this important part of the dwelling, by which it is to be transformed into a portable temple, depends on our interpreta- tion of the opening verses of the section (vv.”). Literally rendered they run thus: “And thou shalt make the köråshim # for the dwelling of acacia * The Heb. name of this dye is nsib, frequent in the Mishna. In OT it occurs only as a proper name, e.g. the minor judge, Tolah ben Puah (Searlet, the son of Madder Jg 101). f lºw ‘boards'; LXX artwºol, Jos. and l’hilo ziovis, both = ‘pillars.” wood, standing up—10 cubits the length of the single * ſteresh, and a cubit and a half the breadth of the single keresh — 2 ydidóth it for the single Keresh, mēshullābóth £ to each other.” Here every- thing depends on the three more or less obscure technical terms of the Heb. arts and crafts given in transliteration. The true exegetical tradition, We are convinced, had been lost, as was the case with the still more complicated description of Solomon's brazen lavers (I K 77"), until the key was discovered by Stade and published in his claš- sical essay (ZATW iii. (1883) 129 fl. = Akad. Redem, 145 ft., corrected in details ZATW xxi. (1901) 145 ft.). The Jewish tradition, as we find it first in Josephus (l.c.) and in the Baraitha, has held the field to the present day. According to these authorities the kérôxhim were great columns or beams of wood 15 ft. high, 2 ft. 3 in. wide, and—by a calculation to be tested in due time—1 ft. 6 in. thick, i.e. 10 x 13 × 1 cubits. The yādóth were pins or tenons (Jos. otp%pty yes, ‘pivots’) by which the beams were inserted into mortices in the silver sockets or bases. Forty-eight of these beams were placed side by side to form the three walls (S.W. and N.) of the tabernacle, the eastern end or entrance being formed by a screen (for details and refſ, see below). This interpretation, with numer- ous modifications in detail, particularly as regards the thickness of the so-called ‘boards,’ $ has been adopted by every previous writer without excep- tion. We now proceed to test the value of this tradi. tion. The avowed intention of P, it is admitted on all hands, is to construct “a movable and ann- bulatory temple' for the desert marches. Could anything he more absurd than to begin by con- structing enormous logs of wood, each with a cubic content—on the most usual computation of 1 cubit of thickness — of about 50 cubic feet, each weighing, according to a recent calculation (Brown, The Tabernacle", 1899, 275), close upon 1 ton, and out of all proportion to the weight they would have to bear? And this quite apart from the open question of the possibility of obtaining beams of such dimensions from the acacia, tree of Arabia.| Further, how is the fact that the tapestry curtains with their cherubim figures are always called ‘the dwelling' to be reconciled with the traditional theory that they were completely hidden from view, except on the roof, by the intervention of the wooden walls 2 This difficulty has been felt by several writers, who have sought to avoid it by hanging these curtains inside the boards as a lining, thereby doing violence to the clear intention of the text (see below). These considerations by no means exhaust the difficulties presented by the current conception of the tabernacle, as may be seen on any page of the commentaries and special mono- graphs cited in the Literature at the end of this article. The way is now clear for a fresh examination of the technical terms of v.v."-17. The first of the three (ºp) is lºy conſined to P's account of the tabernacle, for its only other occurrence (Ezk 27") requires light from our passages rather than throws light upon them. The Gr. translators had no clear idea of what the word meant, and were content to render throughout by a TÜNot, ‘pillars,’ a rendering * So LXX, Pesh, etc. t EV ‘tenons’; LXX &yzawforzov: = ‘joints or arms,’ but else where (cipm, ‘sides,' f RV ‘joined ’; LXX &vriºrſ rºtovºros as in v.5 for nºpp, § The familiar rendering ‘boards,' adopted by Tindale, goes back to Jerome, who thought of the totbula', of which the loman tabernacula were I requently constructed, and from which, indeed, the manne is derived. - | No use is here made of the argument from Nu '78 compared with '3:36, four wagºons, each drawn by a pair of oxen, for the transport of the ‘boards,’ bases, pillars, etc., as these passages are probably from a different hand from Ex 26. 660 TABERNACLE TABERNACLE suggested to them by the last word of v.”, which the appyrently read Bºy, the ordinary word for ‘pillars’ (cf. Dillm. in loc.). Passing, therefore, to the second technical term yūdóth (v.”), we find the current text of the LXX responsible for a grave mis- interpretation of this verse, by prefixing ‘and thou shalt make’ to the original text (but AF onlit kal Trovão’ets). § In reality we have here the ; : continuation of v.", from º : | which it is separated merely º º: by a parenthesis, as trans- º º: lated above. The yādóth || º are thus seen not to be some- thing additional to the Keresh, but to constitute its : º -. | s main component parts (as Hº º,"; indeed may underlie the Gr. § . rendering pºépm in vv.” ” º ... and elsewhere). What then |: . | is the signification of T. as , ||. a technical term in the con- # structive arts 2 In 1 K 1019 =2 Ch 91° yādóth denotes the ‘arms’ of Solomon’s throne, of which dykóves is the technically correct equi- valent (2 Chron, l.c., see illus- tration of chair with arms bent at right angles in Rich, Dict. of Antiq. s. ‘Ancon”). In 1 K 79* *—as Stade (ll.cc.) has conclusively proved from extant ancient models—yū- dóth is the technical name º for the stays or supports (EV § ‘axletrees’) underneath the § body or framework of the º laver (illustrs. ZATW, 1901, 152, 167), as also for the similar stays projecting from the top of the frame and supporting the stand of the basin (cf. LAVER, vol. iii. p. 64"). Technically, there- i. fore, like our own ‘arm,” - and the classical dyktów and ancom, T. may denote any arm-like stºluctural element, whether straight or bent, especially if occurring in pairs. . This result is streng- thened by the phrase that follows, Rºnsº's Hys nãºn (v.”, cf. 36” and the various renderings in AV and RV). Here again the description of the lavers comes to our aid (1 K 7”), for the cognate term there em- ployed (Dº?:, with which cf. ññº, raº, the rounds or rungs of a ladder in later Heb.) is now universally understood to mean the cross-rails joining the uprights of the frame of the laver. It seems evident, therefore, that the keresh of P must be a frame of wood, such as builders in all countries have employed in the construction of light walls (see Blümmer, Technologie, etc. iii. 151, for the parics craticius with its arrectarii and transversari; ; cf. our own brick-nogged partitions with their timber ‘quarters’). This sense suits Ezk 27" admirably: “thy panels are of ivory inlaid in boxwood’ (see illustr. in Toy, SB07' 150). . We may now tr. v.” thus, taking the parenthesis last : “And thou shalt make the frames for the dwelling of acacia wood, standing up, two uprights FRAME AND ITS BASES. attached to the woodwork of the frames. yet exhausted. for each frame, joined to each other by cross-rails —10 cubits the height and a cubit and a half the breadth of the single frame.” We now see how it is that a writer so fond of measurements as F has omitted to give the third dimension: a frame has, strictly speaking, no thickness : * The frames, according to our present text, are to be overlaid with gold; but the position of this instruction (v.”) after the other instructions for the frames have been completed (contrast 25il 24 30°), the variant tradition of the Gr. of 3Slºtſ (treptºmp- 'yūpworev, “overlaid with silver’), the late origin of the kindred sections in 1 K 6 f. (see TEMPLE), and other considerations, all make it very probable that we have here an addition to the original text, both as regards the frame and bars, and the pillars. Like the pillars of the court, the uprights of the framework are to be sunk in bases of solid silver, the reason for two bases to each frame being now for the first time apparent, regarding the shape and size + of which we are equally dependent on conjecture. For reasons that will appear in the next section, we may think of them as square linths, # cubit in the side and a cubit in height, orming a continuous foundation wall round the dwelling, with the uprights sunk well down so that the height of the framework was not materi- ally added to. To provide the necessary rigidity for the frames, the simple device is adopted of running five wooden bars along the three sides, passing through rings Much needless discussion has been raised over the ex pression ‘the middle bar in the midst of the boards' (v.”), which has been taken by various writers to mean that the middle bar of the five is intended to ass from end to end through a hole pierced in the #: of the massive ‘boards' of the traditional theory (see diagrams of Riggenbach, Brown, etc.). But the phrase is merely an epithet, after P's well- known manner, explanatory of the bar in question, the distinguishing feature of which is that it runs along the whole length of its side, north, west, south, as the case may be, in contradistinction to the remaining four, which we may presume run only half-way along—one pair at the top, the other pair at the bottom of the frames. This arrange- ment of the bars suggests that the frames were provided with three cross-rails—one at the top, rounded like the ends of the uprights to avoid injury to the curtains, another in the middle, and a third immediately above the bases. We thus obtain a double row of panels right round the dwelling (see the accompanying illustration with drawings to scale from a specially prepared model). The difficulties of this section, however, are not We have still to grapple with the problem of the arrangement of the frames, and in particular with the much debated vv.”, before we can proceed to discuss the manner in which the curtains were utilized. The discussion of the former problem may best start from the data of 26*, from which we learn that the veil dividing the dwelling into two parts (see next section) is to be hung 20 cubits, the width of 5 curtains, from the front of the dwelling. Now, the admitted symme- try of the whole sanctuary requires us to infer that the area of the outer sanctuary is intended to measure 20 x 10 cubits, and that of the inner sanc- * We may thus claim to have solved what our latest commen- tator has termed P's ‘secret” with regard to v.17 (Baentsch, in loc, ; cf. Holzinger, who gives up the verse in despair). Riehm had previously tried to solve the problem by taking the text to mean that each board consisted of two pieces mortised together by means of the quádáth (IIWB 2, art. ‘Stiftshütte,’ 1579 f.). Jerome's interpretation is evidently borrowed from the Rabbis, some of whom thought that the yūdóth joined one board to another (Flesch, Barttijtha, 51 f.). # The oldest, but erroneous, conjecture on this point (Ex 3827) has been already dealt with (§ iv. footnote p. 600). TABERNACILE TABERNACLE 66] tuary 10 × 10 cubits, the measurements in both cases being exactly half those of the corresponding | Yarts of the temples of Solomon and Ezekiel (see TEMPLE). With this agrees the direction of the text, that twenty frames, each 14 cubits wide, are required for the two long sides, and six for the shorter west side (vv. 18; 49.2%). Now, an easy cal- culation shows that since the total area of the dwelling from curtain to curtain is 30 × 10 cubits, and inside width of the short side is only 9 cubits (13 x 6), We must allow half a cubit (9 in.) for the thickness of the woodwork of either of the long sides. This would allow 6 in. (two handbreadths) for the thickness of the uprights of the framework and 3 in. (one ſº for that of the bars. The assumption of the majority of previous writers, from the Baraitha to Baentsch, that the measurement, 30 x 10 cubits, gives the clear inside area of the tabernacle as formed by the wooden ‘boards,’ implying on the cubit of thickness theory (see above) an outside measurement of 31 × 12 cubits, falls to the ground if the view here advocated of the true nature of the boards’ is accepted. But, even with the traditional interpre- tation, the theory of inside measurements is absolutely inad- missible. (1) The true walls of P's dwelling are, as we have already emphasized, the tapestry curtains, precisely as the linen hangings are the walls of the court (§ v.). The frame- work here takes the place of the pillars round the court, and, fore one of the projecting bastions (2 Ch 269, Neh 3*), which guarded the wall at important changes in its course. We conclude from these data that the Word in the passage before us must denote some- thing of the nature of a projecting buttress at the two Western corners of the wooden framework, W.* has been the despair of many generations of students, and is almost certainly corrupt. If with most modern scholars we read 5-ph (twins) in both clauses, it seems to imply that these corner frames shall be made ‘double," i.e. consist of two ordinary frames braced together for the sake of strength ; further, that each is intended to form a buttress sloping upwards and terminating short of the top of the framework, at the first' or topmost “ring” (see RVm), that is, underneath the top bar of the west side (see illustration). In any case, three purposes are apparently served by these corner buttresses. They supply additional strength at the two weakest parts of the framework—the points of meeting of the two long walls with the west, wall; they take up the folds of the curtains at these two corners, and—we do not hesitate to add—they raise thé number of the frames to a multiple of four (48, so many were the pillars in Solomon's temple accord- MoDEL of TIIE TABERNACLE in perspective with the two uppermost coverings removed, showing the framework covered by the tapestry curtains a a with the cherubim figures, the goats' hair curtains of ‘the tent' bl', one of the corner frames c, the bars dad, the veile, and the screen f. like these, must be treated as wne quantité mégliged ble where proportions are concerned. . (2) All P's other measurements are outside measurements, as in the altar of burnt-offering, the ark, etc. (3) Only on the supposition that the entire fabric of the tabernacle covered, a space 30×10 cubits is the true propor- tion (3 : 1) of the structure and the complete symmetry of the western square maintained. It is absolutely necessary from P's standpoint that the perfect cube of the Most Holy Place shall be entirely contained within the centre square of its own court (see diagram), . With an inside area of 30×10, requiring on the traditional hypothesis an outside measurement of 31X12, the symmetry of the whole Sanctuary is ruined. We are now prepared to take up the problem of the two frames described with tamtalizing ob- scurity in the difficult verses *.*.* These two frames are expressly stated to be ‘for the nyspot of the dwelling in the hinder part.” What, now, is the meaning of this rare word 2. The key, we believe, will be found in Ezekiel's presumably technical use of it to denote the projecting corners, opularly known as ‘horns,' of his altar of shew- }. (41*, see for these S vi. above; and cf., besides the Assyrian altars, the plan of a Phoe- nician sanctuary in Pietschmann's Geschichte der Phoemigier, 200 f.). It is used by later writers to indicate a part of the wall of Jerusalem akin to, yet distinct from, TV5 ‘a corner,’ apparently there- * For the extraordinary number of guesses that have been hazardcq as to the meaning of these verses, see, besides the Comm., the text and diagrams of Riggenbach, Schick, and Brown. g # To be pointed so, with most moderns, for nystºp of MT. ing to the Gr. of 1 IC 749), and the number of the bases required for the dwelling to a multiple of ten (100, see next section). * (c) The arrangement of the Curtains of the Dwelling and the Tent. The divisions of the Dwelling. The Screen and the Veil (Ex 26". lºtſ. *** and parallels).-In the secondary stratum of P (40'7") we read how ‘the tabernacle was reared up' by Moses. First he put down its bases, then he placed its frames, put in its bars, and ‘reared up its pillars.’ Thereafter ‘he spread the tent over the dwelling, and placed the covering of the tent above upon it.’ Here the tapestry and hair curtains are strangely enough together named ‘the tent,’ and the two outer coverings similarly taken as one.” Now it is worth noting (1) that Moses is said to have “spread' the curtains over the dwelling, the same word (tymp) being used as is employed of wrapping up the sacred furniture for transport (Nu 4". S xi.); and (2) that neither here nor elsewhere is the ordinary word for erecting or pitching a tent (nº) applied to the tabernacle, as it is to the old ‘tent of meeting (337) and to David’s tent for the ark (2 S 6", see Ś i.). This fact of itself tolls against the view, noted above, that the curtains were stretched tent-wise above the dwelling, and in favour of the usual concep- * The author of this section (PS), however, may not have liad Ex 25 f. before him in quite the same form as we now have it (see Ś iii. above). 662 TABERNACLE TABERNACLE tion, that they were spread over the framework ‘as a pall is thrown over a coffin.” The tapestr curtains measuring 40 cubits from front to back and 28 cubits across (§ vii. (a)) thus constitute the dwelling, the centre portion (30 x 10 cubits) forming the roof and the remainder the three sides. On the long sides it hung down 9 cubits till it met, as we may conjecture, the silver bases of the frame- work, which made up the remaining cubit (so the authorities of the Baraitha (Flesch, 50); cf. Philo, op. cit. ii. 148, who no doubt gives the true reason of the vacant cubit, “that the curtain might not be dragged,’ and Jos. Ant. III. vi. 4 [Niese, § 130]). At the back, however, where 10 cubits (40–30) were left over, the last cubit would have to be folded along the projecting base, one of the results of requiring the total length to be another multiple of ten (40 cubits instead of 39). A striking confirmation of the signification here assigned to the Köråshim is now brought to light. Instead of nearly two-thirds of the ‘all-beautiful and most holy curtain’’ (n dyka)\ov Kai leporpetrés Üçaoua, Philo, l.c.) being hidden from view by the so-called ‘boards,’ the whole extent of the curtain is now disclosed, with, we may fairly conjecture, a double row of the mystic inwoven cherubim filling the panels of the framework, just as they filled the wainscot panels with which the temples of Solomon and Ezekiel were lined (1 K 6*, }. 41*).” The view of Bălar, Neumann, Keil, Hol- zinger, and others (see Literature), that these curtains were suspended, by some method un- known to the text, inside the framework, in their case the gold-sheathed walls, has been already disposed of (vii. (b)). Over the tapestry curtain was spread in like manner the curtain of goats' hair, the ‘tent of P8. Our present text (vv.” ”), however, presents an insurmountable difficulty in the arrangement of these curtains. To cover the dwelling, and that completely, they required to be only 40 x 30 cubits. But even when the sixth curtain of the one set is doubled, as required by v.", a total length of 42 cubits remains. The explanation usually given, which indeed is required by v.”, is that ‘ the half curtain that remaineth must have been stretched out by ropes and pegs behind the dwelling ; an assumption which is at variance with the arrange- ment at the other sides, and which leaves the sacred tapestry curtain exposed to view. The only remedy is to regard v.” as a gloss, as Hol- zinger does (Kurzer Halcom. in loc.), from the pen of a reader who misunderstood v.”. Taken by itself, this half-verse plainly directs that the sixth curtain shall be doubled ‘in the forefront of the dwelling’; that is, not, as Dillm. and other com- mentators maintain, laid double across the easter- most tapestry half-curtain, but—as already advo- cated in the J3rtraitha, p. 58—hanging doubled over the edge of the latter, covering the pillars at the door of the tabernacle and entirely excluding the light of dav. This secures that the dwelling shall be in perfect darkness. This is not secured on the ordinary supposition that the edges of both curtains were flush with each other, for the screen could not possibly be so adjusted as to completely exclude the light. The objection, of which so Inucl is made by Riggenbach, etc., that the joinings of the two sets of curtains would thus coincide and moisture be admitted, is utterly invalid when we recall the two heavy and in- pervious coverings that overlay the two inner sets of curtains. In this way, then, we find that the goats' hair curtains exactly fitted the dwelling on all three sides, covering the tapestry and the bases as well, and, in Josephus’ words, ‘extending loosely to the ground.’ They were * See illustration. doubtless fixed thereto by means of the bronze pins of the dwelling (27° P8, which makes no mention of cords), precisely as the Kiswa or covering of the Raaba at Mecca is secured by metal rings at the base of the latter (Hughes, Dict, of Islam, s.v.).” Two items still remain to complete the fabric of the dwelling, viz. the screen and the veil. The former (Hºp, RV ‘screen,” AV ‘hanging ') was a portière of the same material as the portiere of the court, closing the dwelling on the east side. It was hung by means of gold hooks or pegs from ſive pillars of acacia wood standing on bases of bronze (2630t. 3637t. [LXX 37*]), a detail which marks them out as pertaining to the court rather than to the dwelling, the bases of which are of silver... Like the rest of the woodwork, they were probably left unadorned in the original text, for the text of P* (36°, cf. Gr. of 26”) speaks only of the capitals being overlaid with gold, a later hand, as in 1 IS 6 f., heightening the magnificence of the tabernacle by sheathing the whole pillars (26”). At a distance of 20 cubits | from the entrance screen was hung another of the same beautiful tapestry as the curtains (v.”), depending from four pillars overlaid with gold,” and standing, like the framework, on bases of silver (v.”). This second screen is termed the pāróketh (nºh9, AV “vail,’ RV “veil’; LXX katatréraopia, cf. He 9° ‘the second veil’ as distinguished from the veil or screen just mentioned). By means of ‘the veil’ the dwelling was divided into two parts, the larger twice the area of the smaller (2:1). The former is termed by the priestly writers ‘the holy place’ (cºpº 26° and oft.); the latter receives the name pºp 5 cºp, best rendered idiomatically ‘the most holy place,’ also literally ‘the holy of holies,’ $ in LXX Tô &ylov and tò &ytov (or rö, äyta) Töv Gºytov. These names first canne into use it. priestly circles in the Exile. The corresponding jarts of Solomon's temple were known as the }; or temple proper (1 K 6°. It V m), and the débér (EV ‘oracle,” v.").|| The former is retained by Ezekiel, while the latter is discarded and the ‘most holy place’ substituted (41*, but also ‘holy place,’ v.”). P by his momenclature stamps his sanctuary still further with the attribute of holi- ness in an ascending scale as we approach the presence of J’. viii. THIS FURNITURE OF THE HOUY PLACE. – (a) The Table of Shewbread (Ex 25** = 3719" [LXX 389-19); Jos. Ant. III. vi. 6).--This section is intended merely to supplement the art. SHEW- BREAD by giving the barest details regarding the “presence-table (D'ºn lºº, see l.c. § i.) of the priestly writers. Our understanding of this Bection is mhterially assisted by the representation of the table of Herod's temple, which may still be seen on the Arch of Titus at Itome. Careful measure- ments were taken and drawings made both of the table and of the candlestick (see next scotion) by friends of Adrian l{eland in 1710–11, at a time when the sculptures were less dilapidated than at present. These were published by him in his work, De spolis Templi Hierosolymrita”, etc., 1716. The material was acacia wood, overlaid like the ark with pure gold. The sheathing of these two * The arrangement of the I(iswa, indeed, aſſords a striking analogy to that of the curtains of the tabernacle. # This follows from the fact that the veil is to hang directly under the gold clasps joining the two sets of tapestry curtains, and therefore 5 times 4 cubits (the breadth of the individual curtain) from the front of the dwelling (V.4%). The importance of this datum for the dimensions of the tabernacle has already been pointed out. # This word has an interesting affinity with the Assyrian word parakkal, the in normost shrine or ‘holy of holics’ of the Baby- lonian temples in which stood the statue of the patron deity. § The usage of Lv 16 is peculiar to itself. The ‘holy place’ of P is here curiously ‘the tent of meeting' (v. 10 etc.); the “most holy place’ is named simply ‘the holy place' (ww.º. 16 etc.), shortened from ‘the holy place within the veil' (v.2). | The presence of the term ‘most holy place' in 1 K 010 ø to is now recognized as due to post-exilic glossators. TABERNACLE TABERNACLE 663 sacred articles of the cultus and of the later altar of incense (§ viii. (c)) is quite in place, and stands on quite a different footing from the sheathing of such secondary #. of the fabric as the frame- work and the pillars at the entrance, the originality of which we saw reason to question. The height of the table was that of | length and breadth 2 cubits and 1 cubit respec- tively. - 6 in. thick—was decorated with a zár (n), AV and IłV ‘crown,” RV m ‘rim or moulding’) of gold. The precise nature of this ornament, which is also prescribed for the ark (v.”) and the altar of incense (30°), is unknown. That it was some species of moulding may be regarded as fairly certain. . The Gr. translators render variously by a req6vn, whence the Vulg. corona and our ‘crown’; by kupićrta arpsirrá; or by a combination of both. . The authors of the divergent Gr, text of 35–40 onlit this ornament altogether (LXX 38”). The phrase Kvuárta arperrá suggests a cable moulding, as ex- plained by pseudo-Aristeas (Epist. ad Philocratem, ed. Wendland, § 58, ‘worked in relief in the form of ropes’), which also suits Josephus’ description (rö 86aqos éNukos [a spiral], l.c. § 140). On the other hand, the same phrase is used in architecture of an ogee moulding, and this is certainly the nature of the ornament on the table of the Arch of Titus (see Reland, op. cit. 73 ff., and plate of mouldings opp. p. 76). In any case, both the sides and ends of the massive top were separately decorated by a solid gold moulding, which gave them the appear- ance of four panels sunk into the table (Reland, wt sup., and cf. Jos. § 140, kot)\alvétat 66 ka9' ékaa- rov TXeupóv, K.T.A.). The legs, according to Josephus, were square in the upper and rounded in the lower half, terminating in claws, a statement confirmed by the sculpture and by the analogy of the domestic art of the ancients. They were connected by a binding rail (nºpp, EV border’) ‘of an hand- breadth round about ’ (v.”), also ornamented with a cable or an ogee moulding. It doubtless marked the transition from the square to the round portions of the legs. The broken ends of this rail are still visible on the arch with a pair of trumpets leaning against them (illustr. under MUSIC, vol. iii. p. 462). At its four corners four gold rings were attached, through which, and parallel to the sides, the two r poles or staves were passed by means of which the table was moved from place to place. For the service of the table a number of gold vessels (cf. Reland, op. cit. 99–122), presumably of hammered or repoussé work, were provided. These comprised, in our RV rendering, “dishes, spoons, flagóns, and bowls to pour out withal’ (v.”, cf. AV). The ‘dishes’ were the flat salvers or chargers ou which the loaves of the presence-bread were cºnveyed to, or in which they were placed upon, the table, or both together. The “spoons’ were rather the cups containing the frankincense (LXX rés Ovtakas) which entered into this part of the ritual (Lv247), two of which were still visible in IReland's day. The ‘flagons'" were the larger, the “bowls” the smaller vessels (a trověsta kal Rºadot) for the wine, which we must suppose also entered into the ritual of the shewbread. The silence of the OT on this point led the Jewish doctors to give novel and alſº explanations of the vessels last mentioned—such as hollow pipes between the loaves, or parts of a frame on which they lay. Similarly, tº: authorities differ as to whether the loaves were laid in two piles lengthwise across the width of the table—as one would naturally suppose --or along its length. A favourite tradition gives the length of each loaf as ten handbreadths (2% ft.) and the breadth as five. Since the width of the * A flagon is a favourite type on Jewish coins (Mosby, vol. iii. p. 431"). shape of a . square bracket ! he ark, 13 cubits, its The massive top—in the Roman sculpture table was only, 1 cubit or six handbreadths, the loaves were baked with two handbreadths [their ‘horns’] turned up at either end, thus taking the tº Tº e - (For these and similar speculations, as curious as useless, see Menaſoth xi. 4ff.; the Baraitha, § vii., with Flesch's notes and diagrams; Edersheim, The £ºmple, 154 ft. ; and Ugolinus’ treatise in his Thesaurus, vol. x.). The position of the table was on ‘the north side’ of the holy place (26%). (b) The golden Lampstand (Ex 2531-40 = 37.17-24 [Gr. 38”]; cf. Jos. Ant. III. vi. 7, BJ VII. v. 5). —Qf the whole furniture of the tabernacle, the article to which, since Wyclif's time, our Eng. versions have given the misleading designation ‘the candlestick,’ afforded the greatest opportunity for the display of artistic skill. It was in reality a lampstand (Tºp, AvXvta-the latter in Mt. 5* and parallels, where RV gives “[lamp]-stand,’ Vulg, candelaörwin) of pure gold (§ iii.), hence also termed the ‘pure lampstand’ (31° 39' etc. [cf. ‘the pure table,” Lv 24°]; for other designations see below). See also LAMP. . The lampstand on the Arch of Titus differs from that described in the text of P in several particulars, notably in the details of the ornamentation (see Reland's plate, op. cit. 6). In this respect it agrees better with the description of Josephus, who speaks of its ‘lºnops and lilies with pomegranates and bowls,' seventy ornaments in all. The base, further, is hexagonal in form and ornamented with non-Jewish figures, while Jewish tradition speaks of the lampstand of the second temple as having a tripod base. The earliest known representation of the stand is found on certain copper coins doubtfully attributed to Antigonus, the last of the Hasmonaºans (Madden, Coins of the Jews, 102, with woodcut). At a later period the seven-branched “candlestick,” more or less conventionally treated, was a favour- ite motif with Jewish and Christian artists on lamps," gems, tombs, etc. + Like the cherubim above the propitiatory ($ ix.), the lampstand was of ‘beaten (i.e. repoussé) work (nWº). A talent of gold was employed in its con- struction, the general idea of which is clear (see illustration): from a central stem three opposite TIII) GOLDEN LAMPSTAND. pairs of arms branched off ‘like the arrangement of a trident’ (Josephus), curving outwards and upwards till their extremities, o, which the lamps were placed, were on a level with the top of the shaft. The upper portion of this central stem; from the lowest pair of arms upwards, ls termed the shaft (myſ, so RV ; not tº AV branch'), also the lampstand par cºee/lºgg (y.”); the lºwer portiºn is the base (so rightly It V for T. lit. loins,’ in the Mishna D'p; Kel. xi. 7). The latter, we have seen, probably ended in a º with clawed feet, as in the table of showbread. The leading motive of the ornamentation on stem and arms is derived * For one of the best of these, showing the base in the form of a tripod, see PEI'St., 1880, p. S. 664 TABERNACLE TABERNACLE from the flower or blossom of the almond tree. Tue complete ornament, introduced four times on the stem and three times on each of the six branches, is termed gº (gèbia', lit. ‘cup,” so RV; AV bowl'), and consists of two parts,” correspond. ing to the calyx and corolla of the almond flower, the kaphtór (EV ‘knop’) and the peral (EV ‘flower’) of the text. At what intervals these ‘knops and flowers’ are to be introduced is not stated (for the speculations of the Rabbis see Flesch, op. cit. with diagrams), nor do we know how the four sets of v.” are to be distributed. It is wº assumed that these include the three knops which in v.” ornament the points where the branches diverge from the stem. It seems to us more in harmony with the text to regard the three knops in question, with which no flowers are associated, as suggested rather by the scales of the stem of a tree, from whose axils spring the buds which develop into branches. We accordingly prefer to find seven knops on the central stem, viz. two ‘knops and flowers’ to ornament the base, three ‘knops’ alone, forming axils for the branches, and two “knops and flowers’ on the upper part of the shaft. Shaft and arms alike probably termin- ated in a ‘cup’ with its knop and flower, the five outspread petals of the corolla serving as a tray for one of the seven lamps. The Tatter were doubtless of the unvarying Eastern pattern (see LAMP). The nozzles were turned towards the north, facing the table of shewbread, the lampstand having its place on the south side of the Hol Place. To see that the lamps were supplied º, the finest produce of the olive (“pure olive oil beaten,’ for which see OIL, vol. iii. p. 591", 592%), trimmed and cleaned, was part of the daily duty of the priests. The necessary apparatus, the snuffers and snuff-dishes (which see) with the ‘oil vessels’ (Nu 4"), were also of pure gold. From the notices in the different strata of P (Ex 27”, cf. 307, Lv 241ſt, Nu 8 m.) it is not clear whether the lamps were to be kept burning day and night or by night only. The latter alterna. tive was the custom in the sanctuary of Shiloh (1 S 3°). From Lv 24” (note v.8)—of which Ex 2720t. is perhaps a later reproduction—it would appear that the lamps burned only ‘from evening to morning.” At the time of the morning sacrifice they were to be trimmed, cleaned, and replaced (Ex 307, cf. Tamid iii. 9, vi. 1), ready to be relit in the evening (30°, 2 Ch 13”). Against this, the prima facie interpretation, must be put such con- siderations as these : (1) the ancient custom of the ever burning lamp alluded to under CANDLE (vol. i. p. 348'); (2) the expression Tº hi, a ‘continual º or light’ (Lv 24*= Ex 27”); and (3) since the dwelling was absolutely dark, there must, one would think, have been some provision for light- ing it during the day. The practice of a later period, vouched for by Josephus (Ant. III. viii. 3 [š 1991, with which ef, his quotation from pseudo- Hecataeus, c. Apion. i. 22 [š 199]), by which only three of the lamps burned by day and the remain. ing four were lighted at sunset, seems to be a compromise between the directions of the text and the practical necessities of the case (so Riehm, H WI3%, art. ‘Leuchter’). The IRabbinical notices are still later, and differ from both the data of P and those of Josephus. (On the whole question * This appears from 2599, where the cups are defined as cach consisting of “a knop and a flower'; hence in v.31 “its knops and its ſlowers' are to be taken as in apposition to “its cups' (see Dillm. in loc.), not, as already in £º. as two additional ornaments (of 222.7%ps: 2.x: ol atocteatºps, 22; tº 22/92; cf. the similar misinterpretation regarding the frames of the dwelling on the part of the LXX, S. vii. (b) aiove). f In the Mishna perah (“flower') has on this account become the usual term for the plinth or tray of an ordinary lampstand (Of a lot/º. xi. 8, Kelim xi. 7). Cf. the fiv0:/cio of the divergent description in the Gr. text (37.17:1.). : jºurer, HJP II. i. 281 f. with full reff., and 295 f.). The fate of the golden lampstand of the second temple, made under the direction of Judas Maccabæus (1 Mao 440ſ) to replacſ the earlier stand (rºy Auxviocy rod pºros, ib. 121, Ben Sira's Aux, ſº &xicº, 26.17) carried off by Antiochus iv., has been narrated under SIIEWBREAD ($ iii.). Onias in furnishing his temple at Leontopolis was content with a single golden lamp, suspended by a chain of gold (Jos. BJ VII. x. 8). (c) The Altar of Incense (Ex 30-5–37** [the latter absent in Gr.]; Jos. Amt. III. vi. 8 [S 147 ff.]). —No º of the furniture of the tabernacle has been the subject of so much controversy in recent years as the altar of incense, which in our present text of Exodus occupies the place of honour in front of the veil. The attitude of modern criticism to Ex 30.31 has been already stated (§ iii.), and it must suffice here to indicate in a summary way the principal grounds on which recent critics, with one voice, have pronounced against the presence of this altar in the tabernacle as sketched by the original author of Ex 25–29 (cf. ExoDUs, vol. i. p. 810”; INCENSE, vol. ii. p. 467 f.; TEMPLE). (1) The tabernacle and its furniture have been described in detail, as also the dress and consecration of its ministrant priests, and the whole section brought to a solemn close with 2940ſ. Advocates of the traditional view must therefore ex- plain the absence from its proper place in ch. 25 of an article ea, hypothesi so essential to the daily ritual (307f.) as the altar of incense. They have also to account for the fact that the position of Ex_301-10 varies in the MT, the Samaritan-Hebrew, and Gr. texts (being altogether absent from the latter in the recapitulation in ch. 87). (2) Pſ; in the most unmistakable manner refers to the altar of burnt-offering as ‘the altar' (so not less than 100 times, according to the Oaf, Hea;. ii. 127), innplying that he knew no other. Only in strata that bear other narks of a later origin does it receive a distinguishing epithet (§ vi. (a)). (3) The reference in 3010 is clearly based on, and is therefore younger than, the ritual of the Day of Atone- ment as described in Lv 1612-14. But this chapter ignores the altar of incense, and, in harmony with LV 101 and Nu 1617, requires the incense to be offered on censers. (4) Careful exami- nation of the MT of 1 IC 7 and Ezk 41 (see SIIIºwbrºad, TEMPLE) has disclosed the fact that an incense altar found a place neither in the real temple of Solomon nor in the ideal temple of Ezekiel. The references in 1 Ch 28.18, 2 Ch 419 etc., are too late in date to enter into the argument as to the contents of P. The first historical reference to the ‘golden altar' is found in the account of the sack of the temple by Antiochus iv. (1 Mac 121), . On the other hand, the extreme scepticism of Wellhausen (Proleg., Eng. tr. 67) and others as to the existence of such an altar even in the second temple is unwarranted (see Delitzsch, “Der Răucheraltar' in Zeitschr, f. kirchl. Wissenschaft, 1880, 114-121) - Assuming, then, that we have to do with a later addition (novella) to the original code, we note that this second altar is named nºb, hºpp Tºp (30°) or simply nºbgn "p (30” etc.), also the ‘golden altar’ (39° etc., 1 Mac 1*); in the LXX rô 0vaſtaariptov toū 6vatāpaaros, in Philo and Josephus to 6 wºuarſipuov —so Symm. and Theod. 30”; for He 9” see end of section. Like the larger altar it is ‘four square,’ a cubit in length and breadth, and 2 cubits in height, and furnished with horns (for these see § vi.). The material is acacia wood, overlaid with pure gold, the ornamentation a moulding of solid gold (n1, see Ś viii. (a)), with the usual provision for rings and staves (v.”).” Its position is to be in the Holy Place, in front of ‘the veil that is by the ark of the testimony’ (v."). Aaron and his sons shall offer ‘a perpetual incense’, upon it night and morning, when they enter to dress and light the lamps of the golden stand (v.”). Once a year, on the Day of Atonement, its horns shall be brought into contact with the atoning blood (v."). Owing to the ambiguity in the directions of v." (cf. 6" with 6" in MT, Sam., and LXX ; also Holzinger, in loc.) if taken by themselves, and to the influence of the late gloss (1 K 6”), a tradition grew up, which finds expression in the famous passage He 9", that the incense altar stood in the Most Holy Place, ‘which had a golden altar * Differently expressed from Pº. TABERNACLE TABERNACLE 66: of incense" and the ark of the covenant.” The same verse contains a similar divergent tradition regarding the contents of the ark (see next section). ix. THE FURNITUIRE OF THE MOST HOLY PLACE. —The Ark and the Propitiatory (Ex 25".”=37” |. 384-8]; Jos. Ant. III. vi. 5). —Within the Most Holy Place stood in solitary majesty the sacred ark, on which rested the º or mercy- seat with its overarching cherubim. The history of the ancient palladium of the Hebrew tribes, ‘the ark of J"' of the older writers, has been given under ARK. We have here a more elabor- ate shrine, to which P gives by preference the designation ‘ark of the testimony” (nity'ſ ſins 25* and often, à kùwrós rod papruplov), a phrase parallel to and synonymous with that favoured by Deut. and the Deuteronomistic editors, “ark of the cove- nant.” In both cases the ark was so named as containing the Decalogue (nity: “the testimony,’ 25* *), written on ‘the tables of testimony” (31*). The ark itself sometimes receives the sinple title ‘the testimony’ (16” etc.); and the tabernacle, as we have seen ($ iii.), as in its turn containing the ark, is named “the dwelling of the testimony” and ‘the tent of the testimony.’t See TESTIMONY. The ark of P is an oblong chest of acacia wood overlaid within and without with gold, 24 cubits in length, and 1% in breadth and height (i.e. 5 × 3 × 3 half - cubits). Each of its sides is finished with a strip of cable or ogee moulding (ni, EV ‘crown,’ see Ś viii. (a)) of solid gold in the same manner as the top of the table of shewbread; with this difference, however, that in the former the upper line of moulding must have projected beyond the plane of the top of the ark, probably to the extent of the thickness of the propitiatory, in older that the latter, with its cherubim, might remain in place during the march. Within the sacred chest was to be deposited ‘the testimony” (v.”) or Decalogue, as already explained. Before it—not within it, as a later tradition supposed (He 9")—were afterwards placed a pot of manna (Ex 16”) and Aaron’s rod that budded (Nu 17"). Distinct from but resting upon the ark, and of the same superficial dimensions (24 x 13 cubits), was a slab of solid gold, to which the name kappareth is given (only in Tº aid i Ch 28i EV mercy-seat'). The familiar rendering “mercy-seat,’ first used by Tindale, following Luther's Gºngdenstºhl (cf. S11PWRREAD, $ i.), goes back to that of the oldest VSS (1,XX ixocorràptov, Vulg. propitiatorium) —and is based on the secondary and technical sense of the root-verb "Din, viz, “to make propitiation' for sin. Hence the Wyclif-Hereford rendering ‘propitiatory,’ derived from Jerome, is preferable to Tindale's “mercy - seat.” In our opinion the rendering ‘propitiatory' must be maintained. The alternative “covering' (RVm) adopted in preference by so many modern, barticularly German, scholars (cf. tarſt's wo, in Gr. of Ex 2517, and °hilo, op. cit. [ed. Mangey, ii. 150] ºritégo, dozvs. ºrójºz [a lid), is open to two serious objections. On the one hand it is based on the still unproved assumption that the primary signification of nED was ‘to cover,’ { and on the other hand the kappūreth was in no sense the lid or cover of the ark, which was a chest or coffer complete in itself. Dillmann and others have unsuccess- fully attempted a via media by taking kappſ reth in the sense of a protective covering (Schutzdach, Deckplatte, etc.). See, further, Deissmann, Bible Studies (Eng. tr.], p. 124 ft. Near the ends of the propitiatory stood, facing each other, two small S emblematic figures, the cherubim, of the same material and workmanship * So RVm and American RV in text for xpvgotiv 0001&ráploy with most recent interpreters ; AV and RV “a golden censer. # Ip the art. A RR ($ i.) attention was briefly called to the three sets of designations of the ark characteristic of the early, the Deuteronomic, and the priestly writers respectively, of which all the other OT titles, some twenty in all, aro merely variations and expansions. See for later discussions H. P. Smith, Samuel, 83; “Ark’ in Encyc. Bibl. i. 300 f.; Meinhold, Die Lade Jahves, 2 ft. # The most recent research seems to point in favour of the alternative ‘to wipe off"; see Zimmern, Beiträge zur Kenntniss d. babyl. Iteligion, 92; IIaupt in J BL, xix, (1900) 61, 80. § It must be noted that, with bodies bent and wings out- stretched, the cherubim were accommodated on a surface less than 4 ft. from end to end. as the golden lampstand, viz. ‘beaten’ or repoussé Work (TWEp. xpvgoropewrá) of pure gold. Being Securely soldered to the propitiatory they are reckoned as ‘of one piece’ with it (v.19). Each cherub was furnished, like the larger and differently placed cherubim of Solomon's temple (1 K 623ſ.j, with a pair of wings which met overhead, while their faces were bent downwards towards the propitiatory. Whatever may have been their significance in primitive Hebrew mythology, the cherubim as here introduced, like the kindred sera- phim, in Isaiah's vision, are the angelic ministers of J", guarding in the attitude of adoration the throne of His earthly glory (cf. Book of Enoch, ed. Charles, 717). The propitiatory, with the over- arching cherubim, was, in truth, the innermost shrine of the wilderness sanctuary, for it was at once J's earthly and the footstool of His heavenly throne * (cf. 1 Ch 28°). Not at the tent door, as in the earlier representation (Ex 337*), but ‘from above the propitiatory, from between the cherubim' (25*), will J" henceforth commune with His servant Moses (30"). “There, in the darkness and the silence, he listened to the Voice” (Nu 7°). For the transport of the sacred chest, its pro- pitiatory and cherubim, two poles of acacia wood overlaid with gold are provided. These are to rest permanently (Ex 25", otherwise Nu 49, where the staves are inserted when the march begins) in four rings, attached, according to our present text, to the four “feet” (rºbyº. v.”, so It V, but AV ‘corners’) of the ark. But this text, and rendering are open to serious question. For (1) of the shape, length, and construction of these “feet” nothing is said; (2) why should the author employ the Phoenician word (DWE) for ‘foot' here in place of the usual º (v.20)? (3) If the rings were attached so far down, a state of dangerously unstable equilibrium would result ; (4) all the oldest versions apparently read, or at least, as our own AV, rendered as in v.26 \"\s; “its four corners.’t We must suppose, them, that the rings were attached, perhaps below the moulding, at the corners of the short sides of the ark (so the Baraitha, Neumann, Keil), along which, and not along the long sides (as Riggenbach, Dillm., and most), the poles rested. The object of this arrange- ment is to secure that the Divine throne shall always face in the direction of the narch. The weight of the whole must have been considerable, with poles, certainly not ‘staves,’ and bcarers to correspond. I In the second temple there was no ark, and consequently no propitiatory, notwithstanding the statement in the Apocalypse of Baruch (67) that it was hidden by an angel before the destruction of the temple, A.D., 70. According to P the sole contents of the ark, as we have seen, were the two tables of testimony on which the Decalogue was inscribed, Once a year, on the lay of Atone- ment, the high priest alone entered the Holy of Holies to bring the blood of the sin-offerings into contact with the propitiatory (Lv 16*; see ATONE- MENT, DAY OF, vol. i. p. 199). x. ERIECTION AND CONSECRATION OF THE, TABERNACLE. — In the oldest stratum of the Priests’ Code the directions for the preparation of the sanctuary and its furniture (Ex 25–27), which have engaged our attention up to this point, are followed by equally minute instructions as to the priestly garments (28), and by the solemn consecra- tion of Aaron and his sons for the priestly office (29). The altar alone of the appointments of the .* For this idea and its possible bearing on the ultimate historical origin of the ark as the empty throne of an imageless deity, see Meinhold, Die Lade Jahres (1900), 44 and passim, based on the researches of lèeichel in Ueber Worhellenische Götterculté (esp. 27 ff.); cf. also 13udde in I'vpos, T'innes, June 1898, p. 306 ft. (reprinted [in German) in ZAT'W', 1901, p. 194 ft.). # Cf. 1 K 730, where Ynys of MT (AV here also ‘corners') is similarly regarded by recent commentators as a corruption of Y"InYE Or Yºnjº). f The propitiatory, even if only a ſingerbreadth thick, would alone weigh 760 lb. troy. The weight of the whole must be put at about 6 cwt. The Talmud mentions four bearers (Flesch, § cit. G6). Two sufficed for the historical ark (ARI, Vol. i. p. 1509) 666 TABERNACLE TABERNACLE sanctuary is singled out for consecration (29*). In the first of the accretions to the older document (30. 31), however, we find instructions for the anointing of ‘the tent of meeting’ and all the furniture of the sanctuary with the ‘holy anoint- ing oil’ (30”), with which also the priests are to be anointed. When we pass to the still later stratum (35–40; see above, S iii.), we find a record of the carrying out of the preceding instructions to the last detail, followed by the erecting of the dwelling of the tent of meeting’ (40*) on the first day of the first month of the second year, that is, a year less fourteen days from the first anniversary of the Exodus (40° 17, cf. 12*"). A comparison with 19, shows that according to P's chronology a period of at least nine months is allowed for the construction of the sanctuary and its furniture. Some of the questions raised by 40° 19 as to the manner in which the curtains “were spread over the dwelling’ have been discussed by anticipation in § vii. (c); it must suffice now to add that after the court and the tabernacle proper had been set up, and all the furniture in its place, the whole, we must assume, was duly anointed by Moses him- self in accordance with the instructions of the preceding verses (40”), although this fact is not mentioned until we reach a later portion of the narrative (Lv 81*, Nu 7"). This consecration of the sanctuary naturally implies that it is now ready for the purpose for which it was erected. Accord- ingly ‘the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of J" filled the dwelling’ (40”). J" had now taken possession of the holy abode which had been prepared for Hinn. With the new year, as was most ſitting, the new order of things began. xi. THE TABERNACLE ON THE MARCH (Nu 217 3** 410. etc.). — The cloud which rested on the dwelling by day and appeared as a pillar of fire by night accompanied the Hebrews ‘throughout all their journeys’ in the wilderness. When ‘the cloud was taken up from over the dwelling’ (Ex 40”, Nu 9”) this was the signal for the tents to be struck and another stage of the march begun ; while, “as long as the cloud abode upon the dwell- ing, whether it were two days or a month or a year,’ the children of Israel remained encamped and journeyed not (Nu 9*). The charge of the tabernacle and of all that pertained thereto was committed to the official guardians, the priests and Levites (Nu 3"). When the signal for the march was given by a blast from the silver trumpets (10"), the priests entered the dwelling, and, taking down the veil at the entrance to the Most Holy Place, wrapped it round the ark (4”). This, as the most sacred of all the contents of the taber- nacle, received three coverings in all, the others but two. I'ull and ſº instructions follow for the wrapping up of the rest of the furniture (47°). This accomplished, the priests hand over their precious burden to the first of the Levitical guilds, the sons of IGohath, for transport by means of the bearing-poles with which each article is provided (v.”). The second guild, the sons of Gershon, have in charge the tapestry curtains of the dwell- ing, the hair curtains of the tent, the two outer coverings, the veil, and the screen (3* 4*). I'or the conveyance of these, two covered waggons and four oxen are provided by the heads of the tribes (7°. 7). The remaining division of the Levites, the sons of Merari, receives in clarge the frames and bars of the dwelling, together with the pillars and bases of the dwelling and of the court, with four waggons and eight oxen for their transport (ib.).” * The fondness of the pricstly writers for proportion (2 : 1) has again led to strange results, for, even with the colossal “boards' of previous writers reduced to frames (see § vii, (b)), the loads of the Merarites were out of all proportion to those of the Gershonites. Nu 7, however, is now recognized as one of the latest sections of the Ilexateuch. - *-*. -- Everything being now in readiness, the nuarch began. The Levites, according to Nu 2",—and as the symmetry of the camp requires,--marched in the middle of the line, with two divisions of three tribes each before them and two behind. This, however, does not accord with Nu 10'7", according to which the sons of Gershon and Merari marched after the first division of three tribes, and had the tabernacle set up before the arrival of the Kollath- ites with the sacred furniture between the second and third divisions. xii. THE HISTORICITY OF P’S TABERNACI, E. — After what has been said in our opening section— with which the art. ARK must be compared—as to the nature, location, and ultimate disappearance of the Mosaic tent of meeting, it is almost super- fluous to inquire into the historical reality of the costly and elaborate sanctuary, which, according to P, Moses erected in the wilderness of Sinai, The attitude of modern OT scholarship to the »riestly legislation, as now formulated in the łºś (see §§ i. and iv. above), and in par- ticular to those sections of it which deal with the sanctuary and its worship, is patent on every Yage of this Dictionary, and is opposed to the ºrity of P's tabernacle. It is now recognized that the highly organized community of the priestly writers, rich not only in the precious metals and the most costly Phoenician dyes, but in men of rare artistic skill, is not the unorganized body of Hebrew serfs and nomads that meets us in the oldest sources of the Pentateuch. Even after centuries spent in contact with the civilization and arts of Canaan, when skilled artists in metal were required, they had to be hired by Solomon from Phoenicia. Again, the situation of l’s taber. nacle, its highly organized ministry, its complex ritual, are utterly at variance with the situation and simple appointments of the Elohistic tent of meeting (see Ś i.). With regard, further, to he details of the description, as studied in the fore- going sections, we have repeatedly had to call attention to the obscurities, omissions, and minor inconsistencies of the text, which compel the student to the conviction that he is dealing not with the description of an actual structure, but with an architectural programme, dominated by certain leading conceptions. The most convinc- ing, however, of the arguments against the actual existence of P's tabernacle, is the silence of the pre- cacilic historical writers regarding it. There is absolutely no place for it in the picture which their writings disclose of the early religion of the Hebrews. The tabernacle of P has no raison d'être apart from the ark, the history of which is known with fair completeness from the conquest to its removal to the temple of Solomon. But in no genuine passage of the history of that long period is there so much as a hint of the tabernacle, with its array of ministering priests and Levites. Only the Chronicler (1 Ch 16” 21” etc.), psalm-writers, editors, and authors of marginal glosses, writing at a time when l’s conception of Israel’s past had displaced every other, find the tabernacle of the priestly writers in the older sources, or supply it where they think it ought to have been (cf. : Ch 19ſ, with 1 K 39"). See, further, Wellh. Proleg. (Eng. tr.) 30 ft., and recent works cited in the Literature at the end of this article. xiii. 'I'HE IRULING II) EAS AND IRELIGIOUS SIG- NIFICANCE OF THE TABICIRNACI, E. – If, then, the tabernacle of the foregoing sections had no listorical existence, is its study, on that account, a waste of time and labour? By no means. On the contrary, the tabernacle as conceived by the priestly writers is the embodiment of a sublime idea with which are associated many other ideas and truths of the most vital moment for the history of religion. In TABERNACLE TABERNACLE 66% this place it is impossible to do more than indicate - in summary form some of these vital religious Truths to which reference has been made. We have already (§ iv.) expressed the conviction that the only standpoint from which to approach the study of the true significance of the tabernacle, as de- signed by the author of Ex 25–29, is that laid down by this author himself. Following the lead of Ezekiel, his chief aim, and the aim of the priestly writers who expanded the original sketch, is to show to future generations the necessary conditions under which the ideal relation between J" and Israel may be restored and maintained. This ideal is expressed by Ezekiel and by P as a dwelling of J" in the midst of His covenant people (reff, in § iv.). The methods, however, by which these two kindred spirits sought to impress this ideal upon their con- temporaries are diametrically opposed. Ezekiel }; jects his ideal forward into the Mºnic future; 2 throws his backwards to the golden age of Moses. Both sketches are none the less ideals, whose realization for prophet and priest alike was still in the womb of the future. Both writers follow closely the arrangements of the pre-exilic temple, P, however, striving to unite these with existing traditions of the Mosaic tent of meeting. It is the recognition of these facts that makes it possible to say that ‘a Christian apologist can afford to admit that the elaborate description of the tabernacle is to be regarded as a product of religious idealism, working upon a historical basis” (Ottley, Aspects of the Old Test. 226). - The problem that presented itself to the min of P was this : Under what conditions may the Divine promise of Ezk 37” (“my dwelling shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people’) be realized ? This we take to be the supreme idea of the priestly code, the realiza- tion of the presence of God in the midst of His people (Ex 25° 29"). This thought, as we have seen, is expressed in the characteristic designation ‘the j}. given § P to the most essential part of the sanctuary which is to be the concrete embodiment of the thought. The Divine dwelling must be in accordance with the Divine character. Now, in the period from IDeuteronomy to the close of the Exile, the two aspects of the Divine character which the inspired teachers of the time place in the forefront of their teaching &re the unity and the holiness of J". Each of these attributes, has its necessary cor- relate. The unity of J" requires the unity or centralization of His worship, which is the keynote of IDeuteronomy. The holiness of J" demands the holiness of His people, which is the recognized keynote of the Law of Holiness (Lv. 19 ft.). The crowning result of the discipline of the Exile may be summed up in the simple formula ‘one God, one sanctuary,’ a thought which dominates the priestly code from end to end. That there should be but one sanctuary in the wilderness, a symbol of the unity of J", is therefore for P a thing of course, requiring neither justification nor enforcement. With regard to the other pair of correlates, a holy God and a holy people, the whole ceremonial system of the priestly code expends itself in the effort to give expression to this twofold thought. The centre of this system is the tabernacle and its briesthood, and every effort is made to render the }. a visible embodiment of the holiness of the God who is to be worshipped in its court. We have seen (Śiv.) the precautions taken by Ezekiel to guard his new sanctuary from_profanation ; the same thought is prominent in H (Law of Holiness), and is impressively exhibited in the arrangement of the desert camp in P. Between the tents of the twelye tribes and the throne of J" there intervene the cordon of the tents of the tribe of Levi, the court, and the Holy Place—into which i. alone may enter,-all so many protecting sheaths, to borrow a figure from plant-life, of the Most Holy Place, where J" dwells enthroned in ineffable majesty and almost * holiness.” Once a year only may the high priest, as the people's repre- sentative, approach within its precincts, bearing the blood of atonement. Not only, therefore, is the one tabernacle the symbol of J"'s unity, it is also an eloquent witness to the truth : ‘Ye shall be holy, for I, J", your God am holy’ (Ly 19°). Yet these precautions are, after all, intended not to exclude but to safeguard the right of approach of J"'s people to His presence, The tabernacle was still the ‘tent of meeting,’ the place at which, with due precautions, men might approach J", and in which J" condescended to draw near to men. It is thus a witness to the further truth that man is called to enjoy a real, albeit still restricted, com- munion and converse with God. One other attribute of the Divine nature receives characteristic expression in the arrangements of P’s sanctuary. This is the perfection and har- mony of the character of J". Symmetry, harmony, and proportion are the three essentials of the aesthetic in architecture ; and in so far as the aesthe- tic sense in man, by which the Creator has qualified him for the enjoyment of the beauty and harmony of the universe, is a part of the Divine image (Gn 1*) in each of us, these qualities are reflexions of the harmony and perfection of the Divine nature. The symmetry of the desert sanctuary has already been abundantly emphasized. The harmony of its design is shown in the balance of all its parts, and in the careful gradation of the materials employed. The three varieties of curtains ($ iv.) and the three metals correspond to the three ascending degrees of sanctity which mark the court, the Holy Place, and the Most Holy respectively. In the dwelling itself we advance from the silver of the bases through the furniture of wood, thinly sheathed with gold, to the only mass of solid gold, the propitia- tory, the seat of the deity. As regards the propor- tions, finally, which are so characteristic of the tabernacle, we find here just those ratios which are still considered ‘the most pleasing' in the domain of architectural art, viz. those ‘of an exact cube or two cubes placed side by side . . . and the ratio of the base, perpendicular and º: of a right-angled triangle, e.g. 3, 4, 5 and their multi- ples' (see art. ‘Architecture’ in Encyc, Brit."). The perfect cube of the Most Holy Place is universally regarded as the deliberate attempt to express the perfection of J"’s character and dwelling-place, the harmony and equipoise of all His attributes. The similar thought, the perfection of the New Jeru- salem, ‘in which no truth will be exaggerated or distorted,’ is expressed by the fact that ‘the length and breadth and height of it are equal’(Rev 21”). The ‘symbolism of numbers’ in the measure- ments of the tabernacle, of which so much has been written, is too ſirmly established to admit of question (for general principles see art. NUMBER). The sacred numbers 3, 4, 7, 10, their parts (1*, 2, 24, 5) and multiples (6, 9, 12, 20, 28, 30, 42, 48, 50, 60, 100), dominate every detail of the fabric and its furniture. In all this we must recognize an ear- nest striving to give concrete expression - in a manner, it is true, which our Western thought finds it difficult to appreciate—to the sacred har- monies and perfection of the character of the Deity for whose ‘dwelling’ the sanctuary is destined. * For the fundamental sense of wºmapproachable mess which is never albsent from the motion of J"'s holiness,’ See HOLINESB, vol. ii. p. 307". - . . # The curious student will easily detect these measurements and mumbers in the previous Sections. w - - 668 TABERNACLE TABERNACLES, FEAST OF On the other hand, that the author of Ex 25–29. intended to give expression to ideas beyond the sphere of J’s relation to His covenant people, or even within that sphere to invest every detail of material, colour, ornament, etc., with a symbolical significance, we do not believe. Following in the wake of Philo (op. cit.) and Josephus (Amt. III. vii. 7), the Fathers, and after them many writers down to our own day, among whom Bähr stands pre- eminent, have sought to read a whole philosophy of the universe into the tabernacle. Now it is de- signed to unfold the relations of heaven and earth and sea, now of body, soul, and spirit, and many wonderful things besides. Happily, the taste for these fanciful speculations has died out and is not likely to revive. - Quite apart from the authors of such far-fetched symbolisms stand several of the NT writers, who see in the tabernacle the foreshadowing of spiritual realities. Once and again the terminology of St. Paul betrays the influence of the tabernacle (e.g. the laver of regeneration, Tit 3" RVm). For the author of the Fourth Gospel the tabernacle on which rested the Divine glory in the cloud pre- figured the incarnate Word who “tabernacled (égkº- vooev) annong us, and we beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father’ (Jn 1*). In the Epistle to the Hebrews, again, the tabernacle, its furniture, and ministering priesthood º the unknown author with an essential part of his argument. With ‘singular pathos,” to borrow Bishop Westcott's apt expression, he lingers over his description of the sacred tent and all its arrangements. Yet, like the whole Levitical cere- monial, it was but the shadow of the heavenly substance (8%), a “parable for the time present’ of ‘the greater and more perfect tabernacle (9**) which is heaven. Into this tabernacle Jesus Christ has entered, our great High Priest, by whom the restricted access of the former dispensation is dome away, and through whom ‘a new and living way' has been opened of free access into the ‘true’ Holy of Holies (9%), even the immediate presence of God. Last of all, in the Book of Revelation we have the final consummation of the kingdom of God portrayed under the figure of the tabernacle: ‘I3ehold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he shall tabernacle (a.kmvºget) with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them ’ (Rev 21°–for v.” see above)—in which the final word of revelation takes up and repeats the sublime ideal of Ezekiel and the priestly writers. “In this representation of the New Jerusalem culminates the typology of the OT sanctuary' (Keil). LITERATURE.—Works on the tabernacle are legion, but there is no monograph from the standpoint of the foregoing article. The student must start from a careful study of the text of Exodus and of the more recent commentaries, such as Dillmann- Ryssel, Strack, Holzinger, Baentsch. The commentary in the International Critical Series by the writer of this article is in reparation. The critical problems are treated by Popper, Der } Bericht ilber die Stiftshiitte, 1862; Graf, Die geschichtl, Bücher d. AT, 51 ff., 1860; ICuenen, Heazateuch ; Wellhausen, Prolegomena ; and more recent writers (see § ii. above). In addition to the relevant sections in the Archaeologies of Ewald, IIaneberg, Keil, Benzinger, Nowack (vol. ii.), the articles should be consulted in the Bible Dictionaries of Winer, Richm, and PRA2 (by Riggenbach), all under ‘Stiftshiitte'; artſ. Taber- nacle” and ‘Temple’ (the latter especially) in Smith's DB. The more important monographs are by Neumann, Die Stiftshiitte, 1861; Riggenbach, Die Mosaische Stiftshiitte 2, 1867; Schick, Stiftshiitte whd Tempel, 1898; and (in English) Brown, The Tabernacle 6, 1899. The most exhaustive treatment of the tabernacle, its arrangements and its significance, is Bähr's Symbolik d. Mosaischem, Cultus, 2 vols. 1837–39 (Bd. i. 2nd cd. 1874), full of fanciful ideas. On somewhat diſferent lines is Friederich, Symbolik d. Mos. Stiftshiitte, 1841. Sound criticisms of both, and an attempt to reduce the symbolism to suner limits, characterize IKeil's full treatment in vol. i. of his Archaeology (Eng. tr.). See also Westcott, Epistle to the Hebrew8, 1889, Essay on ‘The general significance of the Tabernacle," p. 233 ſº.; Ottley, Aspects of the OT", esp. p. 261 ſp., “The symbolical sig- niſłcznce,' etc. A. R. S. KENNEDY. TABERNACLES, FEAST OF.—The names of this feast and the references to it in the Bible are given in the art. I'EASTS AND FASTs. - As the present article is a supplement to the above-named eneral one, the reader is recommended to refer to the latter § i.), especially pp. 860, 861, and the synopsis on p. 863. (In the reff. to Tabernacles outside the Pentatouch insert “Neh” between ‘Ezr 34’ and “814-17'). In what follows, a number by itself will be a reference to a page in that article. Of the six passages containing injunctions con- cerning the observance of this feast, two are from Ex. and two from Deut. (863). The two in Ex. call it the Feast of Ingathering, refer to it as one of the three Pilgrimage Feasts (860" and note), place it at the end of the year, and enjoin the attendance of all males at the sanctuary with offerings. The injunctions in Deut. contain noteworthy additions to those in Exodus. The Feast of In- gathering is called the Feast of Booths (sukkóth, without explanation as if the term were familiar), its duration is fixed for seven days, and it is to be kept at Jerusalem, ‘the place which the LORD thy God shall choose.” Also in the year of release in the Feast of Tabernacles the law shall be read before all Israel in their hearing (Dt 3110t.). The name of the festival points to the custom of erect- ing booths in the vineyards during the time of the vintage (cf. Is 1° ‘a booth in a vineyard,” RW), a custom which is continued to the present day in parts of Palestine; it served also (Lv 2340-38 [H]) to remind the Israelites that their fathers dwelt in booths or tents during their passage from the house of bondage to the Promised Land. Of the two ceremonies enjoined in Dt 26, the second (vv.”) was probably performed at this festival. Both in Ex. and Deut. the connexion of this and all three Pilgrimage Feasts with agriculture is clearly indicated (cf. 860°). Before considering the two remaining passages, let us trace the observance of the feast before the Exile. It appears to have been a custom of the Canaanites to keep a vintage festival, for accord- ing to Jg 9”, after gathering the vineyards and treading the grapes, the men of Shechem held a feast in the house of their god, and at this gather- ing dissatisfaction with Abimelech's rule was openly expressed. (IFor a discussion of this in- cident See art. ABIMELECH, and cf. Moore on Jg 927). In Jg 21” mention is made of a similar festival observed at Shiloh, when the maidens went out to dance in the vineyards; but note the contrast between the Canaanites in the house of their god and the feast of the LORD held by the Israelites. Although this festival was held at Shiloh, where the ark was, it appears to have been an observance by a tribe or part of Israel only. The yearly sacrifice which Elkanah offered to the LORD of Hosts in Shiloh (1 S 18) was probably in the autumn. The dedication of Solomon's temple took place “at the feast in the month Ethanim, which is the seventh month' (1 K 8”),” i.e. at the Feast of Tabernacles. It was in imita- tion of this feast that Jeroboam instituted a feast at Bethel in the eighth month (1 K 12%). I’rom these references to the feast in pre-exilic times it may be inferred that, (1) at least, in the times before the establishment of the kingdom, the pilgrimage to the sanctuary was made but Once a year (most probably in the autumn); (2) festivals at other times of the year were also observed [cf. 1 K 9", 2 Ch 8”, Is 99 (‘the joy in harvest’; the same word as in Ex 23" is applied to the feast elsewhere called the Feast of Weeks) * A difficulty ariscs in comparing this passage with 1 IX 698 where it is stated that the house of the Lond was not ſinishe till ‘the month Dul, which is the eighth month.' TABERNACLES, FEAST OF TABLE 66) 29' (‘let the feasts come round,” RV) 3029, Hos 211 Am 5”]. Let us now consider the two remaining passages, which contain injunctions concerning this feast (LV 23 and Nu 29), and here we notice that, instead of prescriptions relating to the three Pilgrimage Peasts as in Ex. and Deut., we have a sacred calendar in which the position of each festival is fixed by the month and day. A special name (ºp Nº ‘a holy convocation') is given to the festivals, or rather to certain days of the festal beriods, and servile work is prohibited on those days. The Feast of Tabernacles lasts for seven days as in Deut., but an eighth day is observed at its close as an nyy, ‘a solemn assembly’ (see Driver's note on Dt 16°). The post-exilic references to this feast are con- tained in Ezra, and Nehemiah. In Ezr 34 it is stated that the Feast of Tabernacles was observed by the returned exiles as soon as the altar was set up, and before the foundation of the temple of the LORD was laid. The terms used in vv.” show acquaintance with the prescriptions of P with reference to burnt-offerings.” Very different in character from the notice in Ezr 3 is the account found in Neh 819-18. Here the details are interesting and instructive. The refer- ence to Lv 23” is clear. The material gathered by the people is that prescribed in Lv 23" (the wording of the two passages is in some respects diſſerent ; cf. Ryle's note on Neh 8”). With it they make booths, and set them up in the courts of the temple and in the open spaces of the city, and dwell in them, according to Lv 23°. The feast was kept seven days, and the 'tigereth of the eighth day was duly observed. The writer is aware that a new method of keeping the festival is introduced, one unknown to the people during the rule of judges and kings, and tº: ceremonial throughout is that enjoined in Leviticus. It is not, however, deſinitely stated whether the numerous sacrifices prescribed for this festival in Nu 29 were offered on this occasion. The OT history of the Feast closes here. The eighth day, which is still distinguished from the seven days of Deut., is by the time of the writer of 2 Mac 10" reckoned as part of the Feast. Josephus (Amt. III. x. 4) speaks of keeping a festival of eight days, and also mentions the custom of bearing the lulab, consisting of a myrtle, willow, and palm branch in the right hand, and the ethrog or citron in the left. For this and other ceremonies observed at the feast see Jos. Amt. XIII. xiii. 5; the Talmudic treatise, Sukkah ; Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, ii. 149, 157; and the references on p. 861 of art. FEASTs; and the NT references in the synopsis. On one point is stress laid in all the accounts : that the ingathering which the feast commemorates is general (“when thou gatherest in thy labours out of the field,’ Ex 23"; “the fruits of the land,” Lv 23"; from thy threshing-floor and from thy wing-vat,’ Dt 16"). The Feasts of Unleavened Bread (maggð/h) and of Weeks or Harvest marked certain stages in the work of ingathering, but the autumn festival, the last of the yearly cycle, was the thanksgiving for the combined produce of the whole year. As the vintage and olive harvests * The doubts raised as to the historical character of this section do not materially affect the statement here made. # The difference between keeping the festival with and with- out the additional eighth day is illustrated by comparing the accounts of the dedication of Solomon's temple in Kings and Chronicles. In 1 lº 800 it says, “on the eighth day he scnt, them away," i.e. on the 22nd of the month ; but in 2 Ch 78-10 it says, “in the eighth day they made a Solemn asseumbly ('tizereth) . . . and on the three and twentieth day of the seventh month he sent, the people away. . . . . ' The Chronicler describes the feast as kept according to the rule of Leviticus; the writer of Kings assumes that the rule of Deut. Was followed. had just been gathered, the worshippers might think chiefly of these rich gifts, yet the injunctions above º: bade them take a wider view, and thank God for all His good gifts. It is also to be noted that in the autumn festival no special offer. ing of the fruits of the earth is enjoined corre- sponding to the sheaf of the wave-offering (Lv 23**) at Passover, and the two wave-loaves with sacrifice at Pentecost (2310-?). Yet in other respects the Feast of Tabernacles is specially dis- tinguished from other feasts. In Deut. it is the only one of the three at which the Israelite must dwell at Jerusalem for seven days, and in Numbers the sacrifices prescribed for this festival are in excess of those for any other (for details see p. 861"). Its pre-eminence is asserted by Josephus (Ant. VIII. iv. 1–it was €opri, a pøðpa trap& rols 'Egpalots &ywrátm kal peºylqºrm). In the OT it is sometimes called ‘the Feast,’ kat' é$ox#v : 1 K 8° 40 (=2 Ch 58 78), Ezk 45*, Neh 81*; cf. Lv 2339 (H), 1 K 12” (Driver, Deut. 197). But it was also the festival which in early times was common to Israel and to the heathen round about them. May it be that the wider view of the autumn festival and the avoidance of any special offering of the fruits of the ground at this season were designed in order to make a distinction between their own festival and that of their neighbours, and º to avoid excesses which attended the heathen celebrations,—to impress upon the Israel- ite, when he appeared before the LORD his God, that he was present at a harvest thanksgiving rather than at a vintage carnival 2 A. T. CIIAPMAN. TABITHA.—See DCIRCAS. TABLE.—A word used in several senses, either in sing. or plural, 108 times in the OT and 20 times in the NT. In the former when singular it is usually (56 times) the tr. of inº Shulhán (LXX Tpátreča, Vulg. memsa). ‘Table' is used with the following meanings. 1. A flat-topped stand, upon which victuals were set during meals, and around which º squatted or reclined. Such stands were usually small ; in ancient Egypt they were rarely more than a foot in height. , Lepsius repre- sents a table of this kind heaped with meat, bread, and fruit, with two persons sitting by it (Demkm. ii. 52). In the Middle and New Empire stands are sometimes represented as frameworks of laths bearing jars and other vessels, on the top, and with an undershelf for the solid food. Such tables are named at:th or wtn. or tohtt. In Assyrian con- tracts, temple tables are called Šallºw. The tables used by the fellahin of Palestine are mostly round, and rarely more than 12 inclies high. I’robably the ancient domestic tables were also round, as Goodwin and Zornius have inferred from such expressions as ‘round about the table.” The table in the prophet's chamber (2 K 4") was probably a stand of this kind. It is possible that the shºt!h&n may have been originally a mat or something spread under the food platter, as can be often seen at present among the fellahin ; but it must sometimes have been sufficiently high to allow of Nortions of food dropping from it. The seventy |. who gleaned their meat under Adonibezek’s table (Jg 17) may have been fed from the leayings of the royal meals; but the boast is probably an Oriental exaggeration, and the number a copyist's mistake. Posidonius tells of the king of the Parthians throwing food to persons sitting around him (Athenaeus, iv. 38). The Greek traºpºrt was usually four-footed, hence perh, the name (Tustath. Comm. ad Odyss. A. l l 1); nevertheless it was some; times called triports (Ath. ii. 32), a usage ridiculed by Aristophanes in an extant fragment of Tel. micsses. Homer represents each guest as having a 670 TABLE TABLE, TABLET separate table (Od. xvii. 333). These were some- times covered with a cloth (Crates, Theria, in Ath. vi. 267). The table was removed after the feast. The larger tables of a guest-chamber were longer trapezai, around which the guests reclined, and nelped themselves from the common dishes; hence the expression in Lk 22” “the hand . . . . is with me on the table.” The food was usually on a platter, but sometimes laid on the table without any dish ; hence the disgust of the condition de- scribed in Is 288. 2. To prepare a table for any one is to feed or nourish him, as in Ps 23°. Figuratively, the per- sonified Wisdom is said to furnish a table for man’s instruction (Pro*). Distributing the means of sustenance to those of the early Christians who lacked, was called by the apostles ‘serving tables’ (Ac 6°). To eat at one's º is to be a member of his household or an honoured guest. David, as one of Saul’s officers, ate at the king’s table (1 S 20*), and Mephibosheth as a guest ate at David's table (2 S 97-10. ii. 18, 1 K 27). The 850 prophets who are said to have eaten at J jº table (1 K 1819) did not necessarily sit down with their royal hosts, nor did the servants of Solomon who consumed the meat of his table, the variety and annount of which amazed the queen of Sheba. (1 K 10°); the expression means that they were fed by the royal bounty (see Heraclides in Athen. iv. 26). The same is probably true of the 150 Jews and rulers whom K.I. claims to have had at his table (Neh 517). The honour of sitting at meat with the king was a special favonr (2 S 1998), requiring careful behaviour (Prz3), and sudden leaving of the table was a mark of dis- pleasure (1 S 20%). Those round the table are said to sit at table (1 K 13°), and the members of the family circle are said to be round about the table (Ps 128°); squatting, as the children of the fellahin do still. “The table,” in the sense of the indulgence in dºinties, is to be a snare for the wicked (Ps 69%, Ro 11"). God’s table to which the birds of prey are invited is provided with the flesh of His enemies (Ezk 39°), a figurative description of His just judgment of the wicked. The table in Ezk 23' is prepared for purposes of the toilet. In the NT * table ' is used in the sense of meal in Lk 22°1-99, Jn 12” (where RV substitutes ‘sat at meat for the AV ‘sat at the table '). In Jn 13* “no man at table’ is the tr. of obôsis Táv &vakeipićvov. The dogs in the neighbouring Gentile district fed under the table (Mt. 1527. *, Mk 7*, Lk 16”). Lazarus the beggar desired the crumbs whicli were gathered and thrown out from under the rich man’s table (Llº 16”), 3. For the table of shewbread see artt, SIIEW- BREAD, and TABERNACLE, p. 662 f. 4. The “table of the Lord’ stands in Mal 17, 12 (cf. Ezk 41° 441%) for the altar. In I Co 10”, where it is contrasted with the “table of devils,’ it is evidently from the context the Lord's Supper as compared with pagan idol-feasts, the expression being probably borrowed from our Lord's words “at my table in Lk 22”. 5. The tables of the money-changers (al rpáretal rów KoMAuguatáv) were the small square trays on stands which are familiar objects at the gates and bazaars of Eastern towns on which coins are dis- played, and beside which the money - changers stand. These are not infrequently overturned in the numerous disputes about the value of ex- changes. These money-changers were the bankers of primitive times: thus in the Isaeus of Dionysius of Halicarnassus the expression rpátréau cata- a keväſeo 0at is used in the sense of setting up a bank (Reiske, vii. 309). Our Lord overthrew those set up in the courts of the temple (Mt 21”, Mk 1 115, Jn 21”). 6. Table in the sense of a flat surface upon which writings were inscribed is expressed by the word rºb. See following article. 7. In Ca. 11° ‘table' is the tr. of nep, rendered by LXX &v čvak\to et abroſ, and Vulg. in accentbitat swo; cf. perh. 1 S 16", and in late Heb. nyp? (Levy, 3. 163) and apri (ib. 464; Schechter, Ben Sira. 56). It probably means, from the context, a couch, See, further, the Comm. ad loc. In RV “table' is left out in Mk 74. AW here tr. k\lvöv, * tables,’ but puts ‘beds’ in margin. The words kal k\lvöv are read by ADXTIIXp al min P' latt syrr. Pºº" " go arm Or; onlitted by NBLA min porpus syrum me. LITERATURE.—Besides the authors cited in text see also Bähr, , Symbolik des Mosaischen Cultus, IIeidelberg, 1837; Schlichter, De memsa facierwin ; and Ugolini, ‘De mensa et panis propositionis’ in Thes. x. 995. - A. MACALISTER. TABLE, TABLET. — 1. nº. (etym. unknown). This word, which may be used of wooden boards or . *: (Ex 27° 387 in the altar of the Tabernacle, Szk 27° in the ship fig, of Tyre, Ca. 89 in a door) f or of metal plates (1 K 7" on bases of lavers in Solomon's temple)f, is far more frequently used of stone tablets, esp. those on which . Ten Words are said to have been written (Ex 24!? 3118 bi" 3215 bis, 10 bis. 19 341 ter. 4 bis. 28. 29, Dt 413 B19 (Eng. 22) 99 bis. 19. ii. 15.17 101.9 bis: 8 bis. 4, 5, 1 K 89, 2 Ch 510); of a tablet for writing a prophecy upon (Is 30° [|| "...p.), Hab 2°); fig. in Pr3° 7” (wise counsels are to be written on the table of the heart), Jer 17" (the sin of Judah is graven [nºnſ] upon the table of their heart). In all these passages both AV and RV tr. rº, when used of stone, by “table(s), except Is 308 where IRV has “tablet,” a rendering which might well have been adopted uniformly. The IXX reproduces by TAáš (except Ex 24”, Is 30°, Hab 2* [all truštov], Pr 3° 7” [both TA&ros], and Jer 17” [wanting in LXX]), and this is also the NT term (2 Co 3", He 9"). The ‘writing-table’ (trwa- klövov, RV ‘writing-tablet’) of Lk 1" was probably a waxen tablet. For a description of the use of both stome and waa, for Writing purposes See art. WRITING. * 2. \\ }} (the tablet inscribed with a tºn [stylus], ‘to Maher-shalal-bash-baz,’ Is 8' AV “roll’). The essential signification of this word appears to be something with a smooth polished surface, whether of wood, stone, or metal.’ [For ºn, "a B has rôuos Kalvo9 peºyáNov, A Tóp. x&prov K. M., Aq. Keſha)\ls we')4\m, Symm. Tedxos / 6 ya]. The only other occurrence of the Heb. word is in Is 3*, where [in plur.] it prob. means ‘tablets of polished metal,’ ‘mirrors' (so Targ., Vulg., Ges., Del., Cheyne, IDillm.-Išittel, but see Marti, ad loc., and cf. the LXX rà 6taqlavſ, Aakayuuká). 3. AV ‘tablets” (rºi [etym. unknown]; LXX Treptăétov, reptăéšta ; It V ‘armlets’), Ex 35*, Nu 31". The Heb. word prob. stands for some neck ornament (IRV m ‘necklaces”; cf. IDillin.-Ryssel or Baentsch, Ewodus, ad loc.). 4. The “tablets’ (i.e. lockets) of AV in Is 3% become in RV ‘perfume boxes” (so Ges. ; cf. Vulg. olfactoriola), and some such sense [possibly ‘oint- ment boxes’; so P. Haupt (deriving from Assyr. pasſ?&nt, “to anoint dº in Cheyne's ‘Isaiah,” S/30T' p. 82) is required by the context for the Heb. ºn "ny, although it may be doubted whether tº ever in the OT [Pr 27" is a doubtful passage] actually means ‘odour.” The meaning is perh. ‘of health,’ i.e. serving to give health to those who smell them (= ‘reviving,” “refreshing’; cf. the Niph. of the root we), and its use in Ethp. in Syr. * In the Talmud ſº stands for the empty margin of a page or roll. # This is no doubt the meaning of the English word used by AW, for in the language of the clay an ornament hanging from the neck could be cºlled a ‘tablet,’ as Golding, Ovid, 123, ‘Riche pearles were hanging at her eares, and tablets at her breaſ.” TABOR TABOR, MOUNT 67 y = &valbºxw). See, further, art. PERFUME, vol. iii. p. 747". J. A. SIELIBIE. TABOR (ninº; B 9axxetá, A and Luc. Gagāp; Vulg. Thabor).-A city in Zebulun given to the Merarite Levites (1 Ch 677). No name having any similarity to Tabor occurs in the earlier list of Levitical cities in Zebulun (Jos 21* *). Various suggestions, none of them quite satisfactory, have been made in regard to this place,—that the occur- rence of the name in 1 Chron. is due to a tran- scriber's error; that it is an abbreviation of Chisloth- tabor, a town on the border of Zebulun (Jos 19°); that it is the Daberath of Jos 21*, now Debtºrieh, ; and that either a town on Mount Tabor or the mountain itself is intended. Some authorities suppose it to be the same place as Tabor on the boider of Issachar (Jos 19%, B Tau68&p, A €924,60, Luc. Qaflºp), and that at which the brothers of Gideon were slain by Zebah and Zalmunna (Jg 818). C. W. WILSON. TABOR, MOUNT (ºnº ºn ; LXX Spos eagdºp, rô 'Itaff ºptov (in Jer, and Hos.); Thabor).-One of the nost celebrated, and, at the same time, one of the most striking, mountains in Palestine. At the N.E. extremity of the rich plain of Esdraelon, and only about 5 miles E. of Nazareth, a limestone hill of unique outline rises to a height of 1843 feet above the sea. This is Mount Tabor, the At- abyrium, or Itabyrintm of Greek and Roman writers, now called Jebel et-Tür. The mount overlooks the adjacent hills of Lower Galilee, and, being con- nected with them only by a low ridge, is practi- cally isolated. Its form approaches that of a truncated come with rounded sides, and a fairly level, oval-shaped summit. When viewed from a distance, especially from the S.W., it has the appearance of a hemisphere, and is remarkable for its symmetrical form, its graceful outline, and its wooded slopes. The mount is often capped with mist, and even in the dry season heavy dews refresh the parched soil, and give new life to the oaks, pistachios, and other trees that partially cover its slopes. In these coverts, during the Middle Ages, wild beasts found shelter; and wild boars, birds, and small game still make them their home. The slopes are steep and rocky, but the ascent can be made with ease—nearly everywhere on foot, and in more than one place on horseback. The view from the summit is disappointing, in so far that there is no one spot from which a complete panorama can be obtained ; but from many points places of the greatest sacred and historic interest can be seen. To the S. W. and W., stretched out like a map, the great plain of Esdraelon extends beyond Taanach and Megiddo to the gorge of the Kishon and the ridge of Carmel. To the N. are the heights of Lºtbich, and the “Horns of Hattin,’ where Guy de Lusignan and the Templars made their last stand before surrendering to Saladin; and beyond them lie Safed and the Wills of Ü pper Galilee, with snow-capped Hermon and the peaks of Lebanon in the distance. To the N.E. and E. tre the Sea of Galilee and the rugged IIantrán, the Jordan Valley, the deep gorge of the Yarmuk, and the high tableland of Bashan ; and to the S.E. the mediaeval fortress of 13elvoir (IA cºnt/cab cl- Ilawa), the Jordan Valley below Bethshean, and the mountains of Gilead. To the S., on the lower slopes of Jebel Dathy (Little Hermon), are Nain . Endor, and beyond Jebel Duhy can be seen the crest of Mt. Gilboa. A mountain so situated, and so beautiful, necessarily played an important part in the history of Israel. Its isolation, and the steepness of its slopes, marked it out, from time immemorial, as a fortress or rallying point; and its attractive beauty led the Rabbis to maintain that it was the mountain on which the temple ought of right to have been built had it not been É. the express revelation which ordered the sanctuary to be built on Mount Moriah (Schwarz, p. 71). mongst the mountains of his native land, the Psalmist (Ps 89*) could have selected no more ſitting representatives than Tabor with its rounded features and scattered glades, and Hermon with its lofty peak and pure canopy of snow... So, too, its natural strength and conspicuous position led the prophet (Jer `46”) to use it and Carmel as an image either of the power and pre-eminence of the king of Babylon, or of the certainty and distinctness of God’s judgments. Some commentators suppose Tabor to be the mountain alluded to in Dt 33* * (see discussion in Driver, ad loc.); and hence it has been conjectured that Tabor was an early sanctuary of the northern tribes, which afterwards became the scene of idolatrous rites (Hos 5'). Mount Tabor is mentioned by its full name only in Jg 4", " ", where it is stated to have been the place at which Deborah and Barak assembled the warriors of Israel before the memorable victory over Sisera (Jos. Amt. V. v. 3). The mount is probably (but see Dillm. ad loc.) intended in Jos 19°, where the boundary of Issachar is said to have reached to Tabor; and this view was held by Josephus (Amt. V. i. 22) and Eusebius (Omom.). Whether the Tabor at which the brothers of Gideon were slain (Jg 8”) was the mount, is more doubtful (see preceding art., and Moore, ad loc.). According to Josephus (Amt. VIII. ii. 3), Mt. Tabor was in the district of Shaplat (Jehoshaphat in 1 K 4"), one of Solomon's commissariat officers. In the 3rd cent. B.C., there was an inhabited city, At- abyrintm, on Mt. Tabor, which Antiochus the Great took (D.C. 218) by stratagem and afterwards forti- fied (l’olyb. V. lxx. 6). In the time of Alexander Jannaeus (B.C. 105–78) Tabor was in the possession of the Jews (Amt. XIII. xv. 4). But th. mount passed to the Romans when Pompey conquered Palestine, and, near it, Gabinius, the Itoman pro- consul of Syria (c. B.C. 53), defeated Alexander, son of Aristobulus. II., who had risen in revolt (Amt. XIV. vi. 3.; BJ I. viii. 7). At the commence- ment of the Jewish war Tabor was occupied by the Jews, and fortified by Josephus, who surrounded the summit with a wall (Vit. 37; BJ II. xx. 6, Iv. i. 8). A little later, after Josephus had been taken prisoner by the Romans at Jotapata, a large number of Jews took refuge in the fortress. Placidus was sent against them with a body of horse, and, having succeeded by a feint in drawing the fighting mem into the plain, defeated them and cut off their retreat. º this, the inhabitants of the place, whose supply of water, derived from the rainfall, was failing, submitted (BJ IV. i. 8). The later history of Tabor is connected with the belief that Christ was transfigured on the mount, and with the churches and monasteries erected upon it in consequence of that belief. The narra- tive (Mt 16. 17, Mk 8, 9) seems to demand a site near Caesarea. Philippi; but, apart from this, the existence of a fortified town on the summit of Tabor before and after Christ, makes the selection of that mountain improbable. Eusebius, who states (Omom.) that Tabor was situated in the plain of Galilee, and from 8 to 10 ltonian miles E. of I)iocaesarea (Sºfitrieh), makes no allusion to the tradition ; whilst the Bordeaux Pilgrim (A.D. 333) places the scene of the Transfiguration on the Tount of Olives. The first notice of Tabor as the place of the Transfiguration is a remark by Cyr;" of Jerusalem, c. A.D. 350 (Cat. xii. 16). Jerome, A.D. 386, says that St. Paula ‘climbed Mt. Tabor on which the Lord was transfigured ' (Ep. I’atul. xvii.; cf. Jºp. ad lllar. viii.), but does not mention 672 TABOR, MOUNT TACHES a church. Antoninus Martyr, c. A.D. 570, saw (vi.) three churches “at the place where St. Peter said to Jesus: “Let us make here three taber- nacles.”’ Arculf, c. A.D. 670, found (ii. 25) a large monastery with many cells, and three churches, enclosed by a stone wall. Willibald, A.D. 754, mentions (xiii.) a monastery and a church, * dedi- cated to our Lord, and to Moses and Elias.” Saewulf, A.D. 1102, saw three monasteries, and adds that the one dedicated to Elias stood a little apart from the others. The Russian abbot, Daniel, A.D. 1106–1107, gives a full description of the mount, which he compares to a haycock, and of its holy places (lxxxvi.-lxxxviii). Its slopes were covered with olive, fig, and carob trees; and on the summit, at the S.E. end of the platform, a small rocky knoll was shown as the place of the Transfiguration. Here there was a fine church, probably that built by Tancred, and near it, on the N. side, a second church dedicated to Moses and Elias. The churches and a Latin monastery were enclosed by solid stone walls with iron gates; and outside the walls were fields, vineyards, and fruit trees. A bowshot W. of the place of the Transfiguration was shown a rock-hewn cave in which Melchizedek was said to have dwelt and to have received Abraham when returning from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer (cf. Fetellus, A.D. 1130). Amongst the churches and monasteries noticed b Saewulf and Daniel must have been the church built by Tancred, to whom Galilee was granted as a fief; and the monastery founded by the Black Friars of the reformed order of Benedictines of Cluny, who in A.D. 1111 disputed the jurisdiction of the archbishop of Nazareth (Albert of Aix, vii. 16; W. of Tyre, ix. 13; de Vitry). In 1113 the monasteries were pillaged by Arabs from Damascus, and the monks massacred ; but they were soon re- occupied. Theoderich, in 1172, mentions a church and monks under an abbot (xlvi.) who, according to Ludolph von Suchem, ‘ used a leaden bulla, like the Pope’; and places the scene of the meeting between Melchizedek and Abraham at the foot of the mount. In 1183 the monks repulsed an attack by the troops of Saladin. Two years later, 1185, Phocas, a Greek monk, found a Latin monastery at the place of the Transfiguration, and to the north of it a Greek monastery. He also saw the grotto of Melchizedek, with chambers above and under ground, and many cells for anchorites; and close by, a church on the spot where Melchizedek met Abraham. In 1187 the mountain was laid waste by Saladim; but in 1212 it was strongl fortified by his brother el-Melek el. Adel. The fortress was unsuccessfully attacked by the Crusaders in 1217, and dismantled by el-'Adel in the following year. The monastery and church must have been spared, or little injured, for Yākāt, A.D. 1225, mentions it (ii. 675; cf. Mar. i. 434) as standing on the S. side of the mountain ; and adds that there were many vineyards, from which the monks made wine. This is confirmed by the tract ‘Citez de Jherusalem,” pt. ii., which notices “a church of black Latin monks’ on Mt. Tabor. In 1263 the Church of the Transfiguration was levelled with the ground by order of Sultan Bibars; and later visitors found only “hollow blaces and caves beneath the ruins of º !. wherein lurk lions and other beasts.” Amidst these ruins, however, the Latin and Greek monks from Nazareth continued to hold an annual service in memory of the Transfiguration. The ruins on the summit are those of a fortress with square flanking towers, and, in places, a rock-hewn ditch. There are also many rock-hewn cisterns and a pool, and the remains of the churches and monasteries noticed above. The ruins are Jewish, Byzantine, Crusading, and Arab ; but, without g w excavation, it is difficult to make any clear dis. tinction between them. The Latins and Greeks have in recent years erected churches and mom- asteries on the sites of the earlier buildings, and the Latins have recovered the place of the Trans- figuration mentioned by abbot Daniel. LITERATURE.-PEI' Mem. i. 867, 888–891; de Vogüé, Église de T. S. 853; Guérin, Galilée, i. 143–163; Robinson, BRP” iii. 851 ff.: Burckhardt, Travels in Syria, 1822, p. 332 f.; G. A. Smith, HIGHIL 394, 408, 417; Buhl, GA P 107 f., 216 f.; Barnabé, Le Momt Thaboo'. C. W. WILSON. TABOR, THE OAK OF (AV THE PLAIN of TABOR ; ºilº jºbs; # 6pús Gabčp ; quercus Thabor), is mentioned (1 S 10°) between IRachel’s sepulchre in the border of Benjamin at Zelzah and the ‘hill of God,” or Gibeah, as one of the points passed by Saul on his homeward journey after his anointing by Samuel. The site is unknown. Thenius emends, from Gn 35°, +\in 's to nºn'ſ 'R ‘Oak (terebinth) of Deborah’ (Rachel’s nurse). Thiſ tree is called in the Genesis passage Allon-bacuth, and Ewald and others identify it further with the alm (nºh) of Deborah mentioned in Jg 4". . (Cf. Moore on Jg 4"; Dillm. on Gn 35°; Siegfried- Stade and Oaf, Heb. Lea. s. 778). C. W. WILSON. TABRET (see art. TABER) is AV tr. of ºn in Gn 3127, 1 S 10° 18%, Is 512 24° 30%, Jer 31°, Ezk 28”. The same He)). word is tr. ‘ timbrel” in Ex 15”, Jg 1184, 2 S 6', 1 Ch 138, Job 2119, Ps 81° 149° 150*. The RV, strangely enough, follows this want of uniformity in rendering, except in 1 S 10", 18", where it substitutes ‘timbrel” for “tabret.” It might have been well to drop both ‘timbrel' and ‘tabret,” neither of which conveys any clear sense to a modern ear, and adopt some such rendering as “tambourine’ or ‘hand-drum.” The LXX always tr. Wh by Túpairavov *º in Job 21”, where we have paNriptov, and Ezk 28”, where a different Heb. text. has been followed. [This last may have been the case even in Job 21*]. See, for a descrip- tion of the 'ſh, vol. iii. p. 462°. The AV rendering of Job 17” “aforetime I was as a tabret, has arisen from a confusion, of nº ‘spitting’ [är, Neº.] with ºn tambourine.’ The words nºns tº nº, in parallelism with the preced- ing bºy ºn', ... }} am made [lit. ‘one hath made me’] a byword of the peoples'), mean ‘I am become one to be gº on in the face” (IRV “an open abhorring'). See A. B. Davidson,...ſtd log.: and cf. the notes of Dillm. and Duhm. The LXX reproduces nºh by YéAws, ‘a laughing-stock.’ J. A. SEI, BIE. TABRIMMON ("bºat, “RIMMON [1; tınman] is good or is wise’ [see TABEEL); 13 Taflepepad, A Tapeu- pamud, Luc. Tagepeppäv).—The father of Benhadad, l K. 1518. TACHES.—An old word of French origin (cf. attacher) used by AV to render the Heb. D'Onº Jºërāšîm, which occurs only in P's description of the tabernacle (Ex 26%. 11 º' 35" etc.). The Gr. rendering is kpikot, which denotes the rings set in eyelets at the edge of a sail for the ropes to pass through ; Vulg. circuli, RV ‘clasps.’ The Heb. word evidently signifies some form of hook or clasp like the Roman fibula (see Rich, Dict, of Rom. and Gr. Antiq. s.v.). Fifty “taches' or clasps of gold, attached at equal distances along the edge of one set of tapestry curtains, fitted into the same number of loops along the edge of the second set, and ‘...." the two sets together, A similar arrangement of bronze clasps joined the two sets of hair curtains which formed the ‘tent” (see TABERNACLE, $ vii. (a)). The veil which divided the tabernacle or ‘dwelling' into two parts, the Holy Place and the Most Holy, was suspended immediately underneath the line of TACKLING TADMOR 673 clasps, a detail of considerable significance for the dimensions of the tabernacle (see Ś vii. (c)). º A. R. S. KENNEDY. TACKLING.—In Is. 33% ‘Thy tacklings (That!) are loosed,’ the Heb, word plainly means a ship's ropes. And that was the ordinary meaning of the Eng, word “tackling' about 1611, as in Shaks. Ičich. III, IV. iv. 233– “Like a poor bark, of sails and tackling reft.” But the Eng. word was also used more comprehen- sively of the whole gearing, as in Ascham's Schole- 'master, 65, ‘Great shippes require costlie tack- ling.” And so it is used in Ac 27” “We cast out with our own hands the tackling of the ship ’ (RW m “furniture'). The Greek word (orkevä) is as vague, says Rendall, as the English “furniture,’ and may include any heavy fittings that could be readily detached, or spare masts and spars. See SHIPS AND BOATs. The word is of Scand. origin; the le in ‘tackle’ is the instrument, so that the tackle is that which takes hold of ; the ing is collective. J. HASTINGS. TADMOR (1 K 918 [so Kéré, AV, IRVm ; Tamar in Këthibh and RV ; Bonn., A €epuá0, Luc. 606pºp], 2 Ch 8° BK 60éðouóp, A €eóp.óp, Luc. Geóp.dp).— The Tamar of 1 Kings is believed by the present writer to be the same place as the ‘Tadmor' of 2 Chronicles (see, however, art. TAMAR ; G. A. Smith, HGHIA 270, n.”; Kittel, Könige, ad loc.). Whatever view be held as to Tamar, Tadmor is undoubtedly the Palmyra of history, a city whose ruins have excited the admiration of all travellers, and whose history under the rule of Odenatus and Zenobia can never be read without feelings of high interest. The city rose from an oasis in the Syrian desert due to springs welling up through the sands, or from rivulets descending from the neighbouring hills, giving rise to vegeta- tion and groves of palms.” At a later period it was supplied with water by means of an aqueduct built by Justinian. The position of the city is about 150 º N.E. of Damascus, half-way between the valleys of the Orontes and the Euphrates; and the caravan routes in ancient times as well as in the beginning of our era, connecting the Persian Gulf with the Mediterranean, and between Northern Syria, Petra, and Central Arabia, passed through Palmyra. During the wars between Rome, and Parthia, Palmyra endeavoured to maintain a position of neutrality; and, about the year A. D. 130, Hadrian took the city under his special favour, giving it the name of Adrianopolis. At a later eriod Palmyra received the Jus Italicum and ecame a Roman colony; and in the early period of the l’ersian wars the city became an important military post, and the inhabitants thus gained a knowledge of military tactics which they after- wards turned to use against their instructors. Odenatus and Zenobia.-Up to this time Palmyra was governed by a senate ; but on the defeat of the Roman army under Valerian by Sapor, king of Persia, and the rejection of the offer of alliance made by Odenatus, who had attained the position of king or prince of Palmyra, the Palmyrene army hovered round the l’ersian host as it was retreating across the Euphrates with the captive Roman emperor and enormous booty, and inflicted such loss on the Persians that they were glad to put the river between them and their pursuers. By this exploit Odenatus laid the foundation of his future fame and fortunes. With the consent of the emperor Gallienus the Roman Senate conferred the title of Augustus on the brave Palmyrene, and * Gibbon, Decline and I’all, i. 396. º # Peter Patricius, p. 26, quoted by Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the IRoman Empire, i. 352. VOL. IV.-43 seemed to entrust to him the government of the East, which he in effect already possessed.” On the death of Odenatus, by assassination, Zenobia, his widow, who had shared with him the government of the kingdom, became his sole suc- cessor, with the title of ‘’Queen of Palmyra and the East.’ Of this remarkable personage Gibbon says: ‘Modern Europe has produced several illustrious women who have sustained with glory the weight of empire; nor is our own age destitute of such distinguished characters. But if we except the doubtful achievements of Semiramis, Zenobia is perhaps the only woman whose superior genius i. through the servile indolence in posed on her sex by the climate and manners of Asia. She claimed her descent from the Macedonian kings of º equalled in beauty her ancestor Cleopatra, and far surpassed that princess in chastity and valour.” + On ascending the throne (A.D. 267) Zenobia maintained the same policy of hostility, both to Persia and Rome, which had been adopted by her husband, and defeated a Roman army com- manded by Heraclianus. She also invited the celebrated Platonic philosopher Longinus to her capital to be her instructor in Greek literature and her counsellor in affairs of state. But Aurelian, who had ascended the throne of the Western empire, had resolved to endure no longer the authority of a rival in the East ; and in A.D. 272 he marched to attack Zenobia, with all the forces of the empire. Zenobia, being but weakly sup- ported in the unequal contest by Varahran, successor to Sapor, was defeated in battle, and attempted to escape by flight towards the Eu- phrates, but was captured on the banks of that river and brought before her conqueror, who carried her to Rome to grace his triumph. While crossing the straits which divide Europe from Asia, Aurelian received intelligence that the Palmyrenes had risen in revolt and massacred the governor and garrison he had left behind. Enraged at this con- duct he at once retraced his steps, and the helpless city felt the full weight of his resentment. A letter of Aurelian himself admits that old men, women, children, and peasants were involved in indiscriminate slaughter; but, taking pity on the miserable remnant of the inhabitants, he granted them permission to rebuild and inhabit the city. “But (as Gibbon observes) it is easier to destroy than to restore. The seat of commerce, of arts, and of Zenobia gradually sank into an obscure town, a trifling fortress, and at length a miserable village. The present citizens of filmyra, consist- ing of thirty or forty families, have erected their [mud] cottages within the spacious court of a magnificent temple.' S lºwins.—The ruins of Palmyra, attest its former magnificence. The principal building is the great Temple of the Sun (Baal), with its lofty arch and grand rows of columns, originally about 390 in number; but besides this there are remains of the walls of Justinian which enclosed the city, and outside the wall towards the north several ruined sepulchral towers, together with the remains of the aqueduct.|| For an account of the Gr, and Aram, inscriptions see de Vogüé, Syric centrale, pp. 1–8. Cf. also the interesting ‘Zolltarif' (A. D. 155) published by Reckendorf in ZDMG (1888), p. 370 ft. (text and com.); text in Lidzbarski. E. HULL. * Hist. Awgust, Scrip. p. 180. # Decline and I'all, i. 301. f Ib, i. 308. § Decline and I'all, i. 400; the history of Zenobia and Palmyra is taken principally from the writings, of Pollio; Yopsicus in Hist. August, i.; a modern romance, Zemobia, or the l'all of Palmyra, by Rev. W. Ware (1844), will repay perusal. See alsc Wright, Palmyra and Zenobia, 1895. | An excellent plan of Palmyra, taken from R. Wood's Rúines de Palmyre, will be found in Baedelcer's Palestine and Syria ; and in Murray's Syria and Palestine, one of less merit. 674 TAHAN TAKE TAHAN (ITE). — The eponymous head of an Ephraimite clan, Nu 26*(*) (Távax), 1 Ch 7” (BA 6áev, Luc. 64av). The gentilic name Tahamites (º, ö Tavax(e)t) occurs in Nu 26*(*). TAHASH (cºrſº, Tóxos).—A son of Nahor by his concubine Reumah, Gn 22*[J). The name means “porpoise, and this animal was probably the totem of the (unidentified) tribe that bore it. TAHATH (nnn).—1. A Kohathite Levite, 1 Ch 6” (Heb. ) (Bom..., A** supras edia6) 37 (Hob. * (BA 0áa6). 2. 3. The eponym of two (unless the name has been accidentally repeated) Ephraimite families, 1 Ch 7” (A [only first time] 6áa.0, Bom. both times). - TAHATH (nºn; BA Luc. Karáa.6, F Katóðað).— One of the twelve stations in the journeyings of the children of Israel which are mentioned only in Nu 33. It comes between Makheloth and Terah (v.”), and, like them, has not been identified. TAHCHEMONITE, AW Tachmonite.—See HACH- MONI. TAHPANHES, TEHAPHNEHES (brºnn Jer 437m. 44' 46", prºrº Ezk 30°, bºrn [text. error] in Köthibh of Jer 29, Taqvás, Taqval).—A city on the E. frontier of Lower Egypt. There is no doubt that it is the same place that was known to classical writers as º: The etym. of the name is unknown, and no hieroglyphic equivalent has yet been found. It seems likely, however, that this frontier city was named ‘the beginning of the ...(?)'Ta-hat-p.'...(?). The modern name, Tell Dafneh (often mis-spelled Defench or Defenneh on maps) is very close to the Greek. The site is now a desolate mound on the edge of the desert, and but little removed from the brackish swamp of Lake Menzaleh. I'ormerly this district was to a great extent cultivated, being irrigated and drained by the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, now silted up. Pelusium, situate at the mouth of the Nile and surrounded by swamps, was nearly 20 miles away. Flinders Petrie excavated the site for the Egyp. Expl. Fund, and has demon- strated much of its history. One mound is appar- ently Ptolemaic and Roman, showing where the Daphno of the Rom. itineraries had been. Another mound, still apparently bearing a name connecting it with the Jews, contained remains of a palace or citadel destroyed by fire, which stood in the midst of a great camp. In the camp and fortress were found amongst other things thousands of arrow- heads, of small weights, and many fragments of fine Gr. and Egyp. pottery; while in the founda- tions of the central building were plaques inscribed with the name of the builder, }. I. This king, the founder of the Saite dynasty (B.C. 664) is recorded by Herodotus (ii. 30) to have estab- lished a garrison at Daphnae as one of three chief frontier posts, and the Greek objects found there show that Herodotus was referring to the same place when he mentions (ii. 154) that Psammetichus established a camp of Ionians in this region. The number and variety of the weights afford some indication of the amount of trade and money- changing that must have gone on here. It is very unfortunate that no inscriptions of importance could be found; a great tablet of hard quartzite was indeed discovered, but, as it had been exposed for centuries to mutilation, few signs were left upon it. They are apparently the remains of a historical inscription of Psammetichus I. There was little indication of I)aphnae having existed before Psammetichus, but for two centuries from that time it was a frontier post of the highest importance, and a name particularly well known to fugitive Jews under Johanan estab nations living on the E. of Egypt. A colony of fied themselves there after the murder of Gedaliah, Jer 437° 44'. The fulfilment of Jeremiah's prophecy, made on this spot, that Nebuch. would invade and take Egypt (43*), has not yet been ascertained from the monuments, but the excavations gave evidence of violent destruction and conflagration. Herodotus (ii. 30) says that in his time the Persians kept jà the garrison there. The place is mentioned tºll 19. Hanes, in Is 30°, can hardly be Daphnae, for the latter did not rise to importance till a later date. F. L.L. GRIFFITH. TAHPENES (bºrn; B 9ekspelva, A €skepiva, Luc. 6exeuelva).-The name of the queen of ‘Pharaoh king of Egypt,’ who gave his sister in marriage to Hada the Edomite before the death of David (1 K 11”). Winckler (AT" Untersuch. 1-6), and still more Cheyne (Encyc. Bibl. s.v. ‘Hadad'), consider the passage as full of corruptions, the chief point being that Mizraim (Egypt) should be corrected back to Musri (in North Arabia). If we accept the text as it stands, Hadad’s marriage was not so grand as to be improbable. David was contemporary with the weak 21st dynasty, which appears to have had no influence abroad ; nor is it probable that the 21st . kings reigning at Tanis had any consider- able authority even over the high priests at Thebes. The name ‘Tahpenes’ has an Egyptian appearance, but has not hitherto been found on the monu- ments. F. L.L. GRIFFITH. TAHREA (whº).—A grandson of Mephibosheth, 1 Ch 9” (B 0apáx, A €apá, Luc. 6apáa). The name appears (prob. by a copyist's error) in 8” as Tarea (wnsh; B 9epée, A €apée, Luc. 9apáa). TAHTIM HODSHI, THE LAND of (ºn D'Ann Pºs ; Bels thy Gagagdev # éaruv Načagal, A €ls yºu 'E0adov 'Aöaa’at ; terra inferiora Hodsi).--A place east of Jordan, which Joab and his officers visited when making the census for David (2 S 24%). It is men- tioned between Gilead and Dan-jaan. The MT, however, is certainly corrupt. In all probability we should read Tºp D’ETº ‘to the land of the Hittites, towards Kadesh [sc. K. on the Orontes].” The enendation D'RITſ is due to Hitzig (GVI p. 29), Tºp to Thenius (who suggested "ºp or Tºp). Iłoth emendations, which are strikingly confirmed by Luc. eis yńv Xerruelp. Kačás, are accepted by Wellh., Driver, Budde, et al. Another emendation of "win is that of Ewald (Hist. iii. 162), who would read pnn (Hermon). This is º by Buhl (GAP 69), and somewhat favoured by Löhr and H. P. Smith (Sam. ad loc.), mainly on the ground that Išadesh on the Orontes is too far north to suit the requirements of the passage. C. W. WILSON. TAKE..—The verb ‘to take ' is one of a short list of English words which Earle ‘ can offer with most conſidence as words which have come in through Danish agency' (Philology, § 59). It is at any rate a Scand. word ; and from the mean- ing of the Gothic tekam and its relation to Lat. tangere it is probable that its earliest meaning is to ‘touch with the hand,’ as in Morris' Old Eng. Misc. p. 31, ‘Ure lord . . . . spredde his hond, and tok his lepre; . . . and also rathe he was i-warisd of his maladie.’ From this would easily ſlow ‘lay hold of,” “seize,” “receive,’ and the like. The ex- amples that deserve attention in AV may be grouped as follows:– 1. To seize one's person : Sir 23” “This man shall be punished in the streets of the city, and where he suspecteth not he shall be taken (triao.6%gerat)”; Jn 7” “Then they sought to take him (Tudorat), but no man laid hands on him.’ Cf. Mt 4* Tind. TAKE TALITHA CUMI 675 —a * When Jesus had hearde that Jhon was taken, he departed into Galile.’ 2. To come upon one unca pectedly: 2 Mac 5” ‘Taking the Jews keeping holiday, he commanded his men to arm themselves'; 1 Co 3” “He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.” Cf. Earle, Microcos. ‘A Constable’—“Hee is a very carefull man in his Office, but if hee stay up after Mid- night you shall take him napping'; Shaks. As Yoot Like It, IV. i. 175, ‘You shall never take her without her answer, unless you take her without her tongue.’ So to be taken (i.e. “overtaken ') with might, Sir 36” ; with evil, Gn 1919; disease, 2 Mac 9”, Mt 4*; fever, Lk 4*; palsy, 1 Mac 9%; pangs, Mic 4"; one's iniquities, Pr 5*; a de- moniacal seizure, Mk 9%; fear, Lk 8”. Cf. Lk 7" Rhem. “And feare tooke them al, and they magnified God’; Rutherford, Letters, 61, ‘Take you no fear.’ 3. ‘Take’ was formerly used of the fascination of some good or bad influence, which was often supposed to be due to supernatural powers. Thus Palsgrave, ‘Taken, as chyldernes lymmes be by the fayries, faee'; Cotgrave, ‘fee, taken, be- witched 5 Markham, Treatise on Horses, “A horse that is bereft of his feeling, mooving, or styrring, is said to be taken . . . some farriers conster the word taken to be striken by some planet or evil spirit.” So Pró”, “Lust not after her beauty in thine heart ; neither let her take thee with her eyelids’ (FIRE's, LXX plmöé ovvapragóñs); so 64; Sir 9" ‘Use not much the company of a woman that is a singer, lest thou be taken with her attempts” (wittore &A@s ; RV ‘Lest haply thou be caught”), 237. Cf. Bunyan, Holy War, 17, ‘They were taken with the forbidden fruit ’; Adams, II Peter 46, ‘It is said that Judith’s pantofles ravished Holofernes' eyes; her sandals took him.’ 4. The following phrases demand attention : (1) Take care, in the sense of “be anxious ' (see CARE), To 5” “Take no care, my sister, he shall return in safety (uh X&You èxe); 1 Co 9” “ Doth God take care for oxen º’ (Mi) túv 800w pºca tº 066; RV “Is it for the oxen that God careth 2' 'l'ind. ‘Doth God take thought for oxen 2'' – See THOUGHT. (2) Take indignation, Bel” “They took great indignation (myavākrma'av \tau); 2 Mac 4” (éðetva- {ov). The usual plurase is ‘to have indignation,” as Mal 1", Mt 26°. (3) Take heart, Bar 4” “Take a good heart, O Jerusalem ’ (04poet). (4) Take one’s journey, Dt 2*. Cf. Ex 40" Tind. “When the clowde was taken up from of the habitacyon, the children of Israel toke , their iornayes as oft as they iornayed.” (5) Take order, see ORDER. Cf. Ac 8” ltheims, ‘Devout men tooke order for Stephens funeral.’ (6) Take a taste of 2 Mac 13° “When the king had taken a taste of the man- liness of the Jews' (el)\mſpês yet aw). (7) Take thought, see THOUGHT. (8) Take in vain, see VAIN, and cf. Erasmus, Crede, 153, ‘This thynge is to be noted and marked that he dyd not saye, thou shalte not name god, but he sayde, thou shalte not take the name of god. For that thynge is taken which is applyed and put to some use, and that thynge is taken in vayne and indiscreetly which is taken to a prophane and a Vyle use, as when a man swereth by god in a matter of smal wayglute or valoure.” Notice, finally, some antiquated uses of the phrase to take up : (1) To lift, Is 40” “He taketh up the isles as a very little thing’; cf. Ac 7* ‘Ye took up the tabernacle of Molech' (i.e. to carry it allout with you); 21”. “We took up our carriages’ (átrookévaorépévot, edd. Two K., RV m ‘made ready ?). (2) To translate to hºſt ven, 2 k 2' ‘When the Lord would take up Elijah into heaven by a whirl- wind,' 2", Ac 1* “Until the day in which he was taken up,' 1". " ". (3) To utter, used of a par- p. 109 ſt.). able, as Nu 23' | He took up his parable, and said,” so 24* * * * *, Mic 2", Hab 29 ; also of a proverb, Is 14*; a word, Am 5"; a reproach, Ps 15°; a lamentation, Jer 7”, Ezk 19, ; a weeping, Jer 910; and a wailing, Jer 9”. Cf. Ps 16" Nor take up their names into my lips’; Ezk 36° ‘Ye are taken up in the lips of talkers.” (4) In Neh 5° the mean- ing is to obtain on credit. “We take up our corn for them, that we may eat and live' (RV ‘let us get corn’; see Ryle's note). Cf. Jonson, Every an out of his Humour, i. 1, ‘I will take up, and bring myself in credit, sure.” J. HASTINGS. TALE.-The Anglo-Sax. talu meant a ‘number' (cf. Germ. Zahl) as well as a “narrative,’ and the verb tellan meant to ‘count as well as to “narrate.’ In all the examples but one of ‘tale” in AV (apart from the Apocr.) it means “number’ or ‘sum.’ Thus Ex 5” “And the tale of the bricks which they did make heretofore, ye shall lay upon them ’; so 518, 1 S 1827, 1 Ch 928. In Nu 190'Tindale speaks of Benjamin being numbered ‘ by the tale of names,’ but in 1° Zebulun is counted “after the numbre of names,’ and in lº Dan is numbered ‘in the summe of names.’ In like manner “tell’ occurs frequently in the sense of ‘count,’ as Gn 15° ‘Tell the stars, if thou be able to number them ’; 2 Ch 2° ‘Solomon told out threescore and ten thousand men to bear burdens’; Sir 18” “Who shall number the strength of his majesty, and who shall tell out all his mercies?’ Cf. 1 S 147 Cov. ‘Saul sayde unto the people that was with him, Tell and se which of us is gone awaye. And whan they nombred, be- holde, Jonathas and his wapen bearer was not there’; Is 10° Cov. “The trees also of lais felde shalloe of soch a nombre, that a childe maye tell them ’; Nu 1* Cov. “All that were able to warre, were tolde in the try be of Juda’; cf. also Jer 33°, 1 K 8°, 2 K. 1219, Ps 22174S12 568 147" (in several of which “tell' might be misunderstood as = ‘men- tion'), and Milton, L’Allegro, 67– “And every shepherd tells his tale Under the hawthorn in the dale.” In 1 S 27” occurs the expression “tell on,” used, as it is still vulgarly, in the sense of ‘inform against.” J. HASTINGS. TALENT.—See artt. Money and WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. TALITHA CUMI.--The command addressed by our Lord to the daughter of Jairus (Mk 5"), and interpreted by the Evangelist, * Maiden, I say unto thee, arise.” The Aram. words cap snº (so Dalman, Gram. d. Jüd.-Pal. Aramäisch, p. 118, n. 6; p. 266, n. 1) have been variously transliterated in Greek MSS of NT. Tiscl., with NACLN II, reads Taxt{}d ; WH, with B, taxel.0á (see on the spelling Westcott-Hort, N.T. ii. Append. p. 155, and Winer-Schmiedel, Gram. pp. 43, 44). D has the extraordinary variant Tapurá (found in diſſerent forms in Old Latin texts, e.g. the curious reading of e, tabca acultha, ; cf. Chase, Syro-Latin Teact, Koju (rather than Ko004) has the best attestation. This is borne out by the occurrence of the same imperative Dip in the Talmud, used in Shabb. 110b ‘seven times in one page,’ where a woman is addressed (so Edersheim, Life atmol Times of Jesus, i. p. 631). Taxubd is probably the Aramaic fem. of *e, found in Hebrew only in plur. Dºsº. The relating of the actual (Aramaic) words used by Jesus is characteristic of St. Mark’s graphic narrative ; cf. 7": * 14* 15". It is need- ſess to speak of ‘mysterious Aramaic words' as ICeinn does (Jesus of Nazara, iv. p. 170) on the assumption that the Gospels clothe our Lord's words of command given in miraculous healings 676 TALMAI TAMMUZ “in Aramaic . . . as if they were magical formulae' (iii. p. 183). The Evangelist simpſ reports the very sounds which fell from Jesus i. upon the ears of the chosen disciples on a specially solemn and memorable occasion. H. A. A. KENNEDY. TALMAI (pºp).-1. A clan, possibly of Aramaic origin, resident in Hebron at the time of the Hebrew conquest and driven thence by Caleb (Nu 13” [BA €eXapelv, Luc. 6a)\apelvl, Jos 1514 [B €oaXpel, A and Luc. 9a)\!waſ], Jg l” [B 00Nuelv, A Gapel, Luc. 60Muel]). See, further, art. AHIMAN, No. 1. 2. Son of Ammihur (or Ammihud), king of Geshun, and a contemporary of David to whom he gave his daughter Maacah in marriage. He was still living many years after Maacah’s mar- riage, for her son Absalom, when he fled from David after the death of Amnon, found refuge with Talmai at Geshur (2 S 3° [B 00ppel, A 6'0Nuet, Luc. 60)\pi] 13” [B 00Nuaixiu, A €oxopal, Luc. 60Xpt], 1 Ch 3° [B ©oapat, A €oNuet, Luc. 60Xopal]). G. B. GRAY. TALMON (ſº, in Neh 12” phe).-The name of a family of temple gatekeepers, 1 Ch 9", Ezr 2*, Neh 740 1119 1225 § Tapuápa, TeXutºv, TeXapadºv, TeXa- pºetv ; A Texuāv, TeXAdºv, Toxºdºv ; Luc. Xexpatów, except in 1 Ch 9” TeXAdv). See, also, TELEM. TAMAR (nº “palm-tree;).—1. (6apuáp) A Canaan- ite woman, married to ER and then to his brother ONAN. When Judah, deterred by the death, successively, of two sons, hesitated to give his sur- viving son, Shelah, to perform the duty of levir (see MARRIAGE, vol. iii. p. 269"), Tamar, who had assumed the disguise of a kédésháh in order to effect her purpose, became by her father-in-law himself the mother of twin sons, PEREZ and ZERAH (Gn 38 [J), Ru 41°, 1 Ch 2", Mt 1°). 2. (9muáp, €apºp) The beautiful sister of Absalom, who was violated and brutally insulted by her half-brother, Annon, 2 S 13). This conduct 3. to the murder of the latter by Absalom, v.” The significance of v.” (“speak unto the king, for he will not with- hold me from thee') is noticed in art. MARRIAGE, vol. iii. p. 26.7°. 3. A daughter of Absalom (2 S 14” B 9mu&p, A €apuáp). The LXX adds that she became the wife of Rehoboam. She would thus be identical with MAACAH of 1 K 15%, 2 Ch 1120r. Indeed Lucian reads MaaXá even in 2 S 1497. This question, however, of the identity of Rehoboam’s wife is involved in considerable obscurity. See the Comm. ad loc. J. A. SELBIE. TAMAR (-ipº “palm-tree'; 9atudy ; Thamar).— 1. In the vision of Ezekiel, the eastern boundary of the land which the twelve tribes were to inherit was to terminate at the East, or Dead Sea ; and the S. boundary was to be ‘from Tamar as far as the waters of Meriboth-kadesh to the widy of Egypt’ (Ezk 47"; read also Tº ‘unto Tamar,” for *iºn ‘ye shall measure' in v.”). The land was to be divided into parallel strips extending from E. to W., and the southern strip was to be assigned to Gad, whose S. boundary was to be that of the twelve tribes (Ezk 48*). A comparison of the boundaries in Ezk 47 with those given in Nu 34, shows that the same limits are intended, and Tamar must therefore be looked for in the vicinity of the ascent of Akrabbim to the S. of the Dead Sea (cf. the boundary of Judah in Jos 15-4). Tamar cannot be “Hazazon - tamar which is Engedi’ (2 Ch 20°), for this place is near the middle of the W. shore of the T)ead Sea, and is mentioned under its later name by Ezekiel (47"). It may possibly be the Asasan Thamar of Fusel)ius ind Jerome (Onom. 85. 3, 210. 86), which they identified with Thamara, a village with a fort and Roman garrison, which was a day's journey from Hebron on the road to Elath. This place appeal's as Thamaro in the Peutinger Tables, on the road from Hebron to Petra ; and as a place in Judaea in Ptolemy (V. xvi. 8). But it has not yet been identified. 2. In 1 K 918 the RV, following the Kéthibh, reads Tamar (B om., A €9epud.6) as the name of one of the places which Solomon built, whilst, AV, following the Kéré, reads Tadmor (cf. 2 Ch 8'). All the other places mentioned in this passage, Gezer, Beth-horon, and Baalath, are in Southern Palestine, and the expression ‘Tamar in the wilderness, in the land,’ seems to imply that, like Baalath, it was either in the Negeb, or in the wilderness of Judah. It is probably the same place as No. 1 above. ‘Tadmor” of the Kéré rob. came from 2 Ch 8", and its place there may have been due to a characteristic desire on the part of the Chronicler to bring Solomon into con- nexion with the historic Palmyra (see Thenius or Kittel, ad loc.). W. WILSON. TAMARISK (ºv's, &poupa).-This name occurs 3 times in OT (RV only; see GROVE, No. 2). Abra- ham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba, Gn 21* (J); Saul sat under the tamarisk mon: l S.22%; Saul and his sons were buried under the tamarisk in Jabesh, l S 311°. There are.8 or perhaps 9 species of tamarisk in Palestine and Syria. Of these the most abundant are Tamaria, Syriaca, Boiss., T. tetrandra, Pall., T. tetraffyma, Ehr., and T. Pal. lasii, Desv., all of which are found along the coast. There are also T. Jordanis, Boiss., T. mannifera, Ehr., T. articulata, Wahl, and T. macrocarpa, Bunge, desert species. They are shrubs or small trees, with a flattened hemispherical comus, and brittle branches and twigs, with minute scale-like leaves, white or pinkish, perfect or dioecious flowers, in dense spike-like racemes. Most of then thrive, especially in sandy soil, or exposures where they receive the sea air laden with salt. They some- times attain a height of 30 ft., and would easily, in that case, serve as landmarks (1 S 22"). The tamarisk in Jabesh may have marked a shrine. G. E. POST. TAMMUZ (nºn, 0appoiſº, Adonis).-In the 6th year of Jehoiachin's captivity, and the 5th day of the 6th month, Ezekiel saw women in the north gate of the temple ‘weeping for Tammuz.” (Ezk 814). Tammuz was a Bab. deity whose worshi had been imported into the west at an early period. The name was originally the Sumerian Dümu-zi, ‘the son of life,” which became in Semitic Baby- lonian Duwu-zu and Dúzu, though in Babylonian contract-tablets of the age of Abraham we also find Tamuzu (see Rec. de trav. relat. & la phil. et arch. 69/p. et assyr. t. xvii. p. 39 note). The form Tā’āz given by en-Nedim, an Arab writer of the 10th century, contains a reminiscence of the abbreviated form, like the Thoas and Theias of Greek mythology. Tammuz was originally the Sun-god, the son of Ea and the goddess Sirdu, and the bridegroom of the goddess Istar. He seems to have been 3rimarily a god of Eridu, the culture-city of Baby- onia on the Persian Gulf. His home was under the shade of the tree of life or world-tree, which grew in the midst of the garden of Eridu, and on either side of which flowed the rivers Tigris and Euphrates. The legendary poems of Babylonia described him as a shepherd, cut off in the beauty of youth, or slain by the boar's tusk of winter (see Macrob. Saturn. i. 21), for whom the goddess Istar mourned long and vainly. She even de- scended into Hades (see BABYLONIA, vol. i. p. 221") in the hope of restoring him to life, and the hymn which described her descent through the seven gates of the infernal world was recited at the TAMMUZ TAPPUAH 677 annual commemoration of the death of the god by ‘the wailing men and wailing women.” This took place in Babylonia on the 2nd day of the 4th month, which *:::. accordingly, the name of Tammuz (our June), the day being called a day of ‘weeping.’ Istar was believed to have mourned her lover with the words, “O my brother, the only (son) l’ and to these the mourners further added, “Ah me, ah me !” This mourning for the ‘only son is referred to in Am 8" (cf. Zec 12"), and the words of the refrain are given in Jer 22”. Under the form of alºuvov (ai-lénē, “woe to us.') they were carried from Phoenicia, to Greece, and gave rise to the belief in the mythical Linos. In Canaan Tammuz was addressed as Adonai, “my lord,’ the Greek Adonis, and the story of Actonis and Aphroditë, the Ashtoreth or Istar of the Semites, made its way to Cyprus, and from thence to Greece. But Tammuz had long since changed his character. He had ceased to be the young and beautiful Sun-god, and had become the representative of the vegetation of spring, growing by the side of the canals of Babylonia, but parched and destroyed by the fierce heats of the summer. Hence in Babylonia, his funeral festival came to be observed in the month of June, and in Palestine two months later. Gebal was the chief seat of the Phoen, observance of the festival. In the red marl brought down in the spring-time by the river Adonis (now Nahr Ibrahim), the women of Gebal saw the blood of the slaughtered god. ‘Gardens of Adonis’ were planted, pots fiſhed with earth and out herbs, which soon withered away, and in which a wooden figure of the god had been placed. The wailing women tore their hair and lacerated their breasts during the seven days that the period of lamen- tation lasted. In the time of the 26th Egyp. dynasty, Adonis of Gebal was identified with Osutis, and the festival of his resurrection was accordingly commemorated as well as that of his death. The announcement of it was made by a head of papyrus which came over the waves from Egypt, while the Alexandrians declared that it was at Gebal that Isis had found the dismembered limbs of Osiris (see Lucian, de Déa Syr. 7). How the funeral festival was celebrated in the temple of Aphrodité (Ashtoreth) on the Lebanon is de- scribed by Lucian (de Dea Syr. 6). In an ancient Bab, hymin Tammuz is called ‘the lord of Hades.’ In the Nabataean Agriculture of Kuthämi, a Mendaite writer of Chaldaea in the 5th cent. A.D., we are told of the temple of the Sun at 13abylon, in which the images of the gods from all the countries of the World gathered themselves together to weep for Tammuz, and Ibn Wah- shiyyah, the translator of the work into Arabic, adds that he had “lit upon another Nabataean book, in which the legend of Tammuz was nar- rated in full; how he summoned a king to worship the 7 (planets) and the 12 (signs of the Zodiac), and how the king put him to death, and how he still lived after being killed, so that he had to put him to death several times in a cruel manner, Tammuz coming to life again each time, until at last, he died.’ Abū Sayyid Wahb ibn Ibrahim (quoted by en-Nedim) states that the festival of weeping women in honour of ‘Ta’uz’ was on the 15th of Tammuz, and that Ta'uz had been put to death by having his bones ground in a mill. The Graeco-Phoenician version of the legend is given by Melito in his Apology (Cureton's Spicileg. Syriacum, p. 25 of Syr., text): The sons of Phoenicia worshipped łith (Beltis), the queen of Cyprus. For she loved Tamuzo, the son of Kuthar, the king of the Phoenicians, and she for- sook her kingdom and came to dwell in Gebal, a fortress of the Phoenicians. And at that time she made all the villages subject to Kuthar the king. For before Tamuzo she had loved Ares, and com- mitted adultery with him, and Hephaestos her husband caught her, and was jealous of her. And Ares came and slew Tamuzo on Lebanon while he was hunting the wild boars. And from that time Balthi remained in Gebal, and died in the city of Aphaka, where Tamuzo was buried.” LITERATURE.--Sayce, Rel. of the Ancient Babylonians, ch. iv.; Frazer, Golden Bough, i. 278 (2 ii. 115 ft., 253 f.]; W. R. Smith, RS (Index 8. Adonis’); Jensen, Kosmol. der Bab., a88ūn; Movers, Phön, i. 191, 202ff. ; Jastrow, Rel, of Bab. %d488/r. 1808, pp. 482, 564, 574, etc.; Toy in PB, Ezekiel,' ad loc.; and the Comm. on 1922kiel, esp. those of A. B. Davidson, Bertholet, and Kraetzschmar; also Cheyne on Is 1710 and Driver on Dr. 1137 (where Tammuz is very prob. alluded to). A. H. SAYCE. TANHUMETH (nºriº).-The father(?) of Seraiah, one of the Heb. captains who joined Gedaliah at Mizpah. He is called in 2 K 25” the NEToPHATH. ITE, but in Jer 40 [Gr. 47]* the words “and the sons of EPIIAI come between Tanhumeth’ and ‘the Netophathite’ both in MT and LXX. The form of the name Tamlumeth (LXX in 2 K 25* B 6avéua.0, A €avéuav, Lue. 0avečuat); in Jer 478 B. 9avéuatº, A. eavaéueſ) looks like a feminine (cf. Lagarde, Bild. d. Nom. 126 f.). TANIS (Távis), Jth 119.-See ZOAN. TANNER (8wpore's) occurs only in Ac 948 109.8% of the Simon at whose house St. Peter lodged in Joppa, ; but tanning was a trade that the Jews carried on in OT times (Ex 25", LV 1349). It was, however, regarded with aversion (see the citations from Talm. in Farrar, St. Pawl, i. 264 n.), as it necessitated more or less of ceremonial unclean- ness, especially if the skins of unclean animals were dealt with. The fact that St. Peter did not hesitate to lodge in the house of a tanner indicates that he had already become somewhat liberal in his views regarding the ceremonial law. Simon’s house was by the seaside, which accords with the custom to-day in towns by the sea. In ancient times tanneries were usually without the walls of towns, because of the unclean character of the trade, and the disagreeable odours caused by the work. The process of preparing skins for use by the Jews may be inferred from what is known of it among the Egyptians and Arabs. The hair of the skins was removed by lime or the acrid juice of the Periploca secamine, a desert plant (Wilkinson, Amc. Egyp. ii. 186, ed. 1878); the skins were first treated with flour and salt for three days, and cleansed from fat and other extraneous matter. The stalks of the above plant were pounded and placed in water, and then applied to the inner surface of the skin. This caused the hair to loosen, after which the skin was left to dry for two or three days, and then subjected to the further processes of tanning, In these they used the pods of the Sumt or Acacia Nilotica, which is common in the desert, or the bark or leaves of certain species of Sumac, Rhus Coriaria or R. oa:ycanthoides, the former of which is common throughout the country (see Post's Flora of Syr. and Pal.). Though the trade of the tanner in general was disliked by the Jews, the preparation of skins for parchment was regarded as an honourable calling. H. l’OIRTER. TAPHATH (net); Bº Tab)\)0et, A Taqará, Luc. TaSad,0).--Daughter of Solomon and wife of 13en- abinadab, 1 IC 4*. TAPPUAH (net); B. Oatroſs, A €appoiſ, Luc. Peć- poiſ0).—A ‘son’ of Ilebron, 1 Ch 2". TAPPUAH (men ‘apple').-1. (BA om., Luc. 9aq- qova) A town in the Shephelah mentioned between 678 TARALAH TARGUM En-gannim and Enam, and in the same group with Zanoah, Jarmuth, Adullam, and Socoh (Jos 15”). It was probably to the N. of W&dy es-Sunt, but the site has not been recovered. ristram (Bible Places, p. 48) proposes 'Artūf, near Zorah ; G. A. Smith. (HGHL 202 n.) places it in Wady el- ‘A franj. 2. (B Taqow, Gaſpé9, A 'Eqqové, 9aq,066) A town on the border of Ephraim (Jos 16°), which lay within the territory of Ephraim, whilst its lands belonged to Manasseh (Jos 17°). It is men- tioned in connexion with the brook l'anah (W4aly Kāma), and is probably the same place as En- tappuall. Tristram (Bible Places, p. 195) suggests 'Atif, on the N. side of JVády el-Ferrah. See EN-TAPPUAli. 3. (B 'Aragoºr, Á eat pow) One of the towns W. of Jordan whose kings Joshua smote (Jos 1217). It is mentioned between Bethel and Hepher, and was perhaps the same place as No. 2 above; but this is by no means certain. C. W. WILSON. TARALAH (nºsº ; B 6apem?\á, A €apa)\á ; Tha- Tala). —A town of Benjamin mentioned between Irpeel and Zelah (Jos 18-7). It was unknown to Eusebius and Jerome (Ononn. Gepapid, Therama), and its site has not yet been recovered. C. W. WILSON. TAREA.—See TAHREA. TARES (ºutávia).-There are 4 species of tares in the Holy Land : Lolium perenne, L., the Italy Grass, L. mºltiflorum, Gaud., L. rigidum, Gaud., and L. temulentum, L., the Bearded Darnel. The latter is the most common in the grain fields, and, being as tall as the wheat and barley, is doubtless the plant intended in the parable (Mt 13*). The other species are lower, and have more slender spikes, and smaller grains. The Gr. and Lat. zizania are prob. derived from the Arab, zit'án or zuw&m, the common name for the tare. The seeds are poisonous to man and the herbivorous animals, producing sleepiness, vertigo, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and convulsions, and sometimes death. They are, however, innocuous to poultry. They are sold in all Oriental grain º as food for chickens. It is customary to gather out of the grain fields, not only tares, but all the taller plants growing among the grain, which can be easily pulled up without causing the person engaged to |. over in a way to endanger breaking the stalks of grain. This not only cleans the fields of other plants, but furnishes a large amount of forage for cattle. The allusion in the parable is in substantial accord with modern custom in the East, which is to leave the cleaning of the fields until the grain is well advanced towards the harvest, and can be readily distinguished from all other plants. . Then the women and clildren go into the fields and weed them out, so that an Oriental grain farm in harvest- time is a model of cleanness and beauty. The Tal- mud asserts that tares are degenerate wheat ; and Tristram (with Thomson and others) says that the peasants of the Holy Land believe “that the darnel and the wheat spring from the same seed . . . and that in very wet seasons the wheat itself turns to tares; the fact being that, in such seasons, the wheat perishes, while the rain is favourable to the development of the darnel' (Nat. Hist. 487). . It is clear, however, that the owner of the field, in the parable, had no such idea, as he attributes the re- sult to the sowing of the seeds of tares by the hand of an enemy. The bearing of this parable upon theories of the Church and of Church government is beyond the scope of the present article, and must be studied in wº. on the Parables. G. E. POST. TARGET.—1. = a mark to aim at ; see MARK (vol. iii. p. 214). 2. = a shield; see BUCKLER and SIIII.L.D. TARGUM (ºr * “translation,’ ‘interpretation,” cf. Dynn, Ezr 47).—The Targums are the transla- tions or paraphrases of the OT books made in the Aram. dialect, which superseded Hebrew , as a spºken language among the Jewish population of Palestine and Babylon. The language of the Targuns was formerly called Chaldee, but, while the incorrectness of this is universally recognized, no quite satisfactory designation has replaced it. The Targums were composed in Palestine ; their language is the Aramaic of Judaea, a later repre- sentative of the Aramaic already found in Ezra and Daniel. In the features that chiefly distin- guish Eastern and Western Aramaic it agrees with the old Pal. forms as against the dialect of the Bab. Talmud. Those Targums that were offici- ally recognized in the Bab. schools probably owe something to the influence of the Aramaic º by those who edited and copied them, while the influence of the Hebrew is seen in those transla- tions which exhibit least tendency to free com- position and paraphrase.}. Jewish tradition connects the origin of the Targums with the need for an intelligible trans- lation felt by those who no longer spoke or easily understood the Heb. language. The disuse of Heb. as the vernacular of the Jews, before the en- croachments of Aramaic on all sides, was a very gradual process, and was probably not general much before the time of Christ. Several books or parts of books in the OT canon stand as proof that Heb. was written and read fully three cen- turies after the return from Babylon. The bilin: gual character of the books of Ezra and Daniel (however it is to be explained) presupposes equal familiarity with both languages. Then the Semitic words which occur in the NT are, with few excep. tions, Aramaic. Probably the desire to possess explanations of the Heb. text in Aramaic made itself felt in some places earlier than in others. The first translations consisted of the oral explana- tions given along with the reading of the Sabbath lessons in the synagogue. These were made by a class or guild of interpreters called méthorgé- māmām (pºplmno), appointed for the purpose, but in no sense was their exposition regarded as official or ‘authorized.” How far back the custom extended we cannot be certain. The Mishna (c. 200 A.D.) contains some rules made to regulate the practice.S Thus the reading of the Law was to proceed verse by verse, first in Heb. by the reader, and then its Aram. equivalent by the méthorgémán. In the reading of the lesson from the Prophets three verses at a time might be read, to be followed by their Aram. rendering. There is no mention here of reading out of written Targums, and elsewhere || the use of such writ- ings was forbidden, at least for the Law, in the Sabbath service, but not the preparation and use of them by individuals for private study or School instruction (see, further, art. SYNAGOGUE, p. 641"). There must therefore have been a time when the caprice of the mêthorgémán contributed to the form of the translation, and in fact it is known that certain renderings which have found their way into the Targums were not approved." Neverthe- less, the general phraseology of the oral trans- lations would tend to become fixed by the custom of learning them, and by the recurring use of them in public. Thus we find in NT times traces of Aram. renderings of Heb. verses in books like * Etymology unknown ; probably non-Semitic. + Nöldeke, GGA, 1872, p. 828 f.; Die Senritischen Sprachem, 1809, p. 35 f. ; Nöldeke, Lit. Centralbl. 1877, p. 304 f., 1884, p. 1345 f. Dalman, (Arammatik, p. 9, Die Worte Jesu, pp. 60, 67. § Meſſ. iv. 4. | Jerus. Meg. iv. 1. * See passages enumerated in Dalman, Grammatik, p. 24. TARGUM TARGUM 6.79 the Psalms.” The agreement of these with read- ings still found in Targums, which we know were not reduced to their present form till long after, cannot be purely accidental. The tradition of the confiscation of a Targum on Job in the 1st cent. A. D. t shows that written Targums existed then, though the use of them was not countenanced by the authorities and guardians of the sacred text. Of the character of these earliest attempts at translating the Heb. Scriptures into Aramaic we know nothing, as none of them have come down to us. All those in our hands are the products of a much later time, none perhaps older than the 4th or 5th cent. A. D. Like much else in Jewish literature, these late productions were based upon older exegetic material, the origin of which lies far behind our first means of access to it. But it is no longer possible for us to separate the different strata and assign them to different ages of com- Dosition. The examinations of them which have Jeen made in this direction do not vield a sufficient number of cases of distinctly older contents to enable us with conſidence to assign them to an early date, embedded as they are in documents admittedly late, of which they share the linguistic and other peculiarities. The Targums now known to be extant are as follows:— i. For the Pent., three Targums: (1) the Targ. of Onkelos, also called the Bab. Targ. on the Pentateuch ; (2) a Targ. of certain parts of the Pent., called the Jerus. Targ. II. or the Fragmentary Targum ; (3) a complete Targ. on the l’ent. akin to No. (2), called the Targ. of Jonathan (pseudo-Jonathan], or Jerus. Targ. I. ii. On the Prophets, Earlier and Later: the Targ. of Jonathan bar Uzziel, also called the Bab. Targ. on the Prophets. iii. On the Hagiographa, we have Targums for (1) Psalms, Proverbs, Job ; § the Megilloth (Cant., Ruth, Lam., lºccles., Est.); (3) Chronicles. - No Targums have been found for Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel. In harmony with their character as popular translations of religious books, intended in part to meet the wants of the religious community, the Targums are not always or primarily literal trans- lations. The translations are often mixed up with curious paraplyrases and stories such as we meet with in the other Jewish exegetical or homiletic works (midràshàn). They contain, besides, expan- sions or alterations adapted to secure that the sense of Scripture current among the authorities should find access in an intelligible form to the minds of the people. The theology of the early books of Israel’s history and religion took no pains to obviate the appearance of a very distinct an- thropomorphic character, but the time came when the main feature of Jewish criticism and exegesis was the anxiety to remove or soften down all references to God that could thus give rise to mis- understanding in the popular mind. The history of the Heb. text itself bears witness to this scru- pulous feeling for the Divine majesty:, , cf. the tikküné Sophérèm; the use of Tha = rs) or 99p when used directly before the name of God ; punctuation like n\Nº Is 1”, etc.; and the LXX has sometimes been influenced by the same solicitude (cf. Ex 24"). But the clearest expression of this hermeneutic principle is to be found in the Targums, and every page of them illustrates the practice. In fact the }. for anthropomorphic views of God is taken away by the Jewish notion that man was created, not in the image of God but in the image of the angels (cf. Gn 1* Jerus. Targ.). It will be suſli- cient here to enumerate the more usual ways by which everything was avoided that could lead to erroneous or undignified conceptions of God in His own nature or in II is manner of revealing Himself. When God is spoken of as coming into relation with man, walking, speaking, swearing, repenting, etc., Some periphrasis for the Divine name is used, by which literary device it was felt that God was somewhat removed or raised above the plane of human affairs, and that Iſis action, therefore, was less direct and more fittingly mediated. There is some evidence that R^\in", Thi^T, ‘word of Jahweh,' found only in the so-called Jerus. Targg. (cf. Lv 14), was, poetically and fantastically personified, and so treated as a mediating lactor between God and the world.” In much the same way the "T Nºb"p, as God's messenger in nature and in history, unfailingly operative wherever He sends it, is the most usual expression for bridging over the chasm between God and man. But it is so identified with Jehovah Himself as creator, judge, helper, deliverer of His people, that, from the mediating use of it, it has become but another name for Him (e.g. Gn 18! 359, Ex 342 68 1242, Am 88, Is 421, Ps 24, 12, Job 121). IIow completely Nºb"b has lost all reference to its own meaning is seen esp. from such a phrase as mn'" Rºb'n Tºp, Jos 2281.f God has His dwelling-place in the central division of the highest heavens, and the throne of His glory is there. This glory, resting upon the throne, is conceived of as light, and manifestations of God become manifestations of Iſis glory, veiled doubtless in a cloud so as not to cause blindness (cf. Gn 271 Targ. Jerus.). This ‘glory of God’ ("I Nºp’) and ‘the presence of the glory of God” (”T Nºp' njºy) are further expressions which may be used for God Himself active in the world : Gn 2813, Ex 31 2020 349 (pseudo-Jon.), 1 K 2219, Is G43, Ps 912 178; similarly TBN Y". Ps 132, cf. Ex 3311 (pseudo-Jon.); "| Nnlºw hºl Ps 423. This instance is indicative of the tendency in later times to use a double expression for the earlier simple one, e.g. ** Nipp D)w Gn 1613 2148 (Frag.), "T Rnjºw np Gn 22144927 (Frag.), Job 1418.3: As God is and remains infinitely exalted above and distant from men, His actions and theirs become, equally, events that happen in His presence as a spectator. Hence the preposition Dºp is in almost exclusive use before the Divine name through- out the Targums. As a variant for it we sometimes find Now', esp. in the Jerus. Targums (cf. 12x2219, Lv 2319); or such words as synºns, Nnºni are used before the Divine name (Nu 1443, Dt 44). Of course, unlike Nino"p, Nºp", NJ’ºw, these cannot be subjects of verbs. Another way of removing the Divine name from too imme- diate a relation to man was found in putting a verb to which the name was subject in the passive voice : Gn 4410, Ex 19's, Nu 98. In this way, yn', TNT become Dip ºn ; vow = DTP vºw ; in , Nīn, may = *ins. In passages where eyes, arms, hands, ſingers, face, mouth, wings, etc., are attributed to God, some other expression (as ‘word,' " might,” “shekinah’), is often (not always) employed : Gn 821, Ex 74 S15 1510, Jos 424 914, 1’s 368. Expressions in the gen. case before the name of God are paraphrased : Gn 2S1, 3119, Ex 420. The sense of a passage is even altered from motives of rever- ence or to avoid anthropomorphisms: Gn 414 2013, Ex 33%, Is 108 106, Ps 27. Interrog. sentences are rendered by the words that expressed the translator's sense of what the answer intended would be : Gn 1820, Dt 324. - When one and the same expression has for object both God and men, the difference to the translator's mind is obtained by using a different preposition : Gn 324' 5020, Ex 1491, Nu 3.1°. The word D'n''N, when used of heathen deities, is usually rendered NYyto: Jos 237, 16, Jg 212. When applied to men it is rendered nn (Ex 416 71), Nº" (Ex 210, in Ps 821 jºy"); cf., further, Gn 80 panana = onºsa, Ps 86 Nºsºpp = Drºso. i. TARGUMS ON THE PENTATEUCH.—l. Onkelos. —The official Targ. on the Pent. has been handed down under the name of the Targ. of Onkelos. According to the Bab. Talmud, Onkelos was a proselyte who lived in the 1st cent. A.D., but only once is any mention made of him as the writer of a Targum; $ and here the corresponding passage in the Jerus. Talmud, which makes no mention. of a Targ. of Onkelos, makes it clear that a confusion with the Gr. translator Aquila is the origin of the tradition which connects Onkelos with the Targ. called by his name. . The author ºf the Targ, is quite unknown; and it is not at all certain that we have to seek for it a single author... It has certainly a uniformity of style and dietion, but this may equally well arise from otlicial revision. The work, or parts of it, may have been first com- piled during the 2nd or 3rd cent. A.D. in Judaea, * Weber, System der Al itsynagogalischen. Theologie, p. 174 f. + Notice the use of npºp Job 7° 1918 (of Job himsel f). Cf. Ginsburger, Die Anthroponnorphismen in den Thar gum im, p. 44. * Mt. 27.10, cf. Ps 222; Eph 48, cf. Ps 6819. i Bab. Shab. 115. 1. § Bab, Meg. iii. 1, | Pal, Meg. i. § 11 680 TARGUM TARGUM but it never seems to have obtained any great currency or esteem in Palestine. It is first quoted § the name of Onkelos in a writing of Gaon Sar Shalom in the 9th cent. A.D.” In the Bab. Talmud it is referred to as “our Targum” (iTT blinn), or by the formula, “as we translate.” + The name ‘Baby- lonian Targum” does not therefore refer to its lin- guistic character, as was formerly supposed, for its language is the Aramaic of Judaea, but has been given to it because in the 4th or 5th cent., after a final revision in Babylon, the centre of literary activity among the Jews at that time, it was sanctioned or recognized as an ‘authorized' velsion. It came, in fact, to enjoy the reputation of being the best of all the Targums, and a special Massorah was prepared for it as for the original text itself. Even after the original purpose of the Targ, had been left behind, when Aramaic had disappeared before the rise of Islam and the spread of the Arabic language, the Targ. of Onkelos con- tinued to be written, and printed, as an accompani- ment of the Heb. text, verse after verse, or in parallel columns. The custom of reading it in the synagogue has gradually died out. Yemen, in South Årabia, is now the only exception to this. Speaking generally, the translation is good, and faithful to the original. The text from which it was made was in all essentials the Massoretic text, and it is rendered in accordance with the con- ceptions that prevailed in the Jewish schools of the period. Poetic passages, e.g. Gn 49, Dt 32. 33, are not rendered so accurately, probably on account of their greater difficulty ; paraphrase occasionally takes the place of translation; mid- arāshim, both halākhī and haggádà, though by no means in the same degree as in the other Targg. to the Pent., are not entirely wanting. The removal of anthropomorphic or anthropo- pathic expressions referring to God is effected by the devices mentioned above ; but, apart from this, the characteristic Jewish theological doctrines find scarcely any illustration in this Targum. ... I'igura- tive language, as a rule, is not translated literally, but is explained: e.g. Gn 49*, Ex 15%. 8, 19 29%. For an instance of cabljalistic interpretation in Onkelos cf. Nu 12, where snyev snns is the Targ. for nºwan Twsn. Gn 4919 and Nu 24/7 are ‘Messiani- cally ' explained. Geographical names are some- times replaced by those current at a later time ; cf. Gn 1010 372", Dt 317. The first edition of this Targum was published at Bologna in 1482. - 2. Fragmentary Jerusalem Targum.—This Targ. contains only certain parts of the Pent., estimated at about 850 verses in all. Three-fourths of it are on the historical sections of the Pent., and the remaining fourth on the legislative sections in Exod., Lev., Numbers. In about 90 verses the trans- lation refers only to some single word of the text, and in about 14 chapters there is no translation or annotation at all. Where longer sections of it occur it is often extremely paraphrastic, the text being overlaid with midrashic stories. Its lan- guage is Palestinian Aramaic, but of a degenerate type, foreign words occurring in it to a great extent. It has affinities with the language of Onkelos, the l’al. Talmud, and midrāshim, and also with the vocabulary of the Bab. Talluud.: negligence of the compiler of the variants. (2) It has been supposed” to be a collection of variants and corrections to the Targ, Onk., more suited to the taste of the compiler and his age than the bald and literal version that had gained supremilacy in the schools of Babylon. (3) Another form of this view f is that the Ifragmentary Targ. contains extracts from an earlier Jerus, Targ, which at one time existed complete. Its present form is not due to chance: the selec- tion of passages was made to be interpolated in the Targ. Onk., supplementing or correcting it at certain points. Such an interpolated Onk, with the supplements and corrections combined, is actu- ally found for the Song of Moses and for the Decalogue in old Machzor MSS, and has been made known by Hurwitz's publication of the Machzor Vitry. f. That there was an earlier com- lete Jerus. Targ. on the Pent. has been inferred from the fact that in various Jewish works from the 11th to the 14th cent. there have been counted over 300 quotations from a Jerus. Targ, which are not to be found in the Fragmentary Targ., and nearly 300 which do not occur in the Targ, of seudo-Jonathan. As these quotations often be: ong to several verses of the same chapter, and many chapters of all the books of the Pent, are represented, the source of them was evidently a continuous and complete work.S The Fragment- ary Targ, is more akin to this source than, the Targ. of pseudo-Jon, for, in passages where both the Frag. Targ. and pseudo-Jon, exist, over 100 quotations are found in the Frag. Targº. While only about 20 are found in pseudo-Jon. Which are wanting in the Frag. Targum. || In about 100 passages the older Jerus. Targ. shows itself, de- pendent on late sources: the two Talmuds, Taº- chuma, Rabba Gen., and Rabba Leviticus... It cannot be dated earlier than the second half of the 7th cent., and may be later. The Frag. Targ: therefore cannot be earlier than the 8th century." First edition of Frag. Targ., Venice, 1517. 3. The Jerusalem Targ. (so-called pseudo-Jomº- than). —The complete Palestinian Targ. on the Pent. has, since . 14th. cent., borne the natue of Jonathan bar Uzziel, the reputed author of the Targ. on the Prophets. From the manifest in- correctness of this ºblinn intended for bºvin Dunn being read Îny Dunn–the name pseudo-Jonathan has gained 'currency. The name ºne", r is ºn is & º f sº found in writers of the lith cent, and pºwin' 'n is only another, not so accurate, variation of this. It had its origin in Palestine, and its language is the Pal. dialect. It is a complete Targ, on the Pent. (only about a dozen verses are wanting ""), of the sanie general character as the Frag. Targ., and based partly upon this latter (or perhaps upon its source, the old Jerus. Targ. mentioned above) and partly upon Onkelos. Its essential charaſºter is it; free Jaggadistic handling of the text. The Targumist's purpose, plainly, was to make the trans; lation but a vehicle for all the popular stories and comments that had grown up around the Biblical characters and events. Among the indications of its date may be noted: Ex 26", the six orders of the Mishna are referred to ; Gn 21* swºly and spºos, a wife and daughter of Mohammed, are men- tioned as wives of Islimael; Gn 49*, Dt 33°, Edom and Ishmael are spoken of as world-powers in a Wily possible only in the 7th cent, at the earliest. Like the other Târgums, it sets aside figurative speeººh, and eliminates (though not with the same regularity as Onkelos) all anthropomorphic expressions re- Its fragmentary condition has been accounted for in various ways. (1) Zunz Ś considered it a collection of various readings to the so-called pseudo-Jonathan Targum on the Pentatouch. But the agreements are no less numerous and striking than the differences, and cannot be reasonably explained by the assumed * Dalman, Grannºn alik, p. 9. # Kiddushin, 49a, ; cf. Zunz, Gottesdienstliche Vorträge 2, p. 69; 19eutsch, Lit. Itemnains, pp. 343, 380; Fricclimann, Omkelos und Akylab, p. 5 m. f Dalman, Grammatik, p. 24. $ l.c. p. 74. * Soligsohn, De dualus Hierosolymitanis Pent. Paraph. 1858, # Bassfreund, Dag I'ragmententaryum zum I'ent. 1890, p. f 1 Bassfreund, l.c. p. 35. e § See, on the other hand, Dalman, Grammo lik, p. 25, II 5 does not find any proof that the source of the uotations was 9 single work on the whole Pentateuch. e | 13assfreund, l.c. p. 21. | Ibid. p. 98. ** Jalman, Araan. Dialektprobe), p. 85. TWIſl{}}IWAL 189 IWIſl{)}{WAL ‘F3I 'd ‘somobat() ‘ſ.tn., “Mouſtiog t *I ‘01. ‘dd "| "vvosoſ" wop toº ºutwo.) JO ! ‘p 8 ‘Bolſ "QuțI × Jo 310 J, ou quuq uſu]loo sº q ºnq “q'v quoo 1st ou? uſ oouoqspºo uſ su pouonuou si qoſ Jo XI: I ou! uo ‘3.It I, V–VII.IVAIboiev H III.], No SINſ) blvl, III ‘(Sotasſuſ) puu ‘àtuſ, Kiuquotiiju.II ou', on uoſºmſon uſ 'uop-opmasq 'Haul, ou, Jo Aoya stu ‘jo) ut?"/sp.tpºtt oul puu pnuum I, augſ out, uuun donut on mp u qu Sºx91 tolluo Jo quouosauluo oys, pºſſippu Jo Anusoil out, out Slop suoo out Stott)0 ! ("Yºu O O.) R.uuL ºut, I ouq go uoy) ulot out) Jo “o Aoqu pouo! -uout ‘AAoA syu ‘jo) sqoudoud outſ, oº, ‘jan; I, Iulouſo out, Uliul toplo Siopistloo out utou) go oucS 'uous)) unuo, l out, O', '55,10,L ‘Suloſ' out! oIA)s puu osamfuul Jo sounquo, uyu).too uſ otatutosol Áouq Su “should -old ou" on 53.1"J, 'snaoſ Jo suyuuuo.1 ovu Kou') quu? Sopulouoo putſ ‘sood nos Attuvu su tuo, J ouoo uſoſul.A sossulo OAU, o] up popjap oq Kuul squuluu A olid quuſ'] spulf of "F.SI ‘º) III (IZ uſ 1040 unuuo alouſ poºjºso Auſ Sull loud tº pun: ‘oo! ppypſo appoi/do.tor ou) Jo 'po sopitºuri uſ xopo.0 ultuonoºt ou', utoly ponuſ.1d uaoq oAuu Shoudol, I ou uo '55.lu I, Jo squousu, J Tullulºs (‘uoſº-opnosti to ‘ātu I, iv.1, I ou?) suolsuooal Ino Jo tou]lo up punoy Aou qou olu Uonua put ‘‘luo, I out) uo '33.tu L 'suaoſ' utoly oximul suoqſ. A USIAAoſ loſu A Suojuhomb ou" on Knuoulu opulu ubog Soul oouologo?I '#6#I “gluor] ‘uruś.It I, SIU, Jo uoſqbo qs.III 'uomo)":Tuo, I out, lio tunj.It I, sm.Ioſ’ BU) put Xuo uooAloq unsoul tº sº qoodsol sitſ, uſ utuštu I, outſ, sološtuo uſ uvuq oſquoophou otou st outſ, slot] nº out) Jo Suopy onulušop to smoºn -0.1 ou! Jo Oouan IJUIſ out,L, ‘rūqū.N = u(rudu : dust, = d.L : N4CGCLL, NL =[ouoſº (N “qold otolu ‘ào) Nall cts : aut! = Eal : ct; = aſſu : suitoſ utopout olou onuſ ºth soulſº -outos out quq “qo H out up sº pouyuqol Kûsoul out, soutſu Iuolu dušook) Iboddo oouo to Aou Tuupägto où, Jo soluntoſ Ruſsoiduod oun put ‘ooutºuadal uo tioplud_Jo Osſuloid UT1A “[ouis I go sups pomuſquod out, uodu Suonº!ounuop Jo soptos tº on odeId so A13 Iottior) puu qoudoid out Jo (ºl soli) KIons olotA oul ‘5-2 : poAIosqo old uoſquqold.Ionuţ opunj.It I, Jo son,I ſensm out ‘oxUI ouq put ‘o:5unsuu oAquinºuſ ‘suoissoucizo opudiouodolūnut, Jo Buſiopuo.1 out o! pruñol (ITIAA 19 of W ‘otö0 ragg &I SI º Jo soonitºsuſ toy ; tı0g drój, ºr 'orsz, SI Jo ‘ostitudu.It Jo said titºxa Iot suoſhuppu Klonºtiºid Xo unt A ‘uoſº -*Isſiu.[] In Juquy a KIIu.touoš o Abū ow syſooq oſqaqd -old out, JO 'sſoz, rift S & ‘all grgi S I : *oqo ‘tou]sºſ ‘tuoop.to IN “suttafuottist; H ‘syloo.1%) out ‘itzzou put[o -ndo N ‘qūto ſoutltios on soouotojo.1 UITIAA osto A Ko 9.S.I.9A pºureiſsa st Moſt A ‘ot-tº S I go : posts.ludu.It’d 9.It sºussud qImog1p to Itoſqood qma ‘so.107.101so.I a)707/do...I oilº uo quuſ, utúl Ib.Ioalſ orouſ sº Sylooq [to],101st oil] uo 3.10.I, oil,I, fºssiz n N or arsi, Ioſ t 4. & pºw * Ç ſº of& 3CI ‘of I XI & ‘dioſ n N ‘ººl S I ‘lićg QCI ‘gg 3ſ go : Sološtu () posta utºqqouoſ quu', ‘KI400,Ltoo ÁIqbqold ‘politogui uooq suit q; ‘uouTuloo uſ KIIuqtoA . ūjoq (IoIUAA sojussed uſu) too tuo,II syſtow uoyuuſ -uloo od oº quitou KLItoſo otu Kou() put ‘ox|II's sq suoſqºſsut'.1% unoq Jo pouqour oùn 10K “xtuO go 310 I, otſ, Su Tºto) iſ os qou SI Sqoqdo.I.I ou lio 5.18L out, ... (topozºl “toſ’ ‘utuoſº uſ 'cºs Áq poliopuoli ula, a '0%) SMooq quo.IoIIIp on 1 on uoiſtuloo old so Inquoy Jonqo quuſ, put ‘stuujiro ouſ, Jo uoſquitº A ou" on 5uſploooo Aſuo &ICA put, ‘ootion.Imooo Iſou, Jo soot. Id (IJoq UI oxiù'ě '1') org (g-tſ of IN =r-rz, SI ‘68-99 to ſ'= "J SI XI &) soft'ssed toilt.It'd quuq usabus suu snyuasos) ‘SITI', 5uſonpold it, poulºu Honu A uoisſaal Injo.1% tº on onp ‘Ioqo'biguo put of Kns Jo Kquiaopun tº soul ‘5.It I, Ino “syſooq oſqondoid out put lºopio)sſu ouq u20Aloq oouotolp our Joy oolid Août, 3uptuſN ‘Āus qoulito ow. Slaudoid out, Jo uoſquistic.In qš.[I] ouſ, uſ populouſ etow soonAtos on 3ošću Ks alſº uſ puo.1 otoA TopſiA suoſloos ouſ, until O.Iotu Iounouſ AA 'sofoxtuO go quitº Soſquiosal Košigſ of unsuuſ sº I q.v quoo IIq9 out, up uo(Kq8g uſ tuio) oaſyuquiou, no put Iuuſ, s]] poAſoool qſ pub ‘ouſnsored up quânos og Oq q.Ind uſ qsual qu SI unji Io sq I oq) go quopisold seas ou.A ‘(£88–01z ‘q'v) uſiuſ) tºd qdosoſ M. Jo out u out topun qu tuoſy pojonb oré soãossed pntuſº,I, où uſ olotAosſºſ 'o'a quoo 4SI oug uſ IoIIIH go old Iosip tº ‘(IoIzzſh Tuq) ubuq -buoſº go ourou out stuoq Sqoudoi.1 oun uo 5.1%.I AAJ Igogo oil.J., - 'SLSIH.IONI.I SIHL No Wnotiv L II ‘19 'd ‘msa/, 27.40A 'dso putſ ‘gº, 'd "uto.t5) ‘unuſud "Jo : 69g ‘992 'del ‘tºnyp.topºv'ſ "so1/p 91(I ‘9)[apio N f 'u' AXX “[OA "*) III (IZ # "I/SI ſº sput up, tun?.imul, quq 0}uuuuoq Soloyſuo Uouti St.GI, “I gº 'd ‘mongſ top woºwn2)0s.taqoſ, “m 1ſt.0/084.0 × “Gºſpºdtun, Jo Iooſſos - ‘qi luory (IAAulp oauu put '3ſuo (Iuuº Ioqui olm ulio, quosald Iſou) up 55.tuſ, 'sndoſ' out, quuſ) soluop ouo ou So “Mtt() (to illuſ, ‘snioſ, ou, Jo oottopuodop osoddnsolid (IoIIIA putºu Mouqo ouſ) uo sojussud juſqoub Aquartú touquil “sojºussud Uſons go uo.1% uujuluxo uu Ulſ.A suputuol uorspoop outſ, ‘lſº póg "(I ‘FF& £13I mN ‘rºoz AI “g 686 otyl et atºl 16 XVI "groj grow ºut) : Sºniºuſ, "suitoſ out) Jo opps out, tio ÁIIIussooou si Aqliolid ou') toujou A ošpuſ Kutti topudi oud odou.A. ponto og Kutu sooum]sti Aoi v ‘Stunjiu I, smuoſ out) Jo osm outſ, Kol pouyu Idzo od O') MIQuuosuol ſtuo olu upſu.ºw truotuouaud Kuu iſ go oouj ou', (to SAous 'Yiuſ) flatſ.L ouq Quuq' quo opulu ...] qou suu q ‘olou') to otouſ soatosulouſ) osolosºp Kutu 'poaq Suotiduop ouq tºo!!! AA uſ odoudsonqu Itºudul Iuliouoi; ouq uo.1, uMuup 'sold ſoul.id to Suoſºpulq oſqošoxo otuus ouq uſinouſ puu : sº to Ao uomusum." It loºpi Kuu Su oſqālūoquy Su onlub sº “LIN ouq ūq;A paludutoo uouſA 'soloiſtuO ‘XIIoMA tº tidus Jo itots,\ol u su jo uoy!ods od Oq imiluſssip ooq SI ‘ālib,I, quuqnsol outſ, 'uMop q Sulunid KQ poulomo.1 od pinoo ºluo ox!II uoyºuſsuu.Iq u quuq “5.It I, §ul I Ino od adjou.tulſo uſ auſtus quoqxo quotº Kuu on otoA 3.1 up, 'suloſ Iuujśllo ouq j ‘oſquqold Jou si qi qnd : oſquqold si uol Squgſ do ouſqsolod uſ uols|Aoi outos poaloool! solosuo quuſ, ‘stumi.iuſ, snaoſ ouſ, Jo opps ouſ, uo Si Áll.toſid où Yuuq uorºolauoo ouſ oompold Jou soop touqugſ pub losſop Aq poomppu sojussud out, Jo uoſº ouſtuuxo un ‘stumātuſ, ‘Sntoſ ouq jouois.l.o.A lotſ,lºo un uodn SotoxtuO Joaouapuodop pošoII'm ouq sp.tuño.1 Sv 'spun go oouoppao ou sº odouſ) put, ‘āuſquº qou Olow Uſons 5uſ).tosuſ toy soilſun],toddo ouq ‘sqouaq uniqsituſ) quTuloo oq pousſa, put outſ, loqui u qu SMoſ’ ouq j ‘oqup A Lit:0 º qu (Ig Joy anuo poxU oud A 33.10ſ, ouſ, Iſu quuſ) Aous 00 poudoid out oA ssoluu quot : on up uniqsituſ)-old Kituo ut, on (quinouq SI qi) squiod unſui uninsulo out, asupušu solutoiod Jo ootiosqu ou', ‘iouqun'ſ fºatiaodtuaquoo u tuoiſ Auo ouðo (poutſolo si q1) pinoo sntruo. AH soutmuoſ oº uſoſus uſ oouologo.1 ou', ‘I (88 q(I : po)SIXa IIIQs qi Ujuouq Su Jo uoy[ods sº duslow-luutºut, utúd K551 otou A ‘zęſ us) : (fºg lù ot[ 3ſ juuL, ‘udoid uſ 'jo) subaququ N out, Jo SoſſI'd put softutoduroquoo ouq ‘aac N. Ka d.c. Jo 5uſ.topuo.1 ou', ‘izig nN. ‘Grgſ up : potioſquou od 'Kutu pouyulo uoeq Sou o' up quotout, ÁuoA u ulopuaa toy sojºussud SW "poqooljo VIInjSSooons SKuAIt qou quouſſºluo Ka ‘āvu.J., 'Snioſ topſo uu utorſ du opulu udoq sout ‘Yºu() .itu.L ouſ) quuſ) to “quopout, AIIuol Sy of USSud (to AI: Nut, jouſ, pousſu.Ing uooq Suu Joo.1d Ionqou dougou A oſqmuoſºsomb suſptuol IIIqs qI ‘ûoſloopo, put uoſquliduoo [ºut] I touq go oſſup out) utiuſ) dopio uonu si quuſ, Iulloquul upoquoo Alqºqoid 35.10.J., ou lºg ‘puuu Mouqo ouq uO 'quoo U18 to U11 ou" on UAop Suoſquaouai, oAssooons uino.Itſ tuoqq 04 opulu Suoſqippu upoluoo Mouq Su “Yºu() 'iſ'.IºT, ouq utú0 loqui Uionul Kipoſ)'] ſtupt; 0.10 odous quosold atouſ) up sunjab,I, "Sntoſ' out) uqoſſ 'sunjiuſ, ‘quod out, Jo quou -dotoaop out uſ ojuqs [out] pum pittuq out, ulog snu" plmoa ‘uoſ -opmosd ‘āIoI, ou I, win/sp.tpºu I'muoſ).Ippo (101A “uoul jouoſquuſq -Uuoo u qoug uſ juſoq “3.It I, 5u.II ouq put ſuo unoq unu') Joneſ sº 'uop-opudsd ‘ātu J, ouq quuq put ‘‘5.10.J., '50.1.1 out, up ‘zya ‘poAtosold AIIuliud Aſuo uooq Sug uot A 3rd I snior u Jo pe posſ Aol puu pošplaqu up spºtuo 310T, ou') ºutſ) ‘Ātiutiuſs quuM -oulos ‘spotſ | lauou:I ‘Ā’im)uoo U”.Imog out) uſ 'uop-opnosd 3.10.J. ouſ, Jo uoisi Aoi oºoſdutoo u Jo q(nso.1 ouq Ālºsojutſu StºA Stuo quuq put, “Stuo uouſ, Jopto ‘uoſquqaddaoquy go toutiqui Iºrouo.8 IIouq go put, squoluoo Iſou'l Jo quºd quot; u Jo uqoq Qoodson uſ ‘olu '55.10.J., 'snia'ſ ouq Q'oùq oaold on pottiſolo ouſ uouſa, “tojyot) Áq positſ.I stan uoſºsomb tou].inj V ‘oaoqu ol politogo.1 uooq Sou ‘Ioqoſ oudjo.Ioun put, “uoſº-opnosd Oq stolim.10d put, squoiada Jo uoſqooHoo u qou sow "3.10.1, 30.1.1 out, touqou A uoſºsomb ouT-'8wmff.10ſ, 'ºwody ovſ, ſo wop 1079?I 10m) nºw pup top.ºO “I69 I ‘ooſuo A “3.It'J, "Sntoſ' go uoſºpo QSU I ‘olo “ouoo on p[toA out up opp poxioſ A ouq (IoITIA (thºop puooos ou', ‘şquouſ.101 Sqſ put dutiouor) “opſ oinquy ou', put qsnſ ouſ, Jo uoſº, -oo.I.Insot ou', ‘tuopiºuſ XI of utºssoſ.W ou', ‘ūquoCI ‘uſ S ‘uoſº tºo.IO's ſoju V. ‘ûuloſ, out, up uoyºuſo Aot SIH ‘oould -šuillowp siph “poſſ) Jo 5uyog out, Jo soul.Thoop USIAAoſ 1040 ou" Jo “syſtoA oft(Sulpſ W louqo tuo, J St IIoA su stunjie,I, onq tuo IJ ‘suoſº.Itsm(II SoA13 ('o'?) Todo AA 'ošū oſputula,I, où, Jo tusſupmſ ouſ, Jo Suoſqdoouoo oſqutušop put snoſ;Holl out, Jo qsoul uo uopybu.topuſ Jo ouſui g sº $10,L, oùJ, ‘ojo 100%I tº uſ quo.Lino osoug Ka poogdor old sougu [Goſudº Iñoo3 ALT8..I ‘ponºſuo KLIGIušo.1 Suſoq Suoſquqoub ornadºtos ou? IIb ‘uitoy posuopuoo olouſ quu Aotuosº uſ 'uoſº-opnosd up punoy out, 3.It I, 38.1, I ou? Jo Suoſqppg out, ‘to touań uſ 'ubuquuoſº-opmosd up 5uſqu'uw ore quuq SIošuo O1 uAo Sqſ Jo soouologo.1 son uopu A ‘Ioqqeſ Gül Uſ: Inooo qou op Soñussed qugAo(0.1 out, Jo ouos qt, tº poqou 9q Oq Sy qi quq : 3.10.J., '5u.II out up uoAo ūgū; luloy podolo Aop 0.1out uomu 8 up 1bodda poſiod IoII.tvo oilſ, Jo Käolououop pub ÁŠolo[05uo 0 (IJ, 'Idiouoff UI olnqºloq 07/sotpºut USIAAoſ' out, uſ Su ‘Āq possed KIAuoluoſ Sqnty, Iſou', put pozi.[bopt oru Iou IsI go sootou ou I, ‘ĀqloGI eu) on 3ulldog 682 TARGUM TARGUM that age has come down to us. None of the Targg. to the Hagiog, which we possess is earlier than the close of the Talmudic period, and probably all of them are much later. The first mention of them is in the 11th century. Unlike the translations of the Law and the Prophets, the Targg. on the Hagiog. are entirely the work of individual trans- lators, modelled upon the older Targums. They were never meant for public use in synagogue or school, having, in fact, been composed after the need for Aram., translations had ceased. They may be conveniently divided : 1. Psalms, Job, (Prov.). , 2. The Megilloth. 3. Chronicles. 1. It is possible that the Targg. on the Psalms and Job come from a single author; at any rate they exhibit marks of similarity in their general method of handling the Heb. text, and they have Some linguistic and other features in common. Unlike the Jerus. Targg. on the Pent., they aim at giving a pretty faithful rendering of the ori- ginal. Haggadie additions are met with occasion- ally, but they are concise, and can easily be separated from the translation proper. Many verses are provided with double translations, the second being ascribed to a different Targ. (N"n= nnn Dunn). In such cases one of the translations is generally haggadic, while the other is more literal, Between forty and fifty verses in Job have such alternative translations, but there are not so many in the Psalms. Half a dozen verses in Job have even a third rendering. The age of the interpolator has been given as the 8th or 9th cent., but there is really no reason for claiming a higher age for the Targg. themselves. Their lan- guage is late and artificial ; they are compositions in what is no longer to the translators a living speech. The general exegetic devices of the older Targg, are reproduced. Anthropomorphisms as a rule, and all figures of speech, are set aside; refer- ences to the history of Israel, to the Law and its study, are frequently introduced ; passages are applied to Edom, Ishmael, or Gog; and the eschato- logical ideas of the synagogue are all met with. We may note that nºt in the Psalms is rendered ſpºyº (cf. Hab 38: 0.18). The peculiar dialect in which the Targ. to the Proverbs, appears has taken up so many features from Syriac that it can only be regarded as an in- congruous mixture of the Aramaic of the Targg. and the Syriac of the Peshitta. Linguistic elements have been gathered from different quarters and placed side by side, without any regard to the unity of structure which must exist in a spoken or written language.” Many entire verses, esti- mated as forming a third of the whole book, are identical with the Syriac translation ; in a further large number there are close resemblances between the two versions, all the more striking where they agree as against the Heb. ; cf. 17 4ſ. 59 72%. 38 9ſ. 12" 16**. It has been shown: that the peculiari- ties of the Targ. are due to the use of the Pesh. by the Targumist. The view that the Pesh. has borrowed from the Targ. does not account for the Syriasms which the latter contains; the analogy of the Jerus. Talm., where most of the peculiari. ties of the Targ, occur, though in less proportions, does not help us to understand why just in such large proportions these peculiarities are here found together. Apart from the distinctly Syriac forms, the language and style of the Targ. are akin to that of the Targg. on the Psalms and Job, and there is no reason for assigning it an earlier date. The translation is literal, and additions to the text are extremely rare.” 2. The Targg. on the Megilloth are distinguished among the Targg. to the Hagiog. by their extreme paraphrastic treatment of the text. In parts of them we can still find the translation embedded in the paraphrase, but in other parts the legendary and homiletic sections which have been added form the main feature of the work. These are made up in various ways. Historical parallels are cited for the narratives of the text, with what would be anachronisms if the Targ. were regarded as a tr. of an ancient writing; motives and reasons are supplied to explain the occurrence of events; proper names are etymologized and ‘explained ’; while figurative language is rendered into prose, allegory takes the place of narrative ; the Sanhedrin is fre- quently mentioned, and the study of the Law intro- duced on every possible occasion ; lengthy gene- alogies are appended to some of the names occurring in the text ; general statements are connected with the names of particular individuals, esp. the patri- archs, Nimrod, Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Titus and Vespasian, Alexander (? = Antiochus), Messiah the king, and Elias the high priest. The books of Ruth and Lam. are less paraphrastic than Eccles., Esth., or Canticles. One text of the Targ. on Esther (that given in the Antwerp Polyglot) is, with few exceptions, a literal translation. Essenti- ally the same text, with many haggadic additions, is printed in the London Polyglot, and this forms the usual Targum to Esther. The so-called second Targum (Shemi) is much more voluminous than the last named, and is regarded as an amalgam from other Targums and midrāshīm, which from time to time were made for this favourite book. It is quoted by the commentators as ‘haggādā’ and as ‘midrash.” More than half the work has nothing to do with the story of Esther, but contains legends about Solomon, the queen of Sheba, etc. The 'Targ. on Canticles is of the same midrashic class : on the basis of certain words of the text we have outlined for us the varying fortunes of the Jewish people from the days of Moses down to the Talmud. We may note besides in this Targ. references to the two Messiahs—Messiah 'son of T)avid, and Messiah son of Ephraim (iv. 5, vii. 3; cf. Jerus. Targ. on Ex 40”; also Jerus. Targ. on Zec 12" in Lagarde, p. xlii). 3. No Targ. to the Books of Chronicles was known to exist until after the great Polyglot Bibles had been published. In 2680-83 a sonne- what incomplete Targ. from an Erfurt MS was edited with tr. and notes by M. F. Beck; † and in 1715 a more complete form of the text from a Camb. MS was edited with tr. by D. Wilkins. There are numerous variations in the two recen- sions. The tr. is in many parts fairly literal, but examples of midrashic amplification are not want- ing (cf. 1 Ch 129 ºn 41872; 1111. * 12%, 2 Ch 2'3' 231). The author made use of the Jerus. Targg. to the Pent. (cf. Gn 10” and 1 Ch 1”, Gn 36” and 1 Cli 1*). The Targ. on the Books of Samuel and Kings was also largely used, of course with the changes in diction and orthography which characterize the Jerus. Targums. 1 Ch 16 is tr. from the lieb. text of Chronicles, and the variations from the Targ. on the l’salms are quite as noticeable as the agree- ments. Indications of the age of the Targ. are the translations or modern forms of geographical names. The redaction of the text represented by the Erfurt MS has been assigned to the 8th cent., that of the Camb. text to the 9th.; The teact of the various Targg. has been handed * Cf. the preform. Impf. 8 pers, masc. in I as well as in ; emph. state cf nouns in ...; 7 for nº ; adverbs in n's, ; ºri (=Elºn), etc. f Dathe, De ratione combensw8 versionis chaldaicoe et Syriaca, Prov. Salom., ed. Itosenmüller, 1814; cf. Nöldeke in Merx's Archiv, 1871, p. 240; Maybaum, to p. 66. * Cf. Pinkuss in ZATW, 1804, p. 109. instances of paraphrase, 2414 281. # Cf. Lagarde, 11agiographa Chaldaice, 1873. $ lºosenberg und Kohler in Geiger's Ztsch. 1870. He mentions tally two TARGUM TARSHISH 683, down and edited in a very unsatisfactory condition. The official Targums on the Pent. and Prophets are relatively the best preserved, but an examination of MSS and the printed edd. shows that a critical ed. was never attempted, nor were the materials for it forthcoming. The early disuse of the Targg. accounts for the unskilful and arbitrary treatment of the texts, and of the non-official Targg. it would be correct to say that they never reached a fixed form till such was obtained by the multiplication of pºinted copies. The vocalization is specially faulty. The South Arabian MSS, with the simpler supra- linear system of vowel points first brought to Europe in 1876, provide us with an older and more trustworthy recension of the Targ. on the Law and l’rophets than any yet in our hands. MSS on the Pent., Prophets, and Megilloth are now to be found in London, St. Petersburg, and Strassburg, and selections from these have been published.” Even when critically edited, the Targums are not likely to be of much use for the criticism of the Heb. text of the OT. That text was fixed as we have it before any of our Targg. were com- piled, and it is but seldom that they throw any reliable light where it is needed. For a reflexion of the spirit of Judaism, on the other hand, as well as for the Jewish interpretation of the text of | their sacred books, they are invaluable. Not that any importance would now be attached to the use formerly made of them by Christian controver- sialists. The Jewish Messianic ideas run through- out all their Targg., but it is now clear that the correct interpretation of particular passages was not exclusively to be found either on the Jewish or on the Christian side (cf. Is 7* 529–53”). LITERATURE.--Carpzov, Critica Sacra Vet. Test., Lips. 1748; Zunz, Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Judem, Berl, 1832, 2nd ed. Frankfurt aſ M. 1892; Geiger, Urschrift whd. Ueber- getzungen der Bibel, Breslau, 1857; Levy, Chald. Wörterb. tiller die Targuanimº. Leipzig, 1867-68; Nöldeke, Die alttest. Litteratur, 1868, Die Semitischen Sprachem?, Leipz. 1899, and reviews mentioned below ; Maybaum, Die Anthropo- 'morphiem bei Onqelos wrºd dem Späterem Targwinin, 1870; Weber, System der alt8/n. Pal. Theol. 1880, 2nd ed. 1897; Merx, Bemerkungen über die Vocalisation der Targwine, Berlin, 1882, Chrestonathia Targumvica, Berl. 1888; Ginsburger, Die Anthropomorphismem in den Thargw.mim, Braunschweig, 1891; Buhl, Kanon wºnd Teat des AT, Leipz. 1891 [Eng, tr.); Schwally, Idioticom, des christlich-paldist. Aramäisch, Giessen, 1893; Dalman, (Aram. des jiid.-paláist. A rannótisch, Leipz. 1894, Aram. Dialektprobem, Leipz. 1896, Arannitisch-Newhebräisches Wörterbuch, Frankfurt aſ M. 1897–1901, Die Worte Jesw, Leipz. 1898; The Introductions to the OT", by Eichhorn, de Wette, Riehm, Bleek-Wellhausen, lºënig, Cornill, Strack ; cf. also Deutsch, Literary Itemains, Lond. 1874 = art. ‘Targum' in Smith's D13; Schiller-Szinessy, art. in Encycl. Brit. 9; Volck, art. in PR19.2, revised by Nestle in 3rd cdition. On the l’ent. Targums: Winer, De Onqeloso Giusque Paraphrasi Chald., Lips. 1820; Petermann, De databws Pent, paraphrasi- bus chald., Berl. 1829; Luzzatto, Philoaemws, sive de Omkel. chald. Pent. versione Dissertatio, Vienna, 1830; Frankel, ‘Jºiniges zu den Targumim' in Ztsch, für die Interessen des Judentumns, 1846, Zat dem Targum der Propheten, Breslau, 1872; Seligsohn und Traub, “Ueber den Geist der Ueberset- zºung des Jonathan zum Pent.” in Frankel's Monatsschrift G. W. J. 1857; Seligsohn, Je dual us IIierosol. Pent. paraphrasibus, Breslau, 1868 ; litheridge, The Targums of Omkelos and Jon- atham, bem, Uzziel on the Pent. with the It'ragments of the Jerusalem. Targum: from the Chaldee, 2 vols. i.ond. 1862–65; Geiger, ‘Das mach Onkelos benannte babylonische Thargum zum Pent.” in his Jüdische Ztsch. 1871 ; Bacher, “Ueber das regenseitige Verhältnis der pent. Thargumim” in ZDMG, 1874; erliner, Die Massora zwin Targum. Omkelos, Leipz. 1877 (cf. review by Nöldeke, Lit. Centralbl. 1877), T'argum. Omkelos, Berl. 1884 (cf. review by Nöldeke, Lit. Centralbl. 1884, by de Iagarde, GGA, 1886); Gronemann, Die Jonathamsche Pent.- Uebersetzung in ihrem Verhältnisse zwy. IIalacha, Leipz. 1879; Singer, Onkelos wºnd das Verhältniss Seines Targatºns zwr IIalacha, Halle, 1881 ; Kautzsch, Mittheilung über eine alte IIandschrift des Targum. Omkelos, Halle, 1803; 13arnstein, The T'angwm of Omkelos to Gemesis, a critical enquiry into the value of the teat cashibited by Jemen. MSS, London, 1896; Bass- freund, Das I'ragmententargatºm zum Pent., 13reslau, 1896; Friedmann, Omkelos wºnd Akylas, Vienna, 1800 ; Landauer, J)ie Masorah zwm Omkelos, Amsterdam, 1896; Ginsburger, Das * See the Iliterature, mentioned below, under the names Merx, Kautzsch, 1°riitorius, Dalman, Barnstein. # Cf. IIühn, Die Messianischem. Weissagwngen des is raelitisch- füdischen Volkes, 1809, p. 111 f. Fragmententargwm (edited from MSS), Berl. 1899; Diettrich, * Beobachtungen, zu drei jemenitischen Handschriften des Onqelost.argums' in ZAT"W, 1000. Targums on the Prophets: Gesenius, Commentar über den Jesaja, Leipz. 1821, Einl. § 11; Pauli, The Chaldee Paraphrase on the Prophet 184tah, Lond. 1871 ; Frankel, Zw demn Targum der Propheten, Bresl. 1872 (cf., review by Nöldeke, GGA, 1872); de Lagarde, Prophetoe, Chaldaice, Lips. 1872 (cf. review, by Nöldeke, Lit. Centralbl. 1872); Bacher, “Kritische Unter- suchungen zum Propheten-Thargum” in ZDMG, 1874; Prä- torius, Das Tºrgwin zw Josua in jemenischer. Ueberligferung, Berl. 1899, Das T'airgwm zum Buche der Itichter in jemem. Ueberl. Berl. 1900. Targums on the Hagiographa : Ginsburg, Translation of Targum on Ecclesiastes in his Commentary, London, 1861; Rosenberg und 1Cohler, “Das Targum zur Chronik' in Geiger's Żtsch. 1870; Maybaum, “Ueber die Sprache des Targum zu den Sprüchen und dessen Verhältniss zum Syrer' in Merx, Archiv, 1871, p. 66 f. (cf. Nöldeke's reyiew, p. 246 f.); Bacher, Das Thargum zu Hiob' in Monatsschrift G. W. J. 1871, ‘Das Thar- gum zu den Psalmen,' do. 1872; de Lagarde, IIagiographa Chaldaice, Lips. 1873; Weiss, De Libri Jobi Paraphrasi Chal- daica, Berl. 1873; Reis, ‘Das Thargum Scheni zu dem Buche Esther’ in Momatsschrift G. W. J. 1876, 1881; Munk, Targw.m. Schemi zwm Buche Esther, Berl. 1876; Cassel, Das Buch Iºsther, Berl. 1878 (gives tr. of the Targ.] ; Baethgen, “Der textkritische Wert der alten Uebersetzungen zu den Psalmen’ in Jahrb. Prot. Theol. 1882; Gelbhaus, Die T'argumliteratur, Heft 1, ‘I)as Targum Sheni,” Prankfurt aſ M. 1893; Pinkuss, “Die Syrische Uebersetzung der Proverbien' in ZAT'W, 1804; Levin, T'argum. wnd Midrash zwm, Buche Eliob, Mainz, 1895 ; 1)avid, Das Taº- gwm Schemi, Berlin, 1898. T. WALKER. TARPELITES (sºlº, plur. emph. ; B Tapapax- Na'ot, A and Luc. Tappa)\} alot). —One of the peoples settled by Assurbanipal (?) in the cities of Samaria, Ezr 4". Their identity is quite uncertain. Rawlin- son suggested the Tuplai of the Inscriptions, i.e. the Tugapmvot on the coast of Pontus ; Hitzig con- jectured Tripolis in N. Phoenicia. TARSHISH (ºn). — 1. See following article. 2. The eponym of a Benjamite family, 1 Ch 7" (B'Papegoal, A and Luc. 9apalets). 3. One of the seven princes of Persia and Media who ‘sat first in the kingdom,’ and had the right of access to the royal presence, Est 1” (LXX on.). See ADMATHA. 4. The name of a precious stone (once Ezk 10" Jºnº ps, elsewhere simply cºnn), Ex 28° 39'', Ezk 110 100 288, Ca. 5*, Dn 10"; identified by AV and RV with the beryl, although RVm offers as alter- native renderings chalcedomy or topaz or stone of Tarshish. The LXX has in Exodus and Ezk 28° (cf. Jos. Amt. III. vii. 5) xpvgöX100s, in Ezk 40° div0paš, elsewhere 0apoets. See, further, artt. STONES (PRECIOUS), p. 620°, and TOPAZ, p. 797. J. A. SELBIE. TARSHISH (Jºhn ; LXX 9aporets [on other renderings see below]).-The name of a maritime country, situated far to the W. of Palestine. The biblical passages teach us the following facts about this much discussed name :— In Gn 104 = 1 Ch 17 Tarshish is one of the sons of Javan, under which latter name the Orientals seem to have comprised almost all Western mari- time nations. In Gn 10 we find the order: Elishah (i.e. Cyprus, after the most modern researches), Tarshish, Kittim (AV Chittim, which was, until recently, usually explained as the Cyprians, but they belong, with .. probability, to much more westerly tracts of the Mediterranean; cf. Winckler, Forschüngen, ii. 442), and Dodanim (or Rodanim, a very obscure name). This arrangement does not allow any certain conclusions.—In Jon., 1* , the prophet embarks at Joppa to flee to Tarshish (cf. 4*), which seems to represent here the extreme ends of the earth, so far as it was known to the Hebrews, the country farthest away from Jello- vall's seat.—In Is 66" it represents, together with Javan, with the isles afar off and several Asiatic (if we except the somewhat doubtful lºul or Put) countries, the most remote quarters of the earth to which the exiled Jews may have fled ; cf. below on 609.--Somewhat similarly, Ezk 38" places Sheba and Dedan and the merchants of fºllºi. parallel ū84 TARSHISH TARSHISH with (or, better probably, in contrast to) the mysterious Gog .# Magog. It is impossible to draw any inferences about the situation of Tarshish from this parallelism ; certainly vicinity to the Arabian countries Sheba, and Dedan is not indicated (cf. Gn 10').-Ps 72” quite analogously places the kings of Tarshish and of the isles in contrast to the kings of Sheba and Seba.-In Is 23° the prophet sarcastically advises the Tyrians to flee from the approaching destruction of their city to Tarshish and the isle (read evidently the plural: isles). W.” works this out more fully : * Overflow (RVm) thy land as the Nile, O daughter of Tarshish : there is no more girdle' (AWm ; text ‘strength ), i.e. that country will be overcrowded by Phoenician fugitives. Evidently, Tyrian ships were specially familiar with the journey to j. The remote position of Tarshish led to the use of the expression ‘Tarshish ship' for a certain class of specially strong and large ships, destined for longer voyages, exactly as sailors used to mean by an ‘East Indiaman’ a type of ship, not only one sailing to or from India (thus, correctly, already Gesenius, Thesaurus). Ezk 27*(RV) “the ships of Tarshish were thy caravans for thy merchandise,’ need not necessarily point to a prevalence of naval trade with Tarshish. Is 60° ‘the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first to bring thy sons from far,’ might, indeed, also be understood literally as a parallel to 66". The curse on Tyre, however, in 23", beginning “Howl, ye ships of Tarshish,” means, evidently, the Tyrian fleet, or its best ships; or, at any rate, not ships belonging to the inhabitants of Tarshish. Ps 487 “with the east wind thou breakest the ships of Tarshish,” intends only a very general illustration of God’s power over the most mighty things. Cf., analo- gously, Is 2" “(the day of the Lord shall be) on all ships of Tarshish.” In 1 K 10” “the king (Solomon) had at sea, a navy (better : a ship) of Tarshish with the navy of Hiram,’ and this ship was sent to bring ‘gold and silver, ivory, and apes and pea- cocks”; evidently, the expeditions to Ophir (v.” and 9°) are meant. Wherever that country of Ophir may have been, it is clear that the Tarshish ship was not sailing to or from Tarshish, but along the E. African coast, as already its sailing port Ezion-geber shows. The Chronicler, however, no longer understood that old nautical expression, and interpreted it, literally, of an expedition sent to Tarshish. Thus 2 Ch 9” “ships that went to Tarshish with the servants of Huram,” etc. (after 1 K 10*), and 2U” “Jehoshaphat of Judah joined himself with Alhaziah, king of Israel, to build ships in Ezion - geber to go to Tarshish.’ These ships were broken so that they were not able to go to ‘Tarshish,’ while the original text, I K 22*, spoke merely of ‘ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir for gold.” These passages might be understood (together with Ezk 38”, Ps 72") as pointing to a region of Arabia, Africa, or even India, assump- tions which of course would be in direct conflict with Gn 10, etc.” The products of Tarshish are mentioned Ezk 27”; Tarshish traded with Tyre with a ‘multitude of all kinds of riches, with silver, iron, tin, and lead.’ According to Jer 10” “silver spread (RV ‘beaten ') into plates’ is brought from Tarshish. Finally, the precious stone called tarshish may be noticed ; but this, unfortunately, cannot be identified. See preceding article. The tradition of the ancient versions on the * To avoid this conflict, Bochart assumed two Tarshishs—one in the W. of the Mediterranean, the other in the Indian Ocean. This desperate effort to avoid the acknowledgment of a small misunderstanding by the Chronicler is now universally aban- doned. See, further, W. R. Smith, OT'JC2 140 ; A. B. David- son, Ezekiel, p. 200; Sayce, II CM 130. situation of Tarshish is very unsatisfactory. First, the passages are to be set aside where it was felt, correctly, that Tarshish, translated literally as a geographical name, would be misunderstood, i.e. the passages speaking of the Tarshish ships. The Jewish scholars translated, or rather paraphrased there freely, but not inadequately, “sea ships.” Thus already LXX in Is 2" (TNoſa, 6a)\áorams).” The Vulg. extends this translation to less suitable passages; cf. Is 23, 19 (filia maris () 60" 66" (gentes in mari), Ezk 27”, l K 10* (per mare), 2 K22*(*), otherwhere, mostly, Tharsis. Thus also the Targum (No), usually, in the Prophets (for exceptions see below). This was foſlowed by Saadia and modern versions (e.g. Luther). Jerome (on Is 2%) was told by his Jewish teachers that Tharsis was the proper Hebrew word for “sea '+ (in opposition to Aramaic 2): a strange artifice Another Jewish tradition appears in the LXX of Ezk 27” (also Vulg.) and Is 23, where Tarshish is rendered ‘Carthage’ or ‘Carthaginians’; likewise Targ. in 1 K 22", Jer 109 ‘Africa’ (i.e. the Roman province of Africa, the former territory of Carth- age). This tradition is evidently founded on the frequent association of Tarshish with Tyre, the apparent mother-city of Carthage, ; but it does not suit the sense of the other passages. Josephus (Ant, I. vi. 1) read the name ap- arently Tarshūsh, and explained it as Tarsus in Fº an interpretation which formerly seemed very satisfactory. Now, however, we know from coins of Tarsus and from Assyrian inscriptions (Delitzsch, Paradies, 103, etc.) of Shalmaneser that the old Cilician city had the name Inn Tarzi, not as Josephus presupposed. The interpretation most widely accepted at present was proposed by Bochart, Phaleg (pre- ceded by Eusebius. [Onom, ed. Lag, 166, 8, cf., 183. 17–18], who already combined Tarshish and the Iberes, i.e. Spaniards). Bochart found the Hebrew name Tarshish in the Greek Tºrtessos, explaining the seeming interchange of t and sh by the analog of Aram. th for Heb. sh (which analogy, unfor- tunately, does not apply here, where no Arama'ans come in question). The remote position attributed both to Tarshish and to Spain, the W. end of the world, according to the opinion of the ancients, suits well, and so does the wealth in metals (especially the Spanish silver and tin); finally, some connexion of the Phoenicians with Spain seems to be recognizable before the Carthaginian conquest. Tartessos is supposed to have been the name of a city (?), extended first to the S. of Spain, then to the whole country. The name of the southern coast, Turdettinia, and of a tribe, somewhat farther north, the Turditli, Turdali, seems to allow a comparison (cf. Strabo, below). A very vigorous attack upon this popular theory has been made by P. le Page Renouf in PS/NA xvi. (1894) 104. He urges that the whole theory rests only on a deceptive similarity of Sound, that Bochart's appeal to Aramaic is unsuitable (see above), that we have no proof for Phoenician settlements in Spain (which were only alleged to have existed in order to suit Is 23° etc.). § He even claims that the city or country Tartest us seems ‘to have existed only in the realms of imagination, like the isle of Calypso or the garden of the Hesperides. Its site was certainly un- known at the time of Strabo, though it was then identiſied on grounds of probability with the * This might, however, be taken from a Hexaplaric source (Symmachus or Theodotion ?). # * Hebrasi putant lingua propria mare Tarshish appellari. # More correctly, the mother-city was Sidon. § For such colonies, indeed, the tradition (Strabo, p. 157, Arrian, etc.) is very recent. It is questionable if those late writers were able to distinguish between Carthaginian and earlier Phoonician colonies. TARSUS TARSUS 685 neighbourhood of the Baetis or Quadalquivir.” Late writers, like Valerius Maximus, Pliny, and Arriam, confounded Tartessus and Gades.’ The metallic treasures of Spain, Renouf claims, were developed only by Hamilcar Barcas after, the first Punic war, and the tin in the bronze of earliest Greece and Babylonia came rather from Eastern mines (?)." Thus the necessity for going to Spain for tin is removed. Renouf's (l.c. p. 138) idea is that Tarshish has a Semitic etymology, ‘the broken? (??), which might (!) mean ‘shore, coast’ (??), whence the translation “sea in the versions (?).3: The passages connecting it with Tyre show then, he claims, that the Phoenician coast itself is meant. This theory is so inconsistent with Ezk 27, etc., and so forced, that it does not deserve a detailed refutation. Winckler (Forschungen, i, 445) modifies the Tartessus theory of Bochart, by referring Tarshish to Tapa-mºov, a place mentioned by Polyb. III. xxiv. 1 as one of the principal cities of Carthaginian Spain.S This view, however, he puts forward with great reserve. Cheyne (Or. Lit. - Zeitung, iii. 151 ; cf., the present writer, ib. 294) expresses the opinion that Tarshish is identical with Tiras (better vocalized probably Túr(a)s) of Gn 10°. This latter name might have come in from another source or as a gloss, so that the same nation would be represented in two different forms. Vocalizing Thirshºtsh (cf. Josephus), we should obtain the Tyrsenians, Tyrrenians or Etruscans, bold sea- farers, and well known as pirates already to the ancient Egyptians (c. 1200 B.C.), by whom they were called Tursha. Their name might stand for the whole of Italy, possibly even for all European coasts west of Greece. . This comparison with the Tyrsenians (proposed already by Knobel) agrees with the wealth in metals, especially with the tin. The Etruscans might have brought this from Spain, although a more probable assumption would be that they obtained it either in the har- bours of Southern Gaul (cf. Diodorus, v. 38, on the trading of English tin through Gaul to Massilia) or more directly in Upper Italy, where it might have been brought from various places in Central Europe. This last identification seems to the present writer the most plausible. Next to it, the identi- fication with Spain might claim most relative probability. Certainty will hardly be obtained with our present means of knowledge. W. MAX MüLLER. TARSUS (Tapa-6s; on coins Inn) is mentioned in the Bible only as the city where St. Paul was born, of which he was a citizen (Ac 9” 21° 22°), and in or near which he spent a number of years not long after his conversion (Ac 9" 11*). It has been universally recognized that his birth and his early education in this city were important factors in preparing the Apostle of the Gentiles for his career. o direct evidence is accessible as to * Cf. Strabo (148 f.), who, indeed, quotes this only as a hypo- thesis, does not know with certainty what the ancients meant by Tartessus, and cannot identify an alleged city Tartessus (at the mouth of the Bastis or at Carteia. ?). The old name Tartessis (!) of Spain seems to him to survive in that of the Toupěovão (?) and Tavºntovío (). IIowever, le Page Renouf seems to overstate here the shadowy position of Tarshish. Herodotus (e.g. iv. 192) uses it clearly for Southern Spain. Eratosthenes (in Strabo, 148) takes it more marrowly as the region around Calpe- Gibraltar, # This belief, for which he quotes O. Schrader, Prehistoric Ant. 102, etc. (where the Paropamisus is thought of), has been refuted by Winckler, I'orschwngen, i. 161 (cf. the present writer in Or, Lit.-Zeitung, ii. 205, on the Egyptian texts). The tin of the ancient East came from the West, evidently through mari- time commerce. f Sea and coast are, however, very different ideas. § This was mostly confounded with Tartessus, while, in Polybius, it seems to have been another name of Mastia. The text in Polybius is, besides, very obscure. the surroundings of St. Paul's early years, which makes it all the more necessary to study the general character of the city and the society in which he grew up. . The history of Tarsus is at the same time the history of Cilicia, which affords the opportunity of somewhat fuller treatment of that subject than was given under CILICIA. i. SITUATION.—Tarsus, the chief city of Cilicia. in ancient times, was situated in a rich and fertile plain, only slightly elevated above sea-level, less than 10 miles from the Seacoast at its nearest point. The river Cydnus flowed through the middle of the city, and entered the Rhegma,” a sort of lake t some distance below the city and close to the sea. This lake served as an arsenal and harbour for Tarsus; but ancient ships could ascend the river right up to the city (as Cleopatra did). In modern times the lake has become a large marsh + on the west side of the river, while the bed of the river has become shallow and im- pººl. to anything larger than a small rowing- oat, and its mouth is blocked by a bar. These changes are the result of the ignorance, careless- ness, and incapacity of government and inhabit- ants, neglecting the engineering operations which must have been applied by the ancients to regu- late the river-bed. The proximity of the marshes has made Tarsus more unhealthy than it was in ancient times, though from its low situation in the º under the mountains of Taurus it can never have had an invigorating climate. South-west of Tarsus towards Soli lay the strong walled city Anchialos, which must have been between Mersina and the Cydnus, a little way back from the coast, Š Mersina, the modern port of Tarsus, stands on or close to the ancient Zephyrion, a small town near a promontory of the same name, 16 miles W.S.W. from the great city. This promontory is a very little way west of Mersina. Anchialos is described by Ritter as the port of Tarsus, and as closely con- nected with it (like Piraeus with Athens), so that the two might be regarded as a single great city, which would suggest that Anchialos was some- where near the west side of the lake. But Aulai is said to have been the name of the port-town on the lake, and Ritter's view seems a misinterpretation of Arrian, Amab. ii. 5. || The statements of the ancients as to the mutual relations of these places are confused. The Cydnus originally flowed through the heart, of Tarsus, as many authorities mention. But, when a flood in the river had done great harm in the city, Justinian (527–563) cut an artificial channel to carry part of the water round the east side of the city. It would appear that gradually the branch of the river that flowed through the city grew smaller as its bed became choked, and in modern times almost the whole of the water passes through Justinian's channel." In 1432 the inner branch is described as a tiny stream ; and in 1473 the eastern branch is spoken of as the only one (see the quotations in Ritter's Kleimasion, ii. p. 184 f.). T. falls of the Cydnus beside the northern entrance to the city are still very pictur- esque, though only a few feet high. Tarsus possessed almost all the qualifications required for a great commercial city. Not merely did it possess a safe and good harbour and a rich territory, it was also placed in front of the * “Pºwo, Strabo, p. 672. tº # Alº, Tºros, allparently a broadening of the river so as to look like a lake, Strabo, p. 672. - t A marsh 30 miles in circumference (Barker, Lares and Pemates, p. 137). § Strabo, p. 671. i Ritter, Kleinasien, ii, 202; Steph. Byz, 8.0. Atxon. * Barker says that a canal, from the Cydnus passes through Tarsus, and formerly flowed into the marsh, but was recently diverted to rejoin the river. This may be the old channel. 686 TARSUS TARSUS Southern end of the great trade and war route across Mount Taurus, through the Cilician Gates, to º Lycaonia, and inner Asia Minor generally. Such a situation made it a great city from time immemorial. ii. TARSUS THE ORIENTAL CITY. —Its foundation was attributed by legend to Sardanapalus, who was said to have built Tarsus and Anchlalos in one day, and whose tomb is said to have been at the latter place. A more Oriental form of the legend, as reported by Eusebius (Chrom. i. p. 27 *), named Sennacherib, king of Nineveh, as the founder. When Tarsus became a Greek city, a centre of Greek civilization and seat of a university, it could not be satisfied with such an origin, but invented a Greek foundation. Perseus or Herakles was named by the Tarsians as founder of the city (see Dion Chrysostom's Oratio xxxiii. ad Tars.; Libanius, Or. xxviii. 620); but this is only the Assyrian legend in a slightly Grecized form, for Perseus was a peculiarly Oriental and Assyrian hero (Herod. vi. 54), connected with the mytholog and religion of many places in the eastern parts of Asia Minor; and #. was the Tyrian god, the founder of colonies. These legends contain a memory of the time when the Assyrian power extended over Syria and Cilicia, and Tarsus was their western capital. Tarsus is mentioned on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser among the towns which he captured in the middle of the 9th cent. B.C. Athenodorus, the Tarsian, said that the city was originally called Parthenia, from Parthenius, son of Cydnus, and grandson of Anchiale, daughter of Japetus: here, too, fancy is giving a Greek colour to local Asiatic legend. Tarsus continued for a long time an essentially Oriental town. Its early coinage was struck, not by a municipal government like that of a Greek city, but by native kings or Persian satraps, who used Tarsus as their capital. It is true that at an early time considerable influence was exerted on the city by Greek trade and civilization. Thus Greek letters were sometimes engraved on the early coins, and the coinage as a whole was modelled after Greek coins, and was probably made by Greek artisans employed by the rulers of Tarsus. . Yet even in the Roman period, after Tarsus had for centuries been transformed (at least externally) into a Greek city, marked Oriental characteristics are apparent. A deity standing on a horned lion, thoroughly non-Greek and Asiatic in character, probably the god Sandon, often appears on coins under the empire ; and a monument at Anchialos, inscribed with letters believed to be Assyrian, is often mentioned by Greek writers. Tarsus therefore was never so thoroughly Hellenized as to lose or to forget its Asiatic character and origin ; even as a Greek city it was far from being wholly Greek. Its population, doubtless, was very mixed (as it is at the present day); and even to a greater degree than Syrian Antioch it may be regarded as a meeting-place of Greeks and Orientals. In the Assyrian and afterwards in the Persian p. hardly anything is known of Tarsus. When the centraſ government was strong, presumably the city was governed by satraps. When the central government was weak, the satraps tended to become more and more independent, and even a dynasty of native kings seems to have held Tarsus during part of the 5th and 4th cents. B.C. In the Anabasis of Xenophon, Tarsus is described about B. c. 400 as a great and wealthy city, containing the palace of Syennesis the Cilician king. But its coinage is much older. Electrum coins of the 6th cent. have been assigned to it, though not with great probability. The kings or satraps of Cilicia struck coins at Tarsus throughout the 5th and 4th cents., with legends mostly Aramaic, but partly Greek, frequently with Baaltars, the Baal or Zeus of Tarsus, enthroned, holding sceptre, grapes, and corn. Coins of Baaltars were struc during the last efforts of the Persians and under the earlier Seleucid kings; but they appear to have been minted at Babylon, and many of the extant specimens have come from India. iii. TARSUS THE GREEK CITY. —In Seleucid times autonomous coins were first struck at Tarsus, showing its transformation from an Oriental town into a Greek polis, a highly important stage in its history. This municipal and strictly Greek coinage began under Antiochus IV. Epiphanes (B.C. 175–164), when the city was styled ‘Antioch beside the Cydnus,’” and took that name on its coins. The growth of Tarsus is evidently the result of a change in the Seleucid rule; it is con- nected with their frontier policy, and shows that increasing attention was paid to Cilicia by that Syrian king. Before 190 Cilicia had been a district in the heart of the Seleucid empire; but, at the peace of 189, the whole of Asia Minor up to the Taurus mountains was taken from Antiochus III., and Cilicia became a frontier land. It was neces- sary now to pay more attention to its organization and defences; and the refoundation of cities like Tarsus-Antiocheia, Epiphaneia, Adana-Antiocheia, Magarsa-Antiocheia, belongs to the same reign.f Mopsuestia, guarding the in portant crossing of the Pyramus, was refounded as Seleuceia by Seleucus III. (187–175). Almost all these cities (along with Alexandria ad Issum and Hieropolis-Castabala) began to coin as self-governing municipalities in the reign of Antiochus IV.i. It is therefore highly probable that Cilicia had previously been treated more like a subject country or satrapy, Š and that now its cities began to be allowed greater libert and to be more thoroughly Grecized in their insti- tutions, when it was important to make them heartily loyal. The incident mentioned in 2 Mac 4" takes us into the midst of this process, and shows that about 171–169 is the probable date of this important transformation. In 171 Antiochus gave }. revenues of Tarsus and Mallus to his mistress Antiochis. This provoked riot and even insurrection; and Antiochus had to go in person to quell the disturbances. Apparently he suc- ceeded in this peaceably, by granting freer consti- tutions to the cities and reorganizing the country generally. The year 170 B.C., therefore, marks an epoch in the history of Tarsus, for it was now refounded as a Greek polis, and called by a new name, ‘Antiocheia on iſ: Cydnus.’ There is no reason to think || that the change of name was a mere act of adulation to the reigning king, implying no real development in the city constitution. It is true that the name Antioch soon fell into disuse, and the name Tarsus revived ; but this was due partly to the fact that the town was not thoroughly Grecized, partly to the fact that the name Antioch was already too common, and the three new Antiochs would hardly establish a right to exist beside the many older Antiochs. Rather we must look on the refoundation of Tarsus as a critical epoch in its history. The refoundation was certainly accompanied by an increase of population, for the regular Seleucid policy in such cases was to introduce a body of settlers whose loyalty might be reckoned on, and to give them special |. in the city. The colonists whom the Seleucid kings most commonly planted in the cities of Asia Minor were Jews; iſ and therefore it is highly probable that a Jewish colony was established at Tarsus about B.C. 170. * Steph. Byz, and le Bas-Waddington, Inscr. d’Asie Min. No. 1480. f Compare Magarsos (see MALLOS). t Hill, Catalogue of British Museum Coims, Cilicia, etc. pp. Xcviii, ci, Cx, etc. § The name satrapy was used in the Seleucid empire see Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, i. p. 257. * IEd. Schoene : Eusebius quotes from Alex. Polyhistor. # Athenaeus, viii. p. 335, xii. p. 529 f.; Strabo, p. 672; Cicero, Tube. v. 35 ; Arrian, Anab. ii. 5; Clearchus Solensis in 1'ragon. II ist. Groec. ii. D. 305, 5 | As Waddington (l.c.) wrongly thinks. *| See PIIIvyGIA, vol. iii. p. 808. TARSUS TARSUS 687 iv. TARSUS THE ROMAN CITY. —From the decay- ing Seleucid empire Tarsus passed into the hands of the Romans. From B.C. 103 onwards the name Cilicia became “the Roman term for a great, ill- defined, half-subdued agglomeration of lands, com- prising parts of Cilicia, Pamphylia, and other }. (Ramsay, Histor. Comm. on Galatiºns, {. 103). In 66 Cilicia Campestris was decisively conquered by Pompey, after having been under the power of king Tigranes more or less since 83; and in 64 it was properly organized (see CILICIA) as a province with Tarsus for its capital, though ...idºl. parts of the country were left for a long time under native kings—Tarcoudimotos I. and II. and Antiochus being the most famous. Tarsus, while exposed to the oppression gener- ally exercised on subject cities by the Itoman republican officials, was favourably treated by Julius Cæsar, Antonius, and Augustus. Caesar passed through the city on his march from Egypt to Pontus; and the strong partisanship of the Tarsians for him was shown by the name Juliopolis which was granted to, or assumed by, them (Dio C. 47. 26). In punishment for its devotion to Caesar, Tarsus was harshly treated by Cassius in 43. But Antonius soon after granted it the privilege of enjoying its own laws (as civitas libera) and the right of duty-free export and import trade.” He also made it his residence for a time; and received here a visit from Cleopatra, who sailed . to Tarsus in B.C. 38 in circumstances of extraordinary magnificence and luxury. It formed }. of the large realm which he bestowed on the £gyptian queen (see vol. ii. p. 86). When Augustus triumphed over Antonius he recognized that the Tarsians were partisans, not of Antonius specially, but of the Empire as contrasted with the Re- public ; and he even increased their privileges. Cilicia was now united in one large province with Syria. Thus Tarsus, when St. Paul was a child, stood before the world at the entrance to the greatest province of the East as a metropolis, a free city with a free harbour, mistress of a large and fertile territory, a centre of Roman imperial partisanship. It had been a Greek self-governing city since B.C. 170, and the enthusiasm with which it had taken up Greek education and civilization had made it one of the three great university cities of the Mediterranean world. Strabo (14, 5, 13, p. 673) speaks of the Tarsian university as even surpassing in some respects those of Athens and Alexandria; and he observes that all the students were natives, and no strangers came to it ; but, on the contrary, many natives of the country went abload to study and reside, few returning home again : Rome was full of Tarsian and Alexandrian scholars. So strong was the Tarsian love for letters and education . They filled their own university and foreign cities and Rome itself. Demetrius, as I’lutarch tells (de Defect. Orac., ad imit.), went to Britain and Egypt, the Erythraean Sea and the land of the º, to satisfy his scientific curiosity. Athenodorus the Stoic was the com- panion of Cato the younger, and died in his house ; another Stoic, Athenodorus Kananites, was the teacher of Augustus; Nestor taught the young Marcellus, his heir (and Tiberius the emperor, according to pseudo-lucian, Macr. 21); Antipater the Stoic wº of the school in Athens and the great opponent of Carneades ; and other phil- * Pseudo-Lucian (Macr.) and 1)ion Chrys. (ad Tars.) assign this grant to Augustus, who gave it again when he might have taken it away. + Among the natives (trix&pio) Strabo, includes, doubtless, persons from the neighbouring parts of Asia Minor. Atheno- dorus, the most famous of Tarsian philosophers, was called I(anamites, from the name of his native village. The village probably was 1(annºt in eastern Lycaonia, which afterwards rose to be a city coining money. osophers and , poets of Tarsus are named by Strabo, p. 674 f. - Philosophers governed Tarsus at the important crisis when it was adapting itself to the imperial system. Athenodorus retired to Tarsus in his old age, greatly honoured by his pupil Augustus, and invested by him with extraordinary authority in the city. He found that Tarsus had been seriously misgoverned and plundered by a certain clique, favoired by Antonius, but now greatly weakened since his defeat. After vainly attempting to bring them back by reason to a law-abiding spirit, Athenodorus, in virtue of the º conferred by Augustus, sent them into exile, and reformed the constitution of Tarsus.” It appears from Dion Chrysostom (Orat. xxxiii. ad Tars. 20) that the constitution in the Roman period was of oligarchic or rather timocratic type, citizenship requiring a certain fortune; and there can be no doubt that this was the kind of reform introduced by Atheno- dorus, for it was in harmony with the whole tendency of the Roman imperial policy. After the death of Athenodorus, at the age of 82, another Tarsian plailosopher named Nestor, who also had approved himself to Augustus, succeeded to his commanding position in the city, and enjoyed the respect of a series of provincial governors. The rule of these two philosophers probably continued from about B.C. 29 to some time after Christ. Š It is very probable that St. Paul may have seen and listened to Nestor, who lived 92 years.| The influence of Athenodorus, too, lasted long in Tarsus, where he was worshipped as a hero, for Dion Chrysostom about A.D. 100 quotes his name (in the Oration which he addressed to the Tarsians) as a household word among them. His doctrines may be taken as those which most influenced Tarsus in the time of St. Paul, and which the latter is likely to have been taught in the schools of that city. Being a Stoic, he found the aim and end of life in release front passions; but, if we may judge from the scanty quotations from or allusions to his writings, he estimated the quality of human action greatly by reference to its relation to God. ‘Know,” said he, “that you are set free from all passions, when you have reached such a point that you ask nought of God that you cannot ask openly’; and Seneca, who quotes this, I goes on to state as the rule of life, in his spirit, if not in his words, “So live with men as if God saw ; so speak with God as if men were listening.” The spirit in which he guided the politics of Tarsus is expressed in a longer extract,” the gist of which is : ‘It would be best to strengthen one's mind by making oneself useful in politics to fellow-citizens and the world ; but in the degraded and envenomed state of politics one must be content with the oppor- tunity for free expansion of the mind in benefiting one and all by educating them, by encouraging virtue, by teaching them to comprehend the gods, and to have a good conscience : thus even in private life one fulfils a public duty. The student É. well, not by renouncing humanity and society, but by drawing friends round himself. He who lives and studies for his own sole benelit will from * 22+ixvors rºw 220sorrãorov aroxuºsºv (Strab. p. 674). # See Kühn, Städteverwaltung in rôm. Raiserreich9, pp. 250, () 4 7 f See IXühn, l.c. § The exact date of Athenodorus is uncertain. He is com- monly conjectured by modern writers to have been a pupil of Posidonius (B.o. 140–60); but Eusebius, Chron., gives the date when he was flourishing as A. D. 7. This tends to show that the common dating of his career is too early perhaps he may be placed B. c. 72 to A. p. 10; or, more probably, lºusebius made a mistake, taking his death in the height of influence for the date when he flourished: in that case 75 B.C. to 7 A.D. was his period. * | l’seudo-Lucian, Macr. 21..., T. Ep. Mor. 1. x, 5. * Seneca, de Tranq. Am, 3 (in St. Pawl the Trav. p. 394, Clem is mentioned wrongly in place of Tranq.). 588 TARSUS TARSUS lack of work fall into mere misuse of the time which nature requires us to spend. One must be able to give an account of one's time and prove one's old age by the amount of what one has done for the good of the world, and not simply by the length of time one has lived.” - Such was the environment, on its best side, amidst which St. Paul spent his early years. To estimate its influence on him would be out of place here ; but we remember that, when he was rescued from imminent death, bruised doubtless and torn by the hands of the mob in Jerusalem, in answer to the question of the Roman officer, the words that rose to his lips as he recovered breath were : ‘I am a Jew, a man of Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city’ (Ac 21*). In such circumstances a man does not waste words, or speak what does not lie deep in his nature. St. Paul had to show the officer that he was not an Egyptian, but the tone in which he spoke of Tarsus shows a warm feeling about it as a city and for its own sake.” The timocratic system introduced by Atheno- dorus into Tarsus has an in portant bearing on St. Paul's life. In a city where the mass of the in- habitants could be said to be ‘outside of the citizenship,’ i.e. not possessing the full rights of a citizen,t he claimed to be a citizen. Citizenship in Tarsus was the certificate of respectability and standing which he mentioned to Claudius Lysias, when it was necessary at once to explain away appearances which were certainly much against him as he was pulled out of the murderous hands of the mob. One may ask why he did not mention his Roman citizenship at that time, for Roman citizenship was a higher honour and a greater proof of respectability; and it seems hardly pos- sible to make any other answer except that, in the excitement of that terrible scene, the feeling that lay deepest in his heart about worldly position rose to his lips. When he was a child he felt himself a ‘Jew, a citizen of Tarsus,’ and almost uncon- sciously the words rose to his lips. But the Tarsian citizenship had this value in the eyes of those who possessed it, because it was confined to a select small body. The history of Tarsus under the empire is a large subject. The following points may be noticed as characteristic of the Asiatic Itoman cities gener- ally, and illustrative of their relation to the early Christians and to the Roman State :- The loyalty of those great cities to the emperors was very strong, and is unusually well illustrated in the case of Tarsus, which assumed titles from the name of the emperors Hadrian, Commodus, Severus, Antoninus (Caracalla), Macrinus, and Alexander Severus, t dropping some when the emperor died, and keeping others for long. It took the title of Temple- Warden (véazôpos, 37; vioxópos), indicating that one, or two, temples of the imperial worship were built in the city. It induced governors of the province and even the emperor him- self, Alexander Severus, to accept office (of course merely honorary) in the city, and boasted of this on coins and in in- Scriptions. Titles like these, however, sprang as much from vanity as from loyalty. The great cities vied with one another in invent- ing titles and appropriating the title8 of rivals. Tarsus and Anazarbus competed with one another in this way. Each claimed such j. as Metropolis, First and Greatest and Fairest, Temple-Warden; but Anazarbus, was never, Twice Temple. Warden, nor Metropolis of the Three Eparchiai (Cilicia, Lyca- onia, Isauria), but only Metropolis of the Nation (Uvov;, i.e. Cilicia). On one occasion, about A.D. 218, Anazarbus induced the emperor Elagabalus to accept the office of Demiourgos $ in the city, and struck coins to commemorate this honour. Tarsus doubtless was downcast till it could strike similar coins boasting of Alexandel Severus as Demiourgos. Iłoth cities boasted that * It must be remembered that such expressions as oºz &zákov róator, oùx &Afyov, often imply a strong assertion of the opposite. # fort, araž!!of oºz &Aiyov ºrzep £aſsy rºi; ºrožurgicº (Dion. Chrys. ad T'ars. p. 321 ; see p. 687, col. 2, n. f). On the rights and meaning of ºrožarsſo, see Szanto, Das griech. Burgerrecht. # It calls itself 'Axt{cºv?play?, 24vapizy?, "Avtovºviczy?, "A}ployż in an inscription, and coins often give the last three cumulated. § Title of the chief magistrate in many Cilician cities; the title is Doric, and points to the old Doric relations of Cilicia. ** the koinoboulion (Council of the Koinon of Cilicia) met win his its walls ; but Tarsus alone could boast of the festival and games common to the three united ptovinces. And so on, title after title was devised to imitate or outshine a rival. Tarsus was saved by the barrier of Mount Taurus from many of the invasions which swept over Asia Minor. Only an enemy who took the route from Syria over Mt. Amanus through Cilicia would reach Tarsus; but most invasions preferred the route through Eastern Cappadocia, keeping north of Mt. Taurus. Thus, in the long peace of the empire the defences and the defensive powers of the people in Cilicia must have grown weak, and when at last an enemy entered the country they found it a helpless prey. In the Byzantine ecclesiastical and political system Tarsus became even more important than in the older empire, owing to the steady growth of the Eastern provinces in wealth, education, and weight. Thus Basil of Caesarea (Ep. 34), in A.D. 373 (or 369), emphasizes its importance as “a city so placed as to be united with Cilicia, Cappadocia, and Assyria.” (i.e. Syria). Two churches are mentioned at Tarsus. In A.D. 485 Leontius forced Verina to proclaim him emperor at Tarsus in the Church of St. Peter out- side the city. Such an important ceremony is likely to have been held in the principal church of Tarsus, and we may identify this Church of St. Peter as the great church of Tarsus destroyed by the Moslems in A.D. 885.” If so, it is remarkable that the principal church was not dedicated to St. Paul; but it is recorded that the Church of St. Paul in Tarsus was built by the emperor Maurice (583– 602), while we may be jº. that the great church of Tarsus was built as early as the 4th century. v. TARSUs THE ARAB CITY. —In view of the strongly Syrian associations of Tarsus, it is important to observe the way in which it lost its Western relations, ſund reverted to a purely Oriental type during the long wars against the Mohammedans. The Arabs first crossed into Cilicia by the Syrian Gates from Antioch in 641.1 In 646 the Arabs found all the fortresses between Antioch and Tarsus deserted ; presumably the terror of these raids and the neglect of frontier defence by the emperor made the people flge to the mountains. In 650 the Arabs invaded Isauria (so Theophanes; 649 Ibn Al Athir). This would appear to imply that Tarsus, with Cilicia generally, was in Arab hands, though it must be remembered that the Arab invasions were often only passing raids, in which the forts and cities were left unattacked, or watched by detach- ments of the invading forces, while the open country was ravaged, and captives swept off into slavery. Cilicia, however, having been so neglected by the central government, was exposed defenceless to the Arabs. Yet the military strength of the empire soon revived, while the Arab raids made little permanent impression. Tarsus was quickly reoccupied by the Christians but in 673 it was captured (after a defence presumably) by the Arabs. In the following years the Arab attacks were made chiefly by the north road nearer the IEuphrates, or by sea ; Cappadocia was occupied, and Armenia and Pontus attlºcked, º Cilicia was not much molested by formal invasions, but its cities seem to have still remained unprotected, and exposed to any small raids. Thus in 692 an Arab army advanced from the Euphrates nearly to Amorion, and returned by Cilicia. In 600–700 the Christians recovered Cappadocia, and the Arabs henceforth made regular use of the Cilician route in invading the Byzantine empire. Mopsuestia at the important crossing of the Pyramus was fortified in 701, and Tarsus was now permanently occupied as an Arab capital on their north- western frontier. The northern part of Tastern Cilicia, with the town of Sision (now called Sis), was conquercd in 703; in 706 the last struggle of the Romans to retain this country is recorded by Al Tabari. The wars of the following years imply that Cilicia was the permanent basis for the Arab operations § in Lycaonia, Pisidia, Phrygia, and Bithynia. At the same time Caosarea, with Eastern Cappadocia, was again taken by the Arabs in 726, but recovered |. Constantine in 740. After this the Arab frontier cities on the north were generally Melitene * Muralt, Essai de Chronogr. Byzant. p. 740. # Sim. viii. 13. , There may have been an older Church of St. Paul, of course, in Tarsus, but this was built, not rebuilt, by Maurice. f Dates from Arab authoritics from 641–750 are given accord- ing to Mr. E. W. Brooks' papers in Jowrmal of Hellenic Studies, 1898, p. 182 f., 1899, p. 19 f.; dates from Byzantine authorities according to Murult, Essai de Chromogº. JByzant. § This appears in incidental expressions, such as Theoph p. 300, l. 18 f. (de Boor). TARSUS TARTAN 689 and Germaniceia, and a debateable land lay between them and Cubsareia, though the Christians attacked or even destroyed one or other of the two Arab fortresses in 750-754 and 778, while the Arabs frequently advanced north and north-west into Cappa- docia, Paphlagonia, etc. In 806 and 830 the Arabs carried for- ward the Cilician frontier to Tyana, building a mosque and settling colonists there; but both attempts failed immediately, and Tarsus remained the capital of Orientalism against the West. In 807 the emperor Nicephorus invaded Cilicia, and defeated the Arabs near Tarsus ; but the Caliphs Harun and al-Mamun strengthened the Arab power on this frontier. The latter died at (or near) Tarsus in 833. About the middle of the 9th cent. Byzantine power grew stronger, and Cilicia, and Tarsus were the scene of many conflicts, while the Caliphs' vigour waned. In 883 Tarsus is mentioned as a strong fortress, the capital of an independent Mohammedan State. In 891 an Arab fleet is said to have sailed from Tarsus towards the Byzantine coasts; and in 900 the fleet at Tarsus was burned by the Caliph on account of the disloyalty of the city. In 808 the Greek forces landed near Tarsus and gained a victory over the Arabs. About this time Tarsus is mentioned frequently as the centre of Mohammedan opposition to the reviving Christian power. In 904 a Tarsian fleet burned Thessalonica. At length, in 965, after all the rest of Cilicia had been recaptured by the Chris- tians, Tarsus surrendered on favourable terms, the Moslem population were given safe retirement to Antioch, and only Christians were left in the city. The great gates of Tarsus were Garried in triumph to Constantinople. vi. MoDERN TARSUs.—The new Christian city of Tarsus had a checkered history. Byzantine Greeks, Latins, Armenians, Turcomans, Turks, Egyptians struggled for it, and alternately held it and lost it. I'or a century Greek rule in Cilicia was practically unchallenged by the decaying Saracen empire; but even during this time Tarsus must have undoubtedly retained many traces of the three centuries of Arab rule, and become far more Oriental than it had been under the Roman and early Byzantine rule. About 1067 the Seljuk Turks began to ravage Asia Minor, and their terrible armies were seen and felt in Cilicia ; and in 1071 the victory of Mauzikert laid the country rostrate and helpless at their feet. Their rule over Phrygia, ycaonia, Cappadocia, Armenia, Pontus, was recognized by the feeble emperors ; but Cilicia still remained, on the whole, in Christian hands, so that the wall of Mt. Taurus once more formed a line of demarcation between the two religions (though now Islam was on the north and Christianity on the south). A new power now appeared in Cilicia : in 1080 Reuben, the first Armenian prince of Cilicia (called often during the next three centuries Lesser Armenia), seized some forts in the eastern Taurus mountains on the north frontier of Cilicia. The history of Lesser Armenia was stormy, and its bounds varied from year to year, sometimes confined to the Taurus forts, sometimes including Tarsus and Cilicia as a whole. In 1097 Baldwin with his Crusading army captured Tarsus, and introduced another factor into the confused history of Cilicia. The vicissitudes of Tarsian history in this period are so rapid and so numerous that they cannot be traced in detail. Tarsus, the capital, passed from hand to hand. The Turks, who cap- tured it in 1078, did not hold it ; the Crusaders were a more ermanent power. The emperor John Comnenus took Tarsus in 1137, the Armenian Reuben II, in 1182. The Memluk Sultans of Egypt became a factor in Cilician history in 1260. The terrible Iºgyptian invasion of 1322 devastated the country. The Armenians suffered from quarrels in the governing family, from religious feuds, and from national inability to unite in a vigorous defensive policy. In 1975 the Armenian kingdom of Cilicia (Lesser Armenia) finally gave place to the lºgyptian ower, and Tarsus may from this time be said to have relapsed into its original condition of a purely Oriental city. Hut it was still not subject to Turkey. It was the prey sometimes of Iºgypt, sometimes of Turcoman chiefs called Ramazanoglu, whose tribes seem to have entered the Taurus fastnesses about 1200, and to have gradually established their hold on the plain, and to have brought the country once more almost into nomadic barbarism. In 1466 the Osmanli or Ottoman Turks entered Cilicia, when the army of Mohammed II. captured Tarsus ; but the city was often recaptured, until Selim destroyed the Memluk power in 1616. Again in 1832 the º forces of Mehemot Ali entered Cilicia, and held Tarsus till 1840, when once more it passed under Ottoman power. Tarsus remains a wretched town of the Turkish style, little more than a large collection of hovels, with a trying climate, an oppressive atmosphere, retaining not a trace of its former splendour, and few scraps even of ancient marbles. There are few places where the contrast between ancient and roodern life is more conspicuous. The unsightly and shapeless mass of concrete, wrongly called the Tomb of Sardanapalus, is the only ancient monu- ment that is displayed to the tourist. It is the substructure of the platform on which stood a temple of the Roman period, and was originally .. under the marble walls and floors and steps, afterwards utilized to make mediaeval build- ings, which in their turn have been utterly destroyed. VOL. IV.-44 LITERATURIS.-Ritter, Kleinasien, ii. (Erdkwnde von Aston, vol. xxi.) pp: 18)-235 ; Beaufort, Karamania; Leake, Towr and Géºgraphy of 48iº Minor, p. 214; Barker, Lares and Penates; Hill, Cºttalogue of British Museum Coins of Lycaonia, I sawritt, and Cilicia, pp. lxxviff., 162 f.; Koldewey in Robert, Antá der 4 nomia, p.178 f.; Wernicke, ib. p. 77 f.; Sir C. Wilson in Murray's Elandbook. W. M. RAMSAY. TARTAK (prºnº, ; 9ap0ák; Tharthac).—An idol of the Avvites, introduced by them into Samaria, Whither they had been transported by the Assyrian king Sargon (2 K 17*). Tartak is mentioned with another deity called NIBHAZ, and, according to the Bab. Talmud (Sanhedrin, 63b), was worshipped under the form of an ass.” . Various speculations have been made as to the identity of this deity, the religious systems of the Egyptians, Persians, and Carmanians having been laid under contribu: tion, to supply points of , comparison; but the Typhon of the first, and the sacrificing of an ass by the last to their god (identified with Mars), do not seem to afford satisfactory explanations. In Assyro-IRabylonian mythology no god in the form of an ass is at present provabič, and the comparison of the name Tartak with the Babylonian god Itak (on account of the second syllable) can no longer be made, the correct reading of the latter being Išum. In all probability no trustworthy identi. fication of the deity, nor satisfactory explanation of his name, will be made until the position of the place (AVVA or IV VAHT) whence his worshippers came, has been determined. T. G. PINCHES. TARTAN (lºng; BA Tava64v, Bb Nadăv, Nº.a. d.º., al. Q* @ap64(v) in Is 20"; B 0av04v, A €ap0áv in 2 K 18"; Thartham).-The title of an Assyrian military officer, sent by Sargon to Ashdod (Is 20!), and later º another person), despatched by Senna- cherib, accompanied by RAB - SARIS and RAB- SHAKEH, “with a great host,’ against Jerusalem. Like the other titles in the latter passage, it was long thought to be a personal name; and it is apparently this (notwithstanding the presence of the article in the Greek) which has given rise to the variant Nathan (an abbreviation of Tanathan) in B". In the Assyrian inscriptions and lists of officials, however, it appears as the title of the highest officer of State next to the king, and probably corresponds to the modern military title ‘commander-in-chief. In the list of officials given in WA I ii. pl. 31, ll. 26, 27, two grades appear, turtant immi, ‘the twºrtan of the right,’ and tar- tant &uméli, “the tartan of the left,’ the former probably corresponding with the twortantſ racbit, ‘great Tartan,’ or ‘field-marshal’ of Shalmaneser II., and the latter with the tartant Santº, ‘second Tartan,” mentioned by Johns. That the two forms, tºurtant and tartant, were interchangeable, is shown by the contract-tablet in which the form tºrtant Suméli occurs, and the variant spellings turtamnºt and tartoºnnu in the inscriptions of Sar- gon.: As one entitled to hold the office of Eponym, the Tartan came next in order to the king (see the titles for the Eponyms for B.C. 809, 780, 770, 752, and 742). Who the Tartans were who are referred to in Is 20 and 2 K 1817 is not known. In B. C. 720, Ašur-iska(?)-udannin was Eponym, and pos- sibly held the office, and in that case may have been the one sent to Ashdod. For the reign of Sennacherib we have Abda'u, who held the office during the eponymy of Ilu-ittéa, B.C. 694; and Bôl- * The companion-deity, Nibhaz (changed to Nibhan by reading for 1), is stated to have been in the form of a dog—an explana- tion which is due to the supposition that the word was con- nected with málah, “to bark.” It is therefore not improbable that the statement that Tartak was a deity in the form of an ass may be due to a similar (popular) etymology. f'Sachau (ZA 12, 48) identifies it with the modern Imam, be- tween Antioch and *. - - -- f The forms with double m imply that the second vowel was long (tartſtºw), as in Hebrew. 690 TATTENAI TEACHER, TEACHING êmuranni, who was Tartan and Eponym for B.C. 686. Either of these may have been the one sent against Jerusalem. LITERATURE.—Schrader in Riehm's H WB2; Fried. Delitzsch, Assyr. H WB ; Johns, Assyrian Deeds, vol. ii. pp. 68, 69; l)river in Awthority and Archaeology (ed. Hogarth), 140. T. G. PINCHES. TATTENAI ("JFB).-The name of the governor §. of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia under Darius ystaspis, Ezr 58 (B ©avaval, A €a.00avat, Luc. everywhere Tavčavaſos) " (B eavôavās, A €a00avals) 6" (LXX om.) 18 (B Tavčavat, A €aô0aval). He is called in l Es 63. 7. 27 (20) 71 SISINNES (>valvums), which is simply a reproduction in Greek (cf. Xuatvms in Arr. i. 25. 3, vii. 6. 4) of a Persian name Thi- thinaia (orig. Thathanaia 2), with aspirated t. See Ed. Meyer, Entstehung des Judenthums, 32. TAWERNS, THE THREE, is the rendering in Ac 281* of Tpe's Tagépwal, the Greek form which represents the Latin Tres Tabermas, as the name of one of the two stations on the Appian high- way whither Christian brethren from Rome, who had heard of St. Paul’s arrival at Puteoli on his way to the capital, went forth to meet him. The first group of the brethren met him at a point earlier on his journey—the Market of Appius—(see APPIUS, MARKET OF) 43 (Roman) miles from Rome; the second awaited him at the stage called Tres Tabernae, which was 10 miles nearer to the capital, being, according to the Itinerary of Antoninus, 33 miles distant from it. The Latin taberna, which is by no means to be identified with or restricted to our modern sense of taverm, but was applied to structures of boards, booths, huts, and j of various kinds, probably denotes here an inn for travellers. Three such inns might fitly give name to a halting-place, which doubtless was the seat of local traffic, and from which a road branched off to Antium on the seacoast. Cicero mentions it in writing to Atticus (Ep. ii. 10, 12, 13). Its precise site has hardly been identified, but is generally referred to the vicinity of the modern Cisterna. WILLIAM P. DICKSON. TAW (n).-The twenty-second letter of the Heb. alphabet, and as such employed in the 119th Psalm to designate the 22nd part, each verse of which begins with this letter. It is transliterated in this Dictionary by tor th: For the use of taw ()) in Ezk 9% and Job 31* see FOREHEAD, and MARK No. 6 (vol. iii. p. 24.4%). TAXES, TAXING.—See PUBLICAN and QUIR- INIUS. TEACHER, TEACHING. — In the OT various Heb. words are used for teachers and their work (chiefly verbal forms, l'an, m1, T39); and several other words are employed more indefinitely for teaching generally (Fºx, nºtin, y'Tin, no", "In", ºwn). This is one indication that in early times there was no recognized office of teacher with a technical title. Nevertheless the duty of teaching, especially in the education of the young, is much insisted on. In Deut. this is repeatedly urged as an obligation resting on parents (e.g. 4” 67 II”). The head of the family is to be diligent in teaching his children the great precepts of the Law, and in talking of them liabitually in the house and in the street. The prophets were recognized to be divinely- inspired teachers, commissioned to instruct the pople in the knowledge of Jehovah and His will. The word töräh (Hºn), which was applied to Deut. in the days of Josial (e.g. 2 K 22°), and from the time of Ezra to the Pent. (e.g. Neh 8”), means “teaching' (lit. ‘direction '), and was used in earlier times for the instruction given by the prophets. It is used in this sense by Hosea (4°8' 819), by Amos (2%), by Micah (4%), by Isaiah (1” 2" etc.), by Zephaniah (3*). It is to be observed that in all these instances of the occurrence of the word in the prophets we never read of ‘the tarāh of Moses’ as in Ezra and later, but of “Jehovah's tóráh,” or ‘the târâh ’ indefinitely. The clear dis- tinction, now resulting from OT criticism on the date of the Pent., accentuates the importance of teaching under the prophets by demonstrating that what formerly appeared to be a reference to the Mosaic law is, in }. an allusion to the pro- phets’ teaching. ... In early times the priests also undertook the religious instruction of the people. Thus Micah, rebuking the mercenary ... in Jerusalem, declares, ‘the priests thereof teach (ºniº) for hire’ (Mic 3"). After the return from the Captivity an immense impulse was given to reli- gious teaching. Religion had now passed into a literary phase. The public reading of the Law by Ezra was an indication that the new Judaism was to restore popular knowledge (Neh 8°). It is a significant fact that the high priest took no part in this effort to popularize what had hitherto been cherished as a mystery in the Sacerdotal clan. The scribe who not only copies the Law, but teaches it, now becomes the leader of the Jewish religion among the people, gradually taking the place of the prophet, but with an inferior rôle, since he cannot pretend to come with an original message from Jehovah, and must content himself with interpreting, commenting on, and “fencing' a fixed written tårāh. Thus he in turn comes into antagonism with the priest who performs official functions, administers the Law, and enjoys an aristocratic rank ; because the scribe's work in popularizing the Law lessens the power of the priesthood by opening the eyes of the people and by making religion more an affair of ideas than of ritual, or if of ritual still of observances Within the reach of the laity. Accordingly, the growth of the synagogue goes on side by side with the develop- ment of teaching by the scribes. See RABBI. In NT times teaching was most highly valued among the Jews, and, the teacher held in great respect.” Josephus, writing the history of his people from the standpoint of his own day, relates how Moses commanded that ‘boys should learn the primary laws (Tpdºrovs roºs vópovs) as the best knowledge and the cause of prosperity' (Ant. IV. viii. 12); and affirms for his own time, ‘We take most pains of all with the instruction of children’ (c. Apion. i. 12). Similarly Philo writes: “Since the Jews esteem their laws as divine revelations, and are instructed in the knowledge of them from their earliest youth, they bear the image of the law in their souls’ (Legat. &d Gai. 31); and, ‘They are taught, so to speak, from their swad- dling-clothes, by their parents, teachers, and those who bring then up, even before instruction in the sacred laws and unwritten customs, to recognize one God as the Father and Creator of the world’ (ib.). The Talmud abounds in traditional Stuyings on the importance of teaching. This is much insisted on in the Pirkó A hoth, where we read how Joshua ben Perachia said, “Get thyself a teacher’ (i. 6); Rabban Ganjaliel, “ Appoint for thyself a teacher, so wilt, thou avoid what is doubtful' (i. 16); Hillel, “An ignorant man cannot be truly pious ' (ii. 5). Certainly elementary schools existed in the time of the Mishna, and the way in which they are referred to implies that they were then established institutions. It is most probable that they were in existence in the time of Christ. The name of these schools was beth - Sepher (n)En nº) — ‘the house of the book’—i.e. of the t0rſih. Thus we read (Jerus. Megill. iii. 1), ‘R. Pinchas said in the * In 2 Mac 110 we read of a Jew named Aristobulus who had been Ptolemy's ‘teacher' (bubº, a 22x03). TEACHER, TEACHING TEACHER, TEACHING 691 wº name of R. Hoshaiah that there were 480 syna- gogues in Jerusalem, and each had a beth-Sepher and a beth - Talmud, the former for the mikra (text of Scripture), the latter for the mishna (oral tradition).”. A frequently quoted sentence about the order of a child's education—of late date, being found in an appendix to the Aboth of the post- Talmudic period — states that “at 5 years old (he comes) to the reading of Scripture, at 10 to the Mishna, at 13 to the practice of the com- mandments, at 15 to the Talmud, at 18 to mar- riage,” etc. (Pirké Aboth, v. 21). For further particulars on this point see Schürer (HJP II. ii. § 27, and artt. EDUCATION and SYNAGOGUE). In the NT, teaching is mentioned chiefly with reference to the exposition of specifically Christian ideas. Nicodemus acknowledges Jesus to be ‘a teacher (Ötöda ka?\os) come from God,” and addresses Him with the recognized Jewish name of a teacher, ‘Rabbi’ (pag|3et, Jn 3°). In all four Gospels the usual name for our Lord is ‘Teacher’ (Övöäorka)\os, tr. ‘Master’ in AV and RV, but ‘Teacher’ in RVnn and in Twentieth Cent. NT). This word is not only used by the disciples; it is also employed by others in addressing our Lord, ". the Pharisees and Herodians (Mk 12*). No doubt it is the evangelist's rendering of the Aramaic title, “Rabbi,’ which occasionally appears in its original form in Jn (1*, * 3** 6*, and once Rabboni, paggovvet, 201"). It is important to observe that a clear distinction between ‘teaching ' (6tóáokw) and ‘preaching (kmpſoo-w) is maintained throughout the NT. This is manifest in our Lord’s public ministry. He commenced with preaching, as John had done before Hinn (Mk 1*). This preaching was the call to repentance in connexion with the announce- ment that the kingdom of God was at hand, and was called ‘preaching the gospel of God’ (Mk 1"). Then, having gathered some disciples about Him, our Lord proceeded to instruct them in the mys- teries of the kingdom, its nature, laws, and prin- ciples. This instruction is called “teaching,’ and it was with such teaching rather than with preaching that the later part of His ministry was occupied. A similar distinction was observed in the apos- tolic ministry and in the life and organization of the early Churches. Among the various functions in the Church mentioned by St. Paul in Romans occurs that of “teaching’ (Ro 127). It there takes the third place in a series, being preceded by prophecy and ministry, and followed by exhorting, giving, ruling, and showing mercy. The last of these functions being of a general character, and such as any one might be called on to exercise, suggests that the list as a whole may not point to definite offices. But, in a nearly contemporary and prob- ably earlier epistle, teaching is assigned to specific ersons. In 1 Co 12” this also connes lº in a ist ; but the list as a whole is different from that in Romans, containing titles of persons, not merely functions; so that we have teachers,’ not merely “teaching.” They are ſºlº by ‘first apostles, secondly prophets’; then we come to ‘thirdly teachers.’ The form changes after this to gifts and functions—“miracles,” “gifts of healing,” etc. That the teaching is ascribed in an especial way to some people, to the exclusion of others, is shown by St. Paul’s questions, “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers ?’ (v.”). Never- theless, the following questions, “Are all workers of miracles 2 have all gifts of healing 2' etc., show that the personal diſſerences rest on differences of gift. At Corinth they who have gifts of teaching are teachers, as they who have gifts of healing are healers. Another arrangement appears in Ephe- sians: ‘and he gave some to be apostles ; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers’ (Eph 4"). Here we have four offices, and that of teacher set last, an office not men. tioned in the earlier lists—the evangelist's—coming between it and the offices of apostles and prophets. Further, it is also known by the name of pastor”; for the arrangement of the clauses (‘and some * introducing each class) shows that the “teachers’ and the “pastors’ are the same persons. The dis- tinction of the teacher from the evangelist is sig- nificant, suggesting the differentiation of function in which the evangelist preaches, declaring the gospel, and the teacher instructs the converts. The companion title ‘ pastor’ points to a settled ministry within the Church as distinct from the travelling missionary activity of apostles and evangelists; but it is to be observed that the apostles gathered up in themselves the several functions that were afterwards distributed among various members of the Churches. Thus St. Pau describes himself as appointed ‘a preacher and an apostle . a teacher,' etc. (I Ti 2"—assuming these to be St. Paul's words). When we turn to Acts we meet with yet another arrangement. Here teachers seem to }. identified with prophets (Ac 13'); but St. Luke may mean that the pro- minent men whose names he gives consisted of prophets and teachers, as two classes. In course of time the teacher melts into the bishop, his function is absorbed in the episcopate ; as a sepa- rate officer he is discredited by comparison with the higher official, and ere long he disappears entirely. These stages may be noted thus : (1) At the first appearance of the teacher there is no reference to the bishop : thus there is no indication of bishops in l Cor. or Romans. (2) At the time of the Epp. of the Captivity the teachers seem to have practical oversight, like that of the early bishops, even if the name is not given to them, since they are called ‘pastors’ (Eph 4*). It seems reasonable to sup- pose that these were equivalent to the ‘bishops’ of Ph l', especially since the word ‘bishop’ in the latter case may be functional rather than official, as Dr. Hort suggested. (3) In the Pastoral Epistles teaching is joined to the episcopal office. The bishop must be “apt to teach ' (1 Ti 3°; com- pare Tit 1"). Especial º: is to be given to the elders who “labour in the word and in teaching' (1 Ti 5'7): this suggests that teaching was not carried on by all the elders. St. Paul will not allow women to teach publicly in the Church (1 Ti 2”), and yet he had written of aged women being “teachers of that which is good' (Tit. 2”), when he must have meant home teaching, or perhaps teach- ing by example, unless we are to suppose that he changed his views on the subject between Titus and 2 Tinn., which is improbable. Already the teacher's oflice is falling into unworthy hands ; and the apostle writes of the time when people will not endure ‘healthful teaching' (RV m bylawoºd'ſs ötöao KaNtas, not “sound doctrine’ AV and IRV), but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts (2 Ti 4"). (4) In the sub-Apostolic age we still meet with the teacher as distinct from the bishop, though teaching now is more and more appropriated by the latter oflicer, and the teacher is . in importance. In the Didaché there are “teachers’ as well as “apostles’ and ‘prophets.” All three of these functionaries appear as itinerant ministers visiting the Churches. The teacher is to be tested by what he teaches, and received or rejected according as his instrug- tion agrees with what is laid down in this treatise or differs from it (see Didaché xi.). These travelling teachers are quite distinct from the ‘bishops and deacons’ whom the writer, bids his readers “appoint for yourselves’ (xv.)... Still later we meet with ‘teachers’ in the Shepherd of Hermas, and here they appear among the oſlicers of the Church, coming between the bishop and the 692 TEBAH TEKOA deacon. The stones in the mystical building “are begin here to lose the rich vegetable mould which, the apostles and bishops and teachers and deacons’ (Wis., iii. 5). Hermas writes disparagingly of ‘self- appointed teachers,’ who ‘praise themselves as having understanding,’ ‘senseless though they are’ (Simv. ix. 22). We have no definite account of the manner in which the teachers performed their work, or of the substance of their instructions. We are tempted to think of the catechetical teaching of later times; but there is no clear indi- cation of a catechumenate in NT. Still something of the kind must have arisen early from the neces- sity of the case. The Didaché seems to have been a text-book for some such teaching. It has been suggested that the Logia recently discovered in Egypt might be a list of sayings of Jesus drawn up for use in teaching. Possibly St. Matthew’s Logia was compiled with that end in view ; and the same may be suggested of the canonical Gospels (cf. A. Wright, NT Problems, p. 91 ff.). With reference to teachers and teaching in the NT see Allen, Christian Institutions, pp. 28, 29, 40, 42; McGiffert, Apostolic Age, 528 ft., 640 ft., 654 f. : Weizsäcker, Das Apostolische Zeitalter, pp. 621, 622. W. F. ADENEY. TEBAH (nºt); A Tá8sk, Luc. Tágex).—A “son” of Nahor by his concubine Reumah, Gn 22*[J]. The name stands for an Aramaean town, prob, the same as is named in 2 S 8*[where read, after LXX, Pesh., and 1 Ch 18°, nity for non. See TIBHATH]. TEBALIAH (nº “J” hath dipped, i.e. purified’; B Taft)\al, A Taftexias, Luc. TapeñA).—A Merarite gatekeeper, 1 Ch 26". TEBETH (nip, Tmb%0).—The 10th (Bab.-) Jewish month. See TIME. TEHAPHNEHES, Ezk 3018.-See TAHPANHES. TEHINNAH (nº ; B 0&tuáv, A €avá, Luc. 6éévvá).-The ‘father’ of Ir-nahash, 1 Ch 4”. TEIL TREE.—A mistranslation (AV Is 618) of ñºs (IRV ‘terebinth'). For the various trº of ’ālāh see OAK and TEREBINTH. TEKEL.—See MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. TEKOA (ºph; LXX 6ekôe, 66kode, Gekúa, Gekūs). —A town in the tribe of Judah, about 10 miles S. of Jerusalem and 5 S. of Bethlehem, situated on a detached hill about 2700 ft. high which is girt with other lower hills. I'rom the summit there is a broad prospect. In the W. and S. the view is closed by hills, cultivated or clothed with low vegetation. On the N. is the ravine of Urtās and its continuation Khureitän, cutting deeply through the hills down to the Dead Sea. The Frank moun- tain and Bethlehem are visible : Jerusalem is hidden bellind intervening hills, but the Mount of Olives can be seen and, still farther to the N., Nebi Samwil. To the S.E. is another deep and wild valley, Wady Jehár, running towards the Dead Sea, glimpses of which can be obtained through the distant cliſls. Eastwards the hill slopes down to the Wilderness of Judah. Canon Tristram describes the approach from the Wady Bereikeh : “In front of us is a long hill, with a copious spring at its foot. . . . The district in its natural features seems to have been always what it is now—bare, treeless, open pasturage. We here lose all traces of the ancient terraces which gird the undulations of every hill farther west with their swathing bands. Here and there are still patcheſſ of cultivation in the hollows of the valleys, but the soil is dry and stony, and we however scanty, still covers, more or less the whole of the central hills, and have, in its stead, only a thirsty, chalky marl. That vegetable soil is doubtless due, in the first instance, to the prim- aeval forest, which certainly once covered the whole of the Judaean, as of the Gilead, range, but has left no trace of its existence on the Western slopes towards the Dead Sea.” The town is not mentioned very frequently in Scripture. The Heb. of Jos 15” does not include it in the list of places belonging to Judah : the LXX gives it and ten other towns, one of them being ethlehem. 1 Ch 2*49 ascribe to Tekoa, an anti- uity coeval with the Conquest. According to these passages, Ashhur, Caleb’s half-brother, was the father, i.e. the founder, of Tekoa. In 2 S 14 the wise woman of Tekoa is spoken of in such a manner as to convey the impression that her shrewdness had brought her dwelling - place into notoriety. David spent much time in this part of the country during his Wanderjahre : afterwards it was a recruiting ground for the ranks of his mighty men (2 S 23*, 1 Ch 1198). From 2 Ch 11% we learn that it was one of the towns fortified by Relioboam. Its commanding position and its situation on the utmost frontier of the cultivated land would ensure its being made a military post. Jer 6' shows that its defences continued to be kept up. The prophet bids the children of Benjamin raise up a imº OIl 13eth-haccherem (Jebel Fureidis, the Frank moun- tain), and blow the trumpet in Tekoa. This is not said merely for the sake of the play on words, tik'it, Tékóa' [note also také't! in v."], but also because this was a garrison town. The Wilder- ness of Tekoa is named at 2 Ch 20° as the battle- field where Jehoshaphat defeated the Ammonites and their allies. In the 13k. of Nehemiah (3” ”) the public - spiritedness of the commonalty is sharply contrasted with the contemptuous refusal of their chiefs to bend the neck to the Tirshatha's yoke. l Mac 9” relates that Simon and Jonathan fled to the Wilderness of Tekoa from before Bac- chides. The crowning, glory of Tekoa was its connexion with the próphet Amos (Am l'). Josephus, who mentions Tekoa as one of the ‘strong and large cities’ built by Rehoboam (Amt. VIII. x. 1), speaks of it as a village in the Macca- bacan period (BJ IV. ix. 5) and in his own day (Vita, 75). Jerome (Comm. in Jerem. vi. 1) calls it a village, 12 (Roman) miles from Jerusalem, visible to him from Bethlehem every day. In the Pref. to Amos he adds: “There is no village be- yond Tekoa, not even [a probable conjectural emendation is ‘except 'I rustic huts, of the appear- ance of ovens, which the Africans call mapalia : such is the desolateness of the desert which extends as far as the Ited Sea and the boundaries of the Persians, Ethiopians, and Jews. And because no kind of crop whatever grows on the dry and sandy soil, the whole neighbourhood is occupied by shepherds, to compensate for the barrenness of the soil by the multitude of sheep.’ The same Father asserts that the tomb of Amos was shown at this place. The Talmud speaks of the oil of Tekoa as the best in the country; and one of the Arab geo- graphers says that its honey was so excellent as to have become proverbial. In the early part of the 6th cent. Saba founded a new monastery here, which, in contradistinction to Laura (Már Sába), was called Laura Nova, ‘New Monastery.’ Soon after his death it became the scene of fierce con- flicts between the Monophysites and the orthodox. In Crusading times it was inhabited by a large Jopulation of Christians, who aſſorded considerable |. to the Franks during the first siege of Jeru- salem. The village was sacked by a party of Turks from beyond the Jordan in A.D. 1138, but TEKOA TELEM 693 the majority of the inhabitants had taken refuge in the great cave of IChureitán. There is a some- what puzzling , reference in Balhaoddinus, Vita Salad., ed. Schultens, p. 237. He writes of “the river of Tekoa ( 53.3 Jé), one parasang [=about 3 Eng. miles] from Jerusalem, which fur- nished a sufficient supply of water to Richard of England and his army’ of Crusaders. It is obvious that the distance here given does not agree with the facts. The suggestion has been made that the water in question was that of the lake mentioned 1 Mac 9” rô jöap A&kkov 'Aqqāp (N, Wen.), or 'Aqqa.N (A), which Josephus (Ant. XIII. i. 2) calls to Üówp rô KaNovaevov \dkkov 'Aaghdp, and which Mühlau identifies with ez-Zaferáne S. of Tekoa, Robinson (BRP” ii. 202) with Bir Selhub S.W. of En-gedi. The Palestine pilgrims of the Middle Ages do not enlighten us greatly as to the condition or history of Tekoa. In the account of St. Willibald's pil. grimage (8th cent.) it is said that he came hither, and “there is now a church, and there rests one of the prophets.” The anonymous itinerary of this journey asserts that Nathanael was one of the infants at Bethlehem when Herod slew the chil- dren, that his mother hid him under a fig tree (Jn 1°), and that he escaped to Tekoa. In the 12th cent. John of Würzburg and Fetellus state that the tomb of Amos was shown there, the latter adding, “I’rom its confines Habakkuk was borne by the angel to Babylon. In Thecua many of the prophets used to meet together to discuss divine things.’ Isaac Chelo (A.D. 1134) speaks of the tomb of Amos as being in a cave at this place. From William of Tyre we learn that in A.D. 1144 ueen Melesinda gave the spot to the canons of the #. Sepulchrein exchange for property at Bethany. The ancient name Tekºta º clings to the site (Robinson, Pal. ii. 406 ft.; Guérin, Judée, iii. 141 ff.). In the neighbourhood large flocks of sheep and goats, together with a few oxen, are pastured by Arabs, genuine representatives of the nomads who dwelt there in ancient days. On the level ground immediately near the hill corn is grown. The shepherds use for sheep-cotes the numerous caves with which the mountains are honeycombed. On the broad summit of the hill of Tekoa, there are ruins which cover a space of four or five acres. They “consist chiefly of the foundations of houses constructed of large hewn stones, some of them bevelled. At the N.E are the remains of a square tower, occupying a very commanding position ; and near the middle of the site are the ruins of a Greek church, with several broken columns and an octagonal baptismal font of rose-coloured lime- stone, 5 ft. diam. on the outside, 4 on the inside, and 3 ft. 9 in. deep. There are also many cisterns excavated in the rock.” The view of the font in Wilson's Picturesque Palestine, iii. 184, is well worth seeing. Cyril of Alexandria asserts that the Tekoa...of Amos was an Ephrajmite, not a Judaean city. The author of the }. of the Prophets says that it was in the tribe of Zebulun-probably a mistake for Simeon, since Simeon bordered closely on Judah. Abarbanel and Kimchi place it in the tribe of Asher. But there is not a particle of real evidence in favour of a second Tekoa. Tekoite. — A native or inhabitant of Tekoa. The adjective is used three times in the singular number (2 S 23*, 1 Ch 11° 27') of one of David's mighty men, Ira, the son of Ikkesh, the Tekoite. In 2 S 144. 9 the Heb. has the fem. form, but our versions render the expression, 'ishshah hat-têkö ith, by “woman of Tekoa.’. In Nell 3° 47 the plural is employed for one of the bands of volunteers who rebuilt the wall of Jerusalem under Nehemiah. It is a little doubtful whether these men actually occupied Tekoa at the time. Tekoa does not figure in the list of repeopled towns given in Ezr 2; they may have been simply ‘a clan of fellow- townsmen who had held together during the Exile, and were known by this name after they had settled in Jerusalem.” In any case their public- spirited zeal (V.”) sheds lustre on the name. J. TAYLOR. TEKOAH.—This is the AV form in 2 S 142. 4. 9 for Tekoa, and is retained by IRV in 1 Mac 999 in the expression “wilderness of Tekoah.” TEL-ABIB (a’rs ºn, perh. ‘hill of corn,’ but see Del. Heb. Jang. 16 ; ueréapos; ad acervum mo- varum fratgum). —A place on the Chebar (Ezk 31°), —one of the rivers or canals in Babylonia. The site is unknown. The LXX and Vulgate have translated the term as if it were not a proper name. C. W. WILSON. TELAH (nºn; B 94Xees, A €4\e, Luc. 94Na),— An Ephraimite, 1 Ch 7”. TELAIM (bºshiºn ‘the lambs’; £v Taxy&\ots ; quasi agnos).-The place at which Saul concentrated his forces, and numbered his fighting men before his campaign against the Amaſekites (1 S 15"). The LXX reads Gilgal for Telaim, and Josephus (Ant. VI. vii. 2) also makes Gilgal the place of assembly. Gilgal, however, though so frequently mentioned in connexion with the history of Saul, would be an inconvenient mustering-place for a force about to operate against the Amalekites in the desert S. of Palestine. Still it is possible that Saul may have started from the sanctuary to which he returned with his prisoner and booty. A more suitable locality for the place of º would, lowever, be in the Negeb, or South ; and here lay Telem (Jos 15*), with which Télaim is probably identical. So Wellhausen, Driver, and }. who prefer to point DNA). Wellhausen reads pºp also in 1 S 157 for Hºur. The same read- ing should also probably be found in 1 S 278 (see Wellll. and Driver, ad loc., and Hommel, A HT'243). (J. W. WILSON. TELASSAR (nysºn 2 K 1913, ºn Is 37* “hill of Asshur'; 13 0aegôév, A €3a)\ago &p ; Thelassar, That- lºssar).-A town, inhabited by “the cliildren of Eden' (see EDEN), which had been conquered by Sennacherib's forefathers, and was in the possession of the Assyrians during that monarch's reign (2 K 19°, Is 37*). It is mentioned with Gozan, Haran, and Rezeph—places in Western Mesopotamia. In this direction lay Beth-Eden, or Bit-'A dini (see art. EDEN, vol. i. p. 642°), a district between the Euphrates and the Belik. It probably stretched along both banks of the Euphrates, between Batlis and Birejik. In the inscriptions, Gozan, Haram, Rezeph, and IBit-'Adini are stated to have been de- stroyed by Sennacherib's forefathers—a fact which harmonizes well with what is said in 2 lºings and Isaiah (Schrader, KAT” 327). A place of this name (Til-A&uri) is mentioned by Tiglath-pileser III. (Ann. 176, ed. Iłost, cf. Nimr. ii. & 23); but this seems to have Jen in Babylonia. The name is, however, as Schrader remarks, one that might have been given to any place at which a temple had been built to Asshur; and the Til-A &ºtri, which Esarhaddon speaks of having conquered (KIB ii. 219), near the land of the Mitanni, as Del. (Parad. 364) remarks, suits better. C. W. WILSON. TELEM (pºp: I} TéAmu, AS TéA\mu). —A gate- keeper who had married a foreign wife, Ezr 10”; called in l I's 9” Tolbanes; perhaps the same as Talmon of Neh 12”. TELEM (nº ‘oppression’; B Matváu, A TéNew ; Telem). —One of the uttermost cities of Judah 694 TEL-HARSHA TEMPERANCE towards the border of Edom in the South, or Negeb (Jos 15°). It is mentioned between Ziph and l3ealoth, and may be the same place as Telaim (1 S 15°). In the LXX reading of 2 S 31°, Abner is said to have sent messengers to Thelam (6a)\áp.), where David was ; and, if this reading be correct, Telem or Telaim was probably intended. . The site has not been recovered, but a trace of the name seenis to linger in that of the Dhallām Arabs who occupy the country S. of Moladah (Tell Milh). According to Schwarz (HL 71), who places Telem N. of Moſadah, the whole district is called Tontlam. Telem is probably the Talmia of the Talmud (Neu- bauer, Géog. du Talm. 121). A position to the S. of Tell Milh would meet the requirements of all the above passages. See, further, TELAIM. C. W. WHLSON. TEL-HARSHA (RWTH ºn ‘hill of the wood”; B 0aapmad, 'Apnad, A €e\apma'é, 9exapod ; Thelharsa). —A Babylonian town, of unknown site, from which some of the Jews, who ‘could not show their fathers’ houses, and their seed, whether they were of Israel,” returned to Judaea after the Cap- tivity (Ezr 2*, Neh 7"). In 1 Es, 5* the name is written Thelersas. C. W. WILSON. TELL.-See TALE. TELMELAH (nºp ºf ‘hill of salt”; B espuéXe6, 6éxpéAé0, A €eXpwéxeX, 6eXpé\ex; Thelmala).-A Babylonian town, of unknown site, which is men- tioned with Tel - harsha and Cherub (Ezr 2*, Neh 7"). In l Es 5* it is written Thermeleth. C. W. WILSON. TEMA (Rpºn ‘on the right,’ ‘south'; 6alpad v, 679&v ; Thema).-A tribe offshmaelite Arabs, and a place or district in Arabia, which took their name from Tema, one of the twelve sons of Ish- mael (Gn 25°, 1 Ch 129, Is 2114). The people were leaders of caravans, or camel-men, and their en- campments were apparently on a caravan-route which would be followed by fugitives from Dedan (Job 6", Is 21* *). According to some authori- ties, the passage in Job refers to ‘caravans crossing the desertin the dry season; pressing forward to look for water in the winter torrents, and finding none. Their disappointment is a lively image of the ex- Jerience of Job when he looked for sympathy }. his brethren” (Smith, DB, Amer. ed., note to TEMA). In Jer 25” Tema, is mentioned with Dedan and Buz, and it may be inferred from Is 21** that it was E. of the former place. Ptolemy (V. xix. 6) mentions a town called Themma (€6ppam) in the Arabian desert ; and, according to Schrader (KAT’” 149), Tema is the Timai of Tiglath-pileser II., mentioned in conjunc- tion with the Mas'ati (the Massa of Gn 25'4). Tema is now Teimſ, a well-known place in N. Arabia, about 40 miles S. of Dumat el - Jøndel (Dumah), and on an old route from the Gulf of 'Akabah to the Persian Gulf. The ancient city was enclosed by a stone wall about 3 miles in circuit, and there are still remains of this, and of some great rude stone buildings. Teimá is described as ‘a tall island of palms enclosed by long clay orchard walls, fortified with high towers.’ The houses are low buildings of mud or clay (Doughty, Travels, i. 285). The Aramaic inscriptions discovered by Iºuting at Teima prove it to have been the seat of an ancient civilization (see Sitzungsber. der Berl. /l/cºld. der Wissense/., 1884, p. 813 ff. ; and cf. Studiº Bibl. i.). The LXX reading, followed by Fusebius and Jerome (Omom.), apparently connects Tema, with Teman. Liter ATURE. — Dillmann on the passages above cited in Genosis, I&ſtituh, and Job; S:tzwnſister. d. Berl. A kad., 1884, p. 813ſf.; Euting, Nabat. Imgchr. 9ſf.; Buhl's (#e3emiw8, 8.v. C. W. WILSON. –s TEMAH (npº, ; AV Tamah is due to the occur. rence of the word in pausal form mph). — The eponym of a family of Nethinin, Ezr 2% (BA 6éua, Luc. eepad)=Neh 7” (B Hua.0, A 6%ua, Luc. 6epad). TEMAN (p'n “on the right,’ ‘south’; eatuáv : Theman).—A district, and perhaps also a town, which received its name from, or gave it to, a grandson of Esau, who was one of the “dukes’ of Edom (Gn 360 lb. *, 1 Ch 180 tº). Teman was one of the most important districts in Edom. From it (“the land of the Temanites,’ Gn 36%. 83) came one of the early kings of Edom ; and it is Sometimes used poetically for Edom. The name is apparently used in its wider sense for Edom in Am 1" (cf. Am 2*, *, where the country and its chief town are connected); in Ob" (cf. ‘the mighty men of Edom in Jer 49*); in the poetical parallel (Jer 49*), where the inhabitants of Teman are those of Edom ; in Hab 3°, where Teman stands for Edom, as Seir does in Dt 33”; and in Bar 3”. 28. In its narrower sense the name occurs in Gn 36%. 89, Job 2* 4° 15'22'42", Ezk 25°, and perhaps also in Jer, 49", . The Temanites were pre-eminent for their wisdom (Jer., Ob., Bar., as quoted above); and it was fitting that ELIPHAZ, one of the wise men of Teman, should be the chief of the three friends of Job. The name of Teman has not been recovered, and its position is uncertain. A district in the N. of Edom seems to be implied in Ezk 2519 “from Teman even unto Dedan,’ and in Am 113 it is mentioned with Bozrah (el-Buseireh); but, on the other hand, it is connected with the Red Sea, in Jer 49*.*. Eusebius states (Onom.) that, in his day, Teman was a town 15 (Jerome 5) IRoman miles from Petra, and a Roman post ; but he does not give the direction. No trace of this place has been found, but it was probably on the road from Elath to Bozrah. LITERATURE.-Dillmann on Gn 3611 and Job 211; Driver on Am 112 ; Wetzstein, Ztschr. f. allgem. Urdlºwnde, xviii. 52 f. 3. C. W. WILSON. TEMENI ("nºn, Baer ºn [cf. Kittel, SBOT, ‘Chronicles,’ p. 52]; BA 6alpadu, Luc. 9alpavel).- The ‘son’ of Ashhur, 1 Ch 49. TEMPERANCE.-The Eng, word “temperance’ occurs in Scripture only in the NT; but the idea of temperance, i.e. self-control, pervades the OT as well as the Scriptures of the Christian period, and the duty of realizing it is strongly insisted on throughout the Bible. The legal regulations about clean and unclean foods required self- restraint in the matter of diet. The Wisdom literature dealing especially with practical conduct is explicit and urgent on the duty of self-control. This is prominent in the Blv. of Proverbs, as in the sayings concerning eating—“When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what (or who) is before thee; and put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite” (Pr231: 9); wine- drinking—‘Look not upon the wine when it is red, etc. (v.”); licentiousness—the laws against adultery, the frequent warnings in Prov. against ‘the strange woman'; anger—“He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city’ (16%); ºrévenge—‘Iłejoice not when thine enemy falleth.’ (Prº24”); and elsewhere greed of wealth—“Thou shalt not covet” (Ex 20'7); ‘Woe unto them that join house to house,” etc. (Is 5°). A specific self- restraint was put upon the Nazirites (see NAZIR- ITE), and a similar self-restraint was practised by the Iłechabites (see IRECIIABITEs); and certain forms of abstinence were required by the Law in all the Jews, as at fasts (see FASTING), and pre. —º TEMPLE TEMPLE 695 vious to solemn religious services (Ex 1919). The religious life of the OT saint was not ascetic, but it was simple and free from the excesses of pagan- išm., While the Israelite was encouraged to 16ceive the gifts of God with thankfulness, and to use them without fear of any Nemesis on his prosperity, he was not to plunge into reckless self- indulgence. Solomon's luxurious living is not Israelite, but a result of the importation of foreign manners. Baal - worship was denounced for its licentiousness as well as for its idolatry, and the unfaithfulness to Jehovah it involved on the part of the Israelites. The prophets repeatedly de- nounce the luxurious living of the wealthy, and the growth of self-indulgence generally, as foreign to the rigour of righteousness, and certain to bring ruin on a nation (e.g. Am 4, 6-4, Is 317° 511. 12). When we come to the NT treatment of this Subject, we have the description of John the Baptist in his rough dress and simple fare, feeding on the native products of the wilderness (Mk ii), whom our Lord contrasts with those who “wear soft raiment,’ and “are in kings' houses” (Mt 11°). But the Supreme example of temperance is afforded by the life of Jesus Christ. That was not ascetic ; the charge of gluttony and wine - bibbing was brought against our Lord by malignant slanderers because He did not practise asceticism. And yet the extreme simplicity of His living, the many hardships He voluntarily endured, and His coni- plete unconcern with regard to His own comforts, as well as His perfect freedom from all forms of sin and selfishness, show Him to us as one who Iived the ideal life of temperance, avoiding excess and extravagance in all directions. This was the method of life He inculcated on His disciples. There is no passage in His teaching requiring asceticism, and no direct commendation of fasting (the word ‘fasting' is onlitted in RV of Mk 9” and the parallel Mt. 17” in accordance with best MSS); but there is much urgent dissuasion from the life of ease and self-indulgence. The disciple of Christ is required to hold his thoughts as well as his words and actions under control (e.g. Mt. 5* * * *). In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus the self-indulgence of the former, while he ignores the sufferer at his gate, aggravates his guilt. The Gr, word for “temperance,’ &ykpáreta, and its verbal form, & yºpatevögat, are found in the NT only in Acts (there ascribed to St. Paul), St. Paul's Epistles, and 2 Peter. Derived from kpáros, ‘strong,’ they indicate the strength a man uses towards himself in self-control. St. Paul makes temperance one of the subjects of his very per- sonal address to Felix (Ac 24”); and elsewhere brings it forward as one of the fruits of the spirit (Gal. 5*). Using the verbal form of the same word, he appeals to the analogy of the athlete whose training involves universal self-restraint (1 Co 9*). The virtue is one of the requisites for a bishop (Tit 18). In 2 P 1" it appears in an ascending series of commended attainments, following know- ledge and preceding godliness. See also art. SOBER. W. F. ADENEY. TEMPLE (A.S. tempel, from Lat. templum, a space marked out ; a sanctuary : cf. Téuevos [from répuw, “to cut”), a piece of land cut off from the rest and dedicated to a god). —In the EV “temple’ renders the Hebrew words : — ºr (hékál, in a narrower sense the Holy Place) and nº (‘house,” including hākāl and débir nº, or Most Holy Place). Three Gr. words are tr. ‘ temple’ in the NT: lepôv (more correctly the whole of the sacred enclosure), vaôs (strictly the sanctuary or Sacred edifice alone, embracing hòkål and débir), otºos. i. SOLOMON'S BUILDINGS.—The pile or series of edifices ºf which the Temple formed one part, a embraced in addition the king's house, 3 the porch. of pillars, Y the throne porch, 6 the house for Pharaoh's daughter now married to Solomon,e the king's dwelling, and the haran. The following is 's #- l 3 f 9 || [[]] [T] T} 3– 2 ſ 1. tº-d l T D D : FIG. 1.-PLAN OF ROYAL BUILDINGS, 1. The great court. 2. The ‘other’ or middle court. 3. The inner (or temple) court. 4. House of Lebanon. 5. Porch of pillars. 6. Throne porch. 7. Royal palace. 8. Haram. 9. Temple. 10. Altar. Stade's plan of the royal buildings as slightly simplified by Benzinger in his Heb. Arch. m and in his Com. on Kings.6 The above plan takes for granted that the pile of buildings formed a complete whole. There was one “great court’ (1) which surrounded the whole. The ‘other court’ (2) encompassed the king's palace t and haram ; k in 2 K 204 it is called the ‘middle court,’ because it lay between the inner or temple court and the southernmost buildings (Lebanon house, etc.). The ‘inner court’X (3) was that which contained the temple and its belong- ings: ‘inner’ not in contrast with an outer court of the temple (of such a court Solomon's temple knows i. but as distinguished from the ‘greater court,” which contained within it all the royal buildings. Apart from the description in 1 IC 5–7, Ezk 43°p, makes it exceedingly likely that the whole of these buildings were together, making one whole. On the other hand, Thenius, y Furrer,á and others place the temple on the east hill, but the other royal buildings on the modern Mount Zion and the learan hill, between which two & But to the author, or at all events the editor, of eyen IKings the temple was the principal building of the group, if not the final cause of the whole. 3 1 K 72 House of the forest of Lebanon,’so called on account of the cedar wood used in its construction and the piles upon which it rested. J. D. Michaelis, Dathe, Iken (Dissert, Philolog. i. diss.), and Hamelsfeld (Bibl. Geog. i. p. 838) hold that the house in question was a summer residence for king Solomon built on Lebanon or at the foot of it. Dathe refers for support to 1 K 919, 20), 80. But the fact that Solomon deposited the golden shields in the house (see 919) shows that the house was close to Jerusalem. Besides, we never read of Solomon's having more than one palace. 1 IC 76, 3 1 K 77. # 1 K 78. {&j. i. 315. ºn p. 239. 0 p. 26. * I R 710, 12. z 1 IX 78. A T K (386. * “They (the children of Israel) shall no more defile my name . . . in their setting of their thresholds by my thresholds, and their posts by iny posts, and the walls between me and them.’ v On Kings; see his plan, Tafel i. & Schenkel, iii. p. 222 fr. b{}6 TEMPLE TEMPLE hills the Tyropoeon valley is situated. But the references we have are wholly opposed to this, as is also the probability that the king would have his palace erected in closer proximity to the royal sanctuary. In 1 K 6* we read of the building of the temple. W.” tells us of an inner court, meaning clearly the court which enclosed the temple area and was itself included in the great court, a which had in it the whole complex of royal buildings, sacred and secular. The passage in Ezekiel 8 already noted makes this arrangement still more likely. The eastern hill on which the royal buildings were erected is that which is known in the OT as ZION and also as MORIAH. The modern fiction, which fixes Zion on the hill west of the Cheese- mongers’, (=Tyropocon), valley, has nothing to support it except tradition. It has against it topographical and historical considerations which are overwhelming.ºy Had the buildings been ex- tended to a west hill, substructions of a deeper and more expensive character would have been necessary. Relative positions of the Royal Buildings at Jerusalem.— Assuming that the royal buildings were all of then on the eastern hill, how were they relatively situated ? . The temple must have been either north or south of the other buildings, as the distance between the Tyropoon and the eastern declivities was too small to allow of its being on the east or west. It is exceedingly likely that it was on the north, and therefore on higher ground. From 2 K 1119, Jer 221 it follows that the way from the temple to the palace was a descent. On the other hand, in 1 K 81 924, Jer 2610 it is equally implied that it was an ascent from the palace to the temple. In these passages it is taken for granted that the temple was in proximity to the other royal buildings. When Jeremiah was arrested for foretelling the destruction of the temple, the princes were at once upon the scene and constituted themselves into a body of magistrates to deal with the matter?—an incident illustrating the closeness of their residences to the sanctuary. Probably the Southern wall of the temple was also the northern wall of . ‘other’ or “middle' court, a gate leading from one into the OUIſler. G -g supposing it to be the altar of Solomon's temple. This last is however, but twice named in Kings & and §§ once in Chron icles ; 3 in all these three instances the altar is described as brazen ; besides the size which the Chronicler gives, y that is all we are told of the altar of burnt-offering of Solomon's temple. Nowack, indeed, completes the picture from the fuller descrip- tion of Ezekiel's temple, 3 but with questionable justification. It is likely enough . the adjective ‘brazen' is a later addition, and that the altar of the first temple was one of unhewn stone. If this stone had not all along occupied a very important place in popular esteem, it could not have been tolerated, but it would many centuries before have been levelled to the ground. Since the temple and its courts were arranged in terraces, the house itself, together with the altar, must have stood on the lºst platform ; this is true of the ground on which the rock TCSU.S. Among leading authorities who have held that the altar was at the present Sakhra, the following may be named :— Williams,s Tobler, Furrer, Pierotti, & Stade,” Benzinger,() and Nowack, a , Sir Charles Warren puts the altar just a little to the South of the rock, but quite close to it.x: If the Sakhra marks the site of the altar, A the house must have been to the west, a the inner or temple court y east, west, south, and north, whild §: ºins structures built on the hill would lie towards he South. In order to make the rock-crowned Morial ſit for building upon, the rocky surface would have to be levelled—the sakhra being left as it was— and the parts lower down raised to be as high as the rest. Subterranean passages and rooms were erected, ‘ hewn stones,’ ‘costly stones,’ ‘great stones’ being used, large quantities of earth being thrown in to fill up the intervening spaces.; There are to be seen at the present time remains of these underground buildings.o All agree that somewhere on the modern Haram, esh-Sherif the temple was built; but this area is a quadrangle of unequal sides. Its west side measures 1590 ft., its east 1525 ft. The north and south sides are 1036 and 921 ft. respectively. It is impossible that the temple enclosure included the whole of this space, though de Vogüé, de Saulcy, Sir Henry James, and Sepp maintain that Herod's temple, with its courts and en- closures, did cover the Haran) surface. German and French writers almost to a man, and the majority of English and American authorities, unite in holding that the temple building proper stood west of the rock as advocated above, and that with its adjuncts it covered about 600 ft. east to west and 400 ft. north to south. A number of English writers have followed Fergusson ºr in maintaining that the temple occupied a square of some 600 ft. at the S.W. angle of the Haram (so Thrupp, Lewin, p and W. R. Smiths). Fergusson was led to this view by architectural con- siderations, and especially by his acceptance of the Mosque of Omar site for the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. W. R. Smith states succinctly what is to be said for this opinion, but there does not seem much inclination on the part of students of the subject to accept it. Indeed, but for the necessity to support a foregone conclusion, Fergusson would hardly have hit upon this site for the temple at all. Sources.—Our original sources for the history and description of Solomon's temple are threefold. (1) We have what is said in 1 K 6.7, which leaves out much that is absolutely necessary to make a complete picture. Many technical terms are used, the meaning of which it is beyond our power to elucidate with any feeling of conſidence. More- over, the text is exceedingly corrupt and defective, so that conjectural emendation and addition have to be constantly employed. Röttcher in his Aehren- lese, Thenius in his Commentary, and especially Stade in his ZAT'W iii., have made praiseworthy attempts to supply the student with a correct text. (2) We have, further, the parallel history in 2 Ch 21–5”; but that the history in this book, however sincere and pious, is constructed from the point of If we can fix the º of the altar of burnt-offering, we can locate at once the main parts of the temple and also the other royal buildings. There is good reason for believing that the Sakhra or rock under the dome of the mosque of Omar is the spot where the altar in question stood. A very old tradi- tion connects with this spot the incident in which Abraham prepared to offer Isaac, as also the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite. It was on this threshing-floor that the destroying angel stood when Jehovah stopped him in his work of destroying the people. . . Even if these associations with the place are imaginary, yet they show that it was a sacred spot from very primitive times, and in the conservative East there is but little change in roads or towns or sanctuaries. Solomon would be very likely to erect his chapel close to some spot where a Divine manifestation had been made or some altar had been raised. The form of the stone gives good reason for concluding that it was that on which the sacrifices were offered. It is a huge limestone rock, measuring some 60 by 50 ft., standing above the marble pavement about 5 ft. On its top there is an º. through which the blood of the victims sacrificed could pass. Lower down there is an open cave in the same rock, at the bottom of which the stones make a hollow sound when struck. This, with other indications, makes it very probable that there was an opening at the bottom through which the blood passed, this opening leading into a subterranean passage which con- tinued its way to the Kidron Valley. This agrees with what the Mishna says,” that under the altar of burnt-offering there was a conduit by means of which the blood of the victim flowed into the valley of the Kidron. Close to the 8akhra or rock there were formerly two fountains, one of them still sending up fresh, and beautiful water. The natives say the water of this last is very putrid, but Pierotti tasted it and found they were wrong. He was of opinion that the water had the name of being filthy on account of its long- time association with the sacrificial blood which mingled with it.0 Nowack thinks that, probably, the sacrificial blood after passing into the aperture at the bottom of the cave joined the waters of that “fountain which ſlowed fast by the oracle of God,' 2 and fell with them into the eastern valley, joining ulti- mately the Kidron. A The altar was rough and in its natural stone, which meets the requirement of Ex 2024f., a that the altar should be either of earth or of unhewn stone. Moreover, there were to be no steps going up to the altar, y-a condition also satisfied by this rock, o. 1 K 710. 12. g 438. 2. See art. Zion, Mühlau in Riehm 2, 8, ‘Zion,’ and especially §uthe in ZI) P V v. 271 ff. 3 Jor 2010ſ. 5 Cf. Ezk 438. & 2 S 2416ſ, 1 Ch 2115ſr. (Ornan). o, Yoma iii. 1. 0 Jerusalemn, Iºa.ptored, London, 1864, vol. i. 88ff. Heb. A reh. ii. 41. 2 Is 89. A Cf. Ezk 471ſt. p. Belonging to the Book of the Covenant. y Ex 2028. o, Viz, 1 K 804 (in a narrative of the dedication of the temple) and 2 K 1017ſt. (A has supplemented it by an altar from Damascus). g 2 Ch 41. * y 20 cubits long by 20 cubits broad by 10 cubits high. } Ezk 43.13.17. a The IIoly City 2, p. 290 ft. & Op. cit. a Gesch. i. 314 f. 0 I(Ömige, p. 26 f * Heb. An'ch. ii. 27 f. x Underground Jerusalem, p. 60. A Fig. 1, 10. A. Fig. 1, 9. # 1 K 79.12; Jos. Amt. viii. iv. 82, etc. o See Warren's Underground Jerusalem, p. 61 ff. ºr Jºssay on the ‘Ancient Topography of Jerusalem,' 1847. p Sketch of Jerusalem, 220 fſ. • Encyc. Brit.98. ‘Temple.’ y Fig. 1, 3. TEMPLE TEMPLE 697 view of a Jerusalem Levite of the time after the Exile, and represents events as they were regarded and not as they were, any one who compares IS.ings and Chronicles, and considers the history of religious thought and institutions among the Israelites, may see. Chronicles aims at glori- fying David as the founder of the kingdom and of the religious Society, especially of the priest- hood and the P*. According to the Chronicler, David received from God a detailed plan of the temple, a and gathered together ma- terials, especially gold, silver, copper, and iron,6 for the building, Kings gives a fuller account, it feaves out this and similar things. (3) The temple of Ezekiel's vision Y must have been more or less suggested by the temple which he actually saw ; and from its elaborate description one may, to a certain extent, fill in the omissions in the shorter description of Solomon's temple ; only, it is to be considered that the temple which the prophet saw on the banks of the Chebar is as sym: metrical as imagination unhampered by fact could make it. The text of Ezekiel is also corrupt ; but Böttcher in his Proben. Alttest. Schrifterklärung, the altar, the chambers, etc. This supposed con- nexion has led to many wrong results as to the dimensions of the first temple; as in the height of the building, which, because stated to be 30 cubits, i.e. thrice, not twice, that of the tabernacle, is made to refer to the exterior, not to the interior, though the other measurements are admitted to be internal. But the assumption of Fergusson, based on the oldest authorities, falls to the ground when it is remembered that the tabernacle in question had no actual existence at any time, and no exist- ence in thought until about the time of the Exile. It would be far nearer the truth to say that the tabernacle is itself modelled upon the second temple, than to say that the first temple was modelled on the tabernacle. See TABERNACLE. The temple of Solomon included the house and the court which surrounded and enclosed house, altar, and other belongings. The ‘house’ was a rectangular building 60 cubits long (east to west), 20 cubits broad, and 30 cubits high.a. These are inside measurements, as the account of the débir, or Holy of Holies, in 1 K 6* (cf. v.”) shows, and as the temple of Ezekiel 18 - 19 iſ 20 21 22 23 ſ 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 17 16 15 D º-2 H P 2O [T] 6 * 10 + 6 - 14 * | 13 * 11 10 59 8 7 || 6 @ 5 4 3 2 ... I 5 2 E H++++++-t—t—t—t—t—t—t-ºf–TCubits FIG. 2.-GROUND PLAN OF SOLOMON's TEMPLE. : B and J == Boaz and Jachin—the pillars. P= the porch. Ezekiel's temple. Smend, Bertholet, and especially Cornill, in their Commentaries, have done much to obviate this dif- ficulty.— ..We have secondary sources in Josephus 6 and the Mishnic tract Middoth, but these are valu- able chiefly for Herod's temple ; for, even when describing the temples of Solomon, Ezekiel, and Zerubbabel, it is Herod’s which they have in mind. Josephus has also a strong passion for exaggera- tion, especially when the glory of the temple is concerned. In matters of size and measure- ment his imagination seems almost as free as was Ezekiel's.e - 1. PIAN AND DIMENSIONS OF SOLOMON’s TEMPLE. –Fergusson & says that the temple of Solo- mon was a copy of the tabernacle, the tº. of the latter being doubled, and such other changes niade as were necessary in a fixed as compared with a portable structure. But the resemblances so often, especially in former times, pointed out, are accom- panied by differences of an important character— as in the porch, the two pillars Boaz and Jachin, at 1 Ch 2811-19. g 1 Ch 2214. Ezk 40–42 and in part 43 and 46. ; i. VIII. iii., xv, xi. 3 ff. ; IBJ V. v. 1–6. * See Robinson's 13 RP2 i. 277 f. & Early Temples of the Jews, p. 20 ft. H = the hôkil or IIoly Place. table of shewbread. S = the stairway to the upper chambers. D = the débir or Most Holy Place. T= the E= entrance to the chambers. 1, 2, etc., the chambers after suggests. But no allowance is made for the wall separating the hākāl, or Holy Place, from the débir, which in Ezekiel's temple was 6 cubits thick.8 The building looked towards the east. It is of course quite possible that this arrangement may have been due to the form of the hill, which made it much more suitable to build west to east than north to south. The sanctuary structure.—The temple building had three parts, or rather two and a porch which is not reckoned as a portion of the house. The arrangement and number of the chambers is gon- jectural, being based on what we know of Ezekiel's temple. tº The larger of the two parts of the house is the hdkâl, y the débir 6 being the smaller. The hºkál & 1 K 62 || 2 Ch 38. The latter passage does not give the height. 8 Ezk 415. y II&kāl (ºn) is probably the same as the Accadian e-gal, ‘great house,’ as Schrader, Iſaupt, and most Assyriologists hold. It may mean properly a hall (AJSI, July 1901, p. 244 ft.). See the Oāf. Heb. Leæ, on the word. Though used in other senses, its commonest meaning is that of the Holy Place (Uli), which is the later term. In this article hékúl has always this mean- 1Il Q". § Dębir (nº) is the term employed in Kings for what in the parallel parts of Chron, is often called ‘Holy of Holies' (ºp 698 T} MIPLE TEMPLE was an oblong rectangle 40 cubits from west to east, and 20 cubits from north to south. The débir was a cube measuring 20 cubits in all three direc- tions. Since the whole house was 30 cubits high— the house (nºn) including hòkål and débir—there must have been 10 cubits of space-room on the top of the débir, this being used probably for storing purposes, though Ewald says it was inaccessible and empty. Stieglitz and Grüneisen view the débir as externally lower than the hākāl by 10 cubits, but 1 K 0” says the whole house had a height of 30 cubits. Kurtz and Merx held that the hékál had an inside height of 20 cubits only, and that on the top of the whole house there was an upper room, 60 cubits in length, for keeping the relics of the tabernacle.& They say further that the Chronicler means this upper space by his njºyſ (LXX tº tripčov). But how could such an upper chamber be reached, and why do we never read about it or about the means of getting at it? . The chambers, about the house 3 reached, taking the three storeys together, to 15 cubits. Above these were the windows; y but there would be scant room for the windows between the roofs of the chambers and the ceiling word is said in Kings about the height of the porch, but in 2 Ch 3° it is said to be 120 cubits. ut such a structure would have been called a ºr (tower) and not a Bºis (porch). The propor- tions, 20, 10, 120, are impossible on both aesthetic and statical grounds. #. is certainly a corrup- tion of the text, or we have another example—a gross one here—of the love of exaggeration to which the Chronicler is prone when describing the sanctu- ary and its worship. It is most natural to think of the porch as having the same height as the house; and it is not stated in 1 K 6, because that would be inferred by the reader. Walls.—There is no information given as to the thickness of the walls, but it must have been sub- stantial, because they had rebatements of a cubit, or at least of half a cubit, at each successive storey of chanibers.a. It could be diminished therefore by 2 cubits, or, at least by one, without any material change in the appearance. Ezekiel gives i ź. 6 * % sº 20 | | : 3 4 ſ ^^^^* * º | O º 3O | *'Cubits FIG. 3.-SECTION OF THE TEMPLE, Nortii To souTEI. of the house if the latter were but 20 cubits above the floor. The Chronicler does not say where his n\". y, were placed, and it is most probable that by them we are to understand the D'y??, or the chambers ranged along the three sides of the house. The porch.-In front of the house and continuous with it—the two, indeed, forming one building— Was the porch, 6 which was not considered a part of the house. Its length,e east to west, was 10 cubits ; its breadth, north to south, being the same as the breadth e of the house, viz. 20 cubits. Not a the thickness of the walls of his temple as 6 cubits.g In 1 K 618 the cedar-covered walls are said to have figures carved on them of knops and open flowers; but this verse is not in the LXX, and it breaks in upon the account of the hukül in v.47 and of the debir in v.19, besides repeating what has been said in v.19. Probably this carving was the work of a later king, a later cditor, by mistake, ascribing it to Solomon. Yet in v.35 the doors of both h(kål and débir are said to have been adorned with figures of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers; and the verse is above suspicion. Roofing.—Very little is told us concerning the roof of the house. , 1 K 6” y is made by Bähr, Keil, Thenius, in their Comm. and Treatises, as also by the Targ., Pesh., Vulg., and Arabic versions, to refer to the covering of the roof. But Benzinger and the LXX take it to mean the covering or wainscotting of the walls; and 1 K 776 shows that the same verb certainly can be used of the walls, two dimensions, mean the greater and smaller measurement respectively. tº IBT). Jerome connected the word with the Hebrew nzº (dibler) ‘to speak,’ and followed the LXX xpºwo, tigráploy in rendering it oraculum (oraculi sedes). It is really derived from the root *ill used in Arab., ... y (V) “to be behind.” So delir "I'l-what is behind ; that is, what lies to the west, the east being called DTP, or what lies to the front, just as the south is the right-hand side ("J"p) and the north the left-handed (SNDy). Dēlir is the older term, and in the LXX of 1 Kings and in 2 Ch 31° 420 55.8 it is simply transliterated 323sip and bo:3ip. Débir occurs also in Ps 282, prob. also 2 K 1025 (for nºv). c. 2 Ch 39. B See below. 3 1 K (4. * D'ºr (alām). * In the OT, length and breadth, when used of a surface of or 1 IK 66. 8 Ezk 415. ‘He covered the house with beams and planks of cedar.” # Aid it (the throne porch) was covered with cedar from floor to floor.” TEMPLE TEMPLE 699 —which Thenius is inclined to deny, and that it carved ‘knops’ and ‘open flowers.” As to the probably is so used in this passage. Yet, as Thenius objects, the wainscotting of the walls is described in 61%. V." is otherwise awkward in its present position ; and it is hard to make out the exact meaning of the technical terms translated ‘beams and planks.” Probably the verse is an interpolation. 1 K 6*6 in the EV has the word “ceiling’ in it. Instead of ‘walls’ we must read “beams’; y “from the floor of the house unto the beams of the ceil- ing.” We thus learn that the ceiling had cedar beams, but that is all we learn about it. But these beams must have been covered with stone, probably the hard limestone of which the walls were built, to protect the house from the rain. In the three most rainy months there descends as much rain in Jerusalem and its neigh- bourhood as the average rainfall upon any similar area in Great Britain throughout . year. Was the roof flat or gable-formed? Most cer- tainly it was flat, as all ancient temples and houses were, and as, with hardly an exception, Eastern houses continue to be up to the present time. The custom with regard to private houses is to have a parapet all around the roof to prevent persons who are on the much-frequented roofs from falling. ô Certainly no other kind of roof than the flat one is hinted at anywhere in the Bible, nor is any other known in the primitive East. It is remarkable to find leading Rabbinical writers, followed by Lund, e Hirt, Schnaase, Winer, and Thenius, plead that the roof was gabled. Hirt argues that there were spikes on the roof to keep off the birds, and that the roof was overlaid with gold. But he gets these, as perhaps also his gable roof, from the temple of Herod.; Inner supports or nºt 8–It is uncertain whether inside the ſº there were pillars to bear up the roof. In the hākāl, at all events, it is very likely there were such supports, as the walls were 30 cubits high, and a roof of wood and of stone would be in great danger of tumbling unless there were something besides the walls to keep it up. Fergusson ºn argues for such pillars, and he thinks there would be eight in all, four on each side of the house, one be- tween each couple of tables and lampstands, 0 Such an ar- rangement would, he thinks, promote at once architectural effect and the stability of the structure. He refers to 1 IX 1012, but the word rendered pillars 2 means ‘support,’ and the parallel word in Chron. A means “highways,’ though it is rendered in EV “terraces.” There is so much doubt as to what is meant that the passage cannot be made to carry what is put upon it. The material of which the house and its ap- pendages were built was the white hard limestone which abounds in the country, and which can be polished like marble ; indeed it is a kind of marble. The slabs used were prepared at the quarry before they were brought to the temple, so that there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house while it was in build- ing.u. The inside walls of the house were, as seen before, overlaid with cedar planks, v on which were * D'º, n\nly. g “And he built the walls of the house within with boards of cedar, from the floor of the house unto the walls of the ceiling.’ y n\n"p for nin"p with LXX, Then., lxeil, Bühr, Stade, Benz., and || 2 Ch 37. 3 Dt 228, Jg 1627. s 281 (or 324). * Temples of the Jews, p. 28 f. t! On the tables and lampstands of the hôkál see below under “Contents of hôkôil.’ * “And the king made of the almug trees pillars for the house of Jehovah, and for the king's house.’ * Typºp. a 2 Ch 9.1 nibºn. p. 1 K (7. Ewald (Gesch. iii. 324, n. 2), Stade (ZA TW iii. 136), and Benzinger (Com. in loc.) doubt the genuineness of this verse. It comes into the middle of the account of the side chambers (see art. QUARRY). 1 K ($10. & See art. PINNACLE. gold said to cover the inside of the house, a see below under “The gold covering of Solomon’s temple” (p. 700°). #. floor of the house was probably made of hewn stone of the same material as that of the walls. But this stone floor was covered with Cypress 6 wood, as the walls were with cedar; so that nowhere inside could the stone be seen. Chambers surrownding the house. Y — In every side of the house except the east there were chambers 6 arranged in three storeys. They did not go around the porch, as Grüneisen said, for the house only is mentioned ; nor were there any on the east. We are not told how thick the walls of these chambers were, how many in number the chambers were, nor is anything said of their arrangement. For such details and others see EZERIEL’S TEMPLE, below. Similar side rooms have been discovered at Birs Ninroud.e. The beams on which the upper storeys were constructed—made, no doubt, of cedar wood—rested upon rebatements in the temple wall, so as to prevent the wall from being built into–the house being too sacred for that. The temple wall so built would therefore, at the roof of the first channbers, according to most writers, recede half a cubit, and at the roof of the next row of chambers it would recede another half cubit. The opposite wall—that built specially for the chambers—had a corresponding rebatement. So Keil, Stade, Now., Benz., and most ; and at least symmetry is secured by this arrangement. Thenius m and others think the whole rebatement of one cubit at each storey took place in the house wall, and it seems to the present writer that this is likeliest, as not a word is written about rebate- ments in the chamber wall. The chambers on the ground were 5 cubits broad, those on the middle storey being 6, while those on the top storey were 7 cubits broad. The chambers were entered from the court on the south side through a door 6 (lºig. 2, E). In Ezekiel's temple there were entrances on the north as well as on the south. From the lowest storey one ascended to the others by means of a ladder and trap - door, and not, as used to be thought, by means of a winding stair : of such winding stairs the ancient East was quite ignorant. The history is silent as to whether or not there were windows in these chambers. Probably, however, there were, and they would be of the same kind as those of the house. See below concerning these. The chambers seem to have been used for the storing of the furniture, vessels, and other things belonging to the temple.k In them, too, were placed some relics of the wilderness worship. A 1 K 8", however, has many signs of having been tampered with. Of ‘Levites’ as distinct from “priests,” Kings knows nothing. Nor does Kings show acquaintance with any tent besides that built by David for the ark. A “Tent of meeting,’ v if genuine, must have the sense it bears in JE (Ex 337, Nu 111° 12") and not in 1’. Windows. – There were no windows in the et 1 IC 621. 3 cºni, 1 R 615; not ‘fir, as EV. 2, 1 K 65-8. 3 Whs (Kéré y^x) should be read with LXX, Bött., Now., Denz., etc., yº. The word occurs in no other place. If re- tained it can but mean ‘storey,” lit. what is spread out (98'- f f a *–32). Q- * s l'ergusson, History of Architecture, & 1 K 60. n See his diagram, Tafel ii. ſigs. 2 and 5 (at the end of Com.). 0 1 K (;8 correcting ‘middle'—first occurrence—-to “lowest,’ with LXX, Targ., and nearly all writers. a Sce Stade, Zzl'I'!" iii. 136 ft. x 1 K 761 || 2 Ch 51. A 1 ly S4, 2 Ch 50. a 1 K 189228.30, cf. 2 S 617. • Ty\p ºs. 700 TEMPLE TEMPLE temple as the term “windows’ is now understood. In 13ible times glass was not used for what are called windows; nor is it so used at the present time in Eastern countries. Indeed the main pur- pose of the apertures translated “windows’ is to let hº air out and pure in, rather than to give light to the house. a Considering the thickness of the walls—Té cubits, or say 9 ft., in Ezekiel's temple—it would have been difficult for the light to enter. In most Eastern houses the lamps are kept burning night and day; it is by them that the house is lighted. This was true probably of the temple as well. In 1 K 64 the windows are described as latticed 3–most Eastern windows are — and beamed : y i.e., besides the latticed covering, there were beams used to protect the opening and to form the framework of the window. Various other reconstruc- tions of the windows have been suggested. The Targ., Pesh.; several Rabbinical writers, Luther, and others have rendered “windows broad within 3 and narrow a without.’ ICeil explains as “windows with closed beams'; i.e. whose lattices cannot be opened or closed at pleasure, as the lattices of ordinary windows could. For a statement and examination of other views see the Comm. of Thenius and Keil, and especially Keil's valuable treatise on Solomon's temple. We know nothing about the size of the windows, nor is it stated in what part of the walls they were made. The chambers surrounding the house reached a height of 15 cubits—5 cubits being the height of each, if we are to infer from Ezekiel's temple. If, therefore, the windows of the house looked directly to the outside, they must have been some 20 cubits from the ground. It is prob- able that the chambers had windows as well ; and in that case the house windows might have looked immediately opposite to those of the chambers, and have been put in three parallel rows. This is quite possible, as we are not told the number or the position of the windows. There was perhaps a row of windows above the chambers as well. It is generally thought that there were no windows in the débir, and 1 K 8” m has been advanced to prove this. The diſliculty of having windows between the uppermost roof of the cham- bers and the ceiling of the débir is pointed out. But this difficulty is not insuperable, for, assuming the chambers, between them, to reach a height of 15 cubits, there would still be a space above of several cubits for the windows. If, however, the windows of the house looked innmediately upon those of the chambers, the difficulty in question disappears. Doors.-Both hékál and déb% had doors.6 We are not told what size they were, but in Ezekiel’s tº: they were 10 and 6 cubits broad respec- tively. How high they were is not said. The hékúl door was square, k while that of the débir was pentagonal. A The door of the hākāl was • ſºn, lit. ‘a perforated space,’ ‘a hole,' from ºn = ‘to pierce or perforate.’ 8 pºs, lit. ‘shut.' 8hubbāk. x D'º-prob. pass, ptcp. of denom. verb. There is no need to alter the yowels as Benzinger does, reading D'Ep; ‘beams.’ * D'º-such as could be seen through; cf. "pºn “to look at from an eminence.’ * D'ºtºs, lit. ‘shut.' & 2 K. 1317, Dn 610. * “Jehovah has said that he would dwell in the thick dark- ness. Cf. Ps. 1811 He made darkness his hiding-place, his pavilion round about him ; darkness of waters, thick clouds of the skies.” 0 1 K ($31. 34. a Ezk 412ſ. x 1 K (98, reading, as LXX, Vulg., Then., and Benz., nin niyin ‘beams made into a square.’ * It is better so to understand nºr in 1 K 631, Ges. (Thes. i. 42 ft.), Keil, Bühr, Then., and 13ött. take the numerals in 1 IS 631, 83 to denote some fraction of either the width of the wall-Ges., Kcil, and Bähr—or of the entrance wall (jambs, posts), as Then, and Böttcher. But no writer would choose this way of expressing this idea. It is far better, with the Rabbis, Stade (ZA T'W iii. p. 148), and Benzinger, to understand the words as above. The Arabic word for such windows is made of cypress wood, its posts being of olive wood. The door of the débir was of olive wood. Both doors were divided into two horizontal halves; but the two leaves thus formed were in the case of the hākāl door further divided vertically, each into two folds, which were joined by hinges. It was not therefore needful to open the whole leaf in order to enter the hékál. The débºr door had two leaves only without the subdivisions, because it was not opened and shut as was the outer door, but was always kept open according to Keil, a though he says the veil kept the interior hidden. See, however, below, and also VEIL. Ezekiel's temple had the same construction for the hākāl and débºr doors, viz. that which seems to have obtained for the hākāl door alone in Solomon's temple. 3 This is the more striking, : Fig. 4.—AN EGYPTIAN Folding Door, SHOWING VERTICAL DIVISION. y as the idea of sanctity is more strictly recognized in Ezekiel's temple. Not at all improbably the inner door of Solomon's º was constructed exactly like the other, though this is not stated owing to an oversight of the writer. Upon both doors were carved cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers; 6 but there is no reliable evidence §: the walls had such figures on them (see “Walls’). In 2 Ch 314 it is said thereº was a veil before the door of the débir, corresponding to that of the tabernacle. In Zerub- babel's temple there was such a veil, and it was this which gave rise to the veil of the tabernacle, and caused the Chronicler to transfer it to the first º ; but Kings says nothing about it, though Thenius, approved by Riebm, n brings the word into 1 K 621 by arbitrarily altering a very difficult text ; the text is, however, probably an interpolation, as Stade,0 Now., and others hold. The veil was an invention of the time when the sacred had to be more rigidly separated from the profane. It was quite possibly introduced into the pre-exilic temple after Solo- mon's time, though of that we know nothing definitely.z The gold covering of Solomon's temple. — The following parts of the temple are said to have been overlaid with gold : (1) the walls of the débir; A (2) the walls of the hākāl; w (3) the floor of the whole house; v (4) the altar before the débir [but the support for this—l K 6*—is not to be found in the LXX, and it shows otherwise strong marks of being an interpolation. I'ar better with Stade $ and Benzinger omit the clause. With it goes the puzzle of knowing what is meant by the “altar belonging to the débir.” He 9° speaks of an o, Der Tempel, 75. Ezk 4124. y Merx and Ewald have held that the two leaves of the hákál door were divided horizontally only. But the epithet D"), #- ‘going around each other'—supports the first view ; which is that defended by Thenius, Keil {}.} and Benzinger. 3 1 K ($32, 35. & Ex. 2(31ſt, e on II WB 2 1027a. 0 ZAT'W iii. p. 145. * Ileb. A reh. ii. 81. a. See WEII, and cf. TABERNACLI, & See WICIL. A 1 K (320. A, 1 K (21f. I 2 Ch 30ſ. y 1 K ($30. & ZAT'ſ Wiii. 145 TEMPLE TEMPLE 70] altar a belonging to the déb%r, but this error arises from the above interpolated clause rightly rejected by Stade and Benzinger]; (5) the cherubim; 3 (6) the leaves of the door.) It is probable that the statement about gilding is a late addition in all the above instances, and that, in Solomon's temple, it had no place. It is significant that in every one of the passages in question there are other indications which awaken suspicion (for details consult Stade, ZAT'W iii. 140 ft.). When Shishak, king of Egypt, attacked and conquered Jerusalem, he took away the treasures of both temple and palace: the golden shields are distinctly named, but not a word occurs about the gold of the walls, etc.3 Jehoash, king of Israel, overcame the king of Judah, and took from Jerusalem the gold and silver and the temple vessels, but nothing , is said about his stripping walls, etc., of the gold that covered them. A Similarly, Ahaz, in his extremity took the oxen on which the brazen sea rested, and also other things (2 K 168. 17). One would expect to read of his purloining the gold that was so conspicuous if it covered walls, doors, inner altar, cherubim, and even floors. When Hezekiah stripped the doors and pillars of the temple, in order to make a present to the king of Assyria (2 K 1810ſ), nothing is written about there being any gold given, though of course this is not denied either. " Gold” in the EV, as the italics indicate, is not in the Hebrew.—Ezekiel's temple does not appear to have had any of this gold-overlaying. In short, apart from the suspicious reference named, we have no allusion in the subsequent history to this gold covering. In post-exilic times the wealth of Solomon was greatly exaggerated, just as his wisdom and power were, among Arabs as well as Hebrews, in yet later days. It was felt by those who made the additions re gold that Solomon's exalted character demanded them. Besides, the P tabernacle was pictured as plentifully supplied with gold : this would afford a strong motive for making gold more con- spicuous in Solomon's temple. 2. THE PATTERN OR STYLE OF ARCHITECTURE IN WIIICH THE TEMPLE OF SOLOMON WAS BUILT.— Those who claim to speak with authority on this point have held opinions widely apart, showing that the data are inadequate for a clear and reli- able decision. t Some (e.g. Williams, etc.) have found the model of Solomon's temple among the Greeks. Thrupp,é de Vogüé,” Thenius," and Benzinger a pronounce the architecture of the temple to be Egyptian. Benzinger gives a detailed account of the temple of Amon Ră at Karnak, together with a plan, in order to show how much Solomon's temple resembled this. He calls special atten- tion to the threefold division of porch, hēkül, and débir which obtained in both temples. Nowack, on the other hand, points out that this same feature characterizes the ancient temples of Sicily.z. Thenius' diagrams at the end of his valuable Com- mentary on Kings are all based on Egyptian originals, and he is controlled throughout his Commentary and treatise by the idea that the first Jerusalem temple was a copy of the Egyptian temples. Puchstein A and Nowack/, argue for a Syrian origin. W. B. Cobb y makes the Syrian factor the principal one, as indeed Puchstein does, only the latter contends that Assyrian art was originally Syrian. Fergusson : pronounces the problem insoluble, only that he says Egypt is out of the question. He thinks that either the valley of the Euphrates or Phoenicia was the most likely home of the temple architecture. Iłut he does not give any arguments of weight to support his opinion. Friedrich, o l'errot and Chipiez, ºr and W. R. Smith p trace the style to Phoenicia. The fact that HIRAM, the artificer (1 IX 7.13ſ., 2 Ch 218ſ), was a Phoenician, though connected with Israel, lends strong support to the last view, and Fergusson is not against it. The natural conclusion to come to is that either Phoenician or Syrian art--it is hardly possible to distinguish these two—was that followed in the construction of Solomon's temple ; but the argu- ments and illustrations adduced by Benzinger, Cobb, and others go to prove that there was a close resemblance between the sacred architecture of the Semitic world and of Egypt. Contents of the hākāl. — In front of the débir was an altar-shaped table on which the SHEW- o, ©vuo. Táploy is certainly ‘altar' not “censer.’ So Bleek, Lünemann, Kurtz, Westcott, Delitzsch. Per contra, cf. Biesen- thal and 19W. 1 K ($28, 1 IX 632. 35. 3 1 IX 1420. a 2 K 1414. & Ancient Jerusalem. v Le Tempel de Jérusalem. 0 Conn, and Appendix. * IIeb, Arch. 385. 2 Heb. A 'ch. ii. p. 34, n. 3. X Jahrb, des IXaiserlichen deutschem architol. Imstituts, vol. vii. Int. 1. Aw Heb. Arch. ii. 34. # Temples of the Jews, p. 33. o Tempel at. Palast Salomo's, Denkmäler Phönikischer Rwnst. •r II istory of Art in Satraliniſt, Syria, and Asia Mlimor, p. 141 f. p It'ncyc. Bril 9, art. ‘Temple.’ v Origines Judaica, 242. BRIEAD was set as an offering to God. a. This is not the altar of incense, as Keil,8 Bähr, y and most of the older authorities contend, for we do not find such an altar named or implied in any pre-exilic document. 6 There was no such altar in }. temple, nor for a long time afterwards. See Ben- zinger, Heb. Arch. p. 401 n. On the other hand, there was in the latter temple a table-like altar of shewbread, e which is more fully described than that of the first temple. See art. INCENSE, vol. ii. p. 467". According to 1 K 748.00 the following were also made and set in the hekal : (1) a golden altar, the altar of incense ; (2) a table for the shewbread: (3) ten golden lampstands, five on the right side and five on the left ; (4) lamps for these ; (5) many other smaller things. But these verses have all the appearance of being by a later hand, for the purpose of heightening the impression. In 1 K 620 the hôkål is said to contain the altar-like table, but there is no hint of anything besides being in this part of the house. Chronicles ºn has, however, a parallel account to 1 K 748-50. Jer 5210 refers to ‘lannpstands’ () as taken by the Chaldaeans, but in the parallel account of 2 K 25 nothing is said of lampstands. If, however, the writers of Jer 5219, 1 K 748:50, and 2 Ch 419-22 were under the influence of P, they would have spoken of one lanpstand, such as obtains in P's tabernacle, and not of ten. There must have been some ground for the tradition of the ten lampstands. Probably these did exist—but brazen, not golden ones—in Solomon's temple, or they were added soon after, for there must have been some way of lighting the interior of the house. They would be * burning day and night, as house lamps in the East are at the present day. . They might have been fixed upon pedestals, —the IEastern fashion,--but most likely they were set on the ten tables about which we read in 2 Ch 48.2 Keil, however, maintains that these tables were for the shewbread ; but 2 Ch 1311 29.18 seem to show that there was but one such table. Contents of the débâr.—After the building of the temple was completed, the ark X was brought from the city of David at the south-east of the temple hill, and placed in the débir, which, using the later name, is explained as the Holy of Holies.M. It was carried by the priests, though, according to the older history of 2 S 6", priests were not con- sidered the only proper bearers of the ark. The ark is said to have contained nothing except the two tables of the Law. v In David's time and Solomon's the turk seems to have been looked upon as involving in some way the Divine presence,—as a kind of mumen praesens. Stade, Benz., Nowack, and many others think that the ark held originally a stone which was considered to represent Jehovah, and that it was at a time later than Solomon's that it contained or was believed to contain the two tables of stone. In He 94 the pot of manna and Aaron's rod are said to have been in the ark.: Nowhere else in the Bible is this said, though these articles are spoken of o as being laid up before the ark of the tabernacle. The writer of Hebrews has on his side the common belief of the later lèabbis.ºr Overshadowing the ark were two huge cheru- bim,p each being 10 cubits high, i.e. exactly half as high as the ceiling of the déðir. These had two wings apiece, each being 5 cubits broad. These wings were outstretched, the outer ones touching the walls, the inner ones reaching to each other. The four wings of 5 cubits each were stretched from wall to wall, extending along the whole width of 20 (=4x5) cubits. The ark had its place under the two inner wings. On the form and significance of these cherubim see CHERUBIM. & 1 IX 620p renders the last part of this verse, “And he made (not overlaid) an altar of cedar’: so LXX, Then., Benz. etc. 3 1)er Temp. Salom, 178f. 2. Der Temp. Salom. 109ſ. 3 Thus Ewald (Gesch, iii. 232), Thenius, Stade (ZATW iii. p. 168 ſº.), Nowack, Benzinger. 8 lºzlº 4122. & Not ‘candlesticks.' The Bible knows nothing of “candles' or of “candlesticks.” Render in all cases, in OT and in NT, ‘lamps' and “lampstands.’ ºn 2 Ch 419-22. 0 nººn. 1 The light in the temple of Shiloh was kept burning during the might only (1 S 33). x ‘Ile made also ten talles, and lººd them in the hākāl, five on the right side and ſlve on the left ' A jins ‘chest’; Tºm (an Egyptian word), meaning ‘a hollow vessel,’ is the word for Noah's ark. A. l IV S6. y 1 ly S9, § 2.Éwtés. o lex 1632-34 2510, Nu 3710, Dt 105. ar See ARK- p 1 K 623.28. 702 TEMPLE TEMPLE In 2 K 184 it is recorded that Hezekiah “removed the high º and brake the pillars, and cut down the Asherah ; and e brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made ; for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it.’ Where in the temple—if in it at all—this symbol of deity was kept we have no intimation. The brief notice is interesting, however, as showing to how late a time the Israelites wor- shipped Jehovah in the form of some material object. See art. NEHUSIITAN. - The cowrt, a - Keil and the older authorities generally hold that there was an outer temple court 8 as well as an inner one. y What can be said for this view is well said by Keil in Der Tempel Salomos, p. 114 ft. So far, however, as the history and description of Solomon's temple are concerned, we know of but one temple court, the other courts mentioned not being temple courts at all. The epithet “inner,’ when employed to designate the temple court, gets its meaning from the fact that it was surrounded by the greater court, and formed, indeed, a part of the latter. 6 This one court is called by the Chronicler the ‘court of the priests,’e but under the influence of later ideas and usages Ezekiel was the first to think of reserving a court for the priests, and in the later temples his conception was carried out. It was owing to stricter motions of holiness, and the belief in a more urgent need for Jehovah to be approached through His appointed ministers, that God’s house—the place where He dwelt—came to be safeguarded by a walled space into which priests alone could enter. But in Solomon's day and for a long time afterward such conceptions were un- known. No need was therefore tº it to exist for more than one temple court. The greater court—of which the temple court formed a part—was surrounded by a wall made of three layers of hewn stone, and on the top of them a layer of cedar planks, the latter probably gable- shaped, so that the water might fall to the ground. & Reil m and others think the cedar planks stood upright, making a kind of railing. There was the same sort of wall around the temple court, as well as around the court below, in which the royal palace stood. No information is supplied about the extent of the court. Ezekiel s inner court was 100 cubits square; () and Keil thinks the court in question had the same size. But it must be remembered that the court about which Keil is thinking was, like Ezekiel's, for the priest8 alone ; the one and only court of Solomon's temple was for the people as well as for the priests. , The Rabbis say that the temple court was 187 cubits from east to west, and 135 cubits from north to south. . They get these figures, however, from the second temple, and moreover they, too, believed that the first temple, like the others, had an outer *W. are left equally in the dark as to the form of the court. Judging, however, from other temples, we should expect it to be rectangular, if not a square. Hirt and Grüneisen say the front or east side of it formed a semicircle; but this is simply a guess. The fact that so little is said concerning the court shows how small was the importance attached to it at this early time. Gates of the court.—No court gates are named in the history of the building of the temple. It is natural to think that there was a gate on the south side, for it was on that side that the royal palace lay, k and the king would enter by that gate. It is possible that the people also had to enter the sacred enclosure through this southern gate. But it is probalile that there were gates on the north and east also, as there were in Ezekiel’s temple. A We have evidence that for some time before the Exile there were gates. In Jer 38” we read of a ‘third entry into the house of Jehovah,’ and three keepers of the threshold are referred to in Jer 52*, 2 YI. The later term is Tºlly. @ 7:Sºnſ, "Yº Ezk 105. wn'rºn ºn 1 K 630 712; but cf. ZATW iii. p. 152 f., and Benzinger's Commentary. 3 See above, p. 995b. • 2 Ch 40 Dºnžn gr. 2 K 2518. But these references are not conclusive as to the court of Solomon's temple. . Moreover, we read of a northern gate, a which is probably identical with the “upper gate of the }. of Jehovah,’ 8 the “upper gate of Benjamin,' y and ‘the altar gate,’ 8—so called because to this the people brought their offerings. Assuming that the same gate is meant in aſ these passages, We gather from 2 K. 15” that it was built by Jotham (B.C. 740–736); moreover, it is called a ‘new gate.’ s It could not therefore have been made in Solomon's time, though it might have taken the place of a much older gate. In 1 Ch 9° an eastern gate is named, and it is called ‘the king's gate,’ probably because the king used it either ºil, Ol' OX- clusively. We have supposed that Solomon would be more likely to enter through a south gate, about which, however, we know nothing certain. The floor of the court was paved ; at least it was so in Ahaz' day (B.C. 736–728), for it was upon the pavement that he set the brazen sea after he had taken away its proper support. m. The Chronicler 0 says it was paved from the very first. Ezekiel's outer court was paved for 50 cubits all round the outer wall, except on the west ; t and it is likely that his inner court was paved, for the other is called the lower pavement, implying the existence of a higher. According to Smend, k the whole of Ezekiel's inner court was paved. Contents of the court. — The Altar of Burnt- offering.—We have in lºings no account of the making of this altar, though its existence is implied in 1 K 8”, where it is caiſed a ‘brazen altar,’ and in 2 K 1619", where we read that king Ahaz ordered Urijah the priest to set aside the brazen altar that was in the ‘forefront of the house A in favour of a new altar, built according to an Assyrian model which the king saw at Damascus. In 2 Ch 4, it is said that Huram Abi, the temple artist, made an altar of brass, 20 cubits in both length and width, and 10 cubits high. Beyond the instructions thus given we know nothing authentic of this altar. Its being made of blass was contrary to the directions laid down in the Book of the Covenant, u and is probably due to contact with surrounding peoples. Keil v tries to save the character of Solomon by maintaining that the inside of the altar was made up of earth and unhewn stone, and that its outside was alone of brass, brass plates, he says. But such an altar could hardly be called one of brass. Keil & reconstructs the altar according to what we know of the altar of the tabernacle. Most modern authorities recon- struct it in accordance with what we know of Ezekiel's altar.o But neither procedure is a safe one ; certainly not the former, since the whole account of the tabernacle is conceived untier the influence of late ideas and practices. Nor is it safe to argue from Ezekiel's to Solomon's altar of burnt-offering ; for, assuming that the prophet's conception was governed by What he had seen of the pre-exilic temple at Jerusalem, yet many changes are likely to have been made between Solomon's time and that of the prophet. Some of these are known to us, and have already come under our notice.ºr The altar of the first temple stood probably at the spot where David erected an altar after the blague was stayed.p Indeed this altar might have |. the very one that David raised, though 2 Ch 4" is against this supposition, as is also the fact that the rest of the temple was new. The Brazen Sea. s—Between the house and the altar, but towards the south, was the Brazen Sea (called also “the Molten Sea' and simply “the & 1 K 712. º, Der Temp. Sal. 115. 0 Ezk 4047. a 2 K 1212, Jer 351ſt, 3610 show that laymen were allowed to enter the court of the pre-exilic temple. x See p. 696". A Ezk 4028ff. Sea”). See SEA (BRAZEN). The Layers. T–On each side of the altar, at o, Ezk 83 92. g 2 K 1535. Jer 202. X Jºzlº 85. 6 Jer 2010 8010. Cf. Ezk 461ſ., 2, 2 IC 1617. () 2 Ch 78, * Ezk 4018. 2. On Ezk 4018. A n:º 35. a. Ex 2024f. : y Der Tenp. Sal. p. 117 f. § l.c. o lºzlº 4:318-17. a Cf. 1 K 16%), 2 K 1617. p 2 S 24.15ſ. ; 1 K 723-20 || 2 Ch 42-5. ºr 1 K 727-37. TEMPLE TEMPLE 703 the right and left wings of the temple, there were ten brazen stands on wheels, with brass basins set upon them (see the very elaborate article, with illustrations, entitled “Die Kesselwagen des salom. Tempel,” by Stade, in ZAT"W, . 1901, p. 145 ft.). They were filled with water, which was used for the purpose of washing the flesh that was to be offered in sacrifice. Perhaps the water in them was obtained from the brazen sea. Or it may be that both the brazen sea and also the lavers were supplied direct from the stream men- tioned in Ezk 47%. In 1 K 740 (|| 2 Ch 411) we are told that Huram made also pots, or shovels, 3 and basins,” but it is not stated where these were kept. Of any additional chambers in the court besides those around the house the Biblical accounts say nothing. There is no mention, for example, of chambers for sacrificing, for Washing the sacrificial flesh, for storing the instruments used in Sacri- ficing, etc. Rabbinical writers say there were eight stone tables on the north of the altar of burnt-offering, fastened to the pavement by twenty-four iron rings. Lund,” who follows Jewish authori- ties far too slavishly, gives details of these tables, depending upon his Jewish guides. If, however, these tables obtained at all, it was in the temple of Herod alone, with which Jewish writers were familiar, and from which far too freely and un- critically they drew conclusions concerning the temple of Solomon. Subsequent history of Solomon's temple.—Solomon did not intend the temple he built to be a rival to the already existing high places of the land, much less did he intend by his sanctuary to supplant the many others. For long after his time, as the genu- ine Books of Kings show, the barnóth or high places had the stamp of ºpproval as much as the Jeru- salem sanctuary. The writings of the early pro- bhets make this very clear. From Amos and Hosea, we see that the people of the Northern kingdom made pilgrimages to Beersheba in the south (Am 5", cf. 8", Hos 4” (text as amended by Wellh., Now., etc.)), and that they worshipped there and at Dan, Bethel, and other places (Am 4° 5' 8", Hos 10") without incurring blame, so far as con- cerned the locality of the sanctuaries. On the other hand, the inhabitants of Judah sacrificed at Gilgal as well as Jerusalem (Hos 4”; but text dub., see Wellh. ad loc.). The opposition to the bamūth arose from the superstition and immorality asso- ciated with them, and the danger of worshipping the Canaanite deities to which they were origin- ally consecrated.e It should be noted that the temple-worship of Jerusalem is as strongly repro- bated by Isaiah as worship at the bómóth is by Amos and Hosea, and for a similar reason ; see Is 1, etc. Elijah was one of the first to set his face against these local cults; but the first to make any attempt to suppress them was Hezekiah (B.C. 729-629). & IBut º, high places continued to be recognized until about B.C. 621, when Josiah (B.C. 640–609) employed vigorous measures, and for the most part succeeded in stamping them out, m More and more the temple became the centre of the nation’s life, religious and political, especially after the return from exile (see Smend, Alttest. Religionsgesch. 216 f., 230 f., 315 f., 438 ft., and especially his article in SR, 1884, p. 689 f.). In 2 Ch 20° mention is made of a ‘new court ’ belonging to the house of Jehovah before which Jehoshaphat stood ; an outer court could hardly have existed at this time ; probably the Chronicler is influenced by the temple of his own day. We have already spoken of the following inci- dents connected with the temple : (1) the new gate made by Jotham ; 6 (2) the supplanting by ting Ahaz of the altar of burnt-offering, and the removal by him of the brazen oxen on which the • Reading nºn-p for the obviously inaccurate nin'?. brazen sea rested ; a (3) the taking away by Heze. kiah of the gold, etc., of the house.8 But worse than that of Ahaz or Hezekiah was the conduct of Manasseh, for he caused altars to be raised in the court to all the host of heaven, and an image to be put in the house of Jehovah. Y Moreover, he erected abodes for hierodules, in which women wove tents for the Asherah, these tents to be put up in the sanctuary. 6 He had also horses, consecrated to the sun, kept in a part of the inner court.s Josiah purged the temple of these abominations," but unfortunately his life was cut short at Megiddo in the war with Egypt, about B.C. 609.7 Twelve years later Jerusalem was attacked by the Chal- daeans under their king, Nebuchadrezzar.0 In B.C. 586 Jerusalem and its temple were burned to the ground, and whatever of value remained in the temple was carried to Babylon. Thus ended the first temple after an existence of over four centuries. ii. EZEKIEL’S TEMPLE.—Ezekiel’s programme for the new State and temple was suggested to him by the sights he had seen in the Holy City, and the events amidst which he moved. Hence the picture he drew of the temple that was to be is helpful in understanding what the temple was immediately before its destruction. In a less de- gree, less than is generally supposed, it is an aid, too, in reconstructing the temple of Solomon. But IEzekiel's temple obtains its chief significance from its relation to the future. The legislation set forth in the last 9 chapters of Ezekieſ represents an intervening stage in ritual and theological con- ceptions between the Deuteronomic legislation and the Priestly. In Ezekiel's ideal picture the temple and its priesthood stand in the very foreground. Some items in his programme could not be realized. For instance, the territory in which each of the 12 tribes was to dwell is marked out, but the 12 tribes did not return. Again, the temple buildings did not, and could not, occupy exactly a square of 500 cubits each way. The description of Ezekiel's temple is to be found in 40°–43* and parts of the following chapters. The text is often very corrupt, and has to be conjecturally emended. Böttcher's Proben alttest. Schriſterklärung (1833) and Thenius' Com. on Kings are very serviceable in reconstruct- ing the text. The Commentaries of Smend and of Cornill are of the utmost value in the same direction : especially Cornill's monumental work, which deals mainly with the text. One cannot but wish, however, that Cornill were less wedded to the text implied in the LXX. We ought not to omit noticing the Commentaries of Keil, Bertholet, and IXraetzschmar, all of which the present writer has found helpful, more particularly that of 13ertholet. Håvernick in his Commentary on Ezekiel has called attention to the fact that in the account of Solomon's temple it is the house—including hôkôl and débir—which receives most attention ; but in the description of Ezekiel's temple it is the external circumstances that stand out most prominently, such as the courts with cells and doors, the guard- rooms, chambers, ornaments, dresses, and the like. The house is but slightly touched upon. This may be owing to the fact that in both temples the house was in ºil essentiais identical the differences and additions were in the external parts. 1. GENERAL ARRANGEMENT.-Solomon's temple was but one part of the complex of royal buildings on the eastern hill. It was enclosed in the great court, as were the royal palace, the house inhabited by his Egyptian wife, and other erections. In this temple court the people were in the habit of gather ing to offer sacrifices. Priests and people mingled around the altar and in the immediate precincts of the house. In Ezekiel's time no palace and no State g D'y. y nipºp. 3 Book iv. Ch. 17. • Dt 122. 30, Nu 3302, Ex 3412ſ. & 2 IC 184. 22. ºn 2 K 231ſt. 0 2 IX 1535 || 2 Ch 278. * 2 IV 1010. or 2 K 1017. g 2 K 1815f. 2, 2 K 214, 5.7. 2, 2 IK 237. a 2 IX 2311. & 2 K 23. ºn 2 K 2329. 0 2 K 242tt. a 2 IX 25 || Jer 52. 704 TEMPLE TEMPLE buildings were needed. The space on which these had been built was now devoted, accordingly, to that outer court which is the grand feature of this new temple. Israel had suffered for want of proper reverence. God had not been worshipped with becoming respect. His house had been desecrated, the sacrifices profaned. ... Now the house was to be shut off from secular buildings. In close proximity to it the priests alone were to be allowed ; it was only in the large outer court, which stood where pre- viously the royal buildings were, that the common people could gather. There was to be a new land separated to Jehovah, and cut off on the west by the sea, and on the east by the rapid Jordan and its N consequent freedom from practical restraints. The area it covered was a square 500 cubits a on each side. The proportion 2 : 1 obtains largely. The º are 50 cubits long and 25 broad. The house with walls and chambers had a length of 100 cubits and a breadth of 50. Between the house and the 3 inner gates was a square of 100 cubits each side. A glance at the plan below will show the thoroughly symmetrical character of the whole. From square to square is 50 cubits. The temple area was encompassed by a wall (g hij) 6 cubits high and of the same thickness. 3 In the centre of the N., E. and S. walls there were gate. ways y (G G G). Just opposite to them, towards #2s | 28 g] | 3 O 2 3. 2 i 21 | 24 º 1 8 º in o e *— º º º t ri - - - - - - - - - * * * * * * * * * º k ; : ---------4--------- fº" wº- * * * * * * * * * * * * : * * * * * * * * º tº e e * º º º • * * * * * * * * * * * ; * • * * * * * * *, * * * * * * * * *g gº as a s t || 1 || 2 || 3 || 4 || 3 || * || 7 || 8 || 3 || 0 || || Hº-º: º º 2.5 2:3 3.5 5:3 #5 #3 ão Cubits. FIG, 5.-GROUND PLAN OF EZEKIEL's TEMPLE. 3 g h j=the encompassing walls. G G G = the 3 outer gates. Gl G1 G1 = the 3 inner gates. , PP's priests' cells. ... H=the house (hékál and débiº'). A = altar of burnt-offerings. seas, or rather lakes. But of that all-holy land the temple hill was to be first secured as a kind of tērāmāh a or first-fruits. An enclosed land was to have its sanctuary enclosed—nay, doubly enclosed, the inner enclosure for the priests alone. It is no doubt this idea of the holiness of Jehovah and His house that prompted the prophet, in the spirit of his time and people, to appropriate the whole of the upper hill for his temple, and to substitute the outer court for Solomon's all-encompassing great court. A leading feature in Ezekiel’s temple is its symmetry: this is due to its ideal character, and its a nºnſ, cf. Nu 1519. 1811m 3141. The nunnbers around the outer walls mark the cells. the inside and exactly 100 cubits distant, there were three gates of the same construction leading into the inner court y (Gº Gº G'). . Within the pre- cincts of the inner court was the house, embracing both hākāl or Holy Place and débir or Most Holy Place (H). In our more detailed description we shall follow the order in which the angel showed the temple to the prophet in the vision. We o, Ezk 4210 not ‘reeds' as MT. The LXX has simply 500, bui in v.17 it has “cubits,' which should be understood in v.16, as the general measurements and other passages: show. g Ezk 400. 2. See below for full description. * The plan is adapted from Benzinger's Hell, Arch. 304. Beit. zinger takes his from Stade, Gesch. ii. 51. The squares are due to Benzinger. TEMPLE TEMPLE 705 begin, therefore, at the eastern gate of the outer court. The first thing we encounter as we approach the eastern gateway is the ascent by 7 steps a to the level of the outer court, which was higher than the ground outside. At the inner gate there was a corresponding flight of steps which conducted to the inner court, but here there were 8 steps 8 not 7. In a similar way an ascent of 10 steps had to be made before the house could be entered.) The whole constituted thus three terraces, all which would yield a commanding view from the moun- tains and high ground around, and from the lowest court. Height of 8teps.—According to Ezk 418 the 10 steps leading immediately to the house were equal to an elevation of 0 cubits, i.e. each step was # of a cubit high. The other steps were probably of the same height. *—A-_M = a- a - a ſº Ta-a-1–a–a 4- a Jº A. A—# 4. .** * * * * * * 0 on ºr n is is isºzo 30 : Cub its, FIG. 6.-AN OUTER GATE. Having reached the topmost of the steps in front of the outer gateway, we enter the gateway itself, which, as is common in the East, has rooms on both sides,ö though it has none above, such as are often found in Eastern countries, and, indeed, not seldom in Europe. First of all we enter the thresholds (T), an open space with a length ; (E. to W.) of 6 cubits m and a breadth ; of 10 cubits.6 Passing beyond the threshold, we find right and left of us guard-rooms t in which the temple officers were stationed to keep order and to watch the house. k These were four-square, the side being 6 cubits. Five cubits farther on there were two identical guard-rooms, and the same distance yet farther to the west there were two more. There Were thus six guard-rooms in all (Fig. 6, GGGGGG). No doors are mentioned as belonging to the guard- rooms, but it is probable that on the sides towards the outer court there were doors. On the inner side of each guard room there was a “border” (RV) or “barrier’X (Cornill, Bertholet, A. B. Davidson) (see Fig.6, mºv), of one cubit thickness. The purpose of this barrier was to enable the sentry to see i. the whole length of the gateway without being jostled by the crowd that passed in and out. Of its form we are told nothing, but it was probably simply a straight stone wall, a cubit in thickness and 6 cubits across. Between the guard-rooms o: Ezk 400, cf. 4022. 20. 4031. y 4010 418. * 2 S 1894; cf. Layard, Nim, and Bab. 57, and note. [. | 400. * Length in Ezekiel is greater dimension, breadth the smaller dimension. ºn i.e. the breadth of the outer wall, with which it ran parallel. tº Bertholet (see on 4011, 12) gives no good reason for making the breadth (Ezekiel's length) other than 10 cubits. His mis. applied ingenuity arises from his acceptance of 401lb which Sniend and Cornill rightly reject. * Nº. 407, AW ‘little chamber'; RW ‘lodge,” “guard chamber.’ x 1 IC 1428, cf. 2 K 110. a ºn Ezk 4012. VOL. IV.--45 . | reduce the distance there were posts’ (EV) or ‘wall fronts’a (A. B. Davidson) (Fig. 6, J J J J), which from guard-room to guard-room were 5 cubits. There were four in all—two on each side. Their use was purely archi- tectural. At the west end of the guard-rooms there was a second threshold 3 (T"), the same in all respects as the other, but acting as threshold to one entering from the outer court, as the other did to one entering from the outside. We now enter the porch (P), an empty space 8 cubits long (E. to W.), c d, and 20 broad (N. to S.), y J. i. The breadth of the gateway all along its length was 10 cubits, 6 except where the barriers occur : these occupying a cubit each side would icº. the guard-rooms from barrier to barrier (m, m n n) to 8 cubits. The length of the gateway, leaving out the steps, which are not counted, was 50 cubits,e and it was wholly roofed, as may be gathered from the fact that guard-rooms and intervening “posts’ required windows. The length of the gateway is thus made up— Outer threshold (T) a b . . . . . 6 cubits. 8 guard-rooms (G G G) . e * > gº • 18 , , 2 “posts’ or ‘wall fronts’ (J J) . tº • 10 , , Inner threshold (T") m c sº * te • 6 , Porch (P) c d . g e e tº º • 8 , , “Posts’ or ‘wall fronts’ (J'J') de • • 2 , Total . g . 50 cubits. Windows.-According to Ezk 4010 there were windows in the guard-rooms, in the “posts’ be- tween them, and in the porch. Those of the guard- rooms looked out into the court, and lighted at once the rooms themselves and also the adjoining gateway.' The windows in the “posts’ extended all through their thickness of 6 cubits. If these posts were solid walls, it must have been so, and not, as Davidson's diagram m represents, a mere opening on the outside wall. On the nature and function of the windows see above. There must have been windows on the north and south of the porch, and probably the “post walls had them too. See Fig. 6. The end “posts’ (de) had palm trees engraved on them.0 The north and south gates are said to have been exactly like the eastern gate, and so did not need separate description. Outer court.—For remarks on the function and significance of the outer court see above. And • 4010 Dºs; LXX & X4a. 8 407. 3. The width of the porch (N. to S.) is not given in the MT. In Ezk 4014, however, we read, “He made also posts of 60 cubits.” Kliefoth, followed by Hemg., Reil, Schröder (Lange), Perrot, and Chipiez—ſsee their restorations]—and others defend the text as it stands. The two “posts' at the end of the porch were like church steeples—so says Kliefoth ; and it was such gate pillars that suggested our church steeples. 13ut the “posts’ in question formed no part of the sanctuary, as church steeples usually do: unless, indeed, IX], was thinking of the campanile or bell-tower churches, such as is to be seen at Chichester, etc. It is far more Sensible to emend the text with the aid of the LXX, and to read, “And he measured the porch (changing pºs 'élim, to bºs 'élām) 20 cubits’; i.e. in breadth–the other measurements have been given : thus Smend, Cornill, Davidson, and l3ertholet. This would leave 5 cubits for the two side walls, i.e. 24 cubits apiece. The ‘jambs' or posts towards the outside (de) are said to have had a thickness of 2 cubits. 3 401 lu. s Ezk 4015. The statement in v.13 that the gateway was 25 cubits, though supported by the Versions, is in direct collision with v.lb, and must, with Smend and Cornill, be rejected as an interpolation. Bött., Hitz., Häv., and Keil retain, however, and explain thus : the whole gateway (nWº) consisted of a covered portion at each end, with an unroofed space in the middle. It is, they hold, the covered part that is meant in v. 18. But if so, why is this not stated 7 Bertholet's defence of the words requires a non-natural interpretation of the W Cl'SQ. «The ‘barrier' was probably a wall sufficiently low for the light to pass over it. There is liothing in the text opposed to this. There might have been windows in the barrier itself ; this is likely if the barrier walls were high. w Com. p. 294. () lºzk 4010. 26.8l. 706 TEMPLE TEMPLE —& for considerations showing that the first temple had but one court, see ‘Court’ under SOLOMON'S TEMPLE. The outer-court was comparatively free from buildings. Besides the north, east, and º gates, it had 30 cells a ranged along its outer Wºl, S. The 80 cells (Fig. 5, 1. 2. 3, etc.) which went around the court were used for keeping utensils and provisions, and served also as residences for the priests. 3 They were also used for sacrificial feasts. The aricient high places had connected with * a festive chamber, where sacrificial meals were partaken Jºf.2: We are not told the size of these cells, nor how they were distributed. A stone pavement extended from the outer wall to a distance corresponding to the gateways, i.e. 44 cubits, which with the width of the wall (6 cubits) made 50 cubits. The cells are said to have been “upon the pavement,’ which seems to mean that they had the pavement for floor. But the reposition rendered ‘upon' means prevailingly ‘to,' 3 and the iebrew permits the translation : ‘the cells were attached to the pavement,’ i.e. they were placed at the termination of the pavement without being on it. But the analogy of other cells makes it practically certain that these were attached to tho boundary wall. Taking this for granted, the prophet is quite silent as to how they were arranged. Most authorities—Stade,s Benzinger, & Nowack n (both the latter follow Stade closely), Davidson, Perrot and Chipiez, Keil, etc.—place 10 cells on the north, east, and south sides, leaving the west side for the binyān () (Fig. 5, B). Five are supposed to be on each side of the respective outer gates. This answers well to the symmetry so characteristic of Ezekiel's temple. Orelli and Bertholet—the latter treads closely in the footsteps of his Basel colleague—allocate six of these cells to the west side, 3 on each side of the binyān (B). There are then 8 on each of the remaining 3 sides, 4 on one side of each gate and 4 on the other. The binyàm occupying but a small part of the western wall, leaves room enough for 3 cells on each side of it. The words ‘chambers and a pavement’ made for the court round about, support the plan, of putting cells on, each of the 4 sides, unless, indeed, with Kliefoth and Cornill, we limit the words ‘round about ' to the pavement. Opinions are divided also as to the way in which the cells stood in relation to one another. Keil 2, maintains that the cells on each side of the north, east, and south gates were but rooms in one building, like the rooms of a house. He has there- fore on his plan but 6 buildings for the 30 cells, 5 cells in each. But in that case we should have expected to read of 6 build- ings, and not merely of 30 cells. Davidson separates the cells by an intervening space.2. Stade, Benz., Now., Orelli, Berth; and Perrot and Chipiez join the cells, putting a more wall between them ; and this is the likeliest view, for on Davidson's conception there would be a considerable waste of labour and materials in the extra walls required. Pavement.—The pavement already spoken of is called the ‘lower pavement,’u from which one would infer that the inner and upper court v was also paved. Smend concludes from 2 Ch 7° and Aris- teas' letter that the whole of the inner court was paved. Cornill rejects the words as an interpola- tion, though on purely subjective grounds. ICitchens.—In each of the four corners of the outer court there was a kitchen in which the sacri- ficial meals were got ready,é the size of each being 40 cubits long by 30 broad. The ‘ministers of the house ’o boiled in them what the people brought to be sacrificed. The Inner Court.—The inner court was for the priests alone ; and its being thus exclusively used, and there being more than one court at all, marks a new step in the religion of Israel. As compared with the outer and larger court, the inner was crowded with buildings having to do with the temple service, particulars of which will be found below. I'rom the external margin of the outer walls to the walls of the inner court there was a distance of 150 cubits. The entrance to the inner & For the sake of distinctness we use “cell’ for n;', “guard- room' for Nº, and ‘chamber' for y}x. Indian, Egyptian, etc., temples, as is well known, contained also, within their courts, dwellings for priests, besides kitchens, refectories, etc. Seč Beale's Guide to Architecture, p. 34. 8 Ezk 4017-45 421ſt, ; cf. 1 Ch 920, Ezr 100, Neh 131f. y 1 S 922; cf. Jer 354 3610. 39s. s Gesch. ii. 51. & IIeb. A 7'ch. a Heb. Arch. 0 Ezk 41.12. , Ezk 4017 Hºp hºp. * Com. p. 353, pl. 1. A Com. p. 299 £z 4018. v 4021. : 4621-24. • i.6, the subordinate officials; cf. Ezk 4410-14. court was by means of 3 gates opposite to the 3 outer gates and of the same construction, only that the parts—threshold to porch—occurred in reverse order; the porch of the inner gate being next the steps, and not farthest away, as in the outer gate, etc. There were 8, not 7 steps between the two courts—a sign perhaps of the increased progress in holiness as compared with the passage from the outside to the first court. Sacrificial cell and tables about the porch of the immer Northern (or Eastern ?) Gate.—On one side of the inner northern gateway, joining the porch, and with a passage into the porch, there was a cell, not further described as to structure, size, or position. Smend a represents it as on the south side of the porch, having the same length and a third of its breadth. This cell was used for Washing the burnt-offerings.{3 Kliefoth, Keil, and Schröder (Lange) maintain that the sacri- fices were washed—the last process they were put through before they were laid upon the altar—at each of the 3 inner gates. Indeed Kliefoth goes so far as to say that there were two washing cells attached to each porch of the inner gates, one on each side. But the slaughtering tool: place at one gate only, y and it is practically certain that the Washing did too, ‘Gates’ in v.88 should be read “gate’ with the LXX and most authorities. º e Another debated and debateable question is—Which gate is meant at which this washing cell was situated 7 lºw., Hitz., Smend, Corn., and Berth. hold that it is the eastern, their º grounds being, that (1) the eastern gate-was the most sacred, that (2) the stream that supplied water for Washing the sacrifices passed by the east end of the temple, 3 and that (3) at the N. and S. gates there were other buildings (Fig. *...} On the other hand, Böttcher,& Iſàvernick, and Davidson hold that the northern gate is meant,” and for reasons which, to the present writer, appear conclusive. Here are some of them :- (1) The prophet is already at the N. gate. Cornill gets rid of this difficulty by his usual and often successful way of emend- ing the text. In the beginning of v.98 he introduces a clause answering to the beginning of V.86 ‘Aryd he brought me to the door of the porch of the eastern gate.' But, he has absolutely no external support for the change thus made. , (2) According to the regulations in Leviticus, the slaughtering of animals for sacrifice was to take place at the N. side of the altar in the case of burnt-, sin-, and trespass-offerings. No directions are given as to peace-offerings. It is to be expected be. forehand that Ezekiel's legislation, and that of the Priestly Code would tally. (3) The N. gate is called in 89 the ‘gate of the altar.’ Since it was to this gate that the people brought their offerings, it was the most frequented. The two E. gates were kept shut except on Sabbaths and new moons, 2 or on other special occasions when the prince desired to present freewill offerings. A The western gate was closed by buildings connected with the temple. In the pre-exilic temple the S. gate was joined to the palace court, which is partly true of the eastern gate as well. Passing into the inner N. gate, on both sides of the porch—which is first reached—we see 4 tables, 2 on each side (T'), on which the burnt-, sin-, and trespass-offerings were slain ; u or at least they were used in connexion with the slaying of these sacrifices, as Keil and Tavidson understand the words. The actual slaughtering took place prob- ably on 4 tables outside, the 4 inside tables being used in that case for preparing the sacrifices for the altar. According to Iv. 1", 6" 7” the above: named sacrifices had to be killed on the N. side of the altar. v If these tables were placed near the N. gate, this requirement of P would be met. There were without the porch two tables on each side—4 in all (T); on these, as stated above, thu actual slaughtering took place. § In addition to the 8 tables noticed above there were 4 of hewn stone, each with a length and breadth of one cubit and a half, having a height of one cubit. They had ledges running round the 4 top edges a hand- o, Corn. p. 330. g Ezk 4038. y 4030, 3 Ezlº 471 f. a 4044. § 127°oben. * 4093-37. 0 111 424, 20, 33.625 72 1413. 1 32, 8, 13. z 461ſt. A 4612. 4039. y See above. # 4010. Böttcher contends that these tables stood in the outer court, two at each of the angles formed by the steps and the gate front. II is reasoning turns chiefly on the meaning of ºn?, rendered ‘side.’ See Proben, etc. p. 330 f. But we have certainly to seek some spot in the inner court in which the angel and prophet now are. TEMPLE TEMPLE 707 breadth in width: those turned inwards. The inner gates there was a square, having 100 cubits instruments made use of in the burnt-offerings to the side (a, b c d). The altar (A) was Pº were kept on these stone tables.a in the centre, and therefore equally visible from all Pricsts’ cells 3 (PP'). —Close to the N. and S. the inner gates.o. The space between the altar inner gates there were 2 cells for the officiating and the house was deemed specially sacred.3 12 || 13 || 14 | 15 16 |17|18 |19 II 2O IO 21 # -C 22 =3 O 23 1 & 24 H & S | 3 4 & JC S Q d 6 . l'IG. 7. ST=steps before the porch. P=porch. II = hekūl, D =d&bir. E. E.'s N and S. entrances to chambers, S.S." - stairs connecting the storeys, B = Boaz. J = Jachin. M = the mumnāh. T'-- the altar-shaped table of shewbread. priests. The N. cell (P) was for the priests who 2. Triº House AND ITs MEASUREMENTs.) The saw to the house, Y its gates, sacrifices, etc. The house and its appurtenances formed a square of other (P’) was for the Zadokite priests who had | 100 cubits each way. The manner in which this is charge of the altar. made up will be shown in summary after the Ibetween the house and the inner ends of the several lº. have been considered. at 4042. g 4014.46. as Cf. 4.313ft., 3 Ezk 810, Jl 217, Mt 2335, 2. In 4415 01 the Levites are said to have charge of the house. y Ezk 4048–414, 708 TEMPLE TEMPLE The porch 0 (P).—The porch (Fig. 7) was 20 cubits from N. to S. (d. c), º ll cubits, or rather 12,3 from E. to W. (d f). The platform of the house Was 6 cubits higher than the ordinary level of the inner court : this was reached by 10 steps. Y Close to the “posts’ or ‘wall fronts’ of the porch were two pillars, 6 the Boaz and Jachin of 1 K 7” (BJ). The hākāl or Holy Place e (H).—The hākāl was 40 cubits long (E. to W.) and 20 broad (N. to S.)— inside measurements. The posts of the entrance wall (; h) were 6 cubits thick. The door or entrance way into the hékál was 10 cubits (h h, i. i.). The débir or Most Holy Place : (D, Fig. 7).- The débir was a cube of 20 cubits each way. Its posts (op) were 2 cubits in thickness, this being the thickness of the wall (n o) which extended from the N. and S. walls of the house to the door. This wall m (no) was 7 cubits wide, leaving 6 cubits for the door.6 Doors of hákál and débir.” — Both hékål and débir had folding doors of the kind already de- scribed. k It is not said that the débir of Solomon's temple had such doors. The doors of the hākāl were carved with cherubim and palm trees, A as the hékál walls were.p. The porch entrance (a—a : b–b)—we read of no door—was 14 cubits wide, a The door or entrance to the hākāl was 10 cubits wide, v that of the débºr being 6.8. The entrances were therefore in the proportion 7:5:3 (14: 10:6). It is singular, though probably only a coincidence, that the wall projections (= ‘sidepieces’) o had exactly opposite ratios, viz. 3 (2 a): 5 (f/n): 7 (no). The '...}. chambers. Tr—On every side of the house except the east, Ezekiel’s temple, like Solomon's, had side chambers. The MT gives the number of them as 33, and Smend displays much in- genuity in justifying the text, which in this con- nexion is by universal confession very corrupt. In fa, our of there being 30 are the LXX, Josephus,p Böttcher, Cornill, and most recent authorities, as also is the fact that there were 30 cells along the outer wall, not to add the greater symmetry of the round number. In Kings the number is not given. The chambers, arranged as in Solo- mon's temple in 3 storeys, were on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd storeys respectively, 4, 5, and 6 cubits broad : in the first temple the figures were 5, 6, and 7. The 2nd and 3rd storeys rested upon rebatements, on which see p. 699°. Concerning the rebates in the temple wall, the ladders by which the upper storeys were reached, and the uses of the chambers, see above, p. 699°. Ezekiel's temple had doors (E E"), one N., one S., by which admission to the chambers could be ob- tained. There was but one for the first temple, and it was situated at the south s (see Fig. 2, E). There was probably a ladder at each entrance : Ezekiel's temple would thus have two ladders (SS"), Solomon's temple one (Fig. 2, S). The munmāh, r or ‘what was left (EV).—On the outside of the chambers N. and S. there was an empty margin of 5 cubits (M). It was out of this mºtmrål, that entrance was had to the chambers through the two doors (E E"). The gizrāh, a or “separate place’ (EV). —On every side except the E. there was a space of 20 cubits, called the gizrāh (Fig. 5, b c e f). This court ran round the whole house buildings, including the anwnnāh, on N. and S. ; or it went round the raised platform on which these stood. Reckoning to- gether gizrāh, munmüh, chambers, and house, there was a breadth (N. to S.) of 100 cubits, which makes it highly probable that the gizrāh formed part of the * platform, instead of merely enclosing it. The text 8 is silent as to any use to which the gizrāh was put. Perhaps, like our cloisters, it was for the priests to exercise themselves in, and take fresh air when unable to get farther afield. The binyàn y or “building’ (EV), –On the W. side of the house and adjoining the gizrāh there was a rectangular structure caiſed, apparently, techni- cally binyān (Fig. 5, B), the inside measurements of which were 70 cubits from E. to W. and 90 from N. to S. Its encompassing wall was 5 cubits in thickness. Its W. limit reached to the western wall and joined it, as may be seen from the dimen- sions below :- Length of binº/ām (E. to W.) . . . . 70 cubits, 2 walls of do. (E. and W.) 2x5 . . . 10 , , Gizrāh e º º e º o & tº 20 3 y Total . . . 100 cubits. We know that the western side of the house was 100 cubits from the outer wall, so that there could be no space between the latter and the binyān. Thenius 3 contends strongly that there was such an inter- vening space, and that behind the bimyām there were gates through which wood and animals to be sacrificed were brought into the temple area, and through which refuse of every kind was carried away. Klief. and Reil hold that the bimyām was made for the purpose of receiving the offal of the sacrifices and the sweepings of the gates. Curry s says the carcase of the sin-offering was burnt at this building. { - It is very probable that by the binyún we are to understand the same as the Dºnyºn n of 2 K 2311 (places in which horses and chariots were kept) and the nylº of 1 Ch 2018 (a part of the temple west of the house, of which the priests had charge). In Ezk 41.1bn, we read of the binyún and its “galleries’: for the last word we should certainly read, with Corn, and others, ‘walls,' () This is confirmed by calculation. Adding 90 cubits, the N. to S. dimension, to the widths of the two enclosing walls (5+5=10), we get 100 cubits. Besides, in no other place do we read of there being galleries in the binyān. General measurements of the house.—The house and its belongings formed a square of 100 cubits a side, as shown below— I'rom E. to W. we have these details (see Fig. 7)— ab Porch wall, Ezk 4048 . . e tº . 5 cubits. df Porch, 40.3. e & e 4. º • 12 , fº Wall of hákál, 411 . . © tº º • 6 , , km. Ilength of hèkâl, 412 . tº e Q • 40 , , 700° Wal Of débir, 413 º © o e © 2 99 7-8 Ilength of débir, 414 . e o e . 2ſ) y p Walls of house (W.), 415 . © e • 0 , , 1, 2, etc., Side chambers, 415. © © • 4 », Wall of side chambers, 419 e º • 6 , , º- Total ſe . 100 cubits. This calculation proves that the mummāh (M) did not extend to the W. side. These are the dimensions from N. to S.— Breadth of house, lºzk 412 . e º . 20 cubits. Side walls, 415, 6-1-6 º º º e • 12 , Side chambers, 414, 4-H 4 s e G • 8 , , Walls of side chambers, 419, 5+5 . . . 10 ,, Mummâh, E, and W., 419, 5+5 g © • 10 , , Głzrāh, E. and W., 4119, 20+20 . º 40 , , - & Dºx. |3 Thus the LXX ; and the other measurements require 12. See Summary at p. 708b 2, Ezik 418. 3 4049. See BOAZ. a 411ſ. & 413f. n 413. LXX correctly r*., Karoºiboº row 09péaaret, reading n\rnel instead of anº) (‘and the width'). || 413. a 4123-25. 2. Above, p. 700b, Fig. 4. A 4120 4117ff. 2 Though the Hebrew does not give the width, it is supplied by the LXX of 4148. Adding to this 14 cubits the two project- ing walls (d b, b c) we get 6 (=2x3) +14 =20, the width of the porch (N. to S.), which is a confirmation of the LXX. y 412. £ 413. o 418. + 415-11, p Amt. VIII. iii. 2. g 1 K 68. + n]º Ezk 419.11. . 100 cubits, Total º º 2 Tja, from nº Ezk 4112-13 421. 10, 19. g ICzk 4112, 2 lºſſ, lit. ‘building,' from Hy; ‘to build.” 3 See Das worea. Jerus. whd dessen Tempel, Taf, iii, ſig. 3. * Speaker's Conrumn. & Ezk 4321. n AV ‘suburbs, RV ‘precincts.” Both nº and nymp are derived by Gesen. (Thes.) from Pers. fairway, a summer-house, open on all sides to admit air. He considers the ‘parbar' of 1 Ch 2618 to have been an open porch adjoining the temple, In Rabbinical Hebrew (Mishna, etc.) parban’ means temple court, and also suburbs of a city. See, further, art. PARBAR. 0 nin"p for n°p"Rs. a 4115a-20. TEMPLE TEMPLE 709 Decoration of the inside of the house.—The walls a of hákál, débºr, and porch were wainscotted, as were also the closed windows. 3 The wall decora- tion was arranged in compartments or fields, y in each of which a cherub and palm tree were en- graved, the cherub having faces of man and lion, one face looking upon the other. Ö On the side walls of the porch, palm trees alone were carved. Windows.—Little is said about the windows of Ezekiel's temple. Those” of the gateway, e the porch, ; , and the house m are characterized as * closed,’ 6 i.e. ‘latticed.” In 1 K 6" the windows of Solomon’s temple are further characterized as ‘beamed.” This second feature is probably under- stood of Ezekiel's temple too. See more fully above (p. 700") on windows of sº Priests’ cells in the Inner Court, t—N. and S. of the gizrāh there were 4 rows of cells in which the priests ate the holy food and , deposited their garments, two rows being on the N. and two on the S. First there was one abutting upon the gizrāh and lying along its whole length of 100 cubits. Then came a parade or walk 10 cubits broad of the same length. Next to this, parallel to the gizrāh and the first row of cells, was a half row, starting at the west, the remaining space Q th— Contents of the house—In the hākāl of Ezekiel’s temple there was nothing except the cedar wood altar, a which was 2 cubits in both length and breadth 8 and 3 cubits high. It had raised corners, y wrongly called horns 6 by the LXX, and is described as a ‘table (set) lefore Jehovah.” e The altar of burnt-offering is also called the table of Jehovah. It cannot be the altar of incense that is meant, for we find no such table mentioned earlier than P. No doubt we are to understand the altar-shaped table of shewbread (Fig. 7, T), as in Solomon's temple, this table occupying the same osition in both temples. Of other tables or of ampstands not a word is written. Nor is anything said about what the débir contained. This may, of course, be due to the brevity with which the house is treated ; but as a matter of fact we do not read of the ark after the destruction of Solomon’s temple.” Ezekiel's altar is much more elaborate than that of Solomon's temple, and owing to the large num- ber of technical terms 6 and other difficulties it is harder to reconstruct. The altar was in form as if made up of four square blocks of stone, the lowest being the largest, the next being smaller to the extent of one cubit —ſº A. al d’ j P : er—lf i : £1–6' 9 —"; % 2’ * g’ J K 7.7 J’ *— A. A. -- *— O 7 2 J & J 6 ;-H, Cubits. FIG. 8.-ALTAR OF BURNT-OFFERING IN EZERIEL's TEMPLE.1 being taken up by a wall. The chambers had 3 storeys, but no pillars supporting them, as the 30 cells of the outer court had. The cells on the upper storey were narrower than the two below, so that in the direction of the house there was a balcony, or rather corridor. The entrance to the cells was at the E. end, and was apparently on lower ground than that on which the cells were. k Bertholet concludes from this that the entrance was thus on the outer court level. The MT does not say anything as to the number of cells there were, but the LXX gives the number as 30 in its best copies (A, etc.): i.e. 15 N. and the same number S., 10 in each full row and 5 in each half row. The total would, according to this, be identical with the cells along the outer wall. o, i.e. the walls enclosing the openings rendered ‘openings.’ These walls were themselves covered with beams; cf. D'Epº 1 K 64: it was on these beams that the wood-carving was done. Berth., on account of the difficulty of understanding how windows could be covered with wood, rejects this clause ; yet it is found in all the MSS and versions. £8 ‘Galleries' of MT must go — so LXX, Cornill, Davidson. Other changes are necessary in 4110, each side, the third and fourth having a superficial area less than the block below also of one cubit each side. There was thus a ledge or margin k of one cubit in width at the basis of the three upper blocks (Fig. 8 d d", ee', g g’). On the outer half of the lowest margin there was an upright parapet. A (g h, g’ h'), forming a kind of channeſ into which, according to tradition, the sacrificial blood flowed, whence it was conducted by a subterranean passage to the Wädy Kidron.p. The altar was not made of solid stone; its interior was of earth,w but this was covered with stones, just as the altar of Solomon's temple had a covering of brass. The o, 4122. L § §he breadth is not given in MT, but it is supplied by the » nīyspp. 3 zipc.ºro. s 4122. & Ezk 4122. * See ARK, 0 Hz, ºn, pin, Ty. y n\mp; cf. Neh 311, 19, 21. The LXX omits the word. 3 Not four faces, like the cherubim of ch. 1, More than two Żaces could not be represented on a flat surface. s Ezk 4010. 20, ºn 4116 0 noºs. 1 4110 421-12. 2 Ezk 429. 1 ICzk 4313ft. * p"II. The majority of commentators follow the Targum, and make this word stand for “basement,” na being really the word used for this. Thus Gesen. (Thes.), Häv., ICeil, Corn., Orelli, Bertholet, and l&raetzschmar. The view favoured in the text above is defended by Villalpando (#1608) and other older commentators, and by Smend (see his Ezechiel, where the argu ments are given). A ºn. a Yoma iii. 1. y Ex. 2024ſ. 710 TEMPLE TEMPLE altar had, however, the appearance of three blocks of solid stone, with three successive terraces, the lowest of them being bound by a parapet half a cubit wide. The uppermost surface was a square of 12 cubits each way; and as on this the sacrifices were offered, it is called, by way of pre-eminence, the altar.a. Keil and Cornill maintain that the altar proper was a cube of 12 cubits a side, the rest of the structure (all except b blkk') being added for use or ornament, but forming no part of the altar; but in the text the word “altar' is used of the entire structure; 3 and this larger sense is defended by Kliefoth, Ewald, Sumend, A. B. Davidson, and Bertholet. The ’ārī’él y or altar-hearth had four horns (ba, b'a'), each a cubit high, rising out of its four corners. 6 The uppermost surface was, as stated, a square of 12 cubits on each side. The highest block (A) had a thickness of 4 cubits. The area of the next block (B) was a square of 2 cubits more on each side; that is, it was 14 cubits a side, and it had a thickness of 4 cubits. The third block from the top (C) had for its surface a square of 16 cubits on each side, and a thickness of 2 cubits. The lowest block, the back or base, e had for its upper surface a square of 18 cubits a side, and a thickness of one cubit. The height of the upper surface of the whole was 12 cubits, as is seen from the following details :— Basement (D3). wº tº º C . . 1 cubit. Lower block (ºnly) . . . . . . 2 cubits. Higher block (Ty); , . . . . . 4 , Block of altar hearth (ºn-s) . . . . 4 , Horns tº te © ſº & * e . 1 cubit. Total e cº . 12 cubits. The proportion of height and (assumed) basement is ; ( .# ),” a favourite ratio with Ezekiel. Note further that the heig it is identical with the altar surface : thus we get a cube (a k : aſ k'). In the calculation of height the horns are included. In fact the horns seem to have been an essential part, may the most sacred part, of the altar.0 On them the blood was sprinkled ; and to them fugitives came, feeling safe if they had hold of them. In early times the altar possessed no horns. Stade,z Nowack,z and others regard the horns as a survival of the bull image of Jehovah worshipped in the N. kingdom, which was also a representation of deities worshipped by the Egyptians, Canaanites, and Phoenicians. The holy stone or altar, it has baen said, was in early times covered by the skin of the animal sacrificed, the skin of the bull having the horns attached. But why, in that case, was not the altar constructed with two horns, the number on one skin, instead of dowble that number? Willal- pando A thought the horns trophies of the animals sacrificed to God. Spencer w inclines to the opinion that the horns were expressive of dignity, the horn being a decoration worn by distinguished persons. fini. ZERUBBA BEL’S TFMPLE.—The temple erected ºy the Jews who returned from exile is called Zerub- babel’s, because he was the leader in promoting its enection, supporting Haggai and Zechariah in their endeavours to urge the people to build when the latter were inclined to relax. He was grandson of Jehoiachin and probably nephew of Sheshbazzar.w In the spring of B.C. 537, forty-nine years after & 9sºn : *Nºs: for the proper writing of the word see SBOT, notes on Isaiah 291 (Cheyne), and on Ezekiel 4315 (Toy). It is probable that the word is not compound, the ending being a mere noun suffix as in ºn2, ºn?, and 95-ly. So Cheyne and Kraetzschmar, following Ewald (see Comm. and Gram. § 1039). The word simply means in that case “burning place,' from Ts * to burn.” & See Ezk 43.13ſ. 2. So Cheyne would read it. 3 W. 15. a lil. ( EV “settle '; the Heb. word means elsewhere court or enclosure, from a Semitic root meaning to press in, to en- close. º: the word stands in Ezk 4314 strictly for the Furrounding ledge of one cubit width ; then for the square block above it. - 2, Ezk 4042 4122. 0 Cf. Ann 314, , Ex 2020 (Book of Cov.); cf. Stade, Gesch, i. 405; Now. Heb. Arch. ii. 18. x Loc. cit. A Om Ezekiel, ii. 393. A. De Legibus, ii. 677 (ed. Tüb. 1732). v Called Sanabassar by the best Greek authorities. the temple had been destroyed, Sheshbazzara was sent by 'º. lving of Persia, to be governor of Judaea. ... He received permission to take with him his leading fellow-countrymen from Babylon, to restore their Jewish religion and rebuild the temple.8 Sheshbazzar was accompanied by his nephew Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest, representing respectively the royal and priestly lines. , Cyrus not only gave orders that the temple should be re-erected, but he gave Sheshbazzar power to carry with him the sacred vessels taken by Nebuchadnezzar from the temple, and imposed a tax upon the provinces west of the Euphrates to meet the expenses of the return of the Jews to their own country. Y Phoenicia and Tyre were to supply the wood from Lebanon, and to send it on rafts to Joppa. 6 Whether all the instructions given by the Persian king were carried out we have no means of knowing. Seven months after the Return, the altar of burnt- offering was erected,é probably upon the same site as the old one. The building of the house was slower work, but a collection was made to meet the needful outlay. In the 2nd month of the 2nd year after the Return, the foundation-stone was laid, m Then there was a pause in the work owing to the opposition of the mixed population of Samaria,6 who, as not being pure Israelites, were not allowed to share in the rebuilding of the temple. , There is no confirmation of the statement x that the people of Sannaria intrigued with the Persian king to authoritatively stop the work. According to Haggai and Zechariah, it was the indifference of the people that was at the root of the delay. See especially Zec 1–8, where the various difficulties are met in the successive visions. Nothing further was done until B.C. 520, the 2nd year of the reign of Darius Hystaspis. Shesh- bazzar was probably dead now, and the lead was taken up by }. nephew and successor Zerubbabel, aided by the high priest Joshua. Much of the new zeal was owing to the earnest pleadings of the new prophets named. Recommenced in B.C. 520, \ the temple was completed in B.C. 516.p. Sources of information as to Zerubbabel's Temple. —These are very meagre : indeed we have hardly anything which for certain applies to the temple as it was at or soon after the Exile. There are scattered notices in Ezra, and Nehemiah. Heca- taeus of Abdera, contemporary and friend of Alexander the Great, is said by Josephus v to have written a book concerning the Jews, and he quotes parts of it referring to the temple. It is by no means certain that Hecataeus wrote the book in question ; nevertheless, the quotations made by Josephus are interesting and of value. The OT Apocrypha also has important allusions ; especially is this true of the Books of Maccabees. But it is hard to say how far the statements are true of the temple completed in B.C. 516. Josephus is too much . by the temple as he saw it, to be a reliable guide concerning the earlier temples. It is probable that the temple building occupied the same site as the earlier temple. Hecataeus says it was a “great house.” Cyrus gave instruc- tions that it was to be 60 cubits high and 60 cubits broad.: Probably this means that they were to build it as large as they liked—as large, if they & Not the same as Zerubbabel, as is often held ; see Cornill, IIistory of People of Israel, Chicago, 1898, p. 151 f.; "Cheyne, JIt I, p. 6; and cf. Siliºsiſ BAZZAR and ZERUBISABEL, g 2 Ch 3629, Ezr 1211. 517 (31ſt. y Ezr 17ſ, 0.14ſ. 05, X Ezr 37. & Ezr 31ſt. & Ezr 208ſſ, Neh 770ſ, cf. Ezr 16, o, Iºzr 38ſ. 9 See SAMARITAN8. 1 ICZr 41ſf. x Ezr 48-39. Sec Schrader on this section in SK, 1807, 307 ff. A Ezr (31ſt. p. Iºzr (;15. v c. Apion. 1, 22. & Ezr (53. TEMPLE TEMPLE 7II would, as, say, some well-known temple in Babylon. We are not told that it was actually built of these dimensions, nor is it likely that Solomon's, which was 60 cubits long, 20 broad, and 30 high, should be so far exceeded by Zerubbabel’s. It is not needful to consider the 60 cubits' length as meaning height of porch,a and the breadth as applying to the chambers as well. It is inferred from Ezr 312 and Hag 23 that the second temple was greatly inferior to the first. But when these words were uttered, the temple was not ſinished: and the inferiority may refer to the absence of the ark and other sacred vessels which were for ever lost after the destruction of the first temple. According to Bab. Talmud (Yoma 22b), the second temple wanted five things which were in that of Solomon : (1) the ark, (2) the sacred fire, (3) the shekinah, (4) the Holy Spirit, (5) the Urim and Thummim. Hékāl or Holy Place.—The hākāl had within it one holy lampstand, one table of shewbread, one golden altar of incense, together with pouring vessels and spices. 3 There would seem to have been the two veils of which we read as being before the Jákál (māsākh) and débir (pāróketh) doors of the tabernacle.) The fact that Anti- ochus Epiphanes is represented as plundering the gold, silver, etc., of the temple, 6 is no proof that the walls, doors, etc., were covered with gold, as the MT declares to have been the case with Solomon's temple (see above, p. 700 f.), though Schürer seems to think it is.e Débir or Most Holy Place.—The débir had a veil in front of it, as the hākāl also had. There was nothing in the débir according to Jos. (BJ V. v. 5), except that according to the Mishna; the stone of foundation m stood where the ark used to be. Upon the Day of Atonement the priests used to put their censers on this stone. 6 Prideaux, without a tittle of evidence, held that the ark was in the second temple. Tacitus applies the words “inania arcana’ to the adytum or débir of the temple, t Courts.-This temple had two courts, k but the separation between them was not perhaps rigidly enforced, for when Alexander Jannaeus was sacri- ficing on the altar during the Feast of Tabernacles the people pelted him with citrons, etc. To stop such conduct, he ran a wooden wall around the priests’ court. According to Ezr 6", three rows of i. stone and a top row of new wood were to go about the temple, viz. the inner court. A The inner court had in it an altar of burnt- offering made of unhewn stone g--so conforming to the ancient law of Ex 20°, which Solomon’s did not. According to Hecataeus v it had the same dimensions as the first temple, viz. 20 cubits long by 20 cubits broad by 10 cubits high. The Mishna & speaks of a ni’, or laver as being in this court ; and Sir 503 speaks of a “cistern' as having been made by Simon the high priest. The Syriac leaves out “cistern' alto- gether, and renders “he dug a well.’ The allusions are far too uncertain to infer from them that there was a molten sea in the inner court of the Second temple.o There were cells in the outer court for storing furniture and for other purposes. In 1 Mac 4*" priests’ cells are named. T Josephus makes mention of corridors with pillars.p The ‘Miphkad gate’ of Neh 3” was probably one leading into the outer court on the western side (see JERUSALEM, vol. ii. } 593°). The ‘prison gate’ of Neh 12” was most ikely on the north side (ib.). In later, times there was a bridge crossing the Tyropoeon or Cheese- mongers' Valley from the modern Mount Zion to the temple hill. When Pompey besieged Jeru- salem, many Jews took refuge on the temple area and broke this bridge, that the Roman soldiers might be hindered from coming to them. This was probably where the remains of Wilson's arch are now seen, though Rosen.a. thinks the bridge was of Herod’s making. Later history of this temple.—Simon the high priest, sou of Onias, repaired and fortified the temple ; but the passage in which we have the information 3 is very obscure. In B.C. 168 Antiochus Epiphanes plundered, laid waste, and desecrated the temple.") He placed an altar to "J ºiter Olympius on the altar of burnt- offering. The brazen vessels taken away by him were given by him to sympathizing Jews at Antioch, and they were transferred to the local synagogue. 6 Three vears s later JUDAS MACCABAEU's recovered Jerusalem, cleansed and repaired the house, made a new altar, and also fresh vessels. The Feast of Dedication, still observed among Jews, commemor- ates the opening ceremony of the restored and cleansed temple. At this time Judas also adorned the front of the temple by hanging up m gilded crowns and shields, 6 and he also fortified the enclosure by putting high walls around it. These were razed to the ground by Antiochus Eupator, k but restored by Jonathan Maccabaeus; X they were strengthened by Simon his brother. W. Reference has already been made to the wall put around the inner court by Alexander Jannaeus. In B.C. 63 Pompey conquered Jerusalem, and after a long siege took the well - fortified temple hill. He entered the house, and even, in the face of loud protests, the débir itself; but he did not touch the sacred vessels. v. Nine years later (B.C. 54) Crassus plundered the temple of its valuable things most mercilessly, taking away what was worth two millions of pounds in English money.; Herod, afterwards called the Great, a descendant of the Maccabees, was made king of the Jews by decree of the l{oman Senate. In B.C. 37 he stormed Jeru- salem, o and burned some of the temple walls, causing a goodly amount of blood to be shed. Prom other injury, however, he protected the tennple. iv. HEROD’S TEMPLE.-The sources.—The prin- cipal sources of information in regard to Herod's temple are : (1) Josephus, who in Ant. XV. xi. gives a full account of the outer court with its gates and rooms, and in BJ W. v. describes the inner court and also the house. Josephus was a priest, and was therefore familiar with the º and its services from personal experience. He writes his history, however, from memory, and he is so full of lº. for the sacred enclosure that he falls into obvious exaggeration when giving measurements. (2) The Mishnic tract Middoth preserves valuable Jewish traditions (see Eng. tr. in Barclay's Talmud, reproduced in Pergusson’s Temples of the Jews, Appendix i. In Surenhusius' #. [vol. vi.] there is a Lat, tr. of the text, as also the text and translation of Bartinora's Com- o: As Herod the Great; see Jos. Xi.; Winer, I WB3, s. ‘Tempel’; Keil, Bibl. Arch. i. 184 n. & 1 Mac 123449 tº ; Jos. Ant. xiv. iv. 4; cf. Hecataeus as quoted ap. Jos. c. Apion. i. 22. 2, 1 Mac 451 ; sec Viºli, 2, 1 Mac 123. s Riehm, If WB 2 1602a. & Yonna v. 2. n Tºny lºs. 0 1 Mac 122 491. , Amn. iii. 9, s 1 Mac 4:38.48 ; cf. Jos. Amt, xiv. xvi. 2. A Cf. 1 K ($36 712, & 1 Mac 447. y In Jos, BJ W. v. 5. & Midd. iii. 6. o Ezr 820 100, Neh 390 1037ſ. 1244 135ſt. n;', in every case but Neh 330, where we find its equivalent ºff, (5 and ) interchang- ng. Of. T. W. Davies, Magic, Divination, and Demonology, p. 51). a roco rotopio. LXX for Tºº?. 6 Ant. XI, iv. 7, XIV. vi. 2. et Haram, 7 ff., cf. p. 64. g Sir 501ſt. y 1 Mac 123ſ. 49ſ. D7 438, 2 Mac 62m. 3 Jos. BJ Wii. iii. 3. * 1 Mac 443tſ, 2 Mac 109 (two years, according to last passage) & Hillſ, cf. Jn 1023. See 1 Mac 402 º' 107 (º); Jos. Amt. xii. ll. ſ. ºn Inside the porch. 0 1 Ma(; 457. * 1 Mac 46 67. x 1 Mac (;62. A 1 Mac 662 of, with 51, 2 Mac 1286; Jos. Amt. xiii. v. 11. a 1 Mac 1308. v Jos. Amt. XIV. iv. 4. & Jos. Amt. xiv. vii. 1 ; BJ I. viii. 8. o Jos. Amt. XIV. xvi. 2.f. 712 TEMPLE TEMPLE mentary). The Middoth is more modest in its dimensions than Josephus, and nearer Une truth; but it is also often inaccurate. Rabbi Hilders- heim's Die Beschreibung des Herod. Tempel im Tractate Middot wºnd bei Fl. Joseph, states and examines the divergences betweenthese authorities. (3) Maimonides in "pin T (part vi.) collects many passages about the temple which are scattered through the Talmud. hese relate especially to the priests, temple furniture, etc., and have been put into Latin by Ludwig Compiègne. This tr. is to be met with in Ugolinus’ Thesaurus, vol. viii. (4) Dr. John Lightfoot's work on The Temple, etc. (London, 1823), rests mainly upon ltabbinical sources, and is for that reason valuable. Was Herod's temple the second or the third 3–It is usual to º: of Herod's temple as the third Jerusalem temple. Modern ews, however, followed by many Christian writers, regard it as simply the second temple rebuilt and in proved, and so call it the second temple. Christians are led to this conclusion, or Antonia got together all the material before the work of rebuilding was begun, and then pulled down and put up as flºº as could be done. Since only riests could enter the house and the inner court, he engaged a thousand of them to act as masons and carpenters in these parts. The building of the house was hastened on with great vigour, and was finished in a year and a half. Surrounding buildings took eight years, but the work went on, and was not ended until the time of the procurator Albinus (A.D. 62–64). The Jews (see Jn 2*) said the temple had been forty-six years in building, and in fact it was still in building then, and was to be for over thirty years more (but see E. A. Abbott in Class. Rev. 1894, p. 89 ft.). The building is spoken of as exceedingly impressive in its grandeur. Its eastern front was covered with plates of gold, which threw back the rays of the rising sun, and formed an object of rare beauty for miles around. The stone of which it was built was White marble, North . outer Couri : i : : Fig. 9.-HEROD's TEMPLE: GENzRAL VIEW. at least confirmed in it, by a consideration of Hag 20–9. Messiani- cally interpreted, the temple erected by Zerubbabel was, the Say, to see the Messiah. But the passage is not Messianic, and, if it were, the prediction contained in it is made from the writer's point of view. It was in the 18th a year of his reign (B.C. 20–19) that Herod the Great set about the rebuilding of the temple. In his day there was among the Romans a great rage for restoring Greek cities and their temples, and Herod probably caught the prevailing spirit. Josephus reports (Ant. XV. xi.) the speech in which Herod announces his intention, and gives as his reason a desire to promote the religious welfare of the nation ; but the historian says the king's real purpose was to raise for himself an everlasting memorial. The Jews were at first afraid that, if the king pulled down their temple, no other might be for a long time put up in its place. To allay this fear, Herod c. According to Jos. BJ I. xxi. 1, the 15th. : a large part of the side walls was covered with gold. The area of Herod's temple is essentially that of the modern Haram esh-Sherif, with the exception of the north end, at which, in Herod's day, the fortress Antonia was situated, the temple court being to the south of it. The excavations made beneath the Haram and its surrounding walls show that the lie of the ancient walls on the west, south, and east agrees with those of the walls to be seen to-day (see Rosen. Das Haram, 4ff.; Robinson's BRP iii. 222 ft.). The house itself would be sure to be erected on the site of the one preceding it. For his temple Herod used double the space that was covered by Zerubbabel's temple, a and in order to obtain it he erected subterranean vaults in the south of the temple hill, and filled intervening spaces with stones and earth. The bounding line was raised from 4 stadia (3 to 6, the breadth remain. o, Jos. BJ I. xxi. 1. {3 Jos. Amt. XV, xi. 8. TEMPLE TEMPLE 713 ing 1 stadium, the length (N. to S.) being doubled.a. The whole was surrounded by a high wall, covered with spikes,8 the better to protect the place. 'he temple, including its courts, occupied an area of 1 stadium according to Josephus, or 500 cubits according to the Talmud. Assuming the stadium to be about 600 English feet, and the cubit to be about 18 inches, there is a difference of over 100 feet; but the numbers are round in each case, and the truth lies probably between them. Perhaps, as Fergusson suggests, the Talmud copies the dimen- sions of Ezekiel's temple: Fergusson's own dimen- sions, got by careful calculations, agree well with what Josep nus says, viz. 585 ft. E. to W., and 610 ft. N. to S. ; see Temples of the Jews, p. 77 ff. Gates.—The principal entrance to the enclosure was on the western side. Middoth y names one only on that side called ‘ICiponos,” but Josephus has four. 6 Probably that named in Midd. is the principal one, as it led to the king's palace and to the city. Two more to the south led to suburbs of the city, one coinciding probably with “Barclay's' ate, the other with ‘Warren’s.’ Remains of the ourth are to be seen perhaps to the south of ‘Wilson's arch.” Josephus e speaks of gates on the south, but he does not say how many there were. Midd. mentions the two Huldah gates, which are to be identified with the two gates buried in the middle of the three aisles was 45 ft. wide, the two side, ones having a width of 30 ft. The innel portico was on higher ground than the two nearer the wall. The columns were so thick that three men with their hands stretched out could hardly clasp around one. On the east was what is called Solomon's Porch in the NT, a and is said by Josephus to have survived from the time of sºft The east porticoes were, however, the work of Herod, according to the best judges; but it is singular that Josephus should have believed any part of these porticoes to have been the work of Solomon, unless it was much older than Herod's time. During the feasts the Roman soldiers used to walk on the roof of the porticoes in order to see that order was kept. The whole of the outer court was paved with stones. There were for the lower officials pastophoria y or chambers ranged along the outer walls, Fº between the walls and the porticoes, unless, indeed, they were be- tween the double porticoes themselves. In close proximity to the west gate and the chambers was the Beth Din,ö where the SANHEDRIN met. In the older sources (Josephus and Middloth) the Holy Place is not the hékål, as in the case of the previous Jerusalem temples, but the whole of the inner court, including the women’s court, as contrasted with the outer court, which was º Nº. \ | : ºx N NSN º s S N § §º N § N N N N N § N § FIG, 10. –TIIE INNER COURT. 1. Chambers. 2. Gate-rooms (Eacedroe). 3. Porticoes. 4. 7. Altar of burnt-offering. 8. Place for killing, etc., existing south wall of the Haram—one west of the double gate, the other east of the treble gate. Both these show Herodian workmanship. Through both these gates it was possible to ascend from the vaults below to the temple area. On the east, Middoth refers to one gate on which the palace of Shushan was carved. It has been commonly thought to have been the same as the modern Golden Gate, but the latter is undoubtedly a Byzantine structure. Josephus does not say any- thing of any east gate. He speaks quite incident- ally of one gate on the north; ; Midd, m calls it Tadi 6 (or Tari?). The Outer Court.—This is commonly called the Court of the Gentiles, because Gentiles were allowed to enter it ; but in neither Josephus nor in Midd. does it get that name. The walls of this court were surrounded on the inside by porticoes or cloisters. The north, west, and east sides had double porticoes, with two rows of white marble monolithic columns. The roofs were of carved cedar. On the south were the royal porticoes, the arod. Saot)\ºkº, which had 162 columns, with Corinthian capitals. These columns formed three aisles. The outermost row of columns 6. Priests’ court. 11. Débºr. Women's court. 5. Court of Israelites. animals. 9. Temple porch. 10. Hékúl. open to heathen, and could be used for buying, selling, etc. e The inner court was a rectangle, which included in it the women's court (4), the men's court or court of the Israelites (5), the priests' court (6), and the house which stood in the last (10, 11). The inner court was on higher ground than the outer, there being five steps from the one to the other. Between the wall of the inner court and the porticoes of the outer court there was a free space of 10 cubits, higher than the rest of the outer court, and reached by a flight of fourteen steps. This formed a terrace all round the inner court except the east, and was called the hel (ºn). At the inner edge of this hel there was a stone parapet called sGrég (inib).m. On this tablets were put with inscriptions warning non-Jews against passing beyond this boundary. One such was łº in recent years by the Prench consul, Clermont-Ganneau, on which, in Greek, the following words occur : unbéva &\\oyevſ, elotropeweg 6at ëvròs toū repl rô lepôv TpvQ,&krov Kal repugóNov. 8s 6' &v Añº,0m éavrò altios éa raw ölö. Tö éakoWov6sºv 0ávarov, i.e. ‘Mo stranger is to enter within the balustrade & Jn 1023, Ac 311 519. & Amt. xx. ix. 7; B.J. W. v. 1. y B.J. iv. ix. 2. * I'm nº. 6 Jn 213ſt. K. Keil (Bib. Arch. i. p. 100) excludes the women's court from the inner court. Now, (ii. p. 78) includes it, and rightly, because it stood on the higher platform of the courts of lsraelites and priests and of the house. were fastened into the wall of the enclosure. The o, B.J. v. v. 2. 8 BJ IV. ix. 12; see PINNACLE. y i. 3. 8 Ant, xv. xi. 5. a Loc. cit. 5. & BJ II. xix. 5, vi. iv. 1. m Loc. cit. 0 "Tºo (or "to 7). n Jos. BJ v. v. 2.; Midd. ii. 8. 714 TEMPLE TEMPLE and embankment round the sacred place. Whoever is caught will be answerable for his death, which will ensue.” This illustrates Ac 21*, when St. Paul almost lost his life. The inner court was surrounded by a wall 40 cubits high on the out- side, and on the inside but 25, owing to the raised ground inside. From the lower ground to the higher there were five steps. Gates.—This wall had nine gates—four on the north, four on the south, and one on the east. The west had no gate at all. They had all of them folding doors, covered with gold and silver.a. Of the four on the north side three were in the men's court (5), and one in the women’s (4). Three of the north gates were called Nitzius, the Gate of Offering, and the Makad. On the south we read of the Flaming Gate, the Gate of Offering, and the Water Gate. The last opened upon the altar, and appears to have been a continuation of the Huldah Gate. The gate on the east was much more costly than the rest, and it is probably the ‘Gate Beauti- ful” of Ac 3*, and ‘Nicanor's gate’ of the Mishna.8 It was made of Corinthian brass. Between the women's court and the men's there was a gate larger than the others, led to by fifteen steps, at the top of which was the level of the men's º It was thickly overlaid with silver and gold. Büchler 2 º ably that this is the Nicanor gate of the Mishna. Midd. i. 4, as all admit, states that ; but it is argued by Schürer,? Grätz, 5 Spiess, & Nowack,” and most, that it is the gate on the east of the women's court that is meant by the above name. Büchler admits that Josephus is against him ; but he charges the Jewish historian with inaccuracy, and calls the Talmud to his aid in proving this." Bichiº's view is bound up with another position, which he also defends with ability,0 viz., that the wall of the inner court shut out the women's court altogether, as being part of the court of the Gentiles ; the Nicanor gate being, then, that one at the east of the men's court through which one passed into the inner gate. Keil also speaks of the inner court as being reached by a gate at the western end of the women's court. But this is, as üchler admits, against the common view, which is supported by Schürer, x and Nowack, A and the received text of Josephus. Nicanor's gate—assuming the usual view—was 56 cubits high and 40 broad, the others that led out of the lower court being 30 high and 40 broad. Round the walls of the court there ran porticoes with a single piazza, the roof of which rested on lofty and highly-finished pillars. These porticoes were less indeed, but not less beautiful, than the porticoes of the outer court. Between the gates there were cells for storing the various properties belonging to the temple: these are called by Josephus a yałogºw\ákva. V Concerning the special purposes of these rooms see Now.op. cit. ii. 79 n. 2. There were upper rooms over the gateways, hence justifying Josephus’ description of them as tower- shaped. The cells between the gates had also upper rooms; hence we read of the upper room of Bet-Abtinas.; Somewhere within the women's court would be placed the thirteen boxes for re- ceiving contributions to the temple. At least one must have been in the women's court, else the widow (Lk 21*) could not have put in her mite. See TREASURY. According to Midd. ii. 5, there were four cells in the women's court, but both Schürer and Now. think this unlikely. The inner court was divided into an eastern part, into which women were admitted as well as , a. They were the gift of a Jew from Alexandria. 8 Midd. i. 3. y J QR, Oct. 1898. 8 Riehnn’s II WB2 1606b. s Momatssch. 1876, 434. & Das Jerusalemn des Josephus, p. 76. . . . m Op. cit. ii. p. 78. 0 JQIr, July 1808. , Op. cit. i. p. 190. But he is inconsistent, for in the previous page (Eng. ed.) he says the inner court went around the women's court, and he takes the view that Nicanor's gate was on the east of the women's court. 2 Richm, II WB2 1666b. £, B.J. v. v. 2, vi. v. 2. & 1 omna i. 5; T'am, i. 1. x Op. cit. ii. 78. y See Tir EA8URY. * men, and a larger western portion, which included the men's court and the priests’ court. The house and the altar were in the latter, and were sur- rotunded by its rampart. Just as the whole inner court was separated from the outer, and within the inner the men's was shut off from the women’s, so the remainder was subdivided into a larger part for priests only. The men's court was 11 cubits wide, and surrounded the priests' court on all four sides.a. The Mishna, however, appears to reduce the space for men to 11 cubits on the east alone. The altar and all the arrangements for sacrificing, as well, of course, as the house itself, were in the priests’ court. The house.—The higher ground of the house was attained by means of twelve steps. The inside area was 60 cubits high and the same in length, by 20 cubits in breadth. There Were, as in the other temples, two divisions—-the hékāl or Holy Place, 8 which was 40 cubits long, and the débir or Most Holy Place, which was 20 cubits long. This last was empty, and was entered by the high priest once a year, viz. on the Day of Atonement. The hākāl or larger room had in it the following:—Table of shewbread, y_altar of incense, the seven-armed lampstand.6. The altar stood in the middle, between the temple walls : to its north was the table, and the lanpstand was on its south.e Only the officiating priests were per- mitted to enter the hākāl, to bring in the incense morning and evening, to trim the lamp, which was done once a day, and to supply the table with fresh shewbread, which was done every Sabbath. The porch was 100 cubits in both height and breadth, and 11 cubits deep. It stood, therefore, like a high wall in front of the house. The breadth of the house, including its surrounding chambers, being 70 cubits, the porch projected 15 cubits on each side.” There was an entrance to the porch 40 cubits high and 20 broad. There was, however, no door. Above the entrance Herod placed a golden eagle, which as a Roman emblem was very distasteful to the Jews; and during a turnoil, some time before the king's death, it was destroyed. I’rom the entrance of the porch the hékál door, gilded like the court gates, could be easily seen. It was adorned with carvings of golden vines, with grapes, according to Josephus, as large as a man.0 Tacitus also speaks of this VII) (2. l. Veil.–In front of the hākāl door there hung a beautifully coloured Babylonian veil. The hākāl was shut off by a veil or veils, but there was no wall, nor therefore any door, leading into the débir. According to the Mishna, k there were two veils between the hākāl and the débir, with a cubit's free space between them. The outer was loose on the south side, the inner being loose on the north. On the Day of Atonement the high priest entered the débir with his censer by passing to the south side and getting behind the outer veil, until he reached the north of the inner veil, where he was able to enter the débir. In the NT this veil is spoken of in the singular, the two º being looked upon as one.) The veil outside the door of the hākāl is never referred to in the NT. See VEIL. Light.—No natural light came into the house from roof or side wall : it depended, for what light it had, upon the lampstand. Chambers. —On all sides except the east, whé ré o, Jos. B.J. v. v. 6; cf. Amt. viii. iii. 9, XIII. xiii. 5. g Not called ‘the Holy Place’ in the sources. y See Siirºw BREAD, TABLE OF. 3 See LAMPSTAND, 6 Cf. Ex 2635 4022-20. & See below. * Twenty, according to Josephus. Ü Josephus says 70 cubits high by 25 broad. 1 A mm. v. 5. x l'oma V. l. 2. See Mt, 2701 || Mk 1538 || Lk 2340. - TEMPLE TEMPLE 715 {A the º: was, there were small channbers in which temple utensils were kept and priests re- sided. They were thirty - eight in number, and arranged in three storeys, in such a way that on the north there were five on each storey, making fifteen on that side : on the south there were also five on each storey. On the west there were three on the lowest and three on the middle storey, two being on the top. The three storeys reached, together, the same height as the house. The main entrance was on the N.E. of the house, where a small door communicated directly from the porch with the nearest chamber. From this chamber there was a stairway leading to the upper and middle storeys. This stairway was erected at the N.E. corner; just opposite, on the S.E. corner, there was an arrangement for carrying off the water. Above the house proper there was an upper room 40 cubits high, and of the same ground area as the louse itself. The entire building, including the intervening wall and the ceiling, attained a height of 100 cubits, i.e. exactly that of the porch. The * I’OOI]] had on the south a door leading upon the roof of the upper chambers on that side. By means of the stairs on the N.E. the top chambers could be reached. Passing round from N.W. to S. one came to the door leading into the top room of the house. In the floor of this upper room there were trap- doors, through which workmen were let down in boxes, that they might not be able to see any part of the house except where they were repairing. Including the side chambers, the house had a width of 70 cubits, which is thus made up— 1. Wall of stairway . tº gº ( : . 5 cubits. 2. Stairway . e & º º tº • 8 , , 3. Wall of chamber . ū © e • 5 , , 4. Chamber itself * * & ſº • 0 , , 5. Wall of house . º t o tº • 6 , , 6. Space within the house . * * . 20 , , 7. Wall of house . * e º • 0 , , 8. Chamber , g & † e • 6 , , 9. Its wall . e tº º g * • 6 , , 10. Room for letting off water . {} • 3 , 11. Wall behind . tº t º ſº • 5 , , Total . & . 70 cubits. Altar of burnt - offering. – In the east of the priests’ court, immediately in front of the porch, was the altar of burnt-offering made of unhewn stone. It was larger than Solomon’s altar, it being, according to the Rabbis, 32 cubits in length and §readth, and 10 cubits high. Josephus, how- ever, gives 15 cubits as length and as breadth. The length and breadth given above are for the base, for it rose in three sections, so that at the top it formed a square of 24 cubits. According to Lv 69, fire was to be always burning on the altar. On the east of the altar there was a stairway of unhewn stone leading up to the altar : it was 32 cubits long and 16 broad. Altar and steps were whitewashed twice in the year, viz. at Passover and Tabernacles.a. In the S.W. corner of the altar there were two holes for receiving the sacrificial blood, which passed thence to a passage in the ground, by which it was conveyed to the kidron. Close by there was a marbled opening, down which men went to cleanse the channel along which the blood ran to the Kidron. Between the altar and the house there was a space of 22 cubits, taken up largely by the twelve steps which led up to the porch. South of these steps there was a laver or wash-basin, in which priests washed their hands and feet. It was sup- plied through two pipes from the temple spring : these two pipes were increased to twelve at a later time by a certain ben Katin, who also made arrangements by which the water could be regu- larly renewed.6 North (8) of the altar the sacrificial animals were slain, and to aid in this there were six rows of rings, four in each row, all fixed in the ground. The animals that had to be killed were attached first of all to these rings, and then despatched. Still farther north there were eight low pillars with boards on them, each board having three rows apiece of iron hooks from which the animals after death were suspended. The spot would look much like a butcher's shop. By the side of these pillars there were eight marble tables on which the slain animals were flayed, washed, etc., ready for the altar, a & Priests’ Court.-No one except a priest was usually permitted to enter the priests’ court, which was regarded as more sacred than the men's court. Yet lay Israelites were allowed admission when they had sacrifices to offer, that they might, according to the ritual, lay their hands on the victim.8 As before stated, this court was bounded all round, and not merely on the east by the nen's court, which was 11 cubits broad. The temple police. — The charge of the sacred enclosure was in the hands of the priests and Levites. The head of police—the captain of the temple y—held so dignified a position that he was ranked with the chief priests. The entire external arrangements of the temple were under his autho- rity. We read in Mark 6 and Lukee of “rulers of the temple,’ who were subordinates of ‘the captain.” The guardianship of the temple was entrusted mainly to Levites, but partly also to priests. By day they were to see that no one overstepped the boundary beyond which he had no right to go, e.g. Gentiles had to be kept out of the inner court, women out of the men's, laymen out of the priests’, and non-officiating priests out of the house ; the débir to be entered but once a year, and even then by the high priest only. By might the gates were all shut, and none were allowed within except priests and Levites, who were stationed at differ- ent points. Three places of the inner court were guarded by priests; at twenty-one positions Levites kept watch, especially at the various gates. Dur- ing the whole night the captain walked around to see that each was at his post. If the guard did not immediately arise on the captain's approach, the captain exclaimed, “Peace to you.’ If the guard were asleep the captain would strike him with a stick, and he had the right even to set fire to his clothes. Each day the guards were changed, those who followed receiving the keys from their predecessors at mid-day. The senior of the men in charge kept the key of the court, in which the men were sentry, in a hole covered by a marble slab, to the under side of which was fastened a chain : the key was attached to this chain. When the time came to close the gates, the marble slab was lifted and the key taken : the Yriests locked the inner court, replacing the key in the usual place. On the slab under which the key was, the guard in charge laid his clothes, and on them lay down to sleep.m. How many were at one time in charge of the enclosure we do not know, but according to Josephus 200 men were appointed for the gates alone. For the fate which befell the temple in the last years of its existence, reference must be made to the histories of Josephus, Grätz, and others. See, especially, short but striking accounts in Cornill, History of the People of Israel, 9 and Cheyne, J.R.L. v Already, in the days of Archelaus, the courts of the temple became the scene of revolt and o, Midd iii. 1–4. A Yoma iii. 10. & Midd. iii. 5, v. 2; Tamm. iii. 5; Shek. vi. 4. (3 Kelim, i. 8. y Ac 41 524-26. X 522. 6 S-40. w Midd. i. 9. & Jos. c. A pion. ii. 8. a New York and London, 1898. 0 Chicago, 1898. 716 TEMPT, TEMPTATION TENDER bloody massacres.a. During the last Jewish revolt the most horrid scenes were witnessed. In A. D. 70 Roman soldiers were in possession of the fortress of Antonia, close to the enclosure. One of them, though contrary to the wish of Titus the emperor, threw a firebrand into the house itself, which took ſire and burned to the ground. Thus perished the last of the Jerusalem temples. All of them were built by a people feeble politically, in art and in literature (except religious) despised ; yet these temples are better known, and their records more fully preserved, than is the case with any #. ancient temple, Egyptian, Assyriam, or Il (118.Il. LITERATURE.-(A) JEWISH WRITINGS.—Josephus, Ant. xv. xi., BJ v. v. ; cf. Spiess, Der Tempel zw Jerusalem mach Jose- º 1880; the Mishnic tract. Middoth ; cf. Rabbi Hildersheim, ie Beschreibwng des Herod’s Tempel im Tractat Middot wºnd bei Flavius Josephus (‘Jahreshericht des Rabbiner-Seminars für das Orthodox Judenthum,’ Berlin, 1876–77). There is a good edition of Middoth (no Gemara has been handed down) with Latin tr. and Com. by L'Empereur (Lugd. Bat. . . . . 1630, Small 4to). See also Sureuhusius' Mishna. Maimonides, in part vi. of his npin T', gives the Rabbinical traditions regarding the temple, its furniture, priests, etc. This was put into Latin by Ludwig Compiègne, and is found in vol. viii. of Ugolinus' Antiquitates Hebraicae. Monographs on the temple have been written in Hebrew by O. Altschul (Amst. 1724) and others, but none of them are of much importance. (B) CHRISTIAN WI&ITINGS.—Of the older treatises by Christian writers the following are noteworthy :—Willalpando and Prado, In Ezech. 3 vols. 1005; Capellus, Touardºtov Sive Triplea: Templi Delimatio (Amst. 1643; also included in the Introd. to the London Polyglot); Lamy, de Tabernaculo Foederis, de Sancta Civitate Jerusalem et de Templo ejus (Paris, 1720); Lightfoot (Dr. John), Descr. Templi Hieros. (Eng. in vol. ix, of Pitman's edition of his works in English ; also published separately, Lond. 1825), -Lightfoot uses the IRabbinical material, but deals mainly with the temple of Herod; Lund, Die alten Jüd. Heiligthilmer, Hamb. 1695, blº. ii. (several other editions). For a detailed recital of the older literature see Winer, It WB 3, 8. ‘Tempel,' and Bāhr, Der Tempel Salomo's. The following are the most important modern treatises : — Hirt, Der T'ennpel Salomo's, Berlin, 1809 (strong on the architectural side, but 'deficient in Biblical scholarship);...J. Fr. von Meyer, Der Tennp. Salom., Berlin, 1830; Stieglitz, Gesch. der Baukumst, Nürn. 1827, p. 127 ff., Beiträge zur Awsbildung der Bawkunst, Leipz. 1834; Bähr, Der Temp. Sal. 1848; Keil, Der Temp. Sal., º, 1839 (critical and constructive, valuable), Biblical Archaeology, T, and T. Clark, i. 162 f.; Robinson, BRP (1841) i. 415 ft. ; G. Williams, The Holy City (1849), ii. 296ff. ; Fergus- son, Essay on the Ancient Topography of Jerusalem, 1847, The Holy Sepulchre and the ºff. 1865, The Temples of the Jews, 1875, art. ‘Temple’ in SImith's DB (Fergusson's fanciful views as to the site of the temple, etc., have failed to win con- viction except to a very limited extent); Warren, The Temple and the Tonb, 1880, T'SBA vii. 309 f. (in both he answers the arguments of Fergusson); T. H. Lewis, The Holy Places of Jerusalem, 1880; Th. Friedrich, Tempel w. Palast Salom. etc., Innsb. 1887; O. Wolff, Der Tempel von Jerusalem wºnd seime Maase, 1887; Stade, Gesch. i. 311 ff. (the author, an acknowledged Biblical scholar, was aided by his colleague von IRitgen, professor of architecture); Perrot et Chipiez, Le Temple de Sol., Paris, 1889, large folio, with fine diagrams; History of Art in Sardinia, Judaea, etc., London, 1890, i. 142 f.; Conrad Schick, Die Stiftshiitte der Tempel in Jerus. whd der Tempel- platz der jetz. Zeit, Ber. 1896 (by an architect; the scholarship is weak, and proof references almost wholly wanting, though the constructions and plans are good). In addition to the older treatises on Biblical Archaeology by Jahn (in English also), de Wette (4th and last edition improved by Räbiger, 1864), Allioli, and Keil º: also Spencer, de Legibus, Dissertatio Seata), note particularly the works by Benzinger and Nowack, both issued in 1894, and based on the latest results. Nowack's work is the fuller, but Benzinger's the more compact and interesting. See also the Commentaries and other works referred to in the course of this article. T. W. DAVIES. TEMPT, TEMPTATION.—The Heb. and Gr. words which are translated “tempt ' and “tempta- tion in EV have a range of meaning which covers every form of testing, or putting to the proof, whether of man by God or of God by man. The Heb, words rendered “tempt 'in AV are— 1, Nishūh, which signifles (1) to attempt to do a thing, as Dt 494 (EV ‘assay ’); (2) to test or prove a thing, such as a weapon, 1 S 1730 (EV “prove’); but chiefly (3) to test a person : in AV translated “tempt of God's testing Abraham, Gn 221 ; else- where of men faithlessly and provokingly putting God to the proof, Ex 172, 7, Nu 1422, Dt 610, Ps 7818, 41, 50 059 10014, Is 712. • Jos. Amt. XVII. ix. 8, x. 2. 2. Bāhan, synonymous in , meaning with missãh, but trans- lated “tempt' in AV only Mal 31°, of tempting God. In Mal 31 and a few other places it is translated “prove’ in AV and RV ; but most frequently the lºng. rendering is ‘try.” The only Heb. word translated “temptation’ is massāh (formed from missãh above), used of the testing by Jehovah, through signs and wonders, of the heart of Pharaoh and the Egyptians, Dt 484 719 208; and of the trial or testing of an innocent person, Job 928 (EV “trial”)—unless the word here comes from misas and means despair, RVm ‘calamity.’ The word is translated “temptation’, also in Ps, 958, but there the place Massah (so RW) seems to be intended, as in Ex 177, Dt 610 922 338. See art. MASS AII. The Greek words translated “tempt” are— 1. ºrspºo, which means (1) to attempt something, as Ao 020 167 (EW ‘assay’); (2) to test a person, without evil intent, as Jn 60, Rev 22; (3) to tempt to evil, as Mt 41, 1 Co 1018, Ja 119. 14. On this verb see Cremer, s. v. ; Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, 71 f.; Kennedy, Sources of NT Greek, 106 f. For the distinction between r. and 3oxi/zºw see Trench, NT Sym. 267 ff.; also Cremer, 8. rupcºw, and Berry, 8, 3oxiwáčw. The devil is called ‘the tempter’ (3 rup &ow) in Mt 48, i Th 35. 2. ixºraipºol, to put to the proof, or test. (a) God, Mt 47, Lk 412; (b) Christ, Lk 1020, 1 Co 109—all translated “tempt' in EV, Amer. RW always “try.” 3. In Ja 118 &ºrsipocorro; º occurrence) is translated by the verb “tempt”—“God cannot he tempted (literally, “is untempt- able') with evil,' RVnn “is untried in evil.” The only Greek word translated “temptation' is arºup&op06s, which is the translation in the LXX of massāh everywhere except Dt 338 (ITsipo.) and Job 923 (where a different reading is followed). This word is used in NT for (1) a testing or proving, as 1 P 412 (EV “trial } He 38, or that which tests or proves a erson, as Gal 414; (2) enticement to sin, as Mt. 619, Lk 413 818, a 112, 1 Co 1018; and (3) of affliction or calamnity, due to perse- cution or other trial from without, as Lk 2228, Ac 2019, Ja 12, 1 P 16. On this word see Hatch, Essays, 71 f.; Mayor on Ja 12, and his Com. 183 ff.; Hort on 1 P 10 ; Swete on Mk 1438. About 1611 the Eng. words “tempt' and “tempta- tion' were used almost as widely as those Heb. and Gr. words, the only difference being that the verb had ceased to mean ‘to attempt.” Examples (outside AV) of “tempt in the sense of “test,’ ‘put to the proof,’ without evil intent, are Jn 6", W. “But, }. said this thing, temptynge hym ; for he wiste what he was to do ’; Dt 13° 'l'ind. ‘For the Lorde thy God tempteth you, to wete whether ye love the Lord youre God with all youre hertes and with al youre soules’; Dt 8°, in Wilson’s Christian Pº (1611), ‘tempting thee that hee might know what is in thy heart.” In the same sense is “temptation' used in 1 P 4” Rhem. ‘My deerest, thinke it not strange in the fervour which is to you for a tentation, as though some new thing happened to you.’ And in the allied sense of trial, affliction, we find “temptation 'em- ployed by Tymme in Calvin's Genesis, p. 717, “But this also was a moste greevous temptation, to be banished from the promised lande, even unto death '; and p. 815, ‘This was a verie sore tempta- tion, that holie Jacob, of whome the Lorde had taken care, shoulde almoste he and his perish with hunger.’ See also Driver on Dt 6" and in Par. Psalt., Gloss. i. under ‘Prove.’ J. HASTINGS. TEN COMMANDMENTS.–See DECALOGUE. TENDER.—The adj. “tender’ is somewhat more restricted in use now than formerly. Probably under the influence of the Biblical “tender mercies,” it has become mostly figurative, and is chiefly used in a good sense. We might still speak of diamonds as “tender' with Maundeville (Travels, 106, ‘Other diamonds men find in Arabia that be not so good, and they be more brown and more tender'); but we should not speak of Wax So, as Wyclif does (Select Works, iii. 103, ‘The tendre wez maketh no preynte in the Seel, bot the Seel maketh a preynt in tendere wez'). The meaning in AV is usually “soft,’ ‘delicate,’ used of children (Gn 33°); gently nurtured youths (1 Ch 22° 29', Pr4°), men (I)t 28°4, Is 471), and women (Dt 280°); also of herbs (Dt 32°, Job 38”), plants (Is 53°), grass (2 S 23", Pr 27*, Dn 41% ºy, grapes (Ca, 2*, * 7”), branches (Mt 24*, Mk 13*) in spring. In 2 Ch 137 Relioboam is called “tender hearted TENT TENT 717 (nº-in, LXX Seixos ri kapāta, Vulg. corde pavido), a phrase which has now quite a different meaning. The modern meaning is found in Eph 4” (efforträaºx- vos). In Gn 29" we read that ‘Leah was tender eyed' (nºn ris? 'Py); LXX ol 6& 340a)\!wol Aetas do 6evets, Vulg. scd Lia lippis erat occulis), where the Heb. as well as the Eng. probably means that Leah’s eyes were weak (not ‘bleared as Vulg.), and so, as Dillmann and others suggest, “without brightness or brilliancy of lustre.’ See LEAH. The Heb. word D'ºù valuđmnim (in this sense always plu.) is translated occasionally in AV “tender mergies’ (Ps 250 4011 511 6910 779 79° 103* 1197: 100 145", Pr 1219). The sing. “tender mercy” occurs in NT, Lk 178 (air)4)xva), Ja, 5* “The Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy' (olkTippov, RV * merciful ?). The verb ‘to tender’ in the sense of ‘care for’ occurs in 2 Mac 4” “Thus was he bold to call him a traitor, that had deserved well of the city, and tendered his own nation ' (Töv kmöep,0wa Tův ôuoeóvãv). Cf. Cranmer, Works, i. 136, “But to be plain what I think of the Bishop of Winchester, I cannot persuade with my self that he so much tendereth the king's cause as he doth his own ; Latimer, Sermoms, 96, “How God tendreth and regardes the cause of the widdow and the poore.’ The verb in this sense is a direct derivative from the adj. (which is from Lat. tener, through Fr. tendre), not the same as the verb to tender (fr. Lat. tendere, through Fr. tendre), meaning to proffer, show. J. HASTINGS. TENT.-ºns (otkos, a knvī) is the word commonly used for ‘tent”; AV often ‘ tabernacle,’ but It V con- sistently “tent.’ Tºp (a knvii) “ habitation,’ is usu- ally rendered “tabernacle,” only once (Ca, 1°) ‘tent.’ l'or distinction between ºns and ºn see art. TABERNACLE. Tºp– ‘booth’ made by interweaving leaves and º once (2 S llll) AV ‘tent (RW ‘booth,’ LXX orkmw%) and AV m (1 K 201* * It Vm “lut ’). According to the Rabbis, a booth becomes a tent if a bit of cloth is spread over it to protect it from the sun, or stretched under the roof to lº leaves and twigs from falling on the table (Succah i. 3). , Tºp (Kápavos) from [Hiſ] ‘ to hollow out,’ is once in AV tr. ‘tent (Nu 25° RV ‘pavilion,” marg. ‘alcove’; cf. Arab. Kubbah “a large vaulted tent,’ also “dome,” “vault,’ whence, with the art., through the Spanish, “alcove,' orig. a vaulted recess). From H.T. (trapeuéâ\\w) “to en- camp,’ AV ‘to abide in tents’ (Nu 9*.*, Ezr 8”), comes nymp ‘camp' (LXX &relytotos), tr. by AV “tents’ in Nu 13° etc.; in each case IRV cor- rects. We may safely take the modern tent as closely resembling that of ancient times. No simpler dwelling can well be imagined. The tent-cover is rough, strong cloth of dark goats’ hair. It is commonly supported by nine poles arranged in rows of three ; the middle row lengthwise, is somewhat higher, measuring from 6 to 7 ft. : the roof therefore slopes to front and back. The cover is stretched, and the tent held in position by means of long cords fastened to the cloth, and attached to pins firmly driven into the ground. A curtain of the same material, but rather Tighter, is hung round the more exposed side of the tent, to shelter from sun and wind. A similar curtain, drawn across the middle, fixed on the tent-poles, divides the tent, the one end forming the men's apartment, the other that of the women (núſ, cf. Arab. khidr). Very seldom, and that only in cases of considerable wealth, the women have a tent to themselves. The making, pitching, striking, packing, and unpacking of the tents is all women's work. They spin the hair yarn, twist the cords, and weave the **** cloth in long narrow strips, with very primitive appliances. To form roof or curtain, these strips are sewn together to the required breadth. The greatest care is taken with the roof. When it has been used for a little, and is somewhat shrunken, it becomes quite waterproof, and will turn the heaviest rain. Sometimes cloth for the roof is bought by way of barter, from such villages as Khabab, in el-Lejà, or Judeideh, overlooking Merj A'yūn, which are famous for their hair manufac. tures. To excel in skilful driving home of the tent-pegs is an immemorial ambition among Arab WOIYACI). The furniture of this ‘house' or ‘house of hair? (bait, bait shar, or, less frequently, bait wabar) is extremely simple. In a few tents of the rich ma be found cushions and mattresses covered with coloured silk ; but for the most part a couple of coarse straw mats serve the purposes of chairs and table by day, and bed by night. A circle of thin leather, about 2 ft. in diameter, drawn into a sort of bag by means of a thong passed through holes round the edge, contains the thin loaves baked in the desert, and is spread flat on the ground at meal- time. The lamp (anciently of clay) or lantern is now generally of tin, made by Jewish travelling tinkers, from empty petroleum cans. Clay ware is too brittle to be of much use. Usuallv each tent has a metal plate, flat or convex, for baking; a few pots or pans for cooking, the food being enten from the dish in which it is cooked ; perhaps a hand-mill; and if the owner make any pretensions to dignity, mortar and pestle; and the necessary utensils for roasting the beans and making coffee. The fireplace may be a few stones set loosely to- gether, or a hole in the ground just at the edge of the tent. Goat-skins, half tanned, with the hail outward, are made into bags, which hold grain, water, butter-milk, and other liquids; and when swung on a tripod serve to churn butter. The butter is always melted at once, and is carried about in these skins. The saddles of horse and camel, with corresponding saddle-bags of rough hair cloth, complete the tent furniture. Most things are crowded together in the women’s apart- ment ; that of the men is always free for the re- ception and entertainment of guests. When the tents are few in number, belonging to some small family or division, they are set in a circle; the sheikh's tent is that to the right of the entrance. In larger camps the order varies. One visited by the present writer contained upwards of 150 tents, and from a distance resembled a town of black-roofed houses, arranged in irregular streets, The sheikh's tent is distinguished from the others only by its greater size. It always faces the direction from which strangers are most likely to arrive. The black tents of the nomads have flitted shadow-like over Syrian field and Arabian steppe from the dawn of human history. The ancieut fathers of the Hebrew race dwelt in tents (He 11° etc.). Their wealth consisted mainly in cattle. The tent, so easily portable, is by far the most convenient ‘house’ for the flock-master, who is ever on the move in search of fresh pasture. After the settlement in Palestine, those portions of the people who followed the herdsman’s life continued to dwell in tents, e.g. those east of the Jordan who held the grazing lands towards the desert. This old form of life left its impress in the language of later times, e.g. yo), where the root-idea is the pulling out of the tent-pegs. When the tent-life was long past, men still spoke of going home as going ‘to their tents’ (Jos 22", 2 S 20', 1 K 12"). The tent and its appurtenances play a considerable part in sacred imagery. I'leeting life is like the shepherd's tent, here to-day, gone 7IS TEPHON TEREBINTH to-morrow (Is 38”). When the cord gives way the tent collapses; hence the tent-cord as a figure of the thread of life (Job 4*). The secure city is a tent whose pegs cannot be plucked up, nor its cords broken (Is 33°). Prosperous growth is pictured as a lengthening of the cords and a strengthening of the stakes (Is 54*). See also in NT 2 Co 5” “, 2P 118. 14, Lk 169. On tent-making see, further, art. HAIR, vol. ii. p.285", and PAUL, vol. iii. p. 699". W. E.WING. TEPHON (# Tepúv; Thopo ; Syr. Tephus).-One of the towns in Judaea fortified by Bacchides (1 Mac 9”). Josephus gives the name as Tochoa (Toxod, Amt. XIII. i. 3), which is suggestive of Tekoa. ; but he always writes this place 6ekòa, or €ekwé. Tephon was probably an old Tappuah; but whether it was Tappuah 1 or 2, or Beth-tappuah, is uncertain. The occurrence of the name with Timnath and Pharathon suggests Tappuah 2. See TIMNATH. C. W. WILSON. TERAH (nº, 9áppa and 0épa).—The father of Abraham, Nahor, and Haran, Gn 11**, 1 Ch 1°, Lk 3*. Along with his three sons he is said to lmave migrated from Ur of the Chaldees to Harran, where he died. In Jos 24° it is said that he ‘served (Tay) other gods,” a statement which gave rise to some fanciful Jewish haggūdāth about Terah as a anakºr of idols (see, e.g., Bereshith rabba, § 17, and cf. Bk. of Jubilees, chs. 11. 12). The question whether Terall is to be taken as a personal name is involved in the same uncertainty as arises in con- nexion with the names of all the patriarchs (see art. Al3+AHAM, and esp. art. JACOB, vol. ii. p. 533 ff.). Knollel compares the name with Tharrama, south of Edessa. W. R. Smith makes Teral = ‘wild goat' as totem, comparing Syriac L-52, to which Frol. Delitzsch (Prolegom. 80) adds Assyr. tur&hat with same meaning [but see ZDMG xl, [1886] 167 f. (where Nöld. points out not only that || >54 in the passage quoted is an error for the correct Leoš2, but also that the root is rins, of which in Heb, the N would not be readily elided); cf. Gray, HPN 110]. Jensen (ZA vi. 70, cf. Hittiter, 150 f.) thinks it may be the name of a god, comparing the first syllable of N. Syrian or Hittite personal names, such as Tarkular, Tarhumazi, etc. (cf. Mez, Gesch. d. Stadt Harram, 23). Any of these explanations }}}; preferable to that suggested in Rielm, II. PVB 1478", that the name is to be accounted for because Terah remained behind (late Heb. tarah, Arain. tºral) in Harran, while Abraham journeyed farther. J. A. SELBIE. TERAH (nº ; B Tápa.0, A €4pat). —One of the stations of the Israelites in the desert (Nu 3327. 28). It comes between Tahath and Mithkah, and has not yet been identified. TERAPHIM (Dºn).--The word is plural accord- ing to its form. But its derivation, the purpose of that which it denoted, and the method of its use, still present many obscurities. Several of the older Jewish commentators derive the word from Tin, torºph, which means “foulness,’ and especially pudendum ; but, if this is correct, it is plausible to Sll |. that this word, expressive of contempt, was substituted for and finally supplanted the original name, in which case that name is entirely lost (cf. ngºa for 993). Among the numerous later derivations the one which most deserves consideration is that suggested by Schwally (Leben mach dem Tode, p. 36 n.), who connects the word with nº rāphah, a derivation which would bring it into contact with the réphºm or “shades” of Is 14. Teraphim are generally supposed to have been tº household deities (cf. Gn 3119, 1 S 1918. 1%, but see Ezk 21*). Hence it has for long been the habit to compare the reverence paid to them with that which was offered to the Lares and Penates in IRoman times. Further, almost every passage in which the word occurs in OT shows that their use was bound up with the practices of magic and soothsaying (cf. especially Ezk 21”). The above passage in Samuel makes it also certain that the figures sometimes represented the human form. It is unknown whether these were always full life- size. Thus, on the one hand, the fact that Michal could deceive the messengers from her father by leading them to believe that the muffled teraphim which she had laid on the bed was the figure of her husband, makes it probable that some were so. And, on the other hand, the fact that Rachel (Gn 31*) could hide those which she had stolen from Laban beneath her in the camel-litter, while her father searched the baggage for his lost pro- perty, is sufficient to prove that others were con- siderably smaller. Again, there is nothing in the incident with Michal to show conclusively whether such a figure represented the entire human form, or whether it was simply a head or at most a bust. Thus the suggestion of some among the Jewish commentators (see Moore, Comm. on Judges, p. 382) is not devoid of probability, viz. that the teraphim, at least in the early period, were mummied human heads, for which the refinement of later centuries substituted more or less rude representations in wood or in the precious metals. One might then bring their use (of which among the Hebrews we hear very little) into comparison with the customs of divination by means of such heads among the Hauranians (cf. Chwolsohn, Die Ssabier w, der SSabismus, ii. pp. 19 ft., 150 ft.). With great likeli- hood then do Stade (G VI i. p. 467) and Nowack (Heb. Archäol. ii. 23) consider that the teraphim came to represent the figures of ancestors, and make the º: of them a kind of Manes oracle. This would further make it easy to understand how their use was common to the Israelites and the Aramaeans (cf. Gn 35*, *), and how Nebuchad- nezzar is represented as resorting to this method of divination (Ezk 21*). And it would serve to explain, since they were used for oracular pur- poses, why in 2 K 23* they are set alongside ‘those who consult familiar spirits’ and ‘wizards.” The reverence paid them as household deities, and the fact that their use was common to all the nations of the region, make it more natural that, though the teraphim were abolished by Josiah, they re- appear during the years of the Exile (Zec 10°), And if we recognize that they were used for such oracular purposes, and were not honoured with Supreme worship, we can find it easier to under- stand how men who sincerely worshipped J" might not note the inconsistency of their pres- ence in their homes. See, further, art. Soo'TII- SAYING. It may be added that in Hos 34 and Jg 17." º are mentioned along with the ephod, as though they were in some way connected with that. It was an old suggestion by Spencer (De legibus Hebr. ritualibus, l. iii. diss. 7, sec. 2), that the Urim were of the same nature as, and even- tually took the place of, the teraphim. The LXX at Hos 3" reads ôňa for D'Eºn, and this may inply that the translator found in the Heb, text nºn-N. A. C. WELCH. TEREBINTH does not occur at all in AV, and only thrice in I&V, being substituted in Is 6” for ‘teil tree,” in Hos 419 for ‘ elm,’ and in Sir 241: for ‘turpentine tree.’ Strong reasons, however, can be urged (see the very full discussion in (;es. Thes, s.v.) for rendering by “terebinth ' when TEREBINTH TERTULLUS 719 tºmºsºs ever the Heb. is ºn [only in constr. 9"N and plur. D”8] or nºs or ºbs, and for reserving the tr. ‘ oak’ (by which these words are commonly rendered in §§ and RV)* for jº's [in Jos 24” rºs, unless, as is probable, we should read here nºs). See esp. Del. and Dillm. on Gn 12", cf. Oa:f. Heb. Leac. s.v.v., and note that in Hos 4* and Is 6* nº and jºs are clearly distinct. The references to the terebinth in Scripture would thus be the following : - (1) bºx : Is 1” “They shall be ashamed of the terebinths which ye have desired,’ 57" ‘ye that inflame yourselves among the terebinths,’ 61° ‘that they might be called terebinths : [prob. the figure is derived from the strength and durability of this tree] of righteousness,’ Ezk 31* ‘nor that their terebinths $ [perh, fig. of pride] stand up in their might.” ELIM, the * station of Israel after passing the Red Sea (Ex 15° 16', Nu 33" "), may have derived its name originally from the presence of terebinths, although latterly associ- ated more with palms. (2) Hºs: Gn 35 “the terebinth which was by Shechem,” Jos 24" [reading nºs for nºs] ‘ the teré- binth that was in the sanctuary of the LORD,' Jg 6** “the terebinth which was in Ophrah,’ 2 S 189. 19. 14 the terebinth in which Absalom was on- tangled, 1 K. 13" the terebinth under which the ‘man of God’ sat, 1 Ch 101* the terebinth in Jabesh under which the ashes of Saul and his sons were buried [this tree is called in 1 S 31* a tama- risk ||], Hos 4” (! ?s and Hynº) “they burn incense . . . under oaks and poplars and terebinths,” Ezk 6” “their idols . . . under every thick terebinth,’ Js lº Judah is to be “as a terebinth that withereth,’ 618 (I jºs) ‘as a terebinth and as an oak whose stock remaineth when they are felled. This tree gives its name to the Vale of ELAH (nºsº pry) 1 S iT* * 21900), and to ELAH Gn 36” (= EL-PARAN Gn 14", ELATH Dt 28, 2 K 14” 16°, and ELOTH 1 K 9°, 2 K 16%). In Gn 4921 we should probably tr. “Naphtali is a slender terebinth [reading Hºs for Hºs), the one who sends out Jeautiful tops’ [referring to the heroes and national leaders sprung from this tribe); so Dillm, and many modern com- mentators. For other suggested renderings, with their justifl- cation and the necessary textual emendations, see Gunkel (‘Naphtali is a nimble hind, which drops fine lambs,’ as an alternative to Dillm.'s rendering), Ball (‘Naphtali is a branch- ing vine that yieldeth comely fruit'), Hommel (‘Naphtali is a hind let loose, which drops he-goat lambs,’ i.e. which has a nunnerous male progeny [Eagos. Times, Oct. 1900, p. 46b). (3) ºbs: Gn 12" (so Dt 1180) ‘the terebinth of MoREH' (‘director’s terebinth'), 1318 141° 18' ‘the terebinths of MAMRE,’ Jg 4” “the terebinth in ZAAN ANNIM' (cf. Jos 19* [reading jºbs not pºs] ‘the terebinth of BEZAAN ANNIM'), 99 “the terc- binth of the pillar that was in Shechem' (see art. PILLAR [PLAIN OF THE]), 997 ‘the terebinth of MEONENIM’ (‘soothsayers' terebinth'), l S 10° ‘the terebinth of Tabor’ [where it is possible that we should read Thai ‘ of Deborah’]. The terebinth is repeatedly (see, amongst above passages, esp. Gn 12° 35", Jos 24*, Jg 6.1. 19, Is 1” 57”, Hos 4”, Ezk 6*) mentioned in connexion with Canaanitish or Israelitish religious rites (see art. SANCTUARY, p. 395”). The tr. ‘terebinth' we * The distinction between the Heb. terms is no more main- tained in the LXX than in the EV. Cf. the conspectus of renderings in art, OAR. # In many of these passages RV m gives “terebinth.” : AV and RV poorly ‘trees of righteousness,' LXX yºvsz, buzzloorávº, Vulg. [taking from a different 9°N) fortes justitia. § AV ‘trees,' RW (talking from a different 9°N) “mighty ones.’ The text is very doubtful ; Cornill strikes out Enºs : for Com- jectural enendations see Bertholet and Kraetzschmar, ad loc. | It is possible that the Chronicler may have substituted nºs for ºys as being a less distinctively sacred tree marking a shrine. have contended for is supported by the circum- stance that this tree was less common in Palestine than the oak and would thus be better suited to mark a locality, while the higher age it attains would cause it to be esteemed as more sacred. The terebinth (Pistachia terebinthus, L.) grows in Palestine to the height of 15–17, rarely 20, feet. It has a thick gnańed trunk, numerous long branches with slender twigs, feathery leaves with 7 oval lanceolate leaflets, which are at first of a reddish, but afterwards of a glossy dark-green colour. In Palestine the tree is deciduous, being an evergreen only in more southern latitudes. The male and female flowers grow ul on different trees, the fruit consists of small oval berries which are produced in grape-like clusters. Turpentine of a very pure quality may be obtained by making incisions in the stem and branches, and collecting the resin which exudes. In modern Palestine this practice appears to be ul.1known (Rob. BRP” ii. 222 f.). J. A. SELBIE. TERESH (1975).-A chamberlain of Alhasuerus, who along with BIGTHAN formed a plot against the king, which was foiled by Mordecai, Est 22, (BAN on., N** * *P 0ápas) 6” (BAN om., Nº.” ing Góppas). It is possible that the name should be read win, i.e. 'Theudas (see Willrich, Judaica, p. 19). He is called in Ad. Est 12, THARRA. TERTIUS (Téptuos). — The amanuensis through whose agency St. Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans. In Ito 16” he joins iºniº in sending his greetings. St. Paul seems to have generally written by means of an amanuensis, adding just a few words at the end (1 Co 16*, Col 418, 2 Th 317) in his own hand, by way of authentication, per- haps written in large and bold characters (Gal 6"). In the case of the Epistle to the Romans he prob- ably added the concluding doxology (16**7). It is an interesting subject of speculation how far the employment of different amanuenses who wrote out their shorthand notes may have influenced the style of different epistles or groups of epistles (see Sanday - Headlam, Romans, Introduction, p. lx). A. C. HEADLAM. TERTULLUS.—The name is a diminutive from Tertius, as Lucullus from Lucius, etc. It is thoroughly Latin, and occurs in the 2nd cent. as agmomen of Pliny’s colleague Cornutus, and as a cogmomen borne by Flavii and by Sulpitii. In Ac 24 Ananias arrives at Caesarea to accuse Paul before Felix, accompanied by certain elders, “and, as pleader (ºrwp), one Tertullus.’ Tertullus was doubtless one of the Italian causidºci who abounded in the provinces. The proceedings, even in the inferior court of a mere procurator like Felix, would probably be in Latin (Smith's Dict. Gr. and Rom. Antiq., s. “Conventus’; yet see Schürer, HJP II. i. 50; Lewin, ii. 684) and conducted under Roman forms, requiring the services of a pro- fessional advocate. Tertullus was not a Jew, as Blass needlessly infers from his use of the first )erson plural. The advocate naturally identifies |...} with his clients. Tertullus’ speech begins with a characteristic captatio benevolentia. He gives to Felix the coveted praise of Pacator pro- vincia (v.”), and welcomes the reforming hand of the governor, present at every place and in every matter (v."); whereas Tacitus remarks of Felix (Amm. xii. 54), “intempestiuis remediis delicta accendebat’ (cf. Hist. v. 9). These singularly gross compliments, evidently condensed by Luke, cul- minate in a subtler turn : Tertullus hints (v.") that they must be distasteful to so modest a man. The body of the speech is evidently, in its uninter- polated form, a mere jotting by Luke, who may 720 TESTAMENT TESTAMENT have been present (2017 271), of the heads of the accusation. But these are carefully preserved : Paul is (1) a stirrer up of a Tägets, (2) the ring- leader of a sect, and (3) guilty of an attempt to profane the temple. The charges are most skilfully chosen, Felix, with his experience (v.”) of Jewish affairs, would realize how dangerous such a prisoner was to the peace of his province, Tertullus is a competent counsel, and knows his 118.Il. The grammar of the speech is dislocated, the participle of v. 15 has no j Fº verb; the interpolated passage only partially supplies this defect. Cases of broken, construction are somewhat frequent in the speeches of the latter part of Acts: see 2418ſ. 262. 10, 28. (an obvious condensation)28. The author had not worked up his drafts into their final form, or at . rate the finishing touches were not given. A more remark- able example of this may be found in the eighth book of .*. where all the speeches are left in the form of rough abstrac On fanciful etymologies suggested for the name (reparoxöyos, Ter-Tullius) see Basil Jones in Smith's DB, s.v. A. ROBERTSON. TESTAMENT.—This word does not occur in the EV of the OT ; and, whereas in the AV of the NT it occurs 13 times, this number is reduced to 2 in the RV by the substitution of “coyenant' in ll places. In the NT the Gr. equivalent both of “testament’ and of “covenant’ is invariably 6ta- 6%km. In the LXX the same Gr. word is the equivalent of b&ºth (‘covenant’) except in two passages, Dt 9” (waprºpuov, pl.) and 3 (1) K 11” (évroxh, pl.), while it represents no other Heb, word, according to the best authorities, except about 8 times: Ex 27”, 317 321° (‘ādáth, “testimony’), Dt 9” (dābād', ‘word”), 2 Ch 25% (kāthāb, ‘what is written'), Jer 41 (34) 19 (dibré habbérêth, “words of the cove- nant ’), Dn 918 (tôrah, “law'), and Zec ll" ('aháváh, “brotherhood’). This double exclusiveness is a peculiarity of the LXX version, for búrith is often represented in the later versions of Aquila, Sym- nachus, and Theodotion by avv6%km, the common Gr. word for “covenant' in its more exact sense of compact between parties, Apparently, then, the choice of Övatºrm was deliberate, and has severely ruled out avv0%km, even where the latter would have been more strictly correct, as Ps 82 (83)” the compact made with one another by Edom, Moab, etc.; 1 K (S) 23* the covenant between David and Jonathan. Why this deliberate determina- tion, extending even to solecism 2 The idea mainly associated with bárèth was religious, that of an independent, voluntary engagement or settlement on the part of God, and the “least unsuitable' Gr. equivalent for this was 6tadijkm, an arrange- ment by one, not ovv0%km, an agreement between two ; for though 6taffäkm meant, in ordinary Greek, a disposition by will, the verb Öuatt0ea.0at covered authoritative arrangements generally. This ‘one- sided sense of Öva.0%km (the acceptance of which is in harmony with Dr. Davidson's interpretation of bërith in art. COVENANT) comes out very clearly in such uses of it as in Sir 14” ” “the covenant of the grave’ (the imposition of death), ‘the covenant . . . “Thou shalt die the death.”.” In Sir 24” ôtadikm is made equivalent to the Law, and in 3 (!) k l 111 b&râth is évro)\al (commandments), which Solomon had not kept. Ibut the Divine ‘’arrange- ment’ was a gracious one : ‘the Divine 6ta.0%km is a promise” (Vaughan on Ro 9", cf. Eph 27%); hence St. Paul, while he uses ówa.0%km only 9 times, uses étrayyekta 25 times, because it lays stress on God’s free grace; cf. Gn 15” (“the Lord made a covenant with Abraham . . . I will give,” etc.), Ex 34" (‘I will make a covenant . . . I will do marvels’), Is 59° (“This is my covenant . . . . my spirit shall not depart '). It is true that there are conditions to be fulfilled ; but the idea is that God imposes .* these as part of His beneficent arrangement ; just as a will imposes conditions, but is not a covenant in the strict sense of the term. (Cremer asserts that Philo uses ówaffijkm in no other sense than that of ‘one-sided’ disposition). The LXX translators made their choice of Öta- 6%km before its older signification was seriously affected by the extensive spread of will-making among the Greeks, and the assimilation by them of “Roman ideas on wills’ (Ramsay, Galatiºns, p. 360). Thus they had still at their disposal in the word the connotation of the solemnity and publicity of an irrevocable disposition by which, as a religious act, the maker of the disposition voluntarily, and by his own authority, bound his heir and, concurrently, himself in the presence of the community and its gods, assigning to the heir orimarily the religious duties and rights of the family, and imposing arrangements which the heir had to carry out, and which he could at once undertake, and into the all vantages of which he could at once enter, while he who made the dis- position was still living. A word with such a connotation suited the idea of an irrevocable promise made by God to His chosen people, freely and on His own absolute authority, a promise of a religious inheritance into which they could at once enter by fulfilling the conditions which God, on the same absolute authority, imposed (Ramsay, Galatians, p. 361 ff.). - Ataſhkº) is of course often used in the NT in the OT sense, Lk 17°, Ac 3*, Ito 9", Eph 21°. In some assages engagement and testamentary disposition seem to be combined (He 99%, l Coll”), the 6taffäkm being a testament in the light of the death, an engagement in the light of the blood shed as a pledge (Evans). The sense of “will,” the ordinary Gr. sense, is an exclusively NT usage ; and this usage varies in its aspect according to the con- ceptions of the readers for whom the Epistles in which it occurs were designed. Thus the Epistle to the Hebrews—-even if it was intended for a Church in Jerusalem and not in Iłome—was written to a people who knew only the Roman will, out of º, the rabbinical will in Palestine arose, and on which it was modelled. Hence the will there spoken of is regarded as in force only after the maker’s death (91*7), and consequently the writer is led to argue that a death is connected with every Divine 6ta0%km, specially with the last will, that of Christ ; and according to IRoman law the last will was alone valid. In Gal 3", on the other hand, where again a human will, a will dealing with an inheritance (3*), furnishes the parallel, the writer conceives of a will known to his readers as irrevocable and unalterable, even by the maker, when once it has been made by him and ratified by public authority, and argues from this analogy that the Law could not, as a hostile codicil, abrogate the Promise. I'urther, the devolution under this will was a devolution of religious responsibilities and rights, and those who inherited these under the will became there and then sons as inheriting and continuing the faith of Abraham (37). Such a will was not Roman but Greek, or rather Graeco-Syrian, and its regulations are found in the Itoman-Syrian law-book, which recognized Graeco-Syrian law as still largely in force in the Eastern provinces. This law regarded will-making as per se son-making ; and where sons were thus made by adoption (Gal 4"), which was not a Jewish practice of any importance, they could not be put away; they were even in a better º than sons by birth. Thus the line of thought is that the believing Gentiles inheriting and continuing the faith of Abraham became thereby adopted Sons, with a title more secure than the “Jews by nature.’ But at Ro 8”, “If sons, then heirs,’ the idea is TESTS, OF XII PATRIARCHS TEST.S. OIF XII PATRIARCHS 721 reversed. Here we are in the atmosphere of Roman law ; and the idea in Roman law was that children must inherit. It is noticeable that the Latin word foºdus, signifying a covenant between parties, is also applied to an independent, ‘one-sided” disposition, arrangement, imposition. When Lucretius (ii. 254) writes of foedera fati he means nothing else than the arrangements imposed by fate; and Vergil (Georg. i. 60) and Ovid (Met. x. 353), as well as Lucretius (v. 924), speak of the foºdera imposed by mature. Put the classical usage of ôtaffirm as ‘will,’ and the close connexion of the word in the OT with the idea of k\ſipos (inherit- ance), together with the intensification in the NT of the idea of sonship, combined to bring testa- 'mentum into greater favour than foºdus as the rendering of Öva.0%km, especially as foºdus suggested equality and testamentum superiority. Finally, as a consequence, testamentum became the title of the documents containing the attested promises of blessings willed by God and bequeathed to us in the death of Christ. LITERATURE.-Ramsay, Historical Commentary on Galatians; Mitteis, IReichsrecht whd Volksrecht ; Bruns and Sachau, Eim. Syrisch-nºmisches I?echtsbuch aws dem fünftem. Jahrhundert ; Cremer, Bibl.-Theol. Wörterbuch ; the publications by Grenfell and Hunt on the Egyptian papyri; and the various Com- mentaries and Bible Dictionaries. J. MASSIE. TESTAMENTS OF THE XII PATRIARCHS.— i. TITLE AND CONTENTS. — This most valuable pseudepigraph has never received the attention it deserves, but the next few years will witness a full atonement for past neglect. This writing consists, as the title indicates, of the dying com- mands of the twelve sons of Jacob to their children. The idea is in part derived from the Testament of Jacob in Gn 49. Each Testament treats of some virtue or vice which finds special illustration in the life of this or that patriarch. In some cases the virtue or vice in question ap- Dears in the title. This holds true of the Greek MSC throughout. But in this respect C is late ; for in O" and R all mention of the virtues and vices is omitted, and where they appear in P (as they do in a few cases) they differ in all but two instances from C. In the Armenian Version the titles of Simeon, Benjamin, Issachar, and Zebulun contain no reference to ethical characteristics, and those of Levi and Gad differ from their forms in CP. It is probable, therefore, that the name of each Testament was originally merely Ataffäkm in the Greek Version, followed by the name of the particular patriarch to whom it was ascribed, and nsms in the original with a similar sequence. (Compare the Hebrew title of the Testament of Naphtali ºne) nsms, published by Gaster, and ob- serve that ms is used technically of a man's last will and testament, 2 S 17*, 2 K. 20), Is 38). According to 18, it is true that the title of each Testament is merely the name of the patriarch. The title of the entire work was probably “The Twelve Patriarchs’; for it is mentioned simply as IIarpudpxat in the Stichometry of Nicephorus, the Synopsis Athanasii, and other lists. - In the next place it is to be observed that in each of the Testaments three elements can be dis- tinguished. (1) The patriarch gives a brief history of his life, in which he emphasizes his particular virtue or vice. This history is º a mid- rashic expansion of certain biblical statements, but in soute cases it contains materials that are in direct conflict with them. (2) The patriarch next proceeds to “improve’ on the ſº just set forth in his own career, and exhorts his children to imitate the virtues or to shun the vices that were conspicuous in it. (3) Finally, the patriarch * COPR demote Greek MSS. See below, § v. (a). VOL. IV.-46 deals prophetically with the destinies of his descendants, empliasizes the premier rank and authority of Levi and Judah, and foretells the evils of overthrow and captivity that they will bring upon themselves should they fall into sin and disown the hegemony of Levi and Judah. These predictions are for the most part of . Jewish authorship, but not a few are distinctively Chris- tian. ii. CRITICISM.–To account for the conflicting Jewish and Christian elements which appear side by side in the work, Grabe (Spicileg. Patrum”, 1714, i. 129–144, 335-374) suggested that the book was written by a Jew and subsequently interpolated by a Christian. This hypothesis, however, failed till recently to gain the suffrages of scholars, mainly owing, to the opposition of Corrodi (Krit. Gesch. des Chiliasmus, ii. 101-110). For nearly two centuries after Grabe little progress was made. Nitzsch (de Test. XII }.} libro VT pseud., Wittenberg, 1810) described the author as a Jewish Christian of Alexandria, who had imbibed many Essene doctrines; whereas Ritschl (Entstehung der althcathol. Kirche”, 322 f.) assigned the book to a Gentile Christian, mainly on the ground of Benja- min ll, a chapter which, we now know, is a Chris- tian interpolation ; but in the second edition of the work abandoned this view and advocated a Naza- rene authorship. It is needless here to enter on a discussion of the views of Kayser (Die Test, der Zwölf Patr., in Reuss and Cunitz's Bei- träge zu den theolog, Wissenschaftem, 1851, pp. 107-140), who, falling back on Grabe's theory of interpolation, traced the book to Ebiomitic circles; or on those of Worstman (Disquisitio de Test. XII Patriarcharum origine et pretio, 1857), who sub- mitted Kayser's theory to a severe criticism, and concluded that the Testaments showed no trace of Ebionism, but were the }. of Gentile Christianity. This conclusica, which up: holds Ritschl's first view, was subsequently upheld by Hilgenfeld (ZWT, 1858, pp. 305 ff.; 1871, 802 ſº.), while the view of Nitzsch was adopted by Langen (Das Judenthwm, 1866, pp. 140–157 and Sinker (Test. XII Patr. 1869, pp. 16–34 ; Appendix with collation of and P, 1870; art. ‘Test. XII Patr.” in Smith's Dictionary of Christian Biography, iv. 865–874). It must be confessed that, so far, few results of permanent value were arrived at, but in 1884 a. great advance was made through Schnapp (Die Test. der XII Patr. Mºntersucht, Halle, 1884), who revived in an improved form Grabe's hypothesis of Christian interpolation of an originally Jewish work. Schnapp's theory is that in its original form the book consisted of biographical details respecting each of the patriarchs, and of appro- pºinte exhortations founded on these details. Thus the work embraced only two of the three elements mentioned above. At a later date this book was worked over by a Jewish writer, who enriched all the Testaments with sections dealing with the coming destinies of the various tribes and with other details of an apocalyptic character. Finally, the book was re-edited by a Christian, who in some cases made large additions, and in others merely modified the text in order to adapt its predictions to Christianity. Subsequent research has notably confirmed part of the above theory. Thus Conybeare's collation of the Armenian Version in the J(QR [1893], 375– 398; [1806], 260–268, 471-485, proved that very many of the passages marked by Schnapp as Christian interpolations were absent from that version. Since Schnapp's work the Testaments have been relandled from various sides, by Koivier (J (918, 1893, pp. 400–406), Gaster (PSBA, 1893, 1894), ſº (PSBA, 1894), Charles (Encyclopædia Biblica, 1899, i. 237–241), and Bousset (ZNT'PV, 1900, 142-175, 187–209). Bousset’s articles are of great value, and will call for frequent reference. Since many of the above articles were published beforo Kautzsch's Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Atten Testa. ments, 1900, it must be confessed that it is with ‘lisappointment 722 TESTS. OF XII PATRIARCHS TESTS. OF XII PATRIARCHS that scholars have turned to iº. introduction to and translation of the Testaments in that volume. Both are quite inadequate from the standpoint of our present knowledge. 1. Christian Interpolations.—These were, as we have seen, rejected by Schnapp merely on internal grounds in 1884, though he could occasionally have justified his conclusions from R. But even in his translation * of 1900 he has repeatedly failed to call attention to the fact that his conjecture is confirmed by MS evidence, and in many passages he has attributed too much to the interpolator, where a study of his textual authorities would have enabled him to make much smaller and meater excisions. But not only can the student summon rich textual materials to his aid, he can also in not a few cases detect the interpolator’s hand in certain poetical passages where the foreign element º the rhythm and paral- lelism. Thus Levi 18, Judah 25, Simeon 6, 1)an 5 are either wholly or in part Hebrew º Only the first of these has been recognized by Schnapp as being such. We quote a few lines as an illus- tration— Tórs izasſºs, 3, 2% X&º, Kozł aro's Aozo; &moxerroºt. Tórs zoºroºrozºo's 3, 27 rºaro. &rd roºpoexº, Kozł aro.o.o. h ºro owpox vow &mo roXiºzov. Tºrs X3% ivºo:20.0%gstºl, "Otu Kępnos & 849; 257.2% rot; 'Iopa. Žx, taelvéºzsvo; in ) 2% & &wſparoc 20: oráčov iv octºró roy 'A3&4. Tórs 30ſ%roviral révro ro, rvačko.ºro, rºi; ºraćv%; six zoºroºrcºrneriv, Kozł &v0pwrot 3ozori A6&orova', tà, arovºpºv rvivºrov. It will be seen that v.0 destroys the parallelism. We must reject as interpolations &#yo’s a of 'Io.pc.ºx and ord (ov : V &tró roy 'A3&A. from a comparison of the two Armenian recensions (see Bousset, ZN TW [1900], 147). The dis &v0patro; is against the parallelism. The verse probably read— "Oru Köpuo, & 643; to:váorszai tar) »;c. By means of textual authorities the Christian interpolations can be removed from IReuben, }. Judah, and Zebulun. Those in Simeon can be reduced to one or two phrases in 6. 7, and likewise those in chapter 8. Dan 5. 6. 7 cannot be wholly purged by means of textual authorities, nor yet Naphtali 4.8. –In Joseph 19 the Greek is defective and the Armenian corrupt ; but Schnapp is wrong in branding the bulk of it as a Christian interpolation, it is probably a fragment of an early Maccabaean Apocalypse.—As regards Benjamin, though the distinctively Christian phrases are omitted by the Armenian at the close of 3, yet the promise of redemption through Joseph is sus- picious. Though duopios Virép &vópºwv trapaboðijo eral could be said of him, yet the next phrase àvapºdp- Tºros ūtrép doeſłów &m offavetrat cannot be justly re- ferred to him. In 9 the Christian interpolations in the Gr. are wanting in the Arm., save the words Üßptorſ/ho-erat (cf. Lk 18”) and ééov6eva,0haerau (Lk 23*), which appear Christian. In Levi 2. 3 the text of COP is very corrupt, but by means of recension a of the Armenian and R it is possible to recover the primitive Jewish text. This latter text described the three heavens, but this account was intended by the interpolator to be an account of the seven heavens. To this question we shall return presently. In Levi 4 and 10 and in 149 f Christian interpolations are present alike in Gr. and Arm., and one or two phrases at the close of 16. The famous passage in Levi 8, which claims for the descendant of Levi the triple honours of prophet, priest, and king, becomes intelligible through the aid of R and the Arm., and is of Jewish origin. It refers to John Hyrcanus. To this section we shall return later. The Christian interpolations, therefore, which * Schnapp has printed in his translation all the passages he considers Christian interpolations, in spaced type. This is a very convenient arrangement. We hºl touch upon most of these in the sequel. # Where a form such as 145 is used in reference to the Testaments, it means ch. 14, line 5, in Sinker’s edition. smºsºmsºmº, cannot be eliminated by textual authorities, do not extend beyond certain phrases or sentences in Sim. 6. 7, Levi 4. 10. 14, 17, Dan 5. 6. 7, Napht. 4, 8, Asher 7, Joseph 19, Benj. 3 (?), 9.” . Thus by means of recent research about three-fourths of the Christian interpolations have been removed from the text. 2. The Source and Character of the Christiºn Interpolations.— Schnapp was of opinion that all the Christian passages were initi in the text by a single Christian interpolator. The present writer in 1899 (Encyc. Biblica, i. 239) contended that the evidence pointed rather to a succession of inter- olators. Bousset, however (ZNT'PV [1900], 174), has since maintained Schnapp's view, on the ground of the unusual affinities subsisting between the interpolated passages. Assuming, then, that all the interpolations were from one hand, Bousset has not much difficulty in determining the prob- able period of the interpolator to be between A.D. 150 and 200. But his assumption cannot be main- tained, as we hope to show presently. In the meantime, excluding the conflicting statements, we have the following theological doctrines in the Christian additions:— Thus ‘the Lamb of God,” Benj. 318, ‘the Only-begotten,” Benj. 98, should be born of a virgin of Judah, Jos. 193f, a man, indeed, Napht. 411, a man from the seed of Judah, Jud. 249, yet at once God and man, Sim. 74. “God’ should ‘take a body,’ Sim. 610, and appear as ‘God in the flesh,” Benj. 1018ſ, and dwell with men on earth, Napht. 83ft. He should be “sinless,” Jud. 244, Benj. 319, “the Light of the world,” having come “to lighten every man,’ Levi 149, ‘the Branch of the Most High and Fount of life for all flesh,” Jud. 248. IIe should be a High Priest, Reub. 618ſ, and “the Saviour of Israel,” Napht. 83, ‘the Saviour of the Gentiles,” Dan 610, the Saviour of the world, Levi 411 175, Heº, 318, and “save Israel and all the Gentiles,” Asher 78 (Benj. 320), ** all mankind, Levi 219 (Sim. 6llf. 10). On earth He should be baptized, Levi 1814, and acknowledged by the voice of the Father from heaven, Levi 1812, should after- wards be seized by the high priests, Levi 149. 9, ‘insulted, set at nought and lifted up on a tree,” Benj. 99ſ, crucified, Levi 419, “die for the godless,” Benj. 319. The veil of the temple should be rent, Benj. 910, Hades robbed through His sufferings, Levi 45 : He should redeem His sons from Beliar, Zeb. 919tt, take the captives from Beliar, even the souls of the Saints, Dan 5*f; ascend from Hades, Benj. 011ſ., rise from the dead, Levi 16 1751, ascend into heaven, Levi 186, Benj. 912.f The above is a fairly full Christology to be worked into a Jewish book. We have now to draw attention to conflicting statements on the doctrine of the Inca) nation. In accordance with the account just given, it is said in Benj. 1014f. that “the Ixing of heaven will appear on earth in the form of a man' (iv (copt; 290parov). On the other hand, the doctrine is probably Docetic in Zeb. 919 “ye will see God in the fashion of a man’ (#y orzàºozºri &y!!párov), and undoubtedly so in Asher 79 “God in the semblance of man’ (0so; sk & w8po ºrozpuyóſzévos). Again, there is a third view represented, the Patripassian, in Sim. 610ſ, where we read of ‘the Lord, the great God of Israel,’ appearing on earth as man. In Asher 70f the language betrays the same standpoint : “The Highest (6 "Taylorros) will visit the earth—as man, cating and a; with men'; and in Levi 45 ‘the sufferings of the Highest.’ The contrast is brought into fuller relief by such a declaration as that in Levi 411 ‘Till the Lord visit all the nations through the mercy of his Son.” Again there is a want of uniformity as regards the descent of Christ. Thus IIe is said to be from Judah only, Naplit. 88, from Jutlah §evi, Gad S1-3, Dan 5%, from Levi and Judah, Sim. 74, Lev. 18. 19. Together with the above phenomena, we should observe that the Christian additions are very differently attested by the Gr. MSS COPI. R has the fewest of these, and in many cases attests single-handed the non-interpolated text against COP and the two Arm. recensions; OP attest it in a few cases, and C in at least one (Levi 18"), Of the two Armenian recensions, a agrees most with R, and 3 with COP. Finally, each Gr. MS has Christian additions peculiar to itself, and * Bousset (op. cit, p. 173) makes the list slightly shorter. # In addition to the above, observe the important passage (Benj. 11) regarding St. Paul, which mentions his writings and achievements ; also the expansion of the account of the three heavens into one of the seven heavens in Levi 2, 8; but this expansion may be due to a Jewish hand. TESTS. OF XII PATRIARCHS TESTS. OF XII PATRIARCHS 723 similarly the Armenian Version (cf. Sim. 71*) and apparently each of its recensions. 'rom the above facts, therefore, we conclude that the Christian additions are due to several hands, and were made at different periods, probably from the middle of the 2nd cent. onwards. 3. Integrity of original Jewish Testaments.-We have seen how thoroughly critical research has confirmed Schnapp's theory that the Christian references in the text are the result of interpola- tion. We have now to consider his second hypo- thesis, that the apocalyptic sections do not belong to the original work, which confined itself to bio- graphical details and practical exhortations founded on these. Thus two different sources are postulated. I}ut Schnapp has not succeeded in establishing this hypothesis as he did the former. He has trie to show, indeed, that in the Testament of Joseph we have two partially conflicting accounts of Joseph’s history, derived from different authors— i.e. 1–10" and 109–18. But, even if we agreed with him that these sections sprang from two distinct sources, this concession would not support his hypothesis. On the other hand, his analysis of this Testament may be quite wrong. We may have here merely a transposition of the text such as is found in the Ethiopic Enoch, chs. 91–94. Nearly every difficulty disappears if we read it in the following order—l. 10–16. 2–9, 17–20. In the Testament of Levi the section ch. 2, dis 6é étroup.alvo- pºev . . . 6, Čv tº kapôtº pov, certainly conflicts with its present context. This vision does not refer to the events before and after, except in 5*, but has a general fitness, in that its object is the glorifica- tion of Levi. The writer of the Testament may have embodied this section from already existing materials, or it may have been added subsequently by an interpolator. But, neglecting further con- sideration of Schnapp's hypothesis of two Jewish sources, we may observe that the evidence points rather to a groundwork, written, as we shall presently see, in the 2nd cent. D.C., in praise of the earlier Maccabaeans, and enlarged with certain interpolations of a conflicting character in the 1st cent. D.C. These interpolated sections, which constitute an attack on the later Maccabaeans, are Levi 10. 14–16, Judah 21–23, Dan 5 (certain para- graphs), Zebulun 9, Sim. 7".” With these sections we shall deal presently when establishing the dates of their origin and that of the groundwork. iii. DATE.-The earliest reference to our book by name is not earlier than Origen (Hom. in %. 15" [ed. Lommatzsch, xi. 143] : “In aliquo Juodam libello qui appellatur testamentum duo- decim patriarcharum, quamvis non habeatur in canone, talem tamen quendam sensum inveninus quod per singulos peccantes singuli satanae in- telligi debeant ’). An earlier reference may exist in Pragment 17, Irenaeus (ed. Stirren, i. 836, 837). IFXternal evidence, therefore, is of slight service for our present purpose. The internal evidence, however, is happily clear and decisive. The groundwork of the Testaments constituted an apology on behalf of the Maccabaean high priests. Thus in Reub. 610, 20 the words & rollowgiroz ty aroxécoiſ 6poºroi, zoº &opºrous can only be interpreted of a high priest who is also a warrior. H. Such a description would suit John Hyrcanus. Earlier in the same chapter this double function is referred to more clearly, 31&- a rºasi s'; 26 ſaw 22 (lvorío’s wrip rocy'rö; 'Io poºx. And a few lines later, sixoyào ºrca Töv 'Iapoº. . . . ºri v octºró, Béxiàozºro Kºptos (30.oruxgåstv rocytóg rol, Axot (R). But the reference becomes still clearer in Levi 819-21 & ºrpſ roº tºrizX%0%attoº, cºró, ovoº & 2xtyáv, or, 86,718gy; y rô (Arm. Gr. MSS give #2 row wrongly) "Io932 &vo.orrà- asto..., xx, reiða's ispxtsío.V viocy, zoºr& Töv rárov táv štlvøv, sic révro. * So also Bousset on the whole (op. cit. 180ff.) in 1900. The bresent writer had drawn attention to this fact in his Jºschato- }. Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian, 1899, and to the early elemonts in the Testaments in I'mcyc. Biblica, i. 237–241. # Another reference to the warrior priests occurs in Sim. 59ſ. a.o.) #9 Alvi %govorºv v foºtoziº &AA’ ow ovyżgovtozi ºrpoš Asvi, ºr, rówºoy Kupiov roxsºot. T& 30yn.” These clauses point clearly to the civil and priestly functions of the Maccabees subsequent to B.C. 153, ..f a few lines further on the attribution of prophetic powers to this family (% ºf rapova, o, ørow &yozºrºró, &; arpopárnº Cºpfortov [O]) enables us to identify the very member of this dynasty to whom our author alludes. This was John Hyrcanus, t, who, according to Josephus (B.J. I. ii. 4; Ant. XIII. x. 7), combined in his own person the threefold offices of prophet, priest, and king (reia. yovy to 2-poºrua reſovºro. Azévo; slzév táv rs &px?v rod iſ/vov; 22 rºw &px16poor&way zoº apopºrsſøy). This limits the date of the work to B.C. 135-105. To the above period belongs the eschatology of the Messianic hymn in Dan 593:33, according to the best textual authorities, with the exception of such an expression as tº Apuzzº róv &yſov zoºxio-, six ovºrów (so Arm.) in Dan 520, and of one or two phrases. # The same is true of the Messianic hymn in Jud. 24 and the account of the resurrection in Jud. 25. Unhappily, the second Apocalypse in Jos. 19 is too hopelessly corrupt, even in the Armenian, § to arrive nt any definite chrono- logy. Finally, in Napht. 514-10 the successive nations are nen- tioned that brought Israel into bondage; the last of these is the Syrians: 'Aaroºpioi, Mºol, IIípool, 'Exºccio, Tixo,22rol, X&Xboxiou, Xópol, xxopovopºrovow #w oºzºzzxacº tº báàszcz orzºrroo, Tod'Iagozáx. Thus the passage was written prior to the domina- tion of Rome, i.e. before B.C. 63. The book, therefore, so far as we have considered it, was written between B.C. 135 and 63. Since, however, no reason has appeared for bringing the terminus ad gºtcºm later º. B.C. 103, the work may safely be assigned to the years B.C. 135–103.]] It would thus form a sequel to Eth. Enoch 83–90, which was written before B.C. 161. It reproduces Some of its pluraseology in Jos. 19. But certain passages, to which we have already referred, belong, like Eth. Enoch 01-104, and the Psalms of Solomon, to a later date. In these the Maccabaean king-priests are the object of the fiercest invective. These attacks are made in Levi 1014. 15, where, as in Ps-Sol 2, 4, 8, the priests are charged with destroy- ing the Law and teaching false doctrine (cf. Eth. En. 042), with seducing Israel (cf. Eth, En 94° 10419), with profaning the temple, with committing fornication, and marrying the daughters of the Gentiles. , Again, in Jud. 23, Judah is charged with every kind of abomination and idolatry (cf. Eth. En 997-9). But the notes of time are still more manifest in Jud. 221-9, which speaks of internal divisions and civil wars and the overthrow of the Maccabaean dynasty by aliens (ird.: el 33 ozèroſs 31&lpêorst; zoºr' &AA%xov 22) ºróAsøot avvexeſ; orov.roºt *v 'Io poºx, zoº fiv &AAoti Aous ovvºru Asadāoretc., & 320-12s, or octºrów (Arm. Gr. Azov)). The aliens may be taken to be the Romans or the Herodian dynasty (which was of Idumasan origin). In Zeb. 94.7f the civil strife between Aristobulus II, and Hyrcanus II. is clearly depicted : M% oxtailºrs sis 89e 2 spo. Woºs . . . 'Evêox&tous #4,#221; . . . .342,280%a sort's v 'Ideo.3.x, zozi ºvo 3ozoixswaiv tºo.zoãovlj%as re. Since the writer in the last Fº says that this civil war will be iv.;ox&tzis ºwiczi, (cf. Jevi 10, #7 ovvºrs?..sº tºy &lavov; also Levi 14), it follows that the composition of Levi 10. 14-16, Jud. 22. 23, Dan 51323, Zeb. 9, cannot be of a much later date, and may be reasonably assigned to the years B.C. 60–40. It is more difficult to determine the date of Jud. 21. This chapter stands by itself in attacking the monarchy and in upholding the priesthood. Bousset (op. cit. 192) assigns it to the time of IIyrcanus II. iv. LANGUAGE. — The time of composition in itself determines this question in the main. The various writers of the work belonged in all cases to the ranks of the HASIDAEANs, who maintained the doctrines afterwards upheld by the Pharisees. The original, we therefore §.". was written in Semitic, and, in all probability, in Hebrew. The present writer has elsewhere pointed out (Encyc. Biblica, i. 239–241) that (1) Hebrew constructions and expressions are frequent, (2) that parono- masiae which are lost in the Greek can frequently * This kingly high priest is the theme also of Levi 182— Tórs i yºpsi Kępios ispio: 2&vév, "Q ro, wºrs; ai 2.0×o kvpiov &rozczXv4.0%rov'ro.u. - Kozł &örös roºs, zpiouv &A%Usºs ir. Twº yń; #y raž0s ºpów, Kozł &vo. TsAsi & gºpov «Vrow #y owpoxy & &s 8&oixào; (P Arm.). # So already Kohler, J Q1. v. 402; and subsequently Bousset. f The Messianic hope here appears as in Eth. En. 83–90. The Messiah is said to proceed from “Judah and Levi.” This is certainly wrong for ‘Judah' or ‘Levi' or ‘Levi and Judah’; cf. Dan 59, Reub. 6, Sim, 5, 7, Levi 2, Iss. 5. The order ‘Judah and Levi' is found in Christian interpolations, as 13ousset has already recognized ; cf. Gad 8, Jos. 19. According to Jud. 24, the Messiah is to be descended from Judah. This no doubt is what is meant in Eth. En. 0087, 38; for the Messiah is there distinguished from Judas Maccabæus, who is represented as fighting till the advent of the Messianic kingdom. 13ousset assigns both these hymns to the latter half of the 1st cent. B. c. ; but the character of the eschatology is wholly against this yº § See Preuschen's translation in ZN 'I'W' | 1900), 138. | This date holds good of the narrative portions also. Bousset, op. cit. 197-205, See 724 TEST.S. OF XII PATRIARCHS TESTS. OF XII PATRIARCHS be restored by retranslation into Hebrew, and (3) that certain passages which are obscure or unintelligible in the Greek become clear on re- translation into Hebrew. We shall content our- selves with one or two examples of the above statements. Thus in Reub. 8 iv «ără; ičax#&ro = in nmi; Levi 819 irizºnó4- airo, ºrá, ºvowo. 22,969 =Jin DJ 19 Rºp'. Napht. 19 iv rayoveyia. iroſnai'Paxxx... 31& roºro izałday Niclaxtº- . . . $nn Hºns) •ºns, "nn-p) |2%. Finally, in Napht. 63f. 130i, ºraorov ºpxtro . . . Azirröy rapizoº, ixºr's vozvrāv xxx xv3spvárov, the phrase wºrrow rapixay, which = nºp Rºb, has arisen from a corrupt dittography of n?p N95 =izrö; wavrāy. This last fact was pointed out by Gaster (PSBA, Dec. 1893, Feb. 1894) in his edition of the Hebrew text of a Testament of Naphtali, and may be regarded as con- clusive; for the above phrase is found in this fiedrew Testa. ment—nºp Rºn . . . noºn nºn Him. v. VERSIONS (Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, Armenian, Slavonic, Latin).-The earliest versions were the Greek, the Armenian, and probably the Syriac. (a) Of the Greek Version six MSS are known. Of these, the Cambridge MS (C) of the 10th and the Oxford MS (O) of the 14th cent, have already been made known through Sinker’s edition of the Greek text (The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 1869); the Vatican MS (R) of the 13th and the Patmos MS (P) of the 16th cent., through the Appendix he published in 1879. The two remain- ing MSS are still unpublished, but are being used by Sinker in forming a new Greek text. It is to be presumed that in the new text R will be mainly followed and not C as in the old edition. (b) The Aramaic Version.—This version was not brought to light till quite recently. Only one complete leaf and a half of the entire MS have been preserved. The MS was brought by Schechter from the Cairo Genizah in 1896, and its contents recognized in 1900 by H. L. Pass, who, together with J. Arendzen, published the text in the JQR [1900], 651–661. The fragmentary folio contains a passage somewhat similar to Jud. 5. The complete folio has portions of Levi, 11–13. Although at times the Greek and Aramaic agree word for word, they more often diverge both as to contents and to order. The Aramaic is much fuller. It is note- worthy that it agrees in this respect with the Syriac fragment against the Greek. To this point we shall return in dealing with that version. (c) The Syriac Version.—Of this version only a fragment remains, preserved in a Syr. MS [Brit. Mus., Add. 17, 193 — Cat. ii. 997], dated A. D. 874. This MS consists of a series of 125 extracts from different sources, No. 80 of which is derived from Levi 12. This extract contains three sentences which are unattested by the Greek, and it was probably on this ground that Preuschen (ZNT"W [1900], 108) declared that its evidence was valueless as regards the existence of a Syriac Version. Now, it is worthy of remark that these additional three sentences are present word for word in the newly discovered Aramaic ; and yet, so far as all three versions have a common text, the Syriac and Greek agree against the Aramaic. Thus, Gr. and Syr. give 6ktú, where Aram. = 6krøkatóeka, and where the former give 3RTwkatóeka the latter = €vvea- Kalöeka. (d) The Armenian Version. — It is to F. C. Conybeare that we owe our first knowledge of the value of the Armenian Version, , through his collation of the Armenian with Sinker's Greek text of the Testaments of Reuben, Simeon, Judah, Dan, Joseph, Benjamin (J913 [1895], 375– 398; [1896], 260–268, 471–485). In 1896 the first Armenian edition of the text was published by the Mechitarist Fathers at Venice in a small volume, including many other non-canonical writ- ings of the OT. This edition is based on five MSS.” Subsequently Preuschen wrote a learned article (ZNT WI1900], 106–140), in which he shows, in dependence on the Venice edition, that there were two recensions of the Armenian text a and 8, of which the former is much the briefer and earlier, and contains likewise fewer Christian interpolations. In this article he gives a German translation of the Testanent of Levi. For further details see op. cit. 130–140. (e) The Slavonic Version.—This version exists in two recensions, which are published by Tichon- rawow in his Monuments of Old Russian Apoc- º Literature [1863], i. 96–145 and 146-232. with the help of Bonwetsch, Bousset tested this version and found it worthless for textual purposes. {; º most nearly related to the Greek text of (P). (f) No earlier Latin Version is known than that of Robert Grosseteste. This was made from C, and is valueless, therefore, from a critical stand- point. vi. VALUE OF THE TESTAMENTS. — This work has been simply a sealed book till the present, owing to the difficulty of discriminating the various elements in the text. Now that we have achieved this task in its main outlines, we discover that we have in the groundwork of the Testa- ments a unique work of the 2nd cent. B.C.; for, with the exception of Jubilees, it constitutes the only Apology in Jewish literature for the religious and civil hegemony of the Maccabees from the Pharisaic standpoint. To the few Jewish inter- Jolations which belong to the next cent, a large interest attaches; for these, like Eth. Enoch 91– 104 and the Psalms of Solomon, constitute an unmeasured attack on every office — prophetic, priestly, or kingly—administered by the Macca- ees. But, turning aside from the historical to the religious bearings of the book, we may notice shortly its eschatology, its teaching on the various heavens, and its peculiar view as to the twelve tribes of Israel. (a) The Eschatology.—We shall confine our atten- tion to three Messianic passages, Levi 18, Jud. 24.25, and Dan 5*. According to Levi 18, the Messiah is to spring from Levi and be the eternal High Priest and civil ruler of the nation, i.evi isº. During his rule sin should gradually cease, Levi 18"; Beliar be bound, Levi 18*, *; the gates of Paradise be opened and the saints eat of the tree of life, Ilevi 18°. We have here an eternal Messianic kingdom on earth as in Eth. Enoch 83–90. In Jud. 24. 25 and Dan 5** the forecast is on the whole the same, save that the Messiah is to spring not from Levi but from Judah (Jud. 24", Dan 5* +), as no doubt also in Eth. Enoch 90°7. *. These hymns would be earlier, if we are right, than that in Levi 18, and would thus be written before enthusiasm for John Hyrcanus had reached its height. According to these hymns, the resurrection (of the righteous?) is to take place during the Messiah’s reign (Jud. 25), the evil spirits are to be cast into eternal fire (Jud. 25"), the saints to live in Eden (Dn 5*), and all the nations to rejoice (Jud. 25"), and God to abide with men (Dan 5”). Here also we have an eternai Messianic kingdom on earth, in which the Gentiles participate. * There are seven other MSS known to Scholars. Two of these have been collated by Conybeare, belonging respectively to the London Bible Society and to Lord Zouché; see ZNT'W (1900), 108-110, # In Dan the text says “Judah and Levi.' Since this is the order of these names in the Christian interpolations, we must emend the phrase into ‘Levi and Judah,” or simply ‘Levi’ or “Judah.' But, since the Messiah is nowhere else in the Testa- ments said to be sprung from ‘Levi and Judah' (though it is declared that by means of Levi and Judah God will deliver Israel), we must fall back simply on ‘Levi’ or ‘Judah' as the original text. We take it that ‘and Levi' is an intrusion here. See p. 723b note t. TESTIMONY TETRARCH 725 *- ºw (b) The three heavens and the seven heavens.— From R and the Armenian Version of Levi 2, 3 it is now clear that these chapters contained origin- ally a description of only three heavens. R." alone preserves the true text here; for the two recensions of the Arm. a. and 3 are both confused and corrupt, the former mentioning only two heavens, and the iatter four. "It was Lueken (Michael [1898], 92) who first recognized this fact. Its further eluci- dation we owe to Bousset (ZNTW 159–163). Thus it appears that a belief in the three heavens pre- vailed early in the 2nd cent. B.C. . It has thus an older attestation in Judaism than that of the seven heavens, but which is in reality the earlier we cannot at present jºy; (c) The Twelve Tribes.—The Twelve Tribes are supposed to be in existence at the date of the conſposition of this work, and in Palestine. Thus in Napht. 51% the §yiºn. are said to hold sway over them. In Reub. 61. the high Fº Tuler (i.e. John Hyrcanus) is ‘to judge and offer sacrifice for all Israel till the consummation of the times’; and ‘to bless Israel and Judah” (Reub. 6"). The very fact that the book is addressed to the Twelve Tribes, although it speaks of the ultimate dispersion or destruction of Reuben (6”), Dan, Gad, and Asher (Asher 7”), points in the same direction. Bousset calls attention to the fact that the Letter of Aris- teas states that Eleazar the high priest sent six men of each of the Twelve Tribes to Ptolemy. This naturally presupposes the presence of the Twelve in Palestine or its neighbourhood. The idea that the Jewish kingdom embraced once again the entire nation, could easily arise when the Maccabees ex- tended their sway northwards over Samaria and Galilee and eastwards beyond the Jordan. This displaced the older belief that nine tribes were still in captivity (see Eth. Enoch 897°, written 20 to 30 years before the Testaments). But with the growing degradation of the later Maccabees the older idea revives. According to the Psalms of Solomon (17***), the dispersed tribes are to be brought back. This thought reappears frequently in the 1st cent. A.D., and then in new forms. The nine or ten tribes were in the far East enjoying great prosperity (Philo, Leg. ad Gaium, 31; Jos. A mt. XI. v. 2; Sib. Or. ii. 170–173), or, according to a later view, they were lost, and their place of abode was unknown to men, but God was keeping them safely till the Messianic times (4 Ezr 1399-47). This form of the idea, which is now the current one, is not attested till after the fall of Jerusalem, A.D. 70. LITERATURE. –The principal authorities have been cited in the body of the above article. See, further, Schürer, GJ V 3 iii. 262 [11.JP II. iii. 124]. Since the above article was written, an English translation of the Armenian Version has been published (Uncanomical Writings of the OT' found in the Armenian MSS of St. Lazarus, Issaverdens, Venice, 1901, pp. 351–478). As the translator has made no attempt to distinguish between the two recensions, this translation is worthless from a critical stand- point. R. H. CHARLEs. TESTIMONY-In the OT this word is scarcely, if at all, used in the ordinary sense of “witness’ or “evidence,’ although it has this meaning fre- quently in the NT. We will reserve the treat- ment of this sense of the term and partly of the OT ‘te; ify for art. WITNESS, and devote the present art. to the special OT usage. The Heb, terms are [m]y] and mily or ny. The existence of the first of these has been postulated to account for the plur. nity, which is found (alone or with suffixes) in Dt 4'', 617, 20, Ps 2510 7800 93% 997 I 192: 39, 91, 10, no. 70.0%. 110. 125, 188. 146. 152, 167. 108. Such a course appears, however, to be unnecessary, for in every instance nºw might be vocalized ny, or niy * COP agree in giving the corrupt text which contains an account of the Seven heavens, l'or an account of the latter sce Charles, Book of the Secrets of Enoch (1895). might be taken as a contraction of nyly ('édw6th), the plur. of nity (so Stade, § 3205 ; Siegfried-S"ade, Buhl). The form nity is found in 1 K. 28, 2 lº 171° 23%, Jer 44*, 1 Ch 2919, 2 Ch 349, Nell 998, Ps 11914. * * * * * * *. In both these sets of passages the name testimonies’ is applied to God's laws as being a solemn declaration of His will or a protest against deviation from its performance (see Driver, Deut. p. 81, who compares à Tyr = “testify or pro- test against '[not ‘unto’], 2 K 1710, Jer 117, Ps 507 81%, Neh 9*.*, *).” “The testimony” (nºnym) is a technical term, esp. in P, for the Decalogue (LXX Tà papripta, Ex 25".”40*) as being parewcellence the declaration of the IDivine will. Hence the expressions ‘tables of the testimony” (LXX at TAdkes toū uapruplov, Ex 31* 32° 34”); ‘ark of the testinony,’ which contained these tables (LXX # kigarðs toū gapruptov, Ex 25” 26%. 84 300. 20 317 399% 40°. " ", Nu 4° 789, Jos 419 [I)illm. ; but Ibennett, Steuernagel, et al., nºn “ark of the covenant ’]); t ‘tabernacle of the testimony or witness’ (LXX h orkmvil rod papruplov [so in Ac 7”, Rev 15"]), Ex 38”, Nu 130 °bis 101 [all mishkan ha'édith], Nu 910 177: § 18°, 2 Ch 24" [all '6hel hô-ádàth]. See art. TABERNACLE, p. 655. “The testimony” is an abbreviation for ‘the ark of the testimony” in Ex 16* (LXX evavrlov roſ, 9eoſ) 2791 (3rd rās 3.20%kms) 30" (étri rās któwroß rôv papruplov) * (&Tévavri Tôv papruplov), Lv 16” (étrº Tóv papruptov) 248 (€v rà orkmvſ toū uapruplov), Nu 17” (karévavrt roſ, papruplov) * (évôtriou rôv uapruplwv). A later usage extended the term ha-'édéth from the Decalogue to the Law in general : Ps 19° 78° (Il Piºn) 81" (I pn ‘statute’) 11988 1224. For ninyº (‘the testimony”) of 2 K 1112=2 Ch 2311 we should prob. read nin. Nº (‘the bracelets,’ see Wellh.-Bleek, p. 258 m.), although LXX has rô pop- Túptov and tâ paptºpta in the respective passages. In Sir 45", where the LXX has ‘to teach Jacob the testimonies’ (B Tó waptipta, A uapruplav), the Heb. text has ‘so he taught his people statute’ (ph). . A. SLLBI.E. TETH (to). — The ninth letter of the Heb. alphabet, and as such employed in the 119th Psalm to designate the 9th part, each verse of which begins with this letter. It is transliterated in this Dictionary by t. TETRARCH (terpápxms, WH Terpaëpxms).—A ruler of a fourth part of a country or province, or at Sparta, a commander of four companies of soldiers. i. compound occurs first in Eur. Alc. 1154 in reference to Thessaly, which in early times and again in the constitution given by Philip of Macedon was divided for civil administration into four districts (Demos. Philipp. iii. 26). In Galatia, too, each of the three tribes had its four tetrarchs (Strabo, 566 f.), until Pompey reduced the number (App. Mithrid. 46, Syr. 50; Livy, Ep. 94), retain- ing the name. Thenceforward little attention was paid to the original signification of the title, which was freely applied to dependent princelings in pos- session of some of the rights of sovereignty. They were of subordinate rank to kings or ethnarchs, and were especially numerous in Syria (Pliny, Hist. Nat. v. 74 ct al.; Cicero, Milo, xxviii. 36 et al. ; Horace, Sat. I. iii. 12; Tacitus, Ann. xv. 25 ; Caesar, Bell. Civ. iii. 3.; l’lutarch, Antom. 36; Jos. Amt. XVII. x.9; et al.). The title as used in NT retains in part its etymological meaning in two cases. For both Antipas (Mt 14, Lk 31, 19 97, Ac 13') and Herod Philip (Lk 3') inherited each a fourth part of his father's dominions (Jos. Amt. * º Tºyń, used of prophetical testimony or injunction, in Is 816. 20. t BA # zigaroº rº, 31.20%zz; ; om. tº 310.0%xx;, F* (habet F1 mg); Azoºprwpiov in mg et supras A**. 726 TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT XVII. xi. 4; Wars, II. vi. 3). At the same time, since their father had himself received the same title without geographical significance from Antony (Jos. Amt. XIV. xiii. 1 ; Wars, I. xii. 5), and as Antipas is styled king (Mt 14°, Mk 6*) almost as often as tetrarch, it is not unlikely that the latter title was applied to him without any designed allusion to its strict meaning. In a similar sense Lysanias [which see] is called tetrarch of Abilene in i. 3", the district of Abila in the Lebanon having been severed from the Ituraean kingdom subse- quently to the death of Lysanias I, and placed under the rule of a vounger man of the same name. In support of St. Luke's accuracy may be cited two inscriptions in CIG, Nos. 4521, 4523. See, for further details and for the literature of the sub- ject, Schürer, HJP I. ii. 7 f. R. W. MOSS. TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.—A history of the text of the OT, in the proper sense of the word ‘history,’ it is not jºiſ. to write, even if one were content to start from the period in which the OT was closed. For in the first place we do not know the date when, or the way in which, this closing was effected. . Further, we have no MSS of the Heb. OT from the first eight centuries of the Christian era, at least none whose date is certain. Unfortunately, moreover, we are as yet without critical editions either of the most im- portant early Versions (LXX, Pesh., Targg.), or of the ancient Jewish literary works (Talmuds, Midrashim) in which a great number of Bible pas- sages are cited and explained. And, finally, the history of the text is much older than the close of the Canon. Even during the period when the writings which are now gathered into one in the OT had still a more or less separate circulation, the text underwent a variety of clanges, due partly to the carelessness of copyists, and partly to intention, what was considered objectionable being dropped out, and additions being made. The proper course of procedure, then, appears to us to be to work }.}. from a fixed point, viz. the printed text. We will discuss— i . The printed editions. ii. The manuscripts. iii. The work of the Mas(s)oretes (and the punctuation). iv. Earlier traces of the Heb. text of the OT. v. The importance of the ancient Versions. vi. Observations on the history of the growth of the OT. i. PRINTED EDITIONS OF THE HEB. OT. — A. FIFTEENTH CENTURY. —The first portion of the Heb. Bible ever printed was the Psalter, 1477 (small folio, prob. Bologna), with D. Kimli’s commentary. Only the first psalms have the vowel points, in a very rude form (Ginsburg, Introd. 780–794). || The first ed. of the Pent, appeared in 1482 (Bologna folio, pointed), with Targ. Onk. and Rashi. || Ed. princeps of the Prophets, 1485 (Soncino, folio, 2 vols. [the 2nd has no date]), with D. Kimhi's com., neither vowel points nor accents. || Ed., princeps of the Hagiographa, 1487, 86 (Naples, folio, 3 parts). The vowel points are most un- reliable, the pºinters having !. their work very carelessly. There are no accents. The accom. anying comm. are Kimbi on the Psalter, and munanuel on Proverbs. || The first ed. of the whole OT appeared at Soncino in 1488, folio ; it had vowel points and accents, like almost all the following editions; 2nd ed., Naples, c. 1491–93 [neither date nor place is given]; || 3rd ed., Brescia, 1494. Luther used this ed. in translating the OT into German ; || Pesaro, 1494 (?, see Wolf, Biblio. theca Heb. ii. 364, iv. 109: B. Riggenbach, Das Chronikon des Konrad Pellikan, Basel, 1877, p. 20). B. SIXTEENTII CENTURY.—Heb. OT, Pesaro, 1511–1517, folio, 2 vols. || The Complutensian Poly- glot, Alcala, 1514–1517, Vetus testamentú multi- plici lingwa nic primo impressum, folio, 4 vols. (Heb., ſixX, Vulg., Targ. Onk.). No accents; the vowel points cannot be relied upon. The editors used, for the compilation of their Heb. text, the Lisbon, Pent. (1491), the Naples OT (1491–1493), and the MS of the OT in the Madrid University Library No. 1. The consonantal text is, according to Ginsburg (p. 917), remarkably accurate and of great importance. || First Rabbinical Bible, folio, 4 vols., Venice, 1516–1517. The editor, Felix Pratensis, was the first to indicate, in a purely Hebrew Bible, the Christian chapters * on the margin of the Heb. OT, and to divide Samuel, Kings, Ezra, and Chronicles each into two books. He was likewise the first to give, though not con- sistently, the consonants of the Kéré in the margin. | The first Venice quarto Bible (1516–1517) is only a re-issue of the folio, without the Targums and the commentaries. || The second Rabbinical Bible, folio, 4 vols., Venice, 1524–1525, with the Masſs)ora collected and arranged by Jacob ben Chayim ibn Adonijah. “No textual redactor,’ says Ginsburg º 964), ‘of modern days, who professes to edit the eb. text according to the Masſs)ora, can deviate from it without giving conclusive justification for so doing.” || Third Rabbinical Bible, 1547–1548; fourth, 1568, Venice, folio, 4 vols. ; || Biblin Sacra, Hebraice, Graece et Latine, Antwerp, 1569–1572, folio [OT vols. i.-iv.]; printed at the expense of Philip II. (hence surnamed Biblia Regia), ed. Arias Montanus. || Of the great number of other editions we will mention here but two : " wipp Hebraica, Biblic. Latina planegate mova S. Munsteri tralatione . . adiectis insuper & Rabinorum coiſientarijs an- motgtionibus, Basel, 1534–1535, folio, 2 vols. [2nd ed. 1546]; and wipm TT, Biblia Sacra eleganti et majuscula characterum forma, Q?06 . . . . litera: radicales [plena et migrat] dº serviles, deficientes dº quiescentes dºc. [vacual situ et colore discernuntur. Authore Elia Huttero, Hamburg, 1587, folio. C. SEVEN TEENTH CENTURY. –Fifth Rabbinical Bible, Venice, 1617–1619; sixth, Basel, 1618–1619, revised and edited by J. Buxtorf the elder; un- fortunately, he altered the vowel points in the Targums according to the Aram. portions of Daniel and Ezra. | The Paris Polyglot, printed at the expense of the Paris barrister, Guy Michel le Jay, 1629–1645, folio [OT vols. i.-iv.]. || Much better, and indeed the best of all the Polyglot Bibles, are the Biblia sacra polyglotta, ed. Brian Walton, London, 1657, folio [OT vols. i.-iv.]. || The basis of nearly all the newer editions are the Biblia IIcbraica. . . . lemmatibus Latin is illustrata à J. Leusden, Amsterdam, 1667, publisher Athias. || Biblia. He- braica. . . . ex recensione D. E. Jablonski, Berlin, 1699. The latter follows Leusden's edition, but has collated also other edd. and some MSS. In the Preface he states that he has found and cor- rected more than 2000 errata in the Bible of 1667. I). EIGHTEENTII CENTUIt Y. —Biblia Hebraica, . . . recensita. . . . ab Everardo van der Hooght, Amstelaedami et Ultrajecti, 1705. This OT is very often extolled as the best octavo ed. of the Bible, but without sufficient reason. The ed. of the Biblia Hebraica, Amstelaedami, 1725, pub. b Salomo ben Joseph Props, is far superior. || Seventh Rabbinical 13ible: nwo mºrp TED, pub. by Moses of Frankfort, Amsterdam, 1724–1727, folio, 4 vols. || J. H. Michaelis, Biblia Hebraica, ea: aliquot mºntº- scriptis et compluribus impressis codicibus, item masora. . . . diligenter recensita. Accedumt loca scrip- tura, parallela . . . brevesque admotationes, Halle, 1720. This is the first printed attempt at a critical edition. The Erfurt MSS collated by Michaelis are now in Berlin. || The Mantua, Bible, 1742–1744, * The division of the books of the Bible into chapters was the device of Stephen Langton of Canterbury (1205 A.D.), who intro- duced it in the Vulgate. TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 727 4°, pub, by Raphael Chayim Basila, contains ºlomo Norzi's mas(s)oretical commentary on the OT. || B. Kennicott, Vetus Test. IIeb. cwm variis lectionibus, Oxford, 1776, 1780, folio, 2 vols., gives the text of van der Hooght, without the vowel points and accents. The MSS are for the most part very perfunctorily collated (cf. Bruns' ed. of the Dissertatio Generalis, and see below, ii.J.). . E. NINETEENTH CENTURY. —Biblia Hebraica . . . recensita ab E. van der Hooght. Editio nova emendata a J. D’Allemand, London, 1822, and often. || Bibl. Heb. . . . recensuit Aug. Hahn, Leipzig, 1831, and often. || Bibl. Heb. . . . curavit C. G. G. Theile, Leipzig, 1849, and often. ||[Chris. tian] David Ginsburg, D'p"To wipm ºnbo Hyanni B'nwy mňam D'Eºn by . . . nºn, London, 1894, 2 vols. F. EDITIONS, WITHouT VolyEL POINTS AND ACCENTS.—Bibl. Heb. non punctata . . . accuranti- bus Joh. Leusdemo & Joh. Andr. Eisenmengero, Francofurti, 1694, 16”. Bibl. Heb. sine punctis, Amstelaedami et Ultrajecti, 1701, 16”. I help" ppm Nºnprin, Pent. ed. S. Baer, Roedelheim, 1866, and often. || Bibl. Sac. Heb. : Pent., Jos., Jud., Sam., Psalmi . . . sine punctis ediderunt R. Sinker et E. T. Leeke, Cambridge, 1870. || The Psalms in Heb., without points, Oxford [Clarendon Press]. G. S. BAEIt'S EDD. OF SEPARATE BOOKS (those issued down to 1890 have prefaces by F. Delitzsch), Leipzig; Genesis, 1869; Jos., Jud., 1891; Sam., 1892; Kings, 1895; Isaiah, 1872; Jer., 1890; Ezekiel, 1884; Minor Proph, 1878; Psalms, 1880; Prov., 1880; Job, 1875; Megilloth, 1885; Dan., Ezr., Neh., 1882; Chron., 1888. Cf. H. Strack in Theol. Litztg. 1879, No. 8, and Ginsburg's criticisms in his Introduction. H. CRITICAL EDITIONS.—The Sacred Books of the OT: a critical ed. of the Heb, teat, printed in colours . . . under the editorial direction of Paul Haupt : Leipzig, Baltimore, and London, 4°. The following have appeared at the date of this article: Genesis by C. J. Ball, 1896; Leviticus by Driver and White, 1894; Numbers by J. A. Paterson, 1900; Joshua by W. H. Bennett, 1895; Judges by G. F. Moore, 1900; Samuel by Budde, 1894; Isaiah by Cheyne, 1899; Jeremiah by Cormill, 1895; Ezekiel by Toy, 1900; Psalms by J. Wellhausen, 1895; Proverbs by A. Müller and E. Kautzsch, 1901; Job by C. Siegfried, 1893; Daniel by A. Ramphausen, 1896; Ezra-Nehemiah by H. Guthe and L.W. Batten, 1901; Chronicles by R. Kittel, 1895, A critical edition of the Aramaic portions of the OT is given by the present writer in his Grammatik des Biblisch - Aramäischem”, Leipzig, 1901 (Dn 31**** 4%–77 also with supralinear punctuation). LITERATURE.-Joh. Chr. Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, Hamburg, ii. (1721) pp. 304–385 (on whole Bible), 385-413 (on parts), iv. (1733) pp. 108–123 (Bible), 123-154 (parts); || Jac. le Long, Iłilliotheca Sacra. . . . continuata ab A. G. Masch, IIalle, i. (1778) pp. 1–186; || J. B. de Rossi, Ammales hebra:0 - typo- graphici sec. XV.,. Parma, 1795, Ammales hebroeo-typogr, ab ammo MDI ad M D.VI, digesti, Parma, 1799, De igmotis monºwllis antiquissinis helraici tea-tus editionibus ac critico earwm, usu, Erlangen, 1782; B. W. D. Schulze, Wollständigere Kritik iber die gewöhmlichen Awsgabem der heb. Bibel, mebst. . . . Nachy;icht von der IIeb. Bibel, welche der sel. D. Luther bey seiner Über- setzung gebraucht, Berlin, 1766; ..., M. Steinschneider, Cata- logus librorum hebraeorum in bibliotheca Hodleiana, Berlin, 1852 ft., cols. 1–164; || B. Pick, “Iſistory of the printed colitions of the OT” in Hebraica, ix. (1892–1893), pp. 47–110 ; || Ch. D. Ginsburg, Introd., to the massoretico-critical ed., of the Heb. Bible, London, 1807, pp. 779–076 (describes 24 early printed edd. of the whole OT or of parts of it). On the Polyglot Bibles: Wolf, ii. 832-364, iv. 90–107; le Long- Masch, i. 331-408; Ed. Reuss in PIRE 2 xii. 95-103; Franz I)elitzsch, Zwr Entstehwngsgesch. der Polyglottembibel des Kar- dinals Ximenes, I.eipzig, 1871, 1878, 1886 (44, 88, and G0 pp.), 4°. ii. THE MANUSCRIPTS.—A. Rolls. –The oldest form of book is the roll (nhº, volumen). Even at the present day the books which are read aloud in the principal part of the synagogue service are written in the roll form : namely, the Pentateuch (Tinº ºpp), from which a pārāsha is read every Sabbath, and the five Megillóth º: volumina), namely, the Song of Songs (read at the Passover), Ruth (at Feast of Weeks), Lamentations (on anniversary of Destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldaeans), Ecclesiastes (at Feast of Tabernacles), Esther (at I'east of Purim). The material of the rolls is usually parchment ; in the East, leather was also employed. At the beginning and the end there is a wooden roller (nºrin Py the tree of life’), and the columns that have been read are rolled up on the first of these. Neither vowel signs nor accents are present. In seven parchment rolls at Tzufutkale the present writer noticed a point at the end of each verse, in two of them two points. The letters y l l ; b y w have generally small ornamental strokes (i'in coro- nulae). Between each book of the Torah four lines are left blank. The whole Pent. is divided into 669 sections (pārāshas nº), which are called, according to the character of the spaces which separate them, open (aperta, nämnº, marked B) or closed (clausa, niphnip, marked D). The 54 Sabbath pericopes are marked EEE) and DDD respectively (with the exception of the 12th, Gn 47°, at whose commencement the intervening space is only that of one letter). Six words, whose initial letters are pe. Til (Ps 68%), stand, particularly in Spanish (Sephardic) MSS, at the beginning of a .." nºwshin Gn 11, Hºmn" Gn 498, pºssiT Ex 1428, 12. Lv 168, rh Nu 249, and rºys' Dt 31°8; in others, par- ticularly the German (Ashkenazite) MSS, the tº and p are represented by Dt 1618 Debº (or 12° now) and 23% Nsp. Instead of nºn' some MSS have nowry of Gn 49* at the commencement of a column. Many copyists begin each column with a new verse, some begin each with the letter wav, bºyſ ºn. The poetical passages Ex 15 and Dt 32 are written (and even printed) in artistically constructed divisions. On these and other rules to be observed by the writers of rolls, see the Literature. Epigraphs are rare. The rules that have to be observed by a modern copyist of a Torah roll may be learned very conveniently from S. Baer's ed. of the Penta- teuch, Nºpm EDT ppm, Roedelheim, 1866 and often. B. MSS in book form. These may contain the whole Dible, or one or two of its four principal parts (Pent., . Prophetae priores, Prophetae pos- teriores, Hagiographa). The material is either barchment or É. (on the employment of the atter see Steinschneider, Handschriftemkunde, p. 18 f., and cf. art. WRITING). The size is very fre- quently quarto; in ancient times folio is commoner than octavo. Almost all codices have vowels and accents. The onission of the double point soph pasuk at the end of the verse is rare (four codd. at Tzufutkale, and cod. Brit. Mus. Orient. 4445; see Ginsburg, Introd. p. 473); still rarer is the placing of only a single point (cod. Tzufut. 102).-Most MSS contain also mas(s)ora, i.e. observations on the number of times that particular words and word-forms occur : mas(s)ora parva (Köré and Kēthibh ; the indication of the number of occur- rences of a word or word-form, e.g. a = twice, tºp = 134 times) on the side margins; masſs)ora magnet (detailed lists with citation of passages) on the top and bottom margins; masſs)ora finalis; some MSS have Masſs)oretic material also at the begin- ning. The extent of these observations was regu- lated by the space available, the inclination of the copyist, and the remuneration offered by the man who ordered the copy. Some copyists wrote part of the mas(s)ora magma in figures (animals, leaves, etc.) formed by elaborate flourishes, so that the reading is at times a matter of no little diſliculty. Such embellishments have also proved not infre- quently detrimental to the accuracy of the copy. 728 TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT }ortion of the MSS, are the epigraphs, especially hen these give the date, the country, and the name of the scribe.—The punctuation and the masſs)ora are frequently not from the hand of the writer of the consonantal text, but have been added by one or two other scribes. The punctuator is called Tºp. C. A scientific examination and collating of all ancient or otherwise important MSS of the OT has not as yet been undertaken. Collections of vari- ous readings are given by Sal. Norzi, J. H. Michaelis, and B. Kennicott (see above, i. D), J. B. de Rossi (below, J), S. Baer (i. G.), and Ch. D. Ginsburg (i. E). Some of the most important MSS are— (a) Codex of the Former and the Latter Pro- phets, written by Moses ben Asher 827 years after the destruction of the temple, i.e. A. D. 895, now in the I&araite synagogue at Cairo. See M. Weiss- mann in the Heb. weekly Hamaggid i. (1857), Nos. 47, 48, 50, ii. 16 ; Jacob Sappir, n'ED jan, Lyck, 1866, fol. 14; on the other side Ad. Neubauer in Studia Biblica, iii. (Oxford, 1891) pp. 25–27.- (b) Bible written by Nysun ja ripºv ; the vowel points, the accents, and the mas(s)ora are added, according to an epigraph, by Aaron ben Asher. It is now in the possession of the Jewish com- munity at Aleppo. See Sappir, fol. 12, 13, 17–20; Strack, Prolegomena, pp. 44–46, and in Baer-Strack, Die Dikduke ha-teamim des Ahron ben Moscheh ben Ascher, Leipzig, 1879, pp. ix–xiv. W. Wickes (Treatise on the accentuation of the twenty- one so-called prose-books of the OT, Oxford, 1887, p. ix) contends that this epigraph “is a fabrica- tion, merely introduced to enhance the value of the codex. The present writer is still doubtful whether Wickes is right. Ginsburg (Introd. p. 242) does not call in question the credibility of the epigraph. — (c) St. Petersburg Bible written at Cairo in the year 1009 by Samuel ben Jacob, who declares that he copied the codex of Aaron ben Asher. See Harkavy-Strack, Catalogue, pp. 263– 274. Wickes (l.c.), says, indeed, that the codex ‘is much younger,’ but the present writer feels certain that he is wrong. Ginsburg, too, believes in the trustworthiness of the epigraphs.-(d) Pro- pheta.rum posteriorum codea. Babylonicus Petro- politanws [B3], edidit H. L. Strack, Leipzig, 1876 (449 and 37 pp.), fol. max., written A.D. 916. Re- garding the readings of this MS see Ginsburg, Introd. pp. 215–230, 439–441, 475 f. D. The age of many MSS is much controverted. Cod. Brit, Mus. Add. 4708 (Latter Prophets) was assigned by the late Dr. M. Margoliouth to the 6th cent.; Mor. Heidenheim judged that it might have been written between the 6th and the 8th cent. ; B. Kennicott (cod. 126) ascribed it to the beginning of the 15th century. Ginsburg says: “The writing is such as we meet with in the Sephardic codices of the 12th and 13th centuries,” and, so far as the present writer can judge without having examined the MS for himself, Ginsburg is right. || The Bible Cambridge 12 bears the date ‘7 Adar, 616,’ i.e. 18th Feb. 856 A.D. We wonder that So Sagacious and learned a scholar as the late S. M. Schiller-Szinessy accepted this date as correct (see his Catalogue, p. 13). Cf. L. Zunz, Zur Gesch. w. Literatur, Berlin, 1845, p. 214 f.; Ad. Neubauer in Studia Biblica, iii. pp. 27–36. The number of unquestionably genuine ancient epigraphs in Bible MS is not large. At Tzufutkale the present writer in 1874 noted the following, which emanate from the writers of the MSS them- selves : 922 A.D. = 1234 Seleuc., cod. 34, Moses ben Naphtali, known as a contemporary of Aaron ben Asher; 930 A.D. = 1241 Seleuc., cod. 35/36, Salomo ben Nyxºna, mas(s)ora written by Ephraim Highly valuable, but unfortunately found only in 8, W ben Nynºn: ; 943 A.D. = 4703 of the Crention, cod. 39, Isaak ben Jochai; 952 A.D. = 4712 of the Creation, cod. 40, Joseph ben Daniel ; 961 A.D. =4721 of the Creation, cod. 41 ; 989 A.D. = 1300 Seleuc., cod. 43, Joseph ben Jacob ; 994 A.D. = 4754 of the Creation, cod. 44, Moses ben Hillel ; 1051 A.D. = 48ll of the Creation, cod. 11, Moses (?) ben Anan.—Unfortunately, the Karaite Abraham Firkowitsch (both in his first collections and in the latest just mentioned, which since 1875 has like- wise been in St. Petersburg) either himself wrote entirely a great many epigraphs, or falsified them by altering dates and names. For instance, in cod. Tzufut. 11 he changed 48ll of the Creation into 44ll = G51 A.D. 1 Much fresh information is to be hoped for from the treasures of the Genizah of Old Cairo brought by S. Schechter to Cambridge ; see the description of the Genizah by E. N. Adler in the JQR, 1897, p. 669 ft. E. Why is the number of ancient MSS of the Heb. OT so small 2 Why have we no MSS as old as those of the NT, the LXX, and the Peshitta ? The reasons are : (1) Not a few Bible MSS, espe- cially Pentateuch rolls, were destroyed by fanatical Christians during the persecutions of the Jews in the Middle Ages, particularly in the time of the Crusades. (2) A much larger number, how- ever, of MSS were destroyed by the Jews then- selves by Imeans of the genizah (n!"Jä). Already the Talmud (Megillo, 26b) tells of how a worm- eaten Pentateuch roll is buried beside the corpse of a sage; cf. Shulham 'Arukh, Joreh De'ah, 282, § 10. This custom was later extended to all Heb. MSS of Biblical and non-Biblical texts, frequentl I. indeed, with the modification that a room, generally a cellar, in the synagogue was devoted to their concealment. To the dryness of the Egyptian climate we owe the abundance of the material which, as was mentioned above, has been found in the synagogue of Old Cairo. But it was not only such MSS as had been damaged by the tooth of time, by fire, by water, or by constant use, that were deposited in the genizah ; further, all Torah rolls that contained more than three mistakes in a column had to be concealed (see Talm. Menahoth, 29b ; Shullan 'Arukh, Joreh De'ah, 279). This rule partly explains how the MSS that have come down to us represent in the main one and the same text. Codices which deviated from the text of the recognized makdānim and the masſs)oretic principles were considered, “incorrect,’ and were consigned to the genizah. A very notable instance of this is the codex of 916 A.D. found by Abr. Firkowitsch (cf. A. Firk., pn-, Jas, Wilna, 1872, p. 12, No. 29). Hence the present writer is unable to adopt the view of J. Olshausen, P. de Lagarde, and most moderns, that all Heb. MSS go back to a single standard copy (cf. also his discussion in G. A. Kohut's Semitic Studies, Berlin, 1897, pp. 563–571). F. LITERATURE.—In general : Wolf, Biblioth. IIeb. ii. 231–332, iv. 78-98; || O. G. Tychsen, Tentamen de variis codicum IIeb, emeribws, Rostock, 1772; Befºreyetes Tentamen, 1774; || J. G. #. Einleit. in das A T'ſ, ii. 456–584, Göttingen, 1823; H. L. Strack, Prolegomema critica in VT IIeb., Leipzig, 1873, pp. 9-58 [this book has been long out of print ; the author hopes to write a new work on the subject); ‘Die biblischen und die massoret. Handschriften zu Tschufut - Kale in der IKrim' in Zlschr. J. htther. Theologie, 1875, §. 587; 624;. || M. Stein- schneider, I'orleswmgen über die Kunde hebräische?' Hand- 8Chriſten, derem Sannmlungen und Verzeich misse, Leipzig, 1897 (110 pp.); || Ad. Neubauer, “The Introduction of the square characters in Biblical MSS, and an account of the earliest MISS ºne OT” in Studia Diblica et L'ccles. iii. (Oxford, 1801) Pº, dºuie, for the writing of rolls destined for synagogue use: Joel Müller, Masechet Soſerim (nºt nººp), Der talmud. Tractal den Schreiber, eine Iºnleit. in das Studium der allhel) Graphik, der Masora und der all.jūd. Liturgie, Leipzig, 1878; J. G. Chr. Adler, Judoeorwm codicis stºri rite scribendi leſſes, Hamburg, 1779 [chs. i. – v. of "D'Op); || Raph. Kirchheim, TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 729 Septem libri Talmudici parvi Hierosolymitami, Frankfurt a. M., 1851, pp. 1–11 ‘Sepher torah’; Moses Maimonides, Hil- khoth tephillin wºmezuzah wegepher torah (separate impression of chs. vii.-x. in Jac. Henr. van Bashuysen, Observationes Sacroe Frankfurt, 1708) ; ; Leop. Lów, Graphische ſequisiten und Drzewgmisse bei dem. Juden, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1870–71; || Salomo Ganzfried, Diné kethibath º, torah, etc., Ungvar, 1800; || A. G. Waehner, Antiquitates lºbra-Orum, i., Göttingen, 1743, pp. 187–208. H. Catalogues of important collections of MSS.—Berlin : M. Steinschneider, Das Verzeichſmiss der hel). Hamdachriftem, 1878 (140 pp.) and 1897 (172 pp.), 40. Il Cambridge ; S. M. Schiller- Szinessy, Catalogue of the Heb. MSS preserved in the University Ilibrary, i. 1876 (248 pp.). | Florence : A. M. Biscioni, Biblio- thecae L'Uraica, Gracca, I'lorentimſe . . . Catalogus, 1757. || Ilondon, British Museum : Ginsburg, Introduction, pp. 469– 728 (describes 49 MSS collated for his edition of the OT]; R. Hoerning, Description and Collation of sia, Karaite MSS of portions of the Heb. Bible in Arabic characters, London, 1889 (08 }. and 42 facsimiles). || Oxford : Ad. Neubauer, Catalogue of the Heb. MSS in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, 1886 (1108 cols. and 40 facsimiles). An Appendix by Ad. Neubauer and A. E. Cowley is in the press. || Parnia. : MSS codices hebraici biblioth. J. B. de l’ossi, Parma, 1803, 3 vols. || St. Petersburg : A. Harkavy und II. L. Strack, Catalog der heb. Bibelhamdschriſten der kaiserl, Öffentl. Bibliothek zu St. Petersburg, Leipzig, 1875 (296 pp.). || Rome : Bibliothecae Apostolice Vaticame codicwm. ºnamu scriptorwm Catalogus . . . Steph. Evod. Assemanus et Jos. Sim. Assemanus . . . recensuerunt, vol. i., Rom, 1756, fol. (Heb. and Sam. MSS). || Turin : B. Peyron, Codices hebraici . . . in T'awrinensi Athema:0, 1880. || Vienna : A. I(rafft und S. Deutsch, Die handschriftl. heb, Werke der K. K. Hofbibliothek zw Wiem, 1847, 40. J. On the MSS collated for Kennicott's work (above, i. D): Dissertatio generalis in VT' Heb. . . . auctore B. Kemnicott. Recudi curavit et notas adiccit P. J. Bruns, Brunswick, 1783 (596 pp.). || J. B. de Rossi, Variae lectiones Vet. Test., Parma, 1784–88, 49, and Scholia critica in VT' libros, 1798, 49 (describes not only his own MSS, but all the codd. used by or for Ken- nicott which he had been able to see for himself]. K. Facsimiles of Bible MSS: The Palaeographical Society's Fac- 8èmiles of ancient MSS (Orient. series), ed. W. Wright, London, t. iii. plate 40: Brit. Mus. Harley 5720, l'ormer and Latter l’rophets, 2 IC 1922.80 (‘seems to be of the 12th cent.'); plate 41 : Cambridge Univ. 25, Hagiographa with Targum, Dn 11-4, Jan. 1347 A.D.; pt. iv. (1879) plate 54 : Brit. Mus. Orient. 1467, Pent. and Targ. Onli, with the supralinear vowel signs, Nu 2241– 2310 (‘written in Babylonia or Persia, about the 12th cent.')...] Ad. Neubauer, I'acsimiles of LIeb. MSS in the Bodleian Lib- vary, Oxford, 1880, plate 1, cat. 64: Dt 95-7, with supralinear vowel signs and accents; plate 8, cat. 2322 : Gn 11-20, Span. square character, 1476 A.D., ; plate 14, cat. 20: Ex 1829–199, German, 1340 A.D.; plate 21, cat. 1144: beginning of the book of Jonah, followed by a Gr. tr., before 1263 A.D.; plate 31, cat. 2328: 2 S 222:11, Yemen, 1561 A.D.; plate 38, cat. 2484: Pr414–53, Yemen, with the simplified supralinear punctuation ; plate 39: Mal 11–213, unknown characters, from a MS in private posses- sion in Kertsch (see A. Harkavy, Newaufgéfundene heb. Bibel- handschriftem, St. Petersb. und Leipzig, 1884 [48, pp. and 5 facsim..]). || Ch. D. Ginsburg, A Series of fifteem facsimiles from MS pages of the Heb, Bible, with a letterpress description, London, 1807, fol. max. [13 of these MSS are in the Brit. Mus., 1 is in the possession of the Darl of Leicester, 1 is cod. Petropol. 916 A.D.). || B. Stade (GVI) gives facsim, of : cod. Petropol. 916 A.D. ; cod. I(arlsruhe 1 [Kennicott, 154], Former and Latter Prophets with Targum, once in the possession of Reuchlin, 1 S 3020-319; Erfurt Bible, now Berlin Orient, fol. 1213, Is 11-20; Hagiographa, with the simpliſled supralinear punctuation, Yemen, Berlin Orient. Quarto 680, Ps 1014–10211, W. Wickes (Accentuation of the Prose books) gives as frontispiece a photo- graph (reduced Scale) of a page of the Aleppo codex, Gn 2694– 2730. || Ad. Neubauer in Studia Biblica et Eccles. iii. gives fac- simile of cod. Cairo A.D. 897 and cod. Cambridge 12 º above, D). || On other facsimiles (mostly from non-Biblical MSS) see M. Steinschneider, “Zur Literatur der heb. Palaeographie’ in Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen, 1887, pp. 155–165. I. On A. Firkowitsch : II. L. Strack, A. l'irk. whd seine Ent- deckungen, Leipzig, 1876 (44 pp.); ZDMG, 1880, pp. 103-168; Lit. Centralbl. 1883, No. 25, cols. 878-880. || A. Flarlºavy, Altjiid. Denkmäler aws der ICrinn, St. Petersburg, 1876 (288 pp.), 49. iii. TIIE Work of THE MA(s)sor ETFs.—Whence comes the text of our extant MSS Ž In all essen- tials, of course, from older MSS. But there is no doubt that all copyists meant to work nººn Bºy, ?.e. according to the traditions which had been handed down to them as to the writing and read- ing of the sacred texts. A. First of all, as to the word nibb. It is the custom now in many quarters to write nºbo (cf. nº, nºsa), and to derive from the post-Biblical verb npo ‘land down.” The older form of writing it, however, is nºbº. This word is taken from Ezk 20°7 (where it signifies ‘binding', from the root hDN), but in post-Biblical usage it assumed quite a different sense (as mºnix of Is 41° 45' means in New Heb. not ‘coming things’ but “letters’). nºbo in New Heb. Imeans primarily ‘tradition,” e.g. Mishna, Shekalim, vi. 1; hence the derivation from noº (A both, i. 1) might be per se admissible, and even the pronunciation nºp, but the oldest witnesses, as has been said, are in favour of nºbip. In the next lace, nibb stands for the tradition relating to the interpretation of Scripture. R. 'Akiba says (Aboth, iii. 13), ‘Masoreth is a fence to Torah,” i.e. the prescriptions of the oral Law make transgression of the written Law difficult. Further, however, the word Måsåreth was applied to the tradition re- lating to the Bible text, and those who busied themselves with this tradition were called *g nºton, or Ma(s)soretes. B. The 24 books of the OT were considered, at all events as early as the 1st cent. of the Christian era, as holy (see Jos. c. Apion. i. 8 [cf. PIRE * vii. 427 f. = *ix. 751 f.]). It was an object to preserve the text of these books, in particular and above all that of the Pentateuch, and its traditional understanding for coming generations. This was accomplished first by attention to the consonantal teact. (a) Conscientious care on the part of the copyists was ensured by numerous rules about the writing out of Bible codices, especially of synagogue rolls (cf. above, ii. G). (b) They counted the verses and the words of each of the 24 books and of many sections; they reckoned which was the middle verse and the middle word of each book; nay, they counted the letters both of particular sections and even of whole books. The Talmud, Kiddushim, 30a, says: ‘The ancients were called Sopherim because they counted [neo ‘to count') all the letters in the Torah. They said: Waw in pril Lv 11* is the middle letter in the Torah ; whº whi Lv 10% is the middle word ; nºnm Lv 13* is the middle verse; 'Ayin in hyp Ps 80* is the middle letter in the Psalms, and Nin, Dinn Ps 78* is the middle verse.’ It. Joseph asked: “To which side does wav in ‘gahön' belong Answer: Let us bring a Torah, and I will count. Surely, Rabba bar bar Hanna has said that they did not go away until they had brought a Torah and counted ' (cf. Morinus, Jºacercitationes biblicae, Paris, 1669, p. 442). They counted also the fre- quency of the occurrence of words, plurases, or forms, both in the whole Bible and in parts of it. Shabbath, 49b : “As the sages sat together, the question was raised, To what do the 39 principal works that are forbidden on the Sabbath day correspond 2 Hanina b. Hama said : To the [39] works at the building of the tabernacle ; Jonathan b. Eleazar said in name of Simeon b. Jose : They correspond to the 39 occurrences of the word Hosºp in the Torah. Then Rab Joseph asked, Dees Gn 39” belong to the number or not ? Abaji replied, Let him bring a Law book and count.” (c) They collected notabilict into groups, and thus not only helped the recollection of these, but also facilitated the control of the MSS. For instance, 8 words written with final wav are read with he (cod. 916 A.D., Jer 2*); 14 words written with final he are read with wanu (cod. 916 A.D., Ezk 37*). There is a great fondness for anything alphabetical ; e.g. We have an alphabetical list of words which occur only twice in the OT-onee with and once without wºv at the beginning : nºrs l S 19 and wºrs) Gn 27” etc. (cod. 916 A.D., Jer 101"). (d) The scriptio plena and scriptio defectiva and other peculiarities of the traditional text were very often moted in the Haggädā (esp. in the Midrashin), and not seldom also in the Halākhā. These notes serve on the one hand as a proof that the form of writing remarked on was actually received from tradition ; and on the other hand they helped to ensure that this particular form was retained in 730 TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT the Bible codices. For instance, in Gn 2310 the name Ephron is written the first time phy (plene) and the second time They (defective). On this the midrash Gen. rabba. 58 remarks: ‘Prº8” “He that hath an evil eye hasteth to be rich, and con- sidereth not that poverty shall come upon him *; that is Ephron who wished to get possession of the riches of the just one, but afterwards he came into poverty.' . In Hag 1° Kēthibh has inns, Kéré nians. Talmud, Yoma, 21b asks: ‘Why is n not written ? Answer: Because five [n as numerical sign = 5] things which were present in the first temple were wanting in the second, the ark of the covenant with kappéreth and cherubim, the holy fire, the Divine gracious presence (Shekinah), the Holy Spirit, and the Urim and Thunmim.” C. By means of the invention of punctuation (vowel signs and accents) between the 6th and 8th cent. it was sought to ensure the preservation of the traditional pronunciation ; tº: there was also the intention of lightening the task of learners of the language. Unfortunately, we are without precise details as to the history of this invention ; the only point that is practically certain is that Syriac influence must be assumed. (In Syr. a point above the letter indicates the fuller, stronger pro- nunciation ; a point under it the finer, weaker vocalization or even the absence of a vowel). Attention to these signs involved a large addition to the studies of the later Ma(s)soretes. For instance, 18 words beginning with lamed occur twice—in the one instance with shëwa (or hirek with following shëwa), in the other with pathal (cod. 916 A.D., Is 8”); alphabet of words ending in J which occur once (cod. 916 A.D., Is 34”). D. Two systems of punctuation are completely known to us: (a) that employed in most MSS and in all printed editions, the so-called Tiberian, named from the city of Tiberias, where the study of the Ma(s)sora flourished for centuries. This system has special accents for the three books, Psalms, Proverbs, and Job.- (b) the supralinear punctuation, so named because all the vowel signs are placed over the consonants; it was in use, alongside of the Tiberian system, among a portion of the Jews of Babylonia. §. its usual designa- tion, “Babylonian punctuation ') and Yemen (in Yemen till the 18th cent.). The signs for the prin- cipal vowels a, w, are formed from the matres lectionis N, ), "; the disjunctive accents have mostly the form of the letter with which their name begins: e.g. l = |pi zakeph, b = snºb tarla. The accentual system is certainly dependent upon the Tiberian ; the vowel system, too, gives the impres- sion, at least to the present writer, of less origin- ality. The most important MS in which this System is employed is cod. Proph. post. Bab.- Petropol. 916 A.D. — The simple supralinear punctuation system adopted in many later Yemen codices is derived from the complicated system of cod. Petropol. 916 A.D. (G. Margoliouth, it is true, is of the opposite opinion). — (c) M. I'riedländer describes “A third system of symbols for the Heb. vowels and accents’ in JQR, 1895, pp. 564–567. (In two fragments of Bible text found lately in {º and acquired by the Bodleian Library; see Neubauer's Catalogue, No. 2004, xi., and 2608, i.). Cf. C. Levias in AJSL xv. 157–164, and P. Kahle in ZAT'W xxi. (1901) pp. 273–317. E. As the very name indicates, it was not the aim of the Maſs)soretes to give anything new, but to preserve for future generations the Bible text exactly as it had come down to them, and this in regard not only to the consonantal text but also to its pronunciation. “Tendency’ of any kind was foreign to them. Instead of ºn in Is 141° we should certainly read ºn, but the former pro- nunciation is proved by Aquila, and the Peshitta to have been in use before the punctuation. The name of the well-known Canaanite god can hardly have been Molekh, but Melekh ; but already LXX, Aq., Symm., Theod, have MóNox=MT mºb. $. The distinction between Ma(s)soretes and punctuators is no absolute one. The Ma(s)sora, as is shown by cod. 916 A.D., was complete before the end of the 9th century. Aaron b. Moses b. Asher, “the great teacher’ (ºrian pºon), whose activity fell within the first third of the 10th cent., enjoyed already in his lifetime a great repu- tation, and as early as the year 989 the Bible codex supplied by him with punctuation and Ma(s)sora was regarded as the model codex and as authoritative. This is the judgment, too, of the writer of the St. Petersburg Bible MS B194 (1009 A.D.), Moses Maimonides, of David Kinnhi and of the later Jews. Aaron ben Asher himself had a rival in Moses b. David b. Naphtali, whose views were different not only regarding many ºminutiae of punctuation (daghesh, metheg, accents), but even, at least in some passages, regarding the consonantal text (see Ginsburg, Introd. pp. 241– 286). In like manner there were not a few differ- emces amongst the older Ma(s)soretes. The tradition about the text was not a uniform one, and it must be acknowledged that there were different schools of Ma(s)soretes. According to the readings of the codices employed as standards must have been the different indications in the Masſs)oretic rubrics; and S. Baer is not justified when, in the case of two statements that differ, he simply as a rule pronounces one to be wrong and corrects it from the other. G. The content of the Masſs)ora was collected into special books or reproduced in Bible MSS. Of those collections the best known is the book which is named from its opening words Hºrs, Hºrs (ed. Frensdorff, Hanover, 1864); cf. Ginsburg, Introd. p. 464. In the MSS the detailed statements of the Masſs)ora magma, varying indeed greatly in extent, according to the inclination or the ability of the scribe, are found on the top and bottom margins, some at the end of a codex or a book, only a few at the beginning. For the fullest collection of such material we are indebted to Ch. D. Ginsburg. H. LITERATURE.—H. L. Strack, art. ‘Massora’ in PRE2 ix. pp. 388-394; || W. Bacher, “A contribution to the history of the term Massorah’ in Jø18, 1891, pp. 785-790; “Die Massora' in Winter und Wünsche, Die jüd. Litteratwr Seit Abschluss des Kamoms, ii. (Trier, 1894) pp. 121–132; || Is. Harris, “The rise and development of the Massora’ in JQIt, 1889, pp. 128-142, 223– 257; |Ginsburg, Imtrod. (above, i. J) passim, esp. p. 421 ff. ; | Elias Levita, nºmopm n-hop hºp, Venice, 1538, 40; Ch. D. Ginsburg, The Massoreth ha-massoreth of E. L., with am Jºng. tr. and . . . notes, London, 1867; J. Buxtorf, T'iberiſts sive con- mentarius masorethicus triplea, Basel, 1665 (1st ed. 1620); "| S, Frensdorff, Massoretisches Wörterbuch, Hannover, 1876 (20 arid 387 pp.), 40; || Ch. D. Ginsburg, The Massorah compiled fronn MSS, alphabetically and leavically arranged, London, 1880–85, 3 vols. fol. (758, 838, and 383 pp.); || S. Baer und II. L. Strack Die Dikduke ha-teamin des Ahron bem. Moscheh bem. A scher, wºme andere alte grammatisch- massorethische Lehrstücke, Leipzig, 1879 (42 and 95 pp.). iv. EAIRLIER TRACES OF THE HEB. TEXT OF THE OT.—The work of the Ma(s)soretes was ended (see above, iii. F) at the latest in the 9th cent., and lies before us in this form in the St. Peters- burg codex of the Latter Prophets, 916 A.D., and in other MSS. What other means have we now of ascertaining what was the form of text in earlier times? A. On the margins of many codices, sometimes also at the end, there are notices of differences between various authorities, and of readings found in MSS that are now lost. From these notices we gather, for instance, that the Jews of the West (alyp), i.e. Palestine, differed from those of the East (nºp, nylp), i.e. Babylonia, even in regard to their Bible text. This difference, moreover, con- TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 73] cerned not only the Prophets and the Hagiographa, but also the Pentateuch, not only the consonants, but also the punctuation ; cf. Ginsburg, Introd. pp. 197—240. The Eastern Madnºha'é were not always at one among themselves; the views of the scholars of Sura differed on not a few questions from those of the scholars of Nehardea. Cf. Strack, “Ueber verloren gegangene Handschriften des AT’ in Geo. Al. Kohut, Semitic Studies, Berlin, 1897, pp. 560–572. B. The quotations in the Talmuds and the oldest Midrashim. The present writer has called attention to the importance of these quotations in his Prolegomena critica in VT Heb., Leipzig, 1873, p. 59–111, esp. p. 94 ft. A prerequisite, which ; not yet been supplied, for such investigations is critical editions of the Jewish literature just named. C. As to the activity of the Sopherim (yoap- patets), i.e. those students of the Law who pre- ceded the Ma(s)soretes, and laboured during the last centuries B.C. and at the beginning of the Christian era, we have, unfortunately, only very scanty information. The principal passage is Talmud, Nedarim, 37b, 38a : ‘A law given to Moses on Sinai (i.e. a very ancient tradition) is the following: Dºnelp Nipp, the pronunciation fixed by the Sopherim, e.g. Dºy shºwmayim, accented on the penult ; D mby, the cancelling [of wºw] by the Sopherim before nºis Gn 18° 24*, Nu 31°, Ps 68”, and before Toewo Ps 367; ºn; sº pºp, words read which are not written in the text, e.g. nº. 2 S 8°, vºs after 9s; 2 S 16*, Dºs; Jer 31*, nº after ºn Jer 50”, ns before -95 Ru 2", *s Ru 3%. 17; ºp 8% ji'n?, words written but cancelled in reading, e.g. N. after the second nºp, 2 K 51°, nN) before Tson Jer 32*, the second Thn Jer 51°, the second Up! Ezk 48", Ds Ru 3”.’” This record does not give all the instances: there were many differences as to the pre?ence or the absence of the waw conjunctive. Tūere were more words read but not written, and written but not read ; see Frensdorff, Okhlath we’okhlah, Nos. 97, 98 ; and Ginsburg, Massor. ii. p. 54 f. We learn from the above extract that the Sopherim were not simply copyists but revisers of the text.—A large part of their work consisted in removing everything which could give offence in any way to pious souls when the sacred texts were used in the course of public worship. Further, the Divine names, especially the Tetragrammaton, had to be protected against irreverent, and above all against frequent, utterance (see §§ v., vi., and Ginsburg, Introd. pp. 345–404). It may be assumed as certain that the results of the common labours of the Sopherim in Jeru- Salem were utilized in the Bible codices that were prepared under their superintendence. These codices would then serve as the basis of future copies. When differences were remarked between MSS, especially those kept in the sanctuary, it was the custom to follow the majority; cf. Pal. Talm. Ta'amith, iv. fol. 680 [according to Sopherim, vi. 4, Resh Lakish is the author of the record] : ‘Three codices of the Pent. were in the court of the temple. In Dt 33” one read hyp, two Typ; they accepted the text of the two, and rejected that of the one. In Ex 24" one read ºntoyſ, two ºny); they accepted the text of the two, and re- jected that of the one. In one codex nºn was written nine times, in two eleven times; they accepted the text of the two, and rejected that of the one.’ (‘bibyl was, according to Talm. Meg. 9a, one of the alterations made by the seventy- * It is worth while to remark that at least two of these ex- amples give the Eastern readings, namely, Ru 211 ns before ºn read but not written, and Jer 3211 mR) before nisbn written but not read. two elders in translating the Pentateuch into Greek. Rim, as is well known, is written in the Pentateuch for both masculine and femining gender ; Rºn occurs in MT of the Pentateuch only eleven times). v. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE OLD VERSIONS.– As really old MSS of the Heb. OT are not avail- able (ii. C–E), the ancient Versions have been ex- amined in order to discover the character of the text at a period earlier than that for which the MSS and the Masſs)ora give their evidence. On these Versions see the separate articles in the present work. Here it may be generally re- marked that an exhaustive use of these aids is impossible so long as we are without critical editions. Such editions we do not as yet possess, whether of the LXX, the Targums, the Peshitta, or the work of Jerome. Of all the Versions the most important for our purpose is the Alexandrian, i.e. the LXX (see the Literature in Strack's Einleit. in das AT, $87, and art. SEPTUAGINT above). Although, as has been just remarked, a critical edition is not yet in existence (for Dr. Swete gives only the text of cod. B with the variants of the oldest uncials), this nucl can be affirmed with certainty that the Heb. text which was the basis of the Alex. trans- lation frequently differed from the MT. But from the circumstance of this difference it by no means follows that the Heb. text used for the LXX was a better one than the MT. (This assumption is a capital error in the painstaking work of A. W. Streane on Jeremiah). Owing to the variety of translators, a special examination is required for every part of the OT. The LXX is of most use for the recovery of the Heb. text in the books of Samuel, Ezekiel, and partially Kings. For instance, in 1 S 8*, where MT has Diºmna, LXX has rightly tº 3ovkó\va èpºv, i.e. Danpa. But in many passages the text was corrupt even prior to the ‘ixx'ſ for example, 1 S 6" ‘50070’ and 2 S 157 ‘40.” The Hebrew exemplars from which the Alex- andrian translators worked had, at least in most of the books, the scriptio continua, that is, there was no separation of the words: for example, 1 Ch 17" Tº Tâs) appears in LXX as kal aºra, as = nºs); Pr27 nr 597, LXX thy Tropetav autów ; 1S* DJ Ny, LXX eis 8400s atrów (cf. Driver, Notes on IIeb. teact of Saºn. p. xXx f.; Ginsburg, Introd. 158-162).-The matres lectionis were less frequently employed than is now the case in the MT (cf. Driver, l.c. pp. xxxii-xxxiv.; Ginsburg, l.c. pp. 137-157, −It is uncertain whether any, or how many, MSS. With the old Heb. (Canaanite) script were used by the Alex. translators, and hence whether deviations from the present MT may be explained by interchange of letters which resemble :ach other in the old form of writing (cf. Ginsburg, Introd. pp. 291–296 ; A. J. Baumgartner, L'état du teate dw livre des Proverbes, Leipzig, 1890, pp. 272-282). Of the revising activity of the Sopherim many traces are to be discovered from the LXX, a circumstance which shows that this activity had commenced long before. Ish-baal the son of Saul is called in the LXX 'Ieogó00e, as in MT nya U's (see vol. ii. 501 f.). The most of the emendations of the Sopherin (Dºlbib mpn) are found also in the LXX, e.g. Jer 2" ini Tày 6ášav atroſ, for "mas ; but in two passages at least the ancient text is pre- served : " I S 319 DH.9 pºpe, LXX Kako) oyoovtes 0év, i.e. Dºnºs 'b, and Job 7” hy, LXX girl gol, i.e. Tºy, vi. OBSERVATIONS ON THIE HISTORY OF THIR TEXT OF THE OT. — What means have we of getting back to still earlier times? A. Comparison of parallel passages. Historical: 732 TEXT OF THE OLD THSTAMENT TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT Gn 5, etc. and 1 Ch l ; 2 S 239ff, and 1 Ch 11 ; Sam., Kings passim, and Chron. ; 2 K 18%–20% and Is 36–39; 2 K. 24.8—25” and Jer 52. Legis- lative : Ex 20 and Dt 5 (the Decalogue); Lv 11*. = Dt 14*. Poetical : 2S 22=Ps 18; Ps 105. 96. 106 and 1 Ch 1686: ; Ps 14 and 53 ; Ps 40.8m. and 701ſt.; Ps 577tſ, and 1081m.; Ps 605t, and 1080iſ. Pro- phetical: Is 2* and Mic 4-8; Ob 1-9 and Jer 497tſ. Some of the differences which show themselves between parallel passages may be explained by the assumption that they are due to an intention on the part of a later author or redactor (even if this intention was based on nothing more than the principle of variatio delectat), To intention, for instance, must be ascribed the deviations of the Deuteronomic Decalogue from Ex 20. In- tention, too, explains the diversity of construction of the word B'nºs “God,” which is plur. in Ex 32*, * (577) but sing, in Neh 9° (nºn), and so 2 S 7° 35' W, but i Ch 1797 ºn. It is very remarkable that the revising activity of the Sopherim is less manifest in Chronicles than in the books that were earlier accepted as canonical. One of David's sons is called in 2 S.5" vºs, LXX EXadé, but in 1 Ch 147 yTºyº the original form of the name has been pre- served (cf. nyirº's of 2 S 28 al. with by ºs of 1 Ch 8* al.).-In many instances, however, we must assume an error in the tradition: Gn 10°. "Riphath and Dodanim, 1 Ch 1 Diphath and Rodanim; 1 K 59 [Eng. 42') “40,000,’ but 2 Ch 9” “4000”; 1 K 7% ‘2000,’ but 2 Ch 4° “3000”; 1 K 7” “knops’ (pākā'im), but 2 Ch 4° ‘oxen' (běkārīm). Both texts cannot be correct ; the one or the other rests upon a mistake. Possible sources of error are: freaks of the eye or (in cases of dictation) the ear, wandering of the memory (e.g. the putting down of a synonymous word, cf. 2 S 227 Nipx and Ps 18 yws), false interpretation of abbreviations, or, conversely, failure to recognize the abbreviated form of words. All these sources of change and of error were of course at work also in those passages where, on account of the non-existence of a parallel passage, we cannot so readily recognize them. B. Carrying the Heb. text, as it presently exists in the so-called square script, back to the ancient Heb. form of writing. It is natural to assume that, in connexion with the change of written characters, errors must have slipped in, whose dis- covery may be facilitated by restoring the old script. The art. ALPHABET (vol. i. p. 70 ft.) can now be supplemented and improved with the help of the admirable work of M. Lidzbarski, '...} buch des mordsemitischen Epigraphik, Weimar, 1898 (pp. 173–203, “Die Schrift der nordsem. Inschriften ?). C. We have seen that the text of the OT books has undergone not a few changes since their com- position. We must be careful, however, not to exaggerate the importance of these changes. The circumstance that we are still in a position to analyze, in the main with perfect conſidence, most sections of the Pentateuch, i.e. to separate from one another the sources from which these sections have been composed, is a convincing proof that even the sum of all the changes in question has been far smaller than one might be disposed to think, and far smaller than critics like Aug. Klostermann have held it to be. vii. Literatuitº.--F. Buhl, Kamom wind Teact des A T, Leipzig, 1881 [Eng, tr. Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark], §§ 23–99; F. G. I(enyon Our Bible and the atmeient MSS, being a history of the tect an its translations?, London, 1890; T. H. Weir, A Short history of the Heb. teast of the OT', London, 1899 [both the last two works are of a popular character]; A. Loisy, Hist. critique dw tea:te et deg versions de la Bible, 2 vols., Paris, 1892. 95; A. Dillmann and F. Buhl, “Bibeltext des AT’ in P18 /93 ii. 713–728; the OT Introductions of Eichhorn, Ed. König, H. L. Strack. HERMANN L. STRACK. —-mº TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.— i. Introduction: Uncertainty about the Text of the Greek Testament. ii. Materials for restoration of the text. 1. Manuscripts. 2. Versions, 8. §º 4. Number of Variations increased by the new materials 5. Rules of Textual Criticism. Literature and Addenda. [In this article ‘Introd.’ or ‘Introduction' stands for Nestle's Introd, to the Gr. NT., 1901]. i. INTRODUCTION: UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT.-For the general reader, as a rule, no question exists about the text of the book which he is reading. The copy in his hand is for him the work of the author. It is only under special circumstances that the question arises how far we may rely upon the text in our hands. Especially since the invention of the printing-press such circumstances have become much more rare, but they are far from having disappeared altogether. It may suffice to recall the obscurity in which the works of Shakespeare and the early editions of them are enveloped, or questions like that as to the origin of some Rubrics in the Prayer-Book.” But in the case of works composed at a time when their multiplication was possible only by means of copying, it requires little thought and experience to bring home this point with full force. It presses upon the mind, with increased weight in the case of the NT, which was or is no ‘book” at all, properly speaking, but a collection of writings, a great many of which were at the outset not destined for publication and multiplica- tion. When St. Paul wrote his first letter to the Thessalonians he did not write it with the inten- tion that it should or might be published after- wards, and consequently did not give it the form appropriate to such an object. Neither had he-- or she, perhaps a poor slave or an old woman— who first copied it the intention of ". it for publication. Hence parts may have a ready been omitted which did not appear of importance, e.g. the address, or the date and subscription ; Sen- tences may have been abbreviated or expressions changed. It is similar with the Gospels. . When the first collection of sayings of Jesus or the first narrative of His deeds was set down in writing, the next who copied it might feel inclined to enlarge it or to change any detail according to the form in which he had leard it, without any bad intention. In spite of this situation of things, not only readers but even editors of the Greek Testament rested for a long time satisfied in the naïve belief that the next best, i.e. worst, text in their hands was the text of the NT. When Erasmus finished, on the 1st March 1516, the first edition of the Greek Testament sold in print, he put at the end : Finis Testament totius AD GRAECAM WISRI- TATEM vetustissimorumque Codicatºn Latinorum fidem ad probatissimorum authoriſm citationem et * A most significant example in German literature has been in- vestigated lately by Prof. Tschackert of Göttingen. What is the original text of the Confessio Augustama 7 . It was handed to the emperor Charles v. on the afternoon of the 25th June 1530, in two copies, German and Latin. Both copies have disappeared. The Confession appeared in print as early as Sept. 1530, and two months later there was a semi-official publication of it by its author, Melanchthon ; but neither of these gave the original. Therefore Prof. Tschackert examined 35 manuscript copies, all dating from the year 1530, and nine of which once belonged to men who had subscribed the Confession. In an official docu- ment like this we expect now that all duplicates shall agree to the very letter. Yet, besides orthographical differences, prof. Tschackert had to collect hundreds of variants, and the writer of the present article is convinced that the true text has not been restored by him in overy case. Jn one case it concerns a quotation from the NT (Gal 18), where Prof. Tschackert, follow- ing his MS N, prints ‘der seiverflucht,’ ‘let him be accursed,’ while the present writer believes that the other MSS AIRZ give the true reading, ‘da8 sci verſiucht,’ i.e. ‘let it be cursed.’ TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 733 interpretationem ACCURATE recogniti, opera studi- oque D. Erasmi Roterodami. This ad Graecam veritatem does not mean only ‘the Greek Original’ or ‘the original Greek’ in contradistinction to the Latin translation, but was meant to include the idea of original correctness and integrity. Erasmus was convinced that he had (on the whole) edited the original Greek Testament. In like manner, it was no enpty boast, but an expression of their full persuasion, when the Elzevir printers put in the preface of their edition of 1633 the words: teactºm ergo habes nunc ab omnibus receptum, IN QUO NIHIL IMMUTATUM AUT CORRUPTUM DAMUS. For the following comparison with the faithful representation of ancient monuments and inscrip- tions shows that they were really persuaded that they (qui, cum lapides ac monwmenta antiquorum quidam venerentwr ac religiose repraesentent, multo magis chartas has ab origine 6eotr vetº a rows º, a mutatione ac corruptela iudicamus). And yet the difference is clear. In the case of an ancient monument and inscription, the original is before our eyes, in our hands; in the case of literary works, we are removed from the original by thousands of years, and are brought into con- nexion with it only through a series of repeated copyings; and every fresh copy—perhaps even the first—was a source of errors, even when the copyists took all possible pains to be correct. We have already pointed out and accounted for the fact that in tº: case of the NT there was at first a period of teactual laſcity (cf. Westcott-Hort, §§ 6–14, “Transmission by writing,’ where it is shown how, even when the copyist has the intention of tran- scribing language (not sense), he, by mental action, passing from unconscious to conscious, may come to introduce free modification of language and even rearrangement of materials). A few examples may show to what differences copying gave rise— What is the name of the tenth apostle in Mt 103? (a) One set of our witnesses gives €92.33&ios. b) Another, As3&ocios. c) A third, combining (a+b), 6&93ocio; 6 ºrizanſ/sis As8- &ios. d) A fourth (b+a), Asſ??&loº & #. 6238&ior. c) A fifth, Juda& Zelotes. (f) A sixth Judas the som of James. & A seventh (=e+b+a), 'Iowbo's 6 xo:Wo%26wo; Asſº- £2to; & irizãousis 0x8- 0.10% . (h) An eighth, Thathews Zelotis.” Or, what was the clothing of John the Baptist'? According to Mk 10 “Camel's hair and a leathern girdle about his loins’’’ or only ‘the skin of a camel' without a girdle (ºpply zoºxov)? The latter is the reading of D, while the girdle is missing also in several Old Latin MSS. - How does the Apocalypse and the NT conclude? We have— leaving out such minor variations as the addition of “Amen” or “Amen, Amen,” or the grace “of the Lord Jesus,' or “our Lord Jesus,” or ‘the Lord Jesus Christ,' or ‘Christ' alone—the varia- tions— (1) “With the saints' (RV). (2) “With all' (RVm). (3) “With you all” (AV). (4) “With ws all.” § “With all the Saints.” (0 “With all men.” f * WH adopted (a) on the authority of NB 17, 124 c corb vg me the Hier. loc. (apparently), and adduced $ 304 among the cxamples of important or interesting readings, attested by NB, but lost from the rest of all extant uncials; Tischendorf, on the contrary, preferred (b) on the strength of I) 122 k Orig. Aug.— and so does Blass now—a reading which is by WH here and in Mk 318 declared ‘a Western corruption,” these being the only two places where either name occurs, (e) is a well- supported "Old Latin' reading (a, b, h, found also in the Roman Chronography of 354, see art. Til ADD/EUR); (9) is found in 243 and the Apostolic Constitutions ; (h) in the Rushworth Gospels, on which see JThSt., iii. p. 96. f The third reading, “with you all,” has no Gr. MS authority at all, but was retranslated by Erasmus from the Latin Vul- gate because the only Gr. MS of Revelation which was at his disposal was defective at the end ; it has been retained in the Lutheran Version even after its revision, while the IRV replaced had given the original text to their readers On internal grounds it would be quite impossible to decide which is the true reading; how difficult a decision is on the basis of all arguments (witnesses and internal grounds) is shown by the difference between the latest editors. For more examples it is sufficient to refer to the margins of the AV (Mt 111 “Some read’; 2620 “Many Greek copies have '; Lk 1022 “Many ancient copies add these words’; 1780 “This 36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies’; Jn 1813, Ac 250 “as some copies read’; 1 Co 1531, Eph 612, Ja 218, 2 P 22, 11, 2 Jn 8); but especially to those of the RV which are crowded with such remarks as ‘Sonne (many) ancient authorities read (insert, omit, etc.)” from Mt 118 down to IRev 2221. Cases like the Doxology of the Lord's Prayer, the close of the Second Gospel, the comma Johanneum (1 Jn 57), will readily occur to the mind of the reader. It is not possible here to count up all the ways in which errors may originate; every one who has to do with copying and printing has some testimony to bear regarding it. One of the com- monest is, for instance, the so-called homoioteleviton, by which arise what our printers cal] ‘ match' or “funeral,’ whereby a passage is either written twice or totally omitted; the latter being, of course, the more dangerous case. By such an omission in the editions of Erasmus the words xapuy —xapuv * (Ja 4") were wanting in the Bibles of Luther till 1568 or even longer. Another equally frequent source of error is the transposition of letters (especially where liquidae are concerned) or of words. In Jn 8” six possibilities are represented in the position of the words : “Jesus spake unto them ’— (l) atroſs éAáAmorev 6 "Imoroſis, NB, (2) attois à 'Ima'oùs é\á\maſev, EF, (3) éAá\maev atroſs 6'Imaoûs, D 1, 33, (4) é\áAmgev č 'Imaoûs atrols, Cyril, iv. 484, (5) 6'Imaoûs atroſs éA&\maſev, Tſº, (6) & "Imaoſis &MáAmarev attois, N*; and a seventh, the combination of (1) and (4), is given by N* atroſs éAáAngev 6 "Incods atrols. A third source is the addition of words which the copyist found missing ; the subject, for instance, as ‘God,” “the Lord,” “Jesus.’ Iły such a (wrong) sup- position, e.g., the text is explained which ascribes the Magnificat, Lk 1, to Mary instead of Elisabeth (see Introd. ad loc.). In view of all the perils to which literary works like the NT have been exposed, it is really astonish- ing to find how much has been preserved, and, on the whole, how faithfully. And we willingly subscribe to the words of Bengel, placed at the end of the editio minor of the ‘NT in the original Greek,” which is at present the nearest approach to the goal, that of Rºº. Ipsa summa in libris omnibus salva est, eac Dei providentia: sed tamen illam ipsam providentiam mom debemus eo allegare, wt a lima quam accuratissima deterreamur. But also the sequel will still hold good : Eorum, qui praccessere, neque defectum eacagitabimus, megue ad eum mos adstringemus : corntºm, qui sequentwr, pro- fectum meque postulabimits in praisenti, neque prae- cludemus in posterwm: qualibct astas pro swa facul- tate veritatem investigare et amplecti, fidelitatemque in minimis et maacimis pra:starc debet. ii. MATERIALS FOR RESTORATION OF THE TEXT. —The means of arriving at the original text, and the rules for the application of these means, are of course the same for the NT as for other literary works of antiquity; only that for the NT we are in a much better situation than for most other works, as, for instance, the Greek and Latin classics, or the OT, owing to the abundance, variety, and comparative excellence of the docu- ments at our disposal. These documents are : Manuscripts, Versions, Quotations. The colophon it by the first (and second). Also the fourth does not seem to have any MS authority, but to be, as led. Reuss styled it, pium correctoris wºut typothetae 8wspirium in a 13asle edition of 1545, from which it passed over into the edition published in the same year and place by Melanchthon, who mentions, however, twºv in his Appendix (1 nt rod. p. 159 is to be supplemented). With (5) compare the reading of D* (for 3) in Ile 1329. 734 TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT of the first edition of Erasmus, quoted above, mentions these three classes of documents. 1. Manuscripts (cf. W.H., §§ 98–106).—The first place in the class of MSS would be held by those of the authors themselves if they were extant—the autographs. The possibility of their existence cannot be denied, seeing that we have documents written on papyrus, i.e. on the same writing material which was used in NT times, and from regions not far removed from the birthplace of the Nº. of twice, almost three times the age which the autographs of the NT would have to-day (see art. WRITING, p. 950°). But, as a matter of fact, the NT autographs have been lost. Already Irenaeus appeals only to careful and old copies (év Trāat rols arovöalous kal épxalous divriypáçois), and the testimony of those who have themselves seen the author (kal paprupoiſvrov atrów ékelvøv táv Kat' typiv röv'Iwdvvmv čwpakóra/v), and to internal evidence (kal rod X&Yov 6tódio Kovros huàs). On the style in which the autographs of the NT may have been written, and the whole question how we have to conceive of them, see Introd. p. 29 ft., and art. WRITING, p. 951. Of expressions referring to books and writing we have in the NT: 3.32.0%, 313Xſov, 3133 cºpſ3tov (only in NT [Rev.], with the variant x13&ploy), Azºpævo.1, x&pra, zéxocºcoſ, Azéxar, ºpéquy, etc. The hope which Bengel expressed with reference to the much disputed passage 1 Jn 57 etiam atque etiam sperare licet, si mon (tutographum Johanneum at alios vetw.stissimos gravcos . . . in occultis divinae providentiae forulis latentes suo tempore productum iri, has been fulfilled lately in a way that could not have been expected at his time. Erasmus (1516) had at his disposal for his first edition only one or two MSS, the oldest being of the 10th cent. : Stephen used for his Regia (1550), besides the printed edition of Ximenes, two uncials (DL) and 13 cursives. The London Polyglot (1657) was for the first time able to make use of the Codex Alexan- drinus. More additions to the stock of witnesses were made by Mill (1707), Bengel (1734), especially Wetstein (1751); but of the two MSS which are now reckoned best, the Vaticamus was not yet accessible in a trustworthy form, and the Sinaiticus was not yet discovered. Tischendorf knew in his 7th edition (the last which he fully completed) for the Gospel 52 uncial MSS or fragments of such, at the head of then the codex Sinaiticus, ascribed by him to the middle of the 4th cent.” When Gregory completed the Pro- legomena to Tischendorf’s editio octava, he counted for the Gospels alone about 25 uncials more ; and in the most recent work on the subject, Gregory's German revision of the said Prolegomena (Teact- kritik des Newen Testamentes: Erster Band, 1900), he describes 97, promising the description of 4 more for the º: it is similar with the other parts of the NT. And while hitherto very few MSS had been known on papyrus (the writing material of Apostolic times), and none earlier than the age of Constantine, now several fragments on papyrus have been found recently, and two at least are assigned to the 3rd cent. (see WRITING, p. 952"). Of cursive or minuscle MSS (see on them art. WRITING, p. 954*) about 3000 are now known, if we include the Lectionaries; and 2000, so it is esti- mated by Gregory, wait for description and classi- fication. As a whole the cursive MSS are less valuable than the uncials, but several of them are very important, even more than uncials, because the text of a cursive MS, in spite of the recent date of the MS, may be much older than that of an uncial. It is impossible to give here a list either of the uncials or, still less, of the cursives; some of the former have been treated in separate articles, see A, ALEPH, B, C, D, L.; we must refer to Tregelles' revision of Horne's Introduction (vol. i. 1856), Tischendorf - Gregory, Scrivener- Miller *, Gregory, i. (see Literature). Special attention is due, though they have not received it hitherto, to the Lectionaries, i.e. the manuscripts of ecclesiastical lessons taken from the NT (WH, §§ 103, 104; Scrivener, i. 74ff., 327 ff. ; Gregory, Teactkritik, i. 327 ff.). “Comparatively few of them have as yet been collated. Some of these have been found to contain readings of sufficient value and interest to encourage further inquiry in what is as yet an almost unea plored region of teactual history, but not to promise con- siderable assistance in iſ. recovery of the apostolic text” (WH, l.c.). Liturgical books are always con- servative, are official books, and can be localized with much more certainty than other MSS of the NT. Gregory is inclined to believe that the order of lessons read on Sundays originated perhaps as early as the first half of the 2nd cent., that for the Saturdays towards the end of the third quarter of this century, and that for the Yºº towards the end of the same century (p. 337). In the Apostolic Constitutions, ii. 57, it is prescribed that, after the Lessons from the OT, are to be read the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of Paul, and after this, by the deacon or presbyter, the Gospels of Matthew and John, Luke and, Mark. No mention is here made at all of the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse. This is exactly the old Canon of the Syriac Church (see SYRIAC VERSIONS, p. 647). The redactor of the Constitutions knows, apparently, the l’irst and Second Epistle of Peter, but lie does not make use of Janes, 1–3 John, Jude, and Rev. ; for the refer- ences to Ja 1%. 7 and Rev 22*. 1" (ed. Lag. p. 203, 10. 204, 9) must be changed into Didache, ch. 4, Dt 4” (see Zahn, Geschichte des Kanons, ii. 182 f.). Up to the present day no lessons from Rev. are found in the system of the Greek Church ; and there seem to be preserved Lectionaries which even do not contain lessons from the Catholic Epistles either; see Apost. 65 (Scriv. =68 Greg.), a MS in the possession of the Baroness Burdett - Coutts, iii. 25, though it may be only of the 14th cent. (according to Gregory; 12–13th acc. to Scrivener). A MS like this, which has preserved such an old system of lessons, is likely to contain also a text of ancient character. Up to the present, however, these MSS have not been examined on this point. 2. Similarly the second class of our documents has been enriched, namely, the ancient Versions. See WH, S$ 107–122; art. VERsions, and the separate artt. ARABIC, vol. i. p. 136; ARMENIAN, ib. 153; Egyptian, ib. 668; ETIIIol’IC, ib. 741; LATIN, Vol. iii. p. 47; SYRIAC, p. 645; VULGATE, p. 873 The very first edition of the Gr. Test., the Com- plutensian Polyglot of Cardinal Ximenes (1514–17), Slaced side by side with the Greek Text the Latin W. and even remodelled the former after the latter in various places (especially 1 Jn 57; see art. SEPTUAGINT, p. 440"). On Erasmus see above (p. 732"). Beza (1519–1605) made a modest begin- ning with the use of Oriental Versions, publishing a triglot edition of the NT, 1569 i. Greek, Latin, and Syriac, the latter edited by Immanuel Tremellius, and using for Acts and 1 and 2 Cor. an Arabic Version, put at his disposal by Franciscus Junius. These versions were presented in a con- venient combination by the ‘Polyglots’, especially that of Walton, 1657 (Syriac, #ji. Arabic, and, for the Gospels only, Persian). J. Fell (1675) took care to insert in his apparatus the Gothic and the Coptic, as versiones antiquissimas et a regioni- bus qua patet orbis maaci’me distantibus orientes. But the older of the Egyptian Versions, the Sahidic, was first mentioned in 1778, and edited in 1799; * Compare also the table in WII, § 19, showing the late date at which primary MSS have become available. * On the Gr. MSS used by St. Jerome, see, besides th? I'pi. logus of Wordsworth-White (pp. 653–671); l. Mangenot, Ilev. des Sciences Jºcclésiastiques (Jan. 1000); J. H. Bernard, Heyma. thena (xi. No. xxvii. 1901, 335-342). TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 735 and of an older Syriac Version, only one, and this a mutilated MS, had been made known by Cureton as late as 1858, till the Syriac-Sinai palimpsest was discovered by Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gibson in 1892. F. C. Burkitt is inclined to ascribe the latter MS to the end of the 4th cent.; and there is no doubt that the version contained in it is in some way or other connected with the Diatessaron of Tatian, the pupil of Justin Martyr, i.e. a work of the third quarter of the 2nd century. 3. The mention of Justin may lead to our third class of documents, the Quotations (cf. WH, §§ 123– 126, “Fathers’). The finds of the last century have greatly enriched this source (cf. Clem. ad Corinthios, łº. Hermas, Aristides, Didache, etc.); and for those I’athers whose works had been previously known, but only in inadequate editions, trustworthy editions are now everywhere in the course of preparation or publication ; cf. the Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, edited by the Academy of Vienna (now more than 40 vols.), and Die Griechischen Christlichen Schrift- steller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, to be published by the Academy of Berlin (up till now 7 volumes, including 3 of Origen). For illustrations of how untrustworthy the printed editions have hitherto been, partly owing to the fault of the editors, see Imtrod. p. 145ff., from Origen, Cyril, Cyprian ; on lºphraem Syrus see F. C. Burkitt in Teacts and Studies, vii. 2. And yet the importance of the quotations is very great. Some of the Christian writings belong to the 1st cent.," of most of which the date and birth- lace are exactly known : thus they help us as andmarks for the fixing of texts handed down in MSS of unknown origin. Especially valuable are those passages in which the Fathers refer to the manuscripts in their hands (ávrlypapa, eacem- plaria, libri) and their variants, from Irenaeus downwards (see above, p. 734"), and it is strange that these passages are not yet collected and siſted. Most welcome will be Sancti Irenaei Novum Testamentum, edited by W. Sanday, advertised as in preparation by the Oxford University Press; on Clement of Alexandria, see P. M. Barnard (T. and St. v. 5, but only for Gospels and Acts); on Tertullian, Rönsch, Das Newe Testament Tertulliams ; see also Introd. p. 144 f... From º alone P. de Lagarde collected 29,540 quotations from the NT, together with 13,276 from the OT (now in the Library of Göttingen [MS Lagarde, 34); Dean Burgon, with the hº of several ladies, fllled 16 thick volumes of quotations, which were acquired after his death by the Trustees of the 13ritish Museum. See Ed. Miller, Teactual Commentary upon the Holy Gospels, I. i. pp. xiif., xx ff. On the other hand, it is clear that all depends on the exactness with which the author has quoted his text. Amongst the earliest quotations we may reckon the use made in the NT itself by one writer of an earlier writing, for instance by Luke and Matthew of Mark, by Jude of 2 Peter, or vice Q967°SQ. 4. Number of Variations increased by new materials. – Bewildering as this cloud of wit- nesses is, still more bewildering is the mass of variants presented by them. Already in the time of Mill the number of variations in the NT was estimated as 30,000. Scrivener reckoned in 1874 at least four times that quantity, Schaff (Companion, 1892) stated that now it cannot fall much short of 150,000, i.e. more variants than words, or, as the NT consists of 7959 verses, about 20 variants for every single verse. And yet every new document that comes to light increases them. Take so short a letter as that of Jude. The discovery of the codex Sinaiticus alone brought to light 9 readings not recorded before in Tischendorf's 7th ed., among * “There are perhaps as many as a hundred ecclesiastical writers older than the oldest extant codex of the NT ; while between A.D. 500 and A. D. 600 (within which limits our flve oldest, MSS way be considered certainly to fall) there exist about two hundred Fathers more' (Dean Burgon, Last Twelve Verses of Ålark, p. 21). them the addition of kal toſs after a wrmplas in v.”, and the substitution of trägav puxāv for irávras roos ≥3eis in v.”. Q The first part of the Amherst Papyri, published by Grenfell and Hunt, 1900, º: the single verse He 11 written (along with Gn 11) in a small uncial h; of the late 3rd, or more prob- ably early 4th cent., at the . of a papyrus leaf containing a letter, from Rome... It furnishes the reading roic rºpºrº. %23, not recorded before. In the same volume was published a single vellum leaf, dating apparently from about the 5th or 6th cent., containing Ac (211?? with lacunae; it furnished as Singular readings v.12 ºrpoº row &AAoy ; v.18 izāsāo:{ow Aiyoya's, the latter reading being practically that of D (&xxº~\ov Aéyovrºs), with which D had stood hitherto alone, instead of zAsvºovruz (or 3.10.xxiváčovts;) ºxsyov.” Even in the case of docu- ments known from early times a fresh revision will enrich (or correct) the critical apparatus of our present editions. Qf.; for instance, the notes of the present writer on cod. D in Žiž Th, 1895, 157 ff., and the collation of this codex in NT Gr. Suppl. p. 66. The reading rapezoxodºziv (praes, hist.) in Ac 2112, not mentioned by Blass in 1895 (Gött.), has been received by him into his text in 1896 (Lips.). On certain readings of B see Introd. p. 280. On 1 P 110 Tischendorf states that NC have ºri yiypoºr- toºl, in reality they have 313 yāyp. etc. F. C. Burkitt was the first to make out, in 1899 (JThSt, i. 278), that the Old Latin MS k read in Mk 1584 by its first hand maledivisti, corroborating thus dºveiðurozs of D. In regard to the Gothic (ranslation of Ulfilas, Tischendorf does not mention the very curious reading mama- gaini, Jn 710 = twrboe, for 'Iovºodoº (see cod. f.), and the fact that there are various readings on the margins, as zoºvzºo.aºl. 1 Co 133, & vocytvárzart Gal 421, Wºo's Eph 113. The same holds good of the Versions and of the Fathers, that a new revision will greatly enlarge or rectify the critical appa- ratus of our present editions. . Cf. Mk 77 tip.c. : «»oro. D a b c; yet cf. Clem. of Alexandria, who is older than any of our MSS: 6 ºzły 2&p roſs zaixia-aw &zozarºv Azós (583); a ri y&p zoº & Aozos & role zsixto av &2&rów (614). The use of &yoºr&y is of course a re- miniscence of Ps 7896; see Clem. Strom. iv. 32 (Dind. ii. 334, l. 2, compared with 333, l. 27, where Ps 5811 is a misprint for ‘78') &rázu : &riºrly L 2p* Clem. Rom.; but in Clem, ad Cor. i. 15 only cod. A has &ºtorº, cod. H &rizsi, The reading Éaczów or foºzzów (cod. O) Mt 522, in the Apostolic Constitutions, ii. 22; &pxociocy for rpáray in Lk 1522, ib. ii. 41 (cf. Nnºp"p in the Syriac translation of I Clem. ad Cor. 47 for &px2:2y). We leave out—for want of space—all variations concerned with the later additions to the text, as headings, summaries, numbering of sections, stichi, quotations, miracles, Eusebian sections, notes on the voyages of Paul, noting of church lessons, etc.; though some of these particulars are of great im- portance for the history of the text, especially for the classification of MSS. Only by way of ex- ample we may mention that Tischendorf gives, for the inscription of the Epistle of Jude, eleven, and for its subscription twelve different forms; for the heading ºf the Apocalypse, their number actually Tises to eighteen. We confine ourselves strictly to the text. If any of our readers is startled by this mass of variations, though it will no longer cause him dogmatical anxieties and heart-burnings as it did to J. A. Bengel in former times, he may console himself, in the first place, by observing that the variety is not nearly so great as it might have been, and as it actually is in a closely allied department, —that of the Apocryphal literature (Gospels, Acts, etc.). Let us compare the statement of A. C. Headlam, on the Clementine literature (JThSt., iii. 48), and simply cast, a glance at the very first item in Tischendorf's 2nd ed. of the Evangelia Apocrypha, the so-called ‘Protevangelium Jacobi.” Take as an example Tisch. 24, where the original text said that “the chapiters of the temple wailed and were Tent from the top to the bottom at the murder of the father of John the Baptist by Herod. One manuscript writes that the priests rent Tā tu dria aúrów, another changes this into Kai é00%uma'av 0pjvov piéyav. We have nothing like this in the canonical NT. Even the greatest variations offered by D * How common such variations are may be seen from Wis 1114, Where the very same example occurs : &lrtirov ××s, & Coyºrs; NAIR, & rurévºrs; i3.Asºo’oy C. 736 TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMEN I' (in Luke and Acts, which have been called ‘monstra potius quam variae lectiones’) are tame compared with these. Nevertheless, we should be only too glad to have a thread of Ariadne to guide us through the labyrinth of NT criticism. 5. Itules of Teactual Criticism. — To meet this want, the rules drawn up for literary criticism in general have been applied to the NT in particular. We can only touch on some of them. First of all, that of Bengel: proclivi scriptioni praestat arduo, which is commonly quoted in the shorter but less balanced form ; difficilior lectio placet or difficilior lectio principatum tenet. Under this rule falls that of . Griesbach : Brevior lectio praeferenda est verbosiori; also that which Wordsworth-White formulated (in the Oa:ford Latin NT): Vera lectio ad finem, vic- toriam reportat [i.e. where a phrase occurs several times with variations, that reading is the true one which is attested at the later places: ‘saepe enim scribe quod primo loco pro mendo habent, secundo pro vero agnoscunt’].” But it is clear that these rules have a very limited application. Internal judgment is liable to much error, even if the textual critic has a special gift—and has developed it by practice—of divining what the author is #. to have written (intrinsic probability), and what a copyist is likely to have made him seem to have written (transcriptional probability). Of greater importance is the eacternal evidence, the MSS, Versions, Quotations. But here again some warnings are necessary. For instance, the rule of Sauppe : “Do not overrate your Codeac,’ that which you may have diº (as Tischen- dorf did with N), or in which you are for some reason or other specially interested. Or the rule from the Ten Commandments for a philologist—we think they are by the late Professor A. Lehrs of Königsberg—‘Thou shalt worship no Codices.” Or the saying : ‘Common sense is older than any Codex'; or in Latin : ‘Itatio et iudicium centum codicibus potiora.” - How are we to sift and judge the evidence? That it is not allowable to count the witnesses is now generally acknowledged ; in theory, too, it is acknowledged that we have to distinguish between the age of the MS and that of its text ; but in practice too great weight is still allowed to the oldest of our MSS. Neither is it sufficient to follow an eclectic contrse, to decide each case by itself, to stop at the comparison of single readings. This is only the first step; and for this it is suffi- cient to take the most significant variations, i.e. (a) such as offer a considerable divergence of meaning with a small variation of form, whether it be brought about (a) accidentally or (3) by pur- pose; or (b) such as offer identity º meaning with great variation of form ; or, finally (c), additions, omissions, and transpositions. Such passages are, for instance, for (a) from Revelation f— . - 1" Mºoravri, NAC . . . Nova'avtu, QP . . . 81* deroſ, NAQ . . . dyyá\ov, P. . . 1318 : 666,” almost all. ‘616,’ C 11 (MSS quoted by Irenaeus). * * > 22* TAºvovres rās aroMás abrów, NA. . . . trotoſivres rós évroX&s atroſ, Q . . . But as in Rev. the documents are rare, it is of greater importance to quote from other books— Mk 6” ºrópei, NBL. étrolet, almost all, Lk 3° 'Iw8#X, N*BD”(w87X). 'Iw8#6, the test. 1 Co 13° kavy hawual, NAB 17.” Kavõjoropat (-w-), the rest. He 2° xápuri, almost all. xwpts, M 67°, mentioned by Origon. 1 Ti 419 dºyovitópºsóa, N*AC. ôvetât, opeča, N°DL. 1 P 12* a tropäs, BKL. q,00pās, NAC. 2 P 218 &ötkowuevot, N*BP. Koutovaevot, N*AC . . . 22 dirárats, NA*C. dyátraus, A*B. * &yáirats, NBKL. t dirótats AC.# - ,, * * ot's uèv éAsäte . . . ot's 63 &\eåre, NB (with minor variations). ot's 6é é\éyxete . . . ot's 6é é\earé, A.; (b) Of the second class compare— Mk 3° trapdºoret, almost all. vexptºget, D, old lat. Syr". Jude * WH adduce for this reading also Clement of Alexandria 614 : iota 2&p zoº. 6 xocos & roi; 2 siasauw &2&rów (see above, p. 735), for 22, &AAo; ropo.31309; rô a dºz, ºvo. 2&vzžaztoº, ‘for 80 the parallelism to rols x&souy makes it necessary to read; the only eactant MS has 20.00%arstoºl.” As the passage is of primary import- ance, the present writer consulted the future editor of the works of Clement (for the Berlin edition), Dr. Ståhlin, who does not think this change justified, pointing to the preceding & 3i, which refers to a violent martyrdom. We may refer further to Clement, 588ff., where Clement, after several references to 1 Co 13, mentions examples of heathen who endured the fire (Postumus, Anaxarches), and goes on to say: Acávu 33 tasv0ipo. 2&v . . . . . a cººpéra wrotrian avpi . . . toºls (sixis &wo preºcávn çıxfocus &8oãoros &vo replacoxii to orój.co. Topochowoc, rols toūrov Azóvov * Cf. further: ‘id verius, quod privs, called by Dean Burgon an axiom which holds every bit as true in Textual Criticism as in Dogmatic Truth (Last Verses, 76). t How dangerous an eclectic course is may be seen from the latest recension of the NT, that of B. Weiss, who reads in Llº 52 ºrxoićpio. 300 (diminutive, and 800 as second word), a reading which none of our witnesses offers— RD . . . .300 ràoroz. B . . . arxoto. 360. AC” . . . 360 raoudéptoz. 1 In the first line is put the reading adopted in the text by § Only a selection of the witnesses is given, chiefly uncial ISS. £zéardozu Xuvøtvols. Here there seems to be a reference to 1 Co 133 as well as to Mt 1028. º f Here, as in Lk 332, 1 Co 133, the decision of WH seems influenced by their predilection for NB. To what is remarked (Introd. p. 324 f.) on these two passages add the following: Whatever view may be taken of the relation of 2 Peter to Jude, it seems clear (1) that the reading must be the 8amme.in both Epistles, either & rétotº or &yāºrou: ; the one Epistle quoting from the other—Peter from Jude, or Jude from Peter. , (2) To the present writer, at least, it is clear that & réºrous is the true reading. The apparatus of Tischendorf is very misleading, as the translation of Jerome (com vivia in Peter, epwla, in Jude) testifies in both cases for & ré'roci = diversions, pastimes. Cf. in Jude the reading ºozizi in cod. 66b; Protev. Jacobi, 6.1: 31srååvary 20tſ,v ; 7. 2 (cod. L) : six radºvny cºrº; = pseudo-Matthias 8. 4 ad solatium.; Sir 1410 &rd. Tzarov rºw ºv×%v orov = ‘let thy soul fare delicately' (Taylor, Heb. p.35); Syriac "InD (lit. = riparuv) for 31&rAzvāv in the Protevangelium. Bigg (Commentary, 1901, pp. ; 282, 333) declares &ydºro.us in both places to be the right reading. f Here WH remark: “The smooth rending of A, etc., has every appearance of being a correction of the diſticult double $2.8%ts of R and B. . . . Some primitive error evidently affects the pas- sage. Perhaps the first $2.8%ts . . . is intrusive.’. Cf., on this verse, the elaborate paper by R. A. Falconer in the Jºaºpositor, Sept. 1901; but note that the Didache, or, rather, the still older writing which forms the basis of the first part of the Didache, clearly testifles for txtyxers. In the only extant MS of the Didache, it is true, oys ºfty #2.4%rsus has fallen out, in its Latin text also &AA& ot's Aziv atyčevs before it and repl };"º, ºrporº, after it ; but after the Apostolic Camoms (Greek and Syriac) we must read in the Didache ot, ºctor/atiº ºr&vro &VUparov, &XX& ot; Aziv ixiºus -ºo!'s 3; #34%asis-, ºripi bi Ziv ºrpoot%, otº bi &yo. Táoils ºrip rºy J. v.2%v orov. The passage seems one of the boºst examples of the value of quotations, and yet the latest commentator does not even quote it (Bigg), and l'alconer declared that nothing can be made of the supposed reference in the Didache on the question whether there are three or two clauses in the Ver'80. TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 737 Mt 17° 3\ºyotriarſaw, SB curs. syrºu. . . . druartav, CDEF . . . . it vg . . . (c) Of the third for additions, omissions, and transpositions— Mt 5” & 6pylàuevos ré &öe)\pſ atroſ, NB. + elkfi, most.* 25% roſ, vvºptov, NBC . . . . + kal Tijs viſuqms, DX*X . . . latt syr" vg hl, with the remark of Thomas that ‘the bride’ is not found in all copies, especially not in the ‘Alexandrian'; see on the importance of this difference for the explanation of the parable a paper of A. Hilgenfeld in Z WTh, xliv. (1901) pp. 545–553. It is sufficient to recall the doxology in the Lord’s Prayer, the end of Mark, 1 Jn 57. Transpositions— Jn 7”–8” stands after Lk 21* in the closely- related MSS. 13–69–124–346, the principal members of the so-called Ferrar group. In Iłomans ‘the great doxology’, (16”) is found also after 14* in AP 5, 17, here alone in the ‘Syrian’ text (Greek, Gothic, and Syriac). On the inferences which may be drawn from this fact, see WH, Appendix, Lightfoot, Bibl. Ess. 287 ff., and Zahn, Einleitung, on the one hand, and on the other lºr. Spitta, Untersuch. iiber den Brief des Paulus an die Römer (Zur Gesch. und Litt. des Urcha'istentums, iii. 1, 1901). Textual criticism here passes over into higher criticism. Cf., further, B. W. Bacon, ‘The Doxology at the end of l{omans’ (JBL xviii. 167–176)." These examples show that, according to WH at least, N and B, and especially the combination NB, have preserved in most cases the true reading. But WH came to this decision not on the basis of the intrinsic merits of these readings, but led by their important principle : Knowledge of documents should precede final judgment of readings ($38); and : All trustworthy restoration of corrupted teacts Čs founded on the study of their history, that is, of the relations of descent or allinity which con- mect the several documents (§ 49). This is un- doubtedly the true principle, and may be called the historical or genealogical method of textual criticism. It consists in the attempt to retrace the history of the text in the opposite direction from that which it has taken, i.e. from recent times backwards, step by step, if possible to the very original. In many cases (compare the Heb. OT *To the witnesses for the omission of slº is to be added the Didascalia as edited by Lagarde (p. 5326); the Comstitutions, ii. 53 (p. 7921, ed. Ilagarde, not mentioned in his Index), and the MS of the Didascalia, published by Mrs. Gibson in the Studia, Sinaitica, add sizā, "p"N. f In a note at least we may touch on the question of Con- ject wral Emendation. There has been so much misuse of this art, that of late it has fallen somewhat into contempt ; and, on the other hand, there are so many good documents for the NT at our disposal, that its place is very inconsiderable (WII, §§ 93–95); but to say that Conjectural lemendation must never be resorted to, even in passages of acknowledged difficulty (Scrivener 4, ii. 244), or to say that it is not allowed ‘prèter de l'esprit a l’Esprit saint’ (Lagrange, Revue Biblique, 1900, 206), is to go too far. The reading pilovčirs of the TR in Ja 42 seems to be a conjecture of Erasmus put forward in his second edition; &zoºoºoºorly, mentioned by WH among the suspected readings, is a conjecture of Nösselt, approved by J. C. Wollgraſſ (de tribus locis interpolatis im, }.}}| Secºndwm Marcwm, Mnemosyne, 1001, 148–101). When the present writer hit upon the reading #ºr) ºrávrov instead of iri réaoy or ëºr ràoſoy (Rey 1817), received into the text by Baljon, it was by mere conjecture, though it was con- firmed afterwards by the reading super pware of l?rimasius (the confusion of révrov and réroy is very common, see Eus. III, iv. 15, v. 15, 23). Baljon's edition gives a convenient collection of the conjectures of his countrymen. Fr. Blass received into the text of his lºangelium secundum. Matthoown cum vario, lectionis delectu (Lipsia, 1901) 7 conjectural emendations, marking them with a star (*): 725 ºrportraigov, 10% driaa.gov, 1727 sºphagi, 2291 Çoº; (for &varrázsos), 251 £Azéow . . . . $ésàllsiv, 2000 ories for Éroºps, 2746 &{&90&wſ. Of remarkable readings of this edition note avvopſ&y for Supícºv 424 (a complete collation of it at the end of the 3rd ed. of Nestle's Gº". Test.). VOL. IV. —47 | and the Greek and Latin Classics) the scantiness of our materials does not allow of such a method; in the case of the NT it is, on the contrary, made difficult by the wealth of materials and the complicated character which this history must have had. , And the great question of the textual criticism of the NT at present is, whether the study of its history led WH to cor- rect conclusions. Only the principal results can be mentioned here : for all particulars see vol. ii. of their great edition, or the Appendix of their manual edition. - This study led them to recognize (1) that the text of Chrysostom and other Syrian Fathers of the 4th cent. is substantially identical with the colnmon late text (§ 130). This text must be due to a “recension' in the strict sense, with an elabor- ateness which implies deliberate criticism (§ 185). This part of their theory is very generally accepted, except by the defenders of the traditional text, like Burgon and Ed. Miller. But, further, WH believed themselves able to distinguish (2) an Aleaxandrian text, the chief characteristics of which are said to be temperate forms of incipient paraphrase and of skilful assimilation, with careful attention to language, and without bold para- phrase or interpolation from extraneous sources (§§ 181–184); (3) a Western text, not limited to the West, but widely used ; not single and created at once, but various and progressive, with its two chief characteristics, boldness of paraphrase and readiness to adopt extraneous matter; represented, especially by codex D, Old Latin MSS, but also the Old Syriac (§§ 170–176); finally (4) the meutral and comparatively pure text, to be discovered, especially by comparison of N and B, the ancestries of which WH believe to have been separate from a remote antiquity, so that an exceptional purity of text would be found in readings common to SB.” § 297: one of three alternatives must be true; either the respective ancestries of N and B must have diverged from a common parent extremely near the apostolic autographs; Or, if their concordant readings were really derived from a single not remote MS, that MS must itself have been of the very highest antiquity; Or, lastly, such single not remote MS must have inherited its text from an ancestry which, at each of its stages, had enjoyed a singular immunity from corruption. This is the most elaborate theory about the text of the NT put forward in the 19th cent. as the * As examples of important or interesting readings attested by NB, but lost from the texts of all other extant uncials, WH quote (§ 304), e.g., Mt 59% omission of six;, 103 ©283&ios (see art. THADDM:US), 1119 £yov for rézywy, Mk 999 omission of zoº) varts.g., 169:20 onission, Eph 11 onission of #y 'Eºforo. WEI do not, of course, deny the presence of wrong readings in NB (see $303), still less in N or B, but they are slow to acknow- ledge them. Cf. their note on Mt. 2749, which is, to all appear- ance, an intrusion from the Gospel of John. ‘Two supposi. tions alone are coun)patible with the whole evidence. First, the words may belong to the genuine text of the extant form of Mt. . . . Or, secondly, they may be a very early interpolation.” They are extant in NBCL, etc. WH included them within double brackets, but did not feel justified in removing them from the text altogether, and were not prepared to reject altogether the alternative supposition. Dean Burgon, on the other hand, Last Perses, p. 80: ‘There does not exist in the whole compass of the NT a more monstrous instance of inter- polation . . . in defiance of reason as well as of authority," cf. pp. 813–318. Though the verse is not attested by Ephraem's Com- mentary on the Diabessaron or the Arabic revision of it, we see no reason why we should doubt the statement of the scholion that the sentence was present is rô, 20.0" in Topſcºw ºozy, ixiov Alcºpov, zoº Toºroºvov zoº &AAwy 312%kov &yíoy rocripov (cod. 72, where Aizöðpov may have arisen from 31& 3', i.e. 312Tsa- orépov). Comp., further, Mk 421 ºró rºy Av:víov, attested by NB*18–69–846 83: ‘the concurrence of four such documentary authorities, all independent, implies the highest antiquity, the number rendering accidental coincidence very unlikely.” To the four authorities quoted by W H is to be added a fifth, S, and just on that account it becomes more likely that the coincidence is accidental; comp. He 71 6s, rejected in spite of NABC2D ; 92 the addition of zoºl rô xpwoovy 09.127%ptov in B and its Omission in V.4. 738 TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT t —— result of its study during thirty years. IFifteen years after its first publication the then surviv- ing editor brought out a new edition with some Sup lementary. Notes, º by the discovery of fresh documents, especially the Syriac palimpsest from Sinai; at the same time declaring that no arguments had been advanced against their general principles which were not fully considered b themselves in the long course of their work, and, in their judgment, dealt with accurately. And in their Introduction itself it is declared (§ 105): “Nothing can well be less probable than the dis- covery of cursive evidence sufficiently important to affect present conclusions in more than a handful of passages, much less to alter present interpreta- tions of relations between the existing documents.’ Again, in the concluding paragraphs on the “Con- ditions of further improvement of the text’ (371– 374) they wrote: “It would be an illusion to anti- cipate important changes of text from any acquisi- tion of new documents,’ and did not hesitate to express the conviction that no trustworthy improve- ment can be effected except in accordance with the leading principles of their method; further, ‘that the general course of future criticism must be shaped by the happy circumstance that the fourth century has bequeathed to us two MSS, of which even the less incorrupt must have been of exceptional purity among its own contemporaries, and which rise into greater prominence of char- acter the better the early history of that text be- coines known.” The present writer is not prepared to contradict these statements. Yet, on the other hand, it can- not be denied that there is a growing doubt whether the importance of the so-called Western variations has not been underrated and the purity of the text of NB overrated.” See, besides the contributions of Fr. Blass of Halle, the latest statement by C. H. Turner in JThSt, iii. 3, p. 111 f. : ‘If the º for the words of the Evangelists is to be sought primarily or even partially from the “Western" text, it must be admitted that a pro- blem lies before us which, if it may well call forth all the energies of Christian scholars, will make heavy calls alike on their patience, their caution, and their courage.’t -- The other question is whether WH estimated the testimony of NB correctly. What if SB or their ancestors were not separated from a remote antiquity, but one codex was influenced by the other ? WH were inclined to believe that B was written at IRome, and that all its ancestors may have been there, while to N they ascribed an Egyptian origin. Tischendorf, on iſe other hand, believed he could demonstrate that one and the same copyist worked at both MSS. Quite recently the suggestion has been thrown out that B originated under the influence of Athanasius (Rahlfs, Nestle, Zahn), and is perhaps the very copy which was procured by Athanasius for Constans. If so, it is a question how an exceptional purity can have been handed down till that time. On the other hand, this fact would explain how B seems to have left no children; the private copy of an emperor would not be given out that other MSS might be copied from it; certainly not at first. It is at all events * Even Burgon speaks favourably of D, despite of its many ‘monstra potius quain variae lectiones’ (Last Twelve Verses of Mark, p. 20). # There has just appeared the Prospectus of the great under- taking of Prof. H. von Soden of Berlin : Die Schriſten des Newen Testamentes in ihrer ältesten erreichbarem Teactºſestalt hergestellt ançf Grund ihrer Teactgeschichte ; Berlin, A. Duncker, 2 vols.-2328 Codices have been examined, 454 more than are mentioned by Gregory, with the result that the text of NB is held to be decidedly that of a recension, not the neutral or original, as W II believed. This forthcoming edition will hence- forward form a new starting-point [24th March 1902]. strange that no MS seems to have been found as }. which might be pronounced with certainty to have been copied from B." In some books of the OT N and B have an almost identical text ; in others they present us with quite different recen- sions; in the Book of Judges B contains a version not quoted by the Alexandrian Fathers from the 2nd to the 4th cent. (Clement, Origen, Didymus), but for the first time by Cyril, which therefore some scholars have been inclined to ascribe to Hesychius. In the NT it is easier, as Burgom stated, “to find two consecutive verses in which the two MSS differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree.” But this, instead of sensibly detracting from our opinion of the value of their evidence, as Burgon believed, on the contrary enhances it where they agree. It is intelligible that, as long as cod. B stood alone among extant MSS in the omission of Mk 169-29, scholars were slow to follow it ; even after N had come to its º: Burgon was not justified, but might be excused for coming, after an investigation of more than 250 pages, to the conclusion ‘that cod. B and cod. N must be henceforth allowed to be in one more serious par- ticular untrustworthy and erring witnesses. They have been convicted, in fact, of bearing false witness in respect of St. Mark 16**, where their evidence had been hitherto reckoned upon with the most undoubting confidence.’ ‘f But now, since F. C. Conybeare found in 1893 the Armenian manuscript which between v.” and v.” has the words “Ariston eritzou,’ i.e. of the ‘Presbyter Arist[i]on’ (see the facsimile in Swete's Commentary and in Introd. pl. ix), and has preserved even the name of the man to whom (directly or indirectly) we owe the longer conclusion of the Second Gospel, no reason- able doubt is any longer possible. Therefore in this important case SB turn out to be our best witnesses among extant MSS. This awakens, of course, a strong prejudice in their fayour. But what, on the other hand, about the ‘Western non- interpolations’ ” and the other places, where D alone seems to have preserved the original read- ing 2 See WH, §§ 240–242,283. Certain apparently Western ‘omissions’ are shown by their internal character to be original, i.e. non-interpolations; that is to say, only those Western documents re- mained free from interpolations which found their way into all other documents. Their presence in * The reading povspåv (He 13 for pipov), which is attested by Tischendorf only from Bº-a second hand changed it into tiewy, a third restored it, and wrote on the margin & Co.0ia roºro zoºi 22xi, &ps; ro roºxotów, º Azºrozºro's, has now been found in an Egyptian treatise (see J. A. Robinson, Teats and Studie8, V. 5, . X). p It is a great drawback that our critical editions do not permit of an easy glance over the differences of these principal MSS ; there is Hansell's edition (NT'grace : Amtiquishimonwm, codicum tea:tw8 in ordinem, parallelum dispos. ; mota 8 crit. et collationem Cod. Sinaitici adjecit Ed. II. Hansell, Oxonii, 3 vols., 1864, 52} sh.), and now that of Schjott (NT' groece ad fiden testium vetustiskimorum recognovit mecnom variamtes lectiones eat editionibus Elzeviriama et T'ischendorſiana 8wbjwmait, Hauniae, 1897). f This conviction as regards B arose from the fact, first pointed out in its importance by Burgon, that the Scribe of B, after ending the Gospel with v.8 in the second column of a }. has, contrary to his custom, left the third or remaining column blank, evidently because one or other of the two subsequent endings, and apparently the longer of the Textus Receptus, was known to him personally, while he did not find it in the exemplar which he was copying. That the same scribe, by retaining on the margin the sectional figures in the lºpistles of Paul, has preserved for us the knowledge that the Epistle to the Hebrews had formerly a diſferent position from what it has now in B, may be mentioned here with due thanks to him, and as proof how the smallest particulars may be of importance in textual criticism. That in the OT part one of the scribes was in the habit of using for the name Iapocza the abbreviation Iax, the other Irx, enabled E. Abbott to recognize their diſferent hands without even seeing the codex, while the I&oman editors were not able to discern it from the handwriting which lay before them. TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 739 even the best of these documents appeared to WH such an extraordinary phenomenon that they were led to the thought—worked out later by Blass —that ‘the Western and the non-Western texts started respectively from a first and a second edition of the Gospels, both conceivably apostolic.’ WH decided finally to leave them in the text, but to mark them by double brackets [ ]. Apart from the singular addition to Mt. 27" (see above, p. 737” m.), these Western non-interpolations are all found in the last three chapters of Luke (22* 243. U, 12. 30, 40. 51. 52). Of other places where D alone (or nearly alone) seems to have preserved the original reading, B. Weiss mentions (Die vie, Evangelien, pp. 48, 180) Mk 13” the omission of Wevöðxptoſtol kat, and the reading trouha ovatv for 600 ovov; Lk 12” rôs otre và9e, otte tºpatvet, Mk 3” etc. In his Philologica sacra (1896) the present writer pointed out other passages of this kind, e.g. Mt. 6° trplv juás àvotéat to ortópio instead of airfia at aúrów ; 267' 6powd (et for 6%), 6v are trove?; Lk 18” tro- 'm Naalova, etc. Blass has received a great deal into his edition of St. Matthew (1901). And the great question of the day is the weight to be allowed to D. But it seems that new materials must come to light before a decision can be reached. In the meantime the task will be (1) to collate as many MSS, Versions, and Fathers as possible; (2) to collect all statements of the Fathers about what may be called editions or recensions of the NT ; (3) to compare these statements with the results of our collations. That Marcion edited a NT (Gospel of Luke and Epistles of Paul) is well known. Are traces of his work to be found in any existing MS or MSS 2 and, if so, in which 2 Of Tatian we know not only that he composed his Diatessaron, but also that he tampered with the text of Paul : toſ, 66 'AtroatóNov, qaal, to Nuño al Tuvas airów petadpåoral pověs des étri- top 90%pevov attöv Tiju Tàs ppgoews a ſutaštu (Eus. HE iv. 29). Has the Diatessaron left its traces in D or anywhere else? and what is the relation of the so-called Western text of the Pauline Epistles to Tatian 2 When the Epistle to the Philippians begins in D, etc.: ‘EYö, pºv etxaplotá tº kup tº #16v (v.”) instead of Eöxapuaré, Tó 6eº pov; when FG will not allow a tropffety but only a troXepetv of the Church through Saul (Gal 1**), not a tupoğv but a 60Xojv as the result of the leaven (1 Co 5", Gal 5°), on which side is the ‘metaphrasis,” and from whom did it proceed ? Who were the 6p6360&ot who took away (dqel}\avro) a passage from the Gospel of Luke, so that it is found only év toºs &öuop0&rous duriypáqous, in the ‘uncensured copies’ according to Epiphanius (Ancor. 31)? See on Lk 19". W. about the ‘Codices quos a Luciano et Hesychio nuncupatos paucorum hominum adserit perversa sententia, quibus utique nee in veteri testamento . . . nec in novo profuit emendasse, cum multarum gentium linguis scriptura, ante trans- lata doceat falsa esse quae addita (cod. E edita) sunt,” according to Jerome's preface to his Latin Gospels? What about the ‘Evangelia quae fal- savit Hesychius apocrypha in the so-called Decre- tum Gelasii ? to which some MSS add a similar statement about Lucian. What about the 50 copies of the Bible which Eusebius procured by order of Constantine for the Churches (not of his “empire,’ correct Introd. p. 54, Yut) of his capital, which Eusebius sent off €v troXu- re)\ós hakmuévous reºxeat Tptora'a kal Terpaorară 2 Does this mean that they were written in three or four columns or bound in three or four volumes? and still more, did they leave no traces at all ? or is the Sinaiticus really one of them 2 What about the recension of the Pauline Epistles which was under- taken according to the subscription in cod. H,- its fragments are now dispersed in Athos, Kiew, Moscow (at two places), St. Petersburg,” Paris, and Turin, - and other testimonies by a certain Euthalius (or Euagrius) of Sulke 2 Basil the Great (+ 379) corrected a copy with his own hand : may it not be traced ?. His younger brother, Gregory of Nyssa, is the sole authority besides Marcion for that peculiar form of the second petition in the Lord's Prayer : éA6éra, Tø &ylov trueñud orov ćq juās kal kaffaptadºra, huás. How did this creep into the codex 604 (of the 12th cent., in the 13ritish Museum), which exhibits 2724 variations from the Textus Receptus and 270 readings peculiar to itself? Has the last word been spoken about the origin of the Ferrar group 2 Where are the accur- ate copies (éo-trovčagaéva) or the ancicnt in Jerusalem to be sought for, deposited on the Holy Mount (ék Töv čv 'IepooroMuous traNatów duriypáqwu Töv ću tº &ylq, 8pet ätrokeupévov), with which, according to their subscription, cod. A and some cursives have been collated ? We might go on asking such questions,—and that these questions do not belong to those which a fool asks, and which no wise man answers, may be exemplified by the reading of the Ferrar group in Mt 11" which WH, in their (first) edition did not find worth mentioning; and now there appears suddenly an old Syriac fragment from the far East, containing that reading, which was hitherto known onlv in some Latin witnesses from the far West, and in those four solitary Greek MSS written probably in Cala ria towards the end of the Middle Ages,—a reading which seems to have some connexion with the very composition of the First Gospel. ‘Criticism,” said Ph. Schaff, in his excellent Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version (at the opening of the fifth chapter, which treats of the Nature and Object of Textual Criti- cism), -“Criticism is a dry study.’ Dry 2 Surely we do not know a study of more interest. It requires, it is true, as the same writer said, “an unusual amount of patience and attention to the minutest details.’ Yes, but then it will be re- warded. ‘The smallest particle of gold,” said Bengel, in the commexion from which Westcott- Hort took the word with which they closed their task, ‘is gold, but we must not allow that to pass as gold which has not been proved.” ‘Codicibus emendandis primitus debet invigilare sollertia eorum qui scripturas nosse desiderant, ut emendatis non emendati cedant,” said Augustine (de Doctrina Christiana, ii. 14, 21). It is a satis- faction that in the same country in which and from which the British and Foreign Bible Society cir- culated, for almost a century, more than a hundred thousand copies of the Textus Receptus of Elzeyir- Stephen-Erasmus, the most decided attempt has been made to fulfil the task imposed by these words of Augustine, to fulfil the command of one greater than Augustine,—the word of St. Paul, Távra Öoxt- Adºers, to ka)\ov Karéxete (1 Th 5*), or of the Master Himself, though it is not recorded within the com- pass of our present New Testament : ylvegöe 50kuot Tpatre'ſ rat. LITERATURE AND Appr:NDA.—(1) On the history of the Printed Text, which seemed unnecessary here, see WH, $$ 15–18, 244-255 (Mill, Bentley, Bengel, Semler, Griesbach, Hug, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles); Scrivener-Miller 4, ii. 177–243; , P. Schaff, Companion to the Greek Testament and the Iºnglish Version 4, 1892; S. P. Tregelles, Account of the Printed Tect of the Greek N 7, 1854; Nestle, Introduction, i. pp. 1-27; 19. Reuss, IBibliotheca Novi Testamenti Graeci, cwiws editiones omnes . . . quotgwot reperiri potuerwnt collegit digessit illustravit, Bruns- viga), 1872, t * One leaf at St. Petersburg is no longer extant, but its con- tents may be read by the mirror on the opposite page, on which it is impressed. # Justice must be done at least in a footnote to the edition (not mentioned by Scrivener or Nestle) of Ed. Harwood, 740 TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (2) On the MSS see the Literature quoted in Introd. pp. 80, 32, e.g. Ch. F. Sitterley, Praais in Manuscripts of the Greek Testa. ment. The mechanical and literary processes involved in their writing and preservation. With table of MSS and thirteen facsimile plates, New York [1898].-On the Autographs add the statement that according to the Acta Joannis (ed. Zahn) the Apostle dictated his Gospel to Prochorus in two days and six hours, to be written on parchment.—R. Lake, Text of the New Testament (Oxford Church Text-Books), 1900; M. Lundberg, Nya Testamentets teact, Lund, 1899. — Facsimiles of Biblical Manuscripts in the British Museum, edited by F. G. IXenyon, London, 1901, fol., cf. the same author's Handbook to the Teactual Criticism of the NT', London, 1901; John W. Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark, vindicated against recent critical objectors and established. With tac- similes of codex N and codex L., Oxf. and Lond. 1871. On cod. D. See, on the Italian origin of codex Bezal, K. Lake and F. E. Brightman (JThSt, i. 441,445, 454); J. R. Harris, The Ammotators of the Codea, Bezae, London, 1901. The reasons which make against the theory of Blass, that D preserved for Acts a flrst recension, are said (Ea:pos. Times, xiii. 96) to be besu summed up in an appendix to the new edition (1900) of Mr. Page's Acts (Macmillan). On the new Purple MS from Sinope see H. Omont, ‘Notice sur un très ancien manuscrit grec de l’Evangile de saint Matthieu en onciales d'or sur parchemin pourpré et orné de miniatures’ . . . Paris, 1900 (Notices et Eastraits, xxxvi.; and JThSt., ii. 500ff.). On the leaf found in Russia see Acad. des Inscr., 8 fév. and 29 man's 1901.—Conti-Rossini, ‘L'evangilo d'oro di Dabra Libános' (IRendicomti dei Lincei, vol. x. 5, 6, pp. 177–210 (not seen). A fragment of Jn 70-10 917-88 has been published by F. C. Burkitt, and Mrs. Gibson in Studia. Sinaitica, ix. p. 45f. Cursives: J. R. Harris, I'wrther Researches into the History of the l'errar Group, London, 1900. On ev. 47 and 67 mg, 565, see F. C. Burkitt in JThSt, i. 626 f. As to the age of Church Lessons, Job was read in the “Great Week' as early as the time of Origen. Versions: On the use of two languages in the Service see the Itinerary of Sylvia Aquitana (in Jerusalem); the Sacramentary of Serapion of Thrmuis (JThSt, i. 254).--Latin: F. C. Burkitt, on the age of codex Bobbiensis k (Cambridge Univ. I'eporter, 5th March 1901; rather of the 4th than 5th or 6th cent.) ; the same author doubts more and more whether there was a Latin Version in the time before Cyprian (JThst, i. 627), and finds an early Latin text of the Diatessaron as one of the constituent eleulents of the mixed and curious text of g (T'St, vii. 2, p. 46). On the influence of the Gothic Version on f(brixiensis) see F. C. Burkitt (JThSt, i. 129 ft.) and Fr. Kauffmann (Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie, vol. xxxiv.); see also J. Heidenreich, Der neutestamentliche Teat bei Cyprian verglichen mit dem, Vul. gata teat, Bamberg, 1900. Egyptian : H. IIyvernat, “Un frag- ment inédit de la version sahidique du NT’ (Eph 16–28b) in 1: B, April 1900, 248.253. On middle-Egyptian see W. E. Crum in JThSt, i, 416 ft., and Egyp. Exploration I'und Report for 1899–1900, 1900–1901. Quotation 8 : On the liberties taken by copyists and editors. in a quotation from Mt. 212, Hippolytus (ed. Lagarde = Nice- horus), 138, 16, has apóto: ; ed. Achelis, 1, 2, pp. 68, 4, taxa.ºros. n the Chronicon of Georgios Hamartolos a report of Papias on the end of John the Evangelist is preserved; "26 MSS write iv tipºva &vºroºoo, ro, one ºzprwpiov zoºrzāorceſ.’ The diction agraphum of Ac 2005 reads in the Apostolic Constitutions, in one class of witnesses: ärsi, zz, & zºolo; Azz- zzotov tºrey ºval toy bºovrº horse (cod. O &rip) row Ao:/09&vovºro. zoºl 2&p. tiento. a 6×iv tºr' or bºro J. Otoº roi; $zovorºv ; in the other : Fºx&prów ioT, 8,86%, 4.222.09 draw 3 Azºśćvely. zoº réAuy & Axa, x of alparoci ovoci, etc. On the falsification of MSS by heretics see, besides the notices in Introd. }. 197 ff., Bartholomaeus Germon, Jesuita non indoctus in Opusculo de veterints hareticis Ecclesiasticorun. Codicum. corrupton'ibw8, part 2, co. 8 and 9, ‘ubi de codicibus MSS Col- bertino, Carnutensi, et Vaticano disserit’ (known to the present writer only from Cus. Oudin, Trias dissertationwm, criticarum : Prima de codice MS Alexandrino, Lugd. Bat. 1717, ch. 5). On Justin : E. Lippelt, Qwº fuerint Justini Martyris &rown- Acoyºº.co.zz quaqite ratione cunn forma Evangeliorwin syro-latina, cohoeserint, i., Halle, 1901. (3) Theory of Textual Criticism: Ed. Miller, The Present State of the Textual Controversy respecting the IIoly Gospels, (1899); The Teatwal Controversy and the Twentieth Century, 1901 ; The Oa;ford Debate on the Teactual Criticism of the Nà". held at New College on May 6, 1897, with a Preface eaſplana. tory of the Rival Systems, London, 1897; F. C. Burkitt, Two Lectures on the Gospels, Macmillan, 1901; Fr. Blass, Philology of the Gospels, Magmillan, 1898; G. Salmon, Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the NT', London, Murray, 1897; Nicol, “The Lower Criticism of the NT’ (Lond. Quart. IRe). April 1901); Fr. Blass, Not?vendigkeit wºnd Wert der Tertkritik des Newell. Tesſannents, Vortrug, Barmen, 1901 (popular); G. L. Cary, The Siſmoptic Gospels, with a chapter on the teach. criticism London, 1776 (ſteuss, pp. 185-190). It is the first edition which ornitued thº, Mt. 5*, the ſlrst which made a more decided use of the Codex Bezie Cantabrigiensis and Claromontanus, Qf modern editions a convenient survey is given by the 8e- Sultant Greek Testanent, ed. by R. Fr. Weymouth, London, Stock [1886) (with new title ‘cheap.cdition,’ 1892, again 1896); and, on a smaller scale, by the NT' cum apparatu, critico 64; editionibus, et libris inſtant scriptis collecto, prepared by the present writer for tha Württemberg Bible Society (3rd ed. 1901). of the NT, New York, 1900; Marvin Vincent, History of Teactual Criticism of the NT, Macmillan, 1900. According to Studia biblica, iii. 235, Prof. Sanday has had an Introduction to the Teatwal Criticism of the NT' for some time in prepara- tiºn. Its publication will be welcomed by all students of the N C. Tischendorf, Habem wir dem dichten Schriftteaſt der Evangelistem wºnd Apostel & Leipzig, 1873 (popular), 1st and 2nd ed., tr., by II. W. A. Smith in Presbyterian, Quarterly and Princeton Iłeview, Oct. 1874; A. N. Jannaris, ‘Misreadings and Misrenderings in the NT' (Ea:positor, l\ec. 1808, April and Aug. 1899); Aug. Pott, Der abendländische Teact der Apostel- geschichte whd die Wir-Quelle, Leipzig, 1900; F. Blass, “Text- ritische Bemerkungen zu Matthäus,” Gütersloh, 1000 (in Schlatter - Cremer, Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theo- logie, iv. 4); G. Delors, Essai de critique du teate Jean 1812. 28, Thèse, Cahors, 1000. A work is announced by C. F. Gregory on Camom, and Teact of the New Testament, in the ‘Inter- national Theological Library series,’ published by T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh. Postscript.—The article SYRIAC VERSIONS was already in type when two publications came to hand, which are of primary importance not only for the Syriac Versions, but also for the Text of the Greek Testament ; therefore this is the fit place to add a word on them. The one is a short study, the other a bulky edition. They are S. Ephraim's Quotations from the Gospel, col- lected and arranged by F. Crawford Burkitt (Cam- bridge, 1901, Tewts and Studies, vii. 2); and Tetra- entangelium sanctum juxta Simplicem Syrorum Versionem ad fidem Codicum, Massorae, Editionum denuo recognitum. Lectionum supellectilem quam conquisiverat Philippus, Edwardus Pusey, A.M., olim ex aede Christi, auxit, digessit, edidit Georgius Henricus Gwilliam, S.T.B., Collegii Hertfordiensis socius. Accedunt Capitulorum Notatio, Concordi- arum Tabulae, Translatio Latina, Annotationes (Oxonii, 1901, xvi. 608 pp. 49). By a minute examination of St. Ephraem's quota- tions from the Gospel—note the singular—Burkitt not only proves his statement quoted above (p. 647), that we can never trust a biblical quotation (in the Roman edition of Ephraem's works), where it agrees with the Peshitta, but shows positively that his quotations from the Gospel “afford mo proof of the use of the Peshitta, the Syriac Vulgate.” On the other hand, there are marked differences be- tween his quotations and the text contained in the Curetonian MS and Sinaitic palimpsest: these differences suggest that it was not the Old Syriac Version of the Four Gospels, the Evangelion dat- Mepharrëshe, that St. Ephraem was using, but the Diatessaron.’ This suggestion the present writer also is inclined to accept, and there is no longer any hindrance to our accepting the third suggestion, that the great event, the production and introduction of the Peshitta, “took place soon after 411 A.D. under the auspices of Ital)bula, who had been in that year appointed bishop of lºdessa,’ and that the words of his biographer quoted above (p. 646) contain ‘a description of the making and production of the Syriac Vulgate.’ It is clear that in this case the Peshitta ceases to be the queen of the NT versions, and loses .. ally the importance which it had for the upholders of the Teatus /ēeceptus, whose “sheet-anchor’ it was (see above, p. 646"). One of their fundamental argu- ments used to be : the theory of WII cannot be right ; for what WII declare to be a late Syrian recension is attested already by the Peshito ; and the Peshito was in use already by Ephraem, nay, is a work of the 2nd cent. Nevertheless, all biblical scholars, and not the Syriacists only, will be thankful to have at last, through the labours of the late Ph. E. Pusey and his suc- cessor in the work, for the Gospels at least, in the edition mentioned above, the most solid ground they can wish for. J'orty MSS of the highest age, mostly from the 5th or 6th cent., have been collated —MS 4 was written between 530 and 540, No. 40 is dºtted from 548, No. 26 from 586, No. 32 from 615, No. 39 from 634; neither for the Greek nor for the THADDA.Us THADDAEUS 741 Latin MSS have we a similar exactness in date. The result is, on the whole, a very thorough cor- roboration of the printed text ; but this does not diminish our thankfulness for the new edition. Tor while hitherto we were not sure about the basis of the texts in our hands, we have now the firmest foundation. And there are not wanting yassages where the printed text finds no witness in any of the MSS collated by Pusey-Gwilliam. They do not affect, so far as the present writer is yet aware, the Greek text, but only the Syriac word- ing; cf. Mt 5'76” 71*. But we must first be sure of the Syriac text before we can proceed, and this end is reached by the edition of Pusey-Gwilliam, which, it is to be hoped, will give a new stimu- lus to studies concerning the text of the four Gospels. If one word may be added about the best method to be pursued in these studies, it would seem best first to single out those sections which were con- tained in Tatian's Diatessaron, and to study their anguage, in all extant Syriac texts; then to com- are their language with that of the rest of the ospels. In this way it ought to be possible to get an answer to the fundamental question, whether Tatian made use of a pre-existing Syriac Version of the Gospels, or whether our Syriac Gospels are based on Tatian. To quote one ex- ample : all our Syriac texts (sin, cur, pesh, to- gether with the Ethiopic Version and the Arabic Tatian) arrange the gifts of the Magi (Mt. 2”) in the order “gold and myrrh and frankincense'; so also the Syriac translation of the Protevangelium Jacobi (21°). Epiphanius (p. 1085 D, where he reads #vot:au täs tripas attøv, adding the strange statement 3) toys 6moroupous, dºs éxet évva Töv duri- 'ypéqwu), has the order “myrrh and frankincense and gold.’ Is the agreement in the Syriac (Arabic, Ethiopic) texts accidental, or does it go back ultimately to Tatian 2 EB. NESTLE. THADDAEUS.—The name in Mt 10° (AV ‘Leb- bacus, whose surname was Thaddaeus’; I&V only ‘Thaddaeus’) and Mk 38 of the apostle who is called by Luke (61°, Ac 11°) “Judas of James.’ In Matt. most critics now read only €aôöaſos (Lach- mann, Tregelles, WPI [who quote this reading, § 304, as proof for the unique excellence of N13], IRevisers, Weiss, with NB sah vg; Evang. Ebionit.), others only Aeggaſos (Alford, Tischendorf, Blass, with 1) 122 k Origen ; “Western reading); the TR (AV) combined both readings, Aeggaíos 6 &ti- k\m0éis 9ačöatos (cf. e.g. Constit. Apost. vi. 14, viii. 25, where in a marginal note the names are reversed : €aôöaſos 6 kal Aeggalos 6 &muka)\otºevos *Iow8as Zn}\otiffs); some Old Latin MSS, finally, have Judas Zelotes, a reading which found its way into the Chronicom of the year 354 and the Roman Canon of 382 (“Judae Zelotis apostoli epistula. unu’). See on the latter reading Zahn, Grundriss der Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kamoms, 1901, p. 60; Neue I(irchliche Zeit- Schrift, xii. (1901) p. 743; R. A. Lipsius, Die apokryphem. A postelgeschüchtem, lºrgänzungsheft (1890), p. 200 ; and the passage of the Apostolic Constitutions quoted above (ed. Lagarde, p. 282; ed. Piura, p. 59, note). In Mark all editors agree in reading 6aôöaſos, Asp88atos being again the ‘Western reading ; in Luke one of the MSS collated by Wordsworth- White adds to Judam. Jacobi on the margin ‘i.e. Tadeus,’ just as Luther added in Matt. to the Iłeceived Text the marginal note “ist der from me Judas.’ This identification (Thaddaeus = Lebbaeus = Judas of somes ") is indeed the most natural result of a comparison of the Gospels ; cf. vol. ii. p. 199, artt. JUDAS, and JUDE (THE LORD’S BROTHER), * The same Judas is apparently meant in Jn 1422, though the Syrians identify his Judas with Thomas, and vol. iii. p. 92, art. LEBBAEUS. But whence this twofold or threefold name 2" The solution has been sought in the linguistic identity of the name Lebba;us, from Heb. 1; ‘ heart,’ with Thaddaws, from Aram. TE = Heb. Tº ‘female breast ’; so still, e.g., Sieffert (PIRE” vii. 277); Resch, Parallelteacte, iii. 827. But this is more than doubtful. There is more probability in the view adopted by WH, that Aeggalos or Asgaios is some form for Levi, caused by Mk 2* “Ilevi the son of Alphaeus.’ This is denied by Bengel (‘Aegga?os moſt est idem, quod Aevi'), but accepted by Nilles, Calendarium ecclesia, utriusque”, i. 184 (on 19th June): 'Io96a &rogróNov. “S. Judas, qui et Thaddaeus et Levi et Zelotes,” etc. A similar view had been proposed already by Grotius on the ground of Origen, contra Celsum, i. 62 (ed. Koet- schau, i. 113).j: , Grotius quoted further from Theodoret (Quastiones ad Nu 16): 60.66aſos Ó Kal Aegt. Dalman (Grammatik, p. 142) denies that Aeggalos has anything to do with Levi, and is more inclined to see in it an abbreviation from abn or nºn, or to combine it (Worte Jesu, p. 40) with a Nabataean name "Ninº. The other name in ('Nin, Erubin, 23c) he connects with the Gr. Gevöäs as an abbreviation from Theodotos, Theodosios, or Theodoros. § The etymology of both names, Leb- bows and Thaddants, is at present quite doubt- ful. The Jacobite Syrians vocalized Labbi and Thaddi, the Nestorians Labbaj and Thaddaj, Pusey-Gwilliam spell Labbi and Taddai. Matters became even more complicated in the post-canonical literature. Eusebius (IIE i. 12) states that 6ačöatos was one of the Seventy, and then tells the story of his mission to Abgar of Edessa. But already Jerome (on Mt 10", ed. Val- larsi, 1769, vii. 57 = Migne, xxvi. 61) understands this of the Apostle, writing : ‘Thredda:um apos- tolum ecclesiastica tradit historia missum Edessam ad Abgarum regem, qui ab Evangelista Luca Judas Jacobi dicitur ct alibi appellatur Lebatus quod interpretatur corculum, credendumque est eum fuisse trinomintºn.” How great the confusion became may be shown by the Acta Thaddai (first published by Tischendorf, Acta Apostolorum apocrypha, 1851, p. 261 ff.). This piece begins: Aeggalos 6 kal 6&öðaios fiv pleu darò 'Eöéoo ms tº tróNews . . . \\0ev els' Iepovo axiſ, év tats huépcus 'Iwdvvov too 6attvo Too . . . patrrto'0m kal étrék\#0m Tô (voua aúro) 6aôöalos . . . . kal éeXéato attöv ['Imaoûs] cls Toys 86 Seko, Kará ſtev Mar0atov Kal Mápkov 6ékaros diròa toxos. Nevertheless, the Y. is headed in one of the MSS used by Tischendorf: Tpāśts kai Kotumous toū . . . &TogróNov 9aôöalov čvös Tóv é88o- pºikovra, in the other as €vös Töv 18'. Zahn (I'orschungen, i. 366, 382) believes that the whole confusion is due to Eusebius, who substituted * In the “Preaching of Simon son of Cleophas' (Studia. Sin- aitica, v. 62, 65, ed. Gibson) we even read : ‘Simon son of Cleophas, who was called Jude, which is, being interpreted, Nathamael, who was called the Zealot, and was bishop in Jeru- salem after James the brother of the Lord'; see Zahn, l'or- Schungen, vi. 293. f Cf. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targºtºnim, p. 689, where sº Labya is quoted as the various reading for Levi. f floºro, 33 x2, & Asvēs--this is the true reading, not Afé%s— Texava; &zoxov0%arcºs ré, 'Izo'ot," &AA’ out, ys toū &p.upact rôv & roo- róxov cºroi, ºy, si wº, 22 ro, ruvo, tºy & wºlypº ºwy Tot 2&7& Mlcºxov sºczyys), ov. From the same combination between Mk 214 and 318 WH explain the ‘Western' reading 'I &xagoy for Asvs. v in 21”. Interesting, in this connexion, is the article of IIesychius (rec, M. Schmidt, ii. 338): Io:2a30s 'A7.9%iov, 6 × €cºccios zo. Asvi roºpæ rà, Mºpaq, ºropo. 83 rà, Mozarto, ſa, Ag3&ios, ºropo. 8: Aovzo. 'lovºaz: "I c.2%pov. Schmidt wishes to read 'loºxagos 'AA;&low zoºi (92%) cºlos 6 xoci, etc. § Instead of cºnn Est 221 62 68032; (tyin) may perhaps be read ; see Willrich, Judaica, p. 19. | The same interpretation (surname of Scipio Nasica) is found in Jerome's Liber interpretationis (Lagarde, Omonn (1stica sacra, p. 62), where the name Thadda`us is entirely omitted. ... It is curious that also in the list of the names of the apostlus (l.c. p. 174) Thaddarus, Lebbous, and Judas are missing. 742 THANIK-OFFERING THEOPHILUs for the name Addai in of the Syriac legends the Gr, name Thaddaeus. It is very strange that the Syriac translation of Eusebius’ HE, in one of its MSS (A), substitutes in 10 cases out of 15 the spelling "in (with n, not n), which has not been founo hitherto anywhere else, for "Tn for the name 6aôöatos; see the edition of Wright - McLean, p. 49 is 5310 54 g a 554. (The same version gives everywhere six for Agabus). When in the Book of the Bee (ed. Budge, & 124) Aggai ('in), the dis- §: of the Syriac Addai, is followed by Thaddai (“his father’ as is added in the recension published by I. H. Hall in the Journal of the Amer. Or. Soc. Proc., Oct. 1888, pp. lxxv, lxxxi), giving the series Xiāº; ºft. the question arises whether this is the result of contamination of Greek and Syriac legends. The names themselves recall 'Aéſàjat Ötöda kaxos kal 'Ayyaſos Aevirms in the Acta Pilati, ch. 14, etc. According to some statements, Thaddaeus was from Jerusalem and of the tribe of Judah (Book of the Bee, Barhebraeus), and preached the gospel in the African language (Gospels of the XII Apostles, ed. J. R. Harris, P; 26, 29); while the Syriac Addai is said to have been from Paneas. Bar Bahlul (p. 939) refers Labbi to the tribe of Simeon. The apocryphal ‘Gospel of Thaddaeus’ (Evan- gelium. Thaddasi), mentioned in some MSS and editions of the Decretum Gelasii, seems to be due to a clerical error (PRE" i. 663). For the extra-canonical statements on Thaddaeus see Lipsius, Die apokryphem. Apostelgeschichten, ii. 142–200, and his art. ‘Thaddagus' in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography, iv. 875–881. As a Christian name Thadda`us never seems to have been very frequent.” EB. NESTLE. THANK-OFFERING. — See SACRIFICE, under “Peace-offering.’ THARRA (BA 6appá, Luc. 6eóstºrms).—Ad. Est 12}=TERESH of Est, 2°l 6”. THASSI (A 6ao'ots, NW 6aora (e)().—The surname of Simon the Maccabee, 1 Mac 2". The meaning of the word is quite uncertain. As likely an interpretation as any is ‘the zealous,” obtained by connecting with Aram. and New Heb. Don “to bubble up or ferment' (used of new wine). For the history of Simon see art. MACCABEES, vol. iii. p. 185. THEATRE (9éarpov). — At the disturbance re- corded in Ac 194" we are told that the crowd rushed to the theatre, and that it was there that the somewhat tumultuous meeting, afterwards de- scribed, took place. We also learn from Josephus (Ant. XIX. viii. 2) that it was in the theatre at Caesarca that the events described in Ac 1220-28 took place. For general descriptions of the Greek and Roman theatre, reference must be made to the ordinary Dictionaries of Antiquities. The theatre at Ephesus was on the slope of Mt. Coressus, and was famous as being one of the largest, if not the largest, in the ancient world. A description of the remains with a plan may be found in Woods, Discoveries at Ephesus, ch. iv. p. 68. A large number of inscrip- tions also were found on the site, which have been published in full in Hicks' Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum. These are specially important as illustrating the very varied part the Greek theatre played in public life, as the place not only of * The Church days for Thaddaeus (Judas of James) are in the Greek Church 19 June and 21 Aug., in the Latin 28 Oct. (together with Simon); on the Armenian see Nilles2, ii. 589, 627; on the Coptic 702, 721 f. (2 and 28 Epip=July); on the Syriac, i. 480 § Aug.), 485 (18 Oct.) 489. º: Calendar in McLean's East Syriam Daily Offices mentions Mar Adai for the Sixth Sunday of the Resurrection. amusement, but of every form of large assembly, The results are well summed up by Lightfoot, Essays on Supernatural Religion, p. 299– ‘The theatre appears as the recognized, place of public assembly. Here edicts are proclaimed, and decrees recorded, and benefactors crowned. When the mob, under the leadership of Demetrius, gathered here for their demonstration against St. Paul and his companions, they would find themselves surrounded by memorials which might stimulate their zeal for the goddess If the “town clerk” had desired to make good his assertion, “What man is there that knoweth not that the city of the Ephesians is sacristan of the great goddess Artemis?” he had only to point to the inscriptions which lined the walls for con- firmation. The very stones would have cried out from the walls in response to his appeal.' The same Greek word is also used in 1 Co 4° ‘for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men,” where the meaning is the scene or spectacle in the theatre. A. C. HEADLAM. THEBAIC VERSION.— Now generally called the Sahidic Version. See EGYPTIAN VERSIONS, vol. i. p. 669°. THEBES.–See No-AMON, vol. iii. p. 555. THEBEZ (Pań ‘brightness’ (?); B 9m3ás, Gaugot, A 6aigals, 9apao'el; Thebes).-The place at which Abimelech was killed by a millstone which a woman threw down upon him from a tower that was holding out after the city had been taken (J 909, 2 S 11” ; Jos. Amt. V. vii. 5). Eusebius an Jerome (Onomy.) say that in their day there was a village called Thebes, about 13 Rom. miles from Neapolis, on the road to Scythopolis. The Roman road from N. to S. can still be traced, and on it, about 10 miles from Náblus, is Túbás, which Robinson was the first to identify with Thebez (BRP” ii. 317, iii. 305). Tºtbós is a large village, surrounded by olive groves and cornfields, on the western slope of a broad fertile valley. Its oil and corn are held in high estimation; and the villagers, who are divided into three factions, own large flocks of sheep and goats. There are numerous rock-hewn cisterns, on which the people depend for their water-supply; and rock-hewn dwelling-places, of which many are still occupied. There is a tomb of Neby Toba in the village, which the Samaritans bglieve to be that of Asher, son of Jacob. The village suffered greatly from the earthquake of 1837 (PEF (Mem., ii. 247 ; Guérin, Samarie, i. 357; Baedeker-Socin, Pal.” 224). C. W. WILSON. THEFT-See artt. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS in vol. i. p. 522", and MAN-STEALING in vol. iii. p. 239. THELERSAS (B ©eXeporás, A €eXads), 1 Es 5*= Tel-harsha, Ezr 2", a Bab. town. THEODOTION.—See SEPTUAGINT, p. 453", and VERSIONS (Greek other than LXX), p. 866". THE0DOTUS (96.660 tos). –1. One of the mes- sengers said to have been sent by Nicanor to Judas Maccabaeus, 2 Mac 14". 2. The author of a plot to assassinate king 1°tolemy Philopator, which as frustrated by Dositheus, a renegade Jew, 3 Mac 12. THEOPHILUS (66.6%tXos).—The name of the per- son to whom the Third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles were addressed }. 13, Ac 11). It has been supposed by some (and the supposition is an early one *) that the name is, after all, only a general name applicable to any Christian, as meaning ‘beloved by God’ or ‘the friend of God.” Others (e.g. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and * It is certainly as old as Epiphanius (Haer. 51, p. 429). THERAS I. THESSALONIANS 743 the Roman Citizen, p. 388) hold that the use of this name puts forward the Acts, as a complete work at least to the time of Domitian, and sup- ports the idea that the book is a composite one, consisting of the original notes of St. Luke (‘ called the “Travel focument”), added to and increased by a later editor. The name is certainly that of an individual; and this statement is con- firmed by the title kpártaros prefixed to the name in Lk 1°, as it is prefixed to the names Felix and Festus in the Acts (23°24°26”). The title implies that the person to whom it was ascribed belonged to the equestrian order—he must certainly have been a Gentile. Attempts have been made to fix the place of his residence at Antioch, Alexandria, in Achaia, or at Rome, but there are not sufficient data to go upon to establish any of these theories. Other theorists have gone so far as to deny that he was a Christian, or to say that, at any rate, he knew very little about Christianity.” A step still further has been taken in an attempt to identify him with a high priest of his name (Joseph. Ant. XVIII. iv. 3) who held office for about five years, and was perhaps the high priest to whom Saul, afterwards Paul, went to ask for “letters to Damascus unto the synagogues,’ that he might take any Christians who were there prisoners to Jerusalem. Whether Theophilus was a learned and cultivated man or not we do not know, but the dedication to him of the Third Gospel is in style the most elegant piece of writing in the NT. Tradition has not been busy with him as it has with most of the early Christians. t H. A. REDPATH. THERAS, 1 Es 84. (A 0épa, Bom..)" (BA 6épá).— The name of the place and river where Ezra's caravan halted, called AHAVA in Ezr 8* *, and now usually identified with the modern Hit on the Euphrates. The origin of the form of the name in 1 Es, is uncertain. jos. (Ant. XI. v. 2, els rô Trépav toū Eöqpárov) possibly read trépav for 66pav. THERMELETH (9epuéXe6), 1 Es 58%–The equiva- lent of TELMELAH, a Bab. town in Ezr 2*, where Cod. B gives the same Gr. form of the name. THESSALONIANS, FIRST EPISTLE TO THE.— i. Date. - ii. Circumstances. iii. Analysis. iv. Value. v. Authenticity. vi. Integrity. Literature. i. DATE.-The date of this Epistle in relation to St. Paul's life is fixed within the linits of a few months. It was written during the eighteen months which he spent at Corinth at the end of his Second Missionary Journey (Ac 18"). For it was written after he had left Thessalonica, and while the memories of his first visit there were still fresh (chs. 1. 2 passim, esp. 21 yeyovev); after he had gone on to Athens and had left it (3'); after he had been rejoined by Silvanus and Timothy (1*, Ac 18°); while Silvanus and Timothy, of whom Silvanus is not mentioned in any subsequent journey, are still his com- panions (1*); and, lastly, while he is in some central place where he hears news readily from Macedonia and Achaia, and even from wider sources (1° éu Travrl Tôtrø, i.e. perhaps the Asiatic and Syrian Churches [so Zahn, Einleitung, p. 147]; but may it be that Aquila, and Priscilla had told him that they had heard even at Rome of the conversion of the Thessalonians ? and might Jason * This theory is based mainly on the ground that Theophilus from his title “most excellent' was an official, and that it is not likely that any of the early Christians would hold high office under the Roman authorities. have been the channel of communication ? Ac 17° 18°, Ro 16”). It was, then, at Corinth—but not very early or very late in that stay ; not very early, as time must be allowed for the mission and return of Timothy (3%), for the occurrence of Some deaths at Thessalonica (4”), for the active brotherliness of the Thessalonians to manifest itself to other Christians in Macedonia (41°), and the news of their faith to have spread widely even beyond Macedonia and Achaia (17 °). Nor again very late, if 2 Thess. is genuine, for room must be left for the circumstances which led to the writing of that Epistle. The exact date will depend on the system of chronology adopted. It must lie between 49 and 53 (see CHRONOLOGY OF NT). ii. CIRCUMSTANCES. — St. Paul and his com- panions, full of hope owing to the Divine call which had led them to preach in Europe, and encouraged by the spiritual success which, in spite of the insults to their Roman citizenship (2°), §. had gained at Philippi, reached Thessalonica. This was a larger and more important centre than Philippi. It was the capital of one of the four divisions of Macedonia ; it was a great commercial centre (? cf. 4" v tº trpáygart, im, Handel [Luther], in Geschäften [Weizsäcker]), holding easy com- munication with East and West both by sea and by land (cf. 1°4”); it was a free town with its public assembly and its local magistrates (Ac 17* els rôv ôňaov ; v." &nt roys troXtrápxas, cf. CIG 1967), and a mixed population of native Greeks, Roman colonists, and Orientals, the Jewish settlement being large enough to have a synagogue. St. Paul began as usual with the synagogue, preach- ing there for three weeks, appealing to the Jewish Scriptures, proving that Jesus was the Messiah, and that His sufferings and Resurrection were in accord with the Scriptures. The result was that some Jews threw in their lot with Paul and Silas, and so did a larger number of Greek proselytes and of leading ladies. The Acts thus bears wit- ness to the fact that a majority of the Church were of Gentile origin, but speaks only of Gentile proselytes, whereas the Epistle implies converts from heathenism (1924). The Epistle, though it implies that St. Paul’s stay was prematurely cut short, yet seems to require more than three weeks, and Ph 4” shows that St. Paul twice received supplies from Philippi during the time, even though he was supporting himself by his own work (2*). It is therefore probable that the three weeks of Ac 17% were confined to exclusive work in the synagogue ; that after that St. Paul, as at Corinth and Ephesus, made some new place, per; haps the house of Jason (Ac 17°), his abode and lace of teaching for Gentiles; and the chrono- º data would admit of a stay of six months (Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 228). It was a time of hard work : St. Paul and his companions rose early, working before daylight to support themselves (2°, II 3°); they preached with effective- ness and conviction (1*); they laid stress on the worthlessness of idols, on the reality of the living God (1"); they told of the wrath that was coming on the world, when God would punish the heathen world for its inpurity (1” 4") and the Jews who refused to accept the gospel (2", II 1°); of the death of Jesus, of His Resurrection, of His power to deliver from this wrath (11° 44' 5". "). They added that God had now established His kingdom and called heathen into it (2*); that such a call required a holy life, a separation from impurity (4°), an active life of work (4*, II 3"); that Christianity would lay them open to persecution (3); but that after certain signs, had appeared (II 2") Jesus would return suddenly, like a thief in the night (5°), and they would be with Him for ever. Their preaching met with great 744 I. THESSALONIANS I. THESSALONIANS success (1*, 2*) in spite of much conflict (2%); the gifts of the Spirit, especially that of pro- phecy, were manifested (5**); the Divine word made the converts strong to bear persecution (2*). There is no indication of the size of the Church ; but some of the chief men, perhaps Jason (Ac 17°), Aristarchus, and Secundus (Ac 20*), took the lead in active work and preaching (5**), and probably St. Paul, as elsewhere, officially appointed them to this position ; ap- parently, also, some form of almsgiving was organized (II 319). These results roused the jealousy of the Jews. They misrepresented the teaching of Christ's king- dom, as treason to the emperor: working on the heathen populace, they attempted to bring St. Paul before a hastily called meeting of the assembly; but, failing to find him, they took Jason, his host, and other Christians before the native magistrates (cf. birà Tây löttov orvpaqvXérôv, 2*). These were bound over to keep the peace, i.e. probably to send Paul and Silas away; and the same night they withdrew to Beroea. Probably, even while there, they planned a return to Thessalonica, but were unable to carry it out (2° àirač : there would scarcely be time for two such proposals at Athens). I'rom Beroea, St. Paul passed on to Athens, leaving Silas and Timothy there, but sending back word that they should join him as quickly as possible (Ac 17”). The writer of the Acts gives the impression that they did not do so until after he had reached Corinth (18%); but this impression must be supplemented from this Epistle. They came at once to him while at Athens, perhaps bringing news of some fresh Fº at Thessalonica (3° raúrats and *). 'aul, Silas, and Timothy were anxious to return; the tie between them and their converts had been very close ; their stay had been interrupted before their work was done ; they had only meant to be absent, a short time ; their converts were young, and might be tempted by persecution or cajolery (3*) to renounce their faith (2.73%); their opponents, whether Jews, or, more probably, heathen, knew well how to misrepresent their motives; their very taunts (TAdvm, d.Kaffapala, 66Xos, KoMakeia, TXeovešta, {mtotivres 66&av, perhaps év 8ápet Üvres) are echoed in this letter (2*). But there were obstacles; perhaps the guarantee which Jason had given to the magis- trates was still enforced (Ramsay, l.c.). So Paul and Silas (étréºpauev,3*) decided to send Timothy to Thessalonica, and Silas probably returned to visit Some other Church in Macedonia. Possibly St. Paul in his growing anxiety sent yet another messenger (kāyd . . . Tepºpa, 3°).” While they were absent, St. Paul moved on to Corinth, and Silas and Timothy both rejoined him there. The news that Timothy brought was in the main good: the faith of the Thessalonians had stood the test of persecution (1°3%); their love showed itself in hospitality and charity, even to other Mace- donian Christians (1°3'4" "); they strove to edify each other (5"); they tried to walk obedient to Christ's commands (4!); they were loyal to their teachers, and wished to see them once more (3%. 7). At the same time the calumnies against the new Christian teachers were still prevalent, and the con- verts were still persecuted; they were also exposed to the ordinary perils of a new Church in a heathen town ; they were tempted to fall back into im- purity (4..."); some of the poorer members, perhaps abusing the charity of the richer, were living a life of idleness and dependence (4”), others were care- less and forgetful of the coming of Christ (51-11). There was a tendency, perhaps due to ‘the old * It is possible that St. Paul sent a short letter with Timothy, and that the Thessalonians also replied by a written answer (cf. I'vpositor, Sept. 1898, pp. 167–177, where J. Rendel IIarris ingeniously reconstructs the Thessalonian letter). q = -sº Macedonian spirit of independence’ (Lightfoot, Bibl. Ess. p. 248), to disorder and contempt of those in authority (5* *; ātakros, drákrajs, drak- retv only in these two Epp.; armpišew 4 times, 2 elsewhere). There was a danger of a misuse of spiritual gifts at the meetings of the Church (5**); while some had lost friends by death and were afraid that these would not share in the blessings of Christ's Advent (41*). On receipt of this news St. Paul writes this Epistle ; he writes in the name of Silas and Timothy as well as himself, so that, with a few exceptions (2° 3° 597), he uses the plural number and speaks for them all ; probably he dic- tated it to Timothy and added the conclusion (5**) in his own handwriting (cf. II 317). Their hope is still to return to Thessalonica, but mean- while they write to express their delight at the good news, to defend their own conduct as teachers, and to complete what was left wanting in the faith and life of their converts. The words of 4* ka000s kal trepitrate’re, iva Treptoroſeiſmſe form the connecting link between the two parts. He aims at ‘binding closer the link between the community and himself, and at more effectually severing the link between it and heathenism’ (Jülicher). [lºor the circum- stances cf. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, vi., vii.; Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, ix–xi; Spitta, Zur Gesch, und Litt. des Urchristenthums, i. pp. 111–154; Zahn, Einleitung, pp. 145–160.] iii. ANALYSIS.—After a salutation, entirely free from all official titles or allusions to controversy, written as from friends to friends, as by men who are still anxious not €v 8ópel civat dºs Xploroú &Tôo- Toxot (cf. 2"), the writers give thanks for the spiritual state of the Thessalonians, reviewing their personal relations with them in the past, both at Thessa- lonica (14–2%) and at Athens (2.7–3”), their feelings in the present on the receipt of the news from Timothy (3*), and their hopes for the future 310-18). The didactic part deals with questions of per- sonal morality (4%), with teaching about the dead (vv. 19-18), and the need of watchfulness (5**); ending with regulations for the community-life (vv. 12-22 ſº A. Personal (12-313). Gratitude for their spiritual virtues is based upon the convic- tion which the writers felt (§§678;) of the election of their com- verts by God (13. 4); and this is proved (i.) by the effectiveness and assurance of their first preaching, and by the results in the lives of the Thessalonians (ww.5-7); (ii.) by the reports of others, who bear witness both to the success of their preaching (tºº ºl) and the reality of the conversion of the Thessalonians (ww.8-10); (iii.) by the knowledge of the Thessalonians themselves (2&to: 2&p oºzºrs), who can bear witness to the boldness of their preaching, to the purity of their motives, to their tenderness, and the absence of all self-assertion, to the example of self- sacriſice, to their fatherly entreaties (21-12). This preaching roduced the true results in the lives of the converts; they had been bold to endure persecution—as the Churches in Judaya had from the Jews, the determined opponents of the gospel (vv. 19-lb). Consequently, when obliged to leave Thessalonica, they had longed to return ; Paul himself had twice planned a visit, but had been prevented ; and so at last Paul and Silas had sent Timothy. Paul himself had sent yet a second messenger to comfort, and strengthen them and to reassuro himself (31%). The news that Timothy has brought is like a new gospel, a new life to them, making them thank God and desire to revisit and to complete such faith (v.v.0:10). So, they pray that God will make a visit possible, and meanwhilo increase the love of the Thessalonians (vv. 11-13). B. Jºthical. Guidance for the future (41-522). They must press forward in the spiritual life; they must be specially on their guard against all forms of impurity, for God specially punishes that sin, and it is inconsistent with the Chris- tian calling and the gift of the Spirit (41-8). They must increase their brotherly love, active as it already is (vv.9. 10); they must live an orderly, industrious life, that they may gain the respect of the heathen and be independent º 19). They need not be anxious about their dead friends: the union of Christians with the Risen Christ ensures their resurrection (vv. 19. 14), and a special word of the Lord has revealed that the dead will meet the Lord, even before the living (vv.1518). But they must not relax their vigilance, for the Lord comes as a thief in the night, and they must watch and be sober, ready to gain the salvation which Iſe will bring (5:11).... . Finally, the community-life is regulated ; the members of the I. THESSALONIANS I. THESSALONIANS 745 assºme Chirch (ºr, v.12) are to pay due honour to those in authority, and they (tugs, v.1%) are to keep discipline and be long-suffering. Joy, prayers, and thanksgiving are to be constant ; and Spiritual uttérances are not to be discouraged but tested (vv. 12.2%). º The Epistle ends with a prayer to the God of peace for their complete preservation; with a request for their prayers; a com- mand to greet one another with the holy kiss; a Solemn charge by Paul himself that the Epistle be read to all the members of the Church, and a simple benediction (vv.28:28). iv. VALUE.-The value of the Epistle is two- fold: it represents most closely St. Paul's preach- ing to the heathen world, and therefore is to be compared with the speeches at Lystra and at Athens (cf. Sabatier, L’Apótre Paul”, pp. 86-101); St. Paul's antagonists were Jews defending na- tional prejudices; Judaizing Christians are perhaps alluded to in 2", but quite incidentally ; and also it is not only the earliest of St. Paul's Epistles, but possibly the earliest extant specimen of Chris- tian literature. It shows us St. Paul as the missionary, in the absence of any special controversy ; as the consoler and the prophet. We see his self-denial for the sake of others (29-9; cf. 1 Co 9–11); his intense sympathy with his converts and dependence on their sympathy (27. ii. 173*"); his power of self- adaptation (27 vºtriot &yevſjömueu ; cf. 1 Co. 9"); his sensitiveness to the opinions of others; his asser- tion of the purity of his own motives, (2*); his appeal to his own conduct as an example (1"); his insistence on spiritual progress, based ulº a hearty recognition of the good already achieved (1°4" "5"); his indignation with those who thwart God's work (21° 49); his sense of union with Christ (4'); his rayerfulness (1831-135°); his gratefulness (1° 3"). This is exactly the character which reappears, in- tensified by controversy, in 2 Corinthians. The witness to the organization and faith of the Church is equally interesting. The local Church forms one congregation (1*). The only official title that occurs is dirógroxot, which is apparently used to include Silvanus and Timothy as well as St. Paul; these apostles hold a position of Superiority (éu Bápel (?) 2"), including the right to be maintained there as in other Churches (2"); they speak gener- ally in a tone of entreaty (4: ". 5**); once St. Paul, separating himself from the others, uses the lan- guage of solemn authority (5°). But, under the apostles, there are already officers who preside-– brobably both for discipline and for worship (5**). here are meetings with the holy kiss, the symbol of brotherhood (5*), and with prophetic utterances (519. *); probably at such a meeting the letter would be read (5”). There is a link of sympathy and charity between them and other Churches (1° 2* 410). #he faith of the Church is directed to God (1*), a God of life and truth (1") and judgment ; a Father, who has called them and marked them out for sal- vation (47.5%). Christ is thought of mainly in His future capacity as Judge. Christian life is a wait- ing for Him (1"). Christians have to be always watchful (5-19); He may come at any moment, and will come to inflict punishment on sin, as well as to give joy to His followers (4" 2"; i, trapovata of Christ's coming, four times in 1 Thess., twice in 2 Thess., once only elsewhere in St. Paul). But Christ is more than this : II is death was the means of salvation in the past (5'); He is now 6 Kūptos, 6 Kºptos jučv, the OT language about Jehovah being appied to Him (5°); He is God's Son (1"); He is united with the Father as the mystic source of life both for the living and the dead (1*, 2* 4"). He is the object of prayer, working with the Pather in bestowing earthly as well as spiritual blessings (31 karevºyat, 19 35.2%). The Holy Spirit is given to all Christians to enable them to conquer evil (4°); it gives them joy under persecution (1" "), and inspires the utterances of the prophets (5"). This Epistle gives us the fullest division of human nature into spirit, soul, and body (5*). The pic- ture of the Christian life has all th freshness and glow of early days. It is true that it needs steadying and disciplining, but it is strong and radiant. The converts welcome the good mews ; they put it to active proof; the message is handed on, as by a trumpet note, to others; they imitate their teachers and become objects of imitation to others; they are taught of God ; there is mutual affection and conſidence between teachers and taught ; there is an * of love, of joy, of life; they live ‘en, plein jour.’ [For the theology, cf. Weiss, Biblical Theology, pt. iii. § 1, cap. i. ; Lechler, Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times, pt. ii. § 2, cap. i. ; The Speaker’s Comment- tary, iii. pp. 691-701]. - RELATION TO TIIE OT AND TO CIII-ISTIAN LITJERATURE.— The OT is never appealed to as authority or directly quoted; but its history is referred to (21%), and its language perhaps consciously adapted (216 45.0, 8.9 58. 22(?)). There is a certain similarity of language between 415-17 and 2 Es 542, but the thought there is different, the writer considering the justice of God's dealing with different generations of men, and the language is not sufficiently similar to suggest literary depend- ence on either side; if there is any, probably 2 Esdras is the lator work. There is no reference to Christian literature, but it is possible that 19, 10 point to the germ of some profession of faith in the Father and the Son made at Baptism (&xativ6; here only in St. Paul); it is possible again that 4% (ºrozpo.226Aſo. 31& row K. 'Izoroß) refers to the definite enactments of Ac 1549, and that 414 is a semi-quotation from a creed. There seems a reminiscence of St. Stephen's speech (Agº) in 2.; and of our Lord's eschato: logical discourse in 210 (Mt 23:2.86) 415-17 (Mt. 2431, 37.39) 52, 5 (Mt 2443) 53 (Lk 21:4, Mt. 248); but the majority of these are too much the common language of all Apocalypses to allow us to build on them with certainty. A comparison of 34 with Ac 1422 2 Ti 312 suggests a semi- quotation of our Lord's words, e.g. Mt. 249, Jn 1698, but a sugges- tion that there is a reminiscence of our Lord's sayings recorded in Jn,029 in 13 and of Jn 178 in 19 (P. Ewald, Das Hauptproblem der Evangelien-1"rage, pp. S5, 98) is more doubtful. In 415 $v × 674, Kv2.ſov is a possible quotation of some saying unrecorded in the Gospel (cf. Zahn, p. 159); and 519, which is often found combined with the agraphon yivsart/s 30x1,…of rpoº- reši‘rozi, is perhaps another (cf. Tesch, Agrapha, p. 116). All these cases point rather to an oral tradition than to written documents. v. AUTHIENTICITY. — The authenticity is now generally admitted, though there are still oppon- ents (cf. Holtzmann, Einl.” p. 237). The external evidence outside the NT is less strong than for some Epistles, as this Epistle did not lend itself readily to quotation ; but it was included in Mar- cion’s canon (circ. 140), and that implied some previous Catholic collection. The language of 2” (Éq,0ao's . . . TéAos) is found in exactly the same form in the Test. XII Patr. (Levi, ch. 6; but see below). There are possible reminiscences of 4*17 in Didºtché xvi. 6; and of 1° and 4° in Clem. Rom. ch. 42 (but not of 5* in Clem. 38, where the thought is different). But the strongest support is given by 2 Thess., which, whatever its date, implies the existence and the recognition of the Pauline authorship of our Epistle. No doubt of its authenticity was raised before the 19th century. The internal evidence equally supports the genu- ineness, in spite of a few diſliculties. The objec- tion that the Epistle implies a longer lapse of time than a few weeks is met by the consideration that the Acts will permit of an interval of nearly a year between the foundation of the Church and the writing of the letter. The difliculties of recon- ciliation with the Acts about the movements of Silas and Timothy and the persecution by heathen have been discussed above. As far as they are diſliculties, they aflect the historical character of the Acts rather than of 1 Thessalonians. A few other objections deserve notice. It is urged that St. Paul's eager defence of his motives (21-5), and incidentally of his apostolic rights (26), implies a later stage in his life, when Jewish Christians had attacked his apostleship. But such depreciation of his motives would be natural to Jews longing to thwart him (cf. 210), or to heathen, indignant at the con- 746 II. THESSALONIANS I. THESSALONIANS *g. version of their friends. The incidents of Ac 15, and probably of Gal 211, lay behind him, and would account for the incidental allusion in 20; while, even apart from any attack of opponents, he might think it well to contrast his motives with those of other teachers with whom he might be confused—such as Jewish impostors like Elymas (Ac 1310 rāšpnº arozyrós 36Aov), heathen rhetoricians or sophists, taking pay for their teaching (ratov- sčía); or, again, he may have desired to dissociate himself from the impure teaching (ść &zzflaporizº) of the priests of the Cabeiri (Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 257). Again, 216b has been interpreted as implying the previous destruction of Jerusalem. If this were so, it would be more rational to strike out the last sentence as the interpolation of a scribe pointing out the fulfilment of St. Paul's words; but the words do not necessarily mean more than that “sentence has been pronounced upon them; the wrath of God is gone forth; the kingdom of God passed from them when they rejected the Messiah’; they are parallel to the thought of 1 Co 28-8, Ro 1119.25, and Ac 1846 186; and the use of the phrase in the Test. XII Patr. perhaps shows that it was a half-stereotyped Rab- binical formula for declaring God's judgment. : Moreover, the present participles &psozèvrov, waxwóvrov, and the phrase slº to &varAmpājaro.1 are inconsistent with the destruction of Jerusalem. Once more, 417 offers an apparent inconsistency with 2 Co 58; but a change of expectation on such a Pºiº would not be un- natural, and a careful comparison of 510 with 2 Co 510 will show that there is no real antithesis. Lastly, the solemn command of 527 may have been due to the presence of disorderliness and dissension (514 lb), and would be natural, even without such a supposition (cf. Col 410). The objections, then, can be fairly met, while on the other hand the style, the character of the writer, the many points of contact with 2 Cor., the simplicity and directness of the thought, the primi- tive stage of Church organization, the state of the spiritual gifts, the question about the dead which must have arisen very early in any Church, the absence of any motive for forgery, the apparent discrepancies with the Acts, the improbability that a later forger would put language in St. Paul’s mouth which at least seems to imply that he ex- pected the Parousia in his lifetime, — all these carry conviction of its genuineness. The argu- ments on both sides are well stated in Holtz- mann (l.c.), and the genuineness well defended by Jowett, Weizsäcker (Das Apostol. Zeitalter, p. 250), Jülicher (Einl.” pp. 41–45), and most fully by von Soden (SK, 1885), and Bornemann, § 5. vi. INTEGRITY. — The integrity of the Epistle has been questioned both on a large and on a small scale. (l) Pierson and Naber (Verisimilia, Amsterdam, 1886), treat it as a composition of two authors. The first was a pre-Christian Jewish writer, writ- ing a hortatory address to Gentiles before the first coming of the Messiah to foretell His advent, and to exhort them to live a life of Jewish morality. The second was a Christian bishop, whose date is not given, named Paul, who inserted into the Jewish treatise a few Christian phrases and a justification of his own motives and preaching. This analysis is based upon the variety of tone,— now that of an authoritative prophet, now that of a humble pastor—the want of close sequence of thought between the paragraphs, and the difference in the usage of particular words (huépa, Ypmyopeſv), and the scantiness of specially Christian teaching. But the criticism is pedantic, and often inconsist- ent with itself in details: it requires from a letter the exact structure of a scientific treatise, and allows no play to varieties of mood and thought within one writer’s mind. (2). A list of suggestions of interpolations on a smaller Scale will be found in Clemen, Die Ein- heitlichkeit der Paul. Briefe (Göttingen, 1894). The most important affect 2". " and 527. The objection to 2** as a whole is groundless, the attack on the Jews being as natural to St. Paul as it had been to St. Peter or St. Stephen (Ac 2° 31' 7"); but v.” 84.0age . . . ré\os might be an editorial comment added after the destruction of Jerusalem, to point out the fulfilment of St. Paul's words (els Tô &vatrºmpógat); yet, as we have seen, they are quite natural in St. Paul's own mouth at the time. is before A.D. 70. 5” might also be a later addition, emphasizing the º of the Epistle; but there, too, a natural reason for the words is to be found in the circumstances of the moment (cf. Schmiedel Hdcom, ad loc.; Moffatt, Histor. NT, p. 625). The chief questions of textual criticism affect the reading in 27 (see Westcott-Hort, NT, ii. App p. 128) 8, 1933 41.85% (ib. p. 144)". LITERATURE.—Of ancient commentators, Chrysostom, though discursive, is excellent in entering into the writer's point of view; and the moral homilies—e.g. those on friendship (1 Th 28), on the fear of hell (1 Th 418, 2 Th 18), on intercession (2 Th 3°)—. are very spiritual and pointed. Theodore of Mopsuestia (circ. 415 A.D.) has more of the modern exegetical instinct, and ex- plains the exact meaning and the historical and practical refer- ences well, but at times forces the language to suit his own views. Theodoret, while dependent on these two, shows inde, º Of lº. His notes are clear and sensible, and he is, especially careful to draw out the dogmatic inferences of the Epistle. - Of modern writers, Jowett, A. J. Mason (Ellicott's Comm. for English Readers), Bishop Alexander Speaker's Comm.), and J. Denney (Ea:positor's Bible) are most interesting on Introduc- tion and doctrinal teaching. ... More careful, exegesis will be found in Ellicott, Alford, Findlay (Cambr. Bible for Schools), Lightfoot (Notes on Epistles of St. Paul, 1895), P. W. Schmiedel in the Häcom. z. NT, and, most completely of all, in Börnemann- Meyer 6. Useful notes on 29 and 54 will be found in I’ield, Notes on Trans. of NT (ON2); and on 28-8 by F. Zimmer in “Theologische Studien D. B. Weiss dargebracht” (Göttingen, 1897); Askwith, Introd. to Thess. Epp. (1902). W. LOCK. THESSALONIANS, SECOND EPISTLE TO H s- i. Date and Circumstances. ii. Analysis. iii. Literary Dependence. iv. Authorship. v. Integrity. wi. Value. Literature. i. DATE AND CIRCUMSTANCES. – The genuine- ness of this Epistle is more contested than that of any other attributed to St. Paul, except the Pas- torals. If it is not genuine, the exact date and circumstances are merely a literary setting, of little historical value. Yet, even so, a definite situation was in the writer's mind and must be examined. The following points fix that situation. Appar- ently the temple is still standing (2*), i.e. the date Further, Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, after having founded the Church at Thessalonica (2° 34-19) and written a letter, probably 1 Thess., to it (2” and perh. 2° 3%), are still working together (1*) in some º: where they are thwarted by perverse and malicious men (3°), and where there are other churches in the neighbourhood (1*). This will suit exactly the time of Ac 18” (cf. 2 Co lº with 14); late in the stay at Corinth, but probably before the appeal to Gallio had stopped the Jewish ersecution. At this time news about the Thessa- onian Church reached them at Corinth (3" &Koć- ouev); perhaps brought by the messenger implied in 1 Th 3", perhaps by the bearer of 1 Thess, on his return, perhaps by some chance passer-by. They were still exposed to persecution, and were still bravely enduring it ; but there were tendencies to disorder and insubordination ; idlers were presum- ing on the charity of their neighbours; and there was a tendency to excitement caused by an expeſ:- tation of the speedy setting-in of ‘the day of the Lord’; spiritual utterances, not duly tested (1 Th 5*), increased the expectation; sayings of Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy were exaggerated to coun- tenance it ; possibly a forged letter in their name was circulated, or (more likely) the language of 1 Th 4. 5 was distorted in the same interest (2*). The three teachers feel that their converts must be raised and comforted, yet stimulated and steadied They write a common letter—always in the plural, except that once one of them, probably l’aul, in- tervenes with a special appeal to his own teaching II. THESSALONIANS II. THESSALONIANS 747 (2%), and Paul confirms the whole with his auto- graph at the end (3"). ii. ANALYSIS.— 11.2 Greeting. tº: A. Gratitude for their spiritual state, especially for their loyal endurance under persecution (3, 4). Strengthening of them º the thought of 1) the justice of God (0); - & 2) the special manifestation of that justice, which will accompany the Appearance of the Lord Jesus (6-10). Prayer to God to complete their Christian life, that Christ may be glorifled in them on ‘that day' (ii. 12). B. I'vuller teaching about that day. * Warning against being misled into thinking it immedi- ately at hand (21. 2), and a reminder of Paul's past teaching (°), which implied (a) a mystery of lawless- ness and of error already at work; (b) a restraining power or person ; (c) a removal of that restraint at some future date; (d) a great apostasy; (e) the appearance of the man of sin; (f) the appearance of the Lord destroying the man of sin and all who have been deceived by him (3, 4, 0-12). Thanksgiving to God that He saved them from this doom (18, ii). Exhºrtation to abide loyally by their past teaching j Prayer to God to comfort and to steady them (10. 17). C. Itequest for their intercession (31: 2). Assurance of God's faithfulness (3), and of their teacher's faith in them (4). Prayer to God to give them love and patience (5). D. Regulation of their community-life. They are to shun all disorderly brethren (6); for such disorder is contrary to the example which their teachers had set (7-9), and their repeated command 10). Such brethren must earn their own bread 11, 12). The rest must be forbearing, but yet break off intercourse with any one who persists in disobeying this written command (19-10). Pººr to the God of peace to give peace to them all Autograph salutation in Paul's own handwriting (17). Benediction (18). iii. LITERARY DEPENDENCE. — (1) The Epistle bresupposes the existence of 1 Thessalonians. For }} 21" explains itself readily by reference to I 4” 51-1"; II 30 to I 411; II 34, perhaps, but less prob- ably, to I 4"-"; and II 2% may imply a misunder- standing of I 47.5% 8. Further, there is a remark- able similarity of structure, e.g., in the form of greeting (I l', II 11.”), of thanksgiving (I.1%, II lº), of prayers (I 31, 5*, II 2" 3"), of transition (I 4, II 3"). And this extends to many verbal points, as will be seen by a comparison of the following places:—- I tº with II 18. I I 14 With II 213. I I 16 with II 14. I I 18, 0 with II 14. I 50 with II 214. I 20-9 with II 39. I 514, 15 with II 313. The writer of 2 Thess. must have lately written 1 Thess., or have known it as a piece of literature. (2) Previous apocalyptic ãº. is also pre- supposed. No one passage of the OT is appealed to, but the apocalyptic descriptions 19-192*** weave together phrases from Is 2'". " " 114 [found in a singilar context in Ps-Sol 1797. *] 49° 66%. 1", Jer 10”, Ezk 28°, and Dn 11”. There are also striking re- semblances between the language here and that of our Lord's eschatological discourse ; cf. 1" with Mt, 2591. 10 ; 21 with Mt. 249 (6truguvé$ovorºv); 29 with Mt, 24% (0posio bat, here and Mk 137 only in NT); 29 with Mt. 24" ; 2" with Mt 24” (év Tótrø &ytø), Mk 131" (šormkóta Štrov ot, 6eſ); 27 with Mt, 24” (āvoula); 29 with Mt 24”. Such siniilarities may be due to the fact that each draws independently from the common stock of apocalyptic imagery, and they do not prove a literary dependence on any written Gospel, but they make probable a knowledge of some oral tradition of that dis- COUll'SČ. . (3) A knowledge of other Gospel sayings may lie behind 1% = Mt. 5", 3% = Mt. 6". The command in 3" is a quotation of a Rabbinical saying, but possibly it had been already used by our Lord 212 with II 15. 32 with II 217. 41, 10 fill with II 34. Himself, and may have been taken by St. Paul from Him (cf. Resch, Agrapha, º 128 and 240). iv. AUTHORSHIP.-Church tradition universally ascribed the Epistle to St. Paul. . It is directly attributed to him by Polycarp (c. xi.), who quotes 1*, though by mistake he quotes it as addressed to the Philippians. Reminiscences of the apocalyptic language may underlie Justin Martyr, Dial. xxxii. cx.; Didache, c. 16; and more prob. Ep. Vienne and Lyons, ap. Eus. v. 1 (évéokmyev 6 ávrukeſpevos, trpool- pºta;&prevos #6m Tiju péA\ova'av čoea:0at trapovortov abroß . . . Xptoros . . . katopyöv Töv čvrukeluevow . . . ot viol ris àtroMeſas), but in no case can the reference be called undoubted. Marcion included the Epistle in his Canon as Pauline, and so did the Latin and Syriac translators. The internal evidence on the whole supports this view. The general structure of the Epistle, the style and phraseology, the affectionate tone, the frequent intercession for the readers, the request for their prayers, the appeal to his own teaching and example, the sharp insistence on his own authority in a matter of discipline, are all characteristic of St. Paul. But two main objections are raised. (a) The relation of the style to that of 1 Thessa- lonians. In spite of the points of likeness (see above), there is a difference ; the tone is more official (ety. ôqet\opley), the feeling less vivid, the sentences more involved, the same things are being said, but said with less point and directness; they suggest a second person adapting Pauline thought (Spitta, #. 116–119). But the variety seems equally ex- icable as that of one writer writing after a short apse of time, and in a different mood. A compari- son of the style of 2 Timothy with 1 Timothy, of Colossians with Ephesians, of 2 Coll with 1 Co 9, will show very similar variety. (b) The eschatology is said to be un-Pauline. It is true that no such detailed anticipations are to be found elsewhere in St. Paul (but 2 Co 6° ris ovpaptºv mous Xploroſ, trpès BeNtap may refer to the Anti- christ tradition). But such tº: was naturally esoteric ; and, even here, the writer seems inten- tionally to avoid being explicit, through fear, perhaps, of giving the Itoman authorities a handle against himself or his converts (cf. the reticence of Jos. Amt. X. X. 4, about the interpretation of Daniel’s prophecies). Further, some such teaching was common among the Jews, so that St. Paul would have inherited it ; and, lastly, it is almost universal in Christian writers (Synoptists, John [5*], James, 1. 2 John, Apoc.), so that the proba- bility is in favour of St. Paul having shared the ©X łº. in some form. ut is the form implied here Pauline? This again is difficult to answer, because of the difficulty of deciding what the writer was pointing to. There lay behind him in the history of the doctrine the following stages. (1) A common Oriental myth of {l, struggle between the power of evil, represented by a dragon (Bab. Tiāmat) and the Creator of the world (Marduk), in which the dragon had been bound, but would revive for another conflict with God before the end of the world (see articles RAHAB, SEA MONSTER, and REVELATION). The connexion of this with the following is only a conjecture, but a very possible conjecture. (2) A Jewish expectation, springing up during the Exile, of an attack upon Israel by foes led by some human leader or (later) by Satan or 13eliar, which would be frustrated either by J" or the Messiah. Such a victory is described in Ezk 38. Something similar recurs in the prophecies of Daniel (7.8 and 1 l) about the conflict with Antiochus Epiphanes. The ex- pectation did not cease with the death of Antiochus; it was applied to the thought of deliverance from the Roman empire in 2 Es 5", l’s-Sol 17, Orac. Sib. iii. 60, Apoc. §º, c. 40, Asc. Is. c. 4 (cf. MAN 748 II. THESSALONIANS II. THESSALONIANS *- OF SIN). (3) This anticipation had become Chris- tian. Our Lord had contemplated a leader ‘coming in his own name’ (Jn 5*) and demanding allegiance; some person, “the abomination of desolation, stand- ing in the holy place (éarmkóra)'; many false pro- phets, a growth of lawlessness, a destruction of }... and a coming of the Son of Man (Mt 24, Mk 13, Lk 21). Similar teaching had been given at Thessalonica by the writer frequently (êAeyov, 2%), but it was shared by his fellow-teachers (éparðgev . Ös àt' huôv, 2*, *), and the phrases h diroa ragia, 6 Övöpwros, 6 durukeipievos, 6 karéxwv are quoted without explanation as from a well-known j of teaching. (4) A new point had probably been given to the expectation annong the Jews in A.D. 39 or 40, by the attempt of Caligula, frustrated only by his death, to erect his own statue in the temple of Jerusalem (Jos. Amt. XVIII. viii.; Tac. Hist. v. 9). This would help to explain the language of 2", and Spitta suggests that St. Paul and his colleagues had adapted a Jewish form of the apocalyptic teaching written in view of Caligula's attempt ; but there is no necessity for such a suggestion, interest- ing and possible as it is. This history of the doctrine helps us to define the probable application which is implied in this teaching. It is not indeed necessary to suppose in St. Paul’s mind any clear identification with a definite person or a delinite time; yet the language is more natural on such a supposition, and the in- terpretation will come in one of two directions. (a) Probably the opposition comes from Jewish soil. Tê pºvaTiptov Tàs divoulas is the opposition of the Jews to the spread of Christianity (cf. 3”", 1 Th 2", Ac 18" and passim); the évépyeva TXávns is the blinding of the eyes of the Jews to the gospel (Ac 134-49, 1 Co 29, 2 Co 3", Ro llº); to karéxov is the Ikoman empire controlling the Jews ‘assidue tumultuantes’ (cf. Ac 18°) and preventing their illegal attacks on the Christians; 6 karéxwu, the Roman emperor, or perhaps on the analogy of Dn 10** some archangel who presides over the order of the empire (so Goebel, ad loc.); # &tro- a ragta is the final rejection by the Jews of their Messiah, or possibly some Christian apostasy such as is contemplated in He 10”; 6 div0patros Tās āpaprias is some false Messiah, expected to lead the Jews in a final rising against the Itoman empire; and his destruction lies in the overthrow of the Jewish polity and the salvation and estab- lishment of the Christian Church. This interpreta- tion is most in accord with the Synoptists . with the subsequent Church tradition, as well as with St. Paul’s own circumstances at the moment. (3) The opposite view has been frequently main- tained of late, which sees the explanation in heathen opposition and especially in the worship of the Caesars. The lawlessness and deceit will then be that of heathen wickedness and error; the restrain- ing power, the antagonism of the Jewish State (Warfield), or the imperial authority (Jülicher); the man of sin, the emperor or some heathen per- sonification of evil proclaiming himself as God ; the apostasy, that of the Jews, or, as on the former theory, of some Christians ; and the coming of the Son of Man will be the ultimate annihilation of Caesarism and the establishment of Christianity as the religion of the world. This view would be more in accordance with the past history of the appli- cation to Antiochus Epiphanes, with the attempt of Caligula, and with the reference to Nero in the Apocalypse; but it seems less in accord with St. Paul’s own circumstances at the time. Either of these views gives, a setting possibly Pauline ; the language, no doubt, is indefinite ; it is capable of being applied to the theory of a Nero redivīvus (c. 69 A.D.), or to some Gnostic opposition to Christianity in the 2nd cent. ; but none of the language requires such an interpretation. Nor again, is this view fatally inconsistent with St. Paul's expectation elsewhere. 1 Th 5” certainly foretells a sudden surprising appearance of the day of the Lord ; but that is consistent with a previous preparation of events, the length of which is left, as here, wholly indefinite. ... Ito 11” also implies a hopé that “all Israel will be saved,’ which seems scarcely consistent with a great Jewish antagonism ; but the language cannot be rigidly pressed ; the failure of a Jewish false Messiah might be a stage in the conversion of the Jewish nation ; and it is possible that St. Paul’s expectation on this point may have changed. Again, 1 Ti 4', 2 Ti 3' point to an expectation of an apostasy within the Christian Church ; but that would not be inconsistent with the view main- tained here. lłecent investigations have emphasized the strength of the tradition both Jewish and Chris- tian ; but they have also shown the versatility of its application; it is applied to the danger which threatens the truth at any moment. Daniel gives it a heathen application to Antiochus Epi- phanes; the writer of the Psalms of Solomon to Pompey; St. Paul, thwarted by Jews, applies it to them ; St. John sees many Antichrists in teachers untrue to Christianity; the writer of the Apocalypse, when the Roman empire had become a persecuting power, applies it to the Iłoman emperor; the writers of the Ep. of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons see in the persecu- tion there an anticipation of the final conflict : “he that opposeth' swoops down upon the Christians; Christ in the martyrs “brings to naught' him who opposeth ; the apostate Christians are ‘the Sons of perdition.’ This application is all the more inter- esting that it is incidental, and the passage is not quoted. Consequently, there may be many applications and many fulfilments yet in the future, as long as the cleavage between faith and unfaith, error and truth, remain. [Cf. MAN OF SIN, vol. iii. p. 226; PAUL, vol. iii. p. 709; Bousset, Der Antichrist (Göttingen, 1895, Eng. tr. 1896); in Jöncyc. Bibl. s.v. ; Thackeray, The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, pp. 136– 141 ; Stanton, Jewish, and Christian Messiah, iii. c. 2; R. H. Charles, Eschatology, p. 380 ft., and art. ‘Apocalyptic Literature' in Enºſe. Bibl.; Schürer, HJPII.ii. 154 f.; B. D. Warſield in Jºaºpositor, 1886, ii. pp. 30–44; G. G. Pindlay, ib. 1900, ii. pp. 251– 261 There is, then, no reason for denying the author- ship to St. Paul. Spitta in a valuable examination of the Ep. (Zur Gesch. und Litt. des Urchristentiſms, i. pp. 111–154) suggests Timothy as the real author, supposing that St. Paul, instead of dictating, as usual, left Timothy to compose it, and that Timothy is referring in 2° to his own ...]". teaching at his last visit to them ; St. Paul then adds a general authentication in 3". In this way he attempts to explain the difference of style be- tween 1 Thess. and this Ep., and the diſſerence of the eschatological view. But these differences are not so great as to call for such an explanation; further, St. Paul would not authenticate a letter which contained any substantial difference from his own teaching; the Thessalonians would natur, ally refer &\eyov of 2" to the leading apostle whose name stands first (1*) and who is named in 3", the only other use of the singular; and 2** imply that the teaching of the one teacher (2") was shared by all. If another author were needed, Silvanus seems a more natural suggestion, for he, as a prophet, might be the source of the prophetic passage ; but the theory creates more diſliculties than it solves. Those who reject the Pauline authorship alto gether suppose that at some later date an oxpecta- II. THESSALONIANS THESSAILONICA 749 -wr tion of the immediate coming of Christ arose and produced excitement and neglect of daily duties; that some one in authoritv tried to meet the }. implied in the excitement by writing a letter which described the stages that would precede that com- ing, and in order to gain weight for it composed it in the name of Paul, deliberately modelling it upon 1 Thess., the Pauline Epistle which was most cognate in subject. Of the many suggested situations, that of Schmiedel seems the best, who would connect it with the expectation of a return of Nero, and so place it after Nero's death (June 68), and before the destruction of the temple (August 70). circumstances as the Apocalypse (ch. 13). But there is no detail here, which connects ‘him that opposeth clearly with Nero redivivus, and the very elaborateness of the theory is against its truth. v. INTEGRITY..—The difficulties of 21-12 have natur- ally led to suggestions of interpolation. Pierson and Naber (Verisimilia, pp. 21–25) treat 1°-1921-1°3(except ****) as parts of a pre - Christian Jewish apo- calypse, worked up into a Christian form by some º bishop of the name of Paul (cf. preceding art.). Schmidt, S. Davidson, and others treat the main body as Pauline, with 2'-" as a late insertion of about 69; Hausrath treats 2° as the only Pauline fragment worked up into an Epistle at a later date. But there is no MS support for any of these theories, and 2*** cannot be separated from 1"-1", which latter section shows striking similarities with the Jewish expectations; cf. esp. 1° and 2" with Sib. Orac. iii. 67 f. of the coming of Beliar— &AA’ obz, rºsawápa, coºr voirá &AA& r^4 voc, zoº 3% pºporo’s ‘roxxovs re ràcºvárs. riotous r £22.8×rows ('' E3po.ſov; &v6ºzov: tá xxi &AXove &vipos, of rive; ovaro Usoſ. A6xov slo Azovo.o.w. (cf. Clemen, Die Einheitlichkeit der Paul. Briefe, pp. 17, 18; Moffatt, IIistorical NT, p. 626). vi. VALUE. — Short as the Epistle is, it is of great value, both doctrinal and historical. It marks the high position attributed from the first to Christ, the language of the OT about Jehovah being applied to Him (17), and He being ranked with the Father as the one source of comfort and strength (2” trapaka)\éoat . . . armplèat, each in the singular). It shows us the strength of the expectation of the Second Advent in the Early Church ; the deep sense of the struggle between good and evil, between truth and falsehood, its consummation in definite persons, and the final triumph of the good and true ; the faith in the ultimate justice of God to right the injustice of this world. It shows the method in which the apostle met the feverish impatience that would antedate the end : (a) laying stress on those elements in the traditional expectation which implied lapse of time and an overruling Providence which . the right moment for the coming (év tº attoſ, kalpó, cf. PS- Sol 17* els Töv kalpöv Šv oióas a 9, § 6eós); (b) insist- ing on the duty of each man earning his own livelihood and discouraging all cringing dependence on Church charity; (c) strengthening the bonds of discipline, pressing the authority of his own com- . ºld calling upon the Church to rise to the duty of keeping its ranks free of unworthy mem- bers; 3" marks the commencement of Church discipline. It sanctions the tendency to read the signs of the times and to see the great struggle between good and evil working itself out in con- temporary events; and even if we cannot for certain identify St. Paul's application, or even if it was not fulfilled exactly as he expected, yet as the great expectation had grown with centuries and was rooted in principles, so it remains still, claim- ing a more adequate fulfilment. l'or applications It would then deal with the same made in subsequent Christian times see Smith's DB, s.v. ‘Anti-Christ.’ Historically, the section 2'-1” was of great im. portance ; for the identification of the Roman empire with 6 karéxwu led to its being treated as the great protecting power, and so gave special point to the prayers for it and for the emperor (cf. Tertullian, Apol. 32: ‘est et alia major neces- sitas nobis orandi pro imperatoribus, etian pro omni statu imperii rebusque Romanis, qui vim maximam universo orbi imminentem ipsamgue clausulam Sæculi acerbitates horrendas commin- antem Romani in perii commeatu scimus retar- dari’). The language of 3” is also valuable, as indicating that St. Paul had a larger correspond ence than we now possess, and probably hints at a danger of forged letters even at this early date. LITERATURE. – See at end of preceding article, and add Goebel, Die Thessalonischen Briefe, a crisp, terse, sensible com- mentary. The authorship is best discussed, as against St. Paul, by Spitta (see above), Schmiedel, IIdcom, pp. 7–11: as for St. Paul, by Jülicher, Eiml.4 pp. 45–51; Zahn, pp. 160-182; Moffatt, Historical NT", pp. 142-148; Börnemann in Meyer's Comanentar zwan NT". Interesting suggestions for the emendation of the text (in 110 ºria rāſhi, 22 &; 3% ºv) will be found in Westcott- Hort, ii. App. p. 128; Field, Notes on Trans, of NT', p. 202. W. I.OCK. THESSALONICA (0eo ga)\ovíkm), a city of Mace- donia, still known by that name under the but slightly altered form of Saloniki, has long held a prominent place in history, and still ranks, after Constantinople, as the most important town in European Turkey. It is situated on the inner- most bay, or north - eastern recess, of the larger gulf, which now takes its name from the modern town, but was known to the ancients as the Thermaic Gulf, after an earlier town on the same site, called Therme. It is built in the form of an anaphitheatre on the slopes at the head of the bay; and it is seem from a great distance, crowned by its citadel above, and conspicuous by white- washed walls several miles in circuit. ‘The situa- tion,’ says Tozer, “recalls the appearance of Genoa from the way in which the houses rise from the water edge, and gradually ascend the hillsides to- wards the north. It is admirably placed for pur- poses of communication and trade, as it lies in the innermost bay of the winding gulf, and forms the natural point of transit for exports and imports; besides which it commands the resources of the immense plain, which reaches in a vast arc as far as the foot of Olympus, and receives the waters of three important rivers, the Axius, the Lydias, and the Haliacmon' (Geog. of Greece, 1873, p. 204). It is said to have borne earlier the names of Emathia, and Halia : certainly it bore that of Therme, by which it is known to Herod. (as a halting-place of Xerxes on his way to Greece, vii. 121, 123, 124, 127, 128, 183) and Thucyd. (i. 61, ii. 29), and which it probably owed to hot mineral springs (therma), still existing in its vicinity. The name Thessa- lonica (as to the origin of which various conjectures are brought together by Tzetzes, Chil. xiii. 305 ft.), which is first employed by Polybius (xxiii. 4, 4; 11, 2; xxix. 3, 7), would appear to commemorate a victory over the Thessalians, of which nothing deſimite is known as to time, place, or victor (Philip 2). It was most probably given to the city by Cassander (who rebuilt it about B.C, 315, and transferred to it the inhabitants of several small townships in the vicinity; Strabo, vii. fr. 21) in honour of his wife of that name, who was daughter of l’hilip, and step-sister of Alexander. The place soon gained importance, becoming, on the conquest of Macedonia by the Romans, the capital of the second of its four divisions (Liv. xlv. 29), and, on the conversion of the country a few years laſer into a province, practically the capital of the whole, and residence of the Roman governor ; called 750 THEUDAS THIGH ‘the mother of all Macedonia' (Anthol. Gr. ed. Jacobs, ii. p. 98, Epig. 14), although the name ‘metropolis,' occurring on coins of the city, is of later date. The Romans had docks (navalia) there (Liv. xliv. 19); the great Egnatian highway tra: versed the city from west to east, the remains of arches at either end of a long street still marking the site of its gates; Cicero during his exile found friendly shelter there for seven months with Plancius the quaestor (Qrat, pro Planc, 41; Ep. ad Att. iii. 8 ft.). In the first Civil war it supplied a basis of operations for Pompeius and the Senate (Dio Cass. xli. 20); in the second it espoused the cause of Antonius and Octavianus (Plut. Brut. 46; Appian, Bell. Civ. iv. 118), which brought to it º the privilege of becoming a free city (libera: conditionis, Pliny, H.N. iv. 36), for there are several coins inscribed with the words 6EXA- AONIKEQN EAET0EPIAX, probably to be associ- ated with the victory at Philippi, from the reverse bearing the joint names of Antonius and Augustus. This privilege implied autonomy (hence the men- tion of Tov 67aou in Ac 17"), and the appointment of their own magistrates, who were in this instance designated troXtrápxat, as is apparent from Ac 17%. 8, where the term is rendered RULERS OF THE CITY (which see). Tafel, in his comprehensive monograph (De Thessal. eintsque agro dissertatio geographica, Berol. 1839), follows out the fortunes of the city as under the later Empire a main bulwark against the Gothic and Slavonic invasions (of which he enumer- ates six); and, during the Middle Ages, thrice captured,—by the Saracens in 904, by the Normans under Tancred in 1185, and by the Turks in 1430. It has still a population of about 70,000, whereof 20,000 are Jews. When St. Paul, along with Silas, visited Thessa- lonica on his mission to Macedonia and Greece, the Jews there, who were numerous and influential enough to have founded a synagogue, were his most active opponents. The discussions with them on three Sabbaths persuaded few Jewish hearers, but a much larger number (‘a great multitude’) of ‘the devout Greeks’—i.e. proselytes—‘and of the chief women not a few ' (Ac 17*). But the Jews, who were not won over, called to their aid some worthless idlers of the market-place (dyopatov), excited a tumult, beset the house of Jason, and, not finding there those whom they sought, dragged Jason and others before the politarchs, accusing them of having received disturbers of the world's peace, and of contravening the imperial decrees by owning another king in Jesus. pon this alarm, the politarchs took securities from the accused and dismissed them ; but the brethren at once sent away Paul and Silas by night to Beroea. The subsequent fortunes of the Church which their brief ministry had formed called forth from the apostle (courteously associating with himself. Timothy as well as Silvanus=Silas) the two Epistles to the Thessalonians. See preceding two articles. WILLIAM P. DICKSON. THEUDAS (€evöäs; the name is supposed to be a contraction of €eóöwpos).-In the speech of Gam- aliel contained in Ac 5* the speaker is represented as referring to the rebellion of a certain Theudas, who professed to be some one great : 400 men followed him ; but he was killed, and his following came to nothing. At a later date, Gamaliel goes on to say, Judas of Galilee arose at the time of the taxing, and his following too were scattered. In Josephus (Amt. XX. v. 1) we have an account of one Theudas. While Fadus was procurator, he tells us, a certain magician whose name was Theudas persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects and follow him agross the Jordan. He pre- tended he could divide the river by his power as a prophet. Fadus attacked him suddenly, cut off his head, and dispersed his followers. It is perfectly clear that if this Theudas be the same person as is mentioned in the Acts, the author of that book has been guilty of an anachronism. For he puts into the mouth of Gamaliel, who must have spoken before A.D. 37, a reference to a revolt which occurred about A.D. 45 or 46. . This discrepancy is one of the chief difficulties in the Acts of the Apostles, and various suggestions have been made to account for it. 1. Reference has already been made to the sug- gestion that the mistake arose through the blunder- ing use of Josephus (vol. i. p. 30). It is not necessary to add anything to what is said there, except that a careful reperusal of the passages does not tend to make the hypothesis more credible. 2. Bishop ightfoot (Smith's DB' i. 40) points out that Theudas (=Theodorus, Theodotus, or Theodorius) would be quite natural among the Jews as the Gr. equivalent to several Heb. names; and that Josephus (Amt. XVII. x. 8 ; BJ II. iv. 1) tells us of many disturbances which took place at this time without giving names. He also quotes an opinion of Wieseler's that Theudas may be the Gr, form of the name of Matthias, son of Marga- lothus, mentioned by Josephus (Amt. XVII. vi. 2). But the identification is hardly probable. 3. Blass (ad loc.) seems to suggest that the name Theudas has been interpolated in the passage of Josephus from the Acts, because the Christians thought that the two passages illustrated one another. We have some reason for thinking that Josephus was interpolated by the Christians; but in this instance it is hardly probable that anything of the sort was done. We do not know enough to º the difficulty. It is perfectly possible that the explanation of Lightfoot may be correct ; it is lº possible that the mistake of St. Luke may only be one of name, and it is very bad criticism to condemn an author for an apparent discrepancy when our knowledge of the circumstances is so limited. But, assuming that the Acts are incorrect, we may ask what this implies. It implies that, to a certain extent at any rate, the speech of Gannaliel was the author’s com- position. This may mean only that he supplied one of the incidents which Gamaliel referred to, having from some source a general knowledge of the attitude of the speaker; or it may mean that he took this manner of putting before his readers what he had reason to believe was a tendency of a section of the Jews. A. C. HDADLAM. THICKET-See Forst. THIGH (Thº, umpös).—The girding of the sword atpon the thigh is referred to in Ex 32”, Jg 3" (Ehud girded his sword upon his right thigh, whence, being left-handed, he could most con- veniently draw it, v.”), Ps 45°, Ca. 3%. Jacob's thigh was dislocated by his opponent in wrestling, so that next day he limped upon it, Gn 32* (*) [J]. In an editorial note this circumstance is assigned as the basis of the Jewish custom of declining to eat of ‘the sinew that shrank,’ v.” (”). See art. FOOD, vol. ii. p. 39". In the jealousy ordeal one of the effects º for in the event of a wife's guilt was the falling away (951) of her thigh, Nu 5*, *, *7 [P]; see Dillm. ad loc. In the was f in praise of the Shulammite it is said, ‘the roundings of thy thighs (Tºn; 'pººn) are like jewels,” Ca 7". Smiting upon the thigh appears in Jer 31" and Ezk 21” as a token of consternation. For the phrase “smite them hip upon thigh ' (piu) Dmix ºn in-by), see art. HIP. Special attention is due to a set of passages in which the thigh appears as the seat of procreative power. In Gn 46”, Ex 1" [both Pl, Jg 8" a man's THINK THISTLES, THORNS 75] descendants are spoken of as proceeding from his thigh (ºn: 'ss'). Cf. W. R. Smith, Kinship, 34, RS” 380. This throws light upon the placing of the hand under the thigh [=the genital organ] in taking an oath, Gn 24* * 47” [all J). The sacred- mess attributed to this organ in primitive times (see Holzinger or Gunkel on Gn, 24*), would give special solemnity to an oath of this kind. More- over, seeing that ‘it is from the thigh that one's descendants come, to take an oath with one's hand upon the thigh could be equivalent to calling upon these descendants to maintain an oath which has been taken, and to revenge one which has been broken' (Dillmann). It is not clear how we should understand Rev 191" ‘He hath on his mantle and on his thigh (étrl rô luártov Kal émil rôv umpov atroß) a name written, IXing of kings and Lord of lords.” The kat may be epexegetical, when the meaning would be that the name is written on His mantle where this falls upon His thigh (so Düsterdieck, B. Weiss, Holtz- mann). Spitta suggests that pºmpás [this is its only occurrence in NT] may be the name of an article of uniform, perhaps the sword-belt. J. A. SELBIE. THINK.—This verb is frequently used in AV in the sense of ‘devise,’ ‘intend,’ as Gn 50” “But as for you,' ye thought evil against me' (Hyn Dººr, LXX 680 vXeſa'ao'0e els Tovmpá, RV ‘ye meant evil’); Ex 32” “And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people’ (n\vy? Tai Tz's, RW ‘which he said he would do'); Nu 24” “ thought to promote thee unto great honour’ ("Rºps, LXX eitra tºpia a ge); Neh 6" ‘It is reported . . . that thou and the Jews think to rebel’ (Tinº D'ayn, LXX \oylſerffe &Toorarīqat). So Jn 11° Wyc. “Fro that day thei thoughten [1688 soughten] for to sle him '; Mandeville, Travels, 87, ‘This Tartary is holden of the great Caan of Cathay, of whom I think to speak afterward.” TO º: on or upon is to remember, as Gn 4014 “But, think on me when it shall be well with thee' (TRs "Anyros "3, LXX &AN& Muſiq 0mrt pou Stă a eavroſ, RV ‘Ibut have me in thy remembrance’); Nell 5” “Think upon me, my God, for good, according to all that I have done? (?-nºl, RV “Remember unto me, O my God, for good, all that I have done’); 61” “My God, think thou upon Tobiah and Sanballat according to these their works’ (T2), LXX who 07tt, RV “Remember'); Jon 10, Sir 1890 518. So He 1017 Wye. “I schal no more thenke on the synnes and wickednessis of hem' (ow ai) avno- 0%ropat, Vulg. mom recordabor). In Anglo-Saxon there were two distinct verbs, themcan to think, and thymcam to seem, the latter used impersonally. These verbs began to be confused very early, and in course of time were always spelt alike. In poetry we still use ‘methinks,” where the pron, is in the dative, and the word means “it seems to me.” In Rich. III. III. i. 63, the Quartos have ‘Where it thinks best unto your royal self,” but the Folio reads “Where it think'st best,’ probably from confusion between ‘it thinks’ (=it seems) and “thinkst thou.” Inox in his IIistory, p. 315, says, “But to this houre I have thought, and yet thinks my selfe alone more able to sustaine the things affirmed in that my Work, than any ten in IJurope shall be able to refute it,” where the ungrammatical ‘I thinks’ may be due to familiarity with the form ‘methinks.’ In AV we flud the verb ‘think’ = 8cem in “me thimketh,' 2 S 1827 ‘Me thinlketh the running of the foremost is like the running of Ahimaaz.” Cf. Gn 418 Tind, “And him thought that vii other kyne came up after them out of the ryver'; Lv 1435 “Me thinke that there is as it were a lepropy in the house”; Mandeville, Travels, 117, “And them thimketly thot the more pain, and the more tribulation that they suffer for love of their god, the more joy they shall have in anothor world.” This is the verb that is used in the phrase “think good,” Dn 42 “I thought it good to shew the signs’ (RW ‘It hath seemed good unto me'); Zec 1112 “If ye think good, give me my price'; 1 Th 81 ‘We thought it good to be left at Athens alone' (sêozáor&asy). J. HASTINGs. THISBE (BN 9to 6m, A €913m).-The place from which Tobit was carried away captive by the Assyrians (To lº). Its position is described as being on the right hand (south) of Kedesh-naph- tali in Galilee above Asher. No trace of the name has yet been found. Some commentators maintain that Thisbe was the home of Elijah the Tishbite, but this is very doubtful. The LXX reading of 1 K 17”, which makes the prophet come from ‘Tish- beh (or perh. Thisbon) of Gilead,” seems more likely to be correct. See ELIJAH in vol. i. p. 687". C. W. WILSON. THISTLES, THORNS. — There is probably no country on earth of the same extent which has so many plants with prickles and thorns as the Holy Land. One would be tempted to believe that this is a providential provision to protect them from the ravages of goats, asses, and camels, were it not that the mouths of these creatures are rovided with a mucous membrane so tough that it seems impervious to thorns. One of the spec- tacles most striking to a stranger in this land of surprises is that of a flock of goats, browsing in a patch of Eryngiums, or Cirsiums, or prickly Cen- taureas, and crunching down the heads, a couple of inches in diameter, composed of stiff thorns, and then masticating them with evident relish. The camel deals even with the noli-me-tangere spheres of the Echinops, the huge heads of the Omopordon, Carlina, and Cymara, and the thorny plates of the Indian fig. Zilla myſtgroides, Forsk., a most im- º crucifer, with a juice as pungent as its ong stiff thorns, is the favourite desert food of the camel. He tears off and devours the twigs of the thorny Astragali. Only a few thorny plants, with little succulence to tempt, and with extraordinary defensive armour, such as the acacia trees, the buckthorn, and some of the more erinaceous Astra- gali of the alpine regions, and Calycotome villosa, escape the devourers. . Notwithstanding this, the thorns flourish and multiply, and, in many places, take possession of the land. Thistles grow to a height of 10–15 ft. Thorny Astragali cover acres of ground on the high mountains. Poterium spinosum, Rhamnus punctata, and Calycotome villosa are everywhere. So abundant is the first of these, the thorny burnet, in one region of Her- mon, as to give its name to the district, which is called Mukáta'at el-Billán, i.e. District of the Thorny Burnet. A large part of the lime pro- duced in the country is burned with this shrub, which is ‘cut up” (Is 33°) with pruning-hooks. It is then bound in huge bundles, and transported on the backs of men or animals to the kilns. Often an acre or more around a lime-kiln is seen covered with these large heaps of most combustible fuel. It produces a high heat, and makes excellent lime. These and other thorns are also used in ovens, and for culinary purposes. (Ec. 7"). Owners of asses thresh out various species of thistles and thorns, and use them for feeding their beasts. It is probably in allusion to this custom that Gideon is said to have “taught [threshed] the men of Succoth (along) with thorns of the wilderness and briers” (Jg Sl").” It is not strange that, with such a number of prickly plants as exist in Palestine, there should have been many names in Heb. to express them. Few or none of these denote species, and the WSS have not attempted to tr. i. with any uniformity. We subjoin an analysis of these terms. 1. Tºps 'ditäd, º rhamnus, occurs twice as the name of a plant (Jg 9** AV “bramble,” na. “thistle,’ 18W “bramble,’ m. “ thorn,” I’s 589 AV and RV ‘thorns'). It occurs once as a proper name in the expression ‘the threshing-floor of Atad' (Gn 50" "). The Arab. 'ditºid is defined as the branches of the 'ausaj. The 'ausaj is ‘a species of thorn, having a round red fruit, like the car- nelian bead, which is sweet, and is eaten,’ or ‘a * On the text of this verse and on its interpretation and its relation to V.7, see, above all, Moore's note, ad }. 752 THISTLES, THORNS THISTLES, THORNS *=g species of thorn trees, having a bitter red fruit, in which is acidity . . . when it grows large it is called gharkad. . . . some regard it as the ‘ulleik.’ It is clear that the term ‘ausaj, and therefore 'ditäd, must have been applied to a number of plants. 'Ulleik most commonly signifies the bramble or blackberry, but also the smilaw, and other prickly climbers. The gharkad is Nitraria tridentata, Desf., a plant contined to salt marshes, of which the fruit is called in Arab. 'enab-edh-dhºb, i.e. “wolf’s grapes.” Dioscorides (Avicemna, ii. 232) seems to include a number of plants in his vague description of 'awsaj. The other descriptions would apply to the boxthorn, of which there are 3 species in the Holy Land, Lycium Europaeum, L., L. Arabicum, Schw., and L. Barbarum, L., all of which have thorns and red berries. Or they would, in part at least, apply to the jujube, of which there are also several species, Zizyphus vulgaris, L., the 'emnáb, Z. Lotus, L., and Z. Spina Christi, L., the nebk or sidr. All of these would have been included under the term Rhamnus, the buckthorn, a genus from which Zizyphus has been set off in modern botany. This genus contains one thorny species, R. punctata, Boiss., with its variety Pales- tina, which is found everywhere in Palestine and Syria. This species would admirably suit the needs of the passages. It is a thorny shrub, 2–6 ft. high, with obovate - oblong to elliptical leaves less than an in. long and about 3 in. wide, insig- nificant flowers, and small fruits. It is well known under the Arab. name 'ajram, is used for light fuel, and suits exactly the contrast intended in Abime- lech's speech between the ’ātād and the lordly cedar. To speak of sitting under the shadow of this contemptible straggling bush is the acme of irony. Being far more general than the boxthorn, especially in the hill - country where Abimelech sloke, it is more likely to have been in his mind. The boxthorn would never have been spoken of by the Greeks as papavos, which is the classical name of the buckthorn. The writer has never met with the former in the hill-country. It is a plant of the coast and Jordan Valley and the interior plateaus. 2. Dºn; barkāmām (Jg 87.1%). According to Moore (Judges, ad loc.), “in the Egyp. dialect of Arabic berqan is the name of Phaceopappus sco- parints, Boiss. = Centaurea seop, Sieber, a compo- site plant, with thorny heads. 3. Tº dardar (Gn 3”, Hos 10°, each time coupled with ºp). The Arab. dardó, signifies the elm or the ash, but shawkat ed-dardár is generic for the thorny Centaureas, star thistles or knapweeds, which are not proper thistles, i.e. of the genus Cirsium. In both the passages cited the LXX has TptgoNos, Vulg. tribulus. At least 2, perhaps 3, plants were known to the Greeks by this name : Trapa natams, L., the water chestnut, and Tribulus terrestris, L., a prostrate herb of the order Zygo- phyl/aceae, with pinnate leaves, resembling those of the milk vetch, and a fruit composed of bony cells, with a prickly back. These are liable to get into the shoe or between the sandal and the oot, and produce a veritable tribulation. The caltrop, an instrument suggested by them, was used in war to impede the charge of cavalry. Some have identified the tribulus with the thorny Centaureas. 4. pin lºdeſ: (Pr 1519, LXX &ravba, AV and RV ‘thorn'; Mic 7" [LXX text differs] AV and l&V “brier’) refers to some unknown kind of thorn, certainly in the first passage one of those used for hedges. The most common of these in Palestine and Syria, is 12/eagmus hortensis, M.B., the silver berry or oleaster, known in Arab. as Zaizrºftºn. It has stiff, sharp thorns, and grows in a (lense fashion which well ſits it for this purpose. The ordinary * brambles, species of Rubus, are also much used for hedges, especially along the coast. Also Paliurus aculeatus, Lam., one of the so-called Christ thorns, a plant of the order Rhamnaceae, growing in the interior tablelands. Also Cactus lºcus-17vdica, L., the prickly pear, Smilaa, aspera, L., the green brier, which makes a most efficient hedge, and the boxthorn, which is common in hedges about Jaffa, Lattakia, and elsewhere. The hawthorn, Crataegus, of which there are several species, is not used in this way. 5. Hin h6ak. This is variously tr. (2 K 14” “thistle,” RVm ‘ thorn'; 2 Ch 25* “thistle,’ AVm “furze bush’ [Calycotome villosa) or ‘thorn,' IRV m ‘thorn’; Hos 9" “thorns”; Is 34” AV “brambles,” It V ‘thistles’; Job 31* “thistles,” RV m ‘thorns”; P1’ 26° ‘ thorn’; Ca 2° ‘thorns’; 1 S 139 pºnym ‘thickets” [better thorn brakes, unless we read with Ew., Wellh., Driver, et al. Dºn “holes’]; Job 41*AV ‘thorn,” RV “hook,” m. ‘spike’; 2 Ch 33”. AW ‘thorns,’ RV ‘in chains,’ in. “with hooks’). l’rom the above inconsistencies, which are quite parallel to those of the LXX and Vulg., it is clear that no specific meaning can be attached to hijah. It would seem, however, rather to designate thorns and thorny shrubs and trees than prickles and prickly herbs like thistles. 6. Tºbº másákáh (Mic 7") is a ‘thorn, hedge.’ Of what kind we have no means of determining (see 4). 7. F sy, na'āzūz. The Arab, mud corresponds with this, and signifies & thorn tree growing in Arabia. It may be one of the thorny acacias. In the two passages in which it occurs (Is 7” 55°) it is tr. ‘ thorns.” In the latter (LXX a tough) it is said that it will be replaced by the bèrósh. See FIR. 8. D'To sirim. This seems to refer to the lighter thorns, like the thorny burnet, which often grows in ruins (Is 34”), and many of the star thistles, etc. The burning of these produces a crackling (Ec 7" AVm “sound,’ where there is a word-play between n-p ‘pot ' and Dºn p ‘thorns”). “Folden together as thorns’ (AV Nah 1”, RV ‘like tangled thorns’) would well suit such as the burmet, and many others in Palestine. As hôth came to mean “hook,’ from the resemblance to a thorn, so ströth is once used in this way for “fish-hook? (Ann 4*). 9. pºp sillón, AV and RV ‘brier’ (Ezk 28*); pºp' sallómin, AV and RV ‘thorns” (Ezk 2", but text dub.), are stout thorns, such as are found on the midrib of the palm leaf, corresponding exactly to the Arab. Sulá. 10. D'an) sārābīm is from an obsolete root signi- fying perh. to be refractory or rebellionts. . In the single passage where it is used (Ezk 2"), the con- text points to some stiff, refractory thorn, of which sáràbim was prob. the ancient name. It is associated with the stout thorn of the palm, sillón (9); but we have no Arab, clue, as in the other case, to help us to a knowledge of what it was. AV m tr. it “rebels’; but this is forced. Instead of ‘briers and thorns’ (pºp) Daº), Cornill, Bertholet, et al., would read “resisting and despis- ing’ (DºS) pºint). 11. Tºnp" sirpad.—A plant of neglected and desert jlaces, mentioned with Pºsy (Is 55*), to be replaced |. the myrtle as madāzūz will be by the ſir. The LXX has kóvv{a = Innula . Viscosa, 11., the elecam- pane, a plant which grows on all the hillsides of Palestine and Syria. It is a perennial of the order Compositae, growing from 2–3 ft. high, with lanceolate to linear-lanceolate leaves, and yellow heads, about $ in. long. It is very glutinous, and has a strong, disagreeable smell. It is a plant worthless either as forage or fuel. It possesses only two merits. The first is that brooms made of the green stems with their leaves on are used to * So Baer; MT Tºmp Sirpád. TIIISTLES, TIIORNS THOMAS 753. sweep the floors of the native houses, and help to rid them of the fleas, which adhere to the slime which covers the plant. The other is that it grows on dry, rocky hillsides, and mitigates by its greenness the otherwise deserted and barren aspect of the landscape. Now it happens that the myrtle grows on . hillsides, often side by side with the elecampane. The contrast between this worth- less plant and the myrtle, with its delicious fra- grance, its beautiful foliage, exquisite flowers, and edible fruit, is quite sufficient for the require- ments of the passage. ‘Brier’ of AV and RV, and wrtica = ‘nettle’ of Vulg., besides lacking the authority of the LXX, would not convey a mean- ing so forcible as the elecampane. The Arab. name for the plant is 'irk et-ta/yºn. 12. Dºy zinnim is used twice: Job 5" (LXX kaków), where both MT and meaning are doubtful [Bevan, Joºrn. of Philol. xxvi. 303 ff. reads lº Djīn) Tºp: Dºx, and renders and their wealth barbs lay hold of it’]; and Pr22° (LXX Tplboxol), where the froward wander into desert places, where they are sure to meet with thorns. Another form of the same, D'yº zéminim (Nu 33”, where it is associated with Dºy [see 15], Jos 23*), simply refers to thorns as piercing the ſlesh, not to any particular plant. 13. Pºp kóg is a generic term for thorny and prickly plants, tr. indifferently ‘ thorn (Ezk 28” where it refers to an individual thorn, Hos 10°), or ‘thorns” (Gn 3*, Is 32%), pl. Dixip or D’Yp kózim (Jg 87, Jer 4° etc.). 14. D'Av, p kimºnésháničm is once (Pr 24”) tr. ‘thorns,’ but the sing. form whºp (Is 34”) and wip'n (Hos 9") ‘nettles.’ See NETTLEs. 15. Dºy sikkim, the pl. of Fiy = Arab. Shawk, generic for thorns (Nu 33"), tr. ‘ pricks.’ 16. ny shayith occurs only in Isaiah, and always associated with nºrt; shěmčr (5° 728-9, 91° 1017 274); always tr. ‘ thorns,’ as shàmir is tr. “briers.’ 17, hºw; shěim?” means both ‘thorn' and ‘ada- mant, In the former signification it occurs only in JSaiah, and each time but one (32°, where it is associated with kóz) in company with shayith. It is uniformly tr. ‘ briers.’ Its Arab. equivalent, samºr, is the desert Acacia Seyyal, or A. tortilis. Most of the above names were probably specific and well understood in the days when º Wel"G used ; but, as has been seen, few, if any, can cer- tainly be identified. The NT words for ‘thorns and thistles,’ &kav6at and Tplboxou (Mt 7", Lk 6”), and ‘thorns,’ &Kav0at (Mt 137), and “ thorn' (rather “stake ’), a kóXop (2 Co 127), are indefinite. There are not less than 50 genera and 200 species of plants in Syria and Palestine furnished with , thorns and prickles, besides a multitude, clothed with scab- rous, strigose, or stinging hairs, and another multitude with prickly fruits. Crown of Thorns.—It is impossible to tell of what species our Saviour's Crown (a répavos é: drav00v, d.Káv6avos a répavos) was composed. It is certain, however, that it must have been made from a plant growing near to Jerusalem. It is often identified with Zizyphus Spinº-Christi (see Tristram, Nat. Hist. of Bible, 429). It might well have been Calycotome villosa, Vahl, the kundantl of the Arabs. Crowns of this are plaited and sold in Jerusalem, as representatives of our Saviour’s crown. The facility with which the branches of this shrub are wrought into the required shape, and the evident adaptation of the resulting crown to the torture intended, make it highly probable that this was the material used. Potorium spinosum, L., is also wrought into such crowns, but makes a much softer and less efficient instrument of torture than the last. A cruel one could be made of Iºhammats punctata, Boiss., also of Omonis anti- quorum, L., the shibruk of the Arabs, G. E. POST. VOL. IV.-48 THOCANUS (B 60kavos, A 66kavos, AV Theo- canus), 1 Es 9*=Tikvah, Ezr 101°. Probably mph was read as Hypn. THOMAS (90pass=xpRn).-One of the Twelve, always placed in the second of the three groups of four in which the names of the apostles are arranged in the NT lists. In the oldest extant list (Mk 3") the names are not distributed in pairs, and he is No. 8, as also in Lk 6* ; but in the later lists he is coupled with Matthew and assigned the seventh place (Mt 10*), or given the sixth place, coupled with Philip (Ac lºº). No incident is recorded of him by the Synoptists, but from John we learn that he played a conspicuous art in the anxieties and questionings which fol- owed the Resurrection, which perhaps accounts for the higher position assigned to him in the lists as soon as the names began to be arranged or classified ; cf. Jn 21°, where he is placed after Peter and before the sons of Zebedee. John thrice describes him as 0&pas à Xeyóuevos Alôupos (111° 20% 21*). Dish is a “twin” [only Gn 25* 3827, Ca 45 78, always in plur.], and of this 60p.ás is a translitera- tion, 3 Ötövuos being the Gr. translation. This last would be the form of the title most natural among the Greek-speaking Christians of Asia Minor, for whom the Fourth Gospel was written. His per- Sonal name is not given in the NT, but he is called “Judas Thomas’ in the apocryphal Acta Thomas, in the Syr. Doctrina Apostolorum, and also in the Abgar legend (Eus. HE i. 13), which represents him as sending THADDAEUS to Abgar with Christ's letter. The name “Judas’ was a common one, and it may well have been his ; at any rate the ascription of it to him led in time to his identi- fication with Judas ‘of James,’ and Judas the ‘brother’ of the Lord (Mk 6”), and so to the wide- spread tradition that the Apostle Thomas was the twin brother of Jesus (Acta Thoma!, S 31). The identification of Thaddaeus (Mt 10°, Mk 318) with Luke's Judas ‘of James’ (Lk 6", Ac lº) accounts for a later Syrian tradition which makes Thomas and Thaddaeus, the same person. Another story makes one Lysia, the twin sister of Thomas. The three notices of Thomas in John reveal a personality of singular charm and interest. When the other º: would have dissuaded Jesus from the risk of going to Bethany where Lazarus lay dead, and Jesus had said that He would never- theless go, Thomas at once declared his intention of sharing the danger : ‘I,et us also go that we may die with him (Jn ll"). His eager devotion could not endure the thought of separation, and so the announcement at the Last Supper that the Master was about to depart filled |. with per- plexity : “We know not whither thou goest ; how know we the way ?’ (Jn 14*). Like the other dis- ciples, he could not but suppose that the Cruci- ſixion had put an end to his hopes, although it does not appear from the narratives (as has some- times been assumed) that Thomas had severed his connexion with the other companions of Christ, for ‘the eleven are ...] as still a coherent body (Lk 24” “[Mk] 16”), and Thomas is found in their company on ‘the first day of the week,” pre- sumably for worship and conference, even after he had expressed his doubts as to the Resurrection (Jn 20°). When, however, the Christ appeared to the other apostles at Jerusalem, Thomas was not with them, although the reason of his absence is not recorded 'Jn 20°). They were invited to assure themselves by the test of touch that the vision was not hat of a phantom but of the Risen Jesus (Lk 24”) and even this did not convince them until He lid eat before them ’ (Lk 24*, *). Thomas, on being informed of the vision of the Lord, refused to believe until he too had satisfied 754 THOMEI THREE CHILDREN, SONG OF himself by sight and touch that there was no mis- apprehension (Jn 20°); but when this test was offered to (and applied by ?) him, his recognition of his Master was immediate and adoring : * My Lord and my God’ (Jn 20°), No greater confession of faith is recorded in the NT. These three inci- dental notices of Thomas depend entirely, as has already been pointed out, on the authority of the l'ourth Gospel; but there is nothing in any of them which is either incredible in itself, or incon- sistent with the Synoptic accounts, and the psycho- logical truth and naturalness of the resulting picture of the man confirm belief in the trust- worthiness of the Johannine narratives. The Acta Thomæ or JIspíobol ©aw: * is a Gnostic work prob- ably going back to the 2nd cent., and written by one Leucius the author of several apocryphal Acts. It begins by telling that, , at the division of the field of the world among the apostles, India was allocated to Thomas; that he was at first unwilling to go there, but was persuaded by a vision of Christ, who sold him as a slave to an Indian merchant. After some adventures by the way (which display the Gnostic tendencies of the writer; see Salmon, Introd. to NT'7 p. 334 f.), he arrived in India, and there (being a carpenter) was entrusted by his master with the building of a palace, but expended the money on the relief of the poor. His missionary efforts were at last Crowned with success. The connexion of his name with India, for which these Acta are the earliest authority, was widely accepted after the 4th cent. in both East and west." The Malabar ‘Christians of St. Thomas’ still count him as the first martyr and evangelist of their country. It is probable, how- ever, that these Christians were evangelized from Edessa, and that the traditional account of their origin is due to a confused memory of one of the pioneer missionaries from that place, who was called Thomas after its patron saint. For there is a quite distinct (and seemingly earlier) account of the missionary activity of the apostle which makes Parthia the scene of his labours (Eus. HEiii. 1; see also Clena. Itecogn. ix. 29, and Socrates, III) i. 19), and Edessa his burial-place (Rufinus, III" ii. 5, and Socrates, HIE iy. 18), . According to the lºoman Martyrology his remains were brought from India to Edessa, and thence, it was said, to Ortona in Italy during the Crusades. The oldest extant tradi- tion as to the manner of his death is that it was from natural causes (Clem. Alex. Stromm. iv. 9. 73). J. H. BIRNATRID. THOMEI (B 0640el, A €5uet, AW Thomoi), 1 Es 5*=Temah, Ezr 2%, Neh 7”. THORNS.—See THISTLES. THOUGHT.-In 1 S 90 “Come, and let us re- turn ; lest my father leave caring for the asses, and take thought for us,’ the phrase “take thought ' means “be anxious,’ ‘grieve.” The same verb (is) is translated ‘sorrow’ in 10° ‘Thy father hath, left the care of the asses, and sor- roweth for you.’ It V has “take thought' in both lºgº but Amer. It V gives “be anxious’ in oth. In Ps 38° both versions render the Hebrew word ‘I will be sorry.’ ‘Thought was once freely used in English in the sense of “anxiety’ or “grief.” Thus Cranmer, Works, i. 162, ‘Alas, Master Secretary, you forget Master Smyth of the Ex- chequer, who is near consumed with thought and pensiveness '; Somers Tracts, “In five hundred years only two queens have died in childbirth. Queen Catherine Parr died rather of thought'; Shaks. Hamlet, III. i. 85— * And thus the native hue of resolution Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought”; and IV. v. 177—“And there is pansies, that’s for thoughts.” Cf. Wyclif's use of the verb, Select Works, iii. 9, ‘As a bird of a swalowe, so I schal crie, I schal thinke as a dowve.’ In AV ‘thought” occurs in this sense only in the phrase “take thought.” Besides 1 S 9” (above) the examples are Mt. 62%. 27.28, 31. 94bis 1010, Lk 1211. 22, 25.20 º Aleptº- váw), and Mk 13” “take no thought beforehand” (wh irpop spupyäre); It V always “be anxious.’. Cf. Coverdale’s tr. of 1 S 10” (see above), “Thy father hath put the asses out of his mynde, and taketh, thoughte for the, and sayeth : What shall I do for my sonne 7” and Shaks. Jul. Casar, II. i. 187— “If he love Clesar, all that he can do, Is to himself take thought and die for Caesar.' w J. HASTINGS THRACIA (9ptikm) was the country lying east of Macedonia, bounded on the north by the Danube and on the south by the Ægean Sea, the Darda- nelles, the Sea of Marmora, and the territory of Byzantium (a ‘free city,’ connected with the Roman province of Bithynia from B.C. 74). Thrace is never mentioned in the NT, nor did any action alluded to in the NT take º in that country. Philippi and Neapolis, indeed, had originally been in Thrace; but the boundaries of Macedonia were extended far towards the east by the conquests of the Macedonian kings, and included both cities, Before the Itoman period the boundary between Macedonia and Thrace was the boundary between civilization and barbarism, and this varied as civilization enlarged its linits. Originally the name Thracia was used in a very loose and vague fashion, and the Macedonians were even sometimes spoken of as a tribe of Thrace, which in that case practically meant the land north and north-east of Greece. The Macedonians were alvin to the Thracians, but came under the influence of Greek civilization earlier.” It was not until A. D. 46 that Thrace was incorporated as a province in the Roman empire. In 2 Mac 12* a Thracian soldier is mentioned as saving the life of Gorgias, governor of Idumasa i under Antiochus Epiphanes, in a battle against Judas Maccabaeus, about B.C. 163. The Thracian tribesmen, barbarous, hardy, and inured to War, were much used as mercenaries by the Greek kings of Syria, Pergamum, Bithynia, etc. . This is several times mentioned by Polybius (V. lxv. 10, lxxix. 6); and inscriptions, along with other evidence entirely corroborate him. Thracian mercenaries were settled as colonists in many of the garrison cities founded by those kings, e.g. in Apollonia of Pisidia (where they are often mentioned on coins, etc., in the full title of the city) and in other places: the Thracian mercenaries were sonnetimes called Traleis or “warriors’; see Ramsay, IIistor. Geogr. of Asia Minor, p. 112, Cities and Bish, o/ Phrygia, i. p. 34; Fränkel, Inschr. Pergam. i., No. 13, p. 16. W. M. RAMSAY. THRASAEUS (A eparatos, V*vid Bapatas, V" Qapaéas).--The father of Apollonius, 2 Mac 3”; but see APOLLONIUS, No. 1, and cf. It V m. THREE CHILDREN, SONG OF THE (or, more accurately, as in Codex B : “The Prayer of Azarias' and ‘the Hymn of the Three'), is one of the addi- tions to the book of Daniel, extant only in the Greek Bible and in versions taken from the Greek. It contains 67 verses, and is inserted betweeu v.” and v.” of Dn 3 in the canonical text. In Codex A our ‘addition' forms also two of fourteen canticles appended to the Book of l’salms. The ninth and tenth of these canticles are called respectively trpo- oeux) 'Ağaptov (Prayer of Azarias) and Úpºvos Túp tratépov huôv (Hymn of our Fathers). i. CONTIENTS.—The º contains three sections : (1) the l’rayer of Azarias; (2) descrip- tive narrative ; (3) thanksgiving of the Three for their deliverance from the fiery furnace. * The best edition of the Gr. and Lat. texts of those Acta is that of Bonnet (1883); for the Syriac Acts see Wright, Apocry- phal Acts of the Apostle8 (1871); and, for the AEthiopic version of the story, Malah, Conflicts of the IIoly Apostles (1871). I'or all legends about Thomas the best and fullest account will be found in Lipsius' Die Apokryphen Apostelgeschichten (1883–1800), vol. i. pp. 220-347. - * It is maintained by some scholars that Thrace, in that early wide extension, is alluded to in Gn 102. In that verse the sons of Japheth are said to be Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras ; but Bee TIRA8. f Idunnata is suspicious : it has been thought to be an error for Jamnia. THREE CHILDREN, SONG OF w THREE CHILDREN, SONG OF 755 (1) The Prayer of Azarias, vv. 1-22 (Gr. 24.40).-In Dn 823 it has been narrated that the three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning ſlery furnace. After 328 Theodotion (whose text is followed in Vulg. and the English Apocr.) proceeds : “And they walked [“in their . chains,’ Syr W] in the midst of the fire, praising God.” The connexion is, in LXX, effected thus: “Thus then prayed Hammins and Azarias and Mishael and Sang praises to the Lord, when the king commanded them to be cast into the furnace.” Both then say that ‘Azarias stood and prayed in the midst of the fire'; LXX adding ‘together with his companions,' which Theod. Omits, as he does also the statement of LXX that “the furnace had been heated exceedingly by the Chaldayans.” The Prayer opens with praise to God for His righteous acts to the nation, acknowledging His justice even in the disasters which . He has brought upon Jerusalem. National ruin was completely justifled, because of national sins. . He complains, however, that the nation by which God had chastised His people was a very lawless one, and that their king was the most wicked king on earth, treating Israel scornfully and tyrannically. He then pleads the covenants with the fathers and the promises of the vast expansion of the nation as the round of God's intervention to the very small remnant. They had been brought very low : the State was dissolved : State functionaries had ceased to be : State religion was no longer possible; but with the sacrifice of a contrite heart, rather than of myriads of rams, they would seek the Lord and implore Him to remove their shame and transfer it to their foes; that all may know that J" is God alone. - (2) In vv.29-27 of EV (Gr. 40.01) we have a continuation of the manºrative of Dn 329, describing how the king's servants kept on heating the furnace with naphtha, and pitch till it was seven times as hot as usual, and the flamme reached 40 cubits above the furnace. Then an angel came down, called in Syr. ‘the angel of dew,’ and by means of a dewy whistling wind made the centre of the furnace cool, forming an inner zone which the flames could not touch. After this ‘the three' unitedly began to praise God. (3) The IIymn of Thanksgiving, vv.28:08 (Gr. 52.00). This Hymn, like Ps 136, contains, as the second line of each verse, a refrain. As the Psalm repeats throughout the words, “For his nº rºy el:dureth for ever’; so our IIymn, in every verse, ascribes praise to God. For the first six verses the ascription is verbally varied, though identical in meaning. . After that, the second ſine of each verse is ºvers 22) Wºrsevapours oºrov sk’ roºs &lávo.g., “Praise and superexalt him for ever,’ In the first blace the Psalmist (for such he really is) exults in the fact that º is worthy to be praised in the heavenly temple, sitting on the throne of His glory: from the loftiest heights looking down on . the deepest depths. Then he apostrophizes all the works of God and calls on them to praise the Lord : angels, the heavens, the celestial waters, sun, moon, and stars. From things cclestial he passes to what we call meteorological phenomena, but which, to the Jewish mind, were changes presided over by an angel,--if not indeed themselves actual entities, rain and dew, winds, frost and smow, light and darkness, lightnings and clouds. Then the terrestrial creation is addressed, moun- tains, vegetation, showers, fountains, monsters, fowls, and beasts. After that, men of various ranks and conditions in life: Israel, priests, slaves, the righteous, the humble, and last of all, as Ps iO3 terminates with the words ‘Rless the Lord, O my Sowl,’ we have in v.88 ‘O Hananias, Azarias, and Mishael, bless ye the Lord.” The last two verses are from Ps 136, and were probably appended by some later hand. ii. LITERARY ESTIMATE. — The judgment of Eichhorn (Einleitung, 419,..,ed., 1795), that the Prayer of Azarias is unsuitable to the circum- stances, and that it betrays a lack of literary art to suppose that in a fiery furnace any man could pray as he does, is endorsed by most later scholars (Fritzsche, 115). There are “no groans,’ ‘no per- sonal petitions,’ ‘no cries for help.” The author makes Azarias review the history of the Jewish nation as calmly as an aged Saint might do under the fig-tree of solitude at the time of evening |. On one supposition, however, the Prayer ecomes thoroughly relevant. If we might assume that the author of the Prayer regarded the narra- tive of Dn 3 as a Haggada, a symbolical, but not historical, account of the Babylonian captivity: as in Zec 3° the angel says concerning Joshua, the high priest, ‘Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire 2°–then the Prayer would be quite suitable. As to the poetical character of the Hymn, critics differ, Fritzsche considered the accumulation of doxologies devoid of all literary skill, and the enumeration of the powers of creation, frigid. Ball, however, replies (Speaker's Com. 307) that the very monotony is effective. ‘It is like the monotony of the winds or the waves, and power- fully suggests to the imagination the amplitude -- --- * 3. t * and splendour of God's world, and the sublimity of the universal chorus of praise. The instinct of the Church which early adopted the Benedicite for liturgical use was right.” Zöckler sympathizes so strongly with Ball against Fritzsche that he quotes the above in English. The Hymn is modelled after Ps 136, and †as equal claim to be considered poetical. iii. AUTHORSHIP.-The name and date of the composer of the Prayer and Hymn are quite unknown. It is even disputed whether they come from the same author. The chief argument for duality is that v.” (” implies the cessation of Temple worship. “There is no . . . sacrifice nor place to offer sacrifice before thee'; whereas in v.* (*) there is reference to a Temple, and in v.” (*) to priests. The argument is not valid. The Temple in v.” is the heavenly Temple, where the Lord is enthroned on the cherubim. Further, the priesthood was hereditary. A man did not cease to be a priest when the Temple was de- stroyed; and hence we note that v.” does not say, “There is no priest.”—It is even more eagerly dis- puted whether the Gr. text is the original, or a translation from Heb. or Aramaic. Eichhorn in his first edition favoured Gr. authorship. In his second edition he adduced reasons for regarding it as a translation, but held the evidence to be in- decisive. This uncertainty still remains. Fritzsche, Keil, Bissell, and Schürer are against a Semitic authorship. Ball attaches more importance than they do to Eichhorn’s indications ...} translation. The difficulty is this ; every extant version is clearly based on the JLXX. Where Theod. differs from LXX, it is usually in very small matters of addition or omission. There are no synonymous, but verbally variant, phrases, indicating that both are translated from the same original. There are no marks that Theod. or any version used a Semitic copy in order to correct LXX. In such cases the only evidence of translation work is to be sought in the awkward, barely intelligible F. We have to retranslate these into the hypothetical original, and see if by some slight modification of this we can secure a better render- ing. In the case before us the results are disap- pointing. We may premise, however, that if there ever was a Semitic original, it would be Heb. and not Aramaic. The orthodox Palestinian Jew con- sidered Heb. the language of heaven, and always used it in prayer and praise.—The evidence in favour of Heb. , stands thus: (1) The style is intensely, Hebraistic, perhaps more so than an Alexandrian Jew would use in original composi- tion. (2) The names of the three men are their original Hebrew names (IOn 17), not the Aramaic names found in Dn 319, 19. 28, 28 etc. (3) V.17 (10) is very obscure. In LXX it reads literally, ‘Let our sacrifice be before thee, and may it make atone- memt bellind thee (ét)\áo at Ötto Oév gov). Theod. reads ékTeXéa’at Strugbéu orov, “May, it make re- quitºl bellind thee.’ At the end of the verse in LXX there occurs an incorporated marginal gloss : TeXévêa at Čºrta 6év gov, “let it be perfect behind thee.” These three Gr. verbs seem very diverse, but, if we might assume a Heb. original from which they are a tr., the matter is simplified. These Gr. verbs may represent different forms of the Heb. root Bºw. The Hiphil D'ºù ‘to make peace’ may account for ét}\ágal. The Piel Dº and the Gr. TéNetw both mean to “pay,’ ‘requite’; and the Qal Dºy means to ‘be perfect.” §. do not attempt to explain Čirio 6ev. (4) It might seem that the phrase “to scatter a covenant' in y.”, instead of ‘ violate,’ was a confusion of The and nni) : but the same thing occurs in LXX of Gn 17” and Lv 26*, *. So also the use of diró with Karatory ºveo 0&t, ‘to be ashamed,’ might arise from translating the Heb. Tº (Eichh. 428); but both €k and diró are used 756 THRESHING THRONE in LXX with verbs of ‘shame,” and thus this also may be a Hebraism, and due to familiarity with the LXX. The evidence of a Heb. original is not irresistible, but probable. iv. VERsions.—The LXX presents the earliest extant text. Theod. edited the LXX with sundry emendations of little significance : none of them so important as in “Bel and the Dragon' (vol. i. 267). A collation of the two versions is given by Eichhorn (422 f.), and also in Field's Hearapla (ii. 914 ft.). The Vulg. is in the main an accurate tr. of Theodotion. The Syriac as given by Lagarde is the same text as Walton's, the differences being merely such as occur in transcription. Worthy of note are the readings; 15 (3S), ‘a place where we Inay offer spices and a sacrifice’: 17 (40), “let not thy servant be ashamed for #1A&orozu Öriotiv orov : 49 (72), ‘The angel of dew went down into the furnace.” The Syro-Hexaplar text is a tr. of the LXX. v. CANONICITY. — Ball gives several citations from Jewish writings of the incidents narrated in the Biblical portions of Dn 3; but it is difficult to find Rabbinic quotations of our apocryphon. Pesachim 1180 tells how R. Hiskiah describes the three martyrs as reciting Ps. 115, clause by clause, in rotation ; and how R. Samuel the Shilonite used to say that Yorkemi, the prince of hail, begged to go down to cool the furnace ; but Gabriel offered not only to make the furnace cool within (as the hail would do), but also to make it hot without (Speaker’s Apocr. 306 f.). In the Christian Church, Hippolytus gives a few notes explanatory of the Song. Julius Africanus disputed the canonicity of the additions to I)aniel. Origen wrote in reply defending their genuine- ness, and on several occasions quotes ‘the Prayer’; e.g. in Com. on Matt. bk. xiii. 2 he quotes v.94 (80) ‘as it stands in the book of Daniel according to the LXX’ as representing the difference between the soul and the body. Cyprian, de Lapsis, c. 31, uotes v.” (*) as ‘scriptura divina, ’; and he ad- uces the Prayer of the ‘tres pueri in cannino inclusi’ as a model of public prayer (de Orat. Dominica, c. 8). LITERATURE.—Ball in Speaker's Apocr. ii. 305 f.; Fritzsche, Handbuch zw dem. A pokr. i. 123 ff. ; Schürer, IIJ P II. iii. 183 ff.: Zöckler, Apokº., des A T' 230 f. ; Bissell in Lange's Apokº.; Eichhorn, Einleitung in die Apokr. Schriſtem, 419 f.; Rothstein in Kautzsch's Apokr. w. Pseudepigr, d. A T i. 172 If. J. T. MARSHALL. THRESHING.-See AGRICULTURF, vol. i. p. 50. THRESHOLD.—1. In Neh 12” pºlyn Eps (AV “thresholds of the gates’) undoubtedly means ‘storehouses of the gates’ (so RV ; cf. RV ‘store- house’ as tr. of bººps, n'a [AV ‘house of Asuppim 'l in 1 Ch 26", and of pºps alone [AV ‘Asuppim 'J in v."). The text of the LXX is in this verse defective, but the words év tá, ovvayayetv ple rows TVAwpoſs obviously represent pºlyiºn Epsii. 2. p : Jg 19° the Levite's concubine was found in the morning dead, with her hands upon the threshold ; 1 K 14” Jeroboam’s wife had just reached the threshold of the palace at Tirzah when her son died ; Am 9’ ‘Smite the chapiters [of the columns supporting the temple roof] till the thresholds º Is 6* “the foundations of the thresholds were moved at the voice of him that cried '; Ezk 43°, referring to the circumstance that the royal palace and Solomon's temple were within the same enclosure and formed one set of build- ings, God makes it a matter of reproach that they have set ‘their threshold by my threshold, and their door post beside my door post’; Zeph . 2" ‘ desolation [nºn; but Wellh., Now , et al., after LXX kópokes, read any ‘raven(s)'] shall be on the thresholds (of ruined Nineveh).’ A class of temple officials were “keepers of the threshold' (ºn "nºv): Jer 35' [in sing.], 2 K 121° 22' (= 2 Ch 340) * 23. 25* [=Jer 52*]; 2 Ch 234 [nºn nyw]; in 1 Ch 99.4% * These "teepers of the door are in 2 K 1210 “priests’; in 2 Ch 340 they claracteristically become ‘Levites.” [in the latter verse Tº pºlyºl similar officials are provided for the tabernacle; the office is a secular one in Est 2* 6*, answering more to that of º guard (cf. the LXX &pxua'aparoq,0\akes in 2*). In Ps 84* the pilgrim declares that he prefers being at the threshold {i} trapaputrefor6av) in the house of God to dwelling in the tents of wickedness. The other occurrences of Tp are: Ezk 40% bis. 74110 bis, 2 Ch 37. The principal LXX renderings of p not noticed above are: rö r260ppov, Jº, 1927, 1 K 1417, Ezk,438; Tô ºriplupov, Is 64; rà orpérvXoz, Am 91; oi rvXóvis, Zeph 214, 2 Ch 37; (6 ºvX&ororov or ol qvāoraroy'rus) rºy ozºv, Jer 35 (42)4, or roy or ro:006v, 2 K. 1210 (9) 224 2518, or rºy réâny, 2 Ch 349, or rºy 3369, Jer 5224, or rºw sloo?oy, 1 Oh 919; (iis roºs réA2s) ray slo.6%ay, 2 Ch 234; Úupſ3t;, Ezk 4.110. 3. Pºp : 1 S 5*" Dagon was found prostrate before the ark, with his head and hands cut off upon the threshold ; hence, it is said, the worshippers of Dagon leap over the threshold, to avoid contact with a spot rendered sacred by having been the resting-place of these members of the god. It is in possible to decide whether it is this (Philistine) custom that is referred to in Zeph 1” “every one who leaps over [or “upon,’ by] the threshold.’ See art. CHERETHITES, vol. i. p. 377". The threshold of the temple is referred to in Ezk 9° 104. 1846” 471 (in the last named passage as the source of the stream which is seen in vision to flow forth to fertilize the ‘Arabah). The usual LXX equivalent for Pep is aſſetov: Ezk 93 104.18 471; in 402 and 1 S 54 rpá0opov; in 1 S 59 gallads; in Zeph 19 arpoºrvåo. For Trumbull’s view (The Threshold Covenant, 303 ff.) of the Passover as a threshold cross-over sacrifice, see art. PASSOVER, vol. iii. p. 689. Cf. also art. FOUNDATION. J. A. SILBI.E. THRONE is OT rendering of the Heb. Nº [in I K 101" bis, Job 26" Hº ; in Dn 5” 7" bis Arann. xpº), which is used for any seat of honour or state, e.g. of the high priest, 1 S 1° 4” ”; of an honoured guest, 2 K.4%; of the pelah beyond the River, Nell 37; of a judge, Ps 94”; of a military officer, Jer 1*; but far more usually of a king, Gn 41"[E], Ex 11" 12” [both JJ, l K 210, Is 471, Ezk 2619, Est 51. Solomon's throne is described in 1 IC 10** [=2 Ch 9”]. It was overlaid with ivory and the ſinest gold (see Kittel, Könige, ad loc.), and was ascended by six steps, with twelve lions standing upon them. I'or figures of Assyrian and IEgyptian thrones see IRiehm, JI WI3° ii. 1106, 1684. God as the heavenly King has His throne: Is 6', I'zk 1* 10, 1 K 22” [=2 Ch 1818], Job 26", Ps 114; heaven is called His throne in Is 66" (cf. Mt. 5*), Jerus. in Jer 3", the sanctuary in 17” and Ezk 437. “Throne” is frequently used as = royal dignity, authority, power, e.g. l IC 2" (‘the throne of David shall be established,’ cf. 2 S 71" [= 1 Ch 171*]), Is 16", Pr 1614; of God, La 51", Ps 479 891? 93° 97° 10319, Jer 1421. For the cult of ‘empty thrones’ see IReichel, Ueber vorhellenische Götter/sulte (Wien, 1897), and 13udde's art. ‘Imageless Worship in Antiquity” in ſºapos. T'lanes, ix, (1898) 396 fl. Similar is the use of ‘throne” (0póvos ; once Ac 12* Bºua, lit. ‘judgment-seat,’ of Herod) in NT ; almost always [the exceptions are Mt 1998 || Lk 22” ‘ye shall sit upon . thrones,” etc., Col 11° ‘thrones’ as a rank of angels (? ; see art. IJOMINION), Rev 20" ‘I saw thrones, and they (the assessors of the heavenly Judge) sat upon them ’j of the throne of God or of Christ : Mt. 5* (I| Lk 23°) 1998 () I.,k 22"), Lk 14°, Ac 240 749, He 18 41, 81 12°, Rev 14 321 and very often. In Ps 457 the Heb, text ºn bºrº asp? (‘thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever’; LXX % (póvo; row, 3 Usós, followed in He 18) is probably corrupt. In addition to the tr. of EV the following renderings have been proposed : (1) “Thy throno is God’ (Doder. lein, supported most recently by Westcott [on IIe 18) and 1:Iort); (2) “thy throne of God’ ['thy God's throne'] (Ges. Jes, i, THUMIB THYATIRA 757 ' Jºe : ); (3) “thy throne is (a throne) of God’ (Aben Ezra, Hitzig, #. , Baethgen). To all these renderings, there are either grammatical or exegetical objections. Bickell and Cheyne would insert pºpn intlp' tº ‘thy throne [its foundation is flrmly fixed], God [hath established it]." Perhaps the sinplest solution is to substitute nº for Dºnºs (‘thy throne shall be for ever'). This original ºn might easily be misread Înn' (Jahweh), which in turn would be intentionally changed into nºn's. So Giesebrecht, Wellh. (“Psalms’ in SBOT', following Bruston, Dw teate primitif des Psawmes, Paris, 1873), Duhm (in Kurzer IIdcoln.). See, further, Driver, Heb., Tenses 3, § 194, Obs, ; Cheyne, OP 182. J. A. SELBI.E. THUMB (ſºa [in Jg 16. 7 plur. nisha, as iſ from sing. jini, the form used throughout the Sam. Pent.] joined with 1. ‘hand’ means ‘thumb,” while with ºn ‘foot it means “great toe’).—In all the Scripture passages where ‘thumb' occurs, it is coupled with ‘great toe.” In the consecration of Aaron and his sons, blood was sprinkled upon the tip of the right ear, upon the thumb of the right hand, and upon the great toe of the right foot (Ex 2929, Lv 8*, *). It has been generally held (Dillm., Baentsch, et al., ad loc., Nowack, Heb. Arch. ii. 123) that this procedure symbolized the consecration of the organs of hearing, handling, and walking, the priests becoming thus fitted to hear God’s voice, to handle holy things, and to tread holy ground. This explanation fails, how- ever, to account for the selection of these three organs alone, and it does not harmonize well with the circumstance that the cleansed leper was similarly sprinkled (LV 144. 17.”: *). There is more }º in the view of Holzinger (Eacodus, ad oc.) that, like the horns of the altar, the eactremities of the human body, with inclusive sense, are chosen for consecration.—The cutting off of Adoni- bezek’s thumbs and great toes (Jg 1°), a mutilation which he declares he had himself practised on seventy kings (v. 7), disabled him from fighting, and possibly disqualified him from reigning (see Moore, ad loc., where parallels from classical writers are cited ; cf. also art. ADONIBEZEK). J. A. SELBIE. THUMMIM.—See URIM AND THUMMIM. THUNDER (Dyn, 3povtſi) is the loud sound which accompanies the discharge through the atmosphere of electricity from the clouds. It seems to follow the lightning flash after an interval proportioned to the observer's distance from the place of dis- turbance. Thunderstorms are frequent in Pales- tine during the winter season, but very rarely occur at any other time of the year (Schwarz, Palestime, 327). They are always accompanied by rain or hail. In the OT thunder is both poetically described and popularly regarded as the voice of God. It is º of as a voice in Ps 771° 1047, Sir 437 (cf. 1 S 719). In several passages (Ex 9” 19” 2018, 1 S 1217. 18, Job 28°38”) “thunder’ or “thunder- ing’ is simply the tr. of mºp (‘ voices'), and even where ºp is rendered ‘ voice’ the verb Dyn (“to thunder’) in the context sometimes shows that thunder is meant (2 S 22*, Job 37*. " 40°, l’s 1819 20”; cf. the use of poval in Rev 4” 8° 111° 16'8). Ps 29 is throughout a sublime poetic descrip- tion of a thunderstorm and its effects, though the noun Dyn does not once occur in it, but only the often repeated phrase mn-ºp. The sequence of thunder after lightning is referred to in Job 37", Sir 329, and the general connexion of the two phenomena in Job 28°38′. In Ps 1047 the creative voice of God which bade the waters go to their appointed place (Gn 1") is identified with thunder. Thunder accompanied by hail is enumerated in Ex 929tſ, as the seventh of the PLAGUES OF EGYPT (see vol. iii. p. 891). From Ps 77* it would appear that it was a thundercloud which came between the Israelites and the Egyptians at the crossing of the Red Sea, and this is probably alluded to in Ps 817. Thunder was one of the impressive pheno- mena amidst which the Law was given at Sinai (Ex 1919 2018). A thunderstorm decided the issue of a battle between Israel and the Philistines (1 S 71°, Sir 46”), and another served to deepen the in- pression made by Samuel's warning to Israel when they desired a king (1 S 127.1%). This latter event was all the more significant because it occulſed at a most unusual season,--that of wheat harvest. In Job 39” thunder is used figuratively for the noise of battle ; and in Job 26* the difference between a whisper and thunder is used to illustrate the contrast between what man sees of God’s ways, and the reality of God's power. In Sir 40” the goods of the unjust are said to go off in a noise like thunder; and in Mk 37 ‘sons of thunder’ is the interpretation of the title 30avmpyés given by Jesus to the sons of Zebedee (see 18OANERGES). In Is 29" thunder is among the metaphors describing the disasters impending on Ariel, and it appears in a similar connexion in Rev 8° 16°. Like other convulsions of nature, it enters largely into the imagery of the Apocalypse (4° 11”). Voices like thunder are mentioned in 6' 14° 19%, and in 10* * actual thunders are conceived to have an articulate meaning. In view of this last fact, and of the close OT association between thunder and the voice of God, it seems probable that the “voice out of heaven’ (Jn 12**) was a thunder-peal, as indeed most of those present thought, and that its signi- ficance was recognized and interpreted by Jesus alone. A similar construction may be put on the voices in the narratives of the Baptism and Trans- figuration of Jesus, and the whole subject is illus- trated by the Jewish doctrine of the ºp-na, which was always supposed to be preceded by a thunder- clap (Barclay, Talmud, p. 16, note). The Greek word képavvös, like Lat. fulmen, de- notes thunder and lightning together. It is used in Wis 19” of the punishment of the Egyptians at the Exodus (EV “thunders’), and in 2 Mac 10” of certain human missiles of destruction (AV “light- nings,’ RV “thunderbolts'). Kepačvajo is is the LXX tr. of Pºg in Is 30", where all the phenomena of a thunderstorm occur in the context as metapllors for the disasters awaiting Assyria. AV renders Pºg ‘scattering,’ RV ‘blast,’ löVm ‘crash,’ De- litzsch ‘cloud-burst.’ In Ps 7S*, “thunderbolt' is the tr. of Tºr (mg. ‘hailstone'). For the meaning of this word see under CoAL, 4, vol. i. p. 451". In Job 39” AV has “thunder’ as a mistranslation of Tryn (IRV “quivering mane'). JAMES PATRICR. THYATIRA (9uáretpa) was an important and wealthy city in the northern part of Lydia, in a district which was in early times sometimes assigned to Mysia ; and it was sometimes called ‘the last city of the Mysians,’” owing to the un- certainty about national boundaries in Asia Minor. In its situation in the open fertile valley of the Lycus, a stream that flows south-west from the Mysian frontier to join the Hermus, it must have been a settlement (doubtless a large village beside a temple, after the Anatolian fashion) from the ear- liest time ; and according to Pliny and Stephanus it was then called Pelopia Iºuippa Senniramis; but these seem to be mere epithets, and the name Thyateira is probably an old Lydian word, mean- ing ‘the town or citadel of Thya': Teira, occurs as a Lydian city name. But the importance of Thyatira began when it was tº. with a colony of Macedonians by Seleucus Nikator be- tween B.C. 301 and 281. Its history as a Greek * Steph. Byz. s. v. So Iconium was “the last city of Phrygia." t So Stephanus ; but Schuchhardt (Athen, Mitth, 1888, p. 1 ft.) attributes the new foundation to a later date in the 3rd cent. 758 THYATIRA THYATIRA city dates from that time; and it continued to be a rich and busy commercial city throughout ancient times. The peacefulness and prosperity of its de- velopment afford little for the historian to record. Antiochus the Great lay encamped there for a time in B.C. 190, until he was forced to retire on Mag- nesia; and the decisive battle against the Romans under Scipio was fought between the two cities. Thyatira derived its importance strictly from the valley in which it was situated, and not from lying on a great trade route. Hence it was limited in its development by the restriction of its range, and it never º a metropolis or leading city of Asia, nor was it honoured with the Neolzorate in the State cultus of the emperors. Ptolemy, indeed, styles it metropolis of Lydia (v. ii. 16); but the title never occurs in inscriptions or on coins, and is º erroneously given. The epithets by which hyatira sought to glorify j} are therefore rather vague in character, Aapatrporá7m, Swagmuorárm, ueylarm, etc. But in A.D. 215 Caracalla passed through the city, and issued an edict (which came before, and was probably addressed to the Koinon of Asia, and was of course carried into effect by vote of the Koimon), ordering that it should be one Df the seats of conventus of the Province (éöwpija aro rff warplôt haëv Tiju & Yopäv Tóv Šuków). In regard to religion, Thyatira also rejoiced in the title ‘the holy city of the irporárap 6eos "HXuos IIúðuos Tupupavaſos 'AtröXXav’ (just as Ephesus boasted itself the city of Artemis); and the inscriptions often mention the patron god. The coins often show the horseman-god Tyrimnos, with double- axe on shoulder (a figure common under various name3 in Lydian and Phrygian cities), and a god- dess of the Greek Artemis type, called Boreitene. But Boreitene is simply a surname of the god- dess who was worshipped along with the patron god, probably derived from some locality in the territory of the city with which the goddess was specially associated. The Boreitene Artemis was, undoubtedly, closely related to the Ephesian Artemis on the one hand, and to the East Iydian and Pontic Anaitis (Persian in origin, called Persike on the coins of the neighbouring Hierocaesareia) on the other. Apollo Tyrimnaios is known only from the inscriptions, which show that there was a sacred temenos, with a propylaeum, containing doubtless a temple: games called Tyrimnaia, in honour of the god, are also men- tioned. The priest of Apollo and the priestess of Artemis were husband and wife (Bull. Corresp. Hellén. xi. p. 478, No. 57), showing how intimate was the relation between the two deities in the Thyatiran cult. This deity was IIpêtroXts (with his temple in front of, not inside, the city) and IIpo- trárop (patron of the city, and ancestor of some leading family or families, doubtless priestly fami- lies, in it). Tyrimnos was evidently the ancient Lydian sun-god,” identified with the Greek Apollo Pythius. Under the Roman empire the worship of Apollo Tyrimnaios was united with the cult of the emperors, as we see in the ceremony of the Sebasto - Tyrimnaean festival (Tâs Segao retov Kal Tupupuyºſov travmyūpews). The worship of Artemis and Apollo was conjoined with mysteries, which were under the direction of the priestess (CIG 3507). Further, there was outside of the city (Tpo rºs trðNews) a shrine of the Oriental (Chaldaean, or Persian, or Hebrew) Sibyl Sambethe, or Sambathe, in the sacred precinct of the Chaldaean (Trpès rig and regards Thyatira as a Seleucid garrison founded to resist the growing Pergamenian power. * We cannot adopt the view of Blakesley in Smith's DIB and others, that Tyrinnas (as they wrongly call him) was a Mace- donian deity brought by the colonists from their own country. They may have brought the name (Tyrimmas was a mythical Macedonian king), but not the religious institution. Xapgaffelº èv tº XaXöatov repuść)\g,” CIG 3509). It may be taken as certain that this shrine was a seat of soothsaying, and that a prophetess was the re- cipient of inspiration and uttered the oracles at the shrine. F. also highly probable that this foundation arose from an eclectic religious system, combining some Hebrew conceptions with pagan forms and customs. So much may be taken as generally admitted; but to this Schürer (Die Pro- phetin Isabel in Thyatira t) has added the, at first sight, attractive theory that the woman Jezebel of Rev. 2” was the prophetess at the shrine, who perhaps played the part of the Sibyl herself, and whose character was perhaps not purely heathen but contained a mixture of Jewish elements. We cannot, however, consider this probable. While we must agree with Schürer and many older scholars that “Jezebel’ here denotes a definite woman, the context seems to require a woman of great influ- ence within the Thyatiran Church (like Jezebel within the kingdom of Israel), in all probability an official, active, prominent in religious observ- ances, claiming to be and accepted in the Church (āqets) as one of those prophetesses who were so im- ortant in the early 8. using her position to isseminate her own views, maintaining and teach- ing the doctrine (against which the letter inveighs so bitterly) that it was possible to be a Christian and yet remain a member of º pagan Society and belong to the social clubs, which were so char- acteristic of pagan life, and fulfilled many useful purposes of a charitable or beneficial kind, but were (according to St. John and St. Paul alike) inextric- ably implicated in idolatrous observances, and con- ducive to luxury and sensual enjoyment.: The person who was condemned so strenuously by the author was not a pagan prophetess, but a danger within the Church, and the Church itself is cen- sured for treating her with allowance and respect instead of casting her out with abhorrence. Yet a time for repentance is granted even to her, before her punishment shall come upon her. The passage of IRev. places us amid the difficulties besetting the Thyatiran Christians in the early period of the Church. The population of the city was divided into trade-guilds, many of which are mentioned in inscriptions. To belong to the guild was a most important matter for every trades- man or artisan; it aided his business, and brought him many advantages socially. Each guild was a corporate body, possessing considerable powers, directed by elected officers, passing decrees in honour of Roman officials or other persons who had aided it, possessing property or revenues under its own direction, constructing works for the public; many of them, if not all, were benefit societies for mutual aid, and showed vigorous life, and were on the whole healthy and praiseworthy associations. The objection to the guilds from the Christian joint of View was twofold, in the first place, the bond which held a guild together lay always in the common religion in which all united, and in the common sacrificial meal of which all partook ; the members ate and drank fellowship and brother- hood in virtue of the pagan deity whom they served. In the existing state of society it was impossible to dissociate membership of a guild from idolatry, and the idolatry was of a kind that by its symbolism and its eſlicacy exerted * From a single reference it is impossible to determine whether a Chaldioan deity, or a Chaldayan who instituted and regulated the cultus, is meant. M. Clerc (de Rebus. Th/utir. pp. 23, 70) puts the shrine of the Sibyl near the Chaldupan's precinct ; but the inscription deſlries the position of the gravo as by the Sibyl's shrine in the Chaldteam's precinct. f In Theolog. Abha.ndl. Weizsäcker gewidhnet, 1892, p. 30 ft. 1 On this see L'apositor, Dec. 1900, p. 429 ft. ; l'eb. 1901, p 93 ſº. THYATIRA TIBERIAS 7.59 great influence on its adherents, making them members of a unity which was essentially non- Christian and anti-Christian. In the second place, the common banquets were celebrated annid cir- cumstances of revelry and enjoyment that were far from conducive to strict morality, as is evident from representations of the feasts in such clubs; see Bulletin de Corresp. Hellén. 1900, p. 592 ft., and authorities there quoted. But, considering the many good characteristics in these guilds, it was a serious question whether the Christian converts were bound to cut them- selves off absolutely from them. In Rev 2*, we see that the question had not yet been º answered in the Thyatiran Church, but was still under discussion : one influential female member, who was generally believed to be inspired, taught that Christians might continue in their guilds and share in the duties and privileges thereof. On the other hand there was a section of that Church (Rev 2*) which opposed the teaching of the prophetess in this respect ; we should probably gather from tlie whole passage that this section was the minor- ity in the Church. This minority shares in the general condemnation of 2* for suffering the woman Jezebel: they had not condemned her absolutely, but treated her teaching as mistaken in this one point, while otherwise regarding her as worthy of respect. The minority, however, is not threatened . any further penalty, provided they continue to reject the teaching of the prophetess. Thus the letter to Thyatira reveals to us a very early stage in Christian history. The very first problems, which must have faced the Christians in the AEgean cities, connected with their relation to the pagan society and institutions, are still un- settled. No final decision had yet been come to in Thyatira on the subject; and contrary opinions were maintained by members of the same com- munity. The decision had indeed been pronounced by St. Paul as regards Corinth,” but in somewhat veiled and general terms, and had not as yet become the current and definite principle of all the Churches. As regards date, it might appear that this points to an earlier period than the reign of Domitian, and favours the earlier date for Rev. which many scholars have advocated; but a single detail is not conclusive, and exceptional circum- stances must be admitted as possible in outlying communities like Thyatira and Pergamum (Rev 2*). In Ephesus, the administrative centre of the Asian Churches, the decision of the Church was already fixed (IRev 2"). Here it is implied that the error of the prophetess had already been denounced, ‘ and I gave her time that she should repent (2*). It is only after that previous formal warning that her punishment is now denounced as immediate : her followers have still an opportunity of escaping the punishment, if they repent, but otherwise it will affect them and her together. The punishment denounced is illustrated by the nature of such guild-feasts, as shown in ancient reliefs. The members and worshippers reclined on couches at the banquet; and it is probable that the K\tum of Rev 2* should be understood, not as a bed (AW and l&V), but as a couch : ‘I set her on a couch, and her associates alongside of her (no longer for the revelry of their idolatrous celebrations, but) for tribulation’ (see Eopositor, I'eb. 1901, p. 99 fl.). Apart from this serious fault, the Church of Thyatira is praised highly for its energetic and truly Christian conduct, and for its steady progress: ‘thy last works are more than the first. The guild of coppersmiths (XaXKeſs) seems to have been influential in Thyatira (see inscription in Bull. Corr. Hell. x., p. 407, belonging to the early imperial times). The type on coins, Hephaistos * 1 Co 1015-22. forging a helmet, probably refers to the bronze trade ; and perhaps the enigmatic allusion to the unknown XaAkoxigavos would be understo d, if more could be learned about the Thyatiran bronze or copper work. Mr. Blakesley has suggested that the description of the Son of God, whose feet were like chalcolibanos (Rev 21°), may have been sug- gested by the way in which the tutelary deity of the city was represented in Thyatira. The guild of dyers is mentioned in several in- scriptions. M. Clerc's view, that the dyeing in Thyatira was performed , in ancient times with madder-root, rubia (as in the mediaeval and modern trade), not with the juice of the shell-fish (as in Tyre and Laconia), nor with the worm Coccus ilicis (kökkos), may be regarded as practically certain ; and in that case the purple stuffs which the "Thyatiran Lydia sold in Philippi (Ac 16%) were dyed with what is, in modern times, called “Turkey red’ (as the purple proper, the scarlet of the coccus, and the . of rubia, seem to have been all included under the generic title purple). Thyatira lay close to the road connecting Per- gamum with Sardis, and hence is placed between the two in the list of the Seven Churches of Asia (Rev 1"). No evidence remains as to how and when Christianity reached the city, except that, if we press the words of Ac 191", the new religion Wà.S. lº there by some of St. Paul’s coadjutors and helpers during his first residence in Ephesus. The modern town of Ak-Hissar occupies the site, approximately, of the ancient Thyatira. It is a busy commercial town, possessing a railway station and a considerable industry in carpet-making, etc. The population is about 20,000, of whom 7000 are Christians. LITERATURE.—Clerc, de rebus Thyatiremorum, Paris, 1893; Stosch, Antiquitatum Thyatiremarwin Libri duo, Zwollae, 1763; Zaka, repi Tây TຠºróAsa's Quots, pov, Athens, 1900 (tr. from Clerc, with some additions and corpus of Thyatiran inscriptions); Imhoof-Blumer in Itevue Swisse Nwanism. vii. W. M. RAMSAY. THYINE WOOD (#9).ov 6&vov, lignum thyinum). —The product of Thuja articulata, Desf., a tree of the order Coniferas, growing in the Atlas. It is of the same genus as the lignum vita, and was specially valued by the Greeks and Romans for tables. It formed part of the precious merchandise of Babylon [Rome] (Rev 18* AV m “sweet wood '). It is dark brown, very hard and durable, and withal fragrant. G. E. POST, TIBERIAS (Tugspués) is unlike most cities in Palestine in that we have a definite account of its origin, and can ſix pretty accurately the date when it was built. Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee, was its founder, and it was named in honour of the emperor Tiberius. In the very beginning of his reign Antipas had already honoured Julia, the mother of Tiberius, by rebuilding Betharamatha or 13etharamptha (the Beth-haram of Jos 1397), and calling it Julias or Livias. This was on the Shittim Plain east of Jericho. At a later period, some time between A.D. 20 and A.D. 30, Tiberias was built on the west shore of the Sea of Galilee, We are able to fix its site, because Josephus (Ant. xviii. ii. 3) says that there were warm baths at no great distance from it in a place called Emmaus (the Hammath of Jos 19°). To secure sufficient room for the new city, an old cemetery had to be removed ; and this fact, on account of the law of defilement by dead bodies, created a prejudice against it in the minds of the stricter Jews, which took a long time to overcome. Hammath was an ancient fortified town, and, as was customary, the dead were buried without the walls. These graves may have been a part of the cemetery of that old city, since the site of Antipas' new city was nearly a mile to the north of it. It 760 TIBERIAS TIBNI * is a curious historical fact that, while at the beginning the Jews thought Tiberias unclean, so that they could hardly be forced to settle there, at last in the course of time they chose it as one of their sacred cities (see below). People from various quarters helped to make up the first inhabitants of Tiberias. Some foreigners came, some poor people were compelled to make it their residence, and many persons who were “not quite freemen’ were brought thither and given certain privileges in the way of houses and lands. Some of those who settled there, however, are described as persons of wealth and position. The place grew rapidly, gates, colonnades, and marble statues made the streets attractive. Soon Tiberias could boast of ‘the finest synagogue in Galilee,” a device of, Herod to conciliate the Jews. From all accounts at our command, the city, touching the water of the lake, must have been beautiful, and its social and political importance were assured when Antipas removed thither from Sepphoris, till then the capital of Galilee, the seat of his govern- ment. His palace was a building of elegance, with costly furnishings, and in it was a large amount of the royal treasure (Jos. Life, xii. 13). The Gr. character of the town may be the reason why, although Christ was so thoroughly identi- fied for long with the Sea of Galilee, there is no evidence that He ever visited Tiberias, the new capital of the civil ruler to whom He was subject. The NT has little to say about this city; once the fact is mentioned that “boats came from Tiberias’ near to the spot where the Feeding of the Five Thousand took place (Jn 6*); further than this the Gospels are silent. At the time of the war with Rome, A.D. 66–70, Tiberias was one of the chief cities of Galilee. It had a council of 600 members. Its citizens were loyal to the national cause. When Gaius wanted to set up his statue in the temple at Jerusalem these people made such a desperate resistance, showing that they were ready to die rather than have their laws transgressed (Ant. XVIII. viii. 3), that the fool- ish project was at last abandoned. The strength of the place is shown by the fact that Vespasian led against it three legions before its inhabitants would ºpen their gates to him. . Another change awaited Tiberias, this time one of humiliation, when Herod Agrippa II. degraded it from being the chief city, and restored that honour to Sepphoris, where he kept the public archives and had stored a magazine of arms. If in this way Tiberias lost political prestige, it gained in another direction, for after the destruction of Jerusalem it became the chief centre of Jewish schools and learning, so that it has a large place in the history of Palestine, and indeed of the world, while its rival Sepphoris is practically for- gotten. At one time during this flourishing period its synagogues numbered no fewer than thirteen. Here the Mishna and the Palestinian Talmud were compiled and published; 6 A.D. 220 and A.D. 420 respectively. The beautiful situation of the city, some of the noted scholars who either lived or were buried there, the hot springs which helped to make the place famous, and the earthquakes from which it has occasionally suffered, have been mentioned under GALILEE, and GALILEE (SEA OF). The founder of this city is remembered as the murderer of John the Baptist, and as being present in Jerusalem at the passover when Jesus was arrested and put to death (Lk 23'). What was once attractive is now a place of ſilth and misery. On the shore S. of the town are some interesting ruins, which, could they be properly excavated, might reveal remains and possibly treasures of this royal city of Herod Antipas. Tabariyeh (the modern Ilame of the town) has a population of 5000 or 6000 souls, made up of a few Christians, Some Mohammedans, and a large number of Jews. It has a Protestant mission with a school and a resident physician. - LITERATURE.-Schürer, IIJP II, i. 148 f.; G. A. Smith HGH L 447 ff. ; Neubauer, Géog. du Talm. 208 ft. ; Graetz, Gesch d. Judem, iv. 473; Reland, Pal. ii. 1040; lobinson, BIRP. iii 342 ft. ; Ritter, Erdkwnde, xv. 315 fſ. ; Baedeker-Socin, Pal 382 f.; Guérin, Galilée, i. 250 ft. ; Merrill, L'ast of Jordan 125 f.; de Saulcy, Jowººney in Bible Lands, ii. 394 f.; Stanley Sinai and Pal. 368 ft. SELAH MERRILL. TIBERIAS, SEA OF (Jn 21'). — See GALILEH (SEA OF). TIBERIUS (Tifféptos).—The second Roman em Yeror, A. D. 14–37. The former is the date of Tiberius’ accession on the death of Augustus. But there is good reason to suppose that St. Luke (3*) in his reference to the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, as the beginning of John the Baptist’s ministry, is reckoning from the date of Tiberius’ association with Augustus in the empire some two years before the death of the latter. For the argument see art. CHRONOLOGY OF NT in vol. i. p. 405 f. The exact year of Tiberius’ adoption § his stepfather in the government is not known. Mommsen puts it A.D. 11, other authorities A. D. 13. Perhaps the use of the word #yepaovta (AV and RV “reign ') implies that Tiberius was only acting as regent before the death of Augustus. From the evidence of coins struck at this date it is shown that it was customary to regard Tiberius’ reign as beginning A.D. 12 or A. U.C. 765. This reign spread over the most momentous period in Christian chronology. In it occurred our lord’s ministry and death (A.D. 29); the Resurrection ; the pouring out of the Holy Ghost ; the martyrdom of St. Stephen, and the general persecution that immediately followed. All allusions to Caesar during our Lord’s life, e.g. in the case of the tribute money and the taunt levelled against Pilate, “Thou art not Caesar's friend,’ refer to Tiberius. The last years of his reign witnessed the conversion of St. Paul and the beginning of his preaching. Tiberius at his accession retained Valerius Gratus as procurator of Judaea, in order to lessen the fre- quent changes, and thus diminish the extortion in the provinces. Each new governor, expecting only a short lease of power, exacted as º as possible in the shortest time. Gratus deposed Annas and made his son Eleazar, and afterwards Caiaphas, his son-in-law, high priest. Pontius Pilate, the suc- cessor of Gratus, was also appointed by Tiberius, and was the nominee of Sejanus, the emperor's un- principled favourite. The name Tiberias, given to the city and lake, was intended by Herod Antipas as a compliment to the reigning emperor. See art. TIBERIAS. C. H. PRICHARD. TIBHATH (nºt ‘extensive,” “level’; B Mera- 8%xas, A Matégé0; Thebath).-A city of Hadarezer, king of Zobah, from which David took much brass (1 Ch 18°). In 2 S 8° the name of the town is Betah, but the original reading was probably Tebah, as in the Syriac version, and as a tribal name in Gil 22*. The site of Tibhath is unknown, but it was jossibly on the eastern slopes of Anti-Lebanon, |. which range and the Euphrates Aram- Zobah is supposed to have been situated. C. W. WILSON. TIBNI ("Jān; B 6apºvet, A €aput, Luc. Qaffevvel).- After the seven days' reign of ZIMRI had ended in his death in the flames of his palace, Tibni disputed the throne for four years (compare 1 IC 16” with v.”) with OMIRI, whose sway was acknowledged only after the death of Tibni and his brother Joram. Our knowledge of Joram we owe ºc the TIDAL TIGRIS 76) IXX, whose addition (in 1 K 16”) ka? 'Iwpäp 6 döexpós atroſ év tº Katp:9 &Keivy no doubt preserves an original Nºnn nya ºnx Dm') which has dropped out of the Heb. text. TIDAL (ºyTh; A 9axyá, 6axyáA, Luc. QapyáX ; Thadal).-King of GOIIM, who, along with Arioch of Ellasar and Amraphel of Shinar, followed his suzerain, Chedorlaomer of Elam, in his campaigns in Palestine (Gn 14”"). His name has recently been found * by Mr. Pinches in a cuneiform tablet (Sp. iii. 2. 13) under the form of Tudghula in con- nexion with Eri-Aku of Larsa, Kham muſrabi] of Babylon, and Kudur-Laghghamar of Elam. Tud- ghula is here called the son of Gazzaſnij. In another tablet relating to the same historical events we read : ‘Who is Kudur - Laghghamar, the worker of evil? He has assembled the Umman Manda, he has laid waste the people of Bel (i.e. the Babylonians), and [has marched] at their side.’ The Umman Manda, or ‘Barbarian Hordes,’ were the mountaineers who lived to the north of Elam, and the name given to them is the Bab. equivalent of the Heb. Goiim. It seems probable, therefore, that Tudghula or Tidal came from the mountains N.E. of Babylonia. A. H. SAYCE. TIGLATH - PILESER (ºpshirnºn; B 'AXya.04 ex- Mágap, , 9a)\!ya.0%éA\éoap, 0a)\!ya)\pex\doap, A 'AyAaff- ºpa AA&gap, Luc. 9eyAaſha)\doap ; Assyr. Tukulti-Pal- Jºsarra, “ (my) trust is (Ninip) the son of E-Sarra,’ E-Sarra signifying ‘the House of Hosts.” The Heb., spelling of the first part of the name is peculiar, but precisely the same spelling is found in the Aram. inscriptions of Zinjerli, which are vontemporaneous with the reign of Tiglath-pileser. In 1 Ch 5". " and 2 Ch 28” we ſind the corrupt form Tilgath-pilneser [nºngºn; B eaxyagavágap, 9ayvaqapadaſap, 6a)\ºyaqex\d.öap; A GayNabºba)\váoap ; Luc. 6eyNabºba)\&gap]). The Tiglath-pileser of OT is Tiglath-pileser III. of the native monuments, whose original name was Pulu (the Pul of 2 K 1519). He usurped the Assyr, crown, the 13th day of Iyyar, B.C. 745, after the fall of the older Assyr. dynasty, and assumed the name of Tiglath-pileser from that of a famous Assyr. king and conqueror who had reigned four centuries, previously. In Babylonia, however, he continued to be known by his original name Pulu. Tiglath-pileser III., the founder of the second Assyr. empire, was a man of great ability, both military and administrative. He introduced a new system of policy, the object of which was to weld the whole of W. Asia into a single empire, bound together by a bureaucratic organization. It was the first experiment in political centraliza- tion. He also established a standing army, which he made, by careful training and equipment, an irresistible engine of war. And it was he who first devised the system of satrapies and finance which prevailed in the Persian empire of later days. Immediately after his accession he marched into Rabylonia, where he subdued the Aramaean tribes and united the northern portion of the country to Assyria. In B.C. 744 he chastised the wild tribes on the eastern frontiers of his kingdom, penetrating into the remotest parts of Media. Next he had to defend himself against Sarduris II. of Ararat and his allies from Asia Minor. These he defeated in -a pitched battle, capturing no fewer than 72,050 Rolli. of the enemy as well as the city of Arpad in N. Syria. Here he received tribute from various princes, including Rezin of Damascus and Hiram of Tyre. Arpad, however, revolted immediately afterwards. }. B.C. 742, accordingly, * Ring, Letters of IIammatrabi, i. (1898) p. liii, and Ball, | Jrom the Jºast, p. 70, however, question these identiſlea- 10118, he began the siege of it ; but it did not fall till B.C. 740. In , B.C. 739 the Assyrians came into conflict with Azariah of Judah (not Yadi in N. Syria, as has recently been suggested ; but see art. UZZIAII, and ASSYRIA, vol. i. p. 185°), whose allies from Hamath were overthrown, and the 19 dis- tricts of Hamath placed under Assyr. governors. Meanwhile the Assyr. generals had suppressed a revolt among the Aramaean tribes in 13abylonia. Transportations of the conquered populations now took place on a large scale. This was the be- ginning of a policy which was afterwards more fully developed by the Assyr. and Bab. kings. Tribute was again brought to Tiglath-pileser by the kings of Åsia Minor, Syria, and Palestine, among them being Menahem of Samaria (2 K 1519). In B.C. 737 there was another campaign in the east, the Medes and other neighbouring tribes being overrun, and in 736 war again broke out with Ararat. In B.C. 735 Ararat itself was in- vaded, and, though the capital Dhuspas (now Van) resisted capture, the country round it was ravaged to the extent of 450 miles. Next year (B.C. 734) Tiglath-pileser was summoned to the help of Ahaz of Judah, called Jehoahaz in the cuneiform texts, who had been attacked by Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Damascus. Rezin was defeated in a decisive battle, and fled to his capital, which was thereupon , closely, invested by the Assyrians. With another portion of his army T. now ravaged 16 districts of Syria, captured Samahla (the modern Zinjerli), and descended on the kingdom of Samaria. Gilead and Abel-[Beth-Maacah] were annexed to Assyria (2 K 15”); tribute was received from Ammon and Moab; the Philistine cities, Ekron, Ashdod, and Ashkelon, were conquered, and Gaza was plundered. Edom was also compelled to submit as well as Samsi, queen of the Arabs of Saba or Sheba. Various cities of N. Arabia, in- cluding Tema (now Teima), were taken at the same time. In B.C. 732 Damascus fell at last, Rezin was put to death, and an Assyr. satrap appointed in his place. After the capture of Damascus, T. held a court there, which was attended by the subject princes, Kustaspi, of Comagénē, Urikki of lºué, Sibittibaal of Gebal, Eniel of Hamath, Panammū of Samahla, Tarkhu-lara of Gurgum, Suluval of Milid (Malatiyeh), Uas-survi of Tubal, Uskhitti of Tuna, Urpalla of Tukhana, Tu- khammu of Istunda, Matan-baal of Arvad, Sanibu of Ammon, Solomon (Salamanu) of Moab, Metinti of Ashkelon, Jehoahaz (Yahu-khazi) of Judah, Kaus- malaka of Edom, and Khanun (Hanno) of Gaza. It was while he was at Damascus that Ahaz saw the altar of which he sent the pattern to Jerusalem (2 K 16”). Soon afterwards Uas-survi of Tubal revolted : for this the people were fined, and a new king established over them. Metenna of Tyre was also forced to become tributary to Assyria, and to pay 150 talents of gold to the Assyrian exchequer. About B.C. 730 (or perhaps 733) Pekah of Samaria was murdered by Hoshea, whom T. claims to have appointed to the throne. In B.C. 731 the Assyr. king marched into Babylonia, and received an embassy from Merodach-baladan, the Kaldà, prince who ruled in the marshes at the mouths of the Tigris and Euphrates. But it was not until B.C. 728 that he succeeded in occupying Babylon and receiving the crown from the hands of Bel, thereby making his title to the throne legitimate, and becoming king of Western Asia de jurc. In the following year, B.C. 727, in the early part of the month Tebet, he died. He had built two palaces—one at Nineveh, the other at Calah (now Nimrūd). A. H. SAYC1. TIGRIS.–See HIDDEKEL. The Tigris rises a little South of Lake Göljik, and flows south 762 TIKWAH TIME ward to Diarbekr. After passing Diarbekr, it receives the eastern Tigris (which rises in the Niphates mountains) at Osman Kieui. Then it flows through narrow gorges into the plateau of Mesopotamia, where it receives from the east the Greater and Lesser Zab, the Adhem or Radanu, and the Diyaleh or Tornadotus. On the E. bank, opposite Mosul, were Nineveh and Calah, a little of the junction of the Tigris and Greater Zab ; and on the W. bank, N. of the Lesser Zab, was Assur (now Kalah Sherghat), the primitive capital of Assyria. The Tigris is about 1150 miles in length, and rises rapidly in March and April owing to the melting of the snows, falling again after the middle of May. A. H. SAYCE. TIKYAH (nºn).-1. The father-in-law of HULDAH the prophetess, 2 K 22* (B Gekkovač, A €9ekkové, Luc. 6ekové), called in 2 Ch 34* Tokhath (Kéré nºpf, Köth. nilpin; B KabovdA, A €aková6, Luc. 6ekwé). 2. The father of JAHZEIAH, a contemporary of Ezra, Ezr 10” (B ENKevä, A €ekové), called in l Es 914 Thocanus. TILE, TILING (mah, képauos).—In Ezk 41 ° tile' is the rendering of Hja', which is elsewhere tr. “brick’ (LXX TAlv00s). See BRICK. In Lk 5", in the account of the healing of the para- lytic at Capernaum, the sufferer is said to have been let down Övö. Töv kepápav (AW ‘through the tiling,’ RV ‘through the tiles’). The parallel passage (Mk 2*) is more detailed in its expressions (ātrea réºyaa'av Thu aréymv . . . . kal éopúšavres), and a difficulty has been felt in reconciling these with Luke's phrase. The roofs of Oriental houses are usually formed by laying tree trunks with the branches and twigs from wall to wall. Above these is a layer of earth about a foot thick, and over this is spread a paste of clay and straw, which hardens in the sun and renders the roof impervious to rain. This upper layer needs to be renewed at the beginning of the winter season (Nowack, Heb. Arch. i. 140; Benzinger, Heb. Arch. 116). Mark’s account seems to suggest the breaking-up of such a roof as this, while Luke's expression does not, and various explanations of the latter have been attempted. The idea of a door or trap in the roof does not fit either narra- tive. It has been suggested that Ötö. Töv kepúuav is to be understood in the general sense of ‘through the roof,” though, if taken literally, the words would be more applicable to Greek and Roman houses than to those of Palestine. Another explanation is that the court of the house was partly roofed over but had an opening above the centre, which was covered in wet weather by tiles, which could be easily removed (so Godet, following Delitzsch, Ein Tag in Capernaum, 44–46). The best view, however, is that of Tristram (Eastern Customs in Bible Lands, 34, 35), who states that ordinary Galilaean houses of the present day have a court separated from the street by a wall on one side, while on the other three sides it is surrounded by apartments opening into it. The roofs of these apartments are always of earth and lime, firmly pressed down and whitewashed. The roof may be supported by pillars on the side next the court, from which the rooms may be separated only by movable curtains. From the roof proper, however, eaves stretch over the court for six feet or more. These are supported on light rafters, and are covered with matting or with shingles (wooden tiles) lightly tacked together. The principal apartment is on the side of the court away from the street. In the case before us both this and the court itself would be full of people, and Jesus, in order to be heard by all, would be standing at the outer margin of the room. Access could be gained to the roof by an butside stairway, and if the covering of the eaves –4 were removed, as it could easily be, the paralytic could be let down from the edge of the roof proper to the very spot where Jesus was. The expressions in Mark, though applicable to the breaking through of an earthen roof, describe this proceeding equally well. AMES PATRICK. TILGATH-PILNESER.—See TIGLATH-PILESER. TILON (Köré ſºn, Kéth, nºn; B 'Ivöv, A €ixów, Luc. 60)\elu).-A son of Shimon, 1 Ch 4”. TIMAEUS, only Mk 10%—Father of the blind beggar BARTIMAEUs (vol. i. p. 248). If the name be Greek, it must be written Tluatos, and thus WH write even the second name Baptipatos ; if it be Semitic, like most names in -atos in the NT, it must be Tupaios, like Zakxaios, Baptoxoplatos, etc. Both suppositions have their difficulties. Again, ‘the son of Timaeus’ (vlós Tupualov) seems a mere translation of Baptuatos. Ecclesiastical tradition gives to the name the meaning ‘blind ' (see Onomastica sacra, ed. Lagarde, 176, 35, Baptuaſos viðs twq}\ós; 66, 10 (Jerome): Barsemia filius caecus, quod et insum quidam corrupte Barti- maeum legunt)." Nº, Nººp means ‘blind '; but how are we to get from sémé to timai ? Jastrow (Dic- tionary, p. 532; similarly, Krauss, Lehnwörter) mentions from Koh, rabba to Ec 97.77 nºni vivin' ºn ‘pe, but Yalk. Koh. 979 has only shºw", and with Dalman, Aramäisch - meathebrätsches Wörterbuch, p. 162, we must perhaps read "pº =Simeon. The Thesaurus Syriacus (486, 1462) mentions a place 'pºp nº. The Syriac Versions, including the Arabic Tatian, Syrus Sinaiticus, and the Palestinian Syriac (Land, Anecdota Syriaca, iv. 141), read Timai bar Timai, the Egyptian Catema, as published by Lagarde (1886, p. 101), BAPTIMENOC IIoHPI NTIMENOC. Origen connected the name with riptſ (6 Tis ripºs étrévvuos); Strauss thought of étréttawy in v. *; others of VNDo ‘unclean '; Neu- bauer (Studia Biblica, i. 57) would spell it Nººn, against the general rule that T=b. The ety- mology is still obscure, and so is the relation of the account of Mark to that of Luke and Matthew. See Schmiedel, Enc. Bibl. i. 489–491 ; Nestle, Mar- ginalien, 1893, pp. 83-92; art. BARTIMARUs in vol. i. p. 248. 4. EB. NESTLE. . TIMBREL.—Sce TABRET. TIME. –i. ERAS.—The Bible offers insufficient data for conſident generalizations regarding the methods employed at various periods for measur- ing and indicating the passage of time. We should naturally expect considerable changes in these methods as the Israelites passed through various phases of civilization and modes of living. The literary records, however, do not completely reflect all these modified conditions, and just as Josephus translates the current Jewish dates of his age into their Macedonian equivalents, so earlier writers would probably date past events in accordance with their own rather than with the ancient systems of the calendar. Until the 2nd cent. B.C. we know of no fixed era from which events were dated by the Israelites. The books of the Maccabees show us the Seleucidean era (be- ginning B.C. 312) in full force. This era (minyan Yevamim “numbering of the Greeks,’ or minyan shetaroth “numbering of documents’) was the first to be adopted and the last to be rejected by the Jews; it survived among the Egyptian Jews till the 16th cent. A.D. The ordinary Seleucid era began with the autumn of the year B.C. 312; but Schürer (II.JP I. i. p. 37) maintains that the * On the Syriac lexicographers (IBar Ali, Bar Bahlul) see Ncstle, Marginalien, p. 87. - TIME TIME 763. authors of the books of the Maccabees reckon the year from the spring season, though later Jews counted from the autumn (Tishri). Wellhausen rejects Schürer's theory (IJG* 258). Several of the Hellenistic cities founded along the seacoast of Judaea, and in the north had eras of their own in the Greek period (after Alexander the Great), but the only exact Jewish parallel is found in the time of Simon the Maccabee (143–2 B.C.). “In the hundred and seventieth year (of the Seleuci- dean era) was the yoke of the heathen taken away from Israel. And the people began to write in their instruments and contracts, “In the first year of Simon the great high priest and captain and leader of the Jews”’ (1 Mac 13*). No documents so dated are extant, but it has been doubtfully conjectured [but see art. MONEY in vol. iii. p. 424 fr.] that some silver coins bearing the year numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and the inscription Dºwn" Tønp, etc., refer to this era. That the era of Simon was of short duration is certain ; even in 1 Mac. (14”) it is only employed side by side with the more permanently used Selucidean epoch. The prevalent method of dating events both in OT º NT is by regnal years of monarchs, or by synchronism with other events [see CHRONOLOGY]. The Exodus from Egypt was sometimes taken as an era (1 K 6", cf. Ex 191, Nu 33*); and Ezekiel (1*) perhaps turns the reformation of Josiah (B.C. 622–1) to this purpose. It is unlikely that the ‘thirtieth year’ refers to Ezekiel’s own age [but see Budde in Eaſoos. Times, Oct. 1900, p. 39 ft., and Aug. 1901, p. 525 f.], though the patriarchal dates are often collated with the ages of various char- acters. At the beginning of the Christian era, the Jews were compelled to adopt the year of the Roman emperors as their norm (Graetz, History of the Jews, Eng. tr. ii. 134). The erection of Solomon’s temple (1 K 9"), the commencement of the Egyptian entanglement (Gn 15*), the Baby- lonian Exile (Ezk 33° 40'), and such natural phenomena as a remarkable earthquake (‘two years before the earthquake,” Am lº), were also in a minor degree used as eras. Soon after the time of Christ, the Jews must have devised a method of counting by anno mundi, for the Talmud assumes that something like 4000 years separated the destruction of the temple from the Creation. The dating by A.M. first occurs in the Seder Hadoroth, a work attributed to Jose ben Chalafta. The Jewish system differs from the Dionysian era (6th cent. A.D.), and, while Ussher dates the Christian era, as 4004 A.M., the current Jewish numbering assigns the year 3760 A.M. to the beginning of that era. Thus the Jewish year beginning September 1901 is 5662 A.M. Jews in later times occasionally used the Mohammedan era, and dated from the Hegira. There is no indication whatever that the Jews ever turned the jubilee period to calendar use in the same manner in which the Olympiads were employed. They may, however, have made use of the idea of the dor or ‘generation.’ ii. THE YEAR.—In the main, the Jewish year was lunar, with corrections designed to bring about a more or less exact correspondence with the solar seasons. It seems to have been the view of the writer of the first report of the Flood (P) that the oldest Hebrew year was a patre lunar year, containing 12 lunar months and 354 days. n Gn 7” (cf. 8") the Flood is said to have lasted from the 17th of the 2nd month in one year to the 27th of the 2nd month in the next year, or 1 year. and l l days. This reckoning, as 13enzinger sug- gests (Heb. Arch. p. 198), arose through the trans- ation of a solar year into its lunar equivalent. The actual duration of the Flood was in the general Semitic tradition a year, meaning a solar year of 365 days. “In the presupposition that the oldest ages had a pure moon year, P, when dating the Flood, uses such a year as the basis, and shows his archaeological knowledge and his pretended historical exactitude by not giving the round figure a year, but he gives the right total in an inferential manner.” It may, however, well be that we have here a genuine tradition of an ancient pure lunar year; moreover, even when Solar corrections were made, some Jewish years were more or less purely lunăr. From another factor in the I'lood narrative, the 150 days, which amounted to 5 months, a year of 12 x 30 =360 days has been inferred (Schwarz, Der Jüdische Kalender, p. 7). So much is certain, that in the historical time the Hebrew year was solar, though the months were lunar. The Calendar must have been roughly congruous with the cycle of natural life. The old Arabs had a sun-year of 365 days before Mohammed converted it into the pure lunar year of 354 days, which still prevails. . The fact that solar considerations must early have affected the Hebrew Calendar is obvious from the cycle of feasts which on the one hand fell in delinitely fixed lunar months, and on the other hand coincided with equally definite seasons of the Solar year. In the pure lunar year, Passover would, in a period of about 34 years, make the round of all the four seasons (Schwarz, p. 9). This was an impossibility in the Jewish Calendar. How the correction was effected we have no means of discovering. The lunar character of the Calendar must have prevented the intercalation of an odd 10 or 11 days annually (as Lewisohn suggests, Gesch. und Syst. d. A. p. 6), yet we are nowhere told of an intercalary month, unless the law as to the deferred Passover (Nu 9") be held to be some indication of it. The Talmud (Sanhed. 12 a.) proves the biblical knowledge of the intercalary month from 1 K 4", but the argument is ineffective. On the other hand, 1 Ch 27, where arrangements for the succession of royal officers are only made for 12 months, cannot be held to prove the total ignorance of intercalation of a thirteenth month. The knowledge of this method was very ancient in Babylon, an intercalated Elul being older than the intercalated Adar. The latter, being sacred to Ashur, must have been the work of astronomers standing under Assyrian authority (Jastrow, Icel. of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 463). The Babylonian year seems to have consisted of 12 lunar months of 30 days each, intercalary months being added by the priests when necessary (W. Muss-Arnolt, ‘The Names of the Assyro- Babylonian Months and their Regents,’ in JBL vol. xi. p. 72 f.). In later times, according to Strassmaier and Epping (Astronomisches aws Babylon), months of 30 days alternated with months of 29 days (Nisan, Tammuz, Elul, Tishri, Kislev, Shebat, and Adar had 30 days, while the others had only 29). Muss-Arnolt º him- self as uncertain whether the intercalary months were fixed, or were added whenever the priestly directors of the Calendar discovered that the dis- agreement between it and the true year had become serious. We may fairly assume that the latter was the method in ancient Israel, at all events till well into the post-exilic period. With- out any definite rules a month was probably intercalated on occasion, when the discrepancy was sufficiently marked (Schwarz, p. 14) to render correction imperative. Some have sought to find the key to the ancient intercalations in the jubilee periods (Zuckermann, Ueber Sabbatja.hrcyklits und Jobelperiode ; Schwarz, pp. 10–12), with 18 or 19 intercalary months inserted in every 49 or 50 years. All such exact calculations, including those baited on eras of 8 or 84 years, and more particularly on the Metonic cycle of 19 years, certainly belong to 764 TIME TIME the post - Christian period. Jewish tradition is very consistent in its evidence that the old method of empiric intercalation both of a monthly day and a yearly month prevailed for many centuries after Christ (see NEW MOON). Schürer (Appendix iii. to Division i, vol. ii.) expounds the generally accepted view of Jewish *iº as against Wieseler (see, however, CHRONOLOGY). Throughout the Middle Ages the empiric method partially held its ground. Nevertheless, calculation (of which we have early indications in Enoch 72 ft.) must have much aided observation, and we read of family traditions in the case of Gamaliel (Rosh Hashama 25a), and the mean duration of the lunar month (about 29% days) must have been known long before the destruction of the temple (see the evidence for this in Schwarz, p. 19). the middle of the 2nd cent. A.D. the alsº calendar was on the way to acceptance (Sanhed. 12a), but it was not fully adopted till the 4th cent. under Hillel II. In the intervening period the proclamation of New Moon and of the intercalary months was still dependent on the evidence of eye-witnesses as to the re- appearance of the moon on the one hand, and the relation of the lunar months to the solar seasons on the other. But astronomical calcula- tion was certainly utilized as well, and, by ob- serving 2 days' new moon in places distant from the Patriarchate, some of the difficulties of the Diaspora were removed. (See on this and on other boints of the Rabbinic calendar, Zuckermann, Material. 2wr Ent. der , altjid. Zeitrechnung). The fixing of the Day of Atonement was, how- ever, a perennial difficulty until a calculated calendar was finally adopted, based on the Metonic cycle with variations which do not belong to the scope of the present article. Beginning of the Year.—‘The Hebrew year had begun in the autumn with the month of Sep- tember; but side by side with this West-Semitic calendar there had also been in use in Palestine another calendar, that of Babylonia, according to which the year began with Nisan or March. It was the Babylonian Calendar which was now introduced for ritual purposes. While the civil year still began in the autumn, it was ordained that the sacred year should begin in the spring. The sacred year was determined by the annual festivals, and the first of these festivals was hence- forth to be the Passover. The beginning of the new year was henceforth fixed by the Passover moon’ (Sayce, EHH p. 178). According to Dill- mann (Momatsberichte, Societas Regia Scientiarum, Berlin, 1881) both the autumn and the spring new years are pre-exilic. The autumn era was, he holds, an economic rather than a calendar year; but, as Nowack well remarks, to an agricultural people the economic year must have coincided with the calendar year. That at all events an economic year began in the autumn is clear from such phrases as ºn nity?, Fºr nºph (‘the end of the year,’ Ex 23* 34”, cf. 1 S 20) used in describing the autumn harvest festival. The narrative of the Flood places the commencement on the 17th of the 2nd month, which on an autumn reckoning would correspond with the rainy season. The sabbatical year began in autumn (Lv 25°), though it was not at the beginning of a calendar year (being on the 10th of the month). The royal years also at one time began in the autumn, and the synchronism of the Jewish events with the regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar in Jeremiah (46%) seems to sup- ort the same conclusion. Dillmann at all events infers that the second half of the Jewish royal }. corresponded with the first half of the Baby. onian royal year (the fourth year of Jehoiakim corresponds both to the first year of Nebuchad. nezzar, Jer 25', and to the twenty-first of his pre- * * * decessor Nabopolasar, in which the battle of Carchemish was fought). But besides the autumn year a spring era seems also to have been pre-exilic. The use of the term Hyū nº for the resumption of royal campaigns (2 S 111, 1 K 20% ", 2 Ch 360°) points to a spring era. So also does the order of the feasts. In the oldest form (Ex 2314-19), as well as in J (Ex 34*), and Deut. (16”), the cycle begins with Passover and ends with Tabernacles. A Babylonian in- fluence, to which was, however, due the intro- duction of the new names for the months, need not therefore be sought for this fixing of the be- ginning of the year in the spring (Ex 12°, and in Priestly Code throughout), but the period of the Exile no doubt did mark the dº. of the change from the autumnal to the vernal equinox. By this arrangement the order of the months began in Nisan, but the succession of years began in Tishri. Josephus is clearly accurate when he says (Ant. I. iii. 3): “Moses º that Nisan, which is the same with Xanthicus, should be the first month for their festivals, because he brought them out of Egypt in that month : so that this month began the year, as to all the Solemnities they observed to the honour of God-–although he preserved the original order of the months as to selling and buying and other ordinary affairs.” The Mishna (IRosh Hashama i. 1) enumerates four new years—Nisan (for kings and the cycle of feasts), Elul (for the tithes of cattle), Tishri (for years, as at present in the Jewish Calendar, Sab- batical years and jubilees, and other agricultural purposes), Shebat (for trees). “During the Exile,’ says Benzinger, “the new year seems to have been calculated not on the first but on the 10th of the 7th month (Lv 25", Ezk 40), only later was the great Atonement festival fixed on this day.’ But it may be doubted whether the 10th of the 71 h month was ever the beginning of a calendºr year. But the 1st of Tishri with its rite of blowing the shöphär (see TRUMPET), and its later, spiritual associations as a day of penitence, acquired great importance in the Jewish Calendar. (On the history of the New Year Liturgy see Friedmann in JQR, vol. i. p. 62 f.). Divisions of the Year. — The regular Hebrew word for “year’ is nº (Assyr. sand ‘to change,’ whence sattu ‘year’). In Daniel jºy means both an indefinite period of time (like the Heb. ny), and more definitely a year (Dn 4 and 7”). Buhl com- pares a similar definition of meaning in the case of the word xpévos, which in new Greek signifies ‘year.” In Daniel, again (12"), we meet with a use of Tºp for “year,’ though elsewhere the word more generally denotes an appointed or recurrent period such as the feast (exclusive of the Sabbath and New Moon). Another word pl, which occurs only in late Hebrew (Ec 3", Neh 2") as a generic term for ‘time,” had already acquired in canonical Hebrew (Est 9**) the sense of season or festival, which it conveyed in Iłabbinic Hebrew." The ordinary seasons of the year were also distin- guished in Hebrew as "p ‘summer’ and Th * autumn and winter.” August is usually the warmest month, February the coldest in Judaea. The Tin was further divided into two parts (I)t 1114) by the nº “earlier rain” (October) and cºpºp ‘the later rain ' (spring equinox). Generic terms for the differences of temperature were np “cold ' (Gn 8”) and Dr. ‘ heat ' (ib.). The sowing period was known as yº) (ib.), the harvest-time as "YR (mid-April till mid-June, the barley and wheat- harvest being meant). * The Babylonian year was divided into reš satti “begin: ning of the year,’ ”nisil Katti ‘ the middle of the year,’ and kit Ratti ‘ond of the year.’ Two of the terms are paralleled in IIcbrew TIME TIME 765 iii. MonTHS.–The Hebrew months have always been unar, and extended from one new moon to another. archºw (n1), which properly signifies the ‘beginning of the month’ (Muss-Arnolt, p. 73. Much of the following information is derived from this excel- lent authoriº). The same word appears in Ara- maean (Ezr 6", Dn 4*), Phoenician, and Ethiopic. In Hebrew the word is common in the pre-exilic assages, but it became entirely superseded by wºn. H. ast word, properly ‘new-moon’ (which see), is employed (like the Assyrian iddisw) only for the beginning of the month, by other Semitic peoples; its use for “month' was an innovation of the Israelites. There are three sets of terms to distinguish the biblical months—(a) old (Canaanite) names, (b) numbers, and (c) the Babylonian names. (a) Of the first class only four have survived : these names are all derived from climatic and economic conditions. Similarly, the earliest epithets of the months among the 13abylonians #. connected with agriculture and the pastoral ife. Abib (nºis month of the ripening ears, Ex 13” etc.), subsequently the 1st month. Ziy (), month of flowers, 1 K 6'), subsequently the 2nd month. Ethanim (D-IIIs month of perennial streams, 1 K 8°), subsequently the 7th month. Bul (%a rain month, I K 6*), subsequently the 8th month. The last two names also occur in Phoenician in- scriptions; Ethanim having been found in Cyprus (middle of 4th cent. B.C.) and Bul in Sidon (4th cent. B.C. ; see Driver in Hogarth’s Awthority and Archaeology, pp. 137, 138, and Buhl-Gesenius, s.v.). (b) In the time of the Exile these old Canaanite names were dropped, and the months were dis- tinguished by numerals, as in parts of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Kings (in the latter the old names are explained by numbers, 1 K 6” “ 8*), lastly in Haggai (11 2) and Zechariah (17 7"). See Nowack, IIeb. Archäologie, i. p. 217. (c) I'rom the Exile the new Babylonian names begin to find a definite place in the Hebrew Calendar. The proofs for the Babylonian origin of these names may be found in §. in Schrader, COT' (ii. 69). Cf. Schürer, Appendix iii. Of the twelve names only seven occur in Scripture, but the whole twelve appear in the Megillath Ta'anith, which in its original form dates before the Christian era. (1) Nisan jºl, Eavôukós, Xanthicus, March–April. The English equivalents are inexact : Nisan mostly corre- sponds to part of March and part of April. Nisan occurs in Neh 21, Est 37. The Gr. form Nuccºw (Nstoo.ſv) occurs in 1 lºs 69, Ad. Est 11, and often in Josephus. The Macedonian Yan- thicus is found in 2 Mac 1130, 38. JS. The first month in the Iłabylonian year is mi-sa-a(n)-mw, from mesw (Heb. VDJ) to ‘move,” or “start.” It is the opening month of the ecclesi- astical year. That the vernal equinox occurred in Nisan is attested by Josephus (A mºt. I. x. 5) and also in cuneiform literature (Muss-Arnolt, p. 77). Nisan corresponded to the first zodiacal sign (Aries) in which the vernal equinox fell. That Josephus frequently uses the Macedonian names as equivalent to the Heb.-Bab. does not imply that he thought that the two series of months began on identical days.” (2) Iyyar nºs, "Apreputatos, April–May. Not named in Scripture, but found in Hashana i. 3; Jos. Amt. Vul. iii. 1. ( I'p), Hypomnest. , 27 (E. cºp); Bab. a-a-ru. Derivation uncertain ; perhaps connected with mix ‘to be bright' (so 1)elitzsch), or n°N ‘to send forth, open, germinate,’ whence ARU ‘flower' (so Muss-Arnolt). This would malco the meaning equivalent to Ziv and April (a perire). The Megillath Ta'anith identifies Iyyar with the 2nd month mentioned in 1 Mac 1301. Mishna, Rosh * The Dioscorinthius of 2 Mac 1121 is quite obscure (cf. note in RVm). It is barely probable that the author wrote Dios- curus (the reading of O.L.), the name of the third Cretan month (see Kamphausen's note in Kautzsch's Apokr. ad loc.). The oldest Semitic word for month was (3) Siyan lººp, Aatatos, May–June. Est 89; Mishna, Shekalim, iii. 1, etc. Gr. Xiovºv (Bar 18), niso 26.10%xà ; Bab, bi-ana(n)-nu, pronounced later 8i-vamw. Delitzsch (Hebrew and 488 yrian, p. 16) derives from 8amnu ‘to appoint.” (D"w), Haupt from agamºu “to mark.” (4) Tammuz tºº, IIávepos, June–July. The word but not the month mentioned in Bible (Ezk 814). Mishna, Ta'amith iv. 5; Bab. dw-wzw. LXX has €oºp.oſ. (5) Ab is, Agos, July–August. Not mentioned in Bible. , Mishna, Pegachim iv. 5, etc.; Bab. a-bºt ; Jos. Amt. Iv. iv. 7, 'Ago... [Niese reads X28%]. Delitzsch derives from Assyr. abw ‘hostile ’ (from excessive heat of month), Haupt from abe ‘bulrushes’ (cf. Job 920 minx), the Season in which bulrushes were cut for building purposes. This, with two other months, was consecrated by the Baby- lonians to building. (6) Elul ºbs, Topriatos, August–September. Neh 610; Mishna, Shekalim iii. 1, etc.; "Exoga, 1 Mac 1427; Bab. wlulu. Perhaps from 99. (alalw) “to shout for joy,' inasmuch as the month represented the resurrection of Tammuz-Adonis (Muss-Arnolt). (7) Tishri nºr, "Trepéeperatos, September–October. Not named in Scripture, Mishna, Shekalim iii. 1, etc.; Gr. Ouapi ; Jos. Amt. VIII. iv. 1 [as annended by Hudson ; Niese reads 'A0%psi]; Bab. tish-ri-twm. From surrw “begin,” “dedicate.’ The Assyrians, like the Jews, had two new year days—Nisan for the sacred year, Tishri for the civil. The Seleucidean year began in Nisan, the Arsacidan with Tishri (Epping and Strass- maier, Astronomisches aws Babylon, p. 177). The month was dedicated to the sun-god, and Halévy (Mélanges de critique et d'histoire, p. 178) conjectures that this originated the later Jewish association of Tishri with the Creation and the Day of Judgment. (8) Marcheshyan pºrºp, Aſos, October–November. Not named in Scripture. Mishna, Ta'amith i. 3, etc.; Jos. Mopgovºyzs; Bab. arachsamma (“eighth month')="3"p: nin. Original form probably ipvrin, whence penno () and p being often interchanged in later Babylonian). Modern IIebrew re- garded Heshvan as the name of the month (nar being taken to mean “drop,’ ‘rainy season '). Dillmann and Stade see in the Bab. name of this month a relic of the oldest method of count- ing the months by numbers and not by names. See Siegfried- Stade, Dict. 8. v. Th". (9) Kisley lºº, 'AtréNNaſos, November–December. Zec 71, Neh 11 ; Mishna, Rosh Hashama i. 3, etc.; Gr. Xozors.Asi, (1 Mac 104 etc.; Jos. Amt. X11. v. 4, 2&ora ev); in Palmyrene In- scriptions %955; Bab. kislimu. Derivation uncertain. (10) Tebeth nint), A56vvaſos, December–January. Est 210 ; Mishna, Ta'amith iv. 5, etc.; Jos, Tigstok (Amt. xi. v. 4, but see Niese); Bab, tebetwin. Tebu (Heb. yato)= ‘to sink,’ ‘dip.’ The rainy season begins in 10th month. (11) Shebat biº, IIeptrios, January–February. Zec 17; Mishna, Rosh IIashama i. 1; Gr. X28%r (1 Mac 1614); Bab. Sha-ba-tw. (12) Adar nºis, Atarpos, February–March. Freq. in Esth., Ezr 615; Mishna, Shekalin, i.1, etc.; 'A3&p, 1 Mac 74°; Jos. Amt. Iv. viii. 49, etc.; 13ab. addaru. Delitzsch derives from a root ‘to be dark’ in contrast to aru. It was, says Muss - Arnolt, the name of this month that induced former investigators to derive the Heb. names from Persian, for Adur is also a Persian month name. (See Benfey, Momatsmannen einiger alter l'èlker). The intercalated month was a second Adar (Heb. Jº nºs, Megilla i. 4, or nºs). iv. WEEKS AND DAYS.—The week of seven days (ºnly) is an obvious derivative of the lunar month, for the week corresponds roughly to the phases of the moon. The discrepancy would not affect the Hebrew week, for there is no indication that the new moon in historical times coincided with the beginning of the week. The Assyrians and Baby- lonians knew the seven-day week, and the week began with the moon, whereas the Hebrew week ran regularly through the whole year, especially when the weekly Sabbath replaced the new moon in importance as a sacred day. Nowack (ii. 215) unnecessarily assumes that the Israelites probably borrowed the week from the Babylonians. He, with others (see Holzinger on Ex 12"), detects 766 TIME TIMNAH traces of an older Hebrew week of ten days (Gn 24*, Ex 12°), but this is very doubtful. It would perhaps fit in with the idea of a year of 360 days (traces of a thirty-day month being detected by Nowack in Nu 20°, Dt 348, cf. 2119, as well as in the Flood narrative). Driver holds that “it is diffi- cult not to agree with Schrader, Sayce, and other Assyriologists in regarding the week of seven days, ended by a Sabbath, as an institution of Baby- lonian origin' (op. cit, p. 18). The week thus is presupposed by the Creation narrative, and is not derived from it. “In other words, the week de- termined the “days” of Creation, not the days of Creation the week’ (ib.). This may well be, and et the Hebrew week not necessarily a derivative rom Babylon. (Jastrow has shown that the Hebrew Creation narrative is more independent of Babylonian parallels than has usually been sup- posed. JQI, xiii. p. 620 ft.). See, further, on this subject, Jensen in Ztschr, f, deutsche Wort- forschwing, Sept. 1900, p. 153 ff.; and art. SABBATH above, p. 319. In the NT (as in neo-Hebrew) the week is termed oré88atov, and the days of the week were numbered, not named. The eve of the Sabbath (Friday) was called trapaakevi (Mt 27°, Lk 23*, Jn 1991. *; irpá- a'aggarov Mk 15*, Jth 8"). Mondays and Thursdays acquired special importance in the later Jewish life, for the public reading of the Law and the holding of law-courts occurred on those days (see Schürer, ii. 1–83, 190). Schwarz (Jüdische Kalender, p. 7) sug- gests that the num, cring of the Christian Feria: was derived from the Heb usage nigº vº: Jº JNT. See, however, Ideler, Handbuch, ii. 180. - The Babylonians divided the day (Diº) into equal parts by sun-watches, and were also acquainted with the 60 system (minutes and seconds). The Syrian peoples may have acquired similar know- ledge from the Babylonians, but there is no trace of this among the Israelites in the pre-exilic period. There was an important difference be- tween the Israelites and Babylonians, for, while the former began the day at sunset, the latter began the day with the morning. There are, according to most modern commentators, indi- cations of the Babylonian reckoning in the first chapter of Genesis and, according to Dillmann, in Ex 12". 18, Lv 23°. The chaotic darkness (Gn 10) lies behind the reckoning ; with the creation of light began the first morning, and the first day extended till the next morning (so Dillmann). The reckoning from evening to evening became the exclusive Jewish method “with the triumph of the Law.” The system is also met with annong the Arabs, Athenians, and . Gauls (cf. Pliny, H.N. ii. 79). The evening-morning day was the pH any of Dn 8” (though Driver and others explain the phrase in Daniel to mean half - days). Cf. the vux0%uepov of 2 Coll”. There was no exact division of the day into parts before the Exile, the natural order being followed : any “evening,” hpa ‘morn- ing,’ and Dyny ‘mid-day.’ The day declined (JG 19°), perhaps with reference to shadows on a sun- dial (so Moore, but cf. Jer 6"; see DIAL), the evening turned in any n\} (Gn 24"); there were also terms for the evening twilight when, the cool sea-breeze blew (; ; joi. 24%, cf. piºn ºn? (;n 3°); the dawn ascended (nºn nº Gn 1918 322); compare such expressions as “when the day was hot (D)'ſ ph Gn 18", cf. I S 11"). In neo-Hebrew there were other plurases of a similar nature (Mishna, Berakhoth i.). We meet in the Bible with parts of the day described as the time when certain occupations were usual ; as the time when girls were accustomed to fetch the water re- quired for domestic use (Gn 24"); ‘while the day was still great ' (Gn 29) is another similar phrase, but it indicates an earlier point in the afternoon; called the Timnite in Jg 15". the time of bringing the meal-offering (1 k 18*, and of the evening sacrifice (Ezr 94, Dn 9*). These last two refer to the same point of time. Dº sometimes means ‘day’ in contradistinction tº ‘night (**) Gn 29", sometimes it represents the civil day of 24 hours, including night (Gn 1" etc.) The plurase Dºng I’m ‘between the two evenings' (Ex 16” etc.), the time at which the paschal lamb and (Ex 29° etc.) the daily evening offering were brought, represents some period in the late after- In OOIl. The Hebrews also had terms for the days in relation to one another—ºrs ‘the previous even- ing,’ ºpin or ºpns ‘yesterday,’ hºp ‘to-morrow,” Divº ‘the day before yesterday.’ But they did not divide the days into hours until late; in fact, the custom long persisted of counting by portions of the day. The term y2R (in derivation = “moment,’ novimentum) meant an “instant,' or a longer, but still very brief, interval of time, the chief idea being suddenness or rapid passage. Tº “hour' is Aramaic (Dn 3"), and is common in Syr. and in later Hebrew. “Originally it denoted any small interval of time, and was only gradually fixed to what we call an “hour º’’ (Driver). The hours of the Mishna differed in duration, as they were reckoned as ºth of the actual day. Earlier than the division of the day into hours was the division of the night into three watches (Tºp;'s, nºs), La 219, Jg 719, Ex 14”, l S 11”. The threefold division continued into post-Roman times, lst cent. (Bera- khoth. 3b); but the Roman division into four watches was also known (ib.; cf. Mk 13”, where all four watches are referred to : “in the evening’ 6pé, “at midnight pleoſovčkrtov, “at cock-crowing’ &\ektpo- q,wvias, or “in the morning' trpaji), and these ex- tended from six to six o'clock. Cock-crow is an interesting note of time (Lk 22"), to which con- siderable importance was attached by Rabbinical Jews. There is still a morning benediction in the Jewish liturgy to be recited at cock-crow. I. ABRAHAMS. TIMNA (vºn, €auvá). — Concubine of Fliphaz, Esau’s son, and mother of Amalek, Gn 36”. The branch of the Amalekites in question was closely associated with the Horites, Gn 36*, *, 1 Ch 1” ". In all these passages the spelling should be Timna, the Heb. being everywhere yºn. It V has in- advertently followed AV spelling Timnah in Gn 36". See TIMNAII, No. 3. TIMNAN (nymn ‘lot,’ ‘portion').-1. A place on the N. boundary of Judah, situated between Beth- shemesh and ‘the side of Ekron’ (Jos 15" B Xl6a, A vörov, Thamma). It was a Philistine town (Jg 14' €apawa.0á, Thammatha), within the territory of Dan (Jos 19° B 6apºva.0á, A Qapıvd., Themnatha), to which Samson went down from Zorah to take his wife (Jg 14” ". "; Jos, Amt. V. viii. 5, 6), whose father is There Sanson slew the young lion, and propounded his well-known riddle at the marriage-feast. Timnah was taken by the Philistines during the reign of Ahaz, not long after they had been completely subdued by Uzziah (2 Ch 28° 0apºvá, Thamava); and later it was occupied by Sennacherib after he had defeated the $ºn. at Elteke (Altaku). It is called in the inscriptions Tammó, and is mentioned as lying between Elteke and Ekron (Schrader, KAT'* 170). Timnah retains its old name almost unchanged, and is now Tibmch, on the S. side of the valley of Sorek (W40 y es-Surar) and to the W. of Beth- shemesh ('Ain. Shems). The site is deserted, but is marked by ruined walls and rock-hewn caves, cisterns, and wine-presses. On the N. side of the ruins is a spring. Vineyards and olive groves still cover the Willion. between Tilmeh and Wady es-Surar (PEI' Mem. ii. 417, 441). TIMINATH TIMOTHY 767 2. (B 0apºva.64, A €apºvá ; Thamma) A town in the hill-country of Judah, mentioned with Cain and Gibeah (Jos 15”). It is now Tilma near Jeb'a (Gibeah), and about 8 miles west of Bethlehem. The site is marked by a few foundations only, and is reached by a path from Beit Nettif, about 2; miles to the west (PEI' Mem. iii. 53). This is probably the Timnah (Gn 38” ”, 14, 9apvá, Tham- matha), to which Judah ‘went up” to visit his sheep-shearers. The narrative gives no other in- dication of position. 3. (yph ; 6apºvá ; Thamma) The name of one of the “dukes’ of Edom, and probably also of a town or district (Gn 36”, l Ch 101; cf. Gn 3612. 22, 1 Ch l”). See also art. TIMNA. Eusebius and Jerome (Omom.) identify it with Thamna, a town of Edom in their day. C. W. WILSON. TIMNATH (AW Thamnatha, ; 6auvá9a ; Tham- mata).-One of the strong cities in Judaea built by Bacchides (1 Mac 9”). The name occurs between Bethel and Pharathon. Pharathon may perhaps be a corruption of Ephraim (ct-Taiyibeh), and in this case Timnath would be Thamna, now Tibneh, on the IRoman road from Antipatris to Jerusalem, which , Josephus says was the chief town of a toparchy (J3.J III. iii. 5). G. A. Smith (HGHL 355 m.) considers that the two names Timnath and Pharathon should not be separated, and that they represent one place, — Pharathon being W&dy Four'ah, and Timnath being recognized in the name Tammºn, so common now at the head of Wády Far'ah. Put this position is too far N. to have been in Judaea. C. W. WILSON. TIMNATH-HERES (bºr, nº ‘portion of the sun”; T} 0apua.0dpes, A €3apºva.0áp ea's ; Thammath Satre).- The name of Joshua's inheritance and burial-place |J& 2"), which is called Timnath-serah in Jos 19° and 24”. IIeres is supposed by some commentators (Ewald, Bertheau, Mühlau, etc.) to be a very early º: error for Serah. On the other hand, it is held to be the correct form of the name by the Jews and Samaritans, who identify the place with Acfr. Ilúris.” But see TIMNATII-SERAII. C. W. WILSON. TIMNATH - SERAH (mp nyºn; B equapxápms, Bauvaſſagaxapa, A €apºva.00 apá, 6apºvaaſaxdp; Tham- nath Sºra'a, Thammath Sare).--The place given by the children of Israel to Joshua as an inheritance, 2nd in the border of which he was buried. It was In the hill-country of Ephraim, and on the north side of the mountain of Gaash (Jos 19° 24"). In Jg 29 the name is written Timnath-Heres (see preceding art.). According to Josephus, Joshua was buried at Thamna (0apºvá), a city of Ephraim (Amt. V. i. 29). the chief town of a toparchy (BJ III. iii. 5), which adjoined the toparchy of Lydda (Omom.), and was reduced to subjection by Vespasian before he marched on Lydda, and Jamnia (BJ IV. viii. 1). Thamna, now Tübneh, occupied an important position on the road from Jerus. to Antipatris and Caesarea. It was taken by Cassius (Amt. XIV. xi. 2), and was occupied by John the Essene, at the commencement of the Jewish war (BJ II. xx. 1). Eusebius and Jerome (Omom. s. Gajºwa.00 apá.) say that Timnath-serah, the town of Joshua, where liis tomb was shown, was in the hill-country, and that it was in the territory of 1)an. They identified it with the Thamma to which Judah went up to visit his sheep-shearers (Gn 38”), and placed it in Dan, or Judah, on the border of Lydda, and on the road from that place to Jerus. (Onom. Oaſivá). * It is not in probable that by an intentional metathesis, to avoid anything that savoured of idolatry, Timnath-hores, ‘portion of the sum,’ was changed into Timnath-serah. See IIEREs, ad fin. ; and cf. Moore on Jº 29. This is apparently identical with Thamna, Elsewhere (s. Ta&s) they state that Joshua’s tonb was shown near Thamna, on the N. side of Gaas, a mountain of Ephraim. Jerome takes St. Paula to Timnath-serah after leaving Bethel, and before reaching Shiloh (Ep. Paul. xv.). The place referred to by Eusebius and Jerome is Tib.neh. Two sites have been proposed for Timnath-serah, and their claims may be thus stated— (1) Tibneh is an old Tibnath, and the position, guarding an approach to the interior of the country, is a suitable one for the home of the great Jewish warrior. Josephus probably, and early Christian tradition certainly, identifies it with the city of Joshua. In the north face of a hill to the S. of the ruins there is a remarkable group of rock-hewn tombs; a great oak tree near the tomb is called Sheikh et-Teim, ‘the chief servant of God’; and about 3 miles to the E. is Kefr Ishwa, or Joshua's village (PIEF Mem. ii. 374–378; Guérin, Samarie, ii. 89, etc.). The identification with Tibneh, is ac- cepted by most moderns, e.g. I)illm. (on Jos 1999), Moore, Mühlau (in Riehm’s H WB), Buhl (170). (2) Refr Háris, about 9 miles south of Nóblus, is, according to existing Samaritan tradition, the burial-place of Joshua and Caleb. It is also the Kefr Cheres of the Jewish pilgrims, IRabbi Jacob (A.D. 1258), hap-Parchi, etc., which Schwarz (151) places S. of Náblus. To the E. of the village there are two sacred places (mukáms)—one named Neby º the ‘Prophet of the Division by Lot,” the other Neby Kulda, or Kunda. Conder identifies the first with Joshua, the second he takes to be a corruption of Caleb (PEF Mem. ii. 378). If the identification with kefr Héris be accepted, it must be supposed that the name of the place, Timnath, has disappeared whilst its distinctive title, Heres or Serah, . survived. C. W. WILSON. TIMON (Tuwu).—One of the seven elected (Ac 6°) to assist the apostles by ‘serving tables.’ Ilater legends about him will be found in the Acța, Sanc- torum under April 19, when he was commemorated. TIMOTHEUS (Tuð0eos). — 1. A leader of the Ammonites who was defeated in many battles by Judas Maccabaeus (1 Mac 5". *, 2 Mac. Sºo 9° 1024-87). According to 2 Mac 10” he was slain at the capture of Gazara, by the forces of Judas. lºor the un- chronological setting of the narrative in 2 Mac. see vol. iii. p. 1919. 2. The AV form of the name TIMOTHY everywhere in NT except. 2 Co l', 1 Ti 1", 2 Ti 14, Philem i, He 13”. TIMOTHY (Tipá0sos), St. Paul's young and trusted companion, was a native of Lystra, or possibly of Derbe (Ac 16' 20", where see Blass); the son of a Greek father and of a mother who was a Jewess at least by rehgion (2 Ti 1") and probably also by birth. The son of a mixed marriage, he received a name which was fairly common in Greek (1 Mac 5", 2 Mac 8”), but which by its significance would be acceptable to a religious Jewess; he was trained by his mother in the OT Scriptures (2 Ti 31°), but was not circumcised. When St. Paul reached Lystra on his First Missionary Journey, the young Timothy accepted Christianity, being converted by St. Paul (1 Co 4*7), and probably was a witness of his suſterings at this time (2 Ti 31% il, cf. Ac 14*). Dy the time of the Second Missionary Journey he was a disciple well known to the Christians both in Lystra and in Iconium : the mention of his mother first, the description of her in some MSS of the Western text as ‘a widow,’ and perhaps the use of Ütripxeu (AC 16"), make it probable that his father was already dead. St. Paul was attracted by Timothy, and wished to have him as a travel-companion to take the place of John Mark, if not of 13arnabas. If we 768 TIMOTHY TIMOTHY, FIRST EPISTLE TO sº- may refer to this occasion the language of 1 Ti lº 41*, 2 Ti 14, St. Paul was not left unaided in this decision. Prophetic utterances, perhaps those of Silas, who was himself a prophet (Ac 15*), led Paul to him ; the local presbyters laid their hands upon him (cf. Ac 13°); É. joined in the formal setting apart of ‘his son’ for the task; he himself wit: messed a noble confession in their presence (1 Ti 618); and thus received a formal ministry (2 Ti 4°, Ac 19%), perhaps with the title of “evangelist.’ (2 Ti 4*), but in 1 Th 29 he is loosely classed with Paul and Silas as an “apostle.” In one respect Timothy was not fitted for the task : St. Paul's plan was to preach first to the Jews, and they would be offended by the presence of one who was half-Jew by birth and yet never circumcised, so St. Paul took him and perhaps with his own hand circumcised him (cf. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, pp. 84–87; The Christian Ecclesia, pp. 178–188; and, as against the historical character of this incident, Holtzmann, Die Pastoral-Briefe, pp. 67– 78). Timothy now became a loyal companion, slaving for St. Paul as a son for a father (Ph 2*); he took an active part in preaching at Thes- salonica (1 Th 1. 2 passim); accompanied Paul to Beroea, and stayed there when St. Paul was obliged to withdraw to Athens, but at the apostle's request followed him speedily thither. Thence he was despatched at once on an important mission to strengthen the Thessalonians who were suffering under persecution, and on returning with his report found St. Paul already removed to Corinth. His presence and the news he brought gave St. Paul new life, for Timothy joined him in preaching Jesus Christ the Son of God (2 Co 1"): he was associated with Paul and Silvanus in both letters to the Thessalonians, and was perhaps the scribe in each case, though there is not sufficient ground for accepting Spitta's theory (27tr Gesch. des Ur- christenthums, i. p. 110) that 2. Thess. was his composition. After this time he is not men- tioned again until we find him with Paul at Ephesus on the Third Missionary Journey (Ac 19°); he may have been with him all the time, or may have stayed at Ephesus, a stay which would have qualified him for his later work there. On this occasion he was sent again on a mission—this time with Erastus and apparently other brethren (1 Co 16”) to Macedonia and thence to Corinth (1 Co 4”). The mission took place shortly before the writing of 1 Cor. (4.7); its purpose was to remind the Corinthians of St. Paul’s “ways in Christ'; St. Paul was anxious about the result ; he was afraid that Timothy would be timid, and that others might set him at nought, and he bespoke a kindly reception for him (1 Co 16" "). The effect of his mission was not successful ; he brought back news which caused Paul great anxiety and neces- sitated a mission of Titus ; it is possible that a personal attack was made on Timothy, and that he is 6 &öukm0els of 2 Co 7” in whose interests Paul had demanded sharp punishment on the offender (see PAUL, vol. iii. p. 711"). However this may be, he followed Paul to Macedonia, was associated with him there in the writing of 2 Cor., and was with him in Corinth as an active worker (6 ovvepyös plov) who sends greeting to the Christians at l{ome (Ro 16”, if this chapter belongs to this date). When Paul started on his last journey to Jerusalem, Timothy was one of his party, and was with him at Troas (Ac 20" "); but he is not mentioned again in the Acts, though he probably completed the journey to Jerusalem. He must also have joined ’aul in his imprisonment at Rome, as he is associ- ated with him in writing Col. (1*), Philemon (v.”), and Philippians (1*); and St. Paul, contemplates sending him on a mission to the Philippian §. (2*). Of this no more is heard; but on the sup- osition of the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles, aul when released joined Timothy in the East, and while on a journey to Macedonia left him in charge of the Church of Ephesus (1 Ti 19). His task was to be the representative of the absent apostle, who was hoping to return shortly ; he was to check false teaching, to order public worship, to regulate the requisite qualifications for the ministry, and to exercise discipline over all orders in the Church. It may be that for this task he was formally set apart by laying on of hands both of the apostle and of the presbyters (1 Ti 11° 4”, 2 Ti 1", but see above). As the apostle might be delayed from returning, he wrote 1 Timothy to lay stress on the points of primary importance and to strengthen and embolden Timothy. Not long thereafter Paul was arrested a second time and carried to Rome; thence he wrote 2 Timothy, begging Timothy not to be ashamed of the gospel, but to come with Mark to help him in his im- prisonment, and, before he leaves, to secure the transmission of true teaching by ordaining trust- worthy ministers. It may have been on this visit to Rome that Timothy was himself arrested on the occasion on which the writer of the Ep. to the Hebrews mentions his release (He 13”). Of Timothy's subsequent history little can be said with cer- tainty. He may be [but this is very unlikely] the “angel' of the Church of Ephesus addressed in Rev 21-7; he may be one of the sources from which St. Luke gained information for the composition of the Acts, though there is no ground for regard- ing him as the author of the book or of the “We’ sections (see Zahn, Einleitung, ii. p. 424). Church tradition regarded him as having continued bishop of Ephesus until his death (Comst. Apostol. vii. 46; Euseb. iii. 46), as having been martyred in a popular tumult when he tried to dissuade the people from taking part in the violent and coarse orgies of the zoºto:267-lov (a festival of which there is no mention elsewhere), and his bones are said to have been transferred to Constantinople by Com- stantius (Polycrates and Simeon Metaphrastes quoted in the Acta Samctorunn, iii. pp. 176–183, Menacon, ad Jan. 22; Lipsius, Die Apocryphen Apostelgesch. ii. 2, 372–400). Though Titus is a stronger man and more able to deal with crises, yet Paul's love and affection goes out more lavishly to the younger Timothy, whose character is clearly marked. He is affec- tionate to tears (2 Ti 14), delicate and often ill (1 Ti 5*), timid (1 Co 1619), shrinking from a proper assertion of his own authority (1 Ti 4*), needing to be warmed against youthful lusts (2 Ti (2*), to be encouraged to face shame for Christ's sake (2 Ti 19). Yet he has been Paul's loyal follower and imitator from the first (2 Ti 3"); he is his ‘genuine’ son (1 Ti 19), his loved son (2 Ti 1"), his son loved and faithful in the Lord (l Co4"); of one mind with himself (Ph. 2”), “working the Lord’s work as I do' (1 Co 1619); ‘my fellow-worker’ (Ro 1621); ‘our brother and God’s minister’ (1 Th 32); ‘the slave of Jesus Christ’ (Ph 1”), who ‘seeks the things of Jesus Christ' (ib. 2*). Timothy's death is commemorated in the Greek and Armenian Churches on Jan. 22, in the Coptic Church on Jan. 23, in the Latin and Maronite Churches on Jan. 24, though the earlier Latin calendars place it on Sept. 27, perhaps as following the day of the commemoration of St. John, who was thought of as his predecessor in the see of Ephesus (Lipsius, l.c. p. 392; Nilſes, Ralendarium. Manuale wtriusque Ecclesia, Innsbruck *{\{4 W. LOCK. TIMOTHY, FIRST EPISTLE TO. — i. Historical Situation. ii. Analysis. iii. Literary Dependence. iv. Situation implied at Ephesus: (a) False teaching ; (b) Church organization. v. Authorship. vi. Integrity. vii. Value. Literature. i. Historic AI, SITUATION. = St. Paul had re- cently been with Timothy, either they had been together in Ephesus, or Timothy had come from TIMOTHY, FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY, FIRST EPISTLE TO 769 Ephesus to meet Paul at some point on his journey to Macedonia (cf. the situation of Ac 2017 with 1°). St. Paul was bound to go forward, but hoped to re- turn shortly : yet he was so much impressed with the dangerous tendencies of some false teachers at Ephesus, who were tempting the brethren there from walking in ‘sober gospel ways,’ that he ºd Timothy to stay on in order to counteract them. - Some time elapsed. Paul may have heard that all was not prospering at Ephesus, possibly through a letter from Timothy himself, or his natural anxiety (cf. 1 Thess.) may have prompted him to write. Timothy was, indeed, a “genuine son ’; he had witnessed a good confession in the past, pro- phecies had pointed him out for the task, he had received a special gift for his ministry by the laying on of hands (1* * 4", 6%); yet he was naturally timid, he was young (4%), he had frequent attacks of illness (5*), he might be misled (57 6"); St. Paul's own return might be delayed (3*): so he writes this letter to press his original charge more Solemnly on Timothy, to encourage him in his work, to guide him in his teaching and dealing with various classes in the Church, and to regu- late certain points of Church order, which needed organization without delay. The central purpose is summed up in 3” &va elóñs trós 6et év oſkø 0eoû &vao Tpéqeq 0at. The subjects are miscellaneous, and no very exact analysis can be expected ; but three points stand out clearly in the structure. (1) There is a rough correspondence between the introductory and the concluding sections; cf. 19-11 with 69-19, 118-99 with 6*10* * *. These form a framework for the central art. (2) The central part falls into clearly-marked hºtºs, and the kernel of the whole Epistle, which divides these halves, is 3%. , The mystery of the Incarnate, Risen, and Ascended Lord is the fact on which Christian life and teaching is to be based, by which the Christian minister is to be inspired. (3) 6'7" is a postscript, which would more naturally have been #. before or after 6” ”, but which was added as an after-thought, perhaps first suggested as needing treatment by 6". ". ii. ANALYSIS.— 11.2. Greeting. Introductory, 13.20. (a) Reminder of the purpose for which Timothy was left at Ephesus (), description of the false teaching as specu- lative rather than ministering to the spiritual life (4, 5), as ignorantly taught by teachers who lay stress on law (0. 7) without knowing the true purpose of law and its relation to the gospel (8-11). (b) Personal expression of Paul's own gratitude to Christ Jesus, who had entrusted him with the ministry in spite of his past sim, as a proof of God's long-suffering and as an encouragement to others, for the gospel is summed up in the faithful saying, Xplorto; 'Inaous ºx!!ey fig row 267 peov &Accºprajñoys adjo'o. 1 (1917). [This section is not only a personal digression called out by the thought of God's mercy to himself, but is intended to point Timothy to the same source of strength for his task (ivXuyo!...@- orzvºru, cf. II 21), and to ſix his mind on the central message of the gospel as a gospel of salvation from sin (cf. 6 and 19)]. (c) Reiteration of the charge to Timothy, and enforcement of it by (1) a reminder of the past prophecies about him (1b); (2) a warning drawn from the fate of two false teachers (19. 20). Formal advice, 21-(2. A. General, 21–45. A. General regulations of Church Life. I. The proper scope of Public Prayer.—This is to in- clude all mankind, and specially rulers, that Chris- tians may live a quiet life (21.9). This is based on God's desire to save all men (3, 4), which itself rests on (1) the unity of God (b); (2) the nature of Christ representing both God and man (ib.); (3) the con- scious purpose of Christ's death, who died for all, and commissioned Paul to teach this truth (6, 7). II. The position of men and women at Public Prayer.— Men are to lead the prayers (8); Women to dress modestly and avoid ostentation (0. 10), to listen in silence and subjection (ll, 12). This is based on the order of creation (18), and woman's action at the Fall (14). Yet woman too will share the Christian salvation, if she abide in VOL. IV.-49 B. Personal, 40–62. a Christian life, for the faithful saying declares ora,0%arstoº, 34& rºº reawoyovicz (10). ; III. Rules for the choice of ministers. (1) I'or the trioxorog. His position is one of honour and of work (31), hence he must be tested as to his §º character (2 3); as to his power of ruling is own family well (4.0); he must not be a new convert (8), he must have won the respect of the heathen world (7). (2) For 31&zoyou : their private character must be tested (8-10), and their relation to their own family (12). For their office, too, may be one of honour, and will raise their status in Christ's sight (14). (3) For yvyozizé;. They too, if in any official position, must have a high character (11). The purpose of all these regulations is to secure a right moral life and intercourse in God's family, because it is His Church, and the upholder of the Truth. This truth is summed up in the well-known hymn about Christ— ::::::: #v oropzi, $31zzlóðn iv ºve.º.o. tu, &904 & 22:2013, $zność0a ºw ºverty, Haruo reſºn by 2%agº, &vexhapûn iv 3&n. Warning.—Yet there are symptoms of false teaching, that will Contradict this great truth, depreciating marriage and food, though they are God's creatures, God's gifts, capable of sancti fication, if received with prayer and thanksgiving (41-5). [This section forms the transition from A to B. It stands il, contrast to 310 (41 38), but leads on to 46 (raiºre)]. B. Personal advice to Timothy. (a) With regard to his own teaching and conduct.—He is to be loyal to these truths (6), to avoid foolish fables (7), to exercise a true asceticism, such as will produce true holiness—for holiness, according to the faithful Saying, $ºrocyyexío.V exei Koźs rās vºy zoºi ră, Aztaxogo.zº,-and any effort is worth while, for our hope rests on a God of life, a Saviour of ali mankind (0-11). He is to assert himself, in spite of his youth ; to be a model of Christian character; to attend to public reading, exhortation, teaching; to remember the gift given him for his task, and to throw his whole heart into his work (12-10). (b) For his dealings with various classes of people, 1. Men, old and young (51). — 2. Women, old and young (°).—3. Widows, who are to be supported by the Church, only if their own families cannot do so (8 and 4), who are to lead a religious life of prayer (0.0). There is to be kept a list of widows above 60 years of age, of good character; but younger widows are not to be enrolled upon it, but are to be encouraged to marry (7:10). —4. Presbyters: the hard-working are to be rewarded (17. 18): the sinful to be formally tried and punished impar- tially (1921); he must not ordain (? remit penalties) hastily, lest he should be entangled in the sins of others (??); but he must keep himself pure, though this need not imply total abstinence (2%), and he will need caution in judgment, whether for praise or blame (* 29).-5. Slaves, whether under heathen or Christian masters (61.2). Conclusion. (a) Further denunciation of the false teachers, as con- ceited, ignorant, excited about questions which only produce envy and strife, striving to make money, knowing nothing of true Christian con- tent, but ruining themselves through the desire of gain (3.10.13:15). (b) Solemn appeal to Timothy to avoid such teaching : to aim at Spiritual qualities, to lay hold of eternal life, remembering his past confession ; and to hold fast Paul's commandment with the thought of the future appearance of the Lord (11-14=118-20). Doxology (15.10). Pººl. advice as to the teaching which Timothy is to give to the rich (17-19). Final appeal to Timothy to guard the deposit and to avoid false claims to knowledge (20. 21). Salutation. This analysis will have shown that the primary interest is ethical and spiritual. Morality, Salva- tion, Truth are the keynotes ; the Church worship and Church ministries are to minister ...o them. The kernel is the great hymn of 3", but each section has some great doctrinal statement or some faithful saying embedded in it, which leads up to or away from that climax (11°2'-' 21° 44: 8-11.6%). The º is full of the thought of the Salvation of all mankind, the consecration of all Creation. At the same time it is personal throughout ; and it is hard to believe that it was intended to be read out as it stands, in public ; though a greeting to the whole Church is added (6”), and though the sub- stance of the teaching was meant to be conveyed 770 TIMOTHY, FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY, FIRST EPISTLE To to the Church (4” 57 6°. 17), and though certain sections (2* 34-1858-1") are necessarily of a general kind. In these it is hard to feel sure whether the writer has only the local needs of Ephesus in his mind, or whether, he was consciously framing rules which would be of universal application and obligation (cf. 1 Co 7"). The phrase év travri Tötrø (2*) favours the latter view; so perhaps does the use of ékk\mata in 3”; and some of the rules deal with such essential doctrines or points of morality that the writer may have jºid them as ipso facto binding on every one: but his primary thought was probably only for the church or churches of which imothy was in charge. iii. LITERARY DEPENDENCE.-The OT is quoted as authoritative only once, 5*= Dt 25° (cf. 1 Co 9°); but its language is consciously adapted or its history appealed to in- 219– Gn 22° (cf. 1 Co 118). 214– Gn 30 (cf. 2 Collè). 4* = Gn 131. 5% =Ps 40 (?) (cf. 1 P 35). 519 = Dt 1918 (cf. 2 Co 131). 61 = Is 52% (cf. Ro 2*). It will be noticed that nearly every passage had been used in earlier Pauline Epistles. In 2** we have perhaps a later Jewish adapta- tion of the OT history. A Christian rhythmical lº is quoted in 3”; Christian sayings in 1” 2” (?), 49(?) (triarðs 6 Aóryos); Christian prophecy in 4" (cf. 11° 4”); liturgical doxologies are used, which had probably pºied from Jewish into Christian worship, in 1976*, *; traces of a creed seem to underlie 6”; and Greek ings, 19 (?) 44 67. ith regard to writings of the NT, there are interesting parallels with the Gospels, especially with St. Luke, which in 5* may possibly be treated as “Scripture' on a level with the OT ; but none of the . parallels give the impression of literary quotation, so that it is probably not so here. proverbial say- Cf. 28 With Mk 1049. 48 ,, Lk 1899. 55 y 9 3 y 237. - 5* , ,, 107 (where Luke agrees verbally with 1 Tinn., but Matt. differs). 5* ..., , ,, .9". 617-Kº 5 3. 3 y 1220. 21. There are striking points of contact with 1 Peter; cf. 29-11 with 2 P 3-9, 310 with 1 P 318-22, 55 with 1 P 3”; but it is not clear whether they do (so von Soden) or do not (so Jülicher) imply literary acquaintance : if they do, the priority seems to be clearly on the side of 1 Timothy. On the other hand, “an intimate acquaintance with the Pauline letters must be assumed on the part of the writer’ (Jülicher). There are certainly conscious parallels with Romans and 1 and 2 Corkinthians. Cf. l l with IRO 1626. l 15 2 3 5 * l 725 1510. * With 1 Co 2 | 112 1434. 9 ©11. 1 139. 2 9 3 2 5 18 95 5 5 716. 44 9 3 5 y 1090. 110 , , ,, 1319. 48 ,, , , 9” (?). 117 3 y 5 2 16”. 518 9 3 9 3 99. 2b ,, ,, 3”. 519 ,, , , 9”. 27 91. 111 2 Oo 44. 3 5 3 2 9 5 The likeness culminates in the relation to Titus and 2 Timotlºv. Cf. 11 and 11 with Tit 13, 112 with 2 Ti 19. O7 111 6 ©14 2. 4 2 3 2 3 }. s 27 y 3 9 3 26 3. » . ." * , , ;", 4 2 3 2 3 215. 4 5 5 $ 2 31. 412 $ 2 2 3 27 and 15. 414 2 3 39 16. p:13 I 11 r: J3 s] 7 & ) tº *) - 3 g 61 3 y 3 5 25 f;21 92 2 3 4l . 9 y y 3 & is Žn 2 º' 2 p. in 2 * غ §. yy 3 3 . . 5 5 2 3 % & 6 3 y 3 2 213. 6 93 2 3 47. The parallels with Romans and 1 and 2 Cor. are explicable either as deliberate adaptations by some later writer or as the reiterations of the same thought by Paul himself. Those with 2 Tim. and Titus are stronger, and either point to nearly con- temporary composition by one writer or to a . adaptation. It has been held by von Soden (Hdcom. p. 154), Moffatt (Historical NT, p. 560), McGiffert (Apost. Age, p. 413), that 1 Tim. is the latest of the three, and based on 2 Tim, and Titus ; but a mere comparison of style does not indicate any priority as iºn 1 Tim. and Titus, and favours the priority of 1 Tim, to 2 Timothy. The other points of difference—fuller organization in 1 Tim., fuller description of the false teachers, etc.—are as explicable ". the difference of circum- stances in each place as by a difference of date. iv. SITUATION IMPLIED AT EPHESUS.—(a) The False Teachers.-The primary purpose of the letter is to remind Timothy of the charge given to him to check certain false teachers; but, as he is assumed to know them, they are described in such general terms that it is difficult for us to identify them. It is not, indeed, necessary to assume that all the descriptions apply to one set ; º supplied a great variety of forms of religion, heathen, Jewish, and Christian (Ac 19); and 4** (cf. Tit 119, 2 Ti 3) perhaps implies a separate development in the future ; yet the probability is in favour of one main tendency. The teachers were prominent in the Church (1*): they may have held oſlice [cf. the stress on the discipline over presbyters (5*), and the need of more care- ful choice of ministers (3*)]: two of them had already been ‘handed over to Satan’ (1*); and they may have attempted to attack St. Paul’s own apostleship (1' 27 1” pil 3Naqqºmpetv). They are untrue to the central Christian temper (1*), they do not listen to the dictates of their own con- science (1” 4*), are ignorant (17), influenced by the desire of making gain out of their religion (6*"), living in a state of feverish excitement (6' voo'àv), suggesting curious disputations and investigations which are ‘other’ than the deposit (1* 6”), and producing an atmosphere of strife, jealousy, and suspicion (6%). In the substance of their teaching a few details emerge. (1) They claimed 'to be “teachers of law” (17): misinterpreting the OT in some way for purposes other than those for which it was intended (cf. 2 Ti 31%. 7) : possibly depreciating law in an antinomian spirit, so that the writer has to insist on its real value (1*): or, more probably, exaggerating its value, so that he has to point out its limitations, as intended only for Čičukot (ib.). (2) They laid stress on probot kal yeweaWoylat (1° 47). The reference of this is also ambiguous. The words would be applicable to the speculative theories of Gnosticism, with its legends about the creation of the world and the relationships of the various acons which separated God from matter. and the Christian writers of the 2nd cent. Con- stantly made this application (Irenaeus, adv. IIar. Praef. ; Tertullian, c. Valent. 3, de Anima, 18, de Praescriptione, 33, adv. Marcionem, i. 9; Epi. phanius, Har. 33.8). But the context connects them with teaching about the Law (17): Titus speaks of 'Iovöaukol pºffo. (l"), and connects yeuca)\oylat with adºxal voukai (3°); and Ignatius (ad Magm. 8) uses exactly similar language of the Judaizers of his day. They are therefore Jewish in origin, and were probably º based upon the legendary history of the patriarchs and their descendants, alkin to the Jewish Haggadoth, and illustrated by the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, and the treatise on Biblical Antiquities attributed to Philo ſcf. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, pp. 130-146]. The TIMOTHY, FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY, FIRST EPISTLE TO 771 reference to Jannes and Jambres (2 Ti 38.9) will then be a half-ironical ad hominem illustration from one of their own favourite myths. (3) They laid a special claim to knowledge (6*). This again would have a peculiar applicability to any form of Gnosticism, and it is so applied by Hegesi º ap. Euseb, iii. 32; but it is equally ap #. e to the Rabbinic claim to special know- ledge (Lk 11”, Jn 7", Ro 2*). The word ávrifférets in 6” offers an easy suggestion to the duri0égets, “Contradictions between OT and NT,” of Marcion; put such an allusion is inconsistent with the stress on Jewish law (cf. 2), and impossible in date, unless the verse be a subsequent interpolation. It may either refer to “Rival, theses,’ i.e. con- flicting decisions of the Jewish Rabbis on the application of the Law, the Jewish Halakha, the ‘tradition of the elders’ (So Hort, l.c.); or it may be translated ‘ º ’ (cf. 2 Ti 2*), and if so, gives no clue to the nature of the opposition. (4) They taught a false asceticism, prohibiting marriage, requiring abstinence from certain foods (4*), and perhaps from wine (5*), and that on the ground that matter was evil (44: ", cf. 47 ° 6'7). This particular teaching is ascribed to 6alpóvia, and so probably came from a heathen source; and it is quoted as a prophecy of the future, and so is per- haps separable from the rest. But the writer is robably quoting a past prophecy as being fulfilled in the present, and it is placed in close connexion with the ‘myths’ (47). This teaching, again, is exactly parallel to the teaching of later Gnostics (cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. 3; Tert. adv. Marcionem, i. 14; Irenaeus, Haer. i. 28); but it may equally have arisen from an exaggeration of the Jewish law, with a mixture of Oriental speculation, coming perhaps through Essenism (cf. 1 Co 7 and 8, Ro 14, Col 2, He 13). It is perhaps legitimate to read allusions to the false teachers in the regulations of chs. 2. 3, which follow so directly upon the warning against them. If so, their teaching was characterized by an ex- clusiveness, limiting God’s universal salvation, whether from a Gnostic or a Jewish standpoint, and perhaps denying the Salvation of women ; perhaps also by a low standard of morals. The main tendency, then, is that of a Rabbinic speculative Judaism, playing with historical legends and casuistry, and coloured by an asceti- cism borrowed from some heathen source, perhaps through Essenism (cf. Lightfoot, Col. “On the Colossian Heresy,” Biblical Essays, xi., Ignatius, i. pp. 359-374). (b) Organization of the Church. — The Church forms one organized community, described as God’s family (3*, *), an “ecclesia’ of a God of life (ib.): its members are ol &öeXqol (4"), ol trio rot (4” 5* (*), áyiot (5"). They meet for common worship, and apparently up to the time of this letter men and women alike had been wont to teach and to lead the prayers, but the writer limits this right to the men (2*). At the worship there are reading, exhortation, and teaching (4°), prayers, interces- sions, thanksgivings (2' 5"). Over this body the apostle is supreme : he hands over offenders to Satan (trapéðwka, 1%; but this would not necessarily exclude the co-operation of the Church, as in 1 Co 5"); his exhortations (2*) and wishes (2*) are authori- tative ; the true teaching is the gospel, which has been entrusted to him (1*, 2*). Timothy is his delegate, “the instrument of an absent rather than a wielder of inherent authority (Moberly), conn- missioned to ordain ministers (though the whole community would have a voice in the choice of them, cf. 39" "), to exercise discipline over them, to regulate worship, to control teaching, and hand on the traditions of the apostle. His exact status is not clear: he may have been a temporary dele- throughout Asia Minor. gate for a special work, as he had been before to Corinth (1 Co 4*17) and Philippi (Ph 2"), and as Titus had been twice or thrice to Corinth (2 Co 7 and 8); or he may have been permanently set apart as St. Paul’s delegate for the higher func- tions of ministerial work, unlimited by any local i. but sent from time to time to various places; or, again, he may have received a per- manent commission to represent the apostle and a permanent localization at Ephesus, or possibly Eß. view is tenable, but the first springs most naturally out of the language of 1° 4”. It is also uncertain whether he had received special ordination for this task. He had received a special gift, given by laying on of the hands of the presbyters, and prophecies had led Paul to choose him (1* 4*); but the reference may be either to consecration for this piece of work, or to formal ordination when he first became l'aul's helper (Ac 16**). His position seems to be that of a vicar apostolic rather than of a localized bishop, though it is the germ out of which the later local- ized and monarchical episcopate developed. The more permanent ministry under Timothy is assumed to be already in existence. There are no directions to establish any new office, unless it be that of the church-widows, but only to regulate and spiritualize those that exist. These are— (l) The étría Romos. He occupies a prominent position in the eyes of the Church and the heathen world; he must have high moral qualifications: from these it may be inferred that his duties will be to entertain travelling brethren (q.vxoşevos), to teach (Övöaktukós), perhaps to control the finances (dquxápyvpos), to preside and care for the Chuvch (Tpoorfivat, €triplexeia.0at). (2) Tpeogwrepot, who are formally ordained (?) for the position (5*), who also preside (Tpoea Tótes), who also preach and teach (év \0').9 kai Ötöao KaNig), who receive maintenance in return for their work, and who are under Timothy's discipline. (There is not, as often assumed, a contrast in 5" between teaching and non-teaching presbyters, but only between those who take pains with their teaching and those who do not). 4. Are these two different orders of ministers, or only two names for one order? This question, too, cannot be positively answered. The fact that ºpso (8vºrspot are not mentioned in ch. 3; that the ãºriazoºros is not mentioned in ch. 5; that the same functions of presiding and teaching are attributed to both ; the prima facie meaning of Tit 10-7, cf. Ac 2017-28,-these favour the identification of the two. On the other hand, the constant use of the singular $ºríazoros and of the plural ºrgsoºrsoot, and the usage of the 2nd cent., favour the separation, and leave it a tenable view that out of the many presbyters one bishop was already chosen at Ephesus in order to preside over the whole and to represent them to the outer World. (3) 6tákovot. Subordinate officers, whose clar- acter has to be tested before the whole com- munity before they enter on office. Their duties are not defined ; but they perhaps have to ad- minister the finances under the étriakotros (uš) aloxpokepôets), and to teach, as a successful dia- conate gives them boldness of speech. After their diaconate they may perhaps hope to rise to a higher position (8a01.6s) in the Church (38-19, 19. 18). (4) yuvaikes are also mentioned in the official ministry, between two sections dealing with ôtákovot : i.e. probably “women who are deacons,’ deaconesses; but possibly only “wives of deacons.” A high character is required of them, but their duties are not defined. (5) xīpat. The regulations for widows are de- scribed at fuller length, and give the impression that the writer is introducing a fresh organization in this case. Thero is probably a distinction to be drawn between lonely widows who are the 772 TIMOTHY, FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY, FIRST EPISTLE TO objects of charity, and who devote their time to prayer (5*), and active widows who are church Workers, whose names are entered on a church list, after careful examination of their antecedents (5* *). The distinction is not, however, clearly marked. See also art. WIDow. [Cf. Gore, The Church and the Ministry, ch. v.; Moberly, Ministerial Priesthood, ch. v. ; Hort, Christian Ecclesia, chs. xi. xii.; J. H. Bernard in Camb. Gr. Test. pp. lvi-lxxiv.; Weiss, $ 4; Zahn, Eiml. i. 459–466]. v. AUTHORSHIP. —The Epistle claims to be by St. Paul, and is directly attributed to him by Irenaeus (Praef. II. xiv. 7, Iv. xvi. 3), Tertullian (de Praescr. c. 25), Clement Alex. (Strom. ii. p. 457, iii. p. 534), and the Muratorian Canon; it was included in the Latin and Syriac versions, and this implies an acceptance of its Pauline claim. It was known to Marcion (c. 140); there are many parallels to its regulations in the earliest documents that underlie the Apostolic Constitu- tions (cf. Harnack, TU II. v. pp. 50–52, or Chron. i. p. 483): these may be due to independent treat- ment of some earlier list of regulations, but the more prob. view is that the Apost. Const, give a later and fuller adaptation of 1 Timothy; and there are parallelisms to its language in the Epistle of Vienne and Lyons (Eus. v. 1), Hege- sippus (Eus. iii. 22), Justin Martyr (Dial. vii. 17, xxxv. 3 (?)), and above all in Polycarp (cc. 4. 5. 8. 9. 12), Ignatius (ad Trall., Inscr. ad Magm. 8, ad Poliſc. 3), and Clement of Rome (7. 21. 54. 61), which make it probable that it was known to all these writers, and well known in Asia Minor before A.D. 115, and perhaps at Rome before A. D. 95. For an instructive comparison of the Pastoral Epistles with Ignatius, cf. von der Goltz in TU XII. iii. pp. 107–118, 186–194. On the other hand, it was rejected with 2 Tim. by Tatian (Jerome, Prol. ad Titum), by “certain heretics’ (Clem. Alex. Strom. ii. 11), and with both 2 Tim. and Titus by Marcion (Tertull. adv. Marcionem, v. 21) and Basilides (Jerome, l.c.). Tertullian implies that the reason of the rejection was that they were private letters; but it may have been due to a dislike of their teaching, or, if they were not Pauline, to a real knowledge of their origin. The external evidence is as strong in church writers as for any Epistle; but it is met by a persistent rejection on the part of some heretics. The internal evidence permits two alternatives. Either the author is Paul, or he is some later writer anxious to support Christian morality and orthodox teaching against growing heretical ten- dencies, and for this purpose composing the letter, possibly with the help of some genuine Pauline fragments, and certainly with a deliberate use of the Pauline letters. In deciding between these two alternatives it is not possible to appeal to boints of similarity with Pauline language or with St. Paul’s character, as they are assumed on both sides ; on the other hand, differences from the known facts of St. Paul’s life are as much an argument against the second alternative as against the first. (1) The historical situation cannot be fitted into the account of St. Paul’s life in the Acts. This is true in spite of recent attempts to place it at the time of Ac 20° (Bartlet, Apostolic Age, pp. 179– 182, 511–515; Bowen, The JDates of the Pastoral 12pistles, London, 1900); yet the Acts is incomplete even over the ground which it traverses, e.g. it makes no mention of the intricate circumstances connected with the mission of Titus to Corinth, i.e. it helps us to understand 2 Cor. as little as this Epistle. I'urther, it confessedly ends before the death of St. Paul. There are other grounds * * for believing in a release of St. Paul after Ac 28 (cf. art. PAUL), and the situation inplied here may easily fall in the interval between that re- lease and his death, about the same time as Titus but before 2 Tim., as this Epistle gives no trace of the danger of persecution. (2) The style is unlike St. Paul’s more argu- mentative passages, but it resembles that of the more practical sections of the earlier IEpistles, e.g. 1 Th 5, Ro 12–16, 1 Co 16, 2 Co 8.9. The general structure, the quick passage from practice to doctrinal basis, the personal interludes (l” 27), the frequent repetition of a word and its cognate forms (ºrtaris, 113-17; irás, 21-7 ; TAoûros, 617. 18), the fondness for sharp antithesis (5" 5* 6’ 6”), the use of the language of the OT and of Greek proverbs, are subtle points that might escape an initator. But two points of difficulty remain. (a) The vocabulary is largely different. The average of &raš Āeyóweva is one for every verse and a half : a large group of words (34 in the three Pastoral Letters) is not found elsewhere in St. Paul, but is found in St. Luke's writings; and many char- acteristically Pauline words are absent (cf. Holtz- mann, Einl. pp. 318, 319, Past. Brićfe, p. 100; W. H. Simcox in Eajpositor, 1888, p. 180). But the argument from the mere use of words is always precarious (cf. an illustration from Shakes- peare in the Jºapos. Times, June 1896, p. 418, and from Dante in Butler’s ‘Paradise,’ p. xi); St. Paul’s language elsewhere shows great variation, even within the compass of one letter (cf. 2 Co 8.9 with 10–13); the proportion of titraš Āeyóueva is— 1 for l'55 verses in the l’ast. Epp. ; 1 ,, 3:66 , , ,, 2 Cor. ; 1 , , 5'53 , , , , 1 Cor. ; hence the difference between 2 Cor. and l Cor. is as great as that between the Past. Tºpp. and 2 Cor. (Kölling ap. Weiss, p. 51). Within the Pastorals 72 words are found in l Tim. only, 44 in 2 Tim. only, 26 in Titus; 10 are peculiar to 1 Tim, and Titus ; 8 to 1 and 2 Tim. ; 3 to 2 Tim. and Titus. dq}{\tuos, eúa'é8éta, Štá8oNos as adjective, are common to the three, and they all have some word cognate to a 64 pov, and the phrases truatos é Aóyos, étriyuayats &\m0elas, # bytalvovara Övöaoka)\la, 6 vºv aldºv. There is no word which is of clearly later date ; many of the differences arise from difference of subject, esp. in 28-1° 5** where they are most frequent ; some occur in phrases which seem to be quotations (see above). Many are words common in the Greek of the Apocrypha, (cf. the instances from 2 Mac. in Camb. Gr. Test. p. xxxix). Some few are Latinisms (xãpty &xw, irpókpupa), due perhaps to residence in Iłome; others are medical metaphors (Öyvalvetv, vooreſv), due perhaps to intimacy with St. Luke ; while it is difficult to estimate how far the mere wording of a letter was due to the amanuensis employed. [The question of the vocabulary is carefully treated in I’indlay's Alſº: to Sabatier, The Apostle Pawl]. (b) Rut many of the phrases seem technical and stereotyped: 'ſmoods h extris huôv (1*; notice the advance on Col 1”), h trapayyekla (1°), h Vytaivovora ötöagka)\la (11"), Truarós 6 Xóryos (1” etc.), Thu ka?\hu arpatetav, rºv triaruv (1*), 6 owthp huòu 0eós (2°), rô paptiptov Kapoºs lölots (2%), h Tekuoyouta (?) (2”), to puariptov tís trio rews (3"), rà Tâs eigegetas Avarſipuou (31%), h kaxi, Štóaaka)\la (4"), h 6tóao Ka)\to (6'), i. eyepyegla (?) (6°), h évrox# (6*), h Tapadijkm (6*); there is an articulated fixity about them which seems to mark a late date, and to be unlike the freshness of the earlier style. This, again, is true ; but the date on any hypothesis is later, the diction is that of ‘the old man’ less “cloquent,’ and he is writing to an intimate companion, so that his language may naturally have somewhat of an esoteric &tain]). TIMOTHY, FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY, FIRST EPISTLE TO 773 (3) The tone of the religious life implied shows a similar development. It is in all essentials Pauline ; for it consists of life eternal, won by Christ's death, which has brought salvation to all mankind; and this life must show itself by a high Christian morality, and be ready to face the appearance of Jesus Christ. But there is more stress on the value of law ; on the need of good works, or attractive works, ka)\& épya (4 times in 1 Tim., 3 in Tit., elsewhere not in St. Paul); religion is described as eſſa'é8eta (8 times in 1 Tim., once in 2 Tim. and Tit., not elsewhere) or 6eoré8eta (1 Ti 2" only); the favourite qualities are those of a Sober, orderly loyalty. Yet each point could be illustrated from St. Paul (1 Co 64, Ro 39 712, Gal 18 5%. 42. 23, Eph 210), and there is a uniform tendency in the earlier Epistles to pass onward from the strain of the first conversion to the quiet ordered after-life, and to bring every sphere of human relationship under the control of Christian discipline (cf. W. Lock, St. Paul, the Master Builder, ch. 4). (4) So, too, with regard to Church organization. There are more details of it, and more stress upon it ; yet the details can be paralleled elsewhere : cf. Ac 14* 2117, Ja 5* (irpeggſ repot), Ac 20%, Ph 11 (étrio Kotrot), Ph 1” (äuäkovot), Ro 16" (deaconess), Ac 6' 9”, l Co 7 (xãpat). St. Paul organized some ministry from the first (1 Th 5”, l Co 12*); his influence from the first had been used to check the irregular utterances of the spirit and to lay greater stress on the ordered ministry (1 Co 12–14); and the further stress upon it is natural with the lapse of time bringing new developments of false teach- ing and the prospect of his own death. The prominence of prophecy, the uncertainty about the exact status of Timothy, about the presence of a monarchical episcopate, about the listinction between étloºkotos and Tpeogūrepos, the need of regulation of public speaking by women, all favour a date considerably earlier than the Ignatian letters. Certainly the letter gives the impression of a Church well established ; the functions of the various ministers are implied as already fixed, the étrio Kotri) is an object of desire (3'), Timothy can choose between novices and older members of the Church (3%), the Church widow must be of 60 years of age (5'), there has been sad experience of the falling away of Christian widows (5**); but none of these points carry us beyond the possible con- ditions of a flourishing community in a large city which may have been established at least ten years, at a time of quick development such as is stamped on every page of the NT. The advice of 5* is inconsistent with that of 1 Co 7", but there the advice is confessedly a counsel of perfection (cf. v.”), and given in face of a special necessity. A comparison with other documents connected with Ephesus, e.g. Ac 201*, esp. 9", the Prologue of St. John (with the stress on God’s creation of all things (cf. 4"), of the manifestation of Christ in flesh (cf. 3"), of the contrast between the Law and grace and truth and glory (cf. 1")), and with the Ep. to Eph. (with its stress on the Ascended Lord as the source of spiritual strength, on the importance of the ministry, of the Church, of family life, its wit- ness to the growth of Christian psalms and hymns), shows that the writer knows the conditions of Ephesus in the 1st century. (5) The teaching of the false teachers has been shown to be compatible with the Pauline author- ship, and it may |. added that the very vagueness of it suits an earlier rather than a later date, while the absence of any certain or probable allusion to Docetism, which was the prevalent danger in Luhesus and its neighbourhood at the time of 1 John and of the Ignatian letters, is in favour of placing this Epistle before those. (6) Some critics feel an artificiality in the situa- tion implied. Paul is about to return shortly, yet troubles to write on points like those of 2–3°, which could afford to wait ; yet the circumstances of the writing of 1 Cor. and 1 Thess. (I Co 4”, 1 Th 3*) are exactly analogous. Again, Timothy is placed in a position of very great importance, yet is distrusted as young, liable to be weak, and to be misled; but this corresponds to the little we know of Timothy's character elsewhere, and it is probable that he had failed to deal with a crisis at Corinth (cf. TIMOTHY): and both these are objec- tions to any unity of authorship ; indeed, if any- thing, it is more probable that St. Paul iºd have spoken thus in a private letter to Timothy, than that a later writer, who was ea hypothes; using Timothy as a type of an important official, treated as being the recipient of important instruc- tions, should have thus weakened his character. The conclusion is difficult. The Epistle marks at all points an advance on the earlier Epp. of St. Paul. In style, in organization, in stereotyped fixity of teaching, in the character of the teachers opposed, there are marked differences. On the other hand, in all these points it also offers marked differences from any writings of the 2nd cent. It falls within a period in which we have little to guide us. “The secularization of Christianity is in full swing’ (Jülicher), but there were the begin- nings of this in 1 Cor. and Epliesians. “The writer is a type of a time when the ethical voice of a noble Hellenism and the Roman instinct for organization are uniting themselves with the Chris- tianity which had sprung as religion out of Judaism, in order to build up the old-catholic Church’ (von Sodeil); but such incorporation of Greek and Roman thought had taken place in Paul's time, and was mainly due to his genius. It is Pauline in claim ; admittedly Pauline in central doctrine ; ‘their author was an adherent of the apostle's who reproduced his master's ideas” (Moffatt, l.c. p. 561). He has an intimate acquaintance with the Pauline letters: the letter was accepted as Pauline by those who most represented Paul's teaching. Whether we can take the further step and assert that it is Paul's own work, depends upon the question whether the stress on organization, authority, teaching, loyalty, can fall within his lifetime ; and whether he was one who could forget the controversies of the past and devote himself in the face of a new danger to lay stress on the foundation already laid, and to try to secure a high moral and spiritual tone within the Churches under his control by enforcing more strictness in worship and in the qualifications for the ministry. The points of comparison with the earlier Epistles can scarcely be urged in favour of the authorship ; indeed in one or two places, 1" 27 (esp. the parenthesis, d\#0etav Aéyw, où peºčouai), the language seems scarcely explained by the cir- cumstances of the time, but to be due to a mere extract from earlier letters, and if so, would be an argument against genuineness; but these phrases may be reminiscences in St. Paul's own mind of a past controversy (cf. Eph 2") rather than extracts from his letters; while the differences, e.g. in the salutation (1*), in the deeper description of his own sinfulness (1*), side by side with the stronger assurance of the truth of his message, the bold- ness of the criticism on Timothy, the personal reference to his illnesses and his water-drinking, the aſlectionateness of the last appeal (6*), ---all these are subtle points, which are more natural at first than at second hand, and which seem to bring us face to face with l'aul himself. vi. INTEGRITY. — There is no MS ground for 774 TIMOTHY, FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY, SECOND EPISTLE TO doubting the integrity of the Epistle; nor is there any intrinsic inconsistency or lack of arrangement— given the ordinary discursiveness of a letter—which would suggest interpolation. For the awkward anacoluthon lº, cf. Eph 34; 3” comes in awkwardly between * and *, and may need transposition, but 3* may be an after-thought (cf. 1 Co 1"); for 6” Cf. RO 1617-99. But the doubt has arisen in connexion with the authorship. On the theory of the Pauline author- ship, it has been suggested that the sections which imply a late date may be later additions to a genuine letter. Thus 3'-" is of a quite general character: it has no personal expression : it could be dropped without destroying the sequence of thought. 2-7.8-1° 5'-º', 17-22 are almost as general ; and the personal expressions trapaka)\@ 2*, 300Xouat 2° 5'4, éiritpétro 2°, 6tapapriſpoſal 5*, might be those of Timothy himself or of some later authority, laying down detailed instructions in accordance with the general principles enunciated by St. Paul. This would meet the difficulty of the large number of non-Pauline words in these sections; but that may be met by the fact that Paul is treating of new subjects, and is perhaps borrowing from half- stereotyped lists of virtues required of candidates for oflice, perhaps based on Jewish requirements, |. on Gentile analogies (for the correspondence etween the requirements of 3” and the . istics of the Stoic wise man, cf. Camb. Gr. Test. p. 57) : besides, it makes it necessary to treat 27 as a deliberate insertion, with a view to claim Pauline authorship for the section ſcf. Harnack (Chrom. i. 482-484), who treats 3'-3" 57 ° as fragments ater than 138 A.D.]. Again, on the theory of the non-Pauline authorship, it is necessary to explain the personal allusions. Some of these (14. 19-1927) rºtay be borrowed from or based upon previous letters, but 5” cannot be ; it cannot have been in- vented by a forger; it must be genuine, and the very awkwardness of its insertion at this point is against the theory of a second-hand compiler, who might more naturally have inserted it in 49-19. The command and the insertion of the command here depend upon some intimate acquaintance between the writer and Timothy, and intimate knowledge of the conditions at Ephesus. The most elaborate attempt to resolve the letter into its constituent factors is that of Knoke (Com- angntar zu den Pastoralbriefe, 1889), who assumes a combination of three letters—two of them from Paul to Timothy, the third the final redaction in the 2nd cent., in the interests of Church organiza- tion. An attempt to read these letters consecu- tively as arranged by him, a) 13, 4, 18–210 314-412 51-3, 5, 6, 11-15, 19-24 (b) 112-17 314–411. 13-16 212-15 57-9 617-19 (c) 31-9. 12. 10. 13 211 59. 10. 16. 4. 17 61. 2, will show the arbitrariness of the division, and the possibility on such a test of subdividing the three still further. For exact details of suggested theories, cf. Moffatt, l.c. p. 702; Clemen, Die Einheitlichkeit der paul. Iłriefe, pp. 143 – 175; McGiffert, pp. 405–412; Harnack, Chron. i. pp. 480–484. vii. VALUE. –The intrinsic value is partly in- dependent of its authorship, for the Pastoral Epistles, even if not written as proofs of love and affection by Paul to Timothy ind Titus, ‘in honore tamen ecclesiae catholicæ in ordinatione ecclesiasticae disciplinae sanctificatae sunt’ (Murator. Canon). But its witness is not so much to details of ecclé- siastical order (for these are ambiguous), as to principles. (a) It witnesses, more fully than even Titus and 2Tim., to the principle of the delegation of apostolic authority. The highest duty of ordaining, and exer- -us cising discipline over all the officers, is not inherent in a Church already possessing presbyters and deacons, but is delegated from above to a repre- sentative of the apostle. On the Pauline author. ship the fact that this was Paul's view, on the non- Pauline authorship the belief in the fact is testified. St. Paul acts as St. John acted in the presence of the growing needs of the Church (Clem. Alex. Quis Dives, c. 42). (b) It witnesses that a highly ethical and spiritual conception of religion is consistent with and is safeguarded by careful regulations about worship, ritual and organized ministry. There is no opposi- tion between the outward and the inward, between the spirit and the organized body. º (c) It breathes a healthy manly impatience of intellectual quibbles, and sophistries, which are divorced from a moral life. It is akin to St. Paul's protest against coºla and Yvárºs in 1 Co 1 and 7, but it carries it into a different region. (d) In details it has had a direct influence upon the º and dress of Christian women in worship—though here it does not add anything to 1 Cor.—upon the subjects of prayer in all Christian liturgies, making them universal and loyal, and so contributing to a missionary feeling and to a con- ciliatory attitude of the Church to its rulers. It is again the first handbook of Church discipline, and its direct influence may be seen in the Apostolic Constitutions and subsequent legislation, mainly in requiring high moral qualifications in all Christian officials, and in insisting on a high standard of justice and impartiality in dealing with them. Even more is it the germ of treatises on the ualifications of the ministerial office, such as St. hrysostom's trepi lepwoºvms ; St. Ambrose, de Officiis Ministroyum ; St. Gregory, de Pastoral, Cura. LITERATURE.-A very full account of previous literature will be found in Holtzmann's or in Mangold's lºſinleitwmg. It will be sufficient here to mention as the best modern statements of the problems connected with the Epistle: (1) against the Pauline authorship, Holtzmann, Die Pastoralbriefe (1886); von Soden in the Hand-Commentar; Harnack, Chromologie, i. pp. 480– 485 (1897); Jülicher, Iſinleitung 4, pp. 136–156 (1901); McGiffert, History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age, pp. 398 ft. (Edin. 1897); Moffatt, IIistorical NT, pp. 556-563 (IEdin, 1901). (2) For the Pauline authorship, Weiss in Meyer's Commentar zum NT"; Riggenbach in the ICurzgeſ. Comm. (semi-Pauline); Zahn, Einleitung, i. pp. 398–489 §: Salmon, Introd. to NT", c. xx.; Findlay's Appendix attached to the translation of Sabatier's The Apostle Paul (1891); Lightfoot, Biblical 1988ays, chs. xi. xii., and Hort's Judaistic Christianity and The Christian lºcclesia. For exegesis: Theodore of Mopsuestia with Swete's notes (Cambridge, 1882) is indispensable as representing the Patristic views. Theodoret and Ambrosiaster are terse and sensible, and St. Chrysostom's honmilies are illuminating and edifying. Of modern commentators von Soden for lºcen penetration, Weiss and Riggenbach for well-balanced lº are pre-eminent, and H. P. Liddon for careful analysis and Patristic illustrations (1897). Illicott, Alford, Wace (in the Speaker's Conmentary) are careful and learncol; Plummer in the Ea:positor's Bible interesting and suggestive; J. H. Bernard in Camb, Gº'. Test. (1899) and A. E. Humphreys in Canb. Bible for Schools (1807) are excellent school manuals; R. F. Horton in the Century Bible (1901) is interesting, but inexact and inconsistent... Useful notes on special verses will be found in Westcott-Hort, ii. App. p. 133, and Field's Otiwm Norvicense, iii.9 pp. 203-214. W. LOCK. TIMOTHY, SECOND EPISTLE TO.- . IIistorical Situation of the writer. ii. Analysis. iii. Iliterary Dependence, iv. Situation at Ephesus. (a) Falso Teaching. (b) Church Organization. v. Authorship. vi. Integrity. vij. Value. i. HISTORICAL SITUATION.—St. Paul is in prison at Rome, bound with a chain, and had been a º for some length of time (18. 1%. 1729). He had incurred imprisonment in the cause of Christ (1*) as an apostle and teacher of the gospel (1” 2"); perhaps some definite charge of misdeunean- i TIMOTHY, SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY, SECOND EPISTLE TO 775 our had been made ºgainst him (dºs kakoſ p'yos, 2"; cf. kakotrotós, 1 P 2" 4", but this may be no more than a simile). But the place and circumstances of his arrest are not clear. He had been tra- velling through Asia Minor and Greece with a band of fellow-travellers (cf. Tit 3” ol per' époſ, Távres), including Demas, Crescens, Titus, Tychicus, Erastus, and Trophimus; apparently he had been opposed at Troas by Alexander, and obliged to leave hastily (4”. 14): in Asia, he was deserted by those to whom he looked for support (1*): at Miletus he left Trophimus ill : at Corinth Erastus stayed behind ; the rest probably moved forward to Nicopolis (Tit 3”); and there, or perhaps at Rome itself, he may have been arrested : Demas deserted him : Crescens was despatched to Galatia (?Caul): Titus to Dalmatia: Tychicus to Ephesus: and when he writes Luke is with him single-handed. An Asiatic Christian, Onesiphorus, had found him out, though with difficulty, had cheered his loneli- ness, and perhaps was enabled to better his condi- tion (12"); the Roman Christians are in touch with him, and he is able to send a word of greeting from all of them (4”). Perhaps his trial had already begun and been adjourned (4". 17, but cf. Zahn, Eiml. i. p. 402, and Spitta, Zur Gesch. des Urchristentatºms, i. pp. 35–50, who make out a good case for referring this to his trial in the previous imprisonment): at |. any rate he regards his death as certain and as not far off (48 °). So in his loneliness he wants help, and his mind turns to his ‘beloved son’ Timothy, and to Mark, to whom he had been reconciled. Timothy was at the time somewhere in Asia Minor, —probably at Ephesus, as he is in a position of authority, where he has to teach and hand on his teaching, cf. 118 2*, *, 3, 4*, *, and Paul writes to beg him to come, and to conne quickly before the winter, to pick up Mark by the way, and to stop at Troas for the cloak and books and parchments left there. But Timothy was of a timid nature, and the journey was one which would imply peril, and possibly he may arrive too late to see St. Paul, or may have to face death himself; so he exhorts him to have courage and to provide others who will be able to teach the truth, and warns him against the special dangers which are likely to beset his teaching. The interest of the Epistle oscillates between St. Paul’s desire for sympathy and his wish to strengthen Timothy's hands and to guard the deposit of the truth. ii. ANALYSIS. 11, 2, Greeting. 3-5. Thanksgiving for Timothy's past affection and faith, and desire to see him again. A. 16–218. Exhortations based mainly on St. Paul's position. B. 214–48. Exhortations based mainly on the position of Timothy. A. Exhortation (1) to stir up his ministerial gift (6): remembering the nature of the Spirit given by the laying on of the apostle's hands (7). (2) to be bold to face suffering (8): remembering (a) the power and grace of God, which has conquered death and brought life and immortality to light (9.10). (b) the example of Paul himself, who has faced suffering with perfect trust in God (11. 12). (8) to hold fast the truth entrusted to him (18), in the strength of the indwelling Spirit (14). These exhortations are enforced by an appeal to the example of others: §. a warning—the disloyalty of the Asiatic Christians (10). (b) as an encouragement — the boldness and aſtection and kindly help of Onesiphorus (10-18). § to be strong in the power of grace (21). (5) to commit the true teaching to others and secure its tradition (29). (6) to be rendy to face suffering,-like a noble soldier (3), which implics whole-hearted ser- vice (4); like an athlete, who must keep the rules of the game (b); like a husbandman, who is only rewarded if he toil well (d. 7): remembering (a) the gospel of the lèisen Christ, which has enabled Paul himself to face suffering for the elect's sake (8-10). (b) the faithful saying—with its encour- agement to all who suffer with Christ, and its warning to all who deny Him (11-18). B. Exhortations, mainly dealing with the nature of the teaching to be given by Timothy— (1) to urge Christians to avoid idle and useless discussions (14). (2) to be himself a true worker, rightly teaching the truth and avoiding profane babblings (10.16): remembering that (a) such discussions lead to º and spread quickly to the ruin of faith (17. 18). (b) whereas God's foundation rests upon His knowledge of His own, and their abstention from iniquity (19). (c) in every house there are good and bad vessels, and a man must cleanse him- self from evil to be a good vessel (20:21). (3) to avoid youthful passions, and to aim at the true spiritual qualities (22). (4) to avoid foolish investigations (23): for they cause strife, and hinder the true char- acter and patient hopeful work of the servant of the Lord (24-26). (5) to avoid false teachers: for, (a) there lies in the future a great growth of empty profession of Christianity combined with selfishness and a low standard of morality (31-5). (b) this will be ministered to by false and vain teachers, deluding their votaries and opposing the truth, like Jannes and Janibres, who will, however, be soon exposed (6-9). (6) to abide loyally by his past teaching: remembering (a) their past common experience ºering, and of God's protection from it (b) that suffering is a universal law for Christians (12). (c) that deceivers will grow worse (13). (d) the teachers from whom he has learnt even from childhood the real spiritual Yº and purpose of all Scripture -i ( ). to fulfil his whole duty, as an evangelist, with patience, sobriety, and courage (41-5): remembering (a) that people will grow im- patient of sound teaching (3.4). (b) that Paul himself is º : his work is done: he can only look forward to the crown of righteousness (6.7). (c) that that crown will be given to all who love the Lord's appearing (8). 49.21. Personal messages. Appeal to Timothy to come quickly, because of Paul's loneliness (9.10): to bring Mark also (il), and to stop at Troas for his cloak and books (12): to avoid Alexander (14.15). Reminder of the way in which the Lord had pro- tected him in the past in spite of men's desertion, and trust in Him for the future § Special greetings to and from individuals (1921), with further account of his fellow-travellers (20), and a renewed appeal to come soon. 23. Final Salutation to Timothy and to those with him. With the exception of the last word the Epistle is a personal letter throughout, and was probably never intended to be read aloud to the Church under Timothy's care. The note in 27 emphasizes this esoteric character. - iii. LITERARY DEPENDENCE. –The Epistle is so Hº! and so little argumentative that there is ittle direct quotation in it, even from the OT, the inportance of which is so strongly insisted upon (3”). The allusions to it are subconscious and secondary. This may be partly accounted for by the fact that the writer was without his books and parchments (4”); yet his mind is thoroughly steeped in it. Nu 16°, Is 269 lie behind 219, but mediated through Christ's saying in Mt 7*.*, Lk 13”; Wis 157 lies bellind 2", perhaps mediated through Ito 9°. : Ps 62° is adapted in 44: Ps 22** colours the whole language and thought of 47. 18; and perhaps Is 42'-' affects the description of the servant of the Ilord in 2*-*. Jewish tradition—whether written or unwritten is uncertain (cf. Thackeray, J'elation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, pp. 215–222)—is quoted in 3*". 776 TIMOTHY, SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY, SECOND EPISTLE TO One ‘faithful saying’ is quoted in 2*, possibl a fragment of a Christian hymn based on Ro 6° 817, Mt 10*, Lk 12" (cf. CGT, ad loc.): the ‘seals’ in 21°, while based on the OT, were probably already stereo- typed as Christian watchwords: 2° reads like a reminiscence of some early form of creed (cf. Burn, Introduction to the Creeds, pp. 27–30): 4” is perhaps a quotation from some Šiši. pro- het (cf. Jude "): 4° from some &ypaſpov of the ord (cf. Resch, Agrapha, p. 253): 4* recalls the end of the Lord’s Prayer. There are many parallelisms with the earlier Pauline Epistles. 13ff. cf. Ro 18ff. * cf. RO 6887. 2 17 ,, Ro 815. ,, Tit 39. 18 , Ro 116, Eph 41. 222 ,, 1 Ti 611. 19. , Ro 1625, Eph 1428. 85 ,, Tit 110. 111 , , 1 Ti 27. 37 ,, Tit 11631. 3. } % #3 ** 46 , Ph 123 217. 24.0 , 1 Co 97tſ. - Of all these passages Ph, 1* 27, 1 Ti 27.6" alone suggest a conscious literary imitation; and ". {ll'O' equally consistent, if not more consistent, with the hypothesis that they are the entirely independent utterances of the same writer. The correspond- ences with the Acts are mainly with the speeches of St. Paul there (1*, cf. Ac 23, 24*; 47, cf. Ac 20°), but they are not close enough to be extracts; and if. they need any explanation, it is very possible that St. Luke was preparing the Acts at this time. iv. SITUATION IMPLIED AT EPHESUS (?). — (a) False Teachers. —The warning against false teachers is less prominent than in 1 Tim. or Titus: they are in the background, and their features are seen with less distinctness; yet, so far as they can be descried, they may be identified as the same as there. Their chief characteristic is to ‘strive about words’ (2*), to indulge in ‘profane bab- blings’ (2%), in ‘foolish and ignorant questionings’ (2%), in ‘fables’ (4*): they are ‘corrupted in mind.” (3°), unspiritual (2*), tending to a low standard of morality (2*): attracting silly women by profes- sions of knowledge, yet unable to satisfy their desire for it (3%. 7). T. tendencies will increase hereafter (3* év čoxárats huépats, perhaps an applica- tion of some previous prophecy ; perhaps little more than hereafter,’ cf. Pr:31*), but within Timothy's own lifetime (3° à trotpétrov, 4*). In all these points they resemble the teachers of 1 Tim. and Titus. There are, however, two distinctive traits. (1) They are yómrºs (3*), i.e. either, loosely, ‘se- ducers’ (AV), “impostors’ (RV) : or, more exactly, ‘magicians,’ ‘jugglers,’ carrying on, even in their professed Christianity, the old Jewish sorcery or the magical formulae of the “Ephesian letters,’ akin to Simon Magus, Elymas, the sons of Sceva, or those who practised ‘curious arts’ at Ephesus. The analogy of Jannes and Jambres (3*) makes it probable that the more exact sense is right. (2) Two of them, Hymenaeus and Philetus, taught definitely that ‘the resurrection is already past.” Such an assertion must have sprung from a low view of matter, shrinking from belief in a literal resurrection of the body, and either (a) asserting that the only resurrection is the resurrec- tion of the spirit to newness of life in baptism—a view which springs from the same source as the difficulties about the resurrection in 1 Co 15, and may have been based on a misrepresentation of St. Paul’s own teaching (Ro 6*), and which was a common tenet in Gnostic teaching (cf. Iren. i. 23, ii. 31 ; Tert. de IResurr. 19, de Praescript. 3; Justin, Dial. 80; Polyc. c. 7; 2 Clem. Iłom. 9), but would also find sympathy in Jewish thought ; or (b) asserting that a man only rose and lived again in his posterity, an explanation which is found in Acta Theclº 14, hue's ore Övöä$oplev Yu Xé-yév of ros dvág Taowu Yiyueq 0at Ört #6m néºyovév, Éq ols éxopiev =& -sº Tékvous — a view which would be akin to earlier Jewish thought, but is a less natural perversion of any Christian theory (see Zahn, Einl. i. p. 486). There is, then, nothing to dissociate the teachers of this Epistle from those of 1 Tim. and Tit.; and the importance laid on the true spiritual purposes of the OT, as well as the ad hominem appeal te the Jewish Haggada (3**), make it probable that they were perverting the spiritual value of the OT by the introduction of worthless Rabbinic legends and speculations. (b) Church Organization.—On this there is little stress and few details of it. Timothy represents St. Paul ; he is to uphold the deposit, the teaching received from Paul, Paul's º (112, 1822 & 310, 19); he is to guide the teaching of others (2*), to exercise discipline (4°). He has received a spiritual qualification for his task conferred by the imposi- tion of St. Paul’s hands (19, but see 1 TIMOTHY) : his task is described as a 6takovla, he himself as an eVayye) to Tús : he is being summoned away for a special visit to St. Paul, but it seems to be assumed i. he will return (3'-' 4*). Meanwhile he is to secure a sure succession for St. Paul’s teaching by entrusting it to others, who will be able to hand it on in their turn to others (2*). The suggestion of this Epistle, in contrast to that of 1 Tinn., is distinctly against the idea that Timothy was a temporary delegate, and favours the theory that he W. a permanent office and a permanent localisation of the office. v. AUTHORSHIP.-The external evidence for the Pauline authorship is much the same as that for 1 Timothy, save that the allusions to its language in writers of the first quarter of the 2nd cent. are less unequivocal. It was possibly known by Ignatius, more probably by Polycarp (c. 5 = 2*, c. 9= 4"), but the conscious borrowing from the Epistle is not certain in either writer. This differ- ence may be due to the fact that it is a more private letter than 1 Timothy. On the other hand, the intrinsic evidence of genuineness is much stronger than in 1 Tim, or in Titus. Positively, there are personal touches throughout ; negatively, there is less to be urged against the genuineness. The picture of Timothy as young, timid, affectionate, is of a piece with what is known of him elsewhere : the allusions in 1° 2'" 4"-1". 19-9) bear the stamp of truth, giving a picture of desertion and cowardice in some Christians which could scarcely have been invented, and they are independent of the Acts and of all other known sources. So with regard to the writer; in char- acter—the affection for his fellow-workers, the gratitude for kindness, the sensitiveness to deser- tion (cf. 2 Cor.), the prayer for those who have deserted him, the sense of the importance of his own mission, the appeal to his own teaching and his own sufferings, the self-sacrifice for the elect's sake, the assurance of the Lord's protection and of the reward which he shall receive at the last day ; in method of teaching—the loyalty to Judaism (19– Ph. 3%), the value attached to the OT (3", 17, cf. Ro 15"), the use of Jewish traditions (4°), the masculine contempt for trivialities of argument (2%); in the substance of the doctrines taught—the stress on God’s purpose and grace, on the conquest of death, on the risen Christ as the inspirer of confidence, on the need of suffering and of courage, on the moral tests of faith, all these point clearly to St. Paul. There is no objection, on the side of Church organization or of the doctrines assailed, to be raised against his authorship. The slight distrust of Timothy's courage and conduct (1" 2*) may surprise us, but they would be more surpris- ing in a forger : the repetition to him of the nameſ of his mother and grandmother (1") are indeed un, necessary, but very natural in an old man recalling TIMOTHY, SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY, SECOND EPISTLE TO 777 his old converts; the assertion of his apostleship (1") is natural to one who is enforcing the duty of loyal adherence to his teaching : the vague gener- alities about the false teaching and the absence of controversial argument in refutation of them are natural in writing to one who knew all the circum- stances. The reference to the persecutions in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra only (3*), is expli- cable, as they were the first which Timothy had witnessed, and is very like that in 2 Co 11* *. The only ground of suspicion lies in the style— partly in the large º: of Štraš Neyðaeva (44 in this Epistle alone : á0\etv, &kalpas, &kpaths, dvašajirupéïv, divāNvots, dvavijºpéuv, &vayúxeuv, divešt- Kákos, &vetralaxvvros, &vijuepos, durióvatitea 9at, dTrai- ôéutos, &trorpétréo 6au, äptuos, dºptA4)a.00s, £8éAttov, ºyá'Y'Ypatva, yöms, Yuvaukáptov, Öet\la, Écômxos, éNeypads, évôUveau, &m avóp0ajoris, étrio woeiſelv, 66.6truevo ros, kata- ºp0etpelv, Kvå0euv, Noyopaxe?v, p.4pm, uépôpava, veal- Tepukós, òpôotopeſv, truatoſio 6at, trpaypatia, otpato)\oyetv, ovvkakotra.0etu, orwºpovtopičs, ºpéAövms, ºptAavros, ºptAi- ãovos, ºptA60eos, XaXkets, xpija uplos, no one of which, however, suggests a later date), and more de- finitely, in the many words or phrases — either Latinisms (xãpty &xaſ, 6' ºu alrtav) or half-stereo- typed formulae (ka0apå avvelömorus, Kadapt, Kapòla, €trlyvayats dAmóetas, trapa.0%km, jºyuatvovres \{you, ) irytalvovora övőagka)\ta, truo Tös 6 \0')0s, 868% ow kevo- ºwvlat, h toſſ 6tagóNov traºyls, 6 roſ) 0600 div0pwros, ô vöv aldºv)—which suggest a different writer at a rather later stage of Christianity. With regard to these the suggestions urged on 1 Tim. will hold good, and it will perhaps be felt that, if they stood alone, they would not be so striking as when • : .. - e : 1. FTY - , , , r|[y w placed side by side with 1 Tim. and Titus. They would be scarcely a serious objection to this Epistle, on the hypothesis that those were later imitations of this. The difficulty of inserting the historical situation in the time covered by the Acts, or of placing the date of the Epistle in the first Roman im- brisonment, seems insuperable, and, if it is genuine, it presupposeſ, a later imprisonment (cf. 1 TIMOTHY). vi. INTEGRITY. — The MSS supply no hint of interpolation or of ‘contamination’ in the Epistle, neither does any internal necessity require such an liypothesis. Ibut there are certain facts which have not unnaturally raised doubts about the integrity. Thus (1) the Epistle varies between two main purposes, and there is a possibility of contradiction between them. The greater part is an instruction to Timothy about his teaching at Ephesus, and it seems to be assumed that he will remain there ; the latter part summons him to leave and join the writer. These two purposes are obviously capable of being combined, and the appeals in chs. 1 and 2 may naturally be inter- preted ‘show courage by coming to join me in my prison,’ ‘entrust your teaching to others in your own albsence or in the prospect of your own death’; but this is not said, as might have been expected in the face of 4°. (2) Again, sections of the Epistle are personal and distinctly Pauline throughout ; while others (2"–3") consist of vague generalities, consistent with Pauline authorship, but not demanding it. (3) There are some ºpiº >nt contradictions, e.g. 3" as contrasted with 2" (but they are not neces- fialily spoken of the same persons, and, while 3" 1efers to external success, 2" refers mainly to internal degeneracy); again, 4" as contrasted with 4* (but Luke may have been St. Paul’s only attendant in prison, Eubulus and the others Roman Christians who had access to him from outside). (4) The construction of the opening sentence is diſlicult, and has suggested that it has been care- º reconstructed from some earlier form ; but its diſliculty does not go beyond that of many Pauline paragraphs. Again, 1* is easily separ- able from the surrounding context, and its con- nexion with it is not at first sight obvious : yet there is a real connexion (see the analysis), and the difficulty of its position will remain on any theory of construction. These facts have given rise to attempts of two kinds to resolve the Epistle into º: parts. (1) It consists of two, or possibly more, letters by St. Paul himself, which have been *idently combined. In this case 11-48 with, perhaps, 4” and * might form one letter, written from the Roman in prisonment, and 4** with 4” will be a second letter, perhaps written earlier, at the time of the imprisonment in Caesarea (Clemen), or even later in the Roman imprisonment. This theory meets many difficulties, would imply very little dislocation of MSS, , and very possibly has an analogy in the end of the Epistle to the Romans. (2) It consists of genuine fragments of Pauline letters, worked up into one whole by some later writer, say of the time of Domitian (Clemen), with the object of strengthening Christians in the face of persecution, and securing the tradition of apos- tolic doctrine against innovating tendencies. We might then have (a) 4** *** a short letter, calling Timothy to rejoin him, written at some time in the third missionary journey (McGiffert, Bartlet); (b) 11–21° 39–48 and 416-18 a letter of encouragement to Timothy, written at the end of the Roman imprisonment ; (c) 2"–3° the addition of the ultimate redactor. Further and more de- tailed suggestions of the possibility of reconstruc- tion will be found in Clemen (Die Einheitlichkeit der Paul. Briefe, pp. 142-156); McGiflert (The Apostolic Age, pp. 404–414); Moflatt (The His- torical New Testament, pp. 700–704). But there is no sufficient reason for treating any part of the Epistle as un-Pauline: the theories of interweaving of document with document are too intricate to be probable, and no one theory has commanded any- thing like a common assent. Jülicher (Einleitung”, pp. 155, 156) entirely rejects the theory, because of the unity of each of the Pastoral Epistles, and regards them throughout as purely inventions attributed to the apostle. vii. VALUE.--The importance of the Epistle is not great on doctrinal or ecclesiastical grounds : doctrinally, indeed, it adds the fullest statement of the inspiration of the OT and of its primary value to a Christian teacher that is to be found in the NT : it probably bears witness to the practice of prayer to God for mercy to the dead (1*), and it shows the power of the Christian doctrine of a Iłisen Christ to support a Christian in the face of death ; ecclesiastically, it shows the value attached to the imposition of the apostle's hands, and to a succession of ministers as a means of securing the tradition of sound teaching ; but none of these points are º to this Epistle. Its real value is historical and personal. Assuming the Pauline authorship, it is the chief source of evidence for Paul’s life after the close of the Acts, supporting the theory of a second in prisonment, giving details of the last trial, implying further missionary work to the east, and possibly to the west (4") of Rorne, testifying to his reconciliation with John Mark, and giving glimpses of some of his friends, who are not known to us from other sources. On the non-l'auline authorship, its witness to these his- toric facts may be trusted, and it would also be a witness to the tone of ecclesiastical thought in l’auline Churches at the end of the lst or beginning of the 2nd cent. But its main interest is one of character, and two portraits emerge from it. (1) The portrait of the ideal Christian minister. He is, like Christ Himself, to re- produce the features of Isaiah’s ideal of ‘The 778 TIN TIRE Servant of the Lord,” patient, gentle, hopeful, interceding (2*): he is to be God’s man, His loyal liegenman (3"); like a soldier, unentangled with civil duties (2*); like an athlete, obeying loyally the rules of the contest (2°); like a husbandman, toiling hard, and, if so, earning his reward (2%); like a tradesman, honestly cutting out his goods (2*2); like a fisherman, trying to catch back those who have been caught by the devil (2**): he needs courage, gentleness in face of opposition, willing- ness to face suffering, hopefulness for those who have gone wrong: he is to be serviceable (eixpmatos, 4*), thoroughly equipped for every good work (3"), to keep himself free from moral evil (2*), to ré. kindle the grace given by ordination, remembering that it was the gift of a spirit of love and power and discipline (17). In teaching, he is to avoid idle speculations and restless innovations, to be loyal to the truth, to be long-suffering and yet bold in rebuke ; the remembrance of the Risen Christ is to be ever before him ; and he is to take for his standard of life and teaching (a) the facts of the apostle's life (3%), (b) the outline of the apostle's teaching, (c) the OT Scriptures, which are not only able to make him wise unto salvation, but also to guide him in his discipline of others. (2) The portrait of the Christian minister, with his work done, facing death (cf. 1 John and 2 Peter). He acquiesces gladly in the present, but his eyes are turned mainly to the past or to the future. He recalls the way in which he from his youth, and his ancestors before him, have worshipped God (1*): he dwells on God’s power (17. * * 2° 417) as having protected him in all past dangers (3*), as communicated to himself (4”), and yet independent of himself—God may imprison His preachers, but His word is never fettered (2*): he reviews his whole course, he has no doubt of his reward ; and so lie looks into the future, he antici- pates the false teaching that will arise (3*), he warns against it, he provides for a succession of teachers to whom the truth can be entrusted (2*): he strengthens his favourite son for his task: he is sure that God will protect him from every evil work that may meet him in this life, and he looks beyond the grave : he sees God’s sure foundation firmly standing (2*): he sees God protecting the teaching which he has handed i.e. to His care (1*): he sees God rewarding evil-doers according to their work (41*): he sees the heavenly kingdom, eternal glory, life and immortality ; he sees the coming in brightness (étripaveva) of the Righteous Judge, and the crown of righteousness given to him and to all who have loved that coming (4°). The Epistle is the letter of a good shepherd who is laying down his life for his sheep to one whom he is training to be also a good shepherd and to lay down his life for his sheep, and is inspired by the remenbrance of ‘the ë. Shepherd' who had laid down His life and risen from the grave. LITERATURE.-I'or the literature cf. 1 Timothy and Titus. W. LOCK. TIN (ºn bedhil) was known as an alloy with ...}}. at least as early as 1600 B.C. in Egypt, and probably before 2000 B.C. in Europe. It was also prepared pure in Egypt at least by 1400 B.C. The source of it is much debated. Banca, Spain, and Britain have all been proposed. That it appears as an alloy earlier in Europe than in Egypt shows that it was European ; and the nearest source of it to the early bronze lands of Europe is in the tin mines of Bohemia and Saxony. Tin (Gr. Kao alrepos) in the literal sense is mentioned in Nu 31” (P) along with brass, iron, and lead, and along with the same metals is used ſig. of Israel in Ezk 22° (cf. v.”); and it appears in Ezk 27” along with silver, iron, and lead, as an article of com- merce brought to Tyre from Tarshish. In Is 1” ‘ alloy’ would be a better rendering than ‘tin.” In Zec 4" ºn lºsſ = plummet. See further under MINES, MINING. W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE. TIPHSAH (npº- ‘the ford’).-The name of twº places. 1. (9ayá; Thaphsa) The northern limit of Solo- mon’s dominions west of the Euphrates — the southern limit being Gaza (1 K 4*). It is identi- fied by nearly all commentators with Thapsacus, on the right bank of the Euphrates, above the confluence of the Belik. Tiphsah was the lowest ford across the Euphrates, and the point at which Cyrus the younger forded the river, the water being breast-high (Xen. Amab. I. iv. 11). At the same place Darius crossed before and after Issus, and Alexander crossed in pursuit, on two bridges (Arrian, iii. 7). Tiphsah was the most important crossing-place in the middle course of the Euphrates, and on one of the great commercial routes between the East and the West. In the time of Xenophon it was great and prosperous, and it is mentioned later as the point at which river-borne goods from the lower Euphrates were landed and shipped. Under the Seleucids it was called Am }}. The town was at or near Rala't Dibse, about eight miles below Meskine (Peters, Nippur). - 2. (B 0épard, A €90tpá [i.e. Hymn Tirzah]; Thapsa) A town, apparently near Tirzah, which was taken by Menahem after he had dispossessed Shallum and seized the throne (2 K 15"). Josephus (Ant. IX. xi. 1) writes the name 6ayá as if it were Thapsacus. Thenius suggests that the name was originally written Tappwah (cf. Luc. Taqwā). The site is unknown. C. W. WILSON. TIRAS (Dºn; 6etpás, Luc. 6tpás). — A son of Japheth, Gn 10” [P], 1 Ch 1°. Ethnologically, the name should probably be identified with the Turusha, a seafaring people mentioned in the Egyp- tian inscriptions of the 13th cent., the Tupa muot of the Greeks (so Ed. Meyer [Gesch. d. Alterthums, i. 260], followed by Dillm., Holzinger, Gunkel, et al.). Jensen (Theol. Ltztg. 1899, 3, col. 70) makes it =Tarsus; W. Max Müller (Orient. Ltztg. Aug. 1900, col. 290) takes it as a doublet of Tarshish of v.4, which, he identifies with Turs, i.e. the land of the Tyrrhenians or Italy. There are the strongest objections to the view of Josephus (Amt. I. vi. 1), Jerome (on Gn 10°), and the Targg., that Tiras = the Thracians. J. A. SELBIE. TIRATHITES(DºnyTh; BA’Apya0telu, Luc. 9apadel). —A family of scribes that dwelt at Jabez, 1 Ch 2". The passage is very obscure. See SH IMEATH- ITES, and cf. GENEALOGY, vol. ii. p. 128", and Wellh. de Gentibus, 30 fl. TIRE.-The Eng. word ‘tire,’ which occurs as a subst. == headdress in Is 31°, Ezk 2417. 99, Jth 10° 16°, is simply an aphetic form of “attire ; it has nothing to do with ‘tier’ or ‘tiara,’ though its special application to the dress for the head is per- haps due to such a fanciful connexion. Cf. Adams, III’eter, 70, ‘They metamorphose their heads, as if they were ashamed of the head of God's making, roud of the tire-woman's. Sometimes one tire is |...} the husband's rent-day’; also Spenser, I'Q II. ix. 19– ‘IIer yellow golden heare Was trimly woven, and in tresses wrought, No other tire she on her head did weare, But crowned with a garland of sweete rosiere." The verb ‘to tire’ is used more generally = dress, adorn, as 1 P 3" Tind., “For after this maner in the olde tyme dyd the holy wenen which trusted in God, tyer them selves, and were obedient to their TIRHAKAH TIRZAH 779 husbandes’; though its only occurrence in AV has the sense of attiring the head, 2 K.9° “And she painted her face, and tired her head, and looked out at a window.’ sage is nºr, lit. to make a thing good, right, beautiful (LXX &ya.0úvetv.); cf. its use in Ex 30” (of trimming a lamp) and Hos 10" (of erecting goodly mazzébahs). The nouns rendered ‘tire’ are—1. "Nº Ezk 24*7 °. This word prob. denotes a tiara or twrban of an ornate claracter. Its other occurrences are Ex 39°, Ezk 44" (both of the headdress of the priests), Is 3” (worn by fashionable ladies),61° " (in the last the bridegroom “makes his headdress priestly,’ in allu- sion to the splendour of, or the special way of folding, the priestly turban [unless, with Marti, et al., we read κ for rºl). 2. Dºhly Is 3”. See CRESCENTS. 3. Alrpa, Jth 10° 16°. J. HASTINGS. TIRHAKAH (nºrth), king of Cush (0apá [so B in 2 Kings; A 6apaká, which is read also by B in Isaiah ; Luc. 6ap0áic] &aat)\ets Alôtétrov), marched out from Egypt against Sennacherib during the expedition of the latter against Judaea, in the reign of Hezekiah (2 K 199, Is 37°), immediately before the destruction of Sennacherib's army in the night by the angel of the Lord at Libnah. Herodotus (ii. 141) relates that Sethos or Sethon, king of Egypt and priest of Hephæstus, obtained the de- struction of the army of Sennacherib from his god, who at night-time sent a host of field mice into the invaders' camp at Pelusium. The mice devoured the bow-strings and harness, and left the foe help- less. “Sethon' seems to be simply the title of the priest of ‘Hephæstus,’ i.e. Ptah of Memphis, (see Griffith, Stories of the High Priests of Memphis, p. 8), and this title is hardly compatible with that of king. If Sennacherib's expedition be that of B.C. 701,–the only expedition to these parts recorded in his annals (see art. SENNACHERIB), it must have taken place before the reign of Tirhakah, which began in 691. This evidence combined points to the following hypothetical reconstruction of the episode: Tirhakah, before his elevation to the Ethiopian- Egyptian throne, was governor of Lower Egypt ; and at its capital, Memphis, he was high priest of Ptah when Sennacherib threatened invasion (Griffith, l.c. p. 10). After some signal and unex- pected disaster on the frontier of Palestine or Egypt, Sennacherib was compelled to retreat hastily. To return to facts: Sennaclerib died in B.C. 682. Tirhakah (Egyp. THRQ), who was the last king but one of the 25th (Ethiopian) IOynasty,+founded by Shabaka, -began to reign in 691. His monuments are found at Gebel Barkal in Nubia, as well as throughout Egypt. In Tºgyptian documents Tir- hakah is entitled ‘Pharaoh’; but, though probably long resident in Egypt before ascending the throne (Schaefer, Aegyp. Ztschr. 1900, 51), he was essenti- ally an Ethiopian, and was for some time excluded from Egypt by the Assyrians. Outside Egypt, doubtless, he was known as “king of Cush.” After sustaining several attacks, Taharqa (Assyr. Tarkū) was driven out of Egypt in 670 by Esarhaddon, who plundered Memphis and Thebes, and divided the government among 20 rulers — chiefly native — tributary to Assyria. This arrangement was of short duration. Tirhakal, seems to have returned to Egypt after Esarhaddon had withdrawn, and Esarhaddon was on his way to punish the Egyp- tian revolt when he died in Nov. 669 (Johns in Emc. Bibl. s.v. “Esarhaddon ’). The first expedition of his successor, Assurbanipal, was against Egypt. It was on a great scale, and overwhelmed both Lower and Upper Egypt. Tirhakali fled from Memphis to Thebes, and from Thebes to Ethiopia, whence he at once commenced intriguing with the princes of the IDelta. The plot was frustrated, and soon afterwards Tirhakah died. Ile was succeeded by Tanut-Amon The Heb. verb in this last pas- (Assyr. Tandamane), who recovered Egypt, but was driven out by Assurbanipal in the last Assyrian expedition ever made against that country. F. L.L. GRIFFITH. TIRHANAH (nirº ; B 0apáp, A €apxvá, Luc. 9apaavá). — A son of Caleb by his concubine, Maacah, 1 Ch 248. TIRIA (NTF, but Baer Nºh; Bom.., A €mptá, Luc. 'E0pud).-A son of Jehallelel, 1 Ch 4". TIRSHATHA (Rºn).—The word occurs in five places; the LXX omits it altogether in Neh 8° 10' ; reads on the doubtful authority of a late corrector 'A0apo affä in Neh 770; and in Ezr 29, Neh 700 fluctuates between A ‘Affepo affā, B “A6eparaó, and ‘Ageporabá. The term occurs also under the dis- guised form of Attharias in 1 Es 5” and of Atthar- ates in 1 Es 9" (cf. vol. i. p. 203). That the word is the name of an office, is indicated by the constant presence of the article; but Ewald’s (HI, Eng. tr. v. 87) con iº. of the high-shrievalty is not happy. The word is genuine Persian, a modiſied form of a hypothetical Old Pers. tarsāta (cf. J. Scheftelowitz, Arisches im AT, p. 93), of which ‘his reverence’ in its literal sense and not in its ecclesiastical usage may be taken as a close modern equivalent. In Neh 12% and elsewhere, for the Persian term is substituted the Semitic Tſºn (see GOVERNOR), which is the title of the prefect or viceroy, with both civil and military functions, of a province or smaller district under either Assyrian or Persian rule. The appointment was made directly by the king; and when for any reason such an official was sent on special service, his relation to the chief of the province was not always clearly defined, and friction and jealousy followed (Ezr 5° to 6*). The title is derived from the Assyrian pah?, through the Babylonian pahat (see Delitzsch, Heb. Lang. in Light of Assyr. Research, pp. 12, 13; Schrader, COT i. 175, 176), and is neither post-exilic nor Persian in its origin. Its use dates from the time of Jeremiah, and con- tinued into the Talmudic period, when the term was used as equivalent to dpxtepe's (Bikkurim, iii. 3). On the whole the Tirshatha appears to have been a royal commissioner or plenipotentiary, invested with the full powers of a satrap or viceroy, and employed on a special mission with the accom- plishment of which his appointment ceased. *...* R. W. MOSS. TIRZAH (Tynin, 6eporá).—1. Mentioned Jos 12% as one of the 31 places whose kings Joshua smote. Tirzah afterwards became the capital of Jeroboam I, presumably of his son Nadab, and certainly of the three adventurers, baasha, Elah, and Zimri (1 K 141715°i. “º 16° S. 9. 15). In 1 K 1417 the reading of the LXX (A) is Xaptpá, i.e. Zereda, Jeroboam’s birthplace. Baasha was buried at Tirzah (1 K 16”), probably Elah also, as it was there he was slain while drinking in the house of one of his officers (v."). The Omrides transferred the seat of govern- ment to Samaria (vv.**), but Tirzah retained its importance probably as a fortress, as it was there [if MT be correct, but cf. LXX and Buhl, p. 247] that Menahem gathered a force to attack Shallum (2 K 15*). After this Tirzah drops out of history. In Ca 6" the Shulamamite is declared to be beautiful as Tirzah, comely as Jerusalem. The Heb. custom of personifying cities as women robs this comparison of the strangeness it would else have for us. It may be the glory and prestige of the capital that led to the simile, quite as much as the circumstance that Tirzah had a reputation for beauty, or that it occupied a site renowned for its loveliness.” * Neither LXX nor Vulgate take Tirzah here as a proper name. A derivation from myº, to delight, is implied in thei renderings (ºczio, suavis). 780 TISHIBITE TITHE The site of Tirzah has not yet been recovered beyond doubt. Teiasir, a fortress on the high road from Shechem to Bethshan at its junction with the Abel-meholah road (see G. A. Smith, HGHL 355), seems too far north to suit 2 K 15*, and generally farther north than Jeroboam would be likely to fix his home. Robinson (BIRP” iii. 302 f.) suggests the identification of Tirzah with Tullucah, a town on a hill not far north of Mt. Ebal, which agrees with the position assigned to Thersa by Brocardus (Descriptio, vii.), 3 leagues east of Samaria. A. Socin in Baedeker's Pal. and Syr. accepts this identification ; but Buhl (GAP 203) is inclined to identify Tirzah with the modern et-Tire, the Tirathana of Jos. (Amt. XVIII. iv. 1) in the neigh- bourhood of Gerizim. 2. One of the five daughters of Zelophehad whose case decided woman’s rights in property among the Jews. The order of their names (Nu 26° 27' 36”, Jos 17°, all P) differs in 3611 from that of the other lists, and Heb. and LXX do not agree. A. S. AGLEN. TISHBITE.-See ELIJAH, vol. i. p. 687; and cf. Ed. König in Earpos. Times, xii. (1901) 383. TISHRI (Month).-See TIME. TITANS.—A Greek word (T(e)träves), mythological in its history and meaning, used in the LXX in translating the term “valley of Replaim in 2 S 5* *. It is also used in Judith (167), in the en- comium upon the heroine— “For their mighty one fell not by young men, Neither did sons of Titans smite him, Nor tall giants set upon him ; But Judith,' etc. These passages are principally interesting as showing how the Hellenistic Jews who translated the OT, and who wrote Judith, connected in thought the réphéâ’im of their scriptures with the dim and mighty figures of the Greek mythological legends. See REPHAIM, GIANT. W. J. BEECHER. TITHE (niyyº, öekárm). — The payment of tithe is a practice both ancient and widespread, being found among many peoples, Semitic and non- Semitic. The choice of a tenth as the portion due to God was dictated by obvious considerations. The history of the tithe in Israel is in many respects obscure. In the strange, and probably late, docu- ment, Gn 14, we read that Abraham paid tithes of the spoil to Melchizedek; and Jacob at Bethel makes a conditional vow to pay God a tenth of all that He gives to him (Gn 28° E). But these narra- tives cannot be taken as evidence for patriarchal times. The latter is one of several which carry back the practice of the narrator's own time to an origin in the patriarchal age, and is illustrated by Am 4*, which shows that tithes were paid at some of the N. Isr. Sanctuaries in the reign of Jeroboam II. (see Driver, ad loc.). It is accordingly remark- able that no reference is make to tithes in the I}k of the Covenant. This is usually explained on the theory that the tithes were originally identical with the first-fruits, and that the need of more strictly defining, the amount that should be paid, led, in the later legislation, to the use of the term which had already been employed in the N. Isr. sanctuaries. W. R. Smith, on the contrary, thinks that the title was a fixed tribute, comparatively modern in its origin. At an earlier period the tribute took the form of first-fruits, which were a private offering. When this was no longer adequate to meet the expenses of a more elaborate cultus, the title was charged as a fixed burden on land. We know from 1 S 8" that a title was paid to the king, and, if he devoted this to the support of the royal sanctuaries, the transition to a tithe paid by * = wºme the farmers directly to the sanctuaries is readily accounted for. Unlike the first-fruits, the tithe was used to provide the public banquets at sacred festivals (see W. R. Smith, RS* 245–254). The later legislation and practice were as follows:– (a) In Deuteronomy.—In 14* it is enacted that each year the produce of the soil should be tithed, and the tithe taken to the central sanctuary and there eaten ; or, if this be inconvenient by reason of distance, it may be turned into money, which must be spent on a sacrificial banquet at the central sanctuary. To this the Levite, since he has no portion, is to be invited. It must be noticed that the tithe is not used for public feasting, but is to be consumed by the farmer and his household. This regulation may be a reform due to the fact that in earlier times the ruling classes, while not furnishing the provisions for the feast, secured the best for themselves. Further, the tithe is not used for the support of the priesthood or the temple Services. The Levite has a moral claim to a share in the banquet, but it rests with the farmer him- self whether this is recognized. In the following verses (14**) and in 26** it is enacted that every third year, called the year of tithing, all the tithe shall be laid up in the towns and distributed to the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow. It is generally agreed that Deuteronomy does not contemplate two tithes, one to be consumed each year, including the third, at the central sanctuary, and the other to be levied for charity every third year, -but rather a different destination for the same tithe, so that in the third year it shall be kept at home and devoted exclusively to charity. The origin of this regulation is perhaps to be found in the abolition of the old jºi. banquets, and con- sequent necessity that some other provision should be made for the poor. Since there would be no tithe in the Sabbatical year, when the land lay fallow, the year of tithing would probably coincide with the third and sixth years in each .. of seven years. The question remains whether the tithe in 1)euteronomy is to be identified with the first-fruits. In favour of this view it may be urged that it is not probable that a double tribute should be exacted from the crops, and that the close con- nexion of the law of first-fruits with that of tithes in Dt 26* shows that the two are really identical. The basket of first-fruits presented to the priest must be assumed in that case to be a portion of the first-fruits taken from the tithe. The command to “rejoice in all the good which J" thy God hath given unto thee,’ inplies that a feast followed the presentation of the basket of first-fruits, and this would correspond to the banquet on the tithe enjoined 14*. The introduction of the term ‘tithe’ will then have been due to the necessity of ſixing with precision the amount of the ſirst-fruits. ()n the other hand, 18° ordains that the first-fruits shall be given to the priest, but this was certainly not the case with the tithe. And the feast referred to in 20" may not have been a feast on the first- fruits. It is diſlicult to decide between the two views, but it seems safer on account of 18" (which would otherwise have to be regarded as probably later) to distinguish between the title and the first-fruits. The objection based on the improba- bility that a double tribute would be exacted, falls to the ground if the first-fruits consisted merely of the basket of fruit, etc., presented at the central Sanctuary. (b) In the Priestly Code (IP).-In the legislation of Ezekiel, which forms the transition to P, there is no law as to tithes. P exhibits a great advance on the earlier regulations. According to Nu 18* ‘ all the tithe in Israel’ is given to the tribe of Levi ‘ for an inheritance.’ The Levites are in their turn to give a tenth of this (“a tithe of the hithe’) TITLE ON CROSS TITTLE 781 to the priests (‘a heave-offering to Aaron the priest,” Nu 18*). vo be sought in an extension of the charity tithe enjoined in Deuteronomy, which is now devoted to the Levites exclusively, and used for this purpose, not once in three years, but every year. Lv 27* * ordains that, if the tithe is redeemed, one-fifth of the value shall be added. It is generally agreed that a tithe of cattle is not contemplated, but only of agricultural produce. It is true that in Lv 27* * cattle are included, and rules are given as to the selection, and to prevent any exchange. Ibut this law stands by itself, it is not referred to in Neh 10°7. * 12" 130, 1%, and is first mentioned 2 Ch 31%, 0. It is probably a later addition inserted between the time of Nehemiah and that of the Chronicler. Attempts have been made to reconcile the regula- tions of the Priestly Code with those of Deuter- onomy. It has been supposed that Deuteronomy refers to a second title distinct from that in P and to be levied on the nine-tenths remaining after the tithe to the Levites had been deducted. Against this the following considerations are decisive. No hint is given in Deuteronomy that such a second tithe is spoken of, nor can such an interpretation be fairly put on the passage, for a reference to the assumed first tithe would have been necessary. Nor is it probable that a tax of nearly one-fifth of the whole produce should be imposed on the farmers. Nor is it credible that the Levites should participate in the second tithe because, like the poor and defenceless, they were dependent on charity, if they were in possession of a tithe already made over to them. And, lastly, the language of Nu 18* “unto the children of Levi, behold, I have given all the tithe in Israel for an inheritance,’ utterly excludes any tithe which was devoted, as the Deuteronomic tithe, to other purposes. . Here, as elsewhere, the explanation is that the regulations belong to different stages of legislation. (c) ſº later Judaism.—Two tithes were levied —one for the Levites in accordance with the law of P, the other to be consumed by the offerer in accordance with that of D. The tithe was the most valuable part of the income of the Levites. The Mishna laid down this rule: ‘Everything which may be used as food, and is cultivated and grows out of the earth, is liable to tithe’ (Maasen'oth i. 1). The Pharisees evinced their scrupulous adherence to the Law by offering tithes of mint, anise, and cummin” (Mt, 23°). The second tithe was of course consumed by the offerer, and with it the tithe of cattle was usually reckoned, though Philo apparently includes it in the perquisites of the priests. If the second tithe was converted into money, one-fifth of the value had to be added; and the money could be spent only on food, drink, and ointment necessary for the sacrificial feast. The charity tithe ( or ‘third tithe’) was levied for the poor every third year. Ill'TERATURE.—Nowack, Heb, Archäol. ii. 257–250; Wellhausen, Prolegom, pp. 156–158; Driver, Dewt. pp. 166–173; W. R. Smith, I'S 2 pp. 245-253 ; Schürer, LIJP II. i. 231. A. S. PEAKE. TITLE ON CROSS.—It was customary in the Roman empire, when a criminal was going to execution, for a board (called a auts), on which the ground of condemnation (altſa, causa) was written, to be carried before him or hung round his neck— the inscription being known as titulus (Gr. T(t)\os). Instances of this custom will be found in Suet. Calig. 32– “praccedente titulo qui causam payma: indicaret,” Domit. 10; Eusebius, HE v. 1 (see Swete, St. Mark, p. 359). All four evangelists mention that the custom was observed at the cruci- fixion of Jesus Christ, though they describe the title as aflixed to the cross, without referring to its being carried on the way to Golgotha. They have The origin of this is probably various styles of indicating it. As usual, St. Mark’s description is the fullest. He calls it ‘the superscription of his accusation' () &rvypaſp? tfis alrlas a Wroń, Mk 15*); in the First Gospel it is ‘ his accusation' (alrlav atto), Mt. 27°7); and in the Third it is simply “a superscription’ (éirtypaqº, Lk 23°). The Fourth Gospel calls it by the technical name (ritàos), and states that it was written in three languages-—Hebrew (i.e. Aramaic, the language of the Jews of Palestine), Latin (the official Tanguage), and Greek (the language cur- rent throughout the East), Jn 1919. *. The four Gospels also vary in their statements of the words of the title, viz.:- . Mk=“The king of the Jews’ (6 8agiXeys róv - 'Iovóatov). Mt=“This is Jesus the king of the Jews’ (oërós éotiv 'Imoroús Ó Baot)\et's Töv 'Iovöalov). Lk=“This is the king of the Jews’ (68&ot\ets Tôy 'Iovóatújv otros). Jn=“Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews’ ("Imaoûs 6 Naftapaſos Ó Saat)\ets rôv 'Iovöatov). It is not easy to determine which of these was the original form of words. The instance from the Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, where the martyr's name is given (oírós éarly "Atraxos ô Xplottavós, Eusebius, HE v. 1), would suggest (1) that Mt and Lk are right in giving the word ‘this' (otros), and (2) that Mt and Jn are right in giving the name—“Jesus.’ Since Mt is the only Gospel that has both the forms found in the passage cited from Eusebius, the preference seems to lie with the plurase as given in that Gospel. But then we cannot be sure that the same form of words was used in all cases, or that the Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons gives it with verbal accuracy. Moreover, it may have been variously phrased in the three languages. The following arrangement has been suggested :- Dºmnºn Tºp ºn vity. OYTOC eCTIN IHCOYC O BACIAeYC Too N (OYA&I Con. REX JUDAEORUM. (See Geikie, Life and Words of Christ, ch. lxiii. note e). The variations are quite immaterial. In all four accounts the essential words are the same. The title describes Jesus as “King of the Jews.” It makes no mention of sedition or usurpation ; the phrase is absolute. Plainly, it was a sarcastic expression; but it was perceived at once that the point of the sarcasm was against the Jews rather than against their Victim. This is shown by St. John, who narrates how the chief priests requested Pilate to change the title to ‘He said, I am king of the Jews,’ and how Pilate haughtily refused to alter what he had written (Jn 1921. 22). W. F. ADENEY. TITTLE.--The Eng., word ‘tittle’ is simply a various spelling of ‘title.” One of the uses of ‘title’ (after Lat. titulus in late use, and lºr. title) was to denote the stroke above an abridged word. It was thence used for any triſling stroke or mark which distinguished one letter from another, and was chosen by Wyclif and Tindale to translate the Gr, kepald (WH kepča, see vol. ii. App. p. 151) in its only occurrences Mt. 5*, J.,k 167. All the Eng. WSS up to and including AV (1611), except the liº, spell the word with one t. $o Tindale in his address to the Reader, Pentateuch (Mombert's Reprint, p. 3), ‘For they which in tymes paste were wont to loke on no more scrip. 782 TITUS TITUS ture then they founde in their duns or soch like develysh doctryne, have yet now so narowlye loked on my translatyon, that there is not so moch as one I therin if it lacke a tytle over his hed, but they have noted it, and nombre it unto the ignorant people for an heresye.” But, in quºting Mt 5° three pages later, he spells the word ‘tittle. The Gr. Kepéa (lit. ‘little horn’) was used by grammarians to denote the Gr. accents and any small stroke distinguishing one Heb. letter from another, as a from 5. . On the importance attached to these marks by the Rabbins see Lightfoot on Mt. 5* (vol. xi. p. 99 ft.). J. HASTINGS. TITUS (Tºros).—A companion of St. Paul, who is always mentioned by him with great affection and confidence, yet whose name appears but on rare occasions in the Epistles and never in the Acts. On account of this silence of the Acts it has been conjectured that Titus is the second name of some one of St. Paul’s companions who are mentioned there, and attempts have been made to identify him with Timothy, with Silas, and with Titus (or Titius) Justus (Ac 187); but none of these conjectures has met with acceptance (cf. Zahn, Eim- leitung, i. pp. 149, 190; Holtzmann, Pastoralbriefe, p. 81). The name is Latin, but, as with Pawl, this }. little : his birthplace is unknown ; later egends place it in Crete; St. Chrysostom in Corinth; and the Acts of Thecla (c. 2) speak of him as living with Onesiphorus at Iconium at the time of St. Paul’s first visit there. All that can be said for certain is that he was a Gentile (Gal 2"), probably converted by St. Paul himself (Yumaſig Tékuº, Tit l”), and living at Antioch fourteen years after St. Paul's conversion, when the dispute arose about the circumcision of the Gentiles. At this time Paul took him with him to Jerusalem : there an attempt was made to compel him to be circum- cised ; St. Paul resisted the compulsion, and prob- ably Titus was never circumcised, though the ambiguity of St. Paul's words leaves it just possible that he was circumcised as a voluntary concession on St. Paul’s part (cf. Lightfoot on Gal 2"; Hort, Judaistic Christianity, pp. 76–83). Titus remained St. Paul’s companion, being per- haps with him when he wrote Galatians [may 6 adv €uoi (2*) mean ‘who is with me still '? cf. ot gºv ćuol of 1*], but not mentioned again until the time of the incidents which caused the writing of 1 and 2 Corinthians. At this time he paid two, if not three, visits to Corinth. –(a) In the year before the writing of 2 Cor. (dtrö Trépuri, 8%) he went at Paul’s request (2 Co 12°) with one other brother to tººl. perhaps carrying 1 Cor. with him, perhaps also authorized to explain the method of the collection for the saints alluded to in 1 Co 16**: at any rate he did organize it, and that on a religious basis (Tpoeviñpšaro, 2 Co 8%), and returned to St. Paul with news of the zeal shown in the matter at Corinth. –(b) Probably after he had left Corinth there arose some serious opposi- tion to St. Paul there; perhaps Timothy was in- sulted and set at nought [cf. 2 CORINTHIANS and PAUL], and Titus, who was already known there, was despatched from Ephesus to deal with the crisis, carrying the letter referred to in 2 Co 2 and 7. St. Paul had often boasted to Titus of the loyalty of his Corinthian converts (2 Co 714); but he was afraid now lest his boast would be proved empty : he waited, restless and anxious for the return of Titus; he expected to meet him at Troas, but Titus did not appear ; apparently, the crisis required a longer time than Paul had ex- ected : |. moved on to Macedonia ; and there Titus arrived, and with good news. The majority of the Corinthian Church had formally punished the offender : they had received Titus with fear and trembling : they had shown regret fol their previous conduct, indignation against the offender, enthusiasm for St. Paul : Paul's boast had been justified : Titus had been overjoyed : St. Paul was comforted (2* 711-19).—(c) On the receipt of this news Paul wrote 2 Cor. and requested Titus, who gladly accepted the request, to go, accompanied by two other ‘. on a fresh visit to Corinth and to complete the collection for the saints. Titus was to represent the apostle; the two brethren represented Churches, probably those of Macedonia (8*). The next reference to Titus is in the letter to him. This implies that St. Paul, after the release from his first l{oman imprisonment, had travelled with Titus in the East, that they had landed at Crete and had evangelized several towns (kató. tróNuv, 1°), but that St. Paul had been unable to remain longer, and had therefore left Titus behind to appoint presbyters and to complete the organiza- tion of the Church. Titus found considerable opposition, especially from the Jews (1*), and much tendency to insubordination, and possibly had written to St. Paul to report this and to ask for his advice(so Zahn, Einleitung, i. p. 430). Whether this were so or not, St. Paul wrote a short letter pressing him to complete the organization, to ordain presbyters, to teach Sound doctrine and avoid empty disputations, and to exercise his authority firmly. The letter was probably sent by Zenas and Apollos (3*), and Titus was re- uested to be ready to leave Crete and join St. *aul at Nicopolis as soon as he should receive a further message through Artemas or Tychicus (3*). Probably it was thence that St. Paul de- spatched him on a mission to Dalmatia (2 Ti 4”). A comparison of 1 Ti 31* with Tit 21° perhaps suggests that Titus was older than Timothy, and the relations of the two with the difficulties at Corinth imply that he was the stronger man (cf. 1 Co 16” with 2 Co 7"). He volunteers readily for a delicate task (2 Co 817), is full of affection and enthusiasm for the Corinthians (ib. 7"); he is effective, free from all sordid motives, sharing St. Paul’s spirit, walking in his steps (12°), his genuine son (Tit 1°), his brother (2 Co 2*), his partner and fellow-helper (8*). The omission of his name in the Acts is scarcely remarkable when the references in the Epistles are considered : if the incident of Gal 2 is to be identi- fied with that of Ac 15, he is alluded to, without name, in twas d\\ovs é; a Wróu (v.”): the incidents of 1 and 2 Cor. are wholly omitted in the Acts: and those of the Epistle to Titus and of 2 Tim. fall without its scope. It is interesting to note that Titus, the Gentile, is chiefly employed in missions to the mainly Gentile Church of Corinth : that his principal work there was organizing the collection for the saints, carrying out the injunction to “remember the poor,’ laid upon St. Paul in his presence at Jeru- salem (Gal 2"); and that at Crete he finds his chief opponents among those of the circumcision, (Tit 110). Subsequent Church historians treated Titus as bishop of Crete and living a celibate life to an old age in the island (Eusebius, III, III, iv. 6; Comst. Apost. vii. 46; pseudo-Ign. ad Philad. c. 3; and for fuller details, Lipsius, Die Apoſer/ph. Apostel- geschichte, ii. 2, pp. 401–406). An interesting panegyric on him is found in the works of Andrew of Crete (Migne, Patr. Gr. vol. 97). His name is given still to churches in Crete : it was appealed to as a battle-cry in the struggles of the Cretans with the Venetians; his body was said to have been retained at Gortyna for many centuries; the head was carried away by the Venetians, and is still preserved at St. Mark's. His death is com. TITUS, EPISTLE TO TITUS, EPISTLE TO 783 memorated on Jan. 4 in the Latin Church, on Aug. 25 in the Greek, Syriac, and Maronite Churches (Acta Sanctorum, i. pp. 163, 164; Nilles, Kalen- dan'iwm Manwale). W. LOCK. TITUS, EPISTLE TO.— i. Historical Situation of the Letter. ii. Analysis. iii. Literary Dependence. iv. Situation at Crete : (a) false teaching ; (b) organization. v. Authorship. vi. Integrity. vii. Value. Literature. i. HISTORICAL SITUATION.—Paul and Titus had been together in Crete. It is probable that they found the island already evangelized before their arrival (cf. Ac 2"); for by the time this letter is written whole families (1*, *), and people of all classes and ages (2*), consisting both of Jews and Gentiles (1*), belong to the Church. But the communities were unorganized, and there were false teachers. St. Paul himself began to com- plete the organization ; probably meeting with opposition from the false teachers (3" "), and calling out hearty affection from others (3**). some reason he could not stay to finish his work, and left Titus with definite instructions to com- plete it (1*), Time elapsed after he left, but ap- parently only a short time, before this letter was written. St. Paul was moving about with some of his disciples (3*), perhaps in Macedonia (if we may argue from the likeness to 1 Tim.), intend- ing to winter at Nicopolis. Possibly he received some communication from Titus, reporting progress at Crete (so Zahn, Eiml. i. p. 430; but uncon- vincingly). More likely, he took the opportunity of the fact that Zenas and Apollos were starting on a journey which would take them past Crete to send a letter to Titus in order to prepare him to join him in Nicopolis, and to strengthen him to enforce a high moral standard in Crete, in spite of the dangerous tendencies of the false teachers. The dates both of the visit to Crete and of the composition of the letter are uncertain. The organization of the Church is so little advanced that it might easily fall within the period covered by the Acts; and it is possible that the visit may be that of Ac 27" (ikavoú Xpóvov), and that this letter was written early in the Roman imprison- ment (so Bartlet, Apostolic Age, p. 182): but Titus is not mentioned as being present at the time of Ac 27, and the surest indication for the date of the letter is its likeness to 1 Tim. ; so that probably both the visit and the letter fall after the release from the Roman imprisonment [see 1 TIM.]. ii. ANALYSIS.— 11-4. Salutation (with special emphasis on the writer's own apostleship and on the common faith). 15–311. Advice to Titus. A. 15-10. Need of appointing proper ministers. * of Paul's past instructions to appoint presby- jel'8 (*). Importance of high moral character in an overseer (0-8), that he may (a) strengthen the gound teaching, (b) refute the º: of it (9). Description of these opponents, as insubordinate, quib- bling, money-making, caring for fables and command- ments of men, forgetting the great Christian truth— “All things pure to the pure,'—-inconsistent and worth- less #5 B. 21–311. Sketch of the true features of the Christian character which 'I'itus is to enforce. (a) I'or Christians among themselves (21-15); for the elder men and women, for the younger women and men, for Titus himself, and for slaves, all are to live a life true to the sound teaching : (1) in order to avoid giving offence to the heathen world around (0. 8, 10); (2) because the saving grace of God and Christ's atone- ment have traincol us to rise above sin, and live an attractive life (11-14). (b) I'or', Christians in relation to the outer world (31-8): (&) subordination to authority (1); (3) gentleness to all men (?). But for Reason—God's loving-kindness to us has raised us from the old heathen life of hatred to a new life of right- eousness; so that believers in God are bound to set an example of noble and useful lives (3-8). (c) For Titus himself.-He is to avoid foolish questionings (9), and to reject from the Church a “heretic’ who refuses to listen to his admonition (10.11). Personal message about his own movements (12.18). Final word of advice to those who obey him at Crete (14). Salutation (15). Like 1 Tim., it is essentially a private letter of instructions, probably never intended to be read aloud in the churches at Crete, though a word of greeting to the whole Church,(or pºssibly, only to Titus and his helpers) is added (3*). The main stress is throughout on character, on a useful fruitful life, as the outcome of a wholesome teach- ing; and (as in 1 Tim.) each section culminates in an important doctrinal statement—1” 21-1434–7, the last saying being called “faithful” (trworös & Xó-Yos). iii. LITERARY DEPENDENCE. — One Christian saying is quoted (tria Tós 6 A6-yos, 3°), and one line of Epimenides (1*). The OT is never appealed to in direct quotation, but its language is consciously used in jºſs 2013 (cf. Mt. iś, Mik 77, Coiº), 3: =Is 52% (cf. Ro 2*, 1 Ti 6*), 214 =Ps 1308, Dt 14°, cf. Ezk 37% (cf. 1 P 29), 3% =Jl 3, (cf. Ac 217. 18); all of them passages which belong to the common stock of early Christian writers, and half of which are used in the Pauline Epistles. Reminiscences of our Lord's teaching may be found in 11% (= Mk 719, Lk 1141), 3% (=Jn 3%), 319 (= Mt 18°47), but are not such as to imply literary de- pendence on the written Gospels. The same is true of points of similarity with l Peter, which are very slight: 10-9 = 1 P 51-4, 31 = 1 P 218, 34-7 = 1 P 13-9. (But see Bigg, International Critical Commentary on 1 and 2 Peter, p. 21, who would regard 1 Peter as older than and as having influenced this Epistle). There are more verbal points of contact with the earlier Pauline Epistles; cf. 11-4 with Ro 11 1625-27. 116 ,, 2 ” 1420. 214 ,, Gal 14 (?). 31 , , Ro 13'. 39 ,, Eph 29, 1 Co 6'-il. 35 28 520 y 5 9 3 º But they all suggest the same mind dealing with the same subject at a different time, rather than a different writer borrowing from literature. The relation to 1 Tim. and, in a less degree, to 2 Tim. is more complex. As compared with 1 Tim. the purpose is the same, and the structure is the same ; the warning against false teachers form- ing a framework in which the rules about organi- zation and character are inserted ; in the same way each section culminates in a doctrinal climax. There is also verbal similarity of a marked type. ci. Titº, with Ti 11, 2, 15- 31-7 9 y 11 y 2 » : !) e s 91-0 5l. 2 2 y 57 22 2 y - 12 e 2 3 3. 10 D 2 y 9 *. 95 29. y 9 61. ©l. O(; p > 51s y 9 y 3 71. R20 (32 p? : y 2 łł. 4. 3. 62. *}} ) y 2 3. 3 y º: º 19. * * 39 ,, 1 Ti 47 611, 2 Ti 216, 28. 3 y In nearly every case there is a freshness of treat- ment which is against the theory of deliberate borrowing ; even in 1°, the most continuous instance of similarity, there are changes (e.g. the º * * º * ". onnission of pil veóq.vtov, 1 Ti 3") which are suitable to the circumstances of a comparatively new Church, and this list of requirements may easily have been drawn up in a written form by St. Paul for frequent use, and be partly indebted to Jewish or Gentile lists of official requirements (cf. 1 TIM.). The more complex organization and the fuller 784 TITUS, EPISTIE TO TITUS, EPISTLE TO details about worship in 1 Tim. apparently favour the priority of Titus; but all the differences may be due to the different circumstances of the two delegates and the two Churches. There is nothing in the letters to make it improbable that they were written on the same day and sent by the same messenger. The analogy of the relation of Ephesians to Colossians is the nearest in the NT. iv. SITUATION IMPLIED IN CRETE.-(a) The false teachers are partly Jews, partly Gentiles; the Jews being the more prominent. They are influ- ential, upsetting whole families (l"), opposing sound teaching (1*), tending to reject the ...; of Titus (1* 2° 3"), quibbling, misleading, money- seeking (1*), inconsistent in their lives with their rofessed knowledge of God (1*, but these words #. not necessarily apply to the teachers). The substance of their teaching consists of foolish and profitless investigations, genealogies, questions connected with the Law (3**), Jewish legends, and commands of men (1*), apparently laying stress on the requirements of a Levitical purity (1*). In contrast with l Tim., there is in this Epistle no trace of anything akin to 2nd cent. Gnosticism. Each phrase is not only capable of a Jewish explanation, but calls for it as its natural meaning. The question of purity (1*) is on a par with our Lord's treatment of Pharisaism (Mk 7); the confession of a knowledge of God is more naturally attributable to Jews, 1* (cf. Ro 217), than to Gentiles; and the genealogies and legends will probably be those connected with the patriarchal history (cf. 1 TIMOTHY). (b) Organization.—As with Timothy at Ephesus, the exact position held by Titus himself at Crete is not clear. He represents the apostle and his teaching ; he has authority (êtritayij, 2^*), which is not confined to one place, but extends over the whole island (1*): it extends to ordaining presbyters, to correcting and exercising discipline over * heretics’ (2° 3"), to enforcing the lines of teaching and the features of Christian character (2 passim); but whether the position was per- manent or temporary is not clear : the most prob- able inference from 1" and 3° is that the delega- tion of power was for a temporary purpose only. Nothing is said about any ordination for the work. For permanent organization, he is to appoint presbyters (whether one or more is not stated) in each city; and apparently the presbyter in each city is the same as the étrio Kotros (1*, but see 1 TIMOTHY). Their moral qualifications for office are stated ; and it may be inferred that their duties were to teach (1"), perhaps to control the finances of the community (17 pºi) aloxpoképôň, but l” shows that this is not a necessary inference), and to be hospitable, ready to welcome Christians from other Churches (cf. Ramsay, The Church in the Ičoman Empire, p. 368). There is no mention of deacons, deaconesses, or widows. The Christians are called ék\ektol 0600 (11), Aaos treptoſatos (2*) (both OT titles for Israel), ot retrio revkóres 66% (3°), and perhaps — by a title which suggests the new family of God—ol huérepot (3*). There is no reference to common worship, except as implied in the references to teaching and exhortation. Daptism is referred to as the instru- ment of salvation (3°); perhaps 1* (Öpoxoyoſauv) points to some public confession of faith. v. AUTHORSHIP.-The external evidence is much the same as in 1 Timothy. The evidence of its rejec- tion is less, but the parallels to its language are also fewer. It is quoted as Pauline in Irenasus (i. 16. 3, iii. 3. 4), Clem. Alex. (Strom. i. p. 350), Tertull. (de Praescript. 6, adv. M. 5. 21), and the Muratorian Canon. It was accepted by Tatian in spite of his re- jection of 1 and 2 Tim., but rejected by Marcion and Basilides (Tert. adv. Marcionem, v. 21). It was embodied in the Syriac and Old Latin Versions, and parallels to its language are found in Justin Martyr (Dial. c. Tryph. 47), and Theophilus (ad Autolyc. iii. p. 126, where the command of 3' is º: as a 6etos Aóyos); and perhaps in Ign. (ad Magnes. c. 8 = 3°) and Clem. Rom. (i. 2-3"). It claims to be by St. Paul in 1*; and im- plicitly in 3**, passages which are indeed separ- able from the rest. But in the body of the letter there is nothing in tone, teaching, or circumstance inconsistent with his authorship. The character of Titus corresponds to the little known of him elsewhere (cf. TITUS): the character of the writer, his insistence on his own teaching and wishes (cf. 1 Cor.), the sharpness of tone against false teachers (cf. Gal., 2 Cor.), the quick passage from moral inference to doctrinal premiss, the quotation from Greek poetry, the adaptation of OT language, the sense of his own sinfulness (3°), are quite Pauline. So, too, the bases of doctrine,—the purity of all created things to the pure (cf. Ro 14): the eternal promise of life, the manifestation of it in due time, the saving grace, its universal efficacy (2*), the redeeming tienth of Christ, the gift of the Spirit in baptism, the power to live a new life of love, the 1. forward to the Coming of Christ, are quite true to the earlier letters, though the ex- pressions are never borrowed. The false teaching implied at Crete and the organization of the Church, each simpler than in 1 Tim., can clearly fall within his lifetime. The only ground of suspicion lies in the yocabu- lary and its relation to that of 1 and 2 Timothy. (a) There are 26 &raš Āeyópſeva in 46 verses, aiperukós, dºcaráyvajo ros, attokarákpitos, diſp00pla, dyev- 6%is, 86exvKrós, éykparis, ékorpéºops&t, étrºëtop060, €triotoutſo, leporpetris, 'Iovöaikós, KaNoðiðdo ſca)\os, parato)\öyos, olkovpyós, òpylxos, trpeggütts, otvyntós, orgotáptos, awq povićw, a wºbpāvas, ºptAdya.00s, pi\avôpos, pi}\órskvos, qipevatrátims (Gal 6° ppevatraráw), ºpovtićw. Yet none of these betrays a late date, alperukós, the only one that suggests a later ecclesiastical mean- ing, is earlier in existence than St. Paul, and the new meaning given to it here is akin to his own use of aſpects, and apparently means ‘factious’ rather than “heretical”; and it is still an adjective. (b) There is, as in 1 Tim., a fixity of phrase which suggests lateness, e.g. ētriº/vwa is d\mbetas, d\#9eta à kat’ eigé8etav, Katpots iólots (1 Tim. only, but Katpg tötw, Gal 6”), 6 orwthp 0eós (applied both to God the Father and to Christ here : in 1 Tim. only to the I'ather, in 2 Tim. only to Christ), ptás Yvvakós duºp (1 Tim. only), h 616ao KaNia trywa wouga (1 and 2 Tim.), ka)\& épya (1 Tim.), 6 vºv alév (1 Tim., 2 Tim.), 6 puéyas 6eós, \ovtpov traXuvºyevcolas, ºrtotôs 6 Nôyos (1 Tim., 2 Tim.). We are in the presence of a large vocabulary, fresh, ſixed, and shared to a great extent by the writer of 1 and 2 Timothy. The alternatives of authorship are either that it is by Paul himself, writing late in his life, and writing to an intimate companion,-and there can be little doubt that if the Epistle stood alone, this would be the natural explanation; or by some later writer, essentially Pauline in spirit, perhaps using genuine Paulific fragments (see below), and wishing to obtain Pauline authority for securing a sober useful standard of Christian life and high standard of clerical moral- ity, as against a revival of a Rabbinical Judaism. On this latter supposition the priority of Titus to 1 Tim. would seen almost certain, as there would be so little reason for the same writer composing it if 1 Tim. were in existence, and intended as a general treatise. vi. INTEGRITY. —The MSS suggest no inserlion or dislocation in the text; nor does the sequence of TITUS JUSTUS TOBIT, BOOK OF 785 thought require such a theory. 17” is indeed easily separable from the rest, but no conclusive reason requires its separation; and 3” comes in awkwardly after 3”, but there is a possible connexion of thought between them, and such postscripts 8.T0 found elsewhere, Ro 1617-20, 1 Ti 617-19. The question of the integrity has arisen only on the theory of a non-Pauline authorship : for critics are almost entirely agreed in regarding 3* * or 3** as Pauline, and the question arises whether there are other Pauline fragments, and whether they are separable. The chief attempts to distinguish are these— 11-6. Pauline ğ. Harnack, Clemen); but expanded from some simpler form by a late hand (von Soden). 179. Non-Pauline (ib.), added to strengthen the episcopate in the 2nd cent. (Harmack); but the distinction between the #ziorzoros and ºrpso (30tspot would have been clearer. 17:ll. Non-Pauline (Hesse, Clemen). itz ſaid. Pauline. iii is nonpaºline (ib.) (as not suiting the other descriptions of the false teachers; but there is no real inconsistency). 2. Non-Pauline (Hesse). 81-7. Pauline (McGiffert). Non-Pauline (Clemen): partly be- cause 34-7 is a repetition of 211-lº, but there is a difference in the motive appealed to, which suits the exhortation of 31, 2. 88.11. Non-Pauline. 812, 18 Pauline (Harmack, McGiffert, Clemen). - The Pauline fragment so obtained is supposed to be a letter from Paul written to Titus at Corinth after 2 Cor. ; this was de- veloped into a letter to Crete at the end of the 1st cent. because of the outbreak of Judaism there (Clemen). There is, however, no substantial ground for distinguishing between Pauline and non-Pauline, except in 11-4 and 312, 18; the grounds for separa- tion elsewhere are hypercritical and the divisions arbitrary. For fuller details cf. McGiffert, Apostolic Age, p. 406; Har- nack, Chromologie, i. p. 480; Clemen, Die Einheitlichkeit der Pawl. Briefe, pp. 157–163; Moffatt, Historical NT p. 700. vii. VALUE. –As with 1 Tim. (which see), the value is a good deal independent of its authorship, and due to the fact of its canonization. On the point of the organization of the Church it adds nothing to that in detail or principle; but it has a historical value as showing the method of organ- izing communities in a very early stage of develop- ment, as showing the persistence of Judaism as a danger to the early Church ; and the atmosphere of a suspicious and critical heathenism in which it lived. In such an atmosphere, and dealing with communities of rough islanders on a low social level and disposed to anarchy, the writer, while laying stress on faith and the salvation wrought by the appearance of Christ, organizes a ministry, insists on moral qualifications for it, and tries to develop an orderly, disciplined, useful, fruitful life in all ages and classes, and inspires even slaves with the hope that they may adorn the true teaching : it is an attempt to convert heathenism by the attractive beauty of an ordered family life and a loyal citizenship. Doctrinally, the Epistle offers no new point of interest unless it be the identifica- tion of Christ with ‘the Great God,' 2" (but see Ezra Abbot, Critical Essays, xviii.), or the refer- ence to baptism as Novrpov traXuvºyevéalas, 3". LITERATURE. — The same introductions and commentaries as are referred to under 1 TIMOTIIY are useful for this Epistle, with the exception of H. P. Liddon; to the l’atristic com- mentaries should be added a short commentary by Jerome, and a long extract on 310.11 from Origen's lost commentary pre- served in a Latin translation by Pamphilus. W. LOCK. TITUS JUSTUS.—See JUSTUS, No. 2. TITUS MANIUS.—See MANIUS. TIZITE ("y"RT; B 6'Ieagel, A 6600'ael, I,uc. 'A600 l). —A designation, whose origin is unknown, applied to Joli A, one of David's heroes, 1 Ch 11”. TOAH.—See NAHATH. TOB, THE LAND OF (nity ºns ‘land of good’; y? Tūg; terra Tob).-The place to which Jephthah fled for refuge from his º, and in which he VOI. IV.-SO Kal'at el-Husm. –4 was living when the elders of Gilead went to fetch him on the occasion of the Ammonite invasion of Gilead (Jg 11”: "). At a later date, 12,000 “men of Tob' (AV Ish-tob) formed part of the force raised by the Ammonites in their war with David (2S 10%. 8 B Elorrūg). They are here associated with the Syrians of Beth - rehob and Zobah, and the king of Maacah—all small Aramaean states. The ‘land of Tubias’ (AV ‘places of Tobie”), in which all the Jews were put to death by the Gentiles (1 Mac 5*), was apparently the same place. In 2 Mac 12" Charax, a place 750 stadia from the strong town of Gephyrum, or Caspin, is said to have been occupied by Jews called Tubieni, i.e. “men of Tob.” Possibly 6aßa, which, according to Ptolemy (v. 19), was S.W. of Zobah, is identical with Tob. The Jerusalem Talmud explains ‘land of Tob’ by Susitha –the ‘province of Hippene’ (Neubauer, Géog. du Talm. 239). In this case Tob would be º or Susitha, now Sitsiyeh, on the E. side of the Sea of Galilee, and not far from Gamala, Conder (Hök. to Bible, 295) and G. A. Smith (HGHL,587) identify Tob with et- Taiyibeh, about 10 miles south of Gadara (Umm Reis). De Saulcy identifies it with Thabam, about 9 miles east of the bridge over the Jordan called Jisr Benát Yalcitb. C. W. WILSON. TOB-ADONIJAH (nºns hit ‘good is the Lord Jah’ [Gray, Il PN 140, n. 3]; IX Tw8aôw3étá, A and Luc. Tw8aôwvw.d.). —One of the Levites sent by king Jehoshaphat to teach in the cities of Judah, 2 Ch 17*. TOBIAH (nºt) and Tib “Jah is [my 2] good'). - 1. The eponym of a family which returned from exile, but could not trace their genealogy, Ezr 2" (B Tw8étá, A Tw8tas, Luc. Touglas) = Nell 7” (BA Tw814, Luc. Toubias). 2. The Ammonite who, in conjunction with SANDALLAT and others, per- sistently opposed the work of Nellemiah, Neh 2". " 4*7 6'7 13" " (Tw8.4, Twglas). I'or details see art. NEHEMIAH. TOBIAS (Tajó(e)las, Tw8els). —1. The son of Tobit, To 1" and often ; see art. TOIBIT (13ook of). 2. The father of HYRCANUs, 2 Mac 3*. TOBIEL (Tw81%N, i.e. ºsºb “El is [my 3) good'; cf. the name TABEEL).-The father of Tobit, To l'. TOBIJAH (nºb).-1. One of the Levites sent by Jehoshaphat to teach in the cities of Judah, 2 Ch 17° (LXX om.). 2. One of a deputation that came from Babylon to Jerusalem with contributions of gold and silver, from which a crown was ordered to be made either for Zerubbabel and Joshua (Ew. Hitz.) or for Zerub, and not Joshua (Wellh. Now., cf. G. A. Smith, ii. 308 f.), and laid up in the temple as a memorial of the donors, Zec 6" " (LXX in both passages tr. Tale by Xpija pot, i.e. ºb). TOBIT, BOOK OF (A 8(3Mos X&Yew Tø6tr, B Togetr, N Tw8él(); Lat. liber Tobia:, liber Tobit et Tobia, liber attriusque Tobia: ; = Heb. Tº = “Jellovah is my good,” and ºb, dropping the theophoric affix H.).-One of the deutero-canonical books of the OT, containing, according to Jewish cºnceptions, {Ull idyllic picture of pious home life in the Captivity. i. TIEXTS AND VERSIONS.—The popularity of the story of Tobit is attested by the number of varia- tions in which it exists in several languages. We shall, in the course of this article, endeavour to prove that the book was originally composed in Aramaic ; though all trace of the &iº is lost, and the Aramaic MS, now extant, is somewhat late, and was not taken directly from it. (l) Greek Version.—Of this we have three texts : (a) that of AB. The differences between these two 786 TOBIT, BOOK OF TOBIT, BOOK OF MSS are few and unimportant. (b) That of N, which while giving little additional matter, adopts a more verbose style than AB. Whether AB or N presents the earlier text is much disputed. . . Fritzsche, Nöldeke, Grimm support AB; Ewald, Reusch, Schürer, Nestle, Harris, N. (c) A recension of 69– 13°, found only in three cursives: the Zittau Cod. 44 and the Ferrara Codd. 106, 107, and given at length by Fritzsche (Handbuch 2. d. Apokr.). These }*. sent a composite Greek text. " From 6° to 717 it presents many features of originality, but contains many of N's additions to the text of B, e.g. 6* 7*. From 8" to 12° it agrees closely with the Syriac, which, as we shall see, during this section transfers its allegiance from B to N. From 129 to 13° it presents some readings of B, as 128 13%-8, but agrees in the main with Syr., even when Syr. differs from both B and N, as in 12*19. Before 69 and after 13° our cursives present the text of B. (2) Latin Versions.—(a) Vetus Itala or Old Latin, which Ilgen, in 1800, correctly surmised was based on a then unknown Gr. text, which has proved to be that of N. Though all codices of this Version agree substantially with N, there are clearly three recen- sions. (a) It. I., the text edited by Sabatier (Bibli- orum sacrorum Latimac versiones antiquae, Paris, 1751) and by Neubauer (in his excellent little work, The Book of Tobit). It is based on a Parisian Codex, Regius, 3654, and on Cod. 4 in the library of S. Germain. (3) It. II., a text found in Cod. Wat. 7 which contains only 1–6", and once belonged to queen, Christina of Sweden. It was collated by Sabatier in the above work, and was edited by Bianchini, Rome, 1740. (y) Fragments of a third recension (It. III.) are given in the Speculum of Augustine, edited by Mai (Spicilegium, ix.).-(b) The Vulgate. Jerome affirms that he translated Tobit in one day from the Syro-Chaldee. As he was not familiar with this language, a Jew, who knew both languages, translated it for him into Hebrew, from which he made his Latin transla- tion. There are many readings in Vulg. that were not found in any other text, until Gaster, 1896, discovered a Heb. MS, which in the narrative, as distinct from the exhortations and prayers, agrees in the main with Vulg. (see below, HL). - (3) Syriac Version.—This has been edited by Walton in his Polyglot; and by Lagarde in Jibri apokr. Syriace. As far as 7” it is a close transla- tion of B. After that, it agrees with R or the Gr. cursives. It lacks 139-18. (4) Chaldee or Aramatic Version (Aram.).—This was first edited by Neubauer from a collection of Midrashim, copied in the 15th cent. in Greek. rabbinical characters. The Book of Tobit is an extract from the Midrash rabbath-de-l'abbath on Genesis, and forms a haggāda on Jacob's promise to give a tenth of his proceeds to God (Gn 28%). Neubauer thinks that the Chaldee text of Jerome was Aram. in a fuller form ; but in the view of the bresent writer there are facts which seem to imply that the Aram. is a translation from the Greek. The facts that the dat. 'Páyots (4' 5") is found in Aram. as win, and 'Ekpatávous (376”) as D'jnain, and the acc. Typiv (6') as "I'F ; and that the Gr. words āparov (2*) and onſletov (5*) are transliterated in Aram., afford strong proof that Aram. is based on a Greek text : not on N (as Schürer), for Aram. agrees more often with B than with N. ; but on a briefer text than either, and more free from Christian influences. (5) IIebrew Versions.—(a) Heb. Munsteri (HM), So called because it was published, with a Lat. tr., by Seb. , Münster, at Basle, in 1542. The first edition, however, was printed at Constantinople in 1516. It is included in Walton's Polyglot, and also in Neubauer's Tobit. Neubauer gives, in the foot- notes, variouſ readings from No. 1251 of the Heb. MSS in the National Library at Paris : from a Persian tr. from the Heb, which is No. 130 in the same Library; and No. 194 of de Rossi's catalogue, at Parma. It is noteworthy that HM usually agrees with Aram, when the latter dissents from the Greek. In chs. 12. 13, where Arann. is lacking, HM presents an eclectic text, agreeing in the main with Syr., but for 13* it has an original and very brief doxology, and omits ch. 14 altogether. Gins- burg assigns it to the 5th century.—(b) Heb, Fagii (HF). This is a free, independent translation, made perhaps in the 12th century. The translator was a learned Jewish scholar, fond of precise, technical terms; very familiar with the Heb. Bible, and fond of introducing suitable Bible texts, and of reducing the text of Tobit to biblical phraseology. This is also given in Walton’s Poly- glot.—(c) Heb. Londinii (HL) is a text found by Gaster in the British Museum, Add. 11,639. A description and translation of the MS, which l:elongs to the 13th cent., is given by Gaster in PSBA, vol. xviii. 208 ft., 259 ft., and vol. xx. 27 ff. So far as the exhortations, prayers, and doxologies are concerned, they are certainly late. They develop, in a remarkable degree, the tendency observable in HF to reduce the text to biblical phraseology. In the exhortations, etc., HL gives us a cento of Scripture texts, skilfully selected as being most cognate to the Gr. text. As to the marrative, it is intensely interesting to note how closely HL agrees with Vulg., and Gaster claims for the MS as a whole a close relationship to the ‘Syro-Chaldee' used by Jerome. As to the narra- tive portions, the author of HL certainly may have used an Aramaic or Heb. text closely related to Jerome’s ‘Syro-Chaldee,” though, if the doxologies, etc., are of late composition, one cannot escape the unpleasant surmise that HL may be drawn from the Vulg. itself.-(d) Heb. Gasteri (HG). This was copied some years ago by Gaster from a Midrash on the Pentateuch, which he fears has now perished. It is a condensation in Heb. of the narrative por- tions of Aram., with the exhortations, prayers, and doxologies rigorously excluded, and all approach to verbosity in the narrative sternly checked. It is possible that the author of HL may have possessed a similar History, exhibiting those peculiarities of the Vulg. which, until the publication by Gaster of the translation of HL, were considered unique in the Vulgate. The tr. of HG is given in PSBA vol. xix. 33 f. Its agreements with Aram. are very significant. ii. THE NARRATIVE.—Tobit, a pious Jew of the tribe of Naphtali, very scrupulous as to feasts, and tithes, was, with his wife Anna and his son Tobias, taken into captivity by Enemessar (Shalmaneser) to Nineveh. Even there he remained loyal to Mosaism, abstaining from eating the food of the Gentiles; and yet became in time the king's pur- veyor. Once when travelling in Media, he de- posited 10 talents of silver with a brother Jew named Gabael, at IRhagae (RAGES). When Sen- nacherib (who is called in 1" Enemessar’s son) returned from Judah, Tobit fell into disfavour, chiefly from his habit of burying Jews who were assassinated in the king's fury. Tobit fled, but, on the entreaty of his nephew Achiacharus (Allikar), was reinstated by king Sarchedonus (Esarhaddon) (ch. 1). At a feast of Pentecost he sent out his son to bring in some poor Jew to dime with him. Tobias returned, saying there was a Jew lying in the street strangled. Tobit rose at once, hid him, and at night buried him. Being thus rendered unclean, he slept in the courtyard ; and sparrows ‘muted warm dung into his eyes’ and blinded him (2*). Reduced to poverty again, Anna wove and spun for hire, and one day, under provoca- tion, she reproached her husband for his blind- TOBIT, BOOK OF TOBIT, BOOK OF 787 ness; whereupon he prayed to die (3*"). The same day, in Ecbatana of Media, Sarah, the daughter of Raguel and Edna, who had been married seven times, but whose husbands had all died on the bridal night, was reproached by a maid for having slain them ; whereas it was Asmodaeus, the arch- demon, who slew them. She also prayed to die (3*). The prayers of both were heard, and Raphael was sent to deliver both of them. Tobit, in view of his death, wished to send Tobias to Rhagae, to fetch the silver, and gave him a long exhortation (ch. 4). When Tobias sought a guide, Raphael offered his services, pretending to be Azarias, a kinsman. The guide's wages being fixed, the two set out with a favourite dog for Media (ch. 5). On the way, while Tobias was bathing in the Tigris, a great fish threatened him, but he caught it ; and on Raphael's advice cut out its heart, liver, and gall for medicinal use later on (ch. 6). Passing through Ecbatana, they stayed with Raguel; and Tobias asked for Sarah in marriage. He had been pre- viously instructed by Raphael how to exorcise the demon from Sarah, and before night the marriage was celebrated (ch. 7). Iłaguel naturally is appre- hensive, and digs a grave at midnight; but the odour of the heart and liver of the fish, when burnt on ashes, caused Asmodaeus to flee to Egypt, whither Itaphael follows him and binds him ; and Tobias and Sarah, after uniting in prayer, pass the night in peace (8***"). Edna satisfies herself on this during the night, and Raguel, after previously thanking God, fills in the grave and prepares the nuptial festivities, which he swears must last 14 days (8**). taphael goes forward to Thagae, secures the silver, still sealed in bags, from Gabael, and brings him back to the wedding, where he pours his blessings on the bridal pair (ch. 9). The festivities over, Raguel Sends forth Tobias and his wife in peace to Nineveh, and gives them half his wealth (107*). Anna has for days been very miserable, and has stood all day on the highway watching, at intervals re- proaching poor blind Tobit for allowing their son to go (10+"). When at length she sees Tobias and Azarias who had come on in front, she runs to tell Tobit. Tobias skilfully applies the gall of the mysterious fish to his father’s eyes; a white film peels off and his sight is restored. Then Tobit and Anna welcome Sarah with pious wishes (ch. 11). All that remains is to reward the faithful Azarias. Father and son agree to give him half of all they have. Whereupon he discloses his identity and re- turns to heaven (ch. 12). In ch. 13 we have a Song of Thanksgiving from Tobit ; and in ch. 14 Tobit, being now very old, gives to his son and grandsons his dying valedictions, and urges them to leave Ninevel for Media. After his death they go to Media, and arrive in time to witness the death of Raguel and Edna. Tobias lives to a ripe old age, and is allowed to hear the glad news of the destruc- tion of Nineveh. VARIATIONS OF THE NARIRATIVE IN TIII: SEVERAL VERSIONS. —If we compare the Jewish WSS with the Gr, and Lat, we find three interesting variations: (a) Aram, and Heb. WSS all omit reference to the dog, which the other VSS mention., (b) In 87 the Jewish VSS (as also % narrate that after Tobias' prayer in the bridal chamber, ‘Sarah said Amen’; the rest, that “they both together said Amen.' (c) In 5895 Aram., IIM, III say that Gabael gave Tobit his bag as a token, not his bond. Aram., III, HG, and Vulg. diſfer from the rest in that through- out they speak of Tobit in the third person, whereas all other texts make Tobit speak in the first person as far as 315. The third is used afterwards, [N. B.---Except when quoting from the Vulg., the verses are those of the RV). Jºeculiarities of teact.—(2) D stands alone (except HG) in omitting the blessing of Gabael, 00 ; and in its condensation of Edna's prayer, 1019; though HL and Vulg, omit this entirely, Unique readings are : glory of the great Raphael, 810; Jonah, 148; Nashas, 1118; Aman, 1410; 158 years old, 14ll.—(3) N. There are scores of arſzo, added by N to the text of B. A few may be noted : 12 Thisbe is ‘west of Phogor'; 15 Israel sacri- ficed to the calvos “on all the MIts, of Galileo ’; 211 ‘on the 7th of the month Dystrus she cut the web’; 58 Raguel and Tobit divided the bond into two, and each took half; 55 the men- dacious angel says, “I have come here to work’; 68 “blow on the films’; cf. also 1010 128 1310. N omits 47-10 (owing probably to a leaf being lost) and 130b-10. In 1318 it gives the correct spelling 'Azsizép, and gives a fuller account of him than B.- § Greek cursives. ... A remarkable Gnostic reading occurs in 810 ‘Let all the ſºons praise thee, and let thy angels, bless thee.’ This is the only Gr, text which says “the dog ran before them' (114).-(3) Syriac, which is really two recensions con- nected at 711, shows the fact in change of spelling : Achior, 210; Ahikar, 1410; Raga, 41. 20; 'Arag, 92; "Edna, 72; "Edna, 714. Alterations :—102 years, 142; 107 years, 1414; 10 days, 820. Addi- tions:—Edna dressed Sarah, 710; Anna put on a veil before going to meet her son, 119. Omissions:–139-18, where Tobit exults in the glories of the future Jerusalem ; 143 ‘Jonah' and also “Nahum '; 140 the words, “but not like to the former house’; 140-0 that all nations shall forsake idolatry; 713 the marriage contract.—(s) Aramaic is embedded in a Midrash, and is inserted there to show the merit of giving tithes. The moral at the end also is : ‘Behold we learn how great is the power of alms and tithes,’ and Gn 1420 2612 2822 are cited in confirmation. Its chief peculiarity is that the MS virtually closes with ch. 11. A few lines, in place of Greek ch. 12, state that Raphael did not go into the house, but went his way ; and when Tobias went out to seek him he could not find him, nor had any one seen him ; and thus Tobit knew he was an angel. In place of ch. 14, Aram, states that, when Tobit fell sick, he called for his son and impressed on him the importance of almsgiving from the example of the three patriarchs, Aram. omits Tobit's genealogy, 11 ; Ahiltar's offices, 122; Elymais, 210; and the dog, 517 62N 114. On the other hand, it expands Sennacherib's return, 118; Anna's welcome to Sarah, 119 ; and Tobit's thanksgiving, 1114. In 107 Aram, and HM say, “Anna ate nothing but tears.” Aram. abridges the destination of the three tithes, 10-8 ; calls Asmodaxus ‘king of Shedin,’ 38. 17-- ; and renders 518 “without money, God has fed us.” It contains 47-19 lacking in N ; and agrees with B against N about as often as with N against B.-(@) Heb. Mwnsteri is remarkable for its omissions from the Gr., sometimes pruning its redundancies as in 40, 11-16 611, 14-H. With Aram, it omits 121 ; Elymais, 210. It omits Sarah's intention to hang herself, 310; and her going to meet Tobias, 71. It omits “Noah’ from 412 ; the citation of Gn 218 in 80 ; Tobit's conversation with Anna, 102-5; and Ahilyar's visit, 1118. It abridges Tobit's prayer for death, 30 ; and the prayers in 80 81öf 120ft. But HM has also several original enlargements : notably after 120, where we have a Midrash on the mischief caused by Sennacherib, After 34 it cites Is 19, and Ps. 1715 after 410. It abridges and modifies the Song in ch. 13 (omitting ch. 14), and its last words are, “O Lord of the world ! show us in our days salvation and redemption by the coming of our Redeemer and the building of Ariel’; then citing Jer 230, PS 1472, ... Theological features are the thrice repeated prayer for ‘children devoted to the Law,' 87 90 1011; the designation of Raphael as ‘prince,’ 317 1215; Jerusalem as ‘Ariel,’ 1316; and Jehovah as ‘the Holy One, blessed be he,’ 419 1212+. A play on words occurs in 37 ‘It is not meet to call thee Sarah, but Zarah (distress).” Instances in which HM agrees with Aram, against the Gr, are : 110 (dwell), 118 (until his death), 210 (every morning), 59 92. 5 (bag), 316 1211 (throne), 617 (under her clothes), 618 (‘foreseen’ for ‘foreordained'), 107 (nothing but tears),-(z) Heb. I'agit differs from B very con- siderably. It is fond of inserting OT texts: 35 PS 4018, 30 Ps 633, 419 Prió18, 419 Pr 38, 130 Ps Sölö 90ſ, 7210, Jer 3117. It aims at precision : in speaking of “peace-offerings,’ 14; ‘a beka'' for * a drachma,’ 514; ‘the right of redemption,’ 317 710; “the eternal home,’ 38; ‘the Torah and the Halakhah,” 712; the seven blessings, 713; the cemetery, 89; and especially in 18, where it assigns the third tithe “for the repair of the breaches of the house,” ef. 2 K 220. Interesting theological allusions occur : 316 prayer was heard before our Father in heaven, 411 the judgment of Gehinnom, S6 the first Adam, 617 the union of Tobias and Sarah was foreseen from the 6th day of creation, 815 the AEons of the Gr. cursives are described as ‘those who are exalted above all blessing and praise,’ 145 ' the house shall stand until the completion of one teon.' But the learned Rabbi was no geographer. He gives Alemania=Germany for lºlymais in 210; Midian for Media, 114; and Laodicea (?), 62. The latter part of ch, 14 is meagre. , Ahikar is omitted 1118 1410–(9) Heb. Lond, is, as we have said, remarkable for presenting many readings heretofore found only in Vulgate. Such, e.g., are 114 ‘power to go where he wished '+, 123 Tobit fled naked with wife and son, 212ſt the parallel between Tobit and Job, 310 Sarah spent 3 days in prayer, 018". Raphael advises 3 nights of con- tinence, HL also agrees with Vulg. in Omitting Allilkar in B 210 and the doctors in N 210, as well as in many other onis- sions ; but III, gives the absurd amount of 1000 talents in 114; it narrates Sarah's intended suicide, which Vulg. onlits, 315 ; it states that Anna went to the outskirts of the town, 510; and that a large party went with the bridal pair a day's journey home- wards; and every one gave a ring of gold and a $ésitah and a biece of silver, 111; it also introduces two long original prayers, § Tobias and Sarah, in the bridal chamber, ch. S. Vulg, only gives Sarah's prayer thus: “Be merciful to us, O Lord, be merci- ful, and let us both grow old healthily together,’ $10.—(1) IIC, has a few unique readings: e.g. “dust' for ‘dung,” 210; “ring' for ‘bomd,’ 58; and that Tobias put the heart of the ſish on a cense, and burnt it under Sarah's clothes. It is very brief, but agrees closely with Aram, : e.g., IIG \nd Aram, only say that 788 TOBIT, BOOK OF TOBIT, BOOK OF the fish “sought to eat the bread of the youth,'62–(e) Itala is a close translation of N. We have collated only the text given by Neubauer. Its chief º is the spelling of proper names, Bihel for Thisbe, 1%; Raphain for Phogor, Í2; Bathania for Ecbatana, U%; Anna (so Vulg.) for Edna, wife of Raguel. It States that Raphael read the prayers before God, 1212; and gives : didrachuma' for ‘drachma,’ 51%—(A) Vulgate. Jerome omits (with HL) all mention of Ahikar, except in 1120, which is robably an interpolation. He also omits the patriarchs in 412; the fate of Nadab, 1449; and the fate of Nineveh, 1410. But he has several additions. Some we have mentioned under H.L. Others are Sarah's prayer, 318; and her self-vindication, 810ir. These are found in HL, but in more biblical language; but Vulg, alone States that Tobias, father and son, remained three hours on their faces before Raphael, 1222; that the dog Wagged its tail, 1.1%; that the coating of an egg peeled off Tobič's eyes, 1114; that Tobias held his father half an hour, 1114; and closed the eyes of Raguel, in death, 1419. Scholars have often pointed out the indications in Vulg. of the fact that Jerome was a Christian and an ascetic. Even if provisionally we concede that he had an Aram. MS before him, which in the narrative resembled HL, Jerome's personal influence can still be traced. The three nights' continence we should have to surrender (618ſf), as this is in III, , but HL does not contain 218, where in Vulg. Tobit Says, “We are sons of God, and wait for that life which God is about to give’; so 129 1218 911. iii. ORIGINAL LANGUAGE.-We wish now to adduce evidence, which we trust will be regarded as conclusive, that the original language was Ara- ºnaic. (1) The Aram. form mns (Heb. Tws) is found in N 14” 'A0oupeta, and 144 'A0%p. (2) If we accept alphabet 69 in Euting's Tabitla Scriptwrae Ara- ºnaiga, as an approximation to the Aram. alphabet used (ea hypothesi) in the original copy of Tobit, we find that it explains the diverse form of many proper names, as in each case the letters con- founded are very similar : e.g. Hºpe in N 518 for Type in B; ºpply for "Dipºw); nºnnib in S 115 + for anno; %stay HF 9" for ºshi; his in s 12 for hys; $sun for ºxyn; hºp in N 1018 for non in Syr. (3) The variants in the VSS are often possible rendër. ings of the same Aramaic word. ‘The mountain of Ararat,’ 1* (BN, Syr., It.), and ‘the land of Ararat’ (Aram. HM, HF), are possible renderings of me (Schwally, Idioticon, 37). ‘Thou judgest för ever,’ 3”. [BS, It..] ‘Thou judgest the world,' [Aram., HM), give Bºy'. 5’ ‘Wait young man’ſs syr.], “Wait a little' [Aram. HM), give ºyſ; 2. ‘I’left the mºſ' [N Vulg.], “I left the table' [Aram. HM, It..], give snºw. In Pal. Syr. at Ac 1634 this word is used for Tpéretau. In 477 Jerome has constitue for €kxéov, thus giving to it, imperative of Aram. TB) “to pour out,’ the meaning of Heb. Tº or T.P. (4) In other instances the variants yield similar Aranaic words— 14 N, Heb., Itala was built in it "Jinnsk Syriac was prophesied in it *>]]nN: 113 NB God gave me &opºv Nºn) ºn IIM, HF God gave me favowr Nºn).pn") 1* NB, Aramaic I stole the bodies ninji Itala I wrapped . . . ninjy 121 NB all the finance of the kingdom Nynwn Itala all the care . . . Nº'ºr, 26 B your pleasures poºna: N: your way8 p5'9"aw Itala your 80ng.8 p5'nav 210 NB Achiacharus nowrished me Dyn; IIF, It. II. Ach. persuaded me bº 43 N. bury me honowrably Rºn"In-l HF bury me immediately RT-in-l 617 N., IIF Take her nº sty Itala A8k for hor nº 'sw; 83 N. bottºnd him forthwith nar, Itala ºreturned forthwith *]]r 10!? I} IIonour thy father nºn & Itetºwrm to thy father -17 1113 B dawbed it on his eyes r15) }: blew into his eyes T;"EN: 1218 NB thou didst cover the dead nypw) Syriac thou didst carry away, etc. nºpy 1214 NB sent me to heal thee NOY) Itala , , , , to test thee R"Ep 144 Nº our brethren shall be counted nymen" B 33 y shall be scattered pºnen" 145 N the time of the seasons Rºppy HF 1, 2, 0??0 000? 'n Dºy Itala p > 99 cwrsings nºnºy iv. HISTORICAL CHARACTER.—This was never called in question until Luther did so. The minuteness of its details has often been adduced as evidence of its historicity, and it must be ad- mitted that there is nothing in it so marvellous and superstitious as to be incredible to educated men of antiquity. The angelophany is only a slight amplification of Gn 18; possession by un- clean spirits was a recognized belief, and exorcism by fumigation was recognized in medical science. % R. Smith quotes from Kaswini, i. 132, that the Smell of the smoke of crocodiles' liver cures epi- lepsy, and its dung and gall cure Leucoma.” (Encyc. Brit." art. ‘Tobit’). Without calling in question that the book probably rests on a real history, the following considerations forbid our regarding it as being what it claims to be, viz. a narrative written in the 7th cent. B.C. :—(1) It contains historical errors. (a) It was Tiglath-pileser who took Naph- tali and Zebulun into captivity (B.C. 734), not Shalmaneser, 2 K 15”. (8) Sennacherib was not Shalmaneser's son (1*), but the son of Sargon a usurper. (y). It is implied in 14 that Tobit was a boy at the time of Jeroboam’s revolt from the house of David. (6) The occurrence of Ahasuerus (14") and Aman (A 14") ought not to be pushed. 'Aoûmpos in B is a scribe's blunder for 'A0ouptas in N, and 'Apnév in A is due to the same cause, taking 'Axtáxapos for Mordecai...—(2) It is a geographical error to put the Tigris between Nineveh and Ecbatana ; and also to state (so N Aram. HM, It.) that Rhagae is two days from Ecbatana. Bonits the ‘ two days'; but in 6° says that Ecbatana was nigh unto Rhagºe. It took the army of Alexander 10 days to march from one to the other (Arrian, iii. 20).-(3) The Spirit and theological tone belong to a later date. v. DATE OF COMPOSITION.—Most Roman Catho- lic authorities, relying on 12° 13', ascribe the book to the 7th cent. B.C. Ilgen maintains that 1–37 13” was written by Tobit in B.C. 689, and the rest in Palestine about B.C. 280. Ewald fixes it B.C. 350, Graetz assigns it to the time of Hadrian (A. D. 130), and Kohut to A.D. 226. The chief reason alleged for the last two dates is that it is considered that the one principal object of the book is to insist on the duty of burying the dead. Twice, in Jewish history was this prohibited; after the fall of Bether, so valiantly defended by Bar Cochba, and in Persia, under Ardeshir I. Iłoth these dates are º Il OIl- suited by the fact that Tobit is cited by Polycarp († 155). The following considerations suggest the 2nd gent. B.C. as the probable date :-(1). Unless it could be shown that 14” is prophetic, it implies that the writer was living at the time of a temple which was inferior in grandeur, to Solomon's, i.e. before the time of Herod. (2) The law of marriage with relatives, so strongly insisted on also in the Book of Jubilees, fell into desuetude before the 2nd gent. A.D. (Rosenmann, Studien 2. B. Tobit). (3) The prominence given to the duty of interring the dead may well have been caused by the action of Antiochus Epiphanes, who, we are told (2 Mac 519), ‘cast out a multitude unburied.’ (4) Marriages with Gentiles still needed discouragement, 4” 6°. (5) It contains no bright eschatology, and no TOBIT, BOOK OF TOGARMAH 789 Messianic hope, from which it seems to have been written before the º of Antiochus. . (6) Its soteriological and ethical tone closely resembles that of other works known to have been written about a century B.C. This we will now try to prove. vi. TOBIT AND CONTEMPORARY JEWISH LITERA- TURE.—1. Sirach. There is, as Fuller has shown (Speaker's Apocr. i. 160), a great resemblance between the thought of Tobit and Sirach. (1) As to the Saving value of good works. Both emphasize the value of almsgiving : it is a good gift in God's sight, To 411, fills the doer with life, cleanses away all sin and delivers from death, 120; cf. Sir 320 2912 4024. Sinners are enemies of their own life, 1210; cf. Sir 1821 3S15. § The eschatology of Sir. and of Tobit are on the same plane. Both regard Sheol as the abode of joyless shades: it is 6 &lavlos rétor, 36, where even the righteous go, 810 132; cf., Sir 400 140 17%, (3) Both insist on reverent interment of the dead. Very pathetically does Tobit ask to be buried, 48, and for Sarah to be buried beside him, 44; he risks his life to inter his brethren, 11723. 7, and urges his son to place cakes (and wine, Aram., IIF, It., Vulg.) on the graves of the righteous [cf. Tylor's Primitive Culture, i. 485 fſ., ii. 30 ft.]; cf. Sir 738 301S 3810, (4) Both set value on the same ethical duties: gº of marriage, 412ſ. 80, Sir 720 3624; honesty to servants, 414, Sir 790t.; the true estimate of wealth, 518, Sir 51 ; benevolence, 47. 14, 17, Sir 41-5 124 3510. (5) Both base all virtue on the fear of God, 45.0. 19, Sir G37 3510 3710. 2. The Story of Allikar.—In this work, recently published by Camb. Univ. Press, Ahikar is a pious vizier of Sennacherib, who, being childless, adopted a boy, Nadan, and took much pains with his instruc- tion ; but when Nadan grew up he incriminated his adoptive father by false letters, and caused him to be sentenced to death. . The executioner spared his life, and imprisoned him in a cellar under his (Alhikar’s) house. At length he was released, and vengeance was executed on Nadan. This is the story which is alluded to in 14", more fully in N than B. Abikar, in ‘the Story,’ bemoans himself. thus: “I have no son. to bury me, nor a daughter, and my possessions no one inherits.” Itead with this To 118 27 310 48. There are many features of resemblanco between Ahikar's moral teaching to Nadan, and Tobit's to Tobias. In the Syriac Version of Ahilyar (op. cit. 61) we read : ‘My son, eat thy portion, and despise not the righteous' (cf. To 419); “Do not eat bread with a shameless man’ (cf. To 417 Wulg.); ‘Associate with a wise man and thou wilt become like him ' (cf. To 418); “My benevolence has saved me’ (cf. To 410); ‘My son, floe from whoredom' (op. cit. 5); cf. 412; and notably, “Pour out thy wine on the graves of the righteous, rather than drink it with evil men’; cf. 417 “Pour . . . give (it) not to sinners.’ IIarris discusses the two texts of N and B in the Story of Ahikar, ch. v., and also in the Amer. Journ. of Theology, iii. 541. 3. The Book of Jubilees contains passages prob- ably known to the author of Tobit. To 412 states that Noah took a wife from his relatives. Of course there is no Scripture warrant for this ; but Jubilees (ch. 4) furnishes us with the names of the wives of all the patriarchs from Adam to Noah, and each one married a very near relative. Again, when Jacob left home for Haran, Isaac (Jub 2710) uses words to Itebekah which resemble To 520t. 106 ‘My sister, weep not : he has gone in peace, and in peace will he return (so R 521). The Most High will preserve him from all evil. For I know his way will be prospered. ..., and he will return in peace to us (To 520), for he is on the straight path (419). He is faithful (N 106), and will not perish.” In Jub 2210 we read, “Separate thyself from the nations, and eat not with them, and become not their associate (To 110): they offer their sacrifices to the dead, and eat over their graves' (To 417). 4. The Testament of Job has the foll, parallels — Job's wife begged bread for him (ch. 22); Job sang a hymn (ch. 33); in ch. 15 Job, when dying, says, “Behold, I die; only forget not the Lord (To 4%); do good to the poor (416); despise not the helpless ". take not to yourselves wives from strangers (41%), and, lo, I distribute to you all as much as belongs to me' (410), 5. Judith (8%) attaches importance to the fact that she and her husband were “of the same tribe and family.’ vii. TobiT IN THE CHURCH.-The Didaché (1*) gives this advice, ‘Whatever thou wishest not to happen to thee, do not thou to another’; To 4” gives this form, ‘What thou hatest, do not to another' (so also Hillel [Taylor, Pirke A both, 37]). Did 4** is also an adaptation of To 4”. Polycarp (ad Phil. ch. 10) says, “When ye can do good, defer it not, for almsgiving delivers from death '; cf. To 12°. Pseudo-Clem. (ad Cor. 16) seems to quote 12” thus: ‘Almsgiving is as good as repent- ance for sin; fasting is better than prayer, but almsgiving (is better) than both. Love covereth a multitude of sins. Prayer from a good conscience saveth from death.’ Harris (Amer. Journ. Theol. iii. 546 ft.) suggests to read “prayer’ for the first ‘almsgiving'; and thinks we have the original reading of To 12° in the Gr. cursives. ‘Good is prayer with fasting, and almsgiving with right- eousness better than both.’ Clem. Alex. quotes 41" as # ypaqº (Strom. ii. 23, § 139). Origen (ſºp. ad Afric. xiii.) and Athanasius (Apol. c. Arian. xi.) use Tobit as canonical, though theoretically they did not include it in the Canon, because it was not in the Heb. Bible. Cyprian treats it as authorita- tive in his work on the Lord's Prayer (c. 32). Hilary cites it to prove the intercession of angels (in Ps. 1297). Ambrose (de Tobiá, 1. 1) treated the book as prophetic, and Augustine included it among the Apocr. of the LXX which ‘the Christian Church received ’ (de Doctr. Christ. ii. 8). Jerome (Praºſ. ad libb. Salomonis) allowed its perusal, but forbade its canonicity; whereas the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) and the Councils of Florence (1439) and of Trent (1546) declared it canonical. Luther (cf. Fritzsche, p. 19) deemed it “a truly beautiful, wholesome, and profitable fiction.” The Homilies of the Church of England use 4" 12" as ‘a lesson which the Holy Ghost doth teach in sundry places of the Scripture’ (Second Book, Om Alms- deeds, part 1). The Offertory contains sentences drawn from To 4”, and the preface to the Marriage Service, that marriage ‘ought not to be taken in hand lightly or wantonly to satisfy carnal lusts,’ is clearly &Il tºº of Vulg. 6'7; in fact, the first Prayer Book of Edward VI. contained these words: “As Thou didst send the angel Raphael to Thobie and Sara, the daughter of Raguel, to their great comfort, so vouchsafe to send Thy blessing upon these Thy servants.” The names of Abraham and Sarah are now substituted. LITERATURE. –COMMENTARIES: Ilgen, Die Geschichte Tobi's, mach drey verschiedemem. Originalem, Jena, 1800; Reusch, Das Buch Tobias, lºreiburg, 1857; Fritzsche, Daeg. II andlk. 1853; Fuller, Speaker's Apocr., vol. i., London, 1888; Sengelmann, Das Buch Tobit, Hamburg, 1857; Gutberlet, Das Buch Tobias, Münster, 1877; Bissell in Lange's Apocr., Edinburgh, 1880; Scholz, Comm. 2. B. Tobias, Wurzburg, 1889; Zöckler, Apokºr, des AT, München, 1891; Löhr in l'autzsch's Apokr, w, Pseudepigr. des A.T., Tübingen, 1900. —TEXTS : Swete, OT' in Greek, vol. ii., gives the text of B and N in full, with readings from A as foot- notes; Fritzsche gives the text of the Cursives 44. 100 in his Com. pp. 89-104; Neubauer on Tobit gives Aram., IIM, It. I. ; the Syriac is found conveniently in Lagarde's Libri V'T' Apocr. Syriace, London, 1861; for HF we have only Walton's Polyglot; the most accurate edition of Vulg, is that of Vercellono, Itoma), 1861. —II E1.1°S TO STUDY; Schürer, 11.JP II. iii. 37–44; The Story of Ahikar, from the Syr., Arab., Arm. , 12th., Gr., and Slay. Versions, by Conybeare, Harris, and Mrs. Lewis, Camb, Univ. Press, 1898; ‘Testament of Job' (T'S v. 1; also in Sem. Stud. im Memory of A. Kohut, IBerlin, 1897, pp. 264—33S); Book of Jubilees, tr. by Conybearo in JQR vi. vii.; Nestle, Septwa- giantastwdien, iii. 1800, p. 22ff, ; W. R. Smith's art. , ‘Tobit ’ in 1'ncycl. Brit. 9; Nöldeke, Momatsber. der kön. Akad. der Wissensch. zu Berlim, 1879, p. 45 ft. [orig. lang. Greek); Grätz, Monatsschr. 1879, pp. 145 ft., 385 ft., 433 ff., 509 ſſ. [orig. lang. New Heb.]. J. T. MAIRSHALL. TOCHEN (ºh ‘task,’ ‘measure’; B 93rka, A 06×xav ; Thochem). —A town of Simeon mentioned with Ain, Rimu on, and Ashan (1 Ch 4*), and consequently in the Negeb. There is no name like Tochen in the corresponding list of Jos 19°, where, however, the LXX 90kka shows that the name has fallen out. The site is unknown. C. W. WILSON. TOGARMAH (Tºnh, 90pyapá, Thogorºma). —Son of Gomer and brother of Ashkenaz and ltiplmath (Gn 10°). If Ashkenaz is the Asguza of the Assyr. 790 TOHU TONGUES, CONFUSION OF inscriptions which is associated with the Minni by Esarhaddon, we shall have to look for Togarmah to the east of Assyria. In 1881 Fr. Delitzsch suggested that it might be Til-garimmu, a fortress of Kummukh or Comagénê ; but it must have been a country, since horses and mules were ex- orted from it (Ezk 27*), and not a mere fortress. ost modern authorities decide for Western Armenia. t A. H. SAYCE. TOHU.—See NAHATH. TOI.—See TOU. TOKHATH.—See TIKVAH. TOLA (wºn ‘crimson worm,” cochineal’; ewNá, Jg 10**).—A minor judge, following Abimelech. His name is that of one of the chief clans of Issachar; see Gn 468, Nu 26* (vºnn, & Toxael), 1 Ch 7”, and art. PUAH. His home and burial-place were at Shamir, the seat of the clan, probably in the N. of the highlands of Ephraim : the site is unknown. G. A. COOKE. TOLAD (1%h “birth,’ ‘generation'; B 9ov\aéu, A 60A46; Tholſtd).—A town of Simeon mentioned with Ezem, Bethuel, Hormall, and Ziklag (1 Ch 4*). It is the same place as El-tolad in the Negeb (Jos 15” 19”). The site has not been recovered. C. W. WILSON. TOLBANES (Tox3ávns), 1 Es 9% =Telem, Ezr 10*. —One of the porters in the time of Ezra. TOLL, PLACE OF (rexéviov, Mt 99, Mk 214, Lk 3”, in AV “receipt of custom’).-The place where the tax collector sat to receive his dues. In Wyclif's translation it is rendered tolbothe. In the case of Matthew or Levi, the toll collected was the custom exacted by and paid into the treasury of Herod Antipas, the Idumaean prince who then ruled over Galilee. The Textºvtov at Capernaum was of importance, as a large traffic passed on the highway between Damascus and Ptolemais. See PUBLICAN. J. MACPHERSON. TOMB.-See BURIAL and SEPULCHRE. TONGUES, CONFUSION OF.—The narrative of Gn 11” is too familiarly known to need detailed re- petition here ; and it will be sufficient to recall riefly its leading features. Mankind, at the time to which it refers, all had one speech, and lived together. They journeyed, it seems to be implied, nomadically from spot to spot ; and on one of their journeys they found a plain in the land of Shin'ār (Babylonia), where they settled, and where also they determined to build a city, and a lofty tower, which should both gain them lasting re- nown, and also serve as a centre, or rallying-point, to prevent their being dispersed over the surface of the earth. J", however, ‘came down to view the building, and [supplying here, with Stade, ZA PV, 1895, i. 158, and others, words which v.7 seems to show have been omitted] having returned to His lofty abode, signified to His heavenly counsellors or associates there (cf. 3°) His disapproval of it : if this, He said, is the beginning of their ambition, what will be the end of it 2 nothing will soon be too hard for them. So He ‘came down a second time, and “confounded ' (Heb. bálal) their language ; and from this occurrence the narrator (J) explains the diversity of exist- ing languages, the dispersion of mankind, and the name of the city of Babylon (in Heb. Babel), - 1. From a critical point of view, the narrative resents considerable diſliculties; for, though it elongs to J, it is difficult to harmonize with other, representations of the same source. The distribution of mankind into different nations has been already described by J in (parts of) ch. 10, and represented there, not as a punishment for misdirected ambition, but as the result of natural processes and movements; and Babylon, the build- ing of which is here interrupted, is in 10" repre- sented as already built. The narrative connects also very imperfectly with the close of J’s narrative of the Flood ; for, though the incident which it describes is placed shortly after the Flood, the terms of v.” (“the whole earth'), and the general tenor of the following account, imply a consider- ably larger population than the “eight souls’ of Noah’s i. In all probability (Dillm.) the story originally grew up without reference to the I'lood, or the usual derivation of mankind froln the three sons of Noah, and it has been imperfectly accommodated to the narratives in chs. 9 and 10, erhaps, indeed, Wellh. and others (cf. the Oxf. Hea. ad loc.) are right in conjecturing that origin. ally it belonged to the same cycle of tradition of which fragments are preserved in 4”, and formed part of the sequel to 4*. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion (Wellh., Dillm., and others; cf. the Oaſ. Hea. ii. 5 f.) that 4.7% (describing the beginnings of eaſisting civilization) belongs to a cycle of tradi- tion, in which the continuity of human history was not inter- rupted by a Flood ; and if the conjecture, just mentioned, respecting 111-9 be correct, the same assumption must of course be made with regard to that, 2. That the narrative can contain no scientific or historically true account of the origin of language, is evident from many indications. In the first place, if it is in its right place, it can be demon. strated to rest upon unhistorical assumptions : for the biblical date of the Flood (Ussher's artificial treatment of Gn 1197 and Ex 12" being disregarded) is B.C. 2501 (or, acc. to the LXX of Gen. and Ex., 3066); and, so far from the whole earth being at either B.C. 2501 or B.C. 3066 ‘of one language and one speech,’ we possess inscriptions, dating from periods much earlier than either of these dates written in three distinct languages —- Sumerian, Babylonian, and Egyptian. But, even if Wellh.’s supposition, that the narrative belongs really to an earlier stage in the history of mankind, be accepted, it would still be impossible to regard it as historical. For (1) it could not, even then, be placed in a dif- ferent category from the other narratives in Gn 1–11, which (for reasons which cannot be stated fully here ; cf. FALI, FLOOD, etc.) must relate to the prehistoric period. ... And (2), the narrative, while explaining ostensibly the diversity of lam- guages, offers no explanation of the diversity of paces. And yet diversity of language—n:earing here by the expression mot the relatively subordi- nate differences which are always characteristic of languages developed from a common parent- tongue, but those more radical differences relating alike to structure, grammar, and roots, which show that the languages exhibiting them cannot be re- ferred to a common origin — is dependent ſpon diversity of race. Of course, cases occur in which a people living near a people of another race, or .. have adopted their language (as, e.g., the Celts in Cornwall have adopted English); but, speaking generally, radically different languages are characteristic of different races, or (if the word be used in its widest sense) of subdivisions of races, or sub-races, which, in virtue of the facillºſ of creating language distinctive of man, have created them for purposes of intercommunication and to satisfy their social instincts, Differences of race, in other words, are more primary in 1man than differences of language,” and have first to be accounted for. It is, now, a disputed ethnological * Cf. Sayce, Iraces of the OT', p. 37 f., “Diversity of race is older than diversity of language.’ - TONGUES, CONFUSION OF TONGUES, CONFUSION OF 791 problem whether man appeared originally upon the globe at one centre or at many centres. The former of these alternatives is preferred by modern scientific authorities. Mr. Darwin in his Descent of Man, vol. i. ch. 7, after reviewing the arguments on both sides, sums up (pp. 231-233, ed. 1871) in its favour (upon the ground, stated briefly, that the resemblances, physical and mental, between different races are such that it is extremely improbable that they should have been acquired independently by aboriginall distinct species or races): see also to the same effect Lyel 1°rinciples of Geology 12 (1875), ii, ch. 43 ; Huxley, Critiques and Addresses (1883), p. 163 ff. (= Collected Essays, vii. p. 249 ft.); and Dr. Tylor, art. “Anthropology' in the Encycl. Brit.0 and in his volume Anthropology (1881), p. 6. But of course these authori- ties postulate for man a far higher antiquity than is allowed by the biblical narrative (so also Sayce, Races of the OT" XS, 37). But, whichever of these alternatives be tdopted, it is easy to see that differences of race are not accounted for in the biblical narratives: the case of primitive man appearing independently at dif- ferent centres (with, it may be supposed, racial distinctions, at least to some degree, already im- planted in him at these centres) is not contem- plated in them at all ; if, on the other hand, racial differences were gradually developed by the play of natural selection upon the descendants of a single pair, migrating into new climatic and other physical conditions, then the growth of these differences is neither explained by the bib- lical narratives, nor, in fact, reconcilable with them. For, taking account only of the simplest and most obvious division of mankind into the white, black, and yellow races,” even Gn 10 (Sayce, HCM 120) notices only (except Cush 7) tribes and nations belonging to the white race; while, from the known fixity of racial types, in cases where we are able to observe them, it is certain that, if the white, black, and yellow races, with the many sub-races included in each, have been developed from a single original pair, the process lmust have occupied a vastly longer period of time than is allowed by the biblical narrative. (which places the creation of man at B.C. 4157, or [LXX] B.C. 5328), however early after Adam the dis- persion of Gn 11” may be supposed to have actually occurred. 3. It does not fall within the province of a T)ictionary of the Bible to give an account of the languages of the world; but a few particulars may be stated here for the purpose of indicating the general conclusions to which the study of the subject has led modern philologists. Prof. Sayce writes (Introd. to the Science of Jamguage, 1880, ii. 31 f.) : “The genealogical classification of lan- guages, that which divides them into families and sub-families, each mounting up, as it were, to a single parent-speech, is based on the evidence of grammar and roots. Unless the grammar agrees, no amount of similarity between the roots of two languages could warrant us in comparing them together, and referring them to the same stock. . . . The test of linguistic kinship is agreement in structure [i.e. the formation of sentences], grammar, and roots. Judged by this test, the languages at present spoken in the world probably fall, as Prof. Friedrich Müller observes, into “about 100 different families,” between which science can discover no connexion or relationship. When we consider how many languages have probably “perished since man first appeared upon the globe, we may gain some idea of the number- less essays and types of speech which have gone to form the ºo:: of the present day.” basque is an example of an isolated survival of an otherwise extinct family of speech; and in Tasmania. four dialects spoken when our colonists first landed on the island have recently disappeared. On pp. 83–64 of the same volume l’rof. Sayce gives a list * See, further, on the classification of the races of mankind, Dr Tylor's article and work (ch. 3) referred to above. of 75 families of languages, all unrelated to each other, and each comprising mostly a variety of individual languages or groups of languages. Of these families the two best known are the Semitic and the Aryan (or Indo-European). The principal languages in- cluded in the Semitic family are Assyro-Babylonian, Hebrew, Phoenician and Punic, the different Aramaic dialects, Arabic, the S. Arabian dialects (Himyaritic or Sabaean, and Minaean), Ethiopic and allied dialects: all these, though in subordinate details they often differ widely, yet display such obvious resem- blances in ‘structure, grammatical form, and roots,” that they are manifestly merely varieties of a common parent-tongue. The principal groups included in the ATyan family are the Indian group (Sanskrit, with allied languages and many modern vernmenlars), the Iranian group (Zend, Persian, etc.), the Celtic group (Welsh, Cornish, Irish, etc.), the Italian group (Umbrian, Oscan, Latin, with the dependent Ikomance languages), the Thrako-Illyrian group, the Hellenic group, the Letto-Slavonic roup (Slavonic, Russian, Polish, Lithuanian, etc.), and the Teutonic group (Gothic, Low German, Anglo-Saxon, English, Dutch, High German, Old Norse, Icelandic, Swedish, Danish, Nor- wegian): all these languages, though in details they differ even more widely than the Semitic languages, nevertheless exhibit so many common features as to make it evident that they are but varieties, which have arisen by gradual differentiation, under the influence of separation and different local conditions, out of a single original parent-tongue. Languages, however, differ not only in grammar and roots, but also in a manner which it is more difficult for those, like ourselves, familiar with only one type of language, to realize, viz. “morpho- logically,” or in the manner in which ideas are built up into a sentence. Different races do not think in the same way; and consequently the forms taken by the sentence in different languages are not the same. The only type of language with which we are practically acquainted is the “inflectional' type, which ºil. in Western Asia, and Europe, and to which both the Semitic and Aryan families belong ; but there are besides the “agglutinative” type (of which Turkish is an example), spoken chiefly in Central Asia, the Islands of the Pacific, and many parts of Africa, the “incorporating,” of which Basque (in S. W. France) is the chief representative, the ‘poly- synthetic,” which prevails throughout America," and the ‘isolating’ (of which Chinese is the best- known example), characteristic of Eastern Asia. (Tibet, Burmah, etc.): all these types of language differing in the manner in which ideas are grouped by the mind, and combined into sentences (for further particulars reference must be made to Sayce, op. cit. i. 118-132, 374 ft., ii. 188 ft. ; Races of the OT, 35 f.; or Whitney's art. ‘Philology’ in the Encycl. Britannica, ed. 9). It is remarkable, as even this cursory description will have indi- cated, that the morphological character of a lam- guage is correlated, in some hidden way, with the geographical and climatic conditions of the country in which it originated : thus the different families of languages spoken in America, though utterly unrelated to each other, are nevertheless all ‘poly- synthetic.’ It is an obvious corollary from the radical differ- ences which the various families of language display, as compared with one another, that, whatever may have been the case with the races of mankind, the families of language spoken by man- kind must have arisen independently at different centres of human life. “The languages of the Yresent world are but the selected residuum of the in ſinite variety of tongues that have grown up and decayed among the races of mankind. . . . The idioms of mankind have had many independent starting-points, and, like the Golden Age, which science has shifted from the past to the future, the dream of a universal language must be realized, if at all, not in the Paradise of Genesis, but in the unifying tendencies of civilization and trade' (Sayce, Science of Lºng. ii. 322, 323). * In polysynthetic languages the sentence is the unit of thought ; and in many of them separate words hardly exist. 792 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF TONGUES, CONFUSION OF As need hardly be remarked, what the primitive language of mankind was, is unknown. Tormerly, indeed, it was the general belief that it was Hebrew, and all other languages were sup- posed to be derived from this (); see Max Müller, Lectures on the Sc. of Lang, 1st series, ed. 1864, p. 132ff. Leibnitz appears to have been the first to point out the absurdity of this view, remarking justly (ib. p. 135 f.) that ‘to call Hebrew the rimitive language was like calling branches of a tree primitive ranches’; and the science of comparative philology, which has arisen since Leibnitz's day, has but confirmed the soundness of his judgment. Even among the Semitic languages, Arabic, in many respects, exhibits older and more original features than Hebrew ; besides, unless all analogy is deceptive, the language of primitive man must have been of a far more simple, un- developed type than any of the existing Semitic languages. 4. Differences of language and differences of race thus point independently to the great antiquity of man upon the earth. And their evidence is more than confirmed by testimony from other quarters. Even during the last ten years the discoveries of Petrie and de Morgan in Egypt, and of Hilprecht and others in Babylonia, have shown that civiliza: tion existed in these two countries at a period considerably earlier than had previously been sup- posed; while the existence of inscriptions, sculp- tures, paintings, and various objects of art, belong- ing certainly to a date not later than B.C. 4000, makes it evident that the beginnings of civiliza- tion and art in both these countries must have I. that date by many centuries, not to say y millennia. And the numerous relics of human workmanship, especially stone implements of different kinds, and bone, or other material, engraven with figures, which have been found during recent years in different parts of Europe and "America, bear testimony, in the opinion of geologists, to a greater antiquity still, and show that man, in a rude and primitive stage of develop- ment, ranged through the forests and river-valleys of these continents, in company with mammals now extinct, during periods of the so-called ‘glacial age,’ when the glaciers (which then extended over large parts both of the British Isles and of the Continent of Europe) retreated sufficiently to enable him to do so (Dawkins, Early Man, 112–122, 137, 152 ft., 161 – 164, 169, etc.). The date at which these relics of human workmanship were embedded in the deposits in which they are now found, can- not be estimated, precisely, in years B.C.; but the late Prof. Prestwich, a geologist not addicted to extravagant opinions, assigned to palaeolithic man, as a rough approximate limit, on data very in- sufficient and subject to correction,’ a period of from 20,000 to 30,000 years from the present time. See Prestwich's Geology (1888), ii. 534; in his Controverted Questions of Geology (1895), p. 46, he gives similar but some- what higher figures. It was in 1859 that ‘ the barriers which restricted the age of man to a limited traditional chronology were overthrown by the discoveries in the Valley of the Sonne and Brixham Cave' (ib. p. 19). ‘Palaeolithic' implements are those found in association with extinct manmalia; ' neolithic' implements, which show a higher type of workmanship, are those found with existing species. In the palaeolithic period, the “river-drift man' hunted the elephant and the lion, the hippopotamus and the rhinoceros, in the valley of the Lower Thames.—See further on this subject Jºvans, The Amcient Stone Implements, Weapons, and Ormanents of Great Britain 2, 1897 Ş. their antiquity, pp. 703–0); Boyd Dawkins, Early Man in ritain, 1880 (where, at the end of the several chapters, the characteristics of the civilization of the successive ages—the river-drift hunter, the cave man, the neolithic farmer and herdsman [contemporary with the beginnings of organized empires, in the East), the bronze age, and the iron age—are well indicated); Lyell, Antiquitſ of Man 4, 1873; Lord Avebury (Sir J. Lubbock), Prehistoric Times 0 (1900), esp. ch. 11; (;, 1. Wright, Man and the Glacial Age (in the Interm. Scient. Series), 1892, p. 242 f.; Morris, Man and his Ancestor (a small popularly written work), 1900, p. 21 ſt. ; Tylor, Anthropology, p. 28 f. That man was coeval in Western Europe with the glacial period is accepted by Sayce, Itaces of the OT', p. 23. The general conclusion, resulting from all that has been said, may be summed up in Dr. Tylor's words: “Man’s first appearance on earth goes back to an age compared with which the ancients, as we call illem, are but moderns. The four thousand —w years of recorded history only take us back to a prehistoric period of untold length, during which took place the primary distribution of mankind over the earth and the development of the great races, the formation of speech and the settlement of the great families of language, and the growth of culture up to the levels of the old-world nations of the East, the forerunners and founders of modern civilized life’ (Anthropology, p. 24). 5. It is thus apparent that there are two great facts, the antiquity of man, and the wide distribu- tion of man over the surface of the earth, of which the biblical narrative, whether in 11” or else- where, takes no account. It is true, of course, that 118 ° accounts ostensibly for the distribution of man “over the face of the whole earth’; but it has been shown above why it does not do so really : the dispersion is placed too late to account for the known facts respecting both the distribution of man and the diversity of races: how, for example, can the “river-drift iman of the glacial, or even of the post-glacial, period be brought within the scope of the biblical narrative 2 To say that the biblical writers spoke only of the nations of whom they knew is perfectly true ; but the admission deprives their statements of all historical or scien- tific value: ‘palaeolithic' and “neolithic' man, and the black and yellow historic races, all existed; and any explanation, purporting to account for the populations of the earth, and the diversity of languages spoken by them, must take cognizance of them : an explanation which does not take cognizance of them can be no historically true account either of the diffusion of mankind, or of the diversity of speech. The first ll chapters of Genesis, it may be safely assurned, report faithfully what was currently believed among the Hebrews respecting the early history of mankind : they contain no account of the real beginnings of man, or of human civilization, upon the earth. 6. The true explanation of the story in Gn 11”, it cannot be doubted, is that which is given by Prof. (now Bishop) Ryle in his Early Narrative." of Genesis, p. 127 ſº. As in 2*–4 the origin of various existing customs and institutions is ex- plained in accordance with the beliefs of Hebrew antiquity, so in 11” the explanation is given of the diversity of languages spoken by different peoples inhabiting different parts of the earth. As soon as men began to reflect, they must have wondered what was the cause of differences of language, which not only impressed the Hebrews (1s 33", Dt 28", Jer 5*, Ps 114*), but also were an impediment to free intercourse, and accentuated national interests and antagonisms. ‘The story of the Tower of I3abel supplied to such primitive questionings an answer suited to the comprehension of a primitive time. Just as Greek fable told of the giants who strove to scale Olympus, so Senitic legend told of the impious act by which the sons of men sought to raise themselves to the dwelling-place of God, and erect an enduring symbol of human unity to be seen from every side'; and how Jehovah inter- posed to frustrate their purposes, and brought upon them the very dispersal which they had sought to avoid. The narrative thus contains simply the answer which Hebrew folk - lore gave to the question which diſlerences of language and nation- ality directly suggested. At the same time, it is so worded as to convey (like the other early narra- tives of Genesis) spiritual lessons. Though the conception of Deity is naïve, and even, it may be (v.7), imperfectly disengaged from }º. the narrative nevertheless emplašizes Jehovah's supre- macy over the world ; it teaches how the self exaltation of man is checked by God ; and it shows how the distribution of munkind into TONGUES, CONFUSION OF TONGUES, GIFT OF 793 nations, and diversity of language, is an element in His providential plan for the development and progress of humanity. 7. No Bab. parallel to Gn 11” has as yet been discovered. The reference in the fragmentary Brit. Mus. Inscription (K. 8657), tr. by G. Smith, Chald.-Gen. 160, and mentioned in IICM 158, is very uncertain ; for though the inscr. does seem to speak of the erection of some building in Babylon by the order of the king, which offended the gods, so that they ‘made an end by night' of the work done by day, the crucial words, rendered ‘strong place’ and ‘speech,” are (as is admitted for the latter [twillw] by Smith himself, p. 163) both extremely doubtful : see Delitzsch's note in the Germ. tr. of Smith's book, p. 310; and for tdzimtu, ‘strong place,’ Del. Ll WB 37, where it is tr. Weh- klaſſe ! Cf. the transcr. and tr. by Boscawen in T'SBA v. (1877) D. 303 ff. (where, however, p. 308, “speech” for melik, “counsel’ {ii WB 413), is quite gratuitous). In the Jewish Haggada of a later age, the tower was said to have been destroyed by mighty winds: see the Orac. Sibyll. iii. 97 ff. (whence Jos. Amt. I. iv. 3 [the quotation]= Alex. Polyhistor ap. Syncell. Chron,, ed. Dindorf, i. 81 C), and Jubilees 1019-20 tr. Charles, J918 vi. 208 f.): cf. (from Abydenus) Eus. Praep. Wv. ix. 14 = Eus. Chrom., Schoene, i. 33=Syncell. i. 81 D, and (from Eupolemus ap. Alex. Polyhistor) ix. 17. 1. From the fact that in Jos. and Abyd. (rows &vékov; 0solor (300éovros &votpé- * 70 ºnzávnº) the plural “gods’ is used, Stade (l.c. p. 101 f.) conjectured that these authorities have preserved reminiscences of an older polytheistic version of the tradition. In fact, though the narrative plainly presupposes a knowledge of Babylonia, it does not seem itself to be of Babylonian origin : if any Bab. legend lies at the basis of it, it must have been strongly Heb- raized. As Gunkel has remarked, the narrator speaks as a foreigner rather than as a native : the unfavourable light in which the foundation of I3abylon is represented ; the idea that the erection of what (ea, hyp.) can hardly have been anything but a Bab. zikkurat (or pyramidal temple-tower *) was interrupted by (ea, hyp.) a Bal). deity; the mention, as of Something unusual, of brick and bitumen, as building materials, and the false etymology of the name “Babel,” are all features not likely to have originated in Babylonia. It does, however, seem a probable conjecture (Ewald, Jahrb. ix. [1858] 12f., Schrader, Dillm.) that some gigantic tower-like building in Babylon, which had either been left unfinished or fallen into disrepair, gave rise to the legend. The tower in question has often been supposed to be Iuriminanki, the zikkurat of E-zida, the great temple of Nebo, in Borsippa (a city almost contiguous to Babylon on the S.W.), the ruined remains of which form the huge pyramidal mound now called Birs Nimroud. This zikkurat, remarkably enough, Nebuchadnezzar states had been built partially by a former king, but not completed : its ‘head,” or top, had not been set up ; it had also fallen into disrepair; and Neb. restored it. Others regard it as an objection to this identification that E-zida was not actually in Babylon ; and prefer to think of Itiminanki, the zikkurat of E-sāgil, the famous and ancient temple of Marduk in Babylon itself, the site of which is generally £ considered to be hidden under the mas- sive oblong mound called Babil, about 20 miles N. of Bil's Nimroud, § Schrader does not decide between £-zida and E-Sagil: Dillm. thinks E-sagil the more likely, but leaves it open whether, after all, the Heb. legend may not have referred to some half-ruined ancient building in Babylon, not other- wise known to us. The high antiquity of Babylon, and the fact that it was the chief centre of a region in which the Hebrews placed the cradle of . the human race, would ſit it to be regarded as the * Jastrow, Rel. of Bab, and Ass. p. 615 ft. f The inscr. is tr. in KAT'2 124 f., I, II; iii. 2, pp. 53, 55. f See, however, Hommel in vol. i. p. 213a; and BABYLoN, § 8, in the Iºncycl. Bibl. § See the plan of Babylon and its environs in Smith's DI}, . 8.”), ; or in the Iºn cycl. 13ibl. s. v. Views of the two mounds referred to may be seen in Smith, s, p. “Babel,” and “Babel (Tower of)”; Itiehm, LI WB, s.v. ; or Ball's Light from the East, pl). 220, 221. point from which mankind dispersed over the earth. See, further (besides the Comm.), Cheyne, art. “Babel (Tower of)' in the Encycl. Bibl.; and Dr. Worcester in Gemesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge (New York, 1901), 491 ff. S. R. DRIVER, TONGUES, GIFT OF.—i. THE BIBLICAL EVI. DENCE. –(a) Acts of the Apostles. On the first day of Pentecost after the Resurrection and Ascension (Ac 2"), the disciples, about 120 in number (1*), were assembled together. “Suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of the rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them tongues parting asunder, like as of fire ; and it [sc. 'yNóaga] sat upon each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utter- ance.’ Two wonders are here described—the vision of the fiery tongues, apparent to all in the house, but, as it seems, to them only ; and the speaking ‘with other tongues,’ which was, as the sequel shows, apparent to others also. The latter (v.”) consisted in ‘speaking the mighty works of God.” It was not, at first at any rate, addressed to those outside. But ‘when this sound was heard, the multitude came together,’ and Jews, then present at Jerusalem from every nation under heaven, heard to their astonishment the brethren speaking in their own respective languages (vv.**). Some, however, ‘mocking, said, They are filled with new wine.” In reply to these latter, St. Peter inter- prets the phenomenon by recalling the prophecy of Joel, which speaks of an outpouring of the Spirit in the latter days, which shall cause the servants and handmaidens of the Lord to see visions and to prophesy (vv.” ”), and deduces it from the Messianic oflice of Jesus, in whose exaltation this promise of the Holy Spirit is fulfilled (v.”). The phenomenon of the fiery tongues reappears no more in the sacred narrative; but that of speaking with tongues is repeated (Ac 10*.*) upon the conversion of the Gentile household of Cornelius, who with a sudden inspiration of the Holy Spirit ‘speak with tongues and glorify God.’ This is clearly the same pheno- menon as is described in Ac 2", and the identity is eapressly asserted by St. Peter (11”) &a trep kai ép' juās év ćpxii. The ‘speaking with other tongues’ is therefore a recurrent phenomenon in the Apos- tolic Church ; and accordingly we read of the twelve disciples at Ephesus (19%), that “when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them ; and they spake with tongues and prophesied.” In this lº. the plenomenon is for the first time expressly associated with the exercise of the prophetic gift. ... (On Spitta's analysis of the sources of Ac 2" see Knowling, p. 100). (b) Gospel of St. Mark. —In the doubtful appen- dix to this Gospel (16”), among the wonders .. are to follow those who believe, it is said “they shall speak with [new] tongues.’ The word ‘new’ is of very questionable genuineness; if it be rejected, the passage is a bare reference to ‘speaking with tongues,’ and throws little light upon the nature of the utterances. (c) I'irst Epistle to the Corinthians. – In chs. 12–14, especially the last-named chapter, we have the most circumstantial reference to the phenom- enon. In 12** St. Paul enumerates different gifts, which in their diversity proceed from the self-same Spirit. l'irst come gifts of ordinary teaching (N6-yos oroghlas, N. Yviboews), then faith, healings, and other miracles, then at the end prophecy and the discerning of spirits, followed, in the last place of all, by kinds of tongues’ (Yévm), a new qualification, and ‘interpretation of tongues,’ which also appears in these chapters alone. The enumeration of offices and gifts in 794 TONGUES, GIFT OF TONGUES, GIFT OF vv.** corresponds to that of gifts in vv.4-11. The teaching offices come first (apostles, prophets, teachers), then miracles and healings, then 3. and “guidances,’ then, again last of all, “kinds of tongues.’ Prophecy and ‘discernings, of spirits’ are evidently omitted here because of the insertion of ‘prophets’ after ‘apostles.’ Then, in the in- terrogative clauses that follow, the ‘tongues,” this time with the added mention of ‘interpreta- tion,’ but without the mention of y&vm, again bring up the rear : “Do all speak with tongues 2 do al interpret?” In ch. 13 the tongues, which St. l’aul has put last in the order of precedence, come first in th. order of depreciation. ‘Tongues of men and of angels’ may be taken as a climax, for this purpose, upon the less rhetorical yávn y\wo- orów (see below, § iii. (b)). Apart from charity, not only tongues (however wonderful), but even pro- phecy, even works of charity, are worthless. Com- pared with it, prophecy, tongues, knowledge itself, all belong to our childhood, to our ignorance, to the sphere of things temporal. Then in ch. , 14, after a closing reminder of the subordinate place which truevuaruká are to occupy in our desires as compared with º the apostle enters in detail upon a comparison between the two most con- spicuous rvevuatuká, viz. prophecy and tongues. rophecy is the more desirable of the two, because it is addressed to men, and benefits them, whereas ‘tongues’ are addressed to God, and benefit the speaker only (vv.”). The only exception to this is when the speaker (or some other person, v.”) can interpret his utterances. This would enable the rest of those present to join in with their “Amen’ (v.”), and so derive some benefit from the prayer. Without going into details of exegesis, which in this chapter are full of difficulty, it is sufficient to emphasize certain points upon which the apostle speaks without any obscurity. Firstly, as already remarked, the speaker with tongues º: to God only ; his utterance is not a sermon, but a prayer or psalm (vv.*.*, *, *), or a thanksgiving (v. 9). Secondly, the utterance is cumintelligible to the hearers, and even to the speaker. The spirit is in prayer, but the mind takes no part, it is unfruitful (vv.” ”); the speaker ‘ edifies himself’ apparently by his attitude of ecstatic devotion, not by con- scious expression or reception of ideas. Thirdly, while ‘ interpretation' is thought of as possible, its absence seems to have been the rule, its presence the exception (vv.* *). Accordingly (fourthly), the impression which ‘tongues’ pro- duce upon a visitor, especially on a non-believer (v.”), is that of an assembly of madmen (cf. Ac 2"); whereas, in the case of prophecy, the non- believer, or at any rate the visitor, will be pro- foundly stirred, probably to conversion (vy.**). The closing section of the chapter (v.”) shows the dkaraataata, which had resulted at Corinth from the childish (121* 2° 1311 141*, *) desire of too many of the members of the Church to excel in the exercise of abnormal gifts, and from their dangerous tendency to value spiritual gifts in pro- portion to their abnormal features. The apostle exactly inverts this principle. ii. CLASSIFICATION OF THE DATA.—There is no possible doubt that the phenomena of the Church of Corinth are homogeneous with those which meet us at Caesarea. (Ac 10*) and at Ephesus (Ac 19%). These two passages are linked together by the reference to baptism, and the close relation of the tongues to prophecy connects the latter pas- sage with the phenomena, of Corinth. We may therefore conclude that one feature of the life of the Apostolic Churches was the correlation be- tween the perceptible presence of the Holy Spirit, which began at baptism, but was continued in the assemblies and corporate acts of the Churches (see vol. ii. pp. 407", 409"), and certain utterance, on the part of members of the Churches, some- times intelligible and less ecstatic (prophecy), some- times more ecstatic and not intelligible (tongues). On the border-line between the two classes of utter- ance would come the interpretation of tongues, a gift apparently known to St. Paul, but assumed by him to be exceptional, and passed over in the more occasional notices of the Acts of the Apostles. With these data, we can without difficulty class the reference in St. Mark 16 (above, i. (b)). It has been not infrequently laid down, that while these passages refer to one homogeneous group of phenom- €nſ, that group is separated from the phenomena of Ac 2 by a difference in kind. This assumption, however, is in too direct conflict with the words of St. Peter (Ac ll”) to be admitted. The homo- geneity of the later phenomenon with that of Pentecost, here asserted, can be denied only by undermining the credit of the Acts as a source. But, while we are thus obliged to class the phenom- ena of Ac 2 with those of the other passages of the NT, it must be recognized that with the features common to all passages certain peculiari- ties are combined in the narrative of l'entecost. First, there is the sound of the rushing wind; second, the vision of the fiery tongues; thirdly, the intelligibility of the utterances without the ‘ interpretation,’ which to St. Paul is necessary if the ‘tongues’ are to be understood. But in Aq 2, as in 1 Co 14, the ‘tongues’ are utterances of worship, not of a didactic character, not addressed to the Jews (whose attention is attracted by the utterances only after they have begun); the association with prophecy, implied in the quota- tion from Joel, is, to St. Peter apparently, as to St. Paul, due simply to identity of origin ; and in both passages (Ac 2", 1 Co 14*) the impres- sion produced upon less sympathetic hearers is similar. In the attempt, therefore, to interpret correctly the data of the NT relating to the subject of ‘tongues,’ the only sound method to adopt will be to begin from the most circumstan- tial account we have, that of St. Paul,-but, in applying the results to other passages, to bear in nind any peculiar features which distinguish their account of what is certainly in substance the same phenomenon. iii. INTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE. — (a) St. Paul, in common with all to whom the Chris- tian religion is a revelation from God, assumes that the gift of tongues is an energy of the Holy Spirit. No doubt he places it lower in value than any other spiritual gift enumerated by him. No doubt, also, like other gifts of the Spirit, it was capable of being simulated by plenomena not due to genuine inspiration. There was room here for 6tákptats (1 Co 12"). But the main criterion to be applied by the discerner of spirits was the sub- stance of what was said (1 Co. 2", cf. 1 Jn 4', the apostle has no sympathy with the heathemish ... that an utterance, apart from its intrinsic value, could be accredited by its abnormal circum- stances). Now, in the case of an unintelligible utterance, like that of év y\@gam, no such criterion was applicable. The º therefore assumes, in the case of tongues, that he has to do in each instance with the spiritual reality, not with a merely natural phenomenon (14" "). We must be content with the same assumption, however mind: ful that where there is the need of self-control (14%) there is the possibility of self-will. The Spirit is doubtless really at work, even upon, a psychical background of obscure, easily perversible, mental exaltation. º (b) If the phenomena of the NT are essentially homogeneous, we may safely reject some explºma: tions which are applicable at most to a limited TONGUES, GIFT OF TONGUES, GIFT OF 79.5 number of the passages under review. First among these may be set aside that based upon the strictly literal and physical sense of YAdoora, understood of ‘the tongue’ or organ of speech (Eichhorn, Meyer, etc.). This might at first sight be thought applicable to Ac 2. The disciples, as the fiery tongues appear to settle upon each of them, begin to speak Štěpats y\@goats (compare the probably spurious Kauvais of Mk 16"), i.e. with (literal) tongues other than their own, identified with, or symbolized by, the tongues of flame. But it cannot be seriously argued that the ‘tongues’ of this passage are different from the “ dialects’ of vv.". *; this identification is quite clear in v.” ra's hºwerépaws y\@agaws. And this carries with it (by Ac 11”) the interpretation of Ac 10" 19%, where XaXe?v y\@goats is equivalent to X. &répass y, in Ac 2. The literal sense claimed for ºyN. in these latter passages has no support in Ps 38* LXX &\d)\maſa Čv y\doorm pov, where the use of the possessive indicates the literal sense. Iłut it is argued that the literal sense is applicable in 1 Co 12. 14 (but 13"), where (141*) Tpoore'Yeo 9at •y\dia.orm is contrasted with trp. rig vot, the tongue (SO it is urged) being conceived as the passive instru- ment of the Tveijua, and the plural y\@argav (Surely a reductio ad absurdum) referring ‘to the various motions of the tongue' (so Thayer-Grimm, s.v.; see also Meyer-Heinrici on 12"). I’Nôaga must mean an utterance, not merely the moving tongue; this latter sense breaks down in the pl. YX&oraat, and still more conspicuously in the phrase yéum 'y)\woo'dºv, which . points to various kinds of utterance, whether foreign languages or not. (c) Another sense of y\@ora'a, which fails of general applicability is that (exemplified in Aris- totle, Poet. 21 f.) of ‘unusual word,” e.g. expressions borrowed from the Aramaic, like “Amen,’ ‘Maran Atha,’ or ‘Abba' (Ernesti, Bleek, etc.). The use of such expressions would not be improbable in a state of high spiritual tension, and in fact the last- named word was regarded by St. Paul as specially characteristic of the Spirit (Ito 81%, Gal 4"); but there is nothing in his länguage to connect it specifically with ‘tongues,’ which possibly may be referred to, though even this is uncertain, in the a revayu ol āX4\mrot of Ro 8*. Moreover, this sense of y\@ga'a fits ill with the data of Ac 2, and still worse with those of 1 Co 14; for these occasional borrowed words had a well-recognized meaning, and in their use the vows was not dikapiros. (d) The same principle, to say nothing of other considerations, absolutely excludes the idea, which has some traditional suppºrt in Christian opinion from Origen (in Iºom. 1") downwards, that the apostles, at any rate, if not all those present, received at Pentecost the more or less permanent power of preaching in foreign languages. To Jegin with (above, Šii.), the speaking with tongues is an utterance of worship, not of instruction. It has been argued that we never read of the apostles needing the services of an interpreter. But neither do we read of their ‘speaking with tongues’ on any occasion subsequent to Pentecost. St. Paul, it is true, claims to possess the gift, but in a con- text (1 Co 1418) which excludes any reference to preaching. With one exception, indeed, we do not lead of any apostolic preaching in lands where Greek or Aramaic would not be a suſlicient medium. The partial exception is in the bilingual district of Lystra (Ac 14), and here the apostles clearly do not follow what is said Avkaoutott. Qcular evidence at last enables them to realize that they are regarded as gods. But though the sacred text says nothing of preaching, permanently or even temporarily, in foreign tongues, it cer- tainly suggests at first sight that a great number of foreign languages were supernaturally spoken, if only in adoration, on the occasion of the first Pentecost. (e) This interpretation is not so wholly excluded as might appear at first sight by the language of 1 Co 14. For although the y\@ora'a are, without one to interpret them, unintelligible even to the speaker, the possibility of interpretation, clearly contemplated by St. Paul, suggests that he re- garded the utterances as having a meaning, though as a rule not ascertainable (tiv 69wauv tís q,wväs, v.”). If so, the only difference in Ac 2 would be that the interpreter was on that occasion un- necessary. What, then, is really described in Ac 2? The view has been held by both ancient (Greg. Naz. Or. 41. xv, Bede, etc.) and modern writers, that while the disciples spoke in some one language, each group of hearers understood the words as spoken in his own ; just as St. Vincent l'errer, preaching in Spanish, was said to have been understood by English, Flemish, French, and Italian hearers, etc. But this is not what the narrative describes : we have a miracle of speech, not of hearing only, they began (before the hearers had come) to speak & rép at s y\dooraws. But the more difficult question is in what precisely does the miracle described consist : The hearers are not Gentiles, but Jews (2%). Proselytes are in- cluded among the IRoman visitors (2”, it is con- ceivable that 'Iov6. Te k. Tpoo. applies to all the countries enumerated, but the mention of 'Iovöalav (v.”) is rather adverse to this); but clearly we have to do with the assembly of Jewish pilgrims, including perhaps some more permanent visitors (karoukoúvres, v."), whom a great festival would timd gathered in the Holy City. Now the list (vv.**) is one of countries, not of languages. Of the fifteen nationalities or regions enumerated, Judaea, (even if here used by Luke as in Lk 4* for Pales- tine generally) and probably Arabia (see A RETAS) belong to the domain of Palestinian Judaism whose language was West Aramaic. The Jews of the Euphrates region, Parthians, Medes, Elam- ites (i.e. of Persia, Elam had ceased to exist as a kingdom since the days of Assurbanipal), and Mesopotamians represent the Babylonian group of Jews, who used an East-Aramaic dialect. This leaves us with nine countries, of which five fall within Asia Minor, where the Jews, as their inscriptions show, spoke Greek (Schürer, 11.JP §§ 2, 3] ; this was the case as far north as the Crimea). Of the remaining four, Egypt is the mother of Hellenistic Judaism, Cyrene was Greek, Greek was the language of the Jews in Crete, and, as their inscriptions show, of the Jews of Rome. Accordingly, the narrative does not appear to carry us beyond the area of Greek and Aramaic-speaking Judaism. That the Jews of the different countries enumerated spoke these languages with dialectical differences, is of course more than probable. It might therefore suggest itself that the obstacle overcome by the inspiration of l’entecost was diversity not of language but of dialect only, 13ut we cannot appeal, for conſirmation of this, to the use of the word ŠtáNekros (in v.v."-8), for the word means langutage (e.g. Aramaic as con- trasted with Greek, Ac 11° 21" 26"). A stronger point is that the surprise of the hearers turnºd on the fact that the speakers were Galilaeans (Ac 27, cf. Mt. 26”), i.e. not merely men of l’alestinian language ("I'ppalot), but men of a marked pro- vincial dialect. But, quite apart from the result of the above analysis of the list, there is no evidence that Jews outside Palestine used any language but Greek or Aramaic. The conclusion, then, as to the exact implications of the narrative is very obscure. We must probably be content with a von liquet ; possibly the language of St. 796 TONGUES, GIFT OF TOOLS Peter (27: " ", note ékxeč, ćéxeev) may permit the conjecture that the narrative combines the two elements, afterwards treated as distinct, of tongues and prophecy. Common to all the NT descriptions of the tongues is the feature of utterances not in the common language of the speakers; but whereas in 1 Cor, the hearers are, as a rule (i.e. without an interpreter), in the dark as to the meaning, in Ac_2 the meaning is clear to both Greek-speaking and Aramaic-speaking Jews without any such aid : they hear the praises of God each in the tongue wherein he was born. (f) It has been necessary, in order to test the possibility of a definite interpretation of the data, to reduce the narrative of the first Christian Pente- cost to its framework of deſinite prose statement, So far as the nature of the y\@orgat, our special subject of inquiry, is concerned. If our conclusion on this point is necessarily indefinite, we must re- mind ourselves that the y\@goat are but one element in an event of momentous significance, the baptism (Ac 1") of the Christian Society for its mission to mankind. The baptism of Pentecost takes its place, in intinate context with the Resurrection and Exaltation of Christ, as the experience which lies behind, and is needed to render conceivable, the abrupt psychological transition which trans- formed the cowed, perplexed, scattered disciples of a few weeks before into the band that in the suc- ceeding narrative sets out upon its march with joyous swing, conquering and to conquer. That the Spirit was then really given is impossible for believers in the Resurrection of Christ to doubt. That His coming was overwhelming in its sudden- ness and intensity, and was attended by physical signs not repeated in their fulness on any later occasion, is not less credible than the reality of the ‘promise of the Father’ and of its fulfilment. That these signs should be not only unaccount- able by ordinary causes, but in some details in- capable of precise definition, is a small thing, and antecedently probable. Beyond this it is hardly possible to go. iv. LATER HISTORY..—There is no clear evidence of tongues as a religious phenomenon anterior to NT times, nor of their survival in the early Church after the apostolic age. Ecstatic utterances appear to have occurred in some forms of OT prophecy (2 S 19° etc.), but no mention is made of ‘tongues’ as a feature of them. Even in heathen religions, as St. Paul hints (1 Co 12*), there were analogous phenomena, which it was necessary to remenber in the attempt to ‘discern’ the true work of the Holy Spirit. This suggests that profound religious ex- citement, to whatever cause it may be due, tends to find expression in abnormal utterance. In the NT this tendency gradually gives way to more normal forms; in Eph 5** we catch, as it were, the last echoes of glossolalic speech ; in the later £pistles we hear no more of it. Irenaeus (Har. V. vi.) can still tell us, speaking apparently from hearsay, of brethren who lºº and spoke through the Spirit in all kinds (travtoãatraſs) of tongues; but Chrysostom (on 1 Co 14) frankly de- clares that the gifts described by St. Paul were unknown in the Church of his day. That the gift of tongues really survived even down to the time of Irenaeus is, in the absence of corroborating evidence, difficult to believe. His rather vague statement may rest on some report as to the Mon- tanists of Asia Minor, but in their case again the definite evidence we possess points to ‘prophecy’ rather than ‘tongues’ as the distinctive form of their ecstatic speech. - Of more modern examples of such utterances annong the Franciscans of the 13th cent., the early Quakers, Jansenists, Methodists, the French Pro- phets of the Ceventies, and particularly the Irving- ites whose ‘tongues’ (1832–3) have been described by several competent observers, we will only observe that it would be harsh and unjust to ascribe all such phenomena to the studied attempt to reproduce those of the apostolic Church. In whatever way we may explain these utterances, and however good reason there may be to suspect occasional simulation, the º of the henomena in general must be freely admitted. ut, for reasons suggested above, great caution is necessary in applying them to the interpretation of the NT data. - LITERATURE. — On the last - named class of phenomena, Plumptre's excellent article in Smith's DB gives useful refer. ences; see also Miller, Irvingism. On the NT data, the litera- ture is considerable. The Commentaries, e.g. those of Meyer- Wendt and Knowling on Ac 2, of Meyer-IIeinrici, Godet, Edwards on 1 Co 12. 14, sum up and discuss the various explanations. Among many separate essays we may mention those of Schneck- enburger (Beitr., 1832); Wieseler (in SI(, 1838); Hilgenfeld, Glossolalie, Leipzig, 1860; Zeller, Acts of the Ag., Eng, tr. vol. i. p. 171 (the ablest anti-miraculous discussion; denies any historical foundation for Ac 2); Rossteuscher, Gabe d. Sprachen im Apost. Ztltr. (Marb. 1855, Irvingite); P. Schaff, Church. History, vol. i. § 24; Weizsäcker, Apost. Żtltr. p. 589 f.; A. Wright, Some NT' Problems, 277 ff. In these works references will be found to many other discussions, an enumera- tion of which is beyond the limits of this article. A. ROBERTSON. T00LS.— In Syria, since, its conquest by the Arabs in the 7th cent., little or no progress has been made in the mechanical arts: Workmen still use much the same kinds of tools and methods of working as their ancestors did ten centuries ago. It is only within the last 40 or 50 years that European implements have conne into use. It would occupy too much space to give an account of the tools used in the different handicrafts of Syria; it may be sufficient to mention a few employed in masonry, carpentry, and Smith work. Masonry.—In Syria, in very early times, stones were hewn from the rock by a pointed hammer called the bik (see HAMMER), and the larger the stone the less, of course, was the labour of cutting. This seems to have been the reason for the great size of the stones in the oldest part of the temple of Baalbek. When the wedge came into use for splitting rocks, smaller stones were quarried, and consequently buildings were more quickly con- structed. The masöns of Lebanon, who are still acknowledged to be the most skilful builders in Syria, use no means, such as cranes, for lifting a stone to its position on the wall they are building. If a stone is too large to be carried, an inclined plane is made of trunks of trees, or of stones and earth, and the stone is rolled to its place. Chisels are used only for giving a fine edge to a stone, or for carving. For other tools see HAMMER. Carpentry.—The tools of the Lebanon carpenters are the very same as those used by the ancient Egyptian workmen; only, instead of being of flint or bronze, they are of steel. Of all his tools, the hadºm or adze is the most useful to the Syrian carpenter; it is hammer, chisel, and plane in one. In the early part of this century, planes were not used by the carpenters in the higher villages of Lebanon; planks of wood were smoothed by the adze. The ancient Egyptian adze appears to have been, at first, a sharp flint fastened by thongs to a handle, and º by a blado of bronze when metals came into use. The axe passed through similar changes. The bow and drill are still in use for boring holes in wood ; the awl is a shoe- maker’s tool. These tools with the saw are the ordinary implements of a Syrian carpenter, and are carried about by him when seeking work. European tools are, however, becoming common. Smith.—The hammers and tongs are very much the same in form as those used in Europe, but very roughly made. Anvils are simply cubical masses of iron having the upper surface faced with TOPARCHY TOPHET, TOPHETH 797 steel. The original bellows was a tube through the identification, seeing that we know of green which the workman blew into the fire; then goat- skin bags were employed; and the form of bellows used by the coppersmiths of Syria at the present time is almost the same as that depicted on the tombs of ancient Egypt. The modern worker in iron requires a more powerful instrument, and two large circular bellows are placed so that he may take advantage of the weight of his body in work- ing them. See, further, the separate articles on various tools. W. CARSLAW. TOPARCHY (rotapx|a).—A word used only in 1 Mac 11”, and there to denote three ‘provinces’ (IRV ; AV ‘governments’) to which the name vouðs, or ‘nome’ (AV and RV ‘governments’), is given in 1 Mac 10** 11%. , The three toparchies— Aphaerema, that is, Ephraim-Ophrah, Lydda, and Ramathaim — were detached from Samaria and added to Judaea, some time before the war between Alexander Balas and Demetrius Soter, and their Yossession was confirmed to Jonathan Maccabaeus y Demetrius II. Nikator. The toparchy was a small administrative division, corresponding to the Turkish Nahieh, which was administered by a toparch as the Nahieh is by a mudir. According to Pliny (v. 14), Judaea was divided into ten, or, according to Josephus (BJ III. iii. 5), into eleven toparchies. See Schürer, II.JP II, i. 151 ff. C. W. WILSON. TOPAZ.—In four passages of the OT (Ex 2817 39", Ezk 281*, Job 28") the Heb. word Tºp [-i ra- phatum] is rendered ‘topaz” by AV and RV, in accordance with LXX toiráčov and Vulg. topazius. The other ancient VSS vary their rendering, Pesh. Rúl. Hi-Ho and | So, whilst Targ. has TT and NpT Rººp. The LXX and Vulg. also employ totróðvov, topazion, as representing 19 at Ps 119°7; but the Pesh. there contents itself with the vague term ‘precious stones,’ and the Targ., still more correctly, Nyºnnis (Gr. 56puſov). In the NT the topaz is mentioned but once (Rev 21*), as the ninth of the foundation stones of the New Jeru- salem. The two passages in Ex. name it as the second stone in the first row on the high priest's breastplate, and it is usually believed to have borne the name of Simeon. The comparison used in Job implies its costliness, and indicates the quarter from which it was chiefly derived : “The topaz of Ethiopia shall not equal it [wisdom].” In Ezek. the wearing of it is a mark of regal splendour: “Every precious stone was thy [the king's] cover- ing, the sardius, topaz,” etc. There is a fair amount of probability in the derivation of the Heb. name nº from the Sansk. pita, “yellow,’ and in the suggestion that the Gr, form and those derived from it are merely a transposition of the Heb., tºp d for p d. Codex Amiatinus in Rev 21” spells the word with a d, topadius. The question whether the topaz of the Bible is identical with our gem of that name has been rendered somewhat difficult by the well-known description of the stone in Pliny, Hist. Nat. xxxvii. 8– using “Egregia etiam nunc sua topazio gloria est, e virenti genere, et cum prinum reperta, est, prºlatio omnibus. Accidit in Arabiao insula, quay Cylis vocabatur, in quam devemerant Troglodyta, praydones fame et tempestato fessi, ut, cum herbas radicesque foderent, eruerunt topazion. IIaec Archelaº sen- tentin est. Juba Topazuma insulana in lèubro mari a continenti stadiis coc abesse dicit ; nebulosam et ideo quasitam Sapius navigantibus momen ex ca, causa accepisse, topazin, enim Troglo- dytarum lingua significationem habere quarendi. . . . Ladem sola nobilium limam sentit.’ We need not discuss the etymology: the two inportant points are the greenness of the gem and its softness. The first of these is not fatal to topazes; the second is. I’liny may have included the chrysolite and the peridot under this name. Yet it does not follow that all the ancient miner- alogists agreed with him. It would not be easy to find a more apt description of our topaz than in the first few words of Strabo's interesting account, Tewypaquká, Xvi.— Aí0os 38 ºr 31.2%%, zevarostbi; &rox&ºrov ºyzoº, ºgov Aziſ' %2.Épocy Achy of £4%tov lºsiv at Teetovºiro.1%p vözrop 8',40%rly oi ovXAéyov'rs;" ºr puzzló. A cºwºrs; $: &xyslov oaks ov Ža piv ºsſ' %zápocy &voppártovoi. zoº ºvoºdºrzºzo: &v0parov &robºsºvoy als rºy ºvXozzºv This Audio's rocurºs, zoº rºw ovyozyazów, airczpzovºvov ºrd røy rºs Aiyêrrow 320:12.Éov. - The statements which have appeared as to the chemical composition of the topaz differ strangely. Streeter (Precious Stones, p. 221), referring to the distinction between Oriental and Occidental topazes, says that the former consist of pure alumina, the latter being more than half alumina and for the rest composed of silica and fluorine. On the other hand, it has been spoken of as a silicate of aluminium associated with the fluorides of aluminium and silicon. In shape it is an ortho- rhombic prism with a cleavage transverse to the long axis. It has the power of double refraction, and becomes electric when heated or rubbed. It is almost as hard as the diamond, but there are a few engraved º antique one, for in- stance, at St. Petersburg, with the constellation Sirius. Australia produces green and yellow stones. Exquisite transparent ones, clear and bright as the most sparkling water, come from Tasmania— gouttes d'eau, the French call them. In Saxony bale violet are found ; in Bohemia sea-green ; in razil red, from pale to deep carmine. Pliny’s influence is very apparent in The Lapi- darium of Marbodus— “From seas remote the yellow Topaz came, I'ound in the island of the self-same name; Great is the value, for full rare the stone, And but two kinds to eager merchants lºnown. One vies with purest gold, of orange bright; The other glimmers with a fainter light : Its yielding nature to the file gives way, Yet bids the bubbling caldron cease to play. The land of gems, culled from its copious store, Arabia scnds this to the Latian shore : One only virtue Nature grants the stone, Those to relieve who under hemorrhoids groan.” Ruskin, in his lecture on the symbolic use of precious stones in heraldry, states that the topaz is ‘symbolic of the Sun, like a strong man running his race rejoicing, standing between light and darkness, and representing all good work.’ It is curious to compare this with |Marbodus, in his Prose on the Twelve Roundation Stones: “Con- templativae solidum vitae praestat officium.’ J. TAYLOR. TOPHEL (9th, T640X).—A place named in de- fining the situation of Dt 1". It has been fre- quently identified (since Robinson, BI: Pº ii. 167, 187, ji. a suggestion of Hengstenberg) with et-Tafile in Gebal, about 15 miles S.S.E. of the Dead Sea, but phonetic, apart from other, reasons make this identification very uncertain (see Driver or Dillm. ad loc.). TOPHET, TOPHETH. — A word of doubtful origin, disputed etymology, rare occurrence, and somewhat uncertain meaning. Milton refers to it, and gives his idea of it in the lines— “The pleasant valley of Hinnom, Tophet thence And black Gehenna call'd, the type of hell.' w P.L. i. 404, 405. It appears only in the OT, and is never reproduced in the NT. It is not found in the apocryphal books, and its earliest occurrences in Christian literature seem to be in lºusebius (Onom.) and 798 TOPHET, TOPHETH TOPHET, TOPHETH Jerome (on Jer 7”). Even in the OT its range is very limited. It is peculiarly a term of Jeremiah's. It is found once in the historical books (2 k 23'"), once in the poetical books (Job 17"), once in Isaiah in a modified form (Is 30°), and elsewhere only in Jeremiah (791. * 19%. 12, 19. 1"). Ewald is of opinion that the use of the term Topheth in the special sense which it has in 2 Kings was not customary so early as Isaiah’s time (Hist. of Israel, iv. 209, Longmans’ tr.). The Hebrew form in all the occurrences but one is nºn. In the Isaianic pas- sage, however, it is nº. This latter form is prob- ably constructed by extension from ngh, as we have nºs from 19s, Hºjº from nº (so Dillm. Jes, ad loc.); although some (e.g. Stade, Gesch. i. 610) have had recourse, in endeavouring to explain it, to such expedients as changing the vocalization so as to get minº (= ‘his Toftieth '), or detaching the final H and connecting it (as the interrogation I) with the word that follows (see the Dictionaries, and IClost., Bredenk., Cheyne [SBOT], Marti, et al.). The pro- nunciation of the word is uncertain. In the Mas- soretic text the vocalization of bàsheth, “shame,’ has probably been given it as a thing of evil name, and the LXX makes it Tapheth. In the ancient Versions, indeed, it takes different forms, e.g. Thopheth (Vulg.), Táqe6 (LXX, Aq., Symm.), 0aq,é0 (LXX in some copies, Aq., Theod.), 9340 (Aq.). In Is 30” the rendering of the LXX is &trattm� m or dtrarm 6%am ; in Jer 19° 6-4Troots ; in Jer 1919 ô 6tatrittwu (in some copies); and in Jer 19" again ôuatrúa'ews (in some copies). The AV makes it Tophet in all cases except 2 K 23", where it is Topheth. It V has Topheth throughout. The passage in Job may be at once discounted. There the word is an ordinary descriptive noun, formed probably from a root meaning to ‘spit,’ and so expressing something abhorred or abomin- ated. Job describes himself as become “an open abhorring” (I&V text), “one in whose face they spit’ (RV margin); wrongly rendered by the AV ‘I was as a tabret,” on the supposition that nºn ‘spitting' is akin to in ‘timbrel.’ In the other passages the word is a local name, and means properly ‘the Topheth,’ the article being attached to it except where it has the prepositions à, connected with it. The extended form mººn, however, is anarth- rous, and is probably to be rendered ‘a Topheth is prepared of old,’ as in RV. In its various occurrences the term is associated, directly or indirectly, with the valley of shameful name, known in the OT variously as ‘the valley of Hinnom" (only in Jos 15° 18'", Neh 119°), ‘the valley of the son of Hinnom ' (e.g. Jos 15° 18'", 2 Ch 28° 33%, Jer 7”. 19%. 9), ‘the valley of the children of Hinnom" (2 K 23" K&thibh), or simply ‘the valley’ (Jer 2* 31"), in which the idola- trous Jews, especially in the times of Ahab and Manasseh (cf. 2 Ch 28° 33"), practised the cruel rites of the worship of Molech, and offered human sacrifices. It is with reference to the reforms of Josiah and the steps which he took to deſile the impious and horrid place, and prevent any man thereafter from making “his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech,’ that mention is made of Topheth in the marrative of the OT. The passage in 2 Kings is the passage of primary interest in the study of the term. But the pas- Sages in the Prophets have also their contribution to make. In the paragraph in Isaiah which gives the oracle concerning the destruction of Assyria, Jehovah is represented as Himself coming from afar to execute vengeance on the oppressors of Israel. His people look on and sing their song of gladness, while judgment is done upon their enemies certainly and completely. The declaration of the certainty and completeness of the over- throw of the Assyrian takes the form of an announcement that for the king, or for his god, ‘a Topheth,’ a place of burning and abhorrence like that in the unclean valley of Hinnon, “is prepared of old' and ‘made ready,’ a place of ſire which Jehovah Himself hath made ‘deep and large,’ the pile whereof is ‘fire and much wood’; ‘the breath of the Lord, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it’ (l{V). It is a destruction utter and abhorrent, prepared and ordained in the Divine counsels. In Jeremiah the associations and applications of the word are different. It is used in connexion with Judah’s sin and the doom of Jerusalem. There is a retributive judgment of God, the prophet declares, that is to overtake the stubborn, idolatrous, impenitent people, against which the sanctity of Shiloh and Jerusalem and the Temple will be no protection. The place which witnessed their wickedness shall witness their punishment. Topheth, and the valley of Plin- 7?,07)?, J. no more be known as such, but shall be called ‘the valley of slaughter.” Where the Jews had built their high places and had made their children pass through the fire to Molech, there they aft see the awful defilement and over- whelming destruction of war (ch. 7”). This is repeated in ch. 19'−" in connexion with the figure of the broken vessel. The city is to be polluted by appalling carnage; the hardened |...}. are to be §. with a destruction so terrible that Topheth shall be filled with their dead bodies “till there be no place.” The new announcement, too, of retribu- tion that is made by Jeremiah in response to Pashhur's vengeance is introduced by the state- ment (ch. 1914) that he ‘came from Tophetl, whither the Lord sent him to prophesy.’ These being the occurrences of the word, what can be gathered with respect to the position and the exact sense of Topheth? Some have taken Tophetſ to be simply a synonym for Gehinnom. But it is clear that the two terms do not designate precisely one and the same thing. Several of the passages in view speak of Topheth as in the valley of Hinnom—a locality, or, it might be, an object in it. This does not settle, however, the question of the situation of Topheth. It is still uncertain where the Hinnom $º. lay, and with what it is to be identified in the topography of the Holy City. Authorities are still divided on the ques- tion whether it is the valley to the east of Jeru- salem, the kidron Valley (Sir C. Warren); the central valley, the Tyropocon (Sayce, Iłobertson Smith, Schwarz, etc.); or the Wady er-Rºbābī or Jºub(\beh, the deep ravine to the west and south, between the slopes of the ‘Hill of Evil Counsel’ and the steep sides of Zion (see article HINNOM, WALLEY OF). This leaves the precise position of Topheth in suspense. It is true that in the narra- tive of Josiah’s reforms in 2 K 23 much is said of 1